Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ???

[alienken]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Exactly, and like I've said before, the American people clearly would not have supported this war had they known the truth of Saddam's supposed stockpile of WMDs. Bush and Co. pressured this intel out of the CIA, but why would they do that? Could it be because Bush was planning this war long before 9/11? Oh no, it couldn't be that...

The stockpile of WMD can fit on an eighteen wheeler. Biological and chemical weapons don't take up much room. One little vile will kill thousands of people.Since Saddam had several months notice that we were coming it would be very easy to move it into a country that we are not welcome in- Syria, Iran, or any other dictator ran country. This is one reason why freedom is the best weapon against terrorism.....Here we go again, Bush did not lie. Intelligence came from Great Britain and other real allies and even from the Clinton admin. It was ok when Clinton said that Saddam was a gathering threat with WMDs but when PRES. Bush says it, it's a lie. Yea keep playing politics and keep loosing elections, it's fun to watch.

 

[freedom69714]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Hey Alienken Is RICHARD Cheeney from Texas ( He is the real president after all ) ? in regards to WMD"S A true terrorist does not need WMD at least not in the united states we have all kinds of horrible nasty stuff just look whats on our highways and fright trains every day .

Their's truck and train loads of Chemicals a few month ago 60 minutes did a story about a Chicago new paper reporter who said he was able to get onto some very large chemical manufacturing plants all over the country and nobody from the chemical even stopped him.

Their was enough chemicals in these plants if a terrorist just put some TNT to start the explosion their would be were from 50.000 - several million people dead and many more badly injured

Just open your eye's and look around you will see trucks carrying Ammonia , Natural frozen gas , and a list of other chemicals you would need to be a chemist to know what they are i.e cleaning products for the computer industry just some real nasty stuff.

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

The stockpile of WMD can fit on an eighteen wheeler. Biological and chemical weapons don't take up much room. One little vile will kill thousands of people.Since Saddam had several months notice that we were coming it would be very easy to move it into a country that we are not welcome in- Syria, Iran, or any other dictator ran country. This is one reason why freedom is the best weapon against terrorism.....Here we go again, Bush did not lie. Intelligence came from Great Britain and other real allies and even from the Clinton admin. It was ok when Clinton said that Saddam was a gathering threat with WMDs but when PRES. Bush says it, it's a lie. Yea keep playing politics and keep loosing elections, it's fun to watch.

First, I'd like to reccomend a book titled Hoax to you. It's a great read about Iraq. And I think you can't get over the fact that Saddam had no stockpile, it didn't exist! Saddam had no allies in the middle east, there was no one willing to 'store' his WMDs for him. And yes, if you would go to my link, you'd see that indeed the intel came out of the UK and the US. The US intel, I know for sure, was pressured, or as the article puts it, hammered out of the CIA. And I do think Clinton lied when and if he said Iraq was an imminent threat. We we're periodically bombing Iraq all thrugh the 90s, lol, not to mention the economic sanctions the friendly UN imposed on Iraq. There was absolutely no chance, no chance, that Iraq would have the capability in '03 of producing any kind of WMDs. I mean, I don't know what else to say. It's time to drop this excuse for Iraq, and get over it, then you can move on to one of Bush's many other excuses for this unneccesary war. Aren't you people pro-life? Well, because of this 'war of liberation' 17,000+ Iraqis are dead, and 1500+US soldiers are dead. Perhaps if anyone can ever see this, some pro-lifer on the right will finally show his disgust for this war.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

LEt's point out that Catholics use terrorism when blowing up abortion clinics. Do not place the burden of terrorism on Islam's shoulders. There are insane Christians, just as there are insane Muslims. And I'd like to point out that your last paragraph there is a lie-we have deliberately targeted old people, women, children to intimidate our enemies. By all accounts, the A-bomb dropping on Nagasaki was unneccesary, yet we did it. We did this to intimidate the USSR by showing our might. Such a powerful claim , though, all be it a false one.

