What should really happen in Iraq, but wont.

[Zebo]

You don't have a link cause it's impossible to find one. I tried. Heres what I'm comming up with:

' Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks and the Taliban has repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks. '

The only "evidence", which is circumstantail is saudi involvment by 15/19 carrying SA passbooks. But that's not enough by the rules of evidence in this country, and by most accepted international standards of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused and I'm still waiting for any evidence OBL was responsible bombing the hell out of afghanistan was justified.

 

[Doboji]

And here I am posting to Anandtech, after work... wow...

Siding with the legitimate gov'ts and the sovereign rights of nations is different from siding with terrorist organizations. Grow up all, arabs aren't terrorist. Iraq wasn't a terrorist state, our good allies the Kurds are OBL's buddies and the Iranian Shi'ites Saddam "oppressed" have obvious terrorist ties. Iraq was the one of the few countries in the region where fanatics didn't have the run of things. If the US goes around pushing people someone is going to push back and push back hard whether it be Syrians, Iranians, Chinese, Korean, French or Russian etc. Short sighted, bigot morons like you will be the end of the US since you encourage that kind of policy and this current administration is more than willing to oblige.

Didja read my post?... Please show me a single quote where I even came remotely close to calling "all arabs terrorists"... only a racist moron would ever make such an idiotic claim. How does one define a terrorist state anyway?... One that supports terrorism?... Because we do know that Saddam sent money to the families of Suicide bombers, as well as allowing several anti-iranian terrorist groups to operate out of the north of Iraq. As far as I'm concerned thats enough to qualify as a terrorist supporting state.

At what point do we qualify these other countries as pushing?... The latest news is indicating that Hezbullah and Al Queda are collaborating on these Iraqi terror attacks... Hezbullah is well known to be funded by Syria and Iran. Sounds to me, like Iran and Syria have already begun waging a war against the United States...

You don't have a link cause it's impossible to find one. I tried. Heres what I'm comming up with:

' Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks and the Taliban has repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks. '

The only "evidence", which is circumstantail is saudi involvment by 15/19 carrying SA passbooks. But that's not enough by the rules of evidence in this country, and by most accepted international standards of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused and I'm still waiting for any evidence OBL was responsible bombing the hell out of afghanistan was justified.

Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?... Israel?... Bush? The third shooter on the grassy gnoll?

Edit: There was a bunch I wanted to say....

I beg to differ on your intensive (maybe you mean extensive) understanding of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda had little influence in Iraq before the war but significant power in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and likely Pakistan. Terrorists come from everywhere and fight for various causes. When limited thinkers (like Bushies) proclaim, "this tair-ists came from fill in the state and they hate us because we represent freedom" . . . that's just more BS. If you ever bother to look at who the State Dept calls a terrorist organization (and where their support comes from) you will see the dribble being advocated by Bushies and parroted by the US media.

Intensive extensive.. what the fck ever... You keep dodging my points... I never made any claim suggesting Al Queda was linked to Iraq or Saddam, other than to say Al Queda operatives did at one point or another, travel unimpended through Iraq, Iran and other countries. That for me is enough. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter right?.... ummm wrong... when you delibrately target and kill innocent people for a political agenda you are a terrorist. This is universal... if the US was using F-16s to target school buses for example.... that would be terrorism. But theUnited States doesnt do that... therefore it's not terrorism. However when these bastards in Iraq try to blow up the Red Cross.... that my dear friend IS TERRORISM.

-Max

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Why should any other country send troops to Iraq? There was no Al Quada in Iraq Bush decided to attack despite what the rest of the world said to him. So why the fcuk should they help.
Bush deserves the "fcuk you" that the rest of the world is giving him when he's asking for help.
Most of the world views the US and Bush as the biggest threats to world peace.
Get that through your skull, and then think about it a little.

If you've had a few beers and 10 people tell you that you are drunk and shouldn't drive, maybe you should listen to them, eh? The rest of the world try to say no to the war before it started...

 

[VioletAura]

when you delibrately target and kill innocent people for a political agenda you are a terrorist

That definition makes bush a terrorist.

 

[Doboji]

Why should any other country send troops to Iraq? There was no Al Quada in Iraq Bush decided to attack despite what the rest of the world said to him. So why the fcuk should they help.

By all means lets fck the Iraqis to teach Bush a lesson.... makes sense to me. hmmm.....

Hey did you know Infected Mushroom is probably the most popular trance band in Israel.... just a coincidence I'm sure... but... thought I'd mention it.

-Max

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You don't have a link cause it's impossible to find one. I tried. Heres what I'm comming up with:

' Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks and the Taliban has repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks. '

The only "evidence", which is circumstantail is saudi involvment by 15/19 carrying SA passbooks. But that's not enough by the rules of evidence in this country, and by most accepted international standards of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused and I'm still waiting for any evidence OBL was responsible bombing the hell out of afghanistan was justified.

