|
 Redo
CTA
Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace  [Re: CJay]
#2762452 - 06/04/04 06:38 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thats a police matter, and they arent blowing up our buildings.
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: JesusChrist]
#2762879 - 06/04/04 10:35 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JesusChrist said:
A free Iraq will tip the balance of power in the Arabic world. All free thinking intellectuals will migrate to the new haven that refuses to censor and lets them express their own views. The culture will be enhanced by leaps and bounds by this freedom, and it will eclipse every other Arabic nation combined.
The Iraqis have to actually want that kind of country in order to achieve it. I see little evidence to indicate that they do.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace [Re: Redo]
#2763264 - 06/04/04 12:33 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
My point was that extreme fundamentalist type people exist all over. Not just in the middle east. And that much like in the USA, extreme fundamentalist groups around the world are in the extreme minority.
All these extremes make them rather dangerous and insane wherever they are and whatever their cause.
Which is the obvious problem.
However one must retain some logic amidst the emotional turmoil and encroaching paranoia - remembering to see them as this small, vicious group. And remembering that this is what must be dealt with, a small group not a world full of people just trying to earn a crust.
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace [Re: CJay]
#2764184 - 06/04/04 04:49 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CJay said:
There has only been one (allegedly middle-east) terrorist act in the USA - ever
Hm, I seem to remember a U-Haul filled with TNT under the World Trade Center a few years ago, and six islamic extremists getting life sentances for it. I also seem to remember 9/11. Which "one" of those two are you referring to?
Quote:
The USA government has trained and condonned terrorists with a far greater frequency than that. Even good ole JFK sent terrorists into Cuba, starting the chain reaction that led to the Cuban missile crisis. And what is unprovoked invasion except for terror(ism) on the grandest scale.
No, an unprovoked invasion isn't terrorism. It is an act of war. Don't abuse that blanket word of "terrorism" that gets thrown around all the time today.
Quote:
Perhaps if the USA and other bullying intrusive Western governments just stop screwing with other countries and their economies
No more foreign aide? No more supporting red cross troops in areas where the local warlords are killing them? Fine with me.
Quote:
Perhaps if they went back on their age old policy in the middle east - which has been to provoke wars and supply weapons to the region seeing how much oil can be robbed in the meantime.(Classic divide and rule tactics).
"age old"? it can't possibly be more than 60 years old. Do I need to educate you on the history of that region?
Quote:
Maybe terrorists would not then be created.
Gee, it's nice to know that at the end of the day, it's still all the US's fault.
Quote:
Who makes the terrorists? The governments of the UK, USA and other western powers with their heartless foreign policy.
Interesting concept. Why then, pray tell, aren't their terrorists from the South American states that we have such a "heartless" foreign policy with? Could it be because they don't follow a extremist religion with leaders who encourage their behavior? Of course not, it's the US's fault!
Quote:
I don't see terrorists from the middle east attacking any nations who
haven't f**ked with their home nation(s)....I wonder why?
Because you are too ignorant to read newspapers? What did Bali do to the middle east?
Quote:
whisper words of wisdom - let it be, let it be........
Your ignorance? I won't "let it be".
Quote:
If the USA and other so called 'developed' countries had traded fairly for middle east oil from the beginning, if they had not supplied crazy amounts of weapons, and if they had not supported cruel regimes - there would be no retalliation now.
How could we have traded fairly and not supported the cruel regiems? The regime in Saudi Arabia falls into my definition of "cruel", how aren't we being fair in our trade with them, and how should we modify that so we aern't supporting them? Should we lead a war into the area? Somehow I don't think you'll be supporting that. Should we have the CIA use their power to train insurgents in the area? Nope, you don't want that either. how about we just wave the magic wand o' liberals and make it all better, and hte USA could just disappear?
Quote:
The simplicity of it is astounding.
If by "it" you mean "my brain", then yes, it's astounding.
Quote:
Wouldn't you agree that supplying arms to small time dictators is pretty morally lacking? (besides being insane)
Geez, I thought you meant Israel until you got to this point. What Arab nations are we supplying with weapons? What are you on?
Quote:
Wouldn't you say that supporting dictators until they decide you are not pulling their strings, then making them out to suddenly be a bad guy even though they are governing the same way they have done for years (with your support)is pretty morally lacking? (besides being insane)
What option would you have? Stop our "un fair trade" with the arab nations that we are oppressing, supporting, and arming, and stop arming Israel? You have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps OTD would be a great place to hang out ?
