The terrorism theory President Bush refuses to hear (3 Viewers)

[Aryanbeauty]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

more stupidity here!
stop trying to justify the wars for iraq and afghanistans social, civil and economic problems. that was never the premise for invasion.youve just modified the entire reason for invasion, which was originally about WMDs, none were found or will ever be found. i still cant work out how the CIA and bush admin. attained 'evidence' when no weapons ever existed. they obviously made the whole shit up to get their people on their sides.
many countries around the world, unfortunately, suffer from these social problems. but bush never got involved with them because they werent oil rich, and he had nothing to benefit from them.

I did not justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on socio-economic problems, that is you who mention those as the reason, read my post ten times before replying me since you always fails to grasp what it means. I was replying to this post And f**k those countries who can't help him financially. At least under their former leaders, Afghanistan and Iraq weren't economically crippled, relying on american aid, the american army even to keep their country together.

Afghanistan has been economically crippled since 1970's and under civil war for more than 20 years. Iraq has been economically crippled by UN sanction since it invaded Kuwait in 1990's. Both countries were relying on International Aid for decades before US invasion. Those economic problems were not the reason they were invaded. The only stupid is you for makingup those assumption.

bush never got involved with them because they werent oil rich, and he had nothing to benefit from them.

Afghanistan don't have a single oilfield nor produce a single drop of OIL , still US invaded. That clearly rebutted your pathetic and baseless assumption that they were invaded for oil.

Under US leadership NATO countries bombarded Serbia to save Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in Kosovo, those countries/areas don't have oil either.

 

[onebytwo]

no oil in afghanistan? are you feeling alright today?
http://www.alternet.org/story/12205

 

[Generator]

onebytwo, though it's now more than obvious that at the time of the invasion there were no weapons of mass destuction within Iraq, you cannot claim that such weapons and/or their material components never existed. Remember the UN's weapons inspection team? Despite what we now know to be true, there was reason for concern prior to the invasion.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

bush never got involved with them because they werent oil rich, and he had nothing to benefit from them.

Afghanistan don't have a single oilfield nor produce a single drop of OIL , still US invaded. That clearly rebutted your pathetic and baseless assumption that they were invaded for oil.

Under US leadership NATO countries bombarded Serbia to save Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in Kosovo, those countries/areas don't have oil either.

Sorry, I meant that Iraq was the oil money bank for America; I got a bit carried away.
Afghanistan was petty revenge for the 9/11 attacks.


Okay, try this on for size.
Weapons of Mass Destruction. America went to war, Bush promoted the war as a war to remove Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Guess what? There were no WMD’s. So why did Bush go to war? Was it to save poor Iraq from the evil Saddam Hussein? If it was, why would America first help Saddam, and then knock him down?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Nobody wins by playing for the other team.

What does that even mean? What are we trying to win? What makes the civillians in Baghdad different from the one's in London? Why are American and British lives worth more than Iraqi's?

You can’t defeat terrorism with an army. Invading and bombing terrorist countries just changes moderates into radicals.

Guerilla warfare of the type the terrorists practice can only be defeated when the terrorists lose the support of the people- and that won't happen whilst the ordinary people see their hospitals and schools bombed, when their girls get raped by American soldiers.

 

[otay]

What does that even mean? What are we trying to win? What makes the civillians in Baghdad different from the one's in London? Why are American and British lives worth more than Iraqi's?

You can’t defeat terrorism with an army. Invading and bombing terrorist countries just changes moderates into radicals.

Guerilla warfare of the type the terrorists practice can only be defeated when the terrorists lose the support of the people- and that won't happen whilst the ordinary people see their hospitals and schools bombed, when their girls get raped by American soldiers.

This is a very intelligent post (although i'm not sure as to the validity of the "girls getting raped by American soldiers" part). Terrorism can't be defeated with physical force! Especially when eliminating terrorists costs more innocent lives than the "terrorism" itself. Makes you wonder who the real terrorists are.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Yeah you would, postmodernist 'there is no us and them' dhimmis.

 

[banco55]

Re: The terrorism theory bush refuses to hear

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There's no way he could have removed all of his Sarin in the time period between when the UN inspectors saw it and when there 'wurr none'.

Sarin has a short shelf life so he'd have to be pretty dumb to go to the trouble of holding on to the stuffit after it's use by date has passed.

 

[Martyno1]

Here's a terrorist theory I refuse to hear - that its better to "leave the region alone" after the continued threat to western civilians, than to take the fight to the islamic homelands where it belongs, boots on the ground was a bad idea though, crushing air and cruise missle campaigns should be the way this is done. If the choice is between bombs going off in Bagdad or bombs in London, its Bagdad without a doubt.

What an absoulutely horrible thing to say!

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

This is a very intelligent post (although i'm not sure as to the validity of the "girls getting raped by American soldiers" part). Terrorism can't be defeated with physical force! Especially when eliminating terrorists costs more innocent lives than the "terrorism" itself. Makes you wonder who the real terrorists are.

