or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Do You Oppose Promoting Liberty and Tolerance in Iraq?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Do You Oppose Promoting Liberty and Tolerance in Iraq? - Page 2  

post #41 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

That should stop when we leave. Our presence and misguidedness there has caused this, not the Iraqi people. In fact it started in the first days after we entered Baghdad and dismantled Saddam's Baath Party, removing all Baath Party members from positions of authority. The CIA station chief in Baghdad warned the administration that the action will drive up to 50,000 people underground. They ignored that and many other signals that without security in place, the whole country would implode. It did. The acts of violence has abated due to some elements of the Surge, but mainly because of Al Sadr's militia standing down from aggressions toward the US and toward other religious factions.

Though the government is corrupt, and the religious/domestic situation is still tenuous, I believe that if we leave (includes military bases) as soon as the Iraqi army and security forces are ready, the better for Iraq to rebuild themselves.

The longer we stay there, the longer the resentment and violence (which begets fear) that comes with it.

And, of course, the other alternative would have been to have left these various unknown disloyal 'actors' to sabotage any efforts to build a strong viable and moderate government.

Look at Lebanon. The assassinations and unrest there due to Hezbollah's efforts could not easily take place without intrigue in the military or police corps.

When Iraq one day emerges strong, independent and moderate the act of getting rid of all the potential bad seeds within the bureaucracy will seem like a smart move.
post #42 of 122
That star chart makes it look like Gemini and Orion are playing volleyball with Mars!



God help GW Bush, because he needs serious help, and may God protect the world from this lunatic until he gets out of office.


"I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, 'Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.' And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device, I decide, you know, I say, 'This is what we're going to do.'" --George W. Bush, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

I'm atheist so I can't really call on God or god or anything else, but ya'll get the point.

Have a nice holiday... only one more with Bush in the WH.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #43 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

And, of course, the other alternative would have been to have left these various unknown disloyal 'actors' to sabotage any efforts to build a strong viable and moderate government.

Broad, ambiguous statements are you're forte when you have no clue what you're talking about, eh?

Quote:
Look at Lebanon. The assassinations and unrest there due to Hezbollah's efforts could not easily take place without intrigue in the military or police corps.

"Intrigue"? You must mean the Mossad or the CIA's entanglements. The more the merrier. I recall our "occupation" in Beruit didn't fair out too well either.

Quote:
When Iraq one day emerges strong, independent and moderate the act of getting rid of all the potential bad seeds within the bureaucracy will seem like a smart move.

We, unfortunately have planted those bad seeds into the Iraqi government. Therefore a tenuous lack of trust and support from the Iraqi people. But yes, hopefully the Iraqi people, with every next election will have the chance to vote out those bad seeds. As long as they don't use Diebold machines.
post #44 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

WE enabled that BECAUSE of the lack of foresight by this administration and the military from the very beginning.

Agreed - but you did nothing to help your thesis that the bloodshed would stop if we left. They said that the bloodshed would stop in Vietnam if we left, and we got Pol Pot and his ilk. Iraqi deaths would ramp up once we left, not down.

Nothing that you have said supports the "genocide only caused because we are there" statements you made earlier. It is possible that the genocide started because we disrupted the country, but the US troops currently there put a damper on genocide plans.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #45 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

It is possible that the genocide started because we disrupted the country, but the US troops currently there put a damper on genocide plans.

"POSSIBLE"?

eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #46 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

"POSSIBLE"?


Well, 100K people/year were being killed before we invaded - the genocide was taking place, it was just a different genocide (mainly Shia and Kurds killed by Sunnis).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #47 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

That star chart makes it look like Gemini and Orion are playing volleyball with Mars!



God help GW Bush, because he needs serious help, and may God protect the world from this lunatic until he gets out of office.


"I got a lot of Ph.D.-types and smart people around me who come into the Oval Office and say, 'Mr. President, here's what's on my mind.' And I listen carefully to their advice. But having gathered the device, I decide, you know, I say, 'This is what we're going to do.'" --George W. Bush, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

I'm atheist so I can't really call on God or god or anything else, but ya'll get the point.

Have a nice holiday... only one more with Bush in the WH.

I'd say you should stop with these kinds of posts. They will make you look really bad by comparison. If the President executes a brilliant strategy in Iraq and you say he's stupid, well, the world would say that the President isn't the stupid one.
post #48 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Broad, ambiguous statements are you're forte when you have no clue what you're talking about, eh?



"Intrigue"? You must mean the Mossad or the CIA's entanglements. The more the merrier. I recall our "occupation" in Beruit didn't fair out too well either.



We, unfortunately have planted those bad seeds into the Iraqi government. Therefore a tenuous lack of trust and support from the Iraqi people. But yes, hopefully the Iraqi people, with every next election will have the chance to vote out those bad seeds. As long as they don't use Diebold machines.

Pretty funny.

But I think laughter will turn to approving smiles at the sight of law and order being established all across Iraq.

Quote:
Awakening Councils by Region

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ALISSA J. RUBIN and STEPHEN FARRELL
Published: December 22, 2007

At the heart of the American militarys counterinsurgency campaign and a large part of its success has been the expansion of the Awakening Councils, groups of Sunnis, some of them former militants themselves, who have bonded together to fight the most violent of the Sunni insurgents.

These groups are known by many names including: Awakening Councils, Concerned Local Citizens and Iraqi Sunni Volunteers; in Arabic they are known as Sahwas.

As of Dec. 10, 2007, the Americans had signed up 73,397 men, according to the Multi-National Force-Iraq. Of those, about 65,000 are receiving monthly salaries from the American military of $300; a few who are leaders, receive slightly more. The remaining 9,000 men are being vetted or are not yet on active duty in their neighborhoods. Those numbers do not reflect an additional 23,000 who have already been added to the police force in the western province of Anbar.