Quote:
Wouldn't you say that attacking nations for the acts of small renegade groups of people is pretty morally lacking? (besides being insane)
Not if the leaders of the nation support them. Wouldn't you say that watching an area like Afghanistan exist with their huge human rights "issues" is morally lacking? Watching women getting executed for not wearing their burkahs and saying "well golly, thats fine with us, we'll just stop our unfair trade practises and things will work out fine" is pretty insane?
Quote:
I mean why not declare war on the nation Ireland because the IRA are holed up there? doh!
Because the leadership of Ireland isn't supporting and condoning their actions. "doh".
Quote:
And why pick Saddam and Afganistan? I mean N.Korea brags about it's WMD, is run by a cruel dictator......oh but there's no oil there.....
and they have real WMD.......eeek!
Ok fine, we'll make you happy. We'll go to war with North Korea.
Quote:
All dictators are equal under the law - except Saddam. Strange that...
No other dictators in the region have signed cease fire agreements saying that they wouldn't do certain things. And you'll recall that the evil US/Zionists didn't invade Kuwait and start the whole fucking affair.
Quote:
The UN was set up to stop wars like this happening, perhaps if the UN was respected and not used and abused by its most powerful member - wars like this wouldn't happen.
We owe nothing to the UN. If htey don't like what we are doing, we'll resign our positions in the UN and let them do what they want.
Quote:
Everyone's scratching their heads wondering how to bring peace - what to do.
Everyone but you, with your lack of knowledge of the middle east, it's history and the causes of terrorism. Oh, and your lack of a terrorist attack thath appened less than 15 years ago. You sure are shining brightly, little star!
Quote:
I mean 'mission accomplished' - a year ago - doh! Look at all the peace that has been brought to the region.
Ok, compare current Iraq with pre-war Iraq. How many bloodthirsty dictators are in charge now? Don't most of the Iraqi's support the war? Geez, I can't beleive I spent this much time with someone who thinks that their was only "one" mid-east terror attack on the USA.
peace is peace - not war
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: Zahid]
#2764194 - 06/04/04 04:52 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zahid said:
I'm afraid 9/11 and Bush's wars have officially launched the second clashing of Christianity and Islam.
Lets hope so, we remember how those wars turn out 
Quote:
The War Against Terror has done nothing but enrage the Muslim world, which leads many Muslims to conclude it is a War Against Islam on a subconscious level among the minds of western politicians of Judea-Christian background.
Do you have any actual evidence that the arab world hates us more now thanthey did? ANd if their previous level of hatred was such that it made them cheer in the streets after they saw pictures of 9/11, wasn't that pretty friggin bad to start out with?
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
#2764252 - 06/04/04 05:25 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah you are right I missed the other terrorist attempt off my first post. Apologies.
I am not saying it is all the USA's fault, I am saying that part of the responsibility lies with the USA government. Responsibility which seems to have been thrown aside. Yes leave the UN, do as you please, but then why join in the first place? I suppose it's like the land signed over to the native americans...not a fixed agreement.
The government seems to be quite happily supporting a Hell of a lot of cruel regimes with all that aid you speak of.
And please for god's sake don't go to war with N Korea - I say what I say not because I want that. I say it as a comparison, to show the bias of decisions made over alleged WMD.
Terrorists are terrorists from the victim establishment's point of view whether they use machine guns, bombs, knives, planes, or whatever. It is their cell structure and attack on the establishment that defines them.
peace is peace - not war
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
#2765451 - 06/05/04 03:23 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Hm, I seem to remember a U-Haul filled with TNT under the World Trade Center a few years ago, and six islamic extremists getting life sentances for it. I also seem to remember 9/11. Which "one" of those two are you referring to?
And many, many more people from the middle east have died at the hands of the west. Terrorism just the same.
Quote:
No, an unprovoked invasion isn't terrorism. It is an act of war. Don't abuse that blanket word of "terrorism" that gets thrown around all the time today.
Neat semantic gymnastics but all adds up to the same thing - innocent people get dead. Do you think they experience terror in their final moments? Do you think those who survive learn to live with a sense of terror? Just because we dont call our actions terrorism doesnt make them anymore acceptable.
