• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

PROOF Bush LIED about Iraq!

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If you expect to talk your way out of this one, conservative spin doctors, then you better BRING IT!

Exploiting Tragedy by Craig B. Hulet
September 2001 - February 2002

September 11, 2001

In his address to the nation on the evening of Sept. 11, Bush decides to include a tough new passage about punishing those who harbor terrorists. He announces that the U.S. will "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." To many observers, the president's words set the tone and direction for the Bush administration's policy on Afghanistan and Iraq.
(PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html )

September 12, 2001

According to Richard A. Clarke: "I expected to go back to a round of meetings [after September 11] examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq... I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq...By the afternoon on Wednesday [after Sept. 11], Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq."

"On September 12th, I left the video conferencing center and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

"I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but - see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred--" On the Issues
("Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," by Richard A. Clarke: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Against_All_Enemies_War_%
2B_Peace.htm )

September 13, 2001

Two days later, Wolfowitz expands on the president's words at a Pentagon briefing. He seems to signal that the U.S. will enlarge its campaign against terror to include Iraq: "I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign."
Colin Powell and others are alarmed by what they view as Wolfowitz's inflammatory words about "ending states." Powell later responds during a press briefing: "We're after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing that. But I think ending terrorism is where I would like to leave it, and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself."
(PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.
html )

September 15, 2001

Four days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gathers his national security team at Camp David for a war council. Wolfowitz argues that now is the perfect time to move against state sponsors of terrorism, including Iraq. But Powell tells the president that an international coalition would only come together for an attack on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, not an invasion of Iraq. The war council votes with Powell. Rumsfeld abstains. The president decides that the war's first phase will be Afghanistan. Iraq will be reconsidered later. (PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.
html )

September 16, 2001

According to a 60 Minutes piece, citing Bob Woodward: "just five days after Sept. 11, President Bush indicated to Condoleezza Rice that while he had to do Afghanistan first, he was also determined to do something about Saddam Hussein. "There's some pressure to go after Saddam Hussein. Don Rumsfeld has said, ‘This is an opportunity to take out Saddam Hussein, perhaps. We should consider it.’ And the president says to Condi Rice meeting head to head, ‘We won't do Iraq now.’ But it is a question we're gonna have to return to,’” says Woodward.
(CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main6120
67.shtml )

October 2001

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh writes: "They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi.

According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.
(New Yorke: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact )

Also according to Seymour Hersh, in the fall of 2001, an unsupported allegation by Italian intelligence that Iraq had been attempting to buy uranium from Niger in 1999 was snatched up by Cheney:
Sometime after he first saw it, Cheney brought it up at his regularly scheduled daily briefing from the C.I.A., Martin said. “He asked the briefer a question. The briefer came back a day or two later and said, ‘We do have a report, but there’s a lack of details.’ ” The Vice-President was further told that it was known that Iraq had acquired uranium ore from Niger in the early nineteen-eighties but that that material had been placed in secure storage by the I.A.E.A., which was monitoring it. “End of story,” Martin added. “That’s all we know.” According to a former high-level C.I.A. official, however, Cheney was dissatisfied with the initial response, and asked the agency to review the matter once again. It was the beginning of what turned out to be a year-long tug-of-war between the C.I.A. and the Vice-President’s office.
(New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact )

November 21, 2001

60 Minutes further cites Bob Woodward: “President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check," Woodward says.
(CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main6120
67.shtml )

Late 2001

By the end of 2001, diplomats were discussing how to enlist the support of Arab allies, the military was sharpening its troop estimates, and the communications team was plotting how to sell an attack to the American public. The whole purpose of putting Iraq into Bush's State of the Union address, as part of the "axis of evil," was to begin the debate about a possible invasion.
(Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html
)

January 29, 2002

In his State of the Union Adress, Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
(White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.
html )

February 13, 2002

Ken Adelman, a onetime assistant to Donald Rumsfeld, writes that the conquest of Iraq would be a cakewalk: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps...

In 1991 we engaged a grand international coalition because we lacked a domestic coalition. Virtually the entire Democratic leadership stood against that President Bush. The public, too, was divided. This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as "coalition partners" to convince the Washington establishment that we're right. Americans of all parties now know we must wage a total war on terrorism.(Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&no
de=&contentId=A1996-2002Feb12¬Found=true ... )

Fixing the Intelligence
March - August 2002


Oh, I'm sorry! Were out of time.