The groups are active in eight provinces with more than half the total in Baghdad . The vast majority are Sunnis, but in mixed areas like the towns south of Baghdad and in areas of Diyala there are some Shiite members, who number 6,000 across the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/wo...all&oref=login

http://clearinghouse.infovlad.net/sh...ad.php?p=48306

Check to see how your favorite region is doing.
post #49 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

Pretty funny.

But I think laughter will turn to approving smiles at the sight of law and order being established all across Iraq.

I look forward to seeing peace, law and order breaking out across Iraq, as I hope, we all do. Should such a scenario turn out to be a reality, it would be a result of Iraqis of all factions realizing that the only way forward is to quit attacking each other; the last 4 years has surely has proven to all sides (except the most stubborn and perhaps those making good money from militancy), that violence offers no short, medium or long term solution of any kind.

At that point, there will be no viable reason for US troops to stay in Iraq, and our mealy-mouthed politicians will finally be able to pull the plug on an operation which will have cost the US taxpayers in excess of $1 trillion, and will have achieved precisely nothing at the very best.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #50 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I look forward to seeing peace, law and order breaking out across Iraq, as I hope, we all do. Should such a scenario turn out to be a reality, it would be a result of Iraqis of all factions realizing that the only way forward is to quit attacking each other; the last 4 years has surely has proven to all sides (except the most stubborn and perhaps those making good money from militancy), that violence offers no short, medium or long term solution of any kind.

At that point, there will be no viable reason for US troops to stay in Iraq, and our mealy-mouthed politicians will finally be able to pull the plug on an operation which will have cost the US taxpayers in excess of $1 trillion, and will have achieved precisely nothing at the very best.

Iraq presented a unique set of circumstances. Of PRIMARY importance is that Iraq was perceived to be threatening to GLOBAL peace.

Remember this:

Saddam's Suspected WMD's Posed a Threat to Israel.

Israel's Continued Existence Would Have Depended on Stopping That Threat.

Only TWO Ways of Stopping the Threat: Israel Launches MASSIVE Attack on Iraq OR Invasion.

A MASSIVE "Unprovoked" Attack on Iraq Could Have Started a Chain Reaction Resulting in Global Nuclear Holy War.

An Invasion by a Global Coalition Wouldn't.
post #51 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

A MASSIVE "Unprovoked" Attack on Iraq Could Have Started a Chain Reaction Resulting in Global Nuclear Holy War.

Wow a massive unprovoked attack on Iraq sure sounds like a bad thing, dunnit?
post #52 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Wow a massive unprovoked attack on Iraq sure sounds like a bad thing, dunnit?

Except if it prevented a Global Thermo Nuclear Holy War.

But I wouldn't want to spoil the effects of your pithy sarcasm with inconvenient truths.
post #53 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

If the President executes a brilliant strategy in Iraq ...

Anybody who has followed the news over the past couple of years with an open mind would know that that did not happen.

- He used false pretenses to invade a sovereign nation which had never threatened the US. Enough said.


Sorry, but GW screwed up big time and we will be paying for his errors for many years to come, not just financially.




Just for our viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCnju...eature=related

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

post #54 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Anybody who has followed the news over the past couple of years with an open mind would know that that did not happen.

Sorry, but GW screwed up big time and we will be paying for his errors for many years to come, not just financially.

You are repeating a well practiced lie foisted upon the world, a world which can't be blamed for not knowing the truth or seeing things clearly. But, assuming you are an American, there should be some degree of shame involved in Americans voicing what you have.

Because you genuinely seem unaware, allow me to be the first to share with you, the REST of the story.

10 Things Accomplished by the Invasion


1) Disarm Saddam.

2) Prevent the possibility of Israel launching a pre-emptive strike and triggering a much larger war.

3) Secure the oil and assure the flow, the supplies and the deliveries.

4) Prevent futures market nervousness which could have driven prices above $200/bbl as was OBL's goal.

5) Stop Saddam's brutal reign and subjection of his people.

6) Halt any existing, planned or possible future terrorist activities (training, harboring, transiting, equipping) unilaterally or in concert with others (OBL or etc.)

7) Prevent the Iranians from annexing Iraq.

8) Plant the seeds of freedom so that future generations will be willing and able to fight for their freedom against those would-be dictators or Islamists who might try to enslave them and so we in the USA will not have to fight for their freedom as we are today. They will do all the future fighting.

9) Instead of people around the world wanting to come to America to experience freedom, they will be able to enjoy freedom in their own land and culture and our immigration backlogs won't be increased even more than they are.

10) Fighting the essence of Islamism at it's HEART. Not at it's fringes on a wild ghost chase.

Quote:
The United States has not done an adequate job of explaining to the American people, to its allies overseas and, most important, to the people of Iraq and of the broader Islamic world what we are fighting for in Iraq and what we hope to achieve there. Nature abhors a vacuum, and insurgents love one; they have filled the airwaves and the Internet with their versions of the truth and have found willing listeners worldwide. In the words of the defense secretary, "Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government, has not."

By Lt. Col. John A. Nagl

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/08/1931298
post #55 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

Except if it prevented a Global Thermo Nuclear Holy War.

But I wouldn't want to spoil the effects of your pithy sarcasm with inconvenient truths.


I'm not disputing that the tensions in Iraq have waned. My reasons were stated (they made you laugh). Anyway, I can't take anyone seriously who thinks the term or action described as you stated above ("Global Thermo Nuclear Holy War") seriously. You're a neo-con ln.

Additionally...

Quote:
We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.

The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:

"… the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results."

In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation that urges the administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism. - Ron Paul

Quote:
Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat.

The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.

A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East. - Ron Paul
post #56 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'm not disputing that the tensions in Iraq have waned. My reasons were stated (they made you laugh). Anyway, I can't take anyone seriously who thinks the term or action described as you stated above ("Global Thermo Nuclear Holy War") seriously. You're a neo-con ln.

Additionally...

Have you figured out how pulling our troops out of Iraq will slow the genocide yet? I am still waiting on an answer for that one.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #57 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Have you figured out how pulling our troops out of Iraq will slow the genocide yet? I am still waiting on an answer for that one.