Quote:
No more foreign aide? No more supporting red cross troops in areas where the local warlords are killing them? Fine with me.
Giving aid is not the same as interfering with sovereign states and turning a blind eye to human rights attrocities in countries who are, for the moment, considered western friendly.
Its not really a subtle distinction either, im surprised it needs to be pointed out to you.
Quote:
"age old"? it can't possibly be more than 60 years old. Do I need to educate you on the history of that region?
Dont bother you obviously dont know what you are talking about. Western policy to interfere in the middle east goes back at least 150 years.
Quote:
Because you are too ignorant to read newspapers? What did Bali do to the middle east?
They attacked an area populated mainly by westerners as you well know.
Quote:
Geez, I thought you meant Israel until you got to this point. What Arab nations are we supplying with weapons? What are you on?
Wake up dopey. The arms industry in the west has no qualms about who it will supply arms to.
Quote:
Not if the leaders of the nation support them. Wouldn't you say that watching an area like Afghanistan exist with their huge human rights "issues" is morally lacking? Watching women getting executed for not wearing their burkahs and saying "well golly, thats fine with us, we'll just stop our unfair trade practises and things will work out fine" is pretty insane?
Do you know something it makes me almost physically sick to hear this arguement trotted out time and time again. The US did not invade Afghanistan to help the women or because of human rights issues. They may have highlighted these areas to help justify the war to simple folk like yourself who are unable/unwilling to see the bigger picture but GWB was not motivated by the plight of the people of Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter.
Quote:
No other dictators in the region have signed cease fire agreements saying that they wouldn't do certain things. And you'll recall that the evil US/Zionists didn't invade Kuwait and start the whole fucking affair.
No but April Gillespie, US Ambassador, gave the Iraqi's the green light when she told them the US were not interested in Arab-Arab conflicts. Classic manipulation.
As for the ceasfire agreement can you tell me exactly how Saddam actually violated it?
Quote:
We owe nothing to the UN. If htey don't like what we are doing, we'll resign our positions in the UN and let them do what they want.
Yeah right. Dream on.
Quote:
Ok, compare current Iraq with pre-war Iraq. How many bloodthirsty dictators are in charge now? Don't most of the Iraqi's support the war?
Just because many Iraqi's supported Saddams removal does not mean they support the way it has been done or the way it is currently being handled. The situation will not become clear for a couple of years yet. Fortunately, I think the US will find it increasingly hard to exert the kind of influence they would have liked due to their complete incompetence in handling the situation.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
CJay
Dark Stranger
Registered: 02/02/04
Posts: 931
Loc: Riding a bassline
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace [Re: GazzBut]
#2765612 - 06/05/04 06:28 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
War is terrorism writ large and in bold type, embossed and given a hardbacked volume.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace [Re: CJay]
#2765744 - 06/05/04 08:46 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I like Peter Ustinov's line "Terrorism is the war of the poor. War is the terrorism of the rich".
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: CJay]
#2766340 - 06/05/04 02:00 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
CJay said:
I am not saying it is all the USA's fault, I am saying that part of the responsibility lies with the USA government. Responsibility which seems to have been thrown aside. Yes leave the UN, do as you please, but then why join in the first place? I suppose it's like the land signed over to the native americans...not a fixed agreement.
We have no legal obligation to be in the United Nations. It is a group that you join voluntarily and they have to accept your application. With China being on the Human Rights Committe, their standards must not be to high. Look at every "UN Action" across the globe, most of the troops and money are US. We play a much broader role than other nations, then the UN turns on us.
Quote:
The government seems to be quite happily supporting a Hell of a lot of cruel regimes with all that aid you speak of.
I realize that. However, it might be better to support Cruel Regime X that is pretty bad, rather than letting Cruel Coup Y take over and try to gas 90% of the people in the nation. Do you think we should suddenly stop supporting these nations? If we do, wouldn't that region take a bigger hit than with us supporting them? Would you authorize or condone force used upon these nations to take out their "cruel regimes"?
Quote:
And please for god's sake don't go to war with N Korea - I say what I say not because I want that. I say it as a comparison, to show the bias of decisions made over alleged WMD.
