No link between Iraq and Al Quaeda? Oops?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Threat to the region - War with Iran

A war where you supported Iraq. Ooops!

They are building WMD and are seeking nukes.

So when can we expect US attack on Pakistan and India? How about Israel, they have nukes too? Oh, Israel can have nukes, they are friends of USA, Iraq can't have nukes because US doesn't like Iraq. Double-standards in action.

And about using the gassing of Iranians anf Kurds as an example of Saddams wickedness.... Why didn't you do a thing back when he did committed those atrocities? You knew what was going on, yet you did nothing. Now, about 15 years later you start to whine about those things because it's convenient for you to do so.

Good grief....have you not gotten the point yet that the reason we are going after Iraq is because they are a rogue nation that supports terrorists? Their leader is unstable and has in the past shown his willingness to use those WMD against his own people. Why do you think for a second that he would hesitate to use them against one of his neighbors or give them to a terrorist organization? The difference between Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel, etc, etc, etc.... is that they are not rogue nations. Yes there are terrorists cells in in Pakistan but the government does not support them. I do think we need to go after those cells with our military and go after cells anywhere in the world they are hiding. This coming attack against Iraq is not because they have WMD. It's because they posses WMD and have used them in the past and will use them again. Israel has had nuclear capability for many, many years and they have never used them against anyone so your trying to compare them to Iraq is silly. Israel uses their nuclear capability as a deterrent much like we and Russia did during the cold war. Would Israel use them? I believe so but only if provoked to do so or as a last resort. Why are we "whining" now about Saddam's use of gas against his own people? As I said in an earlier post it's because back then the American public was not being affected personally by this and would not have supported going after him. Like I said earlier, in order for the American populace as a whole to get behind military action there needs to be what they see as an attack that affects them personally or something along the lines of an invasion by one country against another without merit. Most of the public here is blind to what goes on in the rest of the world and will not get involved unless something happens to wake them up. That something was 9/11 and the American public is now awake and will support military action to weed out terrorists wherever they are?...

gawd, please get this, the terrorists that Saddam support are the Palestinian ones, and in the eyes of most the middle east they are "freedom fighters", did you even read my reply to you earlier?

Freedom fighters my ass.....maybe the Arabs view them as that but the rest of the world, except maybe Iceland, does not. People fighting for freedom don't go around blowing up buses, shopping malls, etc.. unless they are Arab or maybe Irish(I can say that since I'm Irish) Let me tell you this one more time.....a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I don't care if they are Arab, Irish, Icelandic, French, American, etc... they are terrorists and must be eliminated.

 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Threat to the region - War with Iran

A war where you supported Iraq. Ooops!

They are building WMD and are seeking nukes.

So when can we expect US attack on Pakistan and India? How about Israel, they have nukes too? Oh, Israel can have nukes, they are friends of USA, Iraq can't have nukes because US doesn't like Iraq. Double-standards in action.

And about using the gassing of Iranians anf Kurds as an example of Saddams wickedness.... Why didn't you do a thing back when he did committed those atrocities? You knew what was going on, yet you did nothing. Now, about 15 years later you start to whine about those things because it's convenient for you to do so.

Good grief....have you not gotten the point yet that the reason we are going after Iraq is because they are a rogue nation that supports terrorists? Their leader is unstable and has in the past shown his willingness to use those WMD against his own people. Why do you think for a second that he would hesitate to use them against one of his neighbors or give them to a terrorist organization? The difference between Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel, etc, etc, etc.... is that they are not rogue nations. Yes there are terrorists cells in in Pakistan but the government does not support them. I do think we need to go after those cells with our military and go after cells anywhere in the world they are hiding. This coming attack against Iraq is not because they have WMD. It's because they posses WMD and have used them in the past and will use them again. Israel has had nuclear capability for many, many years and they have never used them against anyone so your trying to compare them to Iraq is silly. Israel uses their nuclear capability as a deterrent much like we and Russia did during the cold war. Would Israel use them? I believe so but only if provoked to do so or as a last resort. Why are we "whining" now about Saddam's use of gas against his own people? As I said in an earlier post it's because back then the American public was not being affected personally by this and would not have supported going after him. Like I said earlier, in order for the American populace as a whole to get behind military action there needs to be what they see as an attack that affects them personally or something along the lines of an invasion by one country against another without merit. Most of the public here is blind to what goes on in the rest of the world and will not get involved unless something happens to wake them up. That something was 9/11 and the American public is now awake and will support military action to weed out terrorists wherever they are?...

gawd, please get this, the terrorists that Saddam support are the Palestinian ones, and in the eyes of most the middle east they are "freedom fighters", did you even read my reply to you earlier?