The "genocide" is ending already. Stop watching Fox news.
post #58 of 122
post #59 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

When did you stop beating your wife?

As soon as she stopped disagreeing with him.

Just like Iraq. We'll stop bombing them and killing them as soon as they agree to our form of democracy, with close ties to our government which includes preferential petroleum trade arrangements. It's all the Iraqis' faults, don't you see?

Likewise. before she stopped arguing with him, his wife's bruises and that broken nose were her fault too. But after those three months in the hospital, she finally learned to stop opposing peace and cooperation within their marriage.
post #60 of 122
After a little more "cleansing", Iraq will be a happy, tolerant place. Tolerance gets easy once the obstructionist have been eliminated..
traveling the globe in an envelope
traveling the globe in an envelope
post #61 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

You are repeating a well practiced lie foisted upon the world, a world which can't be blamed for not knowing the truth or seeing things clearly. But, assuming you are an American, there should be some degree of shame involved in Americans voicing what you have.

Because you genuinely seem unaware, allow me to be the first to share with you, the REST of the story.

10 Things Accomplished by the Invasion


1) Disarm Saddam.

2) Prevent the possibility of Israel launching a pre-emptive strike and triggering a much larger war.

3) Secure the oil and assure the flow, the supplies and the deliveries.

4) Prevent futures market nervousness which could have driven prices above $200/bbl as was OBL's goal.

5) Stop Saddam's brutal reign and subjection of his people.

6) Halt any existing, planned or possible future terrorist activities (training, harboring, transiting, equipping) unilaterally or in concert with others (OBL or etc.)

7) Prevent the Iranians from annexing Iraq.

8) Plant the seeds of freedom so that future generations will be willing and able to fight for their freedom against those would-be dictators or Islamists who might try to enslave them and so we in the USA will not have to fight for their freedom as we are today. They will do all the future fighting.

9) Instead of people around the world wanting to come to America to experience freedom, they will be able to enjoy freedom in their own land and culture and our immigration backlogs won't be increased even more than they are.

10) Fighting the essence of Islamism at it's HEART. Not at it's fringes on a wild ghost chase.

1. Psst! I hate to tell you but pretty conclusive evidence shows he was already disarmed.

2. That's not an absolute. It's just speculation on your part.

3. Oil that's not ours for the taking.

4. Yeah it's really keeping the price down isn't it?

5. Now we just have open violence.

6. We don't know that was happening or going to happen. Now we've heard reports that terrorists are more interested not less.

7. You know this was going to happen how?

8. All we are planting is distrust and uncooperation with the U. S.

9. Oh Please!

10. Same response as 9.

What a crock!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #62 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. Psst! I hate to tell you but pretty conclusive evidence shows he was already disarmed.

2. That's not an absolute. It's just speculation on your part.

3. Oil that's not ours for the taking.

4. Yeah it's really keeping the price down isn't it?

5. Now we just have open violence.

6. We don't know that was happening or going to happen. Now we've heard reports that terrorists are more interested not less.

7. You know this was going to happen how?

8. All we are planting is distrust and uncooperation with the U. S.

9. Oh Please!

10. Same response as 9.

What a crock!

1. We didn't know and Israel would not have let that potential existential threat go unaddressed.

2. Informed and well reasoned speculation is how detectives solve cases every day.

3. You really shouldn't discuss this with someone who knows what they are talking about. Your shortcomings are too readily and publicly exposed. Better you should watch and think and Google. We don't TAKE anyone's oil. Just as before the invasion everyone pays money for the oil and the revenue goes to the Iraqi government. And "the central government is ... distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction." http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...lmMjZkYjEyMDE=

4. Oil prices had been steadily rising even before the invasion. But what you fail to recognize is that without our acting to stabilize the oil flows the prices would have gone much higher. OBL wanted $200/bbl. And what if the oil stopped flowing completely due to terrorist attacks? You ingrate, you should thank GWB that you have any oil! Or even that your way of life is unchanged. Had we not invaded none of these things could be guaranteed.

5. To you there is no difference between fighting for freedom and just being executed by a brutal dictator. Here's a clue, one day the Iraqi people will live in peace and freedom. And they will value their freedom much more than you seem to.

6. Here's some more new info for you to digest:

In a story aired in a prime time news magazine show on Thursday, January 14, 1999, then-ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. MacVicar trumpeted how ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein I tracked down that ABC News story after seeing it referred to in an excerpt from a new book by Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, published in the June 7 Weekly Standard. Hayes cited similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.

The Weekly Standard titled its excerpt, The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20040617.asp#1 7. I reeeeeeead.

Here are some quotations from the Ayatollah Khomeini, the first modern ruler to revive the Caliphate movement.

Quote:
Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/The_Lit...ook_1_01.Islam

"We do not worship Iran. We worship Allah...For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Ayatollah Khomeini

Why do you think we supported Saddam for 25 years? To keep Iran from spreading their Islamic Revolution to the rest of the Middle East and the world.

8. You sound like someone who needs to lose his freedom so you can appreciate how grateful people can be when someone helps them to be free again. Most people who get a taste of liberty will fight to the death to keep from being re-enslaved.

9. Oh, you don't mind our accepting double the numbers of immigrants from the M.E.? Or, you don't mind dashing all the hopes of people who yearn to breathe free? We can't save everyone even though we take in 1,000,000/year, there are billions more who deserve freedom. Rather than trying to bring them here, why not give them freedom in their own country?

10. The essence of Islamism is to conquer the entire world for Allah and assume leadership of all mankind. They already had a sympathetic austere host government in Afghanistan. What were the Islamists going to do, invade Russia en masse? No. They would continue trying to gain control of Iraq. We stopped that.

Now start studying or next time I might spank you good.

You can start here.

http://www.futurejihad.com/index.php...d=138&Itemid=1
post #63 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


Enough with your childishness. Time to study.