We know that N Korea has WMD's. We also know that the best way to deal with N Korea, as shown through years of interaction, is to realize that their main goal isn't to destroy people, but to make money. If we make it more profitable for their leaders to not be making nukes than to be making them, they'll stop. This is a great example of what I was talking about before hand. Kim Jong Il is a scumbag leading a "cruel regime" that has WMD's. His main goal though, really, isn't the destruction of a few nations or the USA, it's his and his other cohorts financial solvency. We can pay him, in money or in trade agreements, so that he'll just not make nukes. If we did something to depose him, a true US hater could come into power and try to sell those nukes to Al Queda or the PLO. It's better sometimes to let the worst of the situtations ride and deal with them. No?
Quote:
Terrorists are terrorists from the victim establishment's point of view whether they use machine guns, bombs, knives, planes, or whatever. It is their cell structure and attack on the establishment that defines them.
I guess you were posting this in reply to my commentary about a nation invading another being an act of terrorism. You just proved my side of it. Uniformed soldiers of a soverign nation attacking another soverign nation aren't terrorists, by even your own definition.
Peace isn't the capitulation of "good" to "evil". Peace sometimes takes the form of war, as odd as that may sound. Do you think that the forces led by Eisenhower were bent on peace, or war?
If you don't know who Eisenhower is/was, he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Dub Dub Two. That was a war we fought. Years ago. Against the Nazis and such.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
#2768246 - 06/06/04 03:14 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I agree the UN has become fairly ineffective but that is not helped by the US declaring it worthless when it doesnt agree with US policy and then suddenly deciding it is relevant when it needs international recognition to try and gain support and assistance in Iraq.
Also, however much money the US puts in, why should it expect the UN to agree with everything it suggests? You dont buy UN mandates you know.
Quote:
I realize that. However, it might be better to support Cruel Regime X that is pretty bad, rather than letting Cruel Coup Y take over and try to gas 90% of the people in the nation.
Please show where this situation actually exists otherwise you are just making stuff up to try and defend your point of view.
Quote:
His main goal though, really, isn't the destruction of a few nations or the USA, it's his and his other cohorts financial solvency.
Can you provide me a source for this assertion or is it another flight of fantasy? How was Saddam's main goal ever the destruction of a few nations or the USA? The policy of paying Saddam off worked quite well in the 80's didnt it? He was never a threat to the US.
Quote:
Peace isn't the capitulation of "good" to "evil". Peace sometimes takes the form of war, as odd as that may sound. Do you think that the forces led by Eisenhower were bent on peace, or war?
not the WWII comparison again please! You cannot compare the Nazi's with Saddam. Bush tried this just the other day and Chirac (thats the french president to you) soon put him right on that score.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
#2768316 - 06/06/04 05:23 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
We have no legal obligation to be in the United Nations
If that's true then Iraq had no legal obligation to oblige by UN resolutions.
We play a much broader role than other nations, then the UN turns on us.
No, they just don't want Bush launching illegal wars of aggression on the basis of lies. To me, that sounds fair enough.
However, it might be better to support Cruel Regime X that is pretty bad, rather than letting Cruel Coup Y take over and try to gas 90% of the people in the nation.
What is this horseshit? How the fuck do you gas "90%" of the people in the nation?
Do you think we should suddenly stop supporting these nations?
If by "supporting" you mean propping up a maniacal brutal dictator then YES. STOP IT NOW.
If we do, wouldn't that region take a bigger hit than with us supporting them?
No, simply plough all the money you were giving to the brutal dictator and western corporations and put it into improving the health of the people living there.
Look at Afghanistan - the nightmarish warlords of the Northern Alliance made a fortune from Bush's support. What did the people of Afghanistasn get?
We also know that the best way to deal with N Korea, as shown through years of interaction, is to realize that their main goal isn't to destroy people, but to make money
Earth calling germ, earth calling germ. Are you receiving?
Uniformed soldiers of a soverign nation attacking another soverign nation aren't terrorists
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Do you think that the forces led by Eisenhower were bent on peace, or war?
Problem with this horseshit is Hitler had invaded most of Europe. Who had Saddam invaded in the last 14 years?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Redo
CTA
Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: Xlea321]
#2768396 - 06/06/04 07:32 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Problem with this horseshit is Hitler had invaded most of Europe. Who had Saddam invaded in the last 14 years?
Tens of thousands of his own people, tortured and killed.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: Redo]
#2768793 - 06/06/04 11:40 AM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thats not what Alex asked though is it? Try again.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace [Re: GazzBut]
#2769213 - 06/06/04 02:39 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
And many, many more people from the middle east have died at the hands of the west. Terrorism just the same.
