|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| The Iraqi "insurgents" are fighting the invaders and occupiers of their homeland. Why should any sane person not support them? |
The insurgents are fighting war against Iraq. The Americans are in the middle of a caveman hate fest. Most of the large attacks aren't directed at the US forces but at the group of people who have a slightly different god. |
No one has a monopoly on hate. The condition for strife was intentionally created by the invaders. And, most importantly, the mofos (Americans and British) initiated the "civil war" through covert activities, and are probably continuing to support the different groups. This kind of thing has been standard behavior of the Empire around the world for a long time already. |
You may want to brush up on your islamic history... This conflict did not start when the Americans invaded. It just gave then a nice venue to step it up.
Some proof for your claims would be good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How did you learn the truth, arjuna? Did a little birdie whisper in your ear? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I wonder what about keeping them sleepy and sensory deprivation ?
| Quote: |
Bush administration officials are trying to redefine the Geneva Conventions, which bans �cruel practices,� to allow seven different procedures: 1) induced hypothermia, 2) long periods of forced standing, 3) sleep deprivation, 4) the �attention grab� (forcefully seizing the suspect�s shirt), 5) the �attention slap,� 6) |
The US ought to be allowed to do such.
. |
These imo are torture and at the very least are inhumane. I don't see any evidence for this actually working also.
Even against AQ. Torture is wrong, against anyone.
| Quote: |
Well lets start by any one who calls for holy war against the US is now a target for assassination.
The US needs to remove the ban on assassination and engage in targeted killings .
As I said when the CIA got that Italian cleric , that was a great move. the US needs to do a lot more than that. |
This is not a definition. Targeted killings are a different matter. The CIA was on Italian soil. If they had the Italian governments permission it may be justified. They would still have to charge the guy though.
| Quote: |
| I see it, on the other hand the US has never had an enemy like the one it faces now. |
And? A system this open to abuse is a bad idea no matter who the enemy is.
| Quote: |
| IT is the opinion of the US govt. |
It was the opinion of the US govt that there were WMDs in Iraq. Clearly any govt can be wrong. The govt also has a vested interest in that position as it is their policy.
| Quote: |
Were not talking about it being used in the US.
|
Yet.
| Quote: |
At the same time you would have let Bin Laden go and you would have let Khomeni go . Many lives would have been saved.
|
you don't know this nor can you prove this.
| Quote: |
| To you the US govt is a bigger enemy than AQ. |
No I like US sport, culture etc and I have family there. I don't dislike the US. I dislike this policy which seems directly in contrast with what America is supposed to stand for.
| Quote: |
| It was a failure. It would be stupid to continue what failed. and it is unreasonable to ask / demand that the US do so. |
because the old policy failed(a disputable point) it does not mean that this policy is the right one.
If I fill my car with orange juice and it does not go, filling it with water will not help just because it is the second thing I tried.
Personally I don't think the old policy failed and I think it a very big reach to say the imprisonment or death of a few guys could have prevented 9-11. The old policy was legally and morally sound. This one is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
These imo are torture and at the very least are inhumane. I don't see any evidence for this actually working also. |
not torture. certainly not the techniques the other side uses. I will let the intel people decide if they are working or not. I don't want to see their hands tied.
| Quote: |
| Even against AQ. Torture is wrong, against anyone. |
Anything done to AQ is ok , whether it is a good idea is another question.
| Quote: |
| This is not a definition. Targeted killings are a different matter. The CIA was on Italian soil. If they had the Italian governments permission it may be justified. They would still have to charge the guy though. |
the US would charge him with what? The US ought to be in the busness of taking out those like him.
| Quote: |
| And? A system this open to abuse is a bad idea no matter who the enemy is. |
a system that does not work
| Quote: |
| It was the opinion of the US govt that there were WMDs in Iraq. Clearly any govt can be wrong. The govt also has a vested interest in that position as it is their policy. |
with the patriot act and Bin Laden out of the picture. As I said I 'll take my chances.
when that happens make a new post
| Quote: |
| you don't know this nor can you prove this. |
No Bin Laden no Al Qaeda , no 9-11.