Quote:
Unmentioned by ABC, how maybe the Bush administration believed there was a bin Laden-Saddam connection because they believed ABC News. In a story aired in a prime time news magazine show on Thursday, January 14, 1999, then-ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. MacVicar trumpeted how ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein I tracked down that ABC News story after seeing it referred to in an excerpt from a new book by Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America, published in the June 7 Weekly Standard. Hayes cited similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.

The Weekly Standard titled its excerpt, The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right. In the book, Hayes recited numerous pieces of evidence of how Iraq and al-Qaeda had a mutually beneficial relationship. Heres an excerpt from the Weekly Standards book excerpt in which Hayes recounted how the media assumed such a relationship, based on information provided by Clinton administration officials:

There was a time not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas -- assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

....NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait....Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

Continued at the link.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20040617.asp#1
post #64 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As soon as she stopped disagreeing with him.

Just like Iraq. We'll stop bombing them and killing them as soon as they agree to our form of democracy, with close ties to our government which includes preferential petroleum trade arrangements. It's all the Iraqis' faults, don't you see?

Likewise. before she stopped arguing with him, his wife's bruises and that broken nose were her fault too. But after those three months in the hospital, she finally learned to stop opposing peace and cooperation within their marriage.

Oh, so you are saying you'd prefer Shariah Law in Iraq instead of liberal Democracy? You want Iraq to become an Islamist state like Iran?

Funny how you can't see that as the formula for WWIII.

post #65 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'm not disputing that the tensions in Iraq have waned. My reasons were stated (they made you laugh). Anyway, I can't take anyone seriously who thinks the term or action described as you stated above ("Global Thermo Nuclear Holy War") seriously. You're a neo-con ln.

Additionally...



Quote:
FP: So what is new about the new ideological school?

Phares: In short, the ideological school that emerged under the Muslim Brotherhood and Khomeini has been calling in modern times for the resuming of the "old Jihad." They seek the reestablishment of the Caliphate (Salafists) or establish an Imamate (Khomeinists). This means a relentless campaign to destroy 21 Arab and 51 Muslim Governments as we know today to replace them with an "empire" stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans.

So today's Jihad (as perceived by the Jihadists) is an unstoppable, non negotiable, and relentless campaign to achieve these goals. But while the Jihad of the 7th and 15th centuries was a conflict phenomenon in contemporary historical stages, and while religious wars were practiced by many other nations and civilizations from their own theological perspective, the Jihadists' "Jihad" of 20th and 21st centuries is in full contradiction with all aspects of international law and principles.

You are saying that you don't care if all of the Islamic nations in green are conquered by Islamists and become one giant aggressive Empire devoted to global dominance and the mastery of all mankind.

post #66 of 122
mojo,

you, sir, and with all due respect, are an idiot.

yours,

hardeeharhar

the nature of Islamic history tells the practical observer that the green swath of Islam isn't one region of one religious mind. but it takes a truly uniformed tool of the highest order to believe that any region of that size ANYWHERE would create a one-minded state bent on world domination. Hell, we can't even do that in the US.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
post #67 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

Enough with your childishness. Time to study.

Time to expand yours...

Quote:
Robert Pape's exhaustive study of suicide terrorism found that "al-Qaeda's transnational suicide terrorists have come overwhelmingly from America's closest allies in the Muslim world and not at all from the Muslim regimes that the U.S. State Department considers 'state sponsors of terrorism'."[40] Pape notes that no al-Qaeda suicide attackers came from Iraq. Daniel Byman's study of state sponsorship of terrorism similarly did not list Iraq as a significant state sponsor, and called the al-Qaeda connection "a rationale that before the war was strained and after it seems an ever-weaker reed."[41] The conclusion of counterterrorism experts Rohan Gunaratna, Bruce Hoffman, and Daniel Benjamin, as well as journalists Peter Bergen and Jason Burke (who have both written extensively on al-Qaeda), has been that there is no evidence that suggests any collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. That was similar to the conclusion of specific investigations by the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 9/11 Commission, among others. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed the CIA's investigation and concluded that the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational collaboration was justified.

Source and links

and...July 18, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism

Quote:
Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.


TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Lesson over.
post #68 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

mojo,

you, sir, and with all due respect, are an idiot.

yours,

hardeeharhar

the nature of Islamic history tells the practical observer that the green swath of Islam isn't one region of one religious mind. but it takes a truly uniformed tool of the highest order to believe that any region of that size ANYWHERE would create a one-minded state bent on world domination. Hell, we can't even do that in the US.

What I hoped you'd recognize (and it would help if you were at all studied on the subject) is that the goal of Iran is the RE-creation of an Islamic Empire such as existed before the 20th Century and what stops them from this is the USA in Iraq. What stopped them before the invasion was Saddam. What we hope will stop them in the future is a strong, free, independent Iraq.

Read from the little green book.



Quote:
I. 1
Islam as a Revolutionary Religion

1/1/0001

Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism.

Our one and only remedy is to bring down these corrupt and corrupting systems of government, and to overthrow the traitorous, repressive, and despotic gangs in charge. This is the duty of Muslims in all Islamic countries; this is the way to victory for all Islamic revolutions.

Muslims have no alternative, if they wish to correct the political balance of society, and force those in power to conform to the laws and principles of Islam, to an armed Jihad against profane governments.

Though you may not have the means to prevent heresy or fight corruption, nevertheless, you must not remain silent. If they hit you in the head, protest! Resigning yourself to oppression is more immoral than oppression itself. Argue, denounce, oppose, shout. Spread the truth that Islamic justice is not what they say it is.

Jihad means the conquest of all non-Muslim territories. Such a war may well be declared after the formation of an Islamic government worthy of that name, at the direction of the Imam or under his orders. It will then be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Quranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other. But the whole world should understand that the universal supremacy of Islam is considerably different from the hegemony of other conquerors. It is therefore necessary for the Islamic government first to be created under the authority of the Imam in order that he may undertake this conquest, which will be distinguishable from all other wars of conquest, which are unjust and tyrannical and disregard the moral and civilizing principles of Islam.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/The_Lit...ook_1_01.Islam
post #69 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Time to expand yours...

and...July 18, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Lesson over.