Freedom fighters my ass.....maybe the Arabs view them as that but the rest of the world, except maybe Iceland, does not. People fighting for freedom don't go around blowing up buses, shopping malls, etc.. unless they are Arab or maybe Irish(I can say that since I'm Irish) Let me tell you this one more time.....a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I don't care if they are Arab, Irish, Icelandic, French, American, etc... they are terrorists and must be eliminated.
then whats your definition of freedom fighters?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,768
6,770
126
Czar, I hope you're not asking shiner to see things from a different perspective. I mean, what's the point of that once you know everything. We're going to weed out terrorists wherever they are. That's as much info as the reptilian part of the brain requires to start marching up and down.

The following is excerpted from an article analysing the holocaust:

----------------
The human brain evolved over an extensive period from its primitive mammalian origin. For the sake of simplicity, it may be divided into two major components: the First Brain and the New Brain:

The First Brain consists of the brainstem and the limbic system. It deals with emotions and basic survival functions. Because of its relative primitiveness, some call it the reptilian brain.
The New Brain or cerebrum, driven by logic and intelligence, is responsible for the rise of human civilization.
The New Brain is credited for producing our science, technology, industry, art, music, literature, economy -- in brief, all the institutions that compose our civilization. But much of our actions are dictated by First Brain control of our emotions, passions and instincts that condition our efforts of survival. These basic drives also influence our communications. Properly understood, communications techniques can be employed to persuade individuals and the public to accept our messages. The assumption is, of course, that the persuasion will be used for the advantage of the recipient.

Unfortunately, emotional appeals can make people vulnerable to unscrupulous manipulations, especially by authoritarian powerseekers. Cultures and institutions frequently make people susceptible to fervent enticements. For example, Hitler understood this human characteristic, when he made his emotional, non-rational appeals to his public. He regarded the masses as essentially "feminine," where "feelings and emotions are far more important than logical, reasoned thought." He projected the First Brain manipulation through the relatively new communications media: radio and film. The communications technologies of the video age make First Brain manipulations even more effective, especially where centralized authorities are able to control both the medium and the message. Although there has to be a predisposition to accept negative messages, a significant impact can be made on those already susceptible to ethnic, religious, class or other hatreds.

The evolution of Homo sapiens included the gradual migration of our ancestors from Central Africa to the four corners of the globe. This created a wide diversity of differences in physical appearance, culture, religion, ethnicity, language and so on. While this diversity contributed to the rich cultural heritage of humanity, it also created the means for dividing and damaging us. Unscrupulous powerseekers -- politicians, dictators and even religious leaders -- learned to manipulate their subjects through First Brain appeals to racism, tribalism, ethnicity and religious and class differences. In place of amity and cooperation among our diverse groups we developed a tribalistic mindset, with much enmity and mistrust. This is intensified by the almost incredible development and distribution of the instruments of war and violence.

Other human characteristics contribute to the harmful trends. These include a propensity to aggressiveness. Our normal bent to develop and master our environment often becomes obstructed in our societies, and then it turns into destructive anger, rage and hate. Aggression easily moves to destructive violence and cruelty toward other humans.

Obedience to authority is another harmful human trait. This facilitates the employment of violence and cruelty by normal people against other humans. Authorities in human societies can organize and order the employment of violence and cruelty against real or perceived enemies. The sense of individual responsibility disappears when obedience takes over.

Lack of biological inhibitions against killing is becoming a counter-survival human trait. Obedience to authority easily overrides the cultural prohibitions about killing other humans. Especially in wartime it becomes a duty to slaughter those whom the government has labeled enemies, because of racial, national, ethnic, class, religious or other differences. Mass murder can also be facilitated by a bureaucratization process, whereby individuals in a chain of events need to feel little or no responsibility for their part of the slaughter. Such a process was cunningly designed and implemented during the Holocaust by Nazi Germany.