No khomeni no leader like Khomeni arises.
| Quote: |
| No I like US sport, culture etc and I have family there. I don't dislike the US. I dislike this policy which seems directly in contrast with what America is supposed to stand for. |
You don't offer the US much a strategy to fight the enemy. The US behaves better than most during war time. and it is sitll one of the most free and tolerant naitons on the planet.
| Quote: |
| because the old policy failed(a disputable point) it does not mean that this policy is the right one. |
The US is fighting for a good cause to force Al Qaedists , Khomeni followers , and Bathists to quit their war.
IF it is a choice between failed policy and this policy I say the US take its chances.
| Quote: |
| Personally I don't think the old policy failed and I think it a very big reach to say the imprisonment or death of a few guys could have prevented 9-11. The old policy was legally and morally sound. This one is not. |
The US could not have taken either Bin Laden or Khomeni with the old way of doing things. They are the cause of the two biggest enemies the US faces.
As I have said the US could start by trying to kill or capture anyone who callls for holy war against the US.
and the US ought to kill or capture anyone who gives material support to terrorists.
And the US ought allow evidence obtained from illegal searches or wire taps in terror cases that would be start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Anything done to AQ is ok |
You contradict yourself here.
| Quote: |
| the US would charge him with what? The US ought to be in the busness of taking out those like him |
You advocate the killing of people who have broken no law who are in another country's jurisdiction without that countriy's consent? madness
| Quote: |
| I will let the intel people decide if they are working or not. . |
You will let the people who have a vested interest in keeping the system decide if it working. Not a good idea.
| Quote: |
| I don't want to see their hands tied |
What does this mean? What exactly would you allow and what would you not allow?
| Quote: |
| a system that does not work |
Again your opinion. This also does not mean the new system does work. Do you understand this?
| Quote: |
| with the patriot act and Bin Laden out of the picture. As I said I 'll take my chances |
What does that mean? You don't have any evidence..going with your gut..uninformed decision.
| Quote: |
| when that happens make a new post |
fair enough
| Quote: |
| No Bin Laden no Al Qaeda , no 9-11. |
Really? There seemed to be more people than Bin Laden involved in 9-11.
| Quote: |
| No khomeni no leader like Khomeni arises |
Who would rise in his place?
| Quote: |
You don't offer the US much a strategy to fight the enemy. The US behaves better than most during war time. and it is sitll one of the most free and tolerant naitons on the planet.
|
And? You don't collect brownie points to be used later. This is not a relative thing. Any country that advocates torture and capture without trial or charge is morally invalid.
| Quote: |
| The US is fighting for a good cause to force Al Qaedists , Khomeni followers , and Bathists to quit their war. |
the cause ie meaningless if the method is flawed, illegal and counter to the ideals of your country.
| Quote: |
| IF it is a choice between failed policy and this policy I say the US take its chances. |
False dichotomy. It is not choice. Just because you believe A doesn't work, it does not follow that B will.
| Quote: |
| As I have said the US could start by trying to kill or capture anyone who callls for holy war against the US. |
That seems to be alot of people. Killing all of them would be counter productive.
| Quote: |
The US could not have taken either Bin Laden or Khomeni with the old way of doing things. They are the cause of the two biggest enemies the US faces.
|
The ends do not justify the means. Especially since the new way has not been proven to work. why have they not tortured the location of Bin Laden yet? Didn't the info about WMDs come from captured prisoners?
| Quote: |
| And the US ought allow evidence obtained from illegal searches or wire taps in terror cases that would be start |
They should be able to do illegal wire taps? Why? Whats the difference between illegal ones and legal ones?
| Quote: |
and the US ought to kill or capture anyone who gives material support to terrorists.
|
As long as you can prove it.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As to Islamic terrorists or whould be terrorists, the answer is simple. Kill then all and let God sorth them out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| As to western infidels, the answer is simple. Kill then all and let God sorth them out. |
thought that sounded familiar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You contradict yourself here. |
There are somethings that the US ought not do but anything that AQ suffers is ok
| Quote: |
You advocate the killing of people who have broken no law who are in another country's jurisdiction without that countriy's consent? madness |
Bin Laden broke no law .
Khomeni broke no law.
and see what happened.
