Jump to content

Afghanistan and Iraq.....


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

posted 06-28-2004 02:31 PM

quote:

Is this to suggest that we should recognize the people who participated in the 9/11 attacks with the same status we recognize say....Great Britain...or Canada? If so...why should we recognize like this?

Well, maybe NOT Canada or great britian, but at least as much as we recognize, the NORTHERN ALLIANCE within afghanistan. It is unreasonable to assume, just because, they chose to attack the WTC, that they are any less than they were, when we USED them to repel the Northern Alliance.

quote:

quote: In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11

I'm not so sure about that. I've spoken to a few people that I consider average and they were very well aware of the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Though, the number of Americans, who acknowledge there to be a differance; is, indeed, increasing, THAT differentiation, was in almost total obscurity, when bush presented his justification to ATTACK that country(Iraq). EVEN NOW, upon these boards, if you read carefully, ANYTHING in regard to IRAQ. It is very apparant, those who condone this war on IRAQ, use the terms TERRORIST,alqueda, and iraqi(bathist) synanamously. Bush was VERY successful in the outcome of his propaghanda strategy...thus, the reason he has survived in the polls, at all!!

quote:

quote:COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been.

There are some fanatic groups that state (as far as I know), that they will not cease attacks on the United States until every single American is gone from the Middle East.

SOME have evolved to this position, that is true; however, THAT extreme radical stand, is only reinforced by denial of negotiation.

I do NOT believe, people want to die, just for the sake of killing. regardless of how much propaghanda, bush has presented. I can not

accept, that EXTREME ideology would have near the appeal, to one who was recognized, as having a legitamate complaint.Nor, can I accept, that extreme ideology, to be as abundant, as this administration has proclaimed. There are NOT enough dead "terrorist",nor dead AMERICAN citizens, to substantiate such a claim.

I remember, when TERRORIST, were hijackers, trying to get the american public's attention, as to what damage, our foreign policies

were inflicting upon their culture, and country. They were NOT killing, but trying to negotiate SOME terms. WE took on a policy of non-negotiation,and would execute them, rather than give them the alternative to surrender.

THIS is where things began to change. You leave a man, ANY MAN OR ANIMAL, NO WAY OUT. then they will kill themselves to kill you. IT is part of the human/animal phsyche. EVEN our domestic strategy, of KILLING someone who runs away(by local police) is working toward

breeding a more RADICAL domestic problem. IT is the methodology which NEEDS reworked. NOT ALL situations, people, or organizations are the same;however, the over-all concept, of KILL first,and ask questions later, Will inevitably create MORE... McVeys, and Osamas and ALQUEDAS!

As I mentioned before. YOU CANNOT stop something a person MIGHT DO, or even does, UNTIL he makes some attempt to do it. To attack, on mere assumption, is

the MOST DANGEROUS (so called) defensive strategy there is. The ONLY way to 100% STOP these type of attacks, is to put EVERYONE IN A BOX.

Not MY idea, of living in a FREE society.

Use the SAME logic, that bush is using with alqueda, to stop car accidents. you would have to harrass or incarcerate EVERY driver, of every car... pull road funding from any city which allows drivers of cars, involved in accidents, within their city.(radical, irrational, and anti-productive to achieve the end result)

THE ANSWER:

Increase of DEFENSIVE measures. PLAN and execute OFFENSIVE measures, in a more RATIONAL and ACCURATE MANNOR. ALWAYS ALLOWING the enemy the OPTION

to surrender. THIS will DEFLATE the legitamacy, and psychological strength of the organization, as a whole. There would be NO advantage in

killing one's self, to kill two of the enemy.

quote:

quote:REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status.

So are you saying that if you look to the root of things, we, the United States, are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11?

These are just some of my thoughts and questions. I appreciate the dialog as this has thus far been very...interesting...to read.

Yes! this is EXACTLY what I am saying, but this is only my opinion, based on every FACT, I can dig up; however, that which I consider FACT, is far more critical to: actuality and objective verification, than what some people accept for fact.

quote:


[ 06-28-2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

posted 06-28-2004 02:31 PM

quote:

Is this to suggest that we should recognize the people who participated in the 9/11 attacks with the same status we recognize say....Great Britain...or Canada? If so...why should we recognize like this?

