Originally posted by: dyn2nvu
Originally posted by: Dashel
Hah oh man, Ron is even worse than I though. What a total pussy he is to be worried about what we do not on a basis if right or wrong, but on what Osama Bin Ladin will think of what we do. This is why the man is an obscure little nobody.
The reason he said that we should have talked or listen to Bin Ladin was that it could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. They hated the fact that the US government had sanctions against Iraq, had US troops in their "holy land", and US government giving aid to expand Israel.
UBL doesn't reprssent any official state/country, he's just a terrorists. You don't give terrorists respect or standing by inviting them to the table, or bestowing recognition.
In the M.E., both of those are very very big things. It often takes years of negotiating/wrangle for recognized heads of state to even agree to meet, much less work ot the details of how the meeting will be conducted (under what ground rules.) Presidents have been assisinated for recognizing other countries etc. Many complain taht we don't attempt to understand their culture, well this is a prime example right here. It would be a monumental blunder to open dialogue with UBL.
Where does it end? Do we speak with just him? Or the "top 10" terrorist?
What kind of message does that send? Now Muhamad "X" thinks all he's gotta do is blow up some big biuldings in the US to get international respect and fame? Dumb, dumb dumb.
He doesn't like our nations policy? Who the h3ll is he? Like I said, he's no Head of State. He doesn't like us in S.A.? Who he's to have an opinion? He's not even a SA citizen, they stripped it away. Oh, btw, the Saudis's invited us there. Why doesn't their opinion count? Afterall, it is THEIR country. What would they think if we negotiated with UBL about our prsence in their country? Aren't we really dissing them? Of course we are. That would be a great embrrassment to them.
He doesn't like our sanctions against Iraq. Those were UN sanctions. Saddam "earned" them after invading Kuwait, an Arab country btw. Oh, that's right, UBL isn't even a Iraqi citizen. Why are we suppose to care about his opinion?
He doesn't like US aid to Israel? It's our money, thank you, we'll spend it as we please. Now we gotta listen to terrorists about US expenditures :disgust: Oh, he's not Palestinian either.
Asking for an apology may be a bit much, but Rudy should really learn about foreign history. Instead he choose to remain ignorant and distort Ron's words.
"We were in fact bombing Iraq after the first Gulf War. That was part of the containment policy. As a matter of fact, part of the reason the liberals thought that Iraq didn't have WMD's is because of said containment policy. We were monitoring them night and day as well as enforcing no-fly zones in the South and over Kurdistan."
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/54560
Saddam wouldn't comply with ther terms of the withdrawl of the coalition forces after the first Gulf War. He shot at coalition aircraft trying to enforce the no-fly zone so Saddam couldn't gass the Kurds etc. Too bad if UBL doesn't like it. He's not Iraqi, he can mind his d@mn business.
"I make of the fact, sir, that unfortunately the politicians are very comfortable with preaching the idea that this is a very small group of people who are opposing us, and that they hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." Ex-CIA Senior Intelligence Analyst (who isn't antiwar, I would assume the CIA wouldn't rely on a college student's report like Pres. Bush as evidence)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/07/ldt.01.html
I guess we should just poll the citizens of the M.E. countries and use that to determine our foreign policy? How about they poll us?
"There were "foreign policy grievances" galore in September 2001. The two al-Qaeda communiques in the immediate aftermath of the attacks (Oct. 7, 2001, Oct. 9, 2001) both invoked the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia, the Iraq sanctions and Washington's support of Israel. Just because the US has made the situation much worse in the intervening years doesn't mean that there were no "foreign policy grievances" behind 9-11! And however criminal al-Qaeda's tactics and however totalitarian its ideology, these grievances are legitimate?a reality we ignore to our own peril."
"these grievances are legitimate?a reality we ignore to our own peril." IMO, Bull. But nice job at lending credibility to terrosits and their methods & objectives.
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3883