Psychological distancing creates a capacity to treat other human beings as inferior, alien or, in extreme cases, less than human. Stratification by class or caste is common in many societies. Extreme cruelty may result when a section of community is regarded as both dangerous and despicable.
----------------------------------------


Do you see yourself? I do. Without deep awareness that you are only a chimpanzee, you will act no better than a monkey.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Threat to the region - War with Iran

A war where you supported Iraq. Ooops!

They are building WMD and are seeking nukes.

So when can we expect US attack on Pakistan and India? How about Israel, they have nukes too? Oh, Israel can have nukes, they are friends of USA, Iraq can't have nukes because US doesn't like Iraq. Double-standards in action.

And about using the gassing of Iranians anf Kurds as an example of Saddams wickedness.... Why didn't you do a thing back when he did committed those atrocities? You knew what was going on, yet you did nothing. Now, about 15 years later you start to whine about those things because it's convenient for you to do so.

Good grief....have you not gotten the point yet that the reason we are going after Iraq is because they are a rogue nation that supports terrorists? Their leader is unstable and has in the past shown his willingness to use those WMD against his own people. Why do you think for a second that he would hesitate to use them against one of his neighbors or give them to a terrorist organization? The difference between Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel, etc, etc, etc.... is that they are not rogue nations. Yes there are terrorists cells in in Pakistan but the government does not support them. I do think we need to go after those cells with our military and go after cells anywhere in the world they are hiding. This coming attack against Iraq is not because they have WMD. It's because they posses WMD and have used them in the past and will use them again. Israel has had nuclear capability for many, many years and they have never used them against anyone so your trying to compare them to Iraq is silly. Israel uses their nuclear capability as a deterrent much like we and Russia did during the cold war. Would Israel use them? I believe so but only if provoked to do so or as a last resort. Why are we "whining" now about Saddam's use of gas against his own people? As I said in an earlier post it's because back then the American public was not being affected personally by this and would not have supported going after him. Like I said earlier, in order for the American populace as a whole to get behind military action there needs to be what they see as an attack that affects them personally or something along the lines of an invasion by one country against another without merit. Most of the public here is blind to what goes on in the rest of the world and will not get involved unless something happens to wake them up. That something was 9/11 and the American public is now awake and will support military action to weed out terrorists wherever they are?...

gawd, please get this, the terrorists that Saddam support are the Palestinian ones, and in the eyes of most the middle east they are "freedom fighters", did you even read my reply to you earlier?

Freedom fighters my ass.....maybe the Arabs view them as that but the rest of the world, except maybe Iceland, does not. People fighting for freedom don't go around blowing up buses, shopping malls, etc.. unless they are Arab or maybe Irish(I can say that since I'm Irish) Let me tell you this one more time.....a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I don't care if they are Arab, Irish, Icelandic, French, American, etc... they are terrorists and must be eliminated.
then whats your definition of freedom fighters?

Well it certainly isn't people who kill women and children in order to instill terror into the populace.

Let me give you some real life examples of freedom fighters.

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Thomas Paine
3. George Washington
4. Benjamin Franklin
Oh heck just look at the U.S. Declaration of Independence and get the names off there.
5. Ghandi
6. Martin Luther King jr.
7. Susan B. Anthony
8. That student who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square