No, it really isn't. If it's done by policy, it simply doesn't fit the definition of the word terrorism. Again, please refrain from using loaded words just to sound educated. And how have they died at the "hands of the west"? Could you show some examples of state-supported actions against Middle Eastern people that lead to death of non-combatants? Would you say that "Many, many more people from the middle east have died at the hands of their own dictators" would be true, or not true? Are those actions worthy of you dropping the "t bomb"?
Quote:
Neat semantic gymnastics but all adds up to the same thing - innocent people get dead.
So drunk drivers are terrorists now too? Neat-o.
Quote:
Giving aid is not the same as interfering with sovereign states and turning a blind eye to human rights attrocities in countries who are, for the moment, considered western friendly.
I recall SilverSoul7 posting a list of "why countries hate us" or some such nonsense aw hile ago. Should we say "OK Africa, no more money from us since you are all ruthless dictators" and allow hundreds of thousands of people tos tarve to death again?
Quote:
Its not really a subtle distinction either, im surprised it needs to be pointed out to you.
Well, I'm quite stupid and simple. do point them out, oh do!
Quote:
Dont bother you obviously dont know what you are talking about. Western policy to interfere in the middle east goes back at least 150 years.
How did we interefere in the Ottoman Turkish empire in a way that adversly affected them? Other than the Brits after they kicked their ass in the big Dub Db.
Quote:
They attacked an area populated mainly by westerners as you well know.
I know that, you know that, but the way he said it excluded these attacks. If I went into a jewish neighborhood in NYC and blew up a truck bomb, am I attacking Israel?
Quote:
Wake up dopey. The arms industry in the west has no qualms about who it will supply arms to.
Could you provide such a simpleton as me with something like "proof"?
Quote:
Do you know something it makes me almost physically sick to hear this arguement trotted out time and time again.
(watch the flames, germin8tionn8ion...you've alread been warned by the other mods! -- trendal)
Quote:
The US did not invade Afghanistan to help the women or because of human rights issues. They may have highlighted these areas to help justify the war to simple folk like yourself who are unable/unwilling to see the bigger picture but GWB was not motivated by the plight of the people of Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter.
Interesting that you'd use the phrase "bigger picture", and then only look at the actions of one person. Did we invade Afghanistan to help their people out? Of course not. Is it a pleasant side effect? Yes.
Quote:
No but April Gillespie, US Ambassador, gave the Iraqi's the green light when she told them the US were not interested in Arab-Arab conflicts. Classic manipulation.
can she play a trombone? Cause Dizzy sure could... man...
Quote:
As for the ceasfire agreement can you tell me exactly how Saddam actually violated it?
Since you apparently can't read, I doubt I can. He said "If you stop beating me like a bad dog, I'll let you do X Y and Z" and then he said "Ok, No more X Y and Z". Pretty hard to understand, I know.
Edited by trendal (06/06/04 04:16 PM)
|
germin8tionn8ion
enthusiast
Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 399
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: GazzBut]
#2769226 - 06/06/04 02:45 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
I agree the UN has become fairly ineffective but that is not helped by the US declaring it worthless when it doesnt agree with US policy and then suddenly deciding it is relevant when it needs international recognition to try and gain support and assistance in Iraq.
Also, however much money the US puts in, why should it expect the UN to agree with everything it suggests? You dont buy UN mandates you know.
If the UN doesn't agree, thats fine. Look at the percentages of forces in Gulf War I that were US forces. Over 80% of them I'm sure I Remember hearing. The next time that the UN decides "they" need something, we can just tell them that it doesn't fit our interest, and we can let China and the Congo help them out. It's just that simple. Being the only superpower on the block gives us alot of, well, power.
Quote:
Please show where this situation actually exists otherwise you are just making stuff up to try and defend your point of view.
"South America" has about 40 examples down there. How about "Iran" or "Iraq" or "pick-up-a-fucking-book-istan"
Quote:
Can you provide me a source for this assertion or is it another flight of fantasy? How was Saddam's main goal ever the destruction of a few nations or the USA? The policy of paying Saddam off worked quite well in the 80's didnt it? He was never a threat to the US.