The rest of the proof can be found at the link below if anyone cares to read on. If not, let the spin begin!


http://www.craigbhulet.com/site/
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
60 Minutes further cites Bob Woodward: “President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check," Woodward says.
(CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...inutes/main6120
67.shtml )


Hearing through closed doors is always a challenge.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nothing new here.............Just Democratic talking points and political spin.........

We are in Iraq until the job is completed there....Get use to it.........
 

cindy

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Location
Panama City, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm gonna say if no one else will...WHO CARES..Yes slap him on wrist for lying (you words not mine)! Saddam was a bad bad man! It's not like we invaded Scotland.

I think he should have just been forth coming and said I am going to get rid of Saddam. YAY! Good for you.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Billo_Really said:
If you expect to talk your way out of this one, conservative spin doctors, then you better BRING IT!

Not sure what to spin. Your last link doesnt work and merely responding brings up inet passport crap. I hate that.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
cindy said:
I'm gonna say if no one else will...WHO CARES..Yes slap him on wrist for lying (you words not mine)! Saddam was a bad bad man! It's not like we invaded Scotland.

I think he should have just been forth coming and said I am going to get rid of Saddam. YAY! Good for you.
Agreed. This was way too long in coming anyway.
Now the US has a major food hold in the most strategic location in the region as well. Democracy and economic growth are being injected into an area that has been stagnant and rife with conflict for nearly 3000 years.
Lots of good stuff all around.
The middle East has arguably had the most time and opportunity to develop and become a world class power and reach for the stars and wasted it on religious rhetoric.
It is time to move on and take the next step in becoming self reliant and most importantly to learn to work well and play with others nicely.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by akyron:
Not sure what to spin. Your last link doesnt work and merely responding brings up inet passport crap. I hate that
If a popup asks for a user name, type: cali and password: emerson if that doesn't work, just go to the website:www.craigbhulet.com that should work.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Billo_Really said:
If a popup asks for a user name, type: cali and password: emerson if that doesn't work, just go to the website:www.craigbhulet.com that should work.
You cited "New York Times", "PBS", "CBS","The New Yorker", "Time Magazine Online", "Washington Post", "Craig B Hulet" As he self proclaim's himself as "The Thinker".

Lets read about this Craig!
Slogan for his website:
"Don't want Empire to sneak-up on you and whack-ya you've come to the right place!!"
Yes this lazy web designer is comparing America to an "Empire"! He constantly makes accusations with little or no source! This whole site is Opinionated and not based on facts. Besides what would you expect from a guy proclaiming to be "The Thinker". He really should have "Thought" more on not limiting access to his web site. That shows he is hiding something if his site has to be passworded.

So BilliO you qouted biased sources, Passworded sources? Homemade HTML/XML pages? Throw me a bone here! Im smelling a :spin: er!
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by stsburns:
You cited "New York Times", "PBS", "CBS","The New Yorker", "Time Magazine Online", "Washington Post", "Craig B Hulet" As he self proclaim's himself as "The Thinker".

Lets read about this Craig!
Slogan for his website:
Quote:
"Don't want Empire to sneak-up on you and whack-ya you've come to the right place!!"
Yes this lazy web designer is comparing America to an "Empire"! He constantly makes accusations with little or no source! This whole site is Opinionated and not based on facts. Besides what would you expect from a guy proclaiming to be "The Thinker". He really should have "Thought" more on not limiting access to his web site. That shows he is hiding something if his site has to be passworded.

So BilliO you qouted biased sources, Passworded sources? Homemade HTML/XML pages? Throw me a bone here! Im smelling a er!
Do you have brain damage? I didn't "quot" anything any more biased than a lot of the crap that is being posted by your kind. At least I provide sources without attacking individuals as a rebut.

Why don't you just quit the foreplay, and admit that this is just a game for you. You have no intention of debating. You just trash the person, then trash the source, then trash...whatever is on your list of irrational responses. Do you ever provide evidence that contradicts what has been proposed? Or do you just shovel crap around. Everytime I read your posts, I have to pull up my pant legs!

So everybody lies except Bush. Everybody that doesn't share your view is a liar. Everybody that uses passwords is a liar. Oh, grow up!

But don't even give me this crap about something to hide, not with all the secrets the current Adminstration is keeping to themselves. Why won't they let reporters roam around Iraq on there own. Why do they try to filter their stories. Why do they target journalists in their crosshairs. Why do they bomb foriegn news agencies after they were given their GPS coordinates. Sounds like somebody is hiding something to me.