Those are examples of freedom fighters. I don't think you will find that any of them were in the business of killing civilians
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: shinerburke Threat to the region - War with Iran
A war where you supported Iraq. Ooops!
They are building WMD and are seeking nukes.
So when can we expect US attack on Pakistan and India? How about Israel, they have nukes too? Oh, Israel can have nukes, they are friends of USA, Iraq can't have nukes because US doesn't like Iraq. Double-standards in action. And about using the gassing of Iranians anf Kurds as an example of Saddams wickedness.... Why didn't you do a thing back when he did committed those atrocities? You knew what was going on, yet you did nothing. Now, about 15 years later you start to whine about those things because it's convenient for you to do so.
Good grief....have you not gotten the point yet that the reason we are going after Iraq is because they are a rogue nation that supports terrorists? Their leader is unstable and has in the past shown his willingness to use those WMD against his own people. Why do you think for a second that he would hesitate to use them against one of his neighbors or give them to a terrorist organization? The difference between Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel, etc, etc, etc.... is that they are not rogue nations. Yes there are terrorists cells in in Pakistan but the government does not support them. I do think we need to go after those cells with our military and go after cells anywhere in the world they are hiding. This coming attack against Iraq is not because they have WMD. It's because they posses WMD and have used them in the past and will use them again. Israel has had nuclear capability for many, many years and they have never used them against anyone so your trying to compare them to Iraq is silly. Israel uses their nuclear capability as a deterrent much like we and Russia did during the cold war. Would Israel use them? I believe so but only if provoked to do so or as a last resort. Why are we "whining" now about Saddam's use of gas against his own people? As I said in an earlier post it's because back then the American public was not being affected personally by this and would not have supported going after him. Like I said earlier, in order for the American populace as a whole to get behind military action there needs to be what they see as an attack that affects them personally or something along the lines of an invasion by one country against another without merit. Most of the public here is blind to what goes on in the rest of the world and will not get involved unless something happens to wake them up. That something was 9/11 and the American public is now awake and will support military action to weed out terrorists wherever they are?...
gawd, please get this, the terrorists that Saddam support are the Palestinian ones, and in the eyes of most the middle east they are "freedom fighters", did you even read my reply to you earlier?
Freedom fighters my ass.....maybe the Arabs view them as that but the rest of the world, except maybe Iceland, does not. People fighting for freedom don't go around blowing up buses, shopping malls, etc.. unless they are Arab or maybe Irish(I can say that since I'm Irish) Let me tell you this one more time.....a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. I don't care if they are Arab, Irish, Icelandic, French, American, etc... they are terrorists and must be eliminated.
then whats your definition of freedom fighters?
Well it certainly isn't people who kill women and children in order to instill terror into the populace. Let me give you some real life examples of freedom fighters. 1. Thomas Jefferson 2. Thomas Paine 3. George Washington 4. Benjamin Franklin Oh heck just look at the U.S. Declaration of Independence and get the names off there. 5. Ghandi 6. Martin Luther King jr. 7. Susan B. Anthony 8. That student who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square Those are examples of freedom fighters. I don't think you will find that any of them were in the business of killing civilians

Curious about example 8.

As I said elsewhere, China is coming here for some good Southern hospitality. The same China who put that tank in Tiananmen Square. SB, you made a list of countries to attack. When do we attack China?
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: ScottyB
Originally posted by: ScottyB
I don't see why all the other countries shouldn't "preemptively" strike us. I mean we have "weapons of mass destruction"(God I hate that phrase) and we are not willing to give them up. We have even used them in the past top slaughter citizens nearly 10 times more than were killed on September, 11 (not including the figures of all the citizens that some of our other citizens killed). I don't see what the problem is.



Well Scott, you have to remeber the facts. If another contry preemptively" strike us, they are evil bloodthirsty terroists, but when we do it, it is just self defence.


ScottB, are you going schizo on us or did you just forget to change screen names when you replied to your self?


I don't know look here


That did not answer the question. Just out of idle curiosity what other screen name were you planning on using when you replied to your own post. Or are you too much of a coward to admit your other identity?



What are you talking about? I only have one screen name.
 

bizmark

Banned
Feb 4, 2002
2,311
0
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: bizmark
I didn't think that it might have been a Polgara-style f*-up until you brought it up.

What kind of f-up was that? Links?

I think the thread where this occurred was deleted. Short version:

Polgara (supposedly a 30-ish blonde woman named Sarah.... had pics of "herself" in her sig)
blah blah blah

Sarah <= (blah blah blah)
JohnnyReb
blah blah blah

Sarah <= looks good in a miniskirt

so this JohnnyReb guy (supposedly a Jesus-freak old guy.... claimed to be "coming up on 70") signed one of his posts as "Sarah" and then everybody knew that he and Polgara were the same person. Pretty disturbing... I wonder if either of those personalities was real, and where the hell some mentally ill old guy got multiple pics of a younger blonde woman....
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: bizmark
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: bizmark
I didn't think that it might have been a Polgara-style f*-up until you brought it up.

What kind of f-up was that? Links?

I think the thread where this occurred was deleted. Short version:

Polgara (supposedly a 30-ish blonde woman named Sarah.... had pics of "herself" in her sig)
blah blah blah

Sarah <= (blah blah blah)
JohnnyReb
blah blah blah

Sarah <= looks good in a miniskirt

so this JohnnyReb guy (supposedly a Jesus-freak old guy.... claimed to be "coming up on 70") signed one of his posts as "Sarah" and then everybody knew that he and Polgara were the same person. Pretty disturbing... I wonder if either of those personalities was real, and where the hell some mentally ill old guy got multiple pics of a younger blonde woman....