If someone calls for holy war against the they themselves ought to be a target.
| Quote: |
You will let the people who have a vested interest in keeping the system decide if it working. Not a good idea. |
They know more than you or I .
| Quote: |
| I don't want to see their hands tied |
| Quote: |
What does this mean? What exactly would you allow and what would you not allow? |
the exceptions above.
| Quote: |
Again your opinion. This also does not mean the new system does work. Do you understand this? |
Do you understand that it would not worked against the greatest enemies the US has on the planet today. How could you say it works?
| Quote: |
What does that mean? You don't have any evidence..going with your gut..uninformed decision. |
I got the opinion of the US govt which is more than you got at this moment
| Quote: |
| Really? There seemed to be more people than Bin Laden involved in 9-11 |
.
See the opinion right above.
| Quote: |
| Who would rise in his place? |
no one worse. In that case it also seems like a worthwhile chance.
| Quote: |
And? You don't collect brownie points to be used later. This is not a relative thing. Any country that advocates torture and capture without trial or charge is morally invalid. |
Your opinion the US is still one of the most free and tolerant nations in the world.
| Quote: |
the cause ie meaningless if the method is flawed, illegal and counter to the ideals of your country. |
The US is at war. It is had done alot more in other wars than it has done in this war. Didn't make the cause behind those wars invalid.
| Quote: |
False dichotomy. It is not choice. Just because you believe A doesn't work, it does not follow that B will. |
Not it doesn't but A doesn't work. Try something else
| Quote: |
That seems to be alot of people. Killing all of them would be counter productive. |
Well it works in the mideast. Lets try making them afraid. Right now those who call for holy war against the US feel to safe.
Get those who incite violence against the US.
IF you keep killing them at some point their networks will degrade.
| Quote: |
The ends do not justify the means. Especially since the new way has not been proven to work. why have they not tortured the location of Bin Laden yet? Didn't the info about WMDs come from captured prisoners? |
Often the ends do justify the means.
Since the US began doing things the new way how many attacks on US soil ?
Futhermore it has been shown to work in the mideast. How many mideast regimes have been overthrown recently by their own people.
| Quote: |
They should be able to do illegal wire taps? Why? Whats the difference between illegal ones and legal ones? |
I said the US ought be able to USE evidence from illegal wire taps against terrorists.
| Quote: |
As long as you can prove it. |
Start by getting anyone who calls for holy war against the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There are somethings that the US ought not do but anything that AQ suffers is ok
|
What does that mean? If an AQ member gets stuck by lightning, you would be like 'hell yea'?
| Quote: |
Bin Laden broke no law .
Khomeni broke no law.
and see what happened.
|
Once again drawing the conclusion that their deaths would have solved anything withoput proof of that assertion.
| Quote: |
They know more than you or I .
|
In another thread you basically say it is ok for the govt to lie. But in this case where it is clearly in their interest to lie, you expect me to take what they say as the truth?
| Quote: |
| the exceptions above. |
You mean these...
| Quote: |
| Bush administration officials are trying to redefine the Geneva Conventions, which bans �cruel practices,� to allow seven different procedures: 1) induced hypothermia, 2) long periods of forced standing, 3) sleep deprivation, 4) the �attention grab� (forcefully seizing the suspect�s shirt), 5) the �attention slap,� 6) |
These are outside the geneva convention for a reason. They also havn't been proved to work. The FBI is much more successful at interrogation than the CIA and they don't use these measures.
| Quote: |
I got the opinion of the US govt which is more than you got at this moment
|
What does this mean? This administration has been proven to have lied and been wrong a number of times already. I think having their opinion is a detriment to your case.
You know this how?
| Quote: |
| Your opinion the US is still one of the most free and tolerant nations in the world |
It is. Doesn't mean you can torture people. As i said you cannot collect brownie points to be used later. There is not some kind of agreement where if you be nice for a while you can be evil in turn.
| Quote: |
| The US is at war. It is had done alot more in other wars than it has done in this war. Didn't make the cause behind those wars invalid. |
Depends which war. They invaded Iraq on a pretext that has proven to be false. I think comparing it to other american wars is a bad idea.
| Quote: |
Not it doesn't but A doesn't work. Try something else
|
try something else that is legal and morally sound.
| Quote: |
Well it works in the mideast. Lets try making them afraid. Right now those who call for holy war against the US feel to safe.
Get those who incite violence against the US. |
you think kiling people is going to stop people inciting violence against the US? You are deluded. All you will do is gain new converts to the cause against your country.
| Quote: |
IF you keep killing them at some point their networks will degrade.
|
this is your solution...its laughable.
| Quote: |
Often the ends do justify the means.
Since the US began doing things the new way how many attacks on US soil ?
|
Ever since I've been holding this rock I havn't been attacked by a tiger.
| Quote: |
Futhermore it has been shown to work in the mideast. How many mideast regimes have been overthrown recently by their own people.
|
Whats your point?
| Quote: |
| Start by getting anyone who calls for holy war against the US |
Go for it. And push every moderate muslim in that country closer to extremism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What does that mean? If an AQ member gets stuck by lightning, you would be like 'hell yea'? |
yea,
| Quote: |
Once again drawing the conclusion that their deaths would have solved anything withoput proof of that assertion.
|
It is a reasonable assumtion.
and in the case of Bin Laden it is also the opinion of the US govt.
| Quote: |
In another thread you basically say it is ok for the govt to lie. But in this case where it is clearly in their interest to lie, you expect me to take what they say as the truth?
|
different situation.
Unless you can find a good reason for them to lie, otherwise it is their opinion after the fact.
| Quote: |
These are outside the geneva convention for a reason. They also havn't been proved to work. The FBI is much more successful at interrogation than the CIA and they don't use these measures. |
Grabbing the shirt gee. I will give the benefit of the doubt to those doing the interogation.
| Quote: |
What does this mean? This administration has been proven to have lied and been wrong a number of times already. I think having their opinion is a detriment to your case. |
Why do they want these exceptions? Give another reason.
| Quote: |
You know this how? |
Kohmeni was a mass killer who hated the US . and he was committed to revolution through the mideast
| Quote: |
It is. Doesn't mean you can torture people. As i said you cannot collect brownie points to be used later. There is not some kind of agreement where if you be nice for a while you can be evil in turn. |
If it works against AQ then it is pretty much ok. Fighting AQ saves lives. That counts too.
| Quote: |
Depends which war. They invaded Iraq on a pretext that has proven to be false. I think comparing it to other american wars is a bad idea. |
Saddam never gave up his war.
The way the mideast was was a threat to the to the US. 9-11 showed that.
| Quote: |
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
| Quote: |
try something else that is legal and morally sound. |
Going after khomeni followers and Al Qadists is morally sound.
| Quote: |
you think kiling people is going to stop people inciting violence against the US? You are deluded. All you will do is gain new converts to the cause against your country. |
It works in the mideast. IN fact mideast governments are police states and they could get rid of the terrorists and their supporters in their own nations if they wanted to or were forced to.
| Quote: |
| this is your solution...its laughable. |
It is so laughable that it has worked and works in the mideast.
Israel also weakened the military capablities of Hamas but also Islamic Jihad .
It is not laughable.
| Quote: |
Ever since I've been holding this rock I havn't been attacked by a tiger. |
It is not proof but it is a reasonable even likely explanation.
Force does work against terror groups if their is enough force against them .
And mideast regimes can get rid of those who support the terrorists if they choose to since they have excellent intel services.
| Quote: |
Go for it. And push every moderate muslim in that country closer to extremism |
The US ought to go for it. The govts in the mideast wont' fall. They have great intel services but the US can degrade the abilities of these terror groups by killing their leaders and their strategists and those who incite them.
70,000 trained in AQ camps before the US invaded Iraq that was while the US was defending muslim kurds from Saddam and Muslims in Kosovo from Slobidan . Also at this time the US was trying to bring the Israeli and Palestinian sides together.
This was also while Al Qaeda was killing muslims in Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
different situation.
Unless you can find a good reason for them to lie, otherwise it is their opinion after the fact.
|
Can you even recognise what you write? In other words if they have a good reason to lie it's ok. You can't see that saying that the capture of Bin Laden would have stopped 9-11 would help the current administration? You really cannot see a reason here? This administration has been systematically lying for a long time, I think the benefit of the doubt has been used up.
| Quote: |
| Grabbing the shirt gee. I will give the benefit of the doubt to those doing the interogation |
These measures are against the geneva convention for a reason. Maybe you should try these things out yourself before you belittle them.
| Quote: |
| Kohmeni was a mass killer who hated the US . and he was committed to revolution through the mideast |
Well of course, and as we all know killing the leaders of would be revolutions stops them dead in their tracks. No cause needs a martyr at all at all.
| Quote: |
If it works against AQ then it is pretty much ok. Fighting AQ saves lives. That counts too.
|
Really? It doesn't seem to be saving the lives of US soldiers or Iraqi civilians.
| Quote: |
Saddam never gave up his war.
The way the mideast was was a threat to the to the US. 9-11 showed that. |
Connecting 9-11 to Iraq is dishonest. You now this. Inserting 9-11 into a sentence does not a valid reason make.
| Quote: |
| But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world |
No mention of 9-11 in the reason here. Just that you had to hit smeone in the arab muslim world...christ.
| Quote: |
| Going after khomeni followers and Al Qadists is morally sound. |
Depends how. I don't think it is ok to go against the geneva convention or try to change it to suit your ends. You do.
| Quote: |
| It works in the mideast. IN fact mideast governments are police states and they could get rid of the terrorists and their supporters in their own nations if they wanted to or were forced to. |
I thought the idea was to spread democracy. Or was that another lie? Seeing as Iraq was a secular police state it seems strange again that you decided to invade there.
| Quote: |
It is so laughable that it has worked and works in the mideast.
Israel also weakened the military capablities of Hamas but also Islamic Jihad .
It is not laughable. |
Yup seems weakened alright. Seems to me like the next generation just got worse.
| Quote: |
| It is not proof but it is a reasonable even likely explanation. |
I don't find it likely that the arrest of one man would have prevented 9-11 or an attack like it. Can you outline how this would have happened?
| Quote: |
| The US ought to go for it |
And puch literally everyone in the middle east against America which I guess is your goal as then you can kill them all with a clean concsience.(sp) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
"JMO"]
| Quote: |
different situation.
Unless you can find a good reason for them to lie, otherwise it is their opinion after the fact.
|
| Quote: |
Can you even recognise what you write? In other words if they have a good reason to lie it's ok. You can't see that saying that the capture of Bin Laden would have stopped 9-11 would help the current administration? You really cannot see a reason here? This administration has been systematically lying for a long time, I think the benefit of the doubt has been used up. |
I believe that was a Clinton offical who said that if the US had gotten Bin Laden the event would not have happened . At anyrate it is very reasonable to assume that is very well would have made a difference, especially together w/ the Patriot act.
| Quote: |
These measures are against the geneva convention for a reason. Maybe you should try these things out yourself before you belittle them.
|
The Geneva convention was set up for POWs . Al Qaeda are not POWs they are criminals.
| Quote: |
Well of course, and as we all know killing the leaders of would be revolutions stops them dead in their tracks. No cause needs a martyr at all at all. |
It has worked in the mideast. When was the last time you saw a regime overthrown.
| Quote: |
Really? It doesn't seem to be saving the lives of US soldiers or Iraqi civilians. |
Fighting AQ does in fact save the lives of Iraqi civilians see what has happened in Al Anbar provinces. Not only that AQ intends to attack the US again
| Quote: |
Connecting 9-11 to Iraq is dishonest. You now this. Inserting 9-11 into a sentence does not a valid reason make |
.
One reason people become terrorists is cause of the strategic situation in the mideast. Mideast regimes teach hate and incite violence.
| Quote: |
No mention of 9-11 in the reason here. Just that you had to hit smeone in the arab muslim world...christ. |
That was part of it.
| Quote: |
Depends how. I don't think it is ok to go against the geneva convention or try to change it to suit your ends. You do.
|
Yes , we disagree. AQ and the Khomeni followers are evil and illegitimate, Their goals are sinister.
| Quote: |
I thought the idea was to spread democracy. Or was that another lie? Seeing as Iraq was a secular police state it seems strange again that you decided to invade there |
.
No that is one of the goals but the first one is to get AQ
[quote]It is so laughable that it has worked and works in the mideast.
| Quote: |
Yup seems weakened alright. Seems to me like the next generation just got worse. |
Suicide attacks are way down against Israel
| Quote: |
I don't find it likely that the arrest of one man would have prevented 9-11 or an attack like it. Can you outline how this would have happened? |
He was part of the planning and the organization. He helped make AQ what it was.
Taking him out plus the Patriot act improves the chances of averting 9-11 considerably.
| Quote: |
And puch literally everyone in the middle east against America which I guess is your goal as then you can kill them all with a clean concsience.(sp) |
No , ever notice no one in the mideast got mad when Saddam gassed the Kurds. or when Assad destroyed the city of Hama or when Khomieni' fatwa
killed 30,000. You know Al Qaeda killed lots of muslims in Afghanistan. I mean what religion was the Northern alliance.
I don't like Robert Fisk but he is on the money about the mideast right here.
| Quote: |
As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm
If you need more info let me know.
You khow if the US was fighting this war to steal Iraq's oil it would be wrong and the US would be in the wrong but this is not the case . The US is fighting to force the Khomeni supporters the Al Qaedists and the Bathists to give up their war. The US doesn't have to accept a low level war against it.
Libya gave up its war more or less now the US isn't bothering them.
All they have to do is give up their war. If that is too much for them then they are responsible for the end result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I believe that was a Clinton offical who said that if the US had gotten Bin Laden the event would not have happened . At anyrate it is very reasonable to assume that is very well would have made a difference, especially together w/ the Patriot act.
|
the patriot act would never have been passed pre 9-11 and indeed if you tried to pass it right now I doubt it would get passed. It's a classic take advantage of a country when they are afraid act.
You say it is very reasonable but you havn't provided any evidence. Show me how taking Bin Laden would have prevented 9-11?
So this administration did not say taking Bin Laden would have stopped 9-11? It was the Clinton administration? Was it one official or was it a government line?
| Quote: |
| The Geneva convention was set up for POWs . Al Qaeda are not POWs they are criminals. |
Then why is the US government trying to change it? Criminals have rights as well. They cannot be tortured. They cannot also be held without trial.
| Quote: |
It has worked in the mideast. When was the last time you saw a regime overthrown.
|
| Quote: |
One reason people become terrorists is cause of the strategic situation in the mideast. Mideast regimes teach hate and incite violence.
|
you seem to be contradicting yourself here.
Also your first statement makes no logical sense. Just because a regime hasn't ben overthrown doesn't mean they are using the right policy. Is that your criteria for successful governance?
| Quote: |
| Fighting AQ does in fact save the lives of Iraqi civilians see what has happened in Al Anbar provinces. Not only that AQ intends to attack the US again |
Fighting AQ in Iraq most assuredly does not save Iraqi civilian lives. Show me the numbers that back up your claim.
| Quote: |
| One reason people become terrorists is cause of the strategic situation in the mideast. Mideast regimes teach hate and incite violence. |
As does killing their leaders.
| Quote: |
| That was part of it. |
A very small part of the reason to enter Iraq. Let's be honest.
| Quote: |
Yes , we disagree. AQ and the Khomeni followers are evil and illegitimate, Their goals are sinister.
|
So you would fight evil with evil. Good plan.
| Quote: |
No that is one of the goals but the first one is to get AQ
|
By going into Iraq? In fact just to avoid confusion on this issue, what was the reason for going into Iraq?
| Quote: |
He was part of the planning and the organization. He helped make AQ what it was.
Taking him out plus the Patriot act improves the chances of averting 9-11 considerably.
|
Patriot act pre 9-11 would never happen as it is an afront to civil liberties. As you said Bin Laden was a part of AQ, how does his arrest prevent 9-11. You need to show proof.
| Quote: |
No , ever notice no one in the mideast got mad when Saddam gassed the Kurds. or when Assad destroyed the city of Hama or when Khomieni' fatwa
killed 30,000. You know Al Qaeda killed lots of muslims in Afghanistan. I mean what religion was the Northern alliance.
|
The fact that Saddam gassed the kurds does not mean you can detain prisoners without charge and trial or torture them. This is not a relative thing. There is no league table of badness.
| Quote: |
| You khow if the US was fighting this war to steal Iraq's oil it would be wrong and the US would be in the wrong but this is not the case |
At least this would be a logical reason.
| Quote: |
| US is fighting to force the Khomeni supporters the Al Qaedists and the Bathists to give up their war |
LOL..by invading Iraq you are forcing AQ and bathists to give up their war? I'm missing a logical stage here. How are you going to force them to give up the war? How many american soldiers will die for this to happen?
| Quote: |
| Libya gave up its war more or less now the US isn't bothering them |
When did america invade Libya? How did you force them to give up their war?
| Quote: |
| All they have to do is give up their war. If that is too much for them then they are responsible for the end result. |
That is such a childish argument. Seriously.
How does this justify holding prisoners without tiral and charge or torturing them? How are these things mutually exclusive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"JMO"][
| Quote: |
the patriot act would never have been passed pre 9-11 and indeed if you tried to pass it right now I doubt it would get passed. It's a classic take advantage of a country when they are afraid act.
|
well the US did not know what is what up against
| Quote: |
You say it is very reasonable but you havn't provided any evidence. Show me how taking Bin Laden would have prevented 9-11? |
well Al Qaedas top guy would have been gone.
His ability to organize would be gone.
His ability as a tactician would have been gone.
Now I can't say for certainly but it is likely that him being out of the picture would have made a huge difference.
and I have a US govt official saying the same thing.
| Quote: |
So this administration did not say taking Bin Laden would have stopped 9-11? It was the Clinton administration? Was it one official or was it a government line? |
I think it was the opinon of a Clinton offical
| Quote: |
Then why is the US government trying to change it? Criminals have rights as well. They cannot be tortured. They cannot also be held without trial. |
They are different from regular crimiinals in that there is war going gone.
I dunno why the US govt isn't trying to change it. One possible reason is that international organizations aren't effective and are very political.
| Quote: |
It has worked in the mideast. When was the last time you saw a regime overthrown.
|
| Quote: |
One reason people become terrorists is cause of the strategic situation in the mideast. Mideast regimes teach hate and incite violence.
|
| Quote: |
you seem to be contradicting yourself here. |
sorry how so. Mideast regimes incite violence but they also kill off their dissidents.
| Quote: |
Also your first statement makes no logical sense. Just because a regime hasn't ben overthrown doesn't mean they are using the right policy. Is that your criteria for successful governance? |
It shows that mideast regimes get rid of the people they don't like. If protecting terrorists becomes a problem then the terrorists will be gone.
| Quote: |
Fighting AQ in Iraq most assuredly does not save Iraqi civilian lives. Show me the numbers that back up your claim. |
Al Qaeda strated attacking the tribal chieft and blowing up markets and girl schools. That seems like saving lives to me.
| Quote: |
As does killing their leaders. |
Leaders will do what they can to save themselves futhermore in the worst the terrorists will run around like a chicken with no head.
| Quote: |
A very small part of the reason to enter Iraq. Let's be honest. |
Was the main reason. See Americans's secret war.
| Quote: |
So you would fight evil with evil. Good plan. |
whatever it takes . Our goals are good theirs aren't.
| Quote: |
By going into Iraq? In fact just to avoid confusion on this issue, what was the reason for going into Iraq?
|
The real reason yes.
Skip to comments.
| Quote: |
S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."
He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.
Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.
He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.
But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.
"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."
Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.
"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.
"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.
"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.
"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people." |
| Quote: |
Patriot act pre 9-11 would never happen as it is an afront to civil liberties. As you said Bin Laden was a part of AQ, how does his arrest prevent 9-11. You need to show proof. |
I can't prove it but it is very likely that the combination of the Patriot act plus Bin Laden out of the picture would have avoided 9-11.
and I even have the opinion of a US govt official. What is your evidence that it would have made no difference?
| Quote: |
The fact that Saddam gassed the kurds does not mean you can detain prisoners without charge and trial or torture them. This is not a relative thing. There is no league table of badness. |
No it shows that the reasons for hatred of the US are there even if the US kills off leaders that call for Jihad.
| Quote: |
At least this would be a logical reason. |
IF it was then I would probably join you.
| Quote: |
LOL..by invading Iraq you are forcing AQ and bathists to give up their war? I'm missing a logical stage here. How are you going to force them to give up the war? How many american soldiers will die for this to happen? |
Miltary bases in Iraq could scare mideast regimes into going after AQ. Also it got rid of Saddam who was a menace. American soliders ought never die on the other hand their is a war being waged against the US and the war started well before the US invaded Iraq.
| Quote: |
When did america invade Libya? How did you force them to give up their war? |
Sanctions + being freaked out when Saddam got invaded got Libya to quit.