You might think Robert pape would be in big demand as a speaker these days, but he's strangely absent from the political scene. Why? His work has been discredited and he is ashamed to stand up to defend it because he knows it is flawed.

And in a GREAT leap of faith I will say that Ron Paul DOESN'T know Pape's work is teh BS.

And if you want to push the matter, try this.

Quote:
Issue 124 , July 2006
It's the Islamism, stupid
by Peter Nolan

Robert Pape suggests that nationalism explains suicide bombings better than Islamism. He should take fundamentalist ideology more seriously

Peter Nolan is a London-based investment analyst and director of the Freedom Institute, an Irish think-tank. Patrick Belton is a journalist completing a doctorate at Oxford

A year after 52 Londoners were killed by four suicide bombers, we are no closer to reaching a consensus on why the attacks happened. Were they simply the work of evil men, or were they the inevitable consequence of Britain’s involvement in Iraq? The latest attempt to explain the phenomenon of suicide bombing comes in “Dying to Win” by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago.

Pape’s contribution is twofold: to translate latter-day suicide terrorism into conventional territorial military struggle; and to claim that campaigns by different organisations may be subsumed for explanation under one colossal theory. Based on data taken from 315 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003, he argues that, “What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”

He contends that nationalism rather than Islamism should be understood as the driving motive behind suicide bombings. Religious differences may exacerbate mistrust between occupiers and occupied and provide mobilising symbols, but are not in themselves the main motivation. In addition to its well-known fundamentalist manifestation, suicide terrorism is used by secular Lebanese and Palestinian groups, as well as the Marxist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers.

The flaw in Pape’s analysis, particularly in regard to al Qaeda, is that he never takes fundamentalist ideology and the effect it has on groups like al Qaeda's operational choice towards suicide bombings as seriously as the bombers do themselves.

“It is a battle of ideologies, a struggle for survival and a war with no truce,” al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, wrote in his book “Knights under the Prophet’s Banner.” Bin Laden’s statements show that his vision goes far beyond limited war, or a game of diplomatic chess of the sort realists find most familiar. Instead, he offers a view of an all-embracing conflict over the forms and legitimacy of the state, with him very much at odds with liberal democracy. The collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 showed the “myth of the great America and the myth of democracy.” “They claim,” he said, “[democracy] has improved things by letting people play the game of elections, as in Yemen, Jordan or Egypt… regardless of the fact that it is forbidden to abide by polytheistic laws."

Pape argues that al Qaeda, like Hamas and Hizbullah, operates with widespread public support. But does this not imply that a substantial portion of British and European Muslims have widely supported its atrocities? In reality, the London bombers and the leaders of the 9/11 plot operated without the knowledge or consent of their families or local communities. Instead of the call of the nation, in each case a sub-culture devoted to jihad was powerful enough to take the attackers away from their parents, wives and children, and this radicalisation inevitably happens in isolation from wider society. Funds, weapons and volunteers from abroad, from al Qaeda and Iran in particular, are often available to suicide terrorists, bypassing the need for local support.

Continued at link.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...stupid&id=7576
post #70 of 122
Double post...
post #71 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

You might think Robert pape would be in big demand as a speaker these days, but he's strangely absent from the political scene. Why? His work has been discredited and he is ashamed to stand up to defend it because he knows it is flawed.

And in a GREAT leap of faith I will say that Ron Paul DOESN'T know Pape's work is teh BS.

And if you want to push the matter, try this.

Continued at link.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...stupid&id=7576

One argument from an investment analyst. Let me know when he's studied political science and international relations.

Oh, look at this!

Freedom Institute Liquidated


Quote:
In the public interest (and for the amusement of many, for which there should be no copyright ) I publish the article below, from this weeks Pheonix, on the demise of the far-right think tank, the Freedom Institute.

FREEDOM INSTITUTE R.I.P.

IT IS with much sadness that Goldhawk reports the disbandment of the Freedom Institute, the right-wing, sorry, liberal think-tank that brought much amusement to Dublin media circles around 2003/04. The Institute has now liquidated itself but its members still push their world view in academia and in the media.

The Institute may have gone away, you know, but Richard Waghorne, the Insitute’s director, is now writing full-time for the Irish Daily Mail. A recent article listed Pat Rabbitte as the most dangerous man in Ireland while author and lecturer Rory Miller is fighting the good fight Richard elsewhere in the media.

Waghorne told Goldhawk that it was simply a matter of the band pursuing solo projects but conceded that the “creative energy” the group had in 2003 – when there was still a debate over the merits of George W Bush’s Iraqi plans – was gone by late 2006.

Eamon Delaney, editor of Magill magazine, was glad to provide it with a regular and wide platform initially, and Waghorne and John Lalor became constant contributors. Delaney, however, is eager to distance himself now from the Institute, which was eventually indulging in name-calling, cheap shots and, worst of all, predictability.

While Waghorne said the group was never as right-wing as it was portrayed, he admitted that “message management” was an issue. Indeed it was, although when you publish articles praising the merits of rendition flights, the folly of concern for global warming or referring to the minimum wage as “criminalising” work, the message obviously needed more than simple management.

Related Link: http://fifiefoefum.blogspot.com/
post #72 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

One argument from an investment analyst. Let me know when he's studied political science and international relations.

Oh, look at this!

Freedom Institute Liquidated

I was afraid you'd force me to embarrass Pape yet again.

Pape says that half of his interview subjects were secular and not Islamic fanatics.

Bull sh!t.