Well, maybe NOT Canada or great britian, but at least as much as we recognize, the NORTHERN ALLIANCE within afghanistan. It is unreasonable to assume, just because, they chose to attack the WTC, that they are any less than they were, when we USED them to repel the Northern Alliance.

quote:

quote: In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11

I'm not so sure about that. I've spoken to a few people that I consider average and they were very well aware of the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Though, the number of Americans, who acknowledge there to be a differance; is, indeed, increasing, THAT differentiation, was in almost total obscurity, when bush presented his justification to ATTACK that country(Iraq). EVEN NOW, upon these boards, if you read carefully, ANYTHING in regard to IRAQ. It is very apparant, those who condone this war on IRAQ, use the terms TERRORIST,alqueda, and iraqi(bathist) synanamously. Bush was VERY successful in the outcome of his propaghanda strategy...thus, the reason he has survived in the polls, at all!!

quote:

quote:COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been.

There are some fanatic groups that state (as far as I know), that they will not cease attacks on the United States until every single American is gone from the Middle East.

SOME have evolved to this position, that is true; however, THAT extreme radical stand, is only reinforced by denial of negotiation.

I do NOT believe, people want to die, just for the sake of killing. regardless of how much propaghanda, bush has presented. I can not

accept, that EXTREME ideology would have near the appeal, to one who was recognized, as having a legitamate complaint.Nor, can I accept, that extreme ideology, to be as abundant, as this administration has proclaimed. There are NOT enough dead "terrorist",nor dead AMERICAN citizens, to substantiate such a claim.

I remember, when TERRORIST, were hijackers, trying to get the american public's attention, as to what damage, our foreign policies

were inflicting upon their culture, and country. They were NOT killing, but trying to negotiate SOME terms. WE took on a policy of non-negotiation,and would execute them, rather than give them the alternative to surrender.

THIS is where things began to change. You leave a man, ANY MAN OR ANIMAL, NO WAY OUT. then they will kill themselves to kill you. IT is part of the human/animal phsyche. EVEN our domestic strategy, of KILLING someone who runs away(by local police) is working toward

breeding a more RADICAL domestic problem. IT is the methodology which NEEDS reworked. NOT ALL situations, people, or organizations are the same;however, the over-all concept, of KILL first,and ask questions later, Will inevitably create MORE... McVeys, and Osamas and ALQUEDAS!

As I mentioned before. YOU CANNOT stop something a person MIGHT DO, or even does, UNTIL he makes some attempt to do it. To attack, on mere assumption, is

the MOST DANGEROUS (so called) defensive strategy there is. The ONLY way to 100% STOP these type of attacks, is to put EVERYONE IN A BOX.

Not MY idea, of living in a FREE society.

Use the SAME logic, that bush is using with alqueda, to stop car accidents. you would have to harrass or incarcerate EVERY driver, of every car... pull road funding from any city which allows drivers of cars, involved in accidents, within their city.(radical, irrational, and anti-productive to achieve the end result)

THE ANSWER:

Increase of DEFENSIVE measures. PLAN and execute OFFENSIVE measures, in a more RATIONAL and ACCURATE MANNOR. ALWAYS ALLOWING the enemy the OPTION

to surrender. THIS will DEFLATE the legitamacy, and psychological strength of the organization, as a whole. There would be NO advantage in

killing one's self, to kill two of the enemy.

quote:

quote:REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status.

So are you saying that if you look to the root of things, we, the United States, are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11?

These are just some of my thoughts and questions. I appreciate the dialog as this has thus far been very...interesting...to read.

Yes! this is EXACTLY what I am saying, but this is only my opinion, based on every FACT, I can dig up; however, that which I consider FACT, is far more critical to: actuality and objective verification, than what some people accept for fact.

quote:


[ 06-28-2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

THIS is an organization of people which has declared AMERICA an ENEMY. An Enemy to ALL muslims,and which have dedicated their lives(unto death)to FREE the middle east from our control and influence.

America isn't the problem; extreme Islamic fundamentalism is the problem. How do you explain the Muslim incursion into Kashmir and the resulting Pakistan-India conflict, or the Al Qaeda spin-off Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines fighting the Christians there, or the terrorists of Chechnya? What's the Middle East connection to those hostilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

THIS is an organization of people which has declared AMERICA an ENEMY. An Enemy to ALL muslims,and which have dedicated their lives(unto death)to FREE the middle east from our control and influence.

