the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Like what?

Like this...

Originally posted by akyron:
...and you look out for terrorists.

...prove it. Where are your facts? Where is your evidence? Your the info guy, walk your talk.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
I dont recall calling you a terrorist. I do recall mentioning you defending them a few times.

I think I sent you the link to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's sign up sheet for suicide bombers once too.

I am sure I was trying to get your goat at the time.

I have never defended any terrorist. But if you were just trying to get my goat, you suceeded. My goat was got. If that's all it was, I commend you on your sucessful mission. Bravo.

 

[akyron]

How about the unlawful invasion of a country that did nothing to us?

Aside from Gulf war part II....
HAVE WAR CRITICS EVEN READ THE DUELFER REPORT?

"M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe.""

How about destroying 75% of a city of 300,000 residents? You don't think people will get mad over that?

I am guessing you are talking about Fallujah. I may be wrong.

If they had gotten mad at the thousands of criminals and insurgents to begin with and taken care of business there would never have been a problem.

Maybe you are unaware but Saddam unloaded the jails right before he got ganked.

Two major battles in your town has got to suck no matter what. If you cannot take care of the Insurgents yourself then maybe its time to move.
Not shooting at an army outside might help too. Not dragging american bodies through the streets might help keep the military out of town as well.

Do you see any of that or do you skip go and go directly to "Bad Bad Bad America"?


Fallujah Report

 

[akyron]

Where is your evidence? Your the info guy, walk your talk.

"Algeria releases 3000 convicted terrorists or suspects"

You come back with "How many of these people had their day in court? Why do you choose to convict them without a trial?"

"Thousands more prisoners detained or convicted on charges of terrorist activities are expected to be released under a new law on Civil Harmony (Concorde civile), which was approved by the government last week and which is currently being debated by parliament. According to this law people linked to armed groups who have not themselves been responsible for killings or rapes and who give themselves up to the authorities will no longer face prosecution, while those who have committed such crimes will benefit from reduced sentences. "

Good looking out for convicts rights there Billo.
Every time you complain about Saddam being unfairly removed from office as well qualifies as defending him.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
" Algeria releases 3000 convicted terrorists or suspects"

You come back with "How many of these people had their day in court? Why do you choose to convict them without a trial?"

"Thousands more prisoners detained or convicted on charges of terrorist activities are expected to be released under a new law on Civil Harmony (Concorde civile), which was approved by the government last week and which is currently being debated by parliament. According to this law people linked to armed groups who have not themselves been responsible for killings or rapes and who give themselves up to the authorities will no longer face prosecution, while those who have committed such crimes will benefit from reduced sentences. "

I don't agree with convicted terrorists being released prior to serving their sentence. However, I don't know the specifics of these cases so I can't really comment on them other than that. All I can do is put my faith in the judicial system. If that system in those country's is flawed, don't blame me or say I'm defending terrorists, because I would say that about anyone (including you).

Originally posted by akyron:
Good looking out for convicts rights there Billo.

I take issue with any rights that are not common to everyone. And this is not to include people that have lost their rights through their criminal actions in society.

Originally posted by akyron:
Every time you complain about Saddam being unfairly removed from office as well qualifies as defending him.

I'll say that about any Head of State that is forcibly removed without UNSC authorization. If you want to look at it that way (defending Hussein), you have the right to your opinion. If you are against my position, then you do not believe in the rule of law and you support vigilante justice.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:'
Aside from Gulf war part II....
HAVE WAR CRITICS EVEN READ THE DUELFER REPORT?

"M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe.""

Are you talking about this one?

Iraq Had No WMD: The Final Verdict
By Julian Borger The Independent U.K. Saturday 18 September 2004

The comprehensive 15-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has concluded that the only chemical or biological agents that Saddam Hussein's regime was working on before last year's invasion were small quantities of poisons, most likely for use in assassinations.

A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.

It also appears to play down an interim report which suggested there was evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of ricin for use in weapons. Instead, the ISG report says in its conclusion that there was evidence to suggest the Iraqi regime planned to restart its illegal weapons programmes if UN sanctions were lifted.

Charles Duelfer, the head of the ISG, has said he intends to deliver his final report by the end of the month. It is likely to become a heated issue in the election campaign.

President George Bush now admits that stockpiles have not been found in Iraq but claimed as recently as Thursday that "Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy".

The draft Duelfer report, according to the New York Times, finds no evidence of a capability, but only of an intention to rebuild that capability once the UN embargo had been removed and Iraq was no longer the target of intense international scrutiny.

The finding adds weight to Mr. Bush's assertions on the long-term danger posed by the former Iraqi leader, but it also suggests that, contrary to the administration's claims, diplomacy and containment were working prior to the invasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1307448,00.html

I'm glad you brought that up.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
I am guessing you are talking about Fallujah. I may be wrong.

If they had gotten mad at the thousands of criminals and insurgents to begin with and taken care of business there would never have been a problem.