The rape part...I know I saw an article on that somewhere recently...here you go: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003182602_slaying08.html

Thanks for the compliment BTW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolanistic
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There's no way he could have removed all of his Sarin in the time period between when the UN inspectors saw it and when there 'wurr none'.


Okay, did you just contradict yourself? (Just asking, not attacking)
None has been found. According to your own words, there's no way he could have removed it all, so where is it? Doesn't this suggest that there is none?

 

[onebytwo]

onebytwo, though it's now more than obvious that at the time of the invasion there were no weapons of mass destuction within Iraq, you cannot claim that such weapons and/or their material components never existed. Remember the UN's weapons inspection team? Despite what we now know to be true, there was reason for concern prior to the invasion.

indeed, with past US actions, and their defiance over the UN, have made their own politically based decisions for the whole world. whats the point of them being a part of the UN if they are not going to respect the way in which it operates? the article below gives a good overview of the opposition the UN weapons experts put forward http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

also, there may have been reasons for concern, but did the US act for moral reasons? well, considering their support of sadam hussein throughout the 1980s, i dont think so. they seem to want to pin the sadam for his crimes against the Kurds, but in fact, they were the ones who supported sadam when he maliciously gased the kurds in 1988 or whenever it was. if the US was so concerned about justice and peace in iraq, then what justified their support of sadam, when he was at his most deadliest? and how are we meant to view their obvious opposition to him today?

 

[bshoc]

What an absoulutely horrible thing to say!

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
-Thomas Hobbes

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

-Thomas Hobbes

Okay...what?

 

[JayB]

one thing noone has mentioned so far, is that radical islam has existed as far back as the 11th century, in the form of assasins, which is the Anglicisation of Hashashihann, which is arabic for "those addicted to hashish". these extremists would carry out suicide missions to kill the enemies of the sect, in an attempt to consolidate its power in the region. funnily enough, this sect evovled in iran, which was then persia. now i may be wrong, but america was only a country in what, 1776 or so, and these suicide extremists pre-date it by around 500 600 years.

there's a terrorist theory that the rest of the post-modernist apathetic, morally relativistic people in the world dont want to hear. it just rings too true

 

[JayB]

what, no answer?

 

[Generator]

what, no answer?

There's no need for that - those that you target will reply when they have time (or if they deem it necessary).

 

[onebytwo]

one thing noone has mentioned so far, is that radical islam has existed as far back as the 11th century, in the form of assasins, which is the Anglicisation of Hashashihann, which is arabic for "those addicted to hashish". these extremists would carry out suicide missions to kill the enemies of the sect, in an attempt to consolidate its power in the region. funnily enough, this sect evovled in iran, which was then persia. now i may be wrong, but america was only a country in what, 1776 or so, and these suicide extremists pre-date it by around 500 600 years.

there's a terrorist theory that the rest of the post-modernist apathetic, morally relativistic people in the world dont want to hear. it just rings too true

thanks for the history lesson, but what the heck has this got to do with modern day politics - some wacked up retards on crack has no relation to whats happening today. if you want to talk about history, look at how america was formed, they killed hundreds of thousands of american indians, Australia was formed through the mass murder of almost all the indigenous race, and our good pommy friends was the source of this violence. now thats the terrorist axis of evil for you

 

[otay]

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
-Thomas Hobbes

"If he is so smart, how come he is dead?" - Homer

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

one thing noone has mentioned so far, is that radical islam has existed as far back as the 11th century, in the form of assasins, which is the Anglicisation of Hashashihann, which is arabic for "those addicted to hashish". these extremists would carry out suicide missions to kill the enemies of the sect, in an attempt to consolidate its power in the region. funnily enough, this sect evovled in iran, which was then persia. now i may be wrong, but america was only a country in what, 1776 or so, and these suicide extremists pre-date it by around 500 600 years.

there's a terrorist theory that the rest of the post-modernist apathetic, morally relativistic people in the world dont want to hear. it just rings too true

Yes thanks for that interesting lesson. It’s fascinating what the ancient world can teach you. Assasins, invented in Persia, exported to the world!
But I don't get it, where's the terrorist theory in that? Or was that just an example of violence that doesn't relate at all to what we are talking about? Yes? It is? Thanks.
All those people murdered by the Inquisition, ( Christian) would have felt much better knowning that the root of the word 'assassin' is Hashashihann.

 

[JayB]

elendil - the point is that this terrorism "theory" proposed by Pape doesnt actually address the issue, which has existed since the 11th century. the issue is not where our troops are, what our foreign policy is, or anything else mentioned in the articles. the issue is that these people intend to wreak as much havoc on the lives of the innocent for no other reason than they can, and it makes them more powerful. if the elements have existed since before our countries did, how can their existance be blamed on what our countries do? islamic terrorism completely pre-dates the bush administration, and indeed every american administration ever.