Congratulations. You have convinced me that your brain-washing is now complete.

Catholics the world over decry the actions of a handful of over-zealous types. But remember, there are only a handful of these misguided people.

The Muslim terrorists, I have no doubt, are repudiated by the Muslims, the world over, too. However, these terrorists number in the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands.

All of the allied planners projected that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would result in a death toll of several million, as many as a million of which would be among the allied forces. When the Japanese government did not respond to the 'wake-up call' at Hiroshima, there was no choice but to give them the second jolt, which convinced them that it was all over for them. Regardless of the after effects, it was still the best way out.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

WMDs? Really? Are you one of the millions of Republicans who, despite all the evidence, and even Bush's own admission, believe that Saddam had WMDs?

Have some of you already forgot the lies we were told by Bush to justify his attack?

1. WMDs! Lots of them.

2. Nuclear weapons.

3. 9-11 Tie-in. Saddam was buddy buddy with OBL!

You mentioned a threat? Did you feel threatened by Saddam? How did he threaten you? He had no weapons, none, zero. He never threatened the USA.

In case some of you have forgotten, the guy who keeps threatening us is OBL. Remember him? Bush even had the bal*s to say that he doesn't care where OBL is anymore! But he sure cared where Saddam was? How twisted is this thinking?

Please, all of you who still cling to the "Saddam had WMDs" lie, let it go! It's a proven, indisputable fact that he had none. Please wake up and believe that we were lied to in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Bush evolved the lie to include 'democracy' but that was never the given reason we attacked Iraq. Even your post makes no mention of democracy for Iraq.

It is a positive that Iraq has some potential now for democracy, no doubt about it. But, we were lied to, and way too many American lives have been lost due to those lies.

Can any of you honestly say that before we attacked Iraq that you believed the real reason for our invasion was to democratize Iraq? Hmm? Anyone? :naughty

I see that you are blessed with 20/20 hindsight. If you disagree, there's a simple test you can take. If you pass, you will be proven correct and I will apologize.

If you're willing, here it is.

List three prominent world figures who, before the commencement of the Shock & Awe phase of hostilities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, publicly stated that they did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

Now, go to it! I'll watch for your answer.

(This challenge is open to all comers.)

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Congratulations. You have convinced me that your brain-washing is now complete.

Catholics the world over decry the actions of a handful of over-zealous types. But remember, there are only a handful of these misguided people.

The Muslim terrorists, I have no doubt, are repudiated by the Muslims, the world over, too. However, these terrorists number in the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands.

All of the allied planners projected that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would result in a death toll of several million, as many as a million of which would be among the allied forces. When the Japanese government did not respond to the 'wake-up call' at Hiroshima, there was no choice but to give them the second jolt, which convinced them that it was all over for them. Regardless of the after effects, it was still the best way out.

As for pointing out Catholic and essentially all non-Muslim terrorists, I simply point out that it is totally unfair to generalize terrorism as an 'Arab' or 'Muslim' thing. That's my sole purpose.

I believe you've not looked into the Atomic bombings of Japan closely, because by all accounts, Japan would have surrendered, at latest, in December of 1945, surely before 1946, without an invasion of bombings. I agree that it is debateable whether the Hiroshima bombing was 'needed', there are arguments on both sides, but the Nagasaki bombing was certainly not needed, and ended up simply being a show of power by the US military. We really didn't give Japan any time to surrender. Besides, we had cracked the Japanese code by August '45, we knew their army was depleted, we knew they were close to surrendering. Nagasaki was certainly not needed.

 

[shuamort]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

I see that you are blessed with 20/20 hindsight. If you disagree, there's a simple test you can take. If you pass, you will be proven correct and I will apologize.

If you're willing, here it is.

List three prominent world figures who, before the commencement of the Shock & Awe phase of hostilities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, publicly stated that they did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

Now, go to it! I'll watch for your answer.