Quote:
Even at the time, Mr. Pape's thesis which, I must say in all fairness, I am familiar with from the reviews of it, not from reading "Dying To Win" itself struck me as being highly dubious. For one thing, the argument that half of the 462 suicide bombers investigated were "secular" because they belonged to nonreligious organizations like Fatah or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, as opposed to Hamas or Islamic Jihad, demonstrated an ignorance of Palestinian and Muslim society, in which the pertinent distinction is rarely between "religious" and "not religious," but rather between "more religious" and "less religious." A totally secular Muslim who professes disbelief in Islam the way secular Jews and Christians express disbelief in Judaism and Christianity would be almost as rare a bird in Fatah as in Hamas.

Then Pape says that secular terrorists have secular reasons for blowing themselves up when attacking their enemy.

Bull sh!t.

Quote:
Secondly, Mr. Pape never really addressed the question of why, if you are just another freedom fighter, you would be so anxious to blow yourself up with your enemies rather than kill them while seeking to survive in order to kill more of them another day. The same "secular" Palestinian who commits suicide in an Israeli café or bus could just as well, after all, plant the bomb and leave before it explodes, or rake his targets with gunfire and try to escape, as a member of an ordinary resistance group would do. The whole point of a suicide bomber, on the other hand, is not to escape, but to die a martyr's death. In religious terms, this makes sense: The martyr goes to heaven and is blessed there. But what sense does it make in secular terms?

Pape says the suicide bombers are secular. So what sense does it make for secular Muslims to blow up other Muslims?

None.

But it makes a LOT of sense for Islamic fanatics to do so.

Quote:
True, Iraq is currently occupied by American forces, which might at first glance appear to support his theory, yet few of the Iraqi suicide bombings have been aimed at American troops. Nearly all of them have been carried out by Sunnis against Shiites who, far from being foreign invaders, are 60% of Iraq's population, but who happen to be, from a Sunni point of view, religious heretics.

Can murdering Shiite pilgrims on their way to a religious shrine be construed, by any stretch of the imagination, as a form of resistance to the American occupation of Iraq? Or detonating a car bomb in a Shiite market in Baghdad with two children left inside the car to allay suspicion? Is there any possible "secular" explanation of such acts? Indeed, even in religious terms, there is only one way of understanding them: as predicated on the belief that God desires the death of heretics and that whoever kills them is doing God's will and will be rewarded, the sooner the better, with the bliss of paradise after his death.

And if this is true of suicide bombings in Iraq, there is good reason to reject Mr. Pape's theories about them elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Why in the world would anyone drag out Pape as an expert to prove anything about Islamic terrorism unless he was the only expert you could find who was stupid enough to say that all we have to do is leave them alone and they will leave us alone.

Quote:
It might be comforting to think that if only Israel and America and a few other countries left the poor Muslims alone, there would be no more suicide bombs to worry about.

But that's not what informed and intelligent people believe. And that's not what...

Quote:
"...the parents of the two children dispatched to heaven from the back seat of an Iraqi car last week will tell you."

http://www.nysun.com/article/51234?page_no=2

Drag out Pape again. I got more.
post #73 of 122
Wake up you f*cking idiot.

Proof that suicide attacks are nationalist in motivation has happened.

Wake up you fool. The elephant in the room has stirred.

You wanted "jihad"? Well you got it, where you least expected (or ignored it).

Fool. End of feeding you, troll.
post #74 of 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2 View Post

1. We didn't know and Israel would not have let that potential existential threat go unaddressed.

2. Informed and well reasoned speculation is how detectives solve cases every day.

3. You really shouldn't discuss this with someone who knows what they are talking about. Your shortcomings are too readily and publicly exposed. Better you should watch and think and Google. We don't TAKE anyone's oil. Just as before the invasion everyone pays money for the oil and the revenue goes to the Iraqi government. And "the central government is ... distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction." http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...lmMjZkYjEyMDE=

4. Oil prices had been steadily rising even before the invasion. But what you fail to recognize is that without our acting to stabilize the oil flows the prices would have gone much higher. OBL wanted $200/bbl. And what if the oil stopped flowing completely due to terrorist attacks? You ingrate, you should thank GWB that you have any oil! Or even that your way of life is unchanged. Had we not invaded none of these things could be guaranteed.

5. To you there is no difference between fighting for freedom and just being executed by a brutal dictator. Here's a clue, one day the Iraqi people will live in peace and freedom. And they will value their freedom much more than you seem to.

6. Here's some more new info for you to digest:

In a story aired in a prime time news magazine show on Thursday, January 14, 1999, then-ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported how a few months after the embassy bombings in Africa and U.S. retaliation against Sudan, bin Laden “reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan.” MacVicar trumpeted how “ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.”

Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein I tracked down that ABC News story after seeing it referred to in an excerpt from a new book by Stephen Hayes, “The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America,” published in the June 7 Weekly Standard. Hayes cited similar news stories in Newsweek, the AP and NPR, in the 1998-99 range, which assumed bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were cooperative.

The Weekly Standard titled its excerpt, “The Connection: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.”

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20040617.asp#1 7. I reeeeeeead.

Here are some quotations from the Ayatollah Khomeini, the first modern ruler to revive the Caliphate movement.



Why do you think we supported Saddam for 25 years? To keep Iran from spreading their Islamic Revolution to the rest of the Middle East and the world.

8. You sound like someone who needs to lose his freedom so you can appreciate how grateful people can be when someone helps them to be free again. Most people who get a taste of liberty will fight to the death to keep from being re-enslaved.

9. Oh, you don't mind our accepting double the numbers of immigrants from the M.E.? Or, you don't mind dashing all the hopes of people who yearn to breathe free? We can't save everyone even though we take in 1,000,000/year, there are billions more who deserve freedom. Rather than trying to bring them here, why not give them freedom in their own country?

10. The essence of Islamism is to conquer the entire world for Allah and assume leadership of all mankind. They already had a sympathetic austere host government in Afghanistan. What were the Islamists going to do, invade Russia en masse? No. They would continue trying to gain control of Iraq. We stopped that.

Now start studying or next time I might spank you good.

You can start here.

http://www.futurejihad.com/index.php...d=138&Itemid=1

Really quite delusional aren't you?