An interesting note about the english language can be found in the MLB manual under the heading "contractions". You'll see that I used the word "isn't" which is kind of a tricky one. It looks a lot like the word is, with a few typo's after it and a tricky little floaty thing hangning about. However, hark! that is a CONTRACTION for "Is not". Try reading it again with that little bit of knowledge and I think you'll be getting your gold star for the day!
Quote:
not the WWII comparison again please! You cannot compare the Nazi's with Saddam. Bush tried this just the other day and Chirac (thats the french president to you) soon put him right on that score.
Hah, geez, people compare Bush to Hitler every day. The French didn't see much fo the Nazi's, hiding in their bedrooms as they marched through town, did they?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS peace [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
#2769325 - 06/06/04 03:10 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
No, it really isn't. If it's done by policy, it simply doesn't fit the definition of the word terrorism.
Most terrorist groups have their own policies. Does this mean you would no longer view them as terrorists?
Quote:
So drunk drivers are terrorists now too? Neat-o.
How tedious.
Quote:
I recall SilverSoul7 posting a list of "why countries hate us" or some such nonsense aw hile ago. Should we say "OK Africa, no more money from us since you are all ruthless dictators" and allow hundreds of thousands of people tos tarve to death again?
Sorry I dont really see what your point is here. I said that giving aid and interfering/invading sovereign states are two different things.
Quote:
Well, I'm quite stupid and simple. do point them out, oh do!
Giving aid is passively trying to help a country or its people. Interfering/invading is actively trying to further our own agenda, sometimes under the guise of trying to help. Told you it was simple didnt I?
Quote:
Could you provide such a simpleton as me with something like "proof"?
Next you will be asking for proof that the earth is round. The fact that your own country sold precursors for WMD to Iraq in the 80's should be a fairly big clue though. Guess who lent the Iraqis the money to buy it...
Quote:
can she play a trombone? Cause Dizzy sure could... man...
Very low quality joke.Do you always do that when the truths a little uncomfortable for you?
Quote:
Since you apparently can't read, I doubt I can. He said "If you stop beating me like a bad dog, I'll let you do X Y and Z" and then he said "Ok, No more X Y and Z". Pretty hard to understand, I know.
Utter gibberish. You dont really know what you are talking about do you? Just spouting off your dumb old daddy's opinions I should imagine, with a touch of Fox news thrown in to make you feel inter-lek-chal.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: germin8tionn8ion]
#2769355 - 06/06/04 03:20 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"South America" has about 40 examples down there. How about "Iran" or "Iraq" or "pick-up-a-fucking-book-istan"
Just one example will do where you believe the US is supporting a dictatorship simply because the alternative is so bad that 90% of the population would be gassed. As a precaution, I wont hold my breath while I wait for a sensible answer.
Quote:
An interesting note about the english language can be found in the MLB manual under the heading "contractions". You'll see that I used the word "isn't" which is kind of a tricky one. It looks a lot like the word is, with a few typo's after it and a tricky little floaty thing hangning about. However, hark! that is a CONTRACTION for "Is not". Try reading it again with that little bit of knowledge and I think you'll be getting your gold star for the day!
You were explaining why the US doesnt invade some countries and does invade others. You said we can cut a financial deal with N.Koreas because their leader "isn't" interested in destroying nations etc. It seems fairly obvious that you are implying we had to invade Iraq as the opposite was true. Man you dont even understand what your wild rantings mean, how is anyone else supposed to?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Redo
CTA
Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: GazzBut]
#2770024 - 06/06/04 07:52 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Thats not what Alex asked though is it? Try again.
Im sorry, I guess that torturing and slaughtering tens of thousands of people is not really an invasion, sorry.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Terrorists look for a path TO peace - but the path IS pe [Re: Redo]
#2770599 - 06/06/04 11:59 PM (18 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Im sorry, I guess that torturing and slaughtering tens of thousands of people is not really an invasion, sorry.
What evidence do you have he was "torturing and slaughtering tens of thousands of people?" There was the US approved putdown of the rebellions post 1991 when the US allowed Saddam to abuse the no-fly zone and use helicopter gunships, but in the last 12 years what rebellion has there been? Certainly the vast bulk of the mass graves that have been found are from the 80's when Saddam was so close to Bush and Reagan it was dubbed "the love affair".
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Kratom Capsules for Sale 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
SquattingMarmot
wingnutx
1 2 3 all )
Moonshoe
mabus
GazzBut
mntlfngrs
Ellis Dee
carbonhoots