(This challenge is open to all comers.)

JP Chretien was dubious in Sept 02.

Here's Jacques Chirac's answer too:

French President Jacques Chirac declares: "I have always said that I had no information that would lead me to believe that there were, or were not, for that matter, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's a fact. All the information available to us at that time and on that subject did not allow us to take a stand or to reach any conclusion, which is why I said to President Bush that I, personally, was incapable of saying whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction."

And then there's Gerhard Schroeder:
"so that Herr Schroeder cannot continue to spread the impression that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a figment of George W Bush's imagination".

All three leaders were quite dubious at the claims of WMDs and demanded proof.

 

[Pacridge]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

I see that you are blessed with 20/20 hindsight. If you disagree, there's a simple test you can take. If you pass, you will be proven correct and I will apologize.

If you're willing, here it is.

List three prominent world figures who, before the commencement of the Shock & Awe phase of hostilities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, publicly stated that they did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

Now, go to it! I'll watch for your answer.

(This challenge is open to all comers.)

Let's see there was the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, who said "I don't see that there’s enough evidence or that which has been presented clearly shows he‘s still a threat" and there's President Vicente Fox of Mexico who basically said much the same. Plus several South American leaders, notable Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay also questioned the WMD issue as well as the entire rationale for the war. In Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva help organize efforts to unite South American nations against a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. There was one other leader that seem to believe Iraq didn’t have them- Saddam Hussein. That’s six, seven if you include Hussein.

But really what difference does it make what the world leaders thought or didn’t think? The people they should have been listening to were people like Dr. Hans Blix who was charged with the task of determining if Saddam was or was not complying with the UN resolutions. Dr. Blix did everything but scream from the roof tops that they weren’t finding any actual WMD’s. No body listened. Well, no body that mattered.

 

[Pacridge]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

JP Chretien was dubious in Sept 02.

Here's Jacques Chirac's answer too:

And then there's Gerhard Schroeder:
"so that Herr Schroeder cannot continue to spread the impression that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a figment of George W Bush's imagination".

All three leaders were quite dubious at the claims of WMDs and demanded proof.

Not to mention just about every leader of every nation in South America.

 

[Dark Gypsy Curse]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

OK, most of you are making great points. But I have an idea. Instead of saying there are terrorists from religions such as Christianity and Islam, why don't we say this?

Terrorists don't have a religion. END OF STORY

In order to be a Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc.you have to follow the rules of that religion.Am I losing you there? And I am sure that killing Innocent people is not promoted in any religions....if so please prove it. So when someone says "That terrorist is a Jew, Muslim or a Christian." Just simply say a terrorist doesn't have a religion because he or she doesnt follow the rules of a religion. It is that simple.

Saying a terrorist has a religion is like an oxymoron.

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

OK, most of you are making great points. But I have an idea. Instead of saying there are terrorists from religions such as Christianity and Islam, why don't we say this?

Terrorists don't have a religion. END OF STORY

In order to be a Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc.you have to follow the rules of that religion.Am I losing you there? And I am sure that killing Innocent people is not promoted in any religions....if so please prove it. So when someone says "That terrorist is a Jew, Muslim or a Christian." Just simply say a terrorist doesn't have a religion because he or she doesnt follow the rules of a religion. It is that simple.

Saying a terrorist has a religion is like an oxymoron.

I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Congratulations. You have convinced me that your brain-washing is now complete.

Catholics the world over decry the actions of a handful of over-zealous types. But remember, there are only a handful of these misguided people.

The Muslim terrorists, I have no doubt, are repudiated by the Muslims, the world over, too. However, these terrorists number in the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands.

All of the allied planners projected that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would result in a death toll of several million, as many as a million of which would be among the allied forces. When the Japanese government did not respond to the 'wake-up call' at Hiroshima, there was no choice but to give them the second jolt, which convinced them that it was all over for them. Regardless of the after effects, it was still the best way out.