Maybe you are unaware but Saddam unloaded the jails right before he got ganked.

Two major battles in your town has got to suck no matter what. If you cannot take care of the Insurgents yourself then maybe its time to move.
Not shooting at an army outside might help too. Not dragging american bodies through the streets might help keep the military out of town as well.

Do you see any of that or do you skip go and go directly to "Bad Bad Bad America"?


Fallujah Report

You need to put things in perspective there, bud. We are talking about a city the size of Long Beach, Ca. Did you notice in your chart the number of foreign fighters? I disagree with the findings because I think there was actually more. Even still, were talking about our troops fighting Iraqis. People have a right to defend their homeland.

Let's say in your hypocritical little world they didn't have a right to defend their homes, that's 300,000 people you are punishing because of 2 foreign fighters! Just what the hell kind of human being are you?

 

[EHatem]

I've read through most of this thread and it seems that, like most issues these days, people take a black and white approach to it. The answer is either yes or no. That really isn't the case here. There are three groups in Iraq that are commonly referred to as terrorists. The foriegn fighters, the secular groups, and the insurgency. Our being there brought the foriegn fighters to the country, but mainly as a training ground. Not so much on the recruitment. So the answer there is no. The secular groups had hatred for one another long before even Saddam came to power. So all we did was take the cap off the bottle. Good luck fixing that one. And that would make the answer both yes and no. The insurgency is the group that the answer is yes to. Of course we're causing more terrorists to form in the insurgency. We have Fox, CNN, etc to get our information from. Once you get away from Baghdad it's mainly word of mouth or little local newspapers that publish whatever they think the people want to hear as opposed to what is really going on. These people don't know what to believe anymore and a few of them turn to violence to get rid of what they perceive as a threat to their country. I'm not trying to turn them into heroes, they aren't. They are more cases of tragedy than anything else. They throw their lives away for half truths and an odd sense of nationalism considering most of them hated the nation before we got there already.

Everyday I pray for a real third party so we can get rid of the two we have now.

 

[akyron]

Are you talking about this one?
I'm glad you brought that up.

Me too since they just found 500+ barrels of Sarin and Mustard that no one seems to care about.

discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically "sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles," in Iraq.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Me too since they just found 500+ barrels of Sarin and Mustard that no one seems to care about.

discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically " sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles," in Iraq.

Yeah, and all the experts have already debunked this story as non-sense if your trying to say these are WMD's. The only ones who are talking this up are the two Senator's that are trying to get re-elected.

 

[akyron]

I'll say that about any Head of State that is forcibly removed without UNSC authorization. If you want to look at it that way (defending Hussein), you have the right to your opinion. If you are against my position, then you do not believe in the rule of law and you support vigilante justice.

Ahh ok so Saddam really did comply with UNSC resolutions concerning oil for food and destroying all his WMD.

So no one starved and they found no sarin. Got it.

Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-For-Food

War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

No holds are placed on food and medicine.



I see. You are not defending Mr. Hussein. He was just a big yellow puppy.

Got it.

 

[akyron]

I don't agree with convicted terrorists being released prior to serving their sentence. All I can do is put my faith in the judicial system.

Im with you there.
Presumed innocent is the american way but after the conviction hits its all over.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Ahh ok so Saddam really did comply with UNSC resolutions concerning oil for food and destroying all his WMD.
So no one starved and they found no sarin. Got it.
Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-For-Food
War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
No holds are placed on food and medicine.
I see. You are not defending Mr. Hussein. He was just a big yellow puppy.

Got it.

No one is saying he was a good guy. He's about as evil as they come. And no, he was not complying with UN sanctions. He was trying to get away with everything he could. But we knew what this guy was all about 20 years ago when Rumsfeld was shaking his hand. Hussein didn't change.

As far as OFF, we knew about what was going on for years and we said nothing. 51% of that money came from a Houston businessman. So if it was such a big deal, why did we wait four years before we said something? I'll tell you why. Because we couldn't get UNSC authorization to attack Iraq. So it was, "let the smear begin".

Don't give me this s.hit about crimes against humanity when we are doing the exact same thing.

 

[akyron]

You need to put things in perspective there, bud. We are talking about a city the size of Long Beach, Ca. Did you notice in your chart the number of foreign fighters? I disagree with the findings because I think there was actually more. Even still, were talking about our troops fighting Iraqis. People have a right to defend their homeland.

Let's say in your hypocritical little world they didn't have a right to defend their homes, that's 300,000 people you are punishing because of 2 foreign fighters! Just what the hell kind of human being are you?

Longbeach it wasnt ....

Where in the world did you get the idea that Fallujah was cleaned out because of 2 foreign fighters?

Your entire premise is faulty.
War is bad and bad stuff happens.
Personally I would have left in the weeks previous as many did.
The insurgency was denied a base of operations and thats what needed to be done. No one likes it but it needed to be done.