Your twisted disjointed logic astounds me. First you list the sources he lists, then you say he doesn't provide sources. You are too phucking funny my brother! Are you on the clock? Is this your job? Do you get paid to go around to websites and argue the good fight? Are you on the white house payroll?
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Billo_Really said:
Do you have brain damage? I didn't "quot" anything any more biased than a lot of the crap that is being posted by your kind. At least I provide sources without attacking individuals as a rebut.
Back again with jokes I see. By the way what is my kind? Yes you did attack me by assuming and stating I have brain damage, though you yourself could use a good brain exam. I didn't criticize you I crisized your sources! Now who needs their brain examed. Next time reread your post and see your own contradictions before submiting, it would be worth your time.

Why don't you just quit the foreplay, and admit that this is just a game for you. You have no intention of debating. You just trash the person, then trash the source, then trash...whatever is on your list of irrational responses. Do you ever provide evidence that contradicts what has been proposed? Or do you just shovel crap around. Everytime I read your posts, I have to pull up my pant legs!
Game! If this is game who would be winning, someone posting sources with limited access, or the guy critisizing it! I don't have to have a source to contradict your "Biased" sources, because they do enough damage to themselves. Just like if I were to post something from OH MY GOD "Fox News", I would never hear the end of it!

So everybody lies except Bush. Everybody that doesn't share your view is a liar. Everybody that uses passwords is a liar. Oh, grow up!
When did I say that, my intentions were to prove you had "biased" sources and a loony to defend your idealogy. I never have stated that Bush never lied, you did! I have stated you a liar on past posts but on the preceding one I questioned your sources, and you took it upon yourself as they were offenses to you. Limiting someone to a website is a good filter! I suggest you take a class with computer professionals, and they would prove the point. Passwords are always used to keep people out of things not to get them in!
But don't even give me this crap about something to hide, not with all the secrets the current Adminstration is keeping to themselves. Why won't they let reporters roam around Iraq on there own. Why do they try to filter their stories. Why do they target journalists in their crosshairs. Why do they bomb foriegn news agencies after they were given their GPS coordinates. Sounds like somebody is hiding something to me.
Government has always had secrets. Sometimes to save us, sometimes to save their own hides.Yes they do keep secrets but Bush doesn't put a password on it! Lets see "Why don't they let reports roam Iraq, Why are the stories filtered, Why do soldiers target journalists, Why do soldiers bomb news agencies?" Here are your answers, so I know your going to go :screwy when you read this. The Answers: Humm....why don't they let reporters roam free through Iraq, because they are easy catches for terrorist groups and have been routinely beheaded during war times. Why do soldiers target journalists, well most journalists come back to the US and hoo and haa that the soldiers aren't doing their jobs; Put yourself in their shoes for once: If someone is soiling your name for ratings and you were holding a gun, you know its not going to end well! Why are their stories filtered, first off who has filtered news stories from Iraq, name a news organization, it would help? Why do they bomb news agencies.....well your excuse they had GPS cordinates to bomb the agency! Well if you have actually used a GPS you would know that "markers" are identified and marked with "Icons" on a GPS! They do not have names attached to them, so implying that the soldier knew they were bombing a news agency is obserd, the destination was probably done by a higher officer that disliked that news agency.
Your twisted disjointed logic astounds me. First you list thes sources he lists, then you say he doesn't provide sources. You are too phucking funny my brother! Are you on the clock? Is this your job? Do you get paid to go around to websites and argue the good fight? Are you on the white house payroll?
I hope it did astound you! Half the time I have to wake you up! The sources I listed were to prove "By Name Alone" that they were biased sources, I'm sorry you don't reread my posts, though it is your fault! No this is not my job, but it does make for good writing practice. No I'm not on NO White House payroll, the government has no beef with me, nor do I get paid to talk some since into you! But if your dieing to know I'm self employed fixing the same machines in which you typed your Illogical message! Please don't accuse others of spining when you do enough of it yourself! By they way Monkeys don't make good allies!
 
S

Showtyme

Billo_Really said:
Why won't they let reporters roam around Iraq on there own.
Maybe for the same reason they don't let little children run across a busy street.....

Billo if you can figure this one out on your own I'll give you a cookie.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Billo_Really
Why won't they let reporters roam around Iraq on there own
Originally posted by Showtyme:
Maybe for the same reason they don't let little children run across a busy street.....

Billo if you can figure this one out on your own I'll give you a cookie.
Because they are getting shot at?
 
S

Showtyme

Billo_Really said:
Billo_Really said:
Why won't they let reporters roam around Iraq on there own
Showtyme said:
Maybe for the same reason they don't let little children run across a busy street.....