As for pointing out Catholic and essentially all non-Muslim terrorists, I simply point out that it is totally unfair to generalize terrorism as an 'Arab' or 'Muslim' thing. That's my sole purpose.

That's not at all the understanding you conveyed. If you subsequently realized that and are backing off, I can accept that.

I believe you've not looked into the Atomic bombings of Japan closely, because by all accounts, Japan would have surrendered, at latest, in December of 1945, surely before 1946, without an invasion of bombings. I agree that it is debateable whether the Hiroshima bombing was 'needed', there are arguments on both sides, but the Nagasaki bombing was certainly not needed, and ended up simply being a show of power by the US military. We really didn't give Japan any time to surrender. Besides, we had cracked the Japanese code by August '45, we knew their army was depleted, we knew they were close to surrendering. Nagasaki was certainly not needed.

All of the signs pointed in the opposite direction to the one you're touting.

During the spring and summer of 1945, the Japanese troops on the outer homeland islands, Okinawa and Iwo Jima were fighting to the death and were encouraging, as well as forcing, the large civilian population on the islands to fight to the death or commit suicide. The kamikaze attacks on allied naval forces numbered more than six thousand and showed no sign of stopping.

Given this do or die mentality, together with the Japanese tradition of saving face above all else, and the knowledge that even children were being trained to defend the sacred soil of Japan, coupled with the ignoring of the bombing of Hiroshima, another target was the right decision. Due to weather considerations, Nagasaki drew the short straw.

However, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki produced the highest immediate death toll. That dubious honor went to Tokyo in a raid with conventional weapons dropped by 324 B29s on the night of March 9-10, 1945.

The shocking fact that so much damage was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a single bomber raid on each was the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were. The Japanese feared that all of their cities would meet the same fate. They caved.

It was a gamble that paid off. There was no third bomb to drop. However, the Japanese didn't know that.

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

That's not at all the understanding you conveyed. If you subsequently realized that and are backing off, I can accept that.

That's not all the understanding I conveyed? All I conveyed was that Catholics are also engaged in terrorist activity, again simply to show that terrorism is not a Muslim or Arab thing.

All of the signs pointed in the opposite direction to the one you're touting.

During the spring and summer of 1945, the Japanese troops on the outer homeland islands, Okinawa and Iwo Jima were fighting to the death and were encouraging, as well as forcing, the large civilian population on the islands to fight to the death or commit suicide. The kamikaze attacks on allied naval forces numbered more than six thousand and showed no sign of stopping.

Given this do or die mentality, together with the Japanese tradition of saving face above all else, and the knowledge that even children were being trained to defend the sacred soil of Japan, coupled with the ignoring of the bombing of Hiroshima, another target was the right decision. Due to weather considerations, Nagasaki drew the short straw.

However, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki produced the highest immediate death toll. That dubious honor went to Tokyo in a raid with conventional weapons dropped by 324 B29s on the night of March 9-10, 1945.

The shocking fact that so much damage was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a single bomber raid on each was the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were. The Japanese feared that all of their cities would meet the same fate. They caved.

It was a gamble that paid off. There was no third bomb to drop. However, the Japanese didn't know that.

Ignoring the bombing of Hiroshima? Are you serious? The Japanese hardly 'igonred' the bombing, they realized it, they realized that we could drop another bomb. Perhaps you should read A People's History of the US by Howard Zinn, but as he points out, the Japanese were certainly going to surrender before the close of '45 without an invasion or another bombing. Signs point to them doing this sooner rather than later. And you really cannot deny that atleast one purpose of the bombing, if you hold true to what you believe, was to frighten the Soviets, and show American power.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by

Fantasea
I see that you are blessed with 20/20 hindsight. If you disagree, there's a simple test you can take. If you pass, you will be proven correct and I will apologize.

If you're willing, here it is.

List three prominent world figures who, before the commencement of the Shock & Awe phase of hostilities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, publicly stated that they did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

Now, go to it! I'll watch for your answer.