"But really there are almost no civilians out here."--Scott Peterson reporting live from Fallujah CBS news.
TARGET: FALLUJAH

 

[Billo_Really]

America violates all moral criteria in its war in Iraq
By Dr. Imad Allo Azzaman, June 13, 2006

The reality of the situation shows that the ideological underpinnings of the American war creed are based on the control and exploitation of capital and the building of political regimes that respond to the directives of the new era of globalization.

Therefore, the U.S. uses all means including military intervention to reshape the so-called international community or legitimacy in a manner that meets its own views and interests and what is doable given its military might.

Many are perplexed to see the U.S. in violation of international humanitarian standards. The reason is that their perception of the U.S. in the first place is a defender of these standards.

But the reality of the situation is something else and nowhere has the U.S. exposed its double standards and massive violations of human rights and international law as in its war in Iraq which it waged in cahoots with Britain.

The aggression the two countries committed against Iraq and which started on April 20, 2003, and is still on, is immoral and a crime against peace and a violation of conduct during time of war as outlined by international treaties.

In this unjustified war, the U.S. aided by Britain violated international law. And during its occupation, now in its fourth year, Washington has breached every single article of international conventions laid down to regulate the behavior of occupation troops.

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=opinion\2006-06-13\111.htm

Hey, akyron, is this what you call the American way?

And before you start your usual ad hom questioning the credibility of the author, why don't you post some proof that contradicts what is asserted in the link above? Because if you don't have any evidence that shows the opposite, you have no valid arguement to object with.

Benefit of the doubt...

Innocent until proven guilty...

If you think the above is false, PROVE IT!

 

[akyron]

But we knew what this guy was all about 20 years ago when Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.

I think you know why that happened. Lets hear you say it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Longbeach it wasnt ....

I used Long Beach as an example to indicate the magnitude of displacing 300,000 people. That's a lot of people to displace just because of .01% of the population. The raw data of that raid came down to less than 1100 Iraqis killed or detained. So how many left out of the 300,000 were civilians. Do the math!

Oh, by the way, were those sniper positions "theirs" or "ours".

 

[Billo_Really]

Witnesses: US Forces Killed Unarmed Civilians
War Crimes in Fallujah By KEN SENGUPTA The Independent Baghdad.

Allegations of widespread abuse by US forces in Fallujah, including the killing of unarmed civilians and the targeting of a hospital in an attack, have been made by people who have escaped from the city.

They said, in interviews with The Independent, that as well as deaths from bombs and artillery shells, a large number of people including children were killed by American snipers. US forces refused repeated calls for medical aid for injured civilians, they said.

Some of the killings took place in the build-up to the assault on the rebel stronghold, and at least in one case--that of the death of a family of seven, including a three-month baby--the American authorities have admitted responsibility and offered compensation.

The refugees from Fallujah describe a situation of extreme violence in which remaining civilians in the city, who have been told by the Americans to leave, appeared to have been seen as complicit in the insurgency. Men of military age were particularly vulnerable. But there are accounts of children as young as four, and women and old men being killed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sengupta11232004.html

If your trying to justify Fallujah, then you certainly do not care about the truth. You have an agenda that you mask with intelligent conversation. But the lepoerd allways shows it's spots.

Was he a terrorist?

 

[akyron]

And before you start your usual ad hom questioning the credibility of the author, why don't you post some proof that contradicts what is asserted in the link above?

So you want me to address an opinion? All right


"The reality of the situation shows that the ideological underpinnings of the American war creed are based on the control and exploitation of capital and the building of political regimes that respond to the directives of the new era of globalization."

I can agree with this. Terroristic regimes really have no place in the modern world.


"Therefore, the U.S. uses all means including military intervention to reshape the so-called international community or legitimacy in a manner that meets its own views and interests and what is doable given its military might."

Anytime you generalize you are usually wrong but I can agree with some of this. He left out the diplomatic circus that occurs first though.

"But the reality of the situation is something else and nowhere has the U.S. exposed its double standards and massive violations of human rights and international law as in its war in Iraq which it waged in cahoots with Britain."

Meh. A few isolated incidents. Be specific. Heh he said cahoots... If I had to be in cahoots with someone the British arent so bad.

"The aggression the two countries committed against Iraq and which started on April 20, 2003, and is still on, is immoral and a crime against peace and a violation of conduct during time of war as outlined by international treaties."

Dead wrong. It started on January 16 1991

You cant look at today without looking at yesterday.

"The U.S. has abused and tortured Iraqi prisoners, killed peaceful and unarmed demonstrators, arrested Iraqis arbitrarily and detained them indefinitely without conviction and destroyed houses and towns. "

Didnt they go to prison already for abu graib?
Two demonstrators were killed and 15 injured Wednesday during a second round of clashes in the central Iraqi town of Fallujah
If they were unarmed how were they firing at a US convoy? Just wondering.

"Both U.S. and British occupation troops can do whatever they want to do with impunity as there is no legal framework to make them accountable for their acts in the country."

We dont have courts? How is Rumsfeