|
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 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The Death Penalty should be applied only to perpetrators of acts of mass destruction designed to induce terror
... or those convicted of high treason. |
Neo-Con Nuremberg. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff Rense and Iamthewitness followers like Hitler and root for Al Qaeda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="stillnotking"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| After 9-11 their was a belief that suicide bombing could even up the score between the west and the mideast. That was not acceptable. |
| Quote: |
No idea what you're talking about here. The sympathies of most people in the Middle East, and specifically most Iraqis, were with America after 9/11. Certainly the Iraqis weren't strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up embassies. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what lesson, exactly, an invasion of Iraq was supposed to teach (besides "Hey, look at us, we're f***ing idiots who don't know who our enemies are!")? |
that is not true.
This paragraph explains it better than me.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
| 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. |
| Quote: |
Of course I suppose it's part of the conservative tradition to demonize people in blocs, the way the French were demonized when they opposed us on Iraq. How quickly conservative America forgot the "We Are All Americans" headlines and tremendous outpouring of support by the French people in the wake of 9/11. I recall that most Fox News viewers, when polled, did not understand even such an elementary distinction as Sunni/Shia, and the rumor is that even George W. had to have it explained to him. Given such ignorance, the "kill the ragheads" meme was perhaps inevitable. |
No the truth is that Bathsts , Khomeni followers and Al Qadists are all fascistic bigots .
It is not a religious problem it is an ideological problem.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Also Saddam could not be contained in the over the long run (what are the consequences of Saddam going free, futhermore Saddam never gave up his war. |
| Quote: |
What do you think Saddam was going to do, exactly? Re-invade Kuwait? What makes you think the outcome would have been any different? |
He might, and every time the US would have to send 100,000 soldiers to the mideast .
| Quote: |
THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, October 8, 1994 TAG: 9410080302
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: FROM WIRE REPORTS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long : 102 lines
IRAQI TROOPS MASS AT BORDER CLINTON ORDERS NORFOLK CARRIER TO THE RED SEA THREAT TO KUWAIT LIKELY TIED TO SANCTIONS ISSUE
President Clinton ordered the Norfolk-based carrier George Washington to the Middle East on Friday and put about 15,000 soldiers on alert after 40,000 to 50,000 Iraqi troops were spotted massing on the border with Kuwait.
U.S. officials said the troop deployments, the most threatening moves Iraq has taken since the Persian Gulf war, were probably a bluff intended to encourage the United Nations Security Council to lift economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
``It would be a grave mistake of Saddam Hussein to believe that the United States would weaken its resolve on the same issues that involved us in the conflict just a few years ago,'' Clinton said at a news conference in the East Room of the White House.
The president would not disclose the steps he had taken ``as a precaution to deal with this issue'' but described them as ``appropriate and necessary.''
A Pentagon official said a full Iraqi division of about 10,000 troops from Saddam's elite Republican Guard have been moved recently into southern Iraq to join several other divisions, bringing Iraqi forces in the area to the range of 40,000 to 50,000. |
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941008/10080302.htm
| Quote: |
Besides, the Iraq war's aftermath gives the lie to your claims. Saddam was not plotting an invasion of anyone. He certainly was no threat to the United States, nor would he have been for the foreseeable future. |
If he were let free? You think he would not rearm.
Here is the book an Saddam Hussein
| Quote: |
He has been anything but circumspect about his aspirations: He has stated that he wants to turn Iraq into a ''superpower'' that will dominate the Middle East, to liberate Jerusalem and to drive the United States out of the region. He has said he believes the only way he can achieve his goals is through the use of force. Indeed, his half-brother and former chief of intelligence, Barzan al-Tikriti, was reported to say that Iraq needs nuclear weapons because it wants ''a strong hand in order to redraw the map of the Middle East.''
t is probably true that fear of retaliation kept Iraq from using chemical weapons against coalition forces during the gulf war. However, this should give us little comfort that he will be similarly deterred in the future. Before the 1991 war, Secretary of State James Baker warned his Iraqi counterpart, Tariq Aziz, that Iraq faced ''terrible consequences'' if it used weapons of mass destruction, mounted terrorist attacks or destroyed Kuwaiti oil fields.
Yet despite this warning, Saddam Hussein tried to send terrorist teams to America and did blow up the Kuwaiti oil fields -- he simply gambled on which two of the three things Mr. Baker mentioned were unlikely to result in America ending the regime. (Many officials from that Bush administration have suggested, in fact, that Saddam Hussein didn't even make the right calculation.)
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly -- even before they had consolidated control over the country -- to set up defenses along Kuwait's borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait.
Even that crushing defeat, however, didn't dim his adventurism. Just two years later he attempted to assassinate the emir of Kuwait and former President Bush. This was not a rational act but a meaningless bid for revenge. And he is lucky that the attempts failed. If they had succeeded, there is no question that the United States would have obliterated his regime.
Then, in October 2000, he dispatched five divisions to western Iraq. All of the evidence available to the American government indicated that, with the acquiescence of Damascus, he intended to move them through through Syria and into the Golan Heights. In response, Washington began preparing a military strike far greater than Desert Fox of 1999 (which itself prompted revolts throughout Iraq for six months), and the Israeli military planned its own crushing response. Only American and Saudi diplomatic intervention with Syria, combined with the Iraqi military's logistical problems, quashed the adventure. |
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5DF123DF932A15751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
He said he believed the establishment of a great Islamic caliphate was very near, taking the place of Indonesia whose democracy was adapted from the West and therefore 'evil'.
|
Why did you highlight this quote? It's quite obviously bo-locks. I mean, why would you trust/listen to the word of a bomber like that? He's, quite obviously dellusional and from the sounds of it, VERY much in the minority in Indonesia.
I do not understand what you choose to stress out over. |
It is why Al Qaeda fights.
Bush was wrong when he said they fight because they hate our freedoms, but the anti war movement also has no idea why Al Qaeda fights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Bush was wrong when he said they fight because they hate our freedoms, but the anti war movement also has no idea why Al Qaeda fights. |
Really? I've read a great deal about the Mideast, Islam, Al Qaeda, etc., and I think I have an excellent idea why they fight. They fight because they are deeply concerned over the importation of Western ideals (which is to say tolerance, democracy, religious pluralism, secular law) -- they erroneously associate these things with decadence, weakness, and the abandonment of God. In a sense, Bush is actually correct that "they hate our freedoms". A better way to put it is that they are afraid our freedoms will lure Moslems into becoming tolerant, democratic, pluralistic, etc.
They're right to be afraid, but it will take a while, and if we keep invading random countries like Iraq, it will only reinforce the "us versus them" meme which is exactly the one bin Laden is trying to peddle.
Conservative supporters of the Iraq war might do well to ask themselves who, in America, is really furthering the cause of Al Qaeda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stillnotking
You make good points . I think it is very clear that you know your stuff very well
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
| Quote: |
al-Qa'ida (The Base)
Qa�idat al-Jihad
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
Islamic Salvation Foundation
Usama bin Laden Network
Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.
Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.
Description
Established by Usama Bin Ladin in the late 1980s to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance. Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems �non-Islamic� and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries�particularly Saudi Arabia. Issued statement under banner of �the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders� in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens�civilian or military�and their allies everywhere. Merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) in June 2001.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html
Excerpt:
| Quote: |
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were
recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.
Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that
once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
However, CNN journalist Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, calls the idea "that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."[53] Bergen and others maintain the U.S. aid was given out by the Pakistan government, that it went to Afghan not foreign mujahideen, and that there was no contact between the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) and the CIA or other American officials, let alone, arming, training, coaching or indoctrination.
Origins in Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah yes, well as we all "know", if it's posted on WIKIPEDIA it must be true.