America isn't the problem; extreme Islamic fundamentalism is the problem. How do you explain the Muslim incursion into Kashmir and the resulting Pakistan-India conflict, or the Al Qaeda spin-off Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines fighting the Christians there, or the terrorists of Chechnya? What's the Middle East connection to those hostilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

but you STILL haven't said where the weapons of mass distraction are. is it that complicated? your answer is very vague

And how many times have I answered that question?

By the way, the only weapon of mass distraction is Michael Moores new POS.

Nothing like a big fat lying white man to spin the propaganda for the Democratic party.

If this is the best the democrats got, Lies, inuendos and made up BS, then they are in even worse shape then I thought.

If you meant the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and in WMD's, that you never believed in anyway, they are sitting on 3 cargo ships, somewhere in the world, and most of the rest are in Syria.

Then again, you don't read intelligence reports, you just hope the media report to you the truth...LOL SUCKER......

But, it's what you WANT to believe, so it's all you watch or listen to.

The real world can be real hairy, no wonder you live in fantasy land.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by El Che:

but you STILL haven't said where the weapons of mass distraction are. is it that complicated? your answer is very vague

And how many times have I answered that question?

By the way, the only weapon of mass distraction is Michael Moores new POS.

Nothing like a big fat lying white man to spin the propaganda for the Democratic party.

If this is the best the democrats got, Lies, inuendos and made up BS, then they are in even worse shape then I thought.

If you meant the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and in WMD's, that you never believed in anyway, they are sitting on 3 cargo ships, somewhere in the world, and most of the rest are in Syria.

Then again, you don't read intelligence reports, you just hope the media report to you the truth...LOL SUCKER......

But, it's what you WANT to believe, so it's all you watch or listen to.

The real world can be real hairy, no wonder you live in fantasy land.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

America isn't the problem; extreme Islamic fundamentalism is the problem. How do you explain the Muslim incursion into Kashmir and the resulting Pakistan-India conflict, or the Al Qaeda spin-off Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines fighting the Christians there, or the terrorists of Chechnya? What's the Middle East connection to those hostilities?

There is enough BLAME to go around. I Never made the allegation, that there were'nt EXTREEM Islamic fundamentalist groups, nor did I say...." ALL" such groups were entirely a product of AMERICAN foreign policy.

My ENTIRE discussion, is in relation to:

AFGHANISTAN, 9/11,and IRAQ;... THESE things, in conjunction, with BUSH's methodology concerning HIS WAR on TERROR; An observation, as to WHO the TERRORIST are. The falacies concerning our involvement within IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN, and our neglect, as a nation, to ACCEPT responsibility for our ACTIONS. etc. etc.(read above)

I am NOT making statements, to DEFEND the RADICAL muslim.....NOR will I DEFEND, arrogent, self rightious, RADICAL AMERICAN EXTREMIST(BUSH-WAR-ITES); who DENY responsibility for flagrantly irrational FORIEGN POLICY!!!

It takes TWO to TANGO!!...Does it NOT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

America isn't the problem; extreme Islamic fundamentalism is the problem. How do you explain the Muslim incursion into Kashmir and the resulting Pakistan-India conflict, or the Al Qaeda spin-off Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines fighting the Christians there, or the terrorists of Chechnya? What's the Middle East connection to those hostilities?

There is enough BLAME to go around. I Never made the allegation, that there were'nt EXTREEM Islamic fundamentalist groups, nor did I say...." ALL" such groups were entirely a product of AMERICAN foreign policy.

My ENTIRE discussion, is in relation to:

AFGHANISTAN, 9/11,and IRAQ;... THESE things, in conjunction, with BUSH's methodology concerning HIS WAR on TERROR; An observation, as to WHO the TERRORIST are. The falacies concerning our involvement within IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN, and our neglect, as a nation, to ACCEPT responsibility for our ACTIONS. etc. etc.(read above)

I am NOT making statements, to DEFEND the RADICAL muslim.....NOR will I DEFEND, arrogent, self rightious, RADICAL AMERICAN EXTREMIST(BUSH-WAR-ITES); who DENY responsibility for flagrantly irrational FORIEGN POLICY!!!

It takes TWO to TANGO!!...Does it NOT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

Funny you should say this. There was a news Issue at the Dutch news (NOS Journal, for the dutchies among us) two days back were they interviewed a psychiatrist. He said that anyone who says the movie was a lie etc etc without even seeing it, had a ÔÇ£serious mental problemÔÇØ .