Billo if you can figure this one out on your own I'll give you a cookie
Because they are getting shot at?
ERRRRRRR

Because it's dangerous

Silly Billy. There goes your cookie.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation

There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of some of the major fallacies. It is a good idea to be familiar with them so that you can point them out in a discussion thereby focusing the issues where they belong. I have discovered numerous times that during a debate on an issue, if you simply point out to your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, that it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not the point. Truth is the point. Nevertheless, it is logical fallacies that hide the truth. So, pointing them out can be very useful.

Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example-
Originally posted by stsburns:
Yes this lazy web designer is comparing America to an "Empire"! He constantly makes accusations with little or no source! This whole site is Opinionated and not based on facts. Besides what would you expect from a guy proclaiming to be "The Thinker".
Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example-
Originally posted by Conneticutter:
I know you may believe that the west and the terrorists think the same way and take the same actions, but that's just not the case. The terrorists we are fighting want to kill us through any means possible. That's you and me. They believe that their god requires it
Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example-
Originally posted by FiremanRyan:
too many people dont realize the lengths we go to in order to eliminate terrorism within our borders. trust me, there are two wars being faught right now but you only hear about one of them.
Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example-
Originally posted by Teacher:
Oh, Kofi, yea I I'd listen to him if I were you. At least he doen't lie like Bush.
Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example-
Originally posted by tr1414:
They think your stupid. They think all freedom loving Americans are stupid. They think patriotism is stupid. They think chruchgoing is stupid. They think having big families is stupid. They are sure that where you live - anywhere but near or in a few major cities - is a insipid cultural wastland.

Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

Example-
Originally posted by superskippy:
I never said I had a problam debating him, but he needs to act more mature and stop lashing out in fits of rage when he responds to posts, which you must agree destroys a debate. I'm not "denying" the truth in fact I have refuted everything he has said, while he has refuted nothing of what me and Tashah said for the past few pages.

Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.

Example-
Originally posted by superskippy:
Regarding your idea on Depleted Uranium it does not cause the intense radioactive sickness you imply. Of the soldiers in the Gulf War who used it more than anyone, they suffered no illness from the handeling of the rounds.
Circular Argument - see Begging the Question
Example-
Originally posted by cnredd:
Are you saying that the Leader of the so-called Superior Aryan Race would be in cahoots with Italians & Asians?...That could never happen either....
Division - assuming that the what is true of the whole is true for the parts
Example-
Originally posted by superskippy:
Regarding your idea on Depleted Uranium it does not cause the intense radioactive sickness you imply. Of the soldiers in the Gulf War who used it more than anyone, they suffered no illness from the handeling of the rounds.
Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example-
Originally posted by tr1414:
You are a liberal saying your not.... why do you feel that you have to hide?
False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example-
Originally posted by Bluestateredneck:
Yes... let's try and understand the poor terrorists. That's it, they are just misunderstood... we should just be still and do nothing while they kill our people.
Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
Example-
Originally posted by Messerschmitt:
Bush is trying to fix the economy that Clinton left to rot, and all the problems in the middle east that Clinton ignored.

Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
Example-
Originally posted by tr1414:
Robin, you are a over age hippy. The only retard here is YOU. I think you make these stupid posts just to hear yourself talk & make people made. Your the kind of person that has no life. And you don't know what the hell your talking about. Communism didn't spread to Loas & Cambodia? You are fulled with self-hate & hate for America. The best part of your day must be when people get so sick of the bullshit you post that we have to respond to you. Have another bon-bon & make it back to your room before bed-check. You need help.

Non Sequitar - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.

Example-
Originally posted by FiremanRyan:
is that why there hasnt been one terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11? whether terrorists are more or less angry with us than they were before, the war on terror has better secured this nation against attacks from them.
Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example-
Originally posted by cnredd:
Before anyone goes to any truthout.org pages, keep in mind they make moveon.org look like a Bill Frist homepage....

Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example-
Originally posted by cnredd:
This is far removed from the headlines that screamed "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" (Washington Post); "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" (New York Times); "No Signs of Iraq-Al-Qaeda Ties Found" (Los Angeles Times).
You want proof?...How about the words of the Chairman & the Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission you stupid, blind, ignorant phuck!

Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.

Example-
Originally posted by tr1414:
You not even female? Your not even human.... everytime you post you make a bigger ass out of yourself. Total jackass

Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth.
Example-
Originally posted by Fantasea:
You fail to note the reaction to Operation Iraqi Freedom by several tyrannical or dictatorial states.
 
S

Showtyme

I'm offended that none of my quotes were used in your report.

It's over between us.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Actually his post was an attempt to disprove all of our statements. Now look back at our statements and see what he edited out, which it was were the really flamming was going on! Nice Dodge BillO! :clap:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
stsburns said:
Actually his post was an attempt to disprove all of our statements. Now look back at our statements and see what he edited out, which it was were the really flamming was going on! Nice Dodge BillO! :clap:
I would not have cared if he kept everything fully intact....getting debate lessons from Billio is like getting hunting lessons from Stevie Wonder.

I would say that I take what he says with a grain of salt, but I'd be insulting the grain...
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted be stsburns:
Actually his post was an attempt to disprove all of our statements. Now look back at our statements and see what he edited out, which it was were the really flamming was going on! Nice Dodge BillO
If the shoe fits...
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Billo_Really said:
If the shoe fits...
Yes but you did leave out all of our points and stole our introductions, Where's the beef Billo_Really!
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
2/3 of terrorists come from countries that have US troops on their soil. In Iraq, we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. Here's part of the story with the link below.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism:
It's the Occupation, Not the Fundamentalism

By Scott McConnell
The American Conservative

18 Juy 2005 Issue

Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world's largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration's current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.
The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?
Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources-Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others-so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.
This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign-over 95 percent of all the incidents-has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush's policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them here.
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.
Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
TAC: If we were to back up a little bit before the invasion of Iraq to what happened before 9/11, what was the nature of the agitprop that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were putting out to attract people?
RP: Osama bin Laden's speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.
In 1996, he went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States-that the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help in his mobilization appeals.
TAC: The fact that we had troops stationed on the Arabian Peninsula was not a very live issue in American debate at all. How many Saudis and other people in the Gulf were conscious of it?
RP: We would like to think that if we could keep a low profile with our troops that it would be okay to station them in foreign countries. The truth is, we did keep a fairly low profile. We did try to keep them away from Saudi society in general, but the key issue with American troops is their actual combat power. Tens of thousands of American combat troops, married with air power, is a tremendously powerful tool. Now, of course, today we have 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we are more in control of the Arabian Peninsula than ever before.
TAC: If you were to break down causal factors, how much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory?
RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism. If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people-three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia-with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.
Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.
I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.
Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071405O.shtml
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Billo_Really said:
2/3 of terrorists come from countries that have US troops on their soil. In Iraq, we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. Here's part of the story with the link below.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism:
It's the Occupation, Not the Fundamentalism

By Scott McConnell
The American Conservative

18 Juy 2005 Issue

Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world's largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration's current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.
The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?
Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources-Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others-so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.
This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign-over 95 percent of all the incidents-has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush's policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them here.
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.
Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
TAC: If we were to back up a little bit before the invasion of Iraq to what happened before 9/11, what was the nature of the agitprop that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were putting out to attract people?
RP: Osama bin Laden's speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.
In 1996, he went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States-that the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help in his mobilization appeals.
TAC: The fact that we had troops stationed on the Arabian Peninsula was not a very live issue in American debate at all. How many Saudis and other people in the Gulf were conscious of it?
RP: We would like to think that if we could keep a low profile with our troops that it would be okay to station them in foreign countries. The truth is, we did keep a fairly low profile. We did try to keep them away from Saudi society in general, but the key issue with American troops is their actual combat power. Tens of thousands of American combat troops, married with air power, is a tremendously powerful tool. Now, of course, today we have 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we are more in control of the Arabian Peninsula than ever before.
TAC: If you were to break down causal factors, how much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory?
RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism. If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people-three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia-with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.
Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.
I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.
Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071405O.shtml



Interesting and a good read....thanks Billo :cool:
 
S

Showtyme

Billo_Really said:
2/3 of terrorists come from countries that have US troops on their soil. In Iraq, we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. Here's part of the story with the link below.
Here's a fun statistic: Dyslexia affects approximately 10% of the US population.

Word scramble...
US troops have been stationed in 2/3 of all terrorist producing countries.

Kind of has a ring to it, doesn't it?

Billo_Really said:
That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
I could of swore London wasn't their homeland.

And If I saw foreign troops protecting our homeland, I'd send them flowers, not bombs.

Billo_Really said:
The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.
I punched another boy in elementary school. I told my dad that it was because he punched me first... For some reason that answer wasn’t acceptable and I still ended up getting my ass kicked.
 
Top Bottom