Or maybe just full of yourself?

Let's just take number 2 for example. It's their country and their oil. Don't they have the right to sell or not sell to anyone they choose? It seems to me that choice has been taken out of the equation.

As to the rest of your reasoning it also is entirely subjectve.

Psst.! I just couldn't resist so I thoght we should look at number 1. When we found out that we were wrong about Saddam's WMD we should have stopped right there. Moreover we shouldn't have invaded because there were many people pointing out beforehand that they didn't buy the WMD theory!

I say again what a crock!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #75 of 122
I'm just curious if Mojo has seen this movie yet?

Probably not, since he's so busy giving G.W. a handjob...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
post #76 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

I'm just curious if Mojo has seen this movie yet?

Probably not, since he's so busy giving G.W. a handjob...

Liberals: 'There were no WMD's. That means there was no good reason to invade.'

Reality:
Every day of the week and every day of the year all around the world, courts are judging defendants not guilty of all kinds of crimes, even those resulting in deaths because the defendant was found to have acted in good faith, based on what he believed was true.

Conservative: We could not say with 100% certainty that there were no WMD's. Some evidence and intelligence reports said yes. Some said no.
What was at stake if we did nothing? Israel would have acted in IT'S own best interests to make 100% certain that there was no threat of it's being annihilated by launching a pre-emptive first strike on a Muslim nation.
And you wonder why Saddam was paying the Palestinian martyr families $10,000 - $25,000 each?

It was both an investment and an insurance premium to win favor with Islamists, seeing as how he was decidedly secular. By doing this he was able to (reasonably or not) hope that if Israel ever did attack Iraq they would incur the wrath of the entire Islamic world and Holy War would ensue.

And that was the scenario that was being played out. Saddam was able to bluff the world into believing he had WMD's as a way to keep his enemies, Iran to the East and Israel to the West, from attacking Iraq. He HAD to make the facade of WMD's look credible to everyone or else he would have been vulnerable. In poker you don't want anyone to call your bluff when you can't back it up. And Saddam knew he couldn't back it up so the ruse had to be really believable. And it was. Too bad for him. The best of all our intelligence was inconclusive in determining with 100% assurance, that he DID OR HE DID NOT actually have WMD's.

And the rest is history.

Israel could not be blamed for attacking Saddam if they believed Saddam's ruse. But their attack could have triggered WWIII.

What could be done to prevent Israel's annihilation IF Saddam did have WMD's at the ready?

What could be done to prevent Israel from triggering an Islamic global Holy War by attacking Iraq with no provocation?

A U.S. led invasion.

Liberal: 'That's revisionist history.'

Conservative:

See?

The fact of the matter is that NO ONE but the Administration knew the real reasons for the invasion. But as time goes on and more information leaks out and other facts become clearer and we are able to put pieces of the puzzle together and try to understand them objectively, certain things can't be denied.

But Liberals have not wavered from their 2003 position that Bush is Hitler, and so on, despite all the information that has come along since then. They would rather call new information that would help us understand the situation better, "revisionism."
post #77 of 122
Just as an amusing note on the moronic stupidity of our wingnut brown-noses - basically they don't know anything about their subject and have to copy and paste from the 'thinkers' they suck up to.

Unfortunately, these 'thinkers' are, if anything, even more stupid and this can sometimes lead to hilarious results - the infamous Mojo 'Bhutto head of PKK' gaffe would be one classic of this type.

You would think someone so obsessed with a subject would actually learn about it - or at least know something but, alas, 'tis not so.

In the lunacy above re Khomeini we have more comedy gold - the 'Little Green Book' is not even a work of Khomeini...it is written by Qaddaffi.

The version referenced above has no known existence apart from the 'translator' Irving - who, as far as is known does not actually speak Farsi apparently (though Qaddafi wrote in Arabic) - and is not known to exist amongst Khomeni's sayings. All of which are collected and some of which are far, far worse than these.

Of course wingers - being generally uneducated - would not know this and that's probably why they need to make stuff up.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
post #78 of 122
Thread Starter 


10 Things Accomplished by the Invasion


1) Disarm Saddam.

2) Prevent the possibility of Israel launching a pre-emptive strike and triggering a much larger war.

3) Secure the oil and assure the flow, the supplies and the deliveries.

4) Prevent futures market nervousness which could have driven prices above $200/bbl as was OBL's goal.

5) Stop Saddam's brutal reign and subjection of his people.

6) Halt any existing, planned or possible future terrorist activities (training, harboring, transiting, equipping) unilaterally or in concert with others (OBL or etc.)

7) Prevent the Iranians from annexing Iraq.

8) Plant the seeds of freedom so that future generations will be willing and able to fight for their freedom against those would-be dictators or Islamists who might try to enslave them and so we in the USA will not have to fight for their freedom as we are today. They will do all the future fighting.

9) Instead of people around the world wanting to come to America to experience freedom, they will be able to enjoy freedom in their own land and culture and our immigration backlogs won't be increased even more than they are.

10) Fighting the essence of Islamism at it's HEART. Not at it's fringes on a wild ghost chase.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Really quite delusional aren't you?

Or maybe just full of yourself?

Let's just take number 2 for example. It's their country and their oil. Don't they have the right to sell or not sell to anyone they choose? It seems to me that choice has been taken out of the equation.

As to the rest of your reasoning it also is entirely subjectve.

Psst.! I just couldn't resist so I thoght we should look at number 1. When we found out that we were wrong about Saddam's WMD we should have stopped right there. Moreover we shouldn't have invaded because there were many people pointing out beforehand that they didn't buy the WMD theory!

I say again what a crock!

I think you meant #3.

And it IS their oil. We are there like armored car guards at the bank. We help assure the transactions regarding the oil, the pumping, the pipelines, the storage, the loading onto freighters and the shipping of it to their destinations and the lawful financial transactions and remuneration of the legal parties is unaffected by ANYONE who might benefit from the destruction, detour or disruption of the oil or revenues.
And not only because we represent good and right in this world, but because OUR way of life depends on the world economies working as they should and a disruption in the oil would disrupt many industries and economies around the world and all economies are interconnected and interdependent.