No, ANYONE, that would take that man seriously after the propaganda film Bowling for Columbine, and does NOT expect this farce to be the same BS, has a definite mental problem.

It is SO full of lies, inuendo, outright fabrication etc that it is NOT worth seeing.

I will not line the pockets of this generations propagandist nazi, to watch the filth and lies spew forth, I get enough of that nonsense from you guys, without having to pay for it as well.

I will get my information about the film from those that I know who see it for free and are willing to give up their valuable time to watch such nonsense. In the meantime, I know who wrote it, produced it and directed it, I don't need to see it, to know what a POS it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by JUDGExKTF:

Funny you should say this. There was a news Issue at the Dutch news (NOS Journal, for the dutchies among us) two days back were they interviewed a psychiatrist. He said that anyone who says the movie was a lie etc etc without even seeing it, had a ÔÇ£serious mental problemÔÇØ .

No, ANYONE, that would take that man seriously after the propaganda film Bowling for Columbine, and does NOT expect this farce to be the same BS, has a definite mental problem.

It is SO full of lies, inuendo, outright fabrication etc that it is NOT worth seeing.

I will not line the pockets of this generations propagandist nazi, to watch the filth and lies spew forth, I get enough of that nonsense from you guys, without having to pay for it as well.

I will get my information about the film from those that I know who see it for free and are willing to give up their valuable time to watch such nonsense. In the meantime, I know who wrote it, produced it and directed it, I don't need to see it, to know what a POS it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do be careful Takvah.

You are bordering on; umm, well, ya just are.

I've done my stint in here a couple times and got the bruises to show for it.

Intelligent discussion of politics and all that rot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do be careful Takvah.

You are bordering on; umm, well, ya just are.

I've done my stint in here a couple times and got the bruises to show for it.

Intelligent discussion of politics and all that rot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the mouths of Left-leaning news organizations...

From CNN in 1999 - Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown:

quote:

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.

Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known, said the sources who declined to be identified.

The report of his departure comes just days after the Taliban Islamic militia, which rules most of Afghanistan, took away his satellite telephone and banned bin Laden from speaking to the media.

Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country. The Taliban have called bin Laden their honored guest, a friend who helped the Afghan resistance fight invading Soviet soldiers in the 1980s.

The Taliban's ambassador in Islamabad, Saeed-ur-Rehman Haqqani, said he had not been told of bin Laden's departure, "but if it has happened, it will be a good thing."

Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

From The Guardian UK in 1999 - Saddam link to Bin Laden: Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks

quote:

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

If only they would research their own archives before writing their current stories...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the mouths of Left-leaning news organizations...

From CNN in 1999 - Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown:

quote:

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.

Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known, said the sources who declined to be identified.

The report of his departure comes just days after the Taliban Islamic militia, which rules most of Afghanistan, took away his satellite telephone and banned bin Laden from speaking to the media.

Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country. The Taliban have called bin Laden their honored guest, a friend who helped the Afghan resistance fight invading Soviet soldiers in the 1980s.

The Taliban's ambassador in Islamabad, Saeed-ur-Rehman Haqqani, said he had not been told of bin Laden's departure, "but if it has happened, it will be a good thing."

Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

From The Guardian UK in 1999 - Saddam link to Bin Laden: Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks

quote:

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

If only they would research their own archives before writing their current stories...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

*Yawns*

I vote for a name change for Jaguar, how about Rush Hannity?

*Snickers*

By the way Jag, do you play UC or are you just the legacy conservobot for this forum?

Just wondering.

Hmm, January 1999, March 2004.....

Hmm, over 3000 posts, under 100 posts

Hmm, Supreme commander, Ensign

Hmm, Beta tester, player

Hmm, member 134, member 5442

Interesting.......

or should it be this?

Maybe you ought to engage your brain before you type such things.

Perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

*Yawns*

I vote for a name change for Jaguar, how about Rush Hannity?

*Snickers*

By the way Jag, do you play UC or are you just the legacy conservobot for this forum?

Just wondering.

Hmm, January 1999, March 2004.....

Hmm, over 3000 posts, under 100 posts

Hmm, Supreme commander, Ensign

Hmm, Beta tester, player

Hmm, member 134, member 5442

Interesting.......

or should it be this?

Maybe you ought to engage your brain before you type such things.

Perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

From the mouths of Left-leaning news organizations...

If only they would research their own archives before writing their current stories...

The sad thing is I think they do read them but they interpret them the Moorian way to suit their needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...