(This challenge is open to all comers.)

JP Chretien was dubious in Sept 02.

Here's Jacques Chirac's answer too:
Quote:
French President Jacques Chirac declares: "I have always said that I had no information that would lead me to believe that there were, or were not, for that matter, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That's a fact. All the information available to us at that time and on that subject did not allow us to take a stand or to reach any conclusion, which is why I said to President Bush that I, personally, was incapable of saying whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction."



And then there's Gerhard Schroeder:
"so that Herr Schroeder cannot continue to spread the impression that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a figment of George W Bush's imagination".

All three leaders were quite dubious at the claims of WMDs and demanded proof.

Dubious? But not sufficiently confident to say that Iraq did not possess WMD.

Sorry, you did not meet the challenge.

You may wish to consider a few things. Now that the UN Food for Oil Program has been revealed to be riddled with corruption with fingers pointing to 'kickbacks' going to both France and Germany, and the earlier findings of French weapons of 1990s vintage being found in Iraq in violation of the 1991 UN cease fire agreement, one can well understand the reluctance of both these countries to support the US.

You may also recall all of the bluster of Saddam Hussein who, for twelve years, whether or not he possessed WMD, certainly made it appear as if he did.

A few words from the President's 2003 State of the Union message bear re-reading:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Dubious? But not sufficiently confident to say that Iraq did not possess WMD.

Sorry, you did not meet the challenge.

You may wish to consider a few things. Now that the UN Food for Oil Program has been revealed to be riddled with corruption with fingers pointing to 'kickbacks' going to both France and Germany, and the earlier findings of French weapons of 1990s vintage being found in Iraq in violation of the 1991 UN cease fire agreement, one can well understand the reluctance of both these countries to support the US.

You may also recall all of the bluster of Saddam Hussein who, for twelve years, whether or not he possessed WMD, certainly made it appear as if he did.

A few words from the President's 2003 State of the Union message bear re-reading:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

First, I think you should view Pacridge's post, as he makes it clear that atleast seven world leaders claimed Iraq had no WMDs. As one author puts it "old Europe didn't buy it, nor did old Asia, old Africa or old South America. ". Only the US bought Bush's claim that Saddam possessed WMDs. This misrepresentation of intel which the administration knew not to be the most accurate guided the American people to support this war. The public would not have backed this war had Bush told the whole truth, that the CIA really didn't have any solid intel. Again, I advise you to begin defending another excuse for this war.

But even if he did possess weapons, was he dangerous at all? He certainly would not cooperate with terrorists, as they viewed him as the lesser of two evils, he could not produce weapons capable of hitting the USA or even Israel. He really was not a threat, and now we knew that he never had these weapons. It seems one can only conclude that the invasion was a mistake.

 

[shuamort]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Dubious? But not sufficiently confident to say that Iraq did not possess WMD.

Sorry, you did not meet the challenge.

Your "challenge" is decidedly impossible then because there was no one that could confidently determine and state that there were no WMDs. Then again, proving a negative is far more difficult than proving a positive. Only a fool would issue that edict. These were countries that did not believe the claims set forth and asked for quantifiable proof. Absense of proof doesn't necessitate actuality and a wise leader knows that. Chirac, Chretian, Schroeder and all the rest believed there weren't WMDs in Iraq without substantative proof. Since there was no proof, they wouldn't back up the US's claims and all but said that they didn't exist.

If you want to nitpick semantics, go right ahead, it doesn't justify the erroneous claims made by Bush.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I see that you are blessed with 20/20 hindsight. If you disagree, there's a simple test you can take. If you pass, you will be proven correct and I will apologize.

If you're willing, here it is.

List three prominent world figures who, before the commencement of the Shock & Awe phase of hostilities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, publicly stated that they did not believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

Now, go to it! I'll watch for your answer.

(This challenge is open to all comers.)