Probably his granddaughter......well I could be his daughter...or maybe she's both.....
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,768
6,770
126
If you're getting all worked up about this etech quote:

"ScottB, are you going schizo on us or did you just forget to change screen names when you replied to your self?",

etech was just asking a question. You have to be careful not to assume that a question is an implication. Just because it looks like it contextually doesn't guarantee that it is. Similarly, the evidence that might drive one to ask such a question can make sense. We have learned from the JohnnyReb affair that people may do such things. Asking the question that etech did raises awareness that something could be odd. If nothing is, no need to take it personally. You do a reality check, state your facts and move on.


 

clarkmo

Platinum Member
Oct 27, 2000
2,615
2
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: clarkmo
Iraq linked to Al Qaeda

1) Iraq invades Kuwait
2)Saudi Arabia is threatened by Iraq.
3)U.S. establishes miltary base in Saudia Arabia, obviously not to Saddam's pleasure.
4) Also not to Bin Laden's pleasure as he considers this base as an occupation of holy land, despite the Saudi govt's and spiritual leader's approval.
5)Osalami kicked out of Saudi Arabia and starts his terrorist fan club in afghanistan.

It's obvious that Osalami and Soddom are buddies in spirit if not in act. Saddam doesn't invade Kuwait, oSalami's got nothing to complain about.
Saddam's flaunting of UN weapons inspectors and the subsequent non UN reaction could only encourage like minded souls.
You can be sure that paying the families of suicide bombers is not the only contribution Saddam has made to terrorism.
So, it's not about the link from Saddam to Osalami. It's about the UN weapons inspectors.
Jeepers. There's also no evidence of his increasing the fat content in 1/4 pounders, but what's that got to do with it?
OMG THEY ARE ON THE SAME PLANET!!!!!! THEY MUST BE LINKED!!!!
rolleye.gif
The first part is tongue in cheek, but it is true cause and effect.
But , again, it isn't about the link, it's about the weapons inspections and his snubbing of them.

 

bizmark

Banned
Feb 4, 2002
2,311
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Probably his granddaughter......well I could be his daughter...or maybe she's both.....

Yeah, that's what I assumed at first too. But it seems that they were both banned, so there must have been something fishy going on. Plus, neither one of them ever denied it to my knowledge. Also, they never let on that they knew each other... see their exchange in this thread:

Polgara: "Where are the real men? [Blah blah blah.] "

JohnnyReb: "Dear Girl, You don't find prime beef in the pigpen. Go to church! The only Real man is one who wants to be like Christ. John "

Polgara: "I want to thank you all for excellent advice. I was feeling very melancholy last night, and it was a big help. Even the harsh replies, or maybe especially the harsh replies. I think I'll give JohnnyReb's advice a try. Sarah <== might become a churchie "

Seriously, what kind of nutjob father-daughter team would say that sort of thing on-line to each other when they're both in the same house and sharing the same computer?
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: bizmark
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Probably his granddaughter......well I could be his daughter...or maybe she's both.....

Yeah, that's what I assumed at first too. But it seems that they were both banned, so there must have been something fishy going on. Plus, neither one of them ever denied it to my knowledge. Also, they never let on that they knew each other... see their exchange in this thread:

Polgara: "Where are the real men? [Blah blah blah.] "

JohnnyReb: "Dear Girl, You don't find prime beef in the pigpen. Go to church! The only Real man is one who wants to be like Christ. John "

Polgara: "I want to thank you all for excellent advice. I was feeling very melancholy last night, and it was a big help. Even the harsh replies, or maybe especially the harsh replies. I think I'll give JohnnyReb's advice a try. Sarah <== might become a churchie "

Seriously, what kind of nutjob father-daughter team would say that sort of thing on-line to each other when they're both in the same house and sharing the same computer?

Who was the guy that got banned about a year or so ago for having multiple accounts or something like that? I'm pretty sure it was one of the old timers but I can't remember his name.......

 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Good grief....have you not gotten the point yet that the reason we are going after Iraq is because they are a rogue nation that supports terrorists? Their leader is unstable and has in the past shown his willingness to use those WMD against his own people.