The US is not trying to steal oil they are forcing the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and The Al Qaedists to quit.
| Quote: |
| That is such a childish argument. Seriously. |
Why you mean the US ought to accept a low level and sometimes serious war against it? Sorry that is too much to ask.
| Quote: |
How does this justify holding prisoners without tiral and charge or torturing them? How are these things mutually exclusive? |
I don't want to see AQ fighters back to fight again.
And I don't want to see US intel agents hands tied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
well Al Qaedas top guy would have been gone.
His ability to organize would be gone.
His ability as a tactician would have been gone.
Now I can't say for certainly but it is likely that him being out of the picture would have made a huge difference |
So Bin Laden solely planned the 9-11 attacks?
| Quote: |
| and I have a US govt official saying the same thing |
This is an argument from authority andis logically false.
| Quote: |
| I think it was the opinon of a Clinton offical |
Which Clinton official and why isn't the current admin saying the same thing, if that is what you are implying?
| Quote: |
| They are different from regular crimiinals in that there is war going gone |
Sorry you cannot have it going both ways. If you fghting a war then the people you are fighting and catch are prisoners of war. I assume the US govt knows this which is why they are trying to change the convention.
Sorry I wasn't clear about the next part.
| Quote: |
It has worked in the mideast. When was the last time you saw a regime overthrown.
One reason people become terrorists is cause of the strategic situation in the mideast. Mideast regimes teach hate and incite violence |
.
You weren't contradicting yourself but you were making my point for me. Basically you are saying that middle eastern regimes create terrorist and then kill them. This is what the US would be doing also.
| Quote: |
| Mideast regimes incite violence but they also kill off their dissidents |
You can't see a link?
| Quote: |
Al Qaeda strated attacking the tribal chieft and blowing up markets and girl schools. That seems like saving lives to me.
|
AQ started this before the US entered Iraq or after? How many american soldiers have been killed in Iraq?
| Quote: |
| Was the main reason. See Americans's secret war |
What is America's Secret War? A policy paper? Leaked documents? 9-11 was a main reason yes, but a flawed reason. There was no link between the people who did that and Saddamn.
| Quote: |
| whatever it takes . Our goals are good theirs aren't |
If my goal is to feed one african child, then cutting off the heads of 19 other african children to give it enough food is a good idea? Whatever it takes after all...
| Quote: |
| He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse |
bingo..they are spot on
This guy is saying that they invaded Iraq because it was near Saudi Arabia. He backs up what I said. I said there was no connection between 9-11 and the invasion. This is true if the only reason they invaded Iraq was because of geography. It also begs the question...why not invade Saudi Arabia?
| Quote: |
I can't prove it but it is very likely that the combination of the Patriot act plus Bin Laden out of the picture would have avoided 9-11.
|
Once again you are missing the point. The Patriot act could not have existed pre 9-11 for a good reason.
| Quote: |
| and I even have the opinion of a US govt official |
argument from authority.
| Quote: |
| What is your evidence that it would have made no difference? |
You are asking me to prove a negative. I don't think it would have made no difference. I'm sying it seems unlikely that it would have prevented attack. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim which is you.
| Quote: |
| American soliders ought never die on the other hand their is a war being waged against the US and the war started well before the US invaded Iraq |
How many american soldiers died before the entry into Iraq and after in this war?
| Quote: |
| Miltary bases in Iraq could scare mideast regimes into going after AQ |
Or attract AQ like bugs to a searchlight.
| Quote: |
| they are forcing the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and The Al Qaedists to quit |
By going outside the geneva convention. Lets get back to the point.
I don't care about your goals no matter how shiny and good(and futile) they are.
You havn't been able to justify torture. Prove torture works(it doesn't). You can';t define what the enemy is.(criminals or POWs). You are against ethical treatment of criminals/pows. You have yet to establish how treating prisoners unethically will help you win this 'war'(is it a war really, when you can't even define what you are fighting).
| Quote: |
| Why you mean the US ought to accept a low level and sometimes serious war against it? |
Who needs a low level war and sometimes serious war, when a high level and always pointless war will do.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