I guess you didn't know that, huh?

So why are you here spreading your ignorance and criticizing those who have bothered to inform themselves?

To you and your brethren, using the 20/20 retrospective, revisionist spectacles, it's clear there were no WMD's.

But the decision that was facing those adults in the real world with millions of lives potentially at risk and knowing what they did and stymied by that which they didn't, the choice wasn't so easy.

That is where you show your lack of intellectual and emotional maturity.

When you have to make a decision and it involves millions of lives and you aren't 100% sure, the best thing to do is to minimize the worst possible danger.

War in Iraq was the best possible option.

Yours, to have done nothing, was the riskiest.

We did not know for sure that there were no WMD's.

But if there were WMD's they would have been aimed at Israel.

Israel would not stand still while an existential threat was a few seconds missile flight time away.

They needed 100% certainty that there were no WMD's.

The inspections were being stopped, delayed and played games with by Saddam because he needed to preserve the appearance that he had WMD's to keep his enemies at bay.

But that meant Israel was less than 100% certain of their safety.

Their only choice would have been to launch a first strike, seemingly unprovoked, attack on Iraq which would have triggered a global fatwa and probably required the US involvement and possibly lead to a nuclear exchange.

GWB prevented that.

You should thank him.
post #79 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Just as an amusing note on the moronic stupidity of our wingnut brown-noses - basically they don't know anything about their subject and have to copy and paste from the 'thinkers' they suck up to.

Unfortunately, these 'thinkers' are, if anything, even more stupid and this can sometimes lead to hilarious results - the infamous Mojo 'Bhutto head of PKK' gaffe would be one classic of this type.

You would think someone so obsessed with a subject would actually learn about it - or at least know something but, alas, 'tis not so.

In the lunacy above re Khomeini we have more comedy gold - the 'Little Green Book' is not even a work of Khomeini...it is written by Qaddaffi.

The version referenced above has no known existence apart from the 'translator' Irving - who, as far as is known does not actually speak Farsi apparently (though Qaddafi wrote in Arabic) - and is not known to exist amongst Khomeni's sayings. All of which are collected and some of which are far, far worse than these.

Of course wingers - being generally uneducated - would not know this and that's probably why they need to make stuff up.

Yep. Here are some more things this generally uneducated winger probably, 'made up.'

Do you recognize any of the instructions?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles...amic_state.htm

Quote:
When you are weak
----------------------------

1. Remember that when you are weak that you should blend in and very, very few people need to be aware of the objectives and the methods. The mass of the population does not need to know and should not know that there is a plan. Remember yours is a religion of peace. At this point you want everyone to believe you are a peaceful and productive part of society, especially Muslims themselves.
The Reliance of the Traveller (section r-8.2) by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri an analysis of the permissibility / obligation of lying by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali wrote:

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.




5. Build the proper mind set, in both Muslims and Non-Muslims, slowly and carefully. Very slowly assume control of sources of information and education (religious and secular).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...madrassas.html

Make sure the seed for Shariah is well implanted, as a long term solution for problems, so you have fertile ground to call for it once you do have the power to pursue it openly. Get your version of the truth out to the public. Tailor your presentation of Islam to the locals. Are they educated, impoverished, picked upon for their beliefs, or have common issues? New histories: always the attacked, never the unprovoked attacker. Become the spokes-people for the communities. Coordinate opposition to dissemination of information that runs counter to your goals.
http//www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/464ijlvz.asp

In "Islam's flawed spokesmen" the author investigates American Muslim groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Muslim Council (AMC). He notes that the news media and government are:
Quote:
learning it's not easy to find leaders who can authentically speak for Muslim Americans, who represent a wide variety of ethnicities and languages, sects and political views ranging from completely secular to Islamic fundamentalist.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ims/index.html

As a result of this confusion, active groups like CAIR and AMC, which are considered by some law enforcement groups as being part of the terrorism problem, are given too much credibility, money, and power.

6. Hiding in plain sight. Setup multi-function organizations. The public face can be for business, charity, education, or religion. The private faces can be used to advance your cause. Prepare your "their not real Muslims", plausible deniability, and "they were attacked" defence strategies. Note goodwill can be traded for changes in behavior.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ism000216.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...379270,00.html
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=965#965


As you get stronger
-----------------------------

1. Start raising issues regarding the difficulties the country places on practicing your religion. Work for increasing exemptions from various laws, protection from "hate speech", and tolerance of your "cultural /
religious" differences.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/hijabgermany.htm
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=2794#2794
http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=3641#3641
http://www.dennisprager.com/articles...ow/fallaci.htm

2. Begin solidifying your control of the Muslim community. Use various forms of intimidation to ensure that people are moving in the desired direction and to silence dissent. Everyone, including Muslims, still believe that Muslims are peaceful, it's just a few fanatics who are misbehaving. Any push back should be highlighted in the media and community discussion as Muslims are being unfairly attacked, once again. Remember to play upon your "history" of being a persecuted people.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/m...6029-2,00.html

3. Study the opposition's resources, looking for opportunities to leverage them. Begin de-stabilizing the opposition. Start draining their resources and their belief in themselves. Encourage drug / prostitution activity, using their own people to promote it. They're only kafirs after all. As the opposition becomes unstable they are less able to help people in trouble. This provides opportunities for your charity organization to build support.
post #80 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Wake up you f*cking idiot.

Proof that suicide attacks are nationalist in motivation has happened.

Wake up you fool. The elephant in the room has stirred.

You wanted "jihad"? Well you got it, where you least expected (or ignored it).

Fool. End of feeding you, troll.

If we are permitting attacks like this I guess it's allowable for everyone, equally. Yes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why Do You Oppose Promoting Liberty and Tolerance in Iraq?