Yes, Iraq used WMD's on their own people. Why didn't USA act back then? You knew what was going on and you did nothing. Why didn't you do anything? Why do you whine about it now? and wasn't it just recently discovered that US tested WMD's on their own citizens in the past? Again, double-standards. Or are you planning to attack yourself because you too used WMD's on your own citizens?

You use Iraqs war with iran as evidence of their aggressive behaviour. A war where you openly supported Iraq. How can you use that war as an example, when it had "official US seal of approval" written all over it? Can we use that war as an example of US supporting brutal dictators who use WMD's on their own people and on their enemies? Iraq used gas against Iran, yet that didn't stop your support of Iraq. Why is use of WMD's a bad thing now, since US didn't seem to have any problems with when they actually used them? Now, over 10 years later you use it as evidence of Saddams wickedness, even though you give Saddam your silent approval when he decided to use WMD's. That makes you too evil and wicked.

This coming attack against Iraq is not because they have WMD. It's because they posses WMD and have used them in the past and will use them again.

They used them over 10 years ago, and you did nothing, quite the contrary. You continued to supprt them in their war against Iran.

Why are we "whining" now about Saddam's use of gas against his own people? As I said in an earlier post it's because back then the American public was not being affected personally by this and would not have supported going after him.

Who said anything about "going after him"? You could have condemned them and stopped supporting them. Yet you did not. You gave him your silent approval.

That something was 9/11 and the American public is now awake and will support military action to weed out terrorists wherever they are?...

And right now it seems that there is no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. And on related news, US has already held discussions about exploiting Iraq's oil-reserves after the war. Hmmmmm....
 

Balthazar

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2000
1,834
0
0
Bob: Say Jim, what do you have planned for today?
Jim: Not much Bob, going to kick a dead horse in the groin pretty much all day, thats about the extent of it.
Bob: Right'o I think I will join you.


I'm getting so sick of this topic, really, does it ever resolve anything? Is anyone ever swayed? No, it just sucks up bandwidth making load times oh so much worse for us poor schmucks who aren't subscribers (and if anyone would like to donate the money I would gladly sub).
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,768
6,770
126
Balthazar, you should start your own thread with that complaint. I'm sure millions want to join voices with you on the profound and weighty topic of how you've been inconvenienced. The international repercussions are enormous and may even make the papers. I bet you're still mad at your Mommy, too, because she makes you wipe your own butt.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: clarkmo
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: clarkmo
Iraq linked to Al Qaeda

1) Iraq invades Kuwait
2)Saudi Arabia is threatened by Iraq.
3)U.S. establishes miltary base in Saudia Arabia, obviously not to Saddam's pleasure.
4) Also not to Bin Laden's pleasure as he considers this base as an occupation of holy land, despite the Saudi govt's and spiritual leader's approval.
5)Osalami kicked out of Saudi Arabia and starts his terrorist fan club in afghanistan.

It's obvious that Osalami and Soddom are buddies in spirit if not in act. Saddam doesn't invade Kuwait, oSalami's got nothing to complain about.
Saddam's flaunting of UN weapons inspectors and the subsequent non UN reaction could only encourage like minded souls.
You can be sure that paying the families of suicide bombers is not the only contribution Saddam has made to terrorism.
So, it's not about the link from Saddam to Osalami. It's about the UN weapons inspectors.
Jeepers. There's also no evidence of his increasing the fat content in 1/4 pounders, but what's that got to do with it?
OMG THEY ARE ON THE SAME PLANET!!!!!! THEY MUST BE LINKED!!!!
rolleye.gif
The first part is tongue in cheek, but it is true cause and effect.
But , again, it isn't about the link, it's about the weapons inspections and his snubbing of them.
yeah sorry :eek:
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Good grief....have you not gotten the point yet that the reason we are going after Iraq is because they are a rogue nation that supports terrorists? Their leader is unstable and has in the past shown his willingness to use those WMD against his own people.

Yes, Iraq used WMD's on their own people. Why didn't USA act back then? You knew what was going on and you did nothing. Why didn't you do anything? Why do you whine about it now? and wasn't it just recently discovered that US tested WMD's on their own citizens in the past? Again, double-standards. Or are you planning to attack yourself because you too used WMD's on your own citizens?