Let's see there was the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, who said "I don't see that there’s enough evidence or that which has been presented clearly shows he‘s still a threat" and there's President Vicente Fox of Mexico who basically said much the same. Plus several South American leaders, notable Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay also questioned the WMD issue as well as the entire rationale for the war. In Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva help organize efforts to unite South American nations against a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. There was one other leader that seem to believe Iraq didn’t have them- Saddam Hussein. That’s six, seven if you include Hussein.

Using your own words you have agreed that out of the six references you made, all had suspicions of a sort, but not one stated publicly that he believed that Iraq did not possess WMD.

Sorry, you did not meet the challenge.

But really what difference does it make what the world leaders thought or didn’t think? The people they should have been listening to were people like Dr. Hans Blix who was charged with the task of determining if Saddam was or was not complying with the UN resolutions. Dr. Blix did everything but scream from the roof tops that they weren’t finding any actual WMD’s. No body listened. Well, no body that mattered.

A few words from the President's 2003 State of the Union message are in order.

"The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons ... lay those weapons out for the world to see ... and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."

The following appeared in a CNN.com article dated Feb 14, 2003:

"Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they were still investigating and had not ruled out the possibility that Iraq does possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

Put the two together.

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Using your own words you have agreed that out of the six references you made, all had suspicions of a sort, but not one stated publicly that he believed that Iraq did not possess WMD.

Sorry, you did not meet the challenge.A few words from the President's 2003 State of the Union message are in order.

"The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons ... lay those weapons out for the world to see ... and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."

The following appeared in a CNN.com article dated Feb 14, 2003:

"Hans Blix, executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they were still investigating and had not ruled out the possibility that Iraq does possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

Put the two together.

It may be well to note that the USA was the only country that felt Iraq was so serious as to warrant the mobilization of 150,000 troops, regardless of what you feel other leaders thought or said.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

That's not all the understanding I conveyed? All I conveyed was that Catholics are also engaged in terrorist activity, again simply to show that terrorism is not a Muslim or Arab thing.


Ignoring the bombing of Hiroshima? Are you serious? The Japanese hardly 'igonred' the bombing, they realized it, they realized that we could drop another bomb. Perhaps you should read A People's History of the US by Howard Zinn, but as he points out, the Japanese were certainly going to surrender before the close of '45 without an invasion or another bombing. Signs point to them doing this sooner rather than later. And you really cannot deny that atleast one purpose of the bombing, if you hold true to what you believe, was to frighten the Soviets, and show American power.

The following two paragraphs from a Howard Zinn web page tell my why you are so enamored of this America hater.

"There is no system of control with more openings, apertures, lee ways, flexibilities, rewards for the chosen, winning tickets in lotteries. There is none that disperses its controls more complexly through the voting system, the work situation, the church, the family, the school, the mass media-none more successful in mollifying opposition with reforms, isolating people from one another, creating patriotic loyalty.

One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native-born against foreign-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country."

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

The following two paragraphs from a Howard Zinn web page tell my why you are so enamored of this America hater.

"There is no system of control with more openings, apertures, lee ways, flexibilities, rewards for the chosen, winning tickets in lotteries. There is none that disperses its controls more complexly through the voting system, the work situation, the church, the family, the school, the mass media-none more successful in mollifying opposition with reforms, isolating people from one another, creating patriotic loyalty.

One percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. The rest of the wealth is distributed in such a way as to turn those in the 99 percent against one another: small property owners against the propertyless, black against white, native-born against foreign-born, intellectuals and professionals against the uneducated and unskilled. These groups have resented one another and warred against one another with such vehemence and violence as to obscure their common position as sharers of leftovers in a very wealthy country."