Folk myth 
btw - isn't Bergen a CIA asset? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Ah yes, well as we all "know", if it's posted on WIKIPEDIA it must be true.
Folk myth
btw - isn't Bergen a CIA asset? |
Dude, you always use Wiki to back up your erroneous and paranoid claims.
| Quote: |
| The best source of information on the origins of al Qaeda comes from the founding documents of the organization itself. In March 2002, Bosnian authorities seized documents in the Sarajevo offices of Benevolence International Foundation, a Muslim charity long supportive of jihads around the world. The Bosnians discovered a substantial number of electronic files and documents stored on a computer. One of the computer files was entitled "Tareekh Osama" ("Osama's History"), a collection of bin Laden's correspondence, minutes of meetings, and other documents, which details his activities during the Afghanistan jihad and the formation of al Qaeda. Those documents were entered into evidence in the Chicago trial of Enaam Arnaout, an employee of Benevolence International who was convicted of racketeering in 2003. The prosecutor in the case was Patrick Fitzgerald who prosecuted several important terrorism cases in New York in the 1990s and is presently the well-regarded special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame leak case. Fitzgerald has certified the authenticity of the documents retrieved in Bosnia. |
From http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2006/1/18/13810/7770. These are evidence presented in open court and verified by a judge and jury. This proves that Al Qaeda was formed in late 1988 with the goal of overthrowing "apostate" governments from Persia to Andalusia and beyond.
Even Al Qaeda's war against America started in these early days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The Death Penalty should be applied only to perpetrators of acts of mass destruction designed to induce terror or those convicted of high treason.
As a corrollary, all those who the state would seek to put to death should get a fair day in court. |
I don't think that the state, any state, has the ethical right to kill anybody after a crime is committed. It is best that these types are dealt with in the formal legal system. A moral example needs to be set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Ah yes, well as we all "know", if it's posted on WIKIPEDIA it must be true.
Folk myth
btw - isn't Bergen a CIA asset? |
Igothisguitar = no evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Ah yes, well as we all "know", if it's posted on WIKIPEDIA it must be true.
Folk myth
btw - isn't Bergen a CIA asset? |
Igothisguitar = no evidence. |
Ok, thanks.
Apparently then he is a CIA asset.
MOCKINGBIRD.
Speaking of no-regret ...
BRZEZINSKI BOASTS OF STARTING THE AFGHAN WAR
Brzezinski was also the great promoter of Islamic fundamentalism, which he celebrated as the greatest bulwark against Soviet Russian communism. Using the Islamic faundamentalists, Brzezinski hoped to make the entire region between the southern border of the USSR and the Indian Ocean into an "arc of crisis," from which fundamentalist subversion would radiate into Soviet territory, first and foremost into the five Soviet republics of central Asia, Azerbaijan, etc. It was in the service of this Islamic fundamentalist card that Brzezinski first helped overthrow the Shah of Iran, and then insisted that the replacement could be no one else than Ayatollah Khomeini.
To magnify the impact of Khomeini, Brzezinski sent subversion teams into Afghanistan during the summer of 1979 to undermine the pro-Soviet forces there and induce Moscow to intervene. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan at Christmas 1979, Moscow claimed that they were responding to earlier aggressive moves into that country by the US.
In an interview about ten years ago, Brzezinski conceded that this had been true: Zbig had indeed sent subversion and terror teams into Aghanistan at least six months before the Soviet invasion., as is clear from this excerpt from that interview:
Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense!
(Nouvel Obsservateur, January 15-21, 1998) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Article is of no use.
The article doesn't show that Peter Bergan is a CIA asset. For the record Peter Bergen was anti Iraq war and he does not support President Bush.
( If Ifgotthisguitar doesn't like it then it is a conspiracy )
The article doesn't show that the US supported Bin Laden
The article doesn't show that the US supported Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda was founded in either 1988 or 1996 depending on what is considered Al Qaeda as it is now.
Igothisguitar = no evidence. |
|
| 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