You use Iraqs war with iran as evidence of their aggressive behaviour. A war where you openly supported Iraq. How can you use that war as an example, when it had "official US seal of approval" written all over it? Can we use that war as an example of US supporting brutal dictators who use WMD's on their own people and on their enemies? Iraq used gas against Iran, yet that didn't stop your support of Iraq. Why is use of WMD's a bad thing now, since US didn't seem to have any problems with when they actually used them? Now, over 10 years later you use it as evidence of Saddams wickedness, even though you give Saddam your silent approval when he decided to use WMD's. That makes you too evil and wicked.

This coming attack against Iraq is not because they have WMD. It's because they posses WMD and have used them in the past and will use them again.

They used them over 10 years ago, and you did nothing, quite the contrary. You continued to supprt them in their war against Iran.

Why are we "whining" now about Saddam's use of gas against his own people? As I said in an earlier post it's because back then the American public was not being affected personally by this and would not have supported going after him.

Who said anything about "going after him"? You could have condemned them and stopped supporting them. Yet you did not. You gave him your silent approval.

That something was 9/11 and the American public is now awake and will support military action to weed out terrorists wherever they are?...

And right now it seems that there is no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. And on related news, US has already held discussions about exploiting Iraq's oil-reserves after the war. Hmmmmm....

Go back and read my posts about the U.S. public and how they would not have supported a war against Iraq because they gassed their own people. It takes something personal to wake the public up here. Sad but true...

I'll be back later...haven't had morning coffee yet and I'm still 3/4 asleep......
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Go back and read my posts about the U.S. public and how they would not have supported a war against Iraq because they gassed their own people. It takes something personal to wake the public up here. Sad but true...

Go back and read my post about not going after Saddam for the gassing. You could have simply stopped supporting him after he used WMD's. You did not.

It seems to me that you are blinded by patriotism. Nothing that your government does is wrong. Here is a excellent piece of text I read about this on Slashdot (the discussion was about US ranking in the freedom of the press-survey):

Why do american "patriots" so often feel the need to blindly defend the U.S? Saying that the marks are irrlevant, that the european press is more evil and not free at all, and it's some damn liberal plot again.

I thought that patriotism meant love for ones country, not for ones goverment, I thought a patriot of a democracy was supposed to always question anything that might infringe on his freedom or that of others. But it seems that whenever an article like this is seen in the news, the american "patriots" refuse to question their goverment or their nations policy, instead they stand up behind it no matter what and dismiss the criticism as some foreigners and/or liberals having their panties in a bunch.

This is I believe, the opposite of what the founders of the US would have wanted. The US is not the greatest nation on earth simply because patriots say so, even if they yell it from the rooftops or chant it every chance they get. If the US is the greatest nation it is because it allows people freedom, they have freedom to question their goverment and its actions among other things, but it seems that the more patriotic an american is the less they feel a need to question anything. That apathy and contentment is a real danger to democracy, because it means no one is protecting the democratic rights.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,982
1,281
126
So what is a "terrorist"?!? Was George Washington a terrorist? He was an Englishman who turned against his government. That at least makes him a traitor.

What about the wealthy businessmen in Boston who were suspected of leaking funds to the IRA in the 60's,70's and 80's? Why weren't they terrorists? Why weren't they hunted down and arrested? What about the French agents that blew up the Rainbow Warrior? What about the American govt that allowed nuclear weapons to be used on civilians in Japan? Does the end justify the means? Sure, you say it prevented an x number of American GI's from getting killed, but so what? How does that justify butchering innocents? They were targeted and incinerated in a cold blooded act of murder. You didn't see the British nuke Buenos Aires during the Falklands War, even though it would have ended the war within a matter of minutes. By that logic the Americans shouldn't even bother invading Iraq since it will cost lifes. Just nuke the place. Who cares if 100,000 children roast for simply being in Baghdad. At least it will save the poor soliders from earning their pay.

What people have to think about is that its not all "black and white". Patriots usually miss that bit.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,982
1,281
126
That said I still think Iceland should be invaded. Apparently they don't even have a defence force, so a few drunken Canadians armed with tape recordings of Celine Dion should do the job. ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,768
6,770
126
Stinky, your argument doesn't hold water because the Japanese weren't human. They were one part of an evil axis.
 

JoeBaD

Banned
May 24, 2000
822
0
0
Yo StinkPinky,

If I had your particular fetish I don't think I would be advertising it.

PS-would that be human or bovine?