Do you not like him? I'm sorry to hear that. But I must say the man is not 'anti-American' as you claim, he is simply disgusted with the actions of his country. And yes, he is a socialist, but his writing is no less factual because of it. I reccommend you actually read his "People's History" before criticizing him further.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

First, I think you should view Pacridge's post, as he makes it clear that atleast seven world leaders claimed Iraq had no WMDs. As one author puts it "old Europe didn't buy it, nor did old Asia, old Africa or old South America. ". Only the US bought Bush's claim that Saddam possessed WMDs. This misrepresentation of intel which the administration knew not to be the most accurate guided the American people to support this war. The public would not have backed this war had Bush told the whole truth, that the CIA really didn't have any solid intel. Again, I advise you to begin defending another excuse for this war.

Wrong. All expressed suspicions and hopes. None stated publicly that he believed that Iraq did not possess WMD.

But even if he did possess weapons, was he dangerous at all? He certainly would not cooperate with terrorists, as they viewed him as the lesser of two evils, he could not produce weapons capable of hitting the USA or even Israel. He really was not a threat, and now we knew that he never had these weapons. It seems one can only conclude that the invasion was a mistake.

I see that you, too, are blessed with 20/20 hindsight.

Read the President's State of the Union message. He lays out all of the answers to your concerns.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2003.html

If you find a problem with what he says, let me know.

 

[anomaly]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Wrong. All expressed suspicions and hopes. None stated publicly that he believed that Iraq did not possess WMD.
I see that you, too, are blessed with 20/20 hindsight.

Read the President's State of the Union message. He lays out all of the answers to your concerns.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2003.html

If you find a problem with what he says, let me know.

My comp isn't working properly; I can't access the link. Mind summarizing, perhaps?

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

Your "challenge" is decidedly impossible then because there was no one that could confidently determine and state that there were no WMDs.

Excellent! You are correct! But, why didn't you say that the first time around?

There was no evidence that cleared Iraq. For twelve years the UN inspectors had their chains yanked by Saddam Hussein's henchmen. And just a month before the commencement of hostilities, Hans Blix said publicly that he couldn't say that Iraq was free of WMD.

Then again, proving a negative is far more difficult than proving a positive. Only a fool would issue that edict.

I never said anything about proof, did I? I asked only about belief. Are you ready to apologize for calling me a fool?

These were countries that did not believe the claims set forth and asked for quantifiable proof. Absense of proof doesn't necessitate actuality and a wise leader knows that. Chirac, Chretian, Schroeder and all the rest believed there weren't WMDs in Iraq without substantative proof. Since there was no proof, they wouldn't back up the US's claims and all but said that they didn't exist.

All but said means they didn't say it. Right?

Most folks are confused when it comes to the role of the UN Weapons Inspectors. As the President said in his State of the Union message, 108 inspectors, twelve years, a country the size of California. Their mission was not to scavange the area hunting for stuff. The Cease Fire Agreement that stopped the shooting in Desert Storm and subsequent UN resolutions required Iraq to lead the inspectors to all of the weapons, sites, storage facilities, etc., etc., etc. Refer back to the words of Hans Blix above.

No one knew for certain but all the signs were there and this guy had used WMD in the past. Should we have waited for a mushroom cloud to rise above a major US city before taking action?

If you want to nitpick semantics, go right ahead, it doesn't justify the erroneous claims made by Bush.

You may recall that no one complained about the lack of WMD until well after the fall of Baghdad. That's when those with 20/20 hindsight began to emerge all over the world.

If you haven't done so lately, why not read the President's State of the Union message. Then post a list of erroneous claims and I'll discuss them with you.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2003.html

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

My comp isn't working properly; I can't access the link. Mind summarizing, perhaps?

Just do a search on 2003 State of the Union and you'll get a dozen hits.

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Not all Musulims are TERRORIEST BUT ?

It may be well to note that the USA was the only country that felt Iraq was so serious as to warrant the mobilization of 150,000 troops, regardless of what you feel other leaders thought or said.

When one is being taunted by the schoolyard bully, can one afford to let the bully get in the first punch? Conventional wisdom says disable him with a kick to the scrotum.