Any response to THE LINK I PROVIDED RIGHT ABOVE YOUR POST ?
Just wondering.

Originally posted by: VioletAura

when you delibrately target and kill innocent people for a political agenda you are a terrorist

That definition makes bush a terrorist.

Example?
didn't think so.

 

[VioletAura]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: VioletAura

when you delibrately target and kill innocent people for a political agenda you are a terrorist

That definition makes bush a terrorist.

Example?
didn't think so.

What about this recent war? How many civilians died for bush's political agenda? Bush knew very well that there would be civilian casulties, yet he let this bs war take place.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Why should any other country send troops to Iraq? There was no Al Quada in Iraq Bush decided to attack despite what the rest of the world said to him. So why the fcuk should they help.
Bush deserves the "fcuk you" that the rest of the world is giving him when he's asking for help.
Most of the world views the US and Bush as the biggest threats to world peace.
Get that through your skull, and then think about it a little.

If you've had a few beers and 10 people tell you that you are drunk and shouldn't drive, maybe you should listen to them, eh? The rest of the world try to say no to the war before it started...

Yeah it was all Bush, everyone else disagreed with him, oh wait, except the governments of :
United Kingdom
Spain
Italy
Japan
Australia
Poland
Portugal
South Korea
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Iceland
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Phillipines
Romania
Slovakea
Turkey
Uzbekistan
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras
Kuwait
Mongolia
Uganda
Singapore

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: VioletAura

when you delibrately target and kill innocent people for a political agenda you are a terrorist

That definition makes bush a terrorist.

So you're claiming that the goal of this war was to kill innocent people? Yeah... That makes as much sense as these people who are saying that our goal in importing is to pay more for our goods.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: VioletAura

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: VioletAura

when you delibrately target and kill innocent people for a political agenda you are a terrorist

That definition makes bush a terrorist.

Example?
didn't think so.

What about this recent war? How many civilians died for bush's political agenda? Bush knew very well that there would be civilian casulties, yet he let this bs war take place.

Really?
I wasn't aware we were "deliberately targeting and killing innocent people".
You want to back this crap up with some evidence?

Of course there would be civilian casualties. But there is a huge difference between doing everything we can to avoid them while striking military targets and even risking our own soldiers lives by refusing to return fire when the enemy soldiers were using civilians as human shields and purposely seeking out civilian targets with the clear goal of killing innocent civilians with no military purpose whatsoever.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I love the logic employed by Bushies . . . you trot out that list of "governments" supporting Bush War 2003 . . . when in fact often it was just the chief executive that supported the war. Almost all of the legislatures (assuming they have one) opposed or had grave reservations about the invasion AND virtually all of those countries (the people . . . you know the important ones that government is supposed to serve) actually OPPOSED the invasion by large majorities.

Of course there's one exception . . . Israel. Curiously, it's not on the list of governments supporting the invasion despite the fact Israel and Israeli civilians were one of the few matched pairs on the planet supporting Bush War 2003. I wonder why Iceland and Costa Rica get props but Israel is nowhere to be seen?

 

[Doboji]

I love the logic employed by Bushies . . . you trot out that list of "governments" supporting Bush War 2003 . . . when in fact often it was just the chief executive that supported the war. Almost all of the legislatures (assuming they have one) opposed or had grave reservations about the invasion AND virtually all of those countries (the people . . . you know the important ones that government is supposed to serve) actually OPPOSED the invasion by large majorities.

Of course there's one exception . . . Israel. Curiously, it's not on the list of governments supporting the invasion despite the fact Israel and Israeli civilians were one of the few matched pairs on the planet supporting Bush War 2003. I wonder why Iceland and Costa Rica get props but Israel is nowhere to be seen?

First off... stop calling people "bushies" that is so irritating... I'll start calling you Saddamites.... like that?

Clearly Israel could not be included on the list as having anything to do with the war, or else the lovely semite loving Arab states surrounding Israel would use that as a pretext to start WWIII. So thats why.... and guess what dumbass... Israelis were not happy about the war either... although I'm sure you'd love the thrill of Scud missle attacks... they don't.

-Max

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I love the logic employed by Bushies . . . you trot out that list of "governments" supporting Bush War 2003 . . . when in fact often it was just the chief executive that supported the war. Almost all of the legislatures (assuming they have one) opposed or had grave reservations about the invasion AND virtually all of those countries (the people . . . you know the important ones that government is supposed to serve) actually OPPOSED the invasion by large majorities.

Of course there's one exception . . . Israel. Curiously, it's not on the list of governments supporting the invasion despite the fact Israel and Israeli civilians were one of the few matched pairs on the planet supporting Bush War 2003. I wonder why Iceland and Costa Rica get props but Israel is nowhere to be seen?

Even more evidence that the leader's of these countries believed what we were doing was the right thing.
If what you say is true about the opinions of the people of these countries (I'd love to see your evidence since you claim to know how all these people feel), then why would all these leaders commit political suicide by supporting the coalition?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Here is the transcript of one of the tapes.

Here is one section:

UBL: we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

This translation has been verified by numerous people and I don't believe there is anyone denying the accuracy.

Where'd Zebo go?
funny he hasn't responded since I posted this.
Zebo,....where are you....?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Until you hear me say Saddam was a wonderful guy . . . hell until I even say he's not half bad . . . no you may not call me a Saddamite. I have several monikers for less than critical-thinking Bush supporters:

Bush Leaguer
Bushie
Bushophile
Regime Underling

. . . if you have a preference, I am quite accomodating. Of course, all it takes is to become a critical (which by definition means actively challenging Bushie PR) commentator is to credit Bush for policy masterpieces (challenging the oligarchy of the Middle East) and debit Bush policy BS (prelude and postwar Iraq . . . of course there's quite a list but why bother).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Someone else mentioned that popular opposition to Bush War 2003 is proof that a given executive was doing the right thing. In fact, the majority of countries received some form of payola. Blair essentially sold his soul to the devil b/c he believed it was better to be alongside to influence Bush than trying to oppose the US. Despite his speeches, Blair did not sign on for a Middle Eastern Crusade. In fact, Downing Street has been actively engaged with Syria and Iran before, during, and after Bush War 2003 . . . unlike the sporadic sabre rattling from 1600PA.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Someone else mentioned that popular opposition to Bush War 2003 is proof that a given executive was doing the right thing. In fact, the majority of countries received some form of payola. Blair essentially sold his soul to the devil b/c he believed it was better to be alongside to influence Bush than trying to oppose the US. Despite his speeches, Blair did not sign on for a Middle Eastern Crusade. In fact, Downing Street has been actively engaged with Syria and Iran before, during, and after Bush War 2003 . . . unlike the sporadic sabre rattling from 1600PA.

You weren't paying attention to Blair's speeches if you honestly think he was against this war but went along with it anyway. My point was that by supporting the war despite public opposition, these presidents were commiting political suicide. I'm asking how going along with something their constituents disagree with is beneficial to that president. It seems to me that they are sacrificing their political careers. So why are they doing it? What do they have to gain? My opinion is that they believe it is the right thing to do. Why do you think they would be willing to give up their political careers?

Surely, a critical thinker like yourself should realize that people can support the war and support Bush without being a sheep.
Otherwise, you guys are clearly liberal sheep who tow the line without thinking for yourselves.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

What do they have to gain?

Money. Them or their families, friends and corporations. Lots of it.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

What do they have to gain?

Money. Them or their families, friends and corporations. Lots of it.

Money from who?

So Bush was personally giving them money for their own retirements? or what?

I don't know too many president's of nations who have to worry about money.

 

[SuperTool]

What should really happen in Iraq, but wont?

Bush should go to Iraq and stay there

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What should really happen in Iraq, but wont?

Bush should go to Iraq and stay there

Good job. Congrats on your 7056'th useless post.

I just wish all the celebs who said they were leaving the country if Bush got elected, would actually leave.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What should really happen in Iraq, but wont?

Bush should go to Iraq and stay there

Good job. Congrats on your 7056'th useless post.

I just wish all the celebs who said they were leaving the country if Bush got elected, would actually leave.

Congrats on your 1769'th useless post too.
Unfortunately I don't share your obsession with celebrities.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Zebo
You don't have a link cause it's impossible to find one. I tried. Heres what I'm comming up with:

' Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks and the Taliban has repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks. '

The only "evidence", which is circumstantail is saudi involvment by 15/19 carrying SA passbooks. But that's not enough by the rules of evidence in this country, and by most accepted international standards of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused and I'm still waiting for any evidence OBL was responsible bombing the hell out of afghanistan was justified.

Any response to THE LINK I PROVIDED RIGHT ABOVE YOUR POST ?
Just wondering.

What you have there is a mysterious, grainy video produced by the Pentagon months after the fact, as supposed "evidence".
1. Arabic translators have said the translation is inaccurate.
2. It just happened to pop up in some jajajabad home...riiight
3. Several pakistani officials said they believed it was a body double.
4 OBL is notorious for taking responsibility for attacks and in this one he repeadily denies it but exclaims how delighted he is about them.. Not the behavior of someone trying to cover his own ass..


I hardly call this convinceing evidene. And it's not my job to prove a negative proving Osama did'nt do it. In this country it's up to those who alledge charges to prove culpability otherwise you buy into launching a full-scale assault against a country based on suspicions like going into iraq and don't find WMD's and you're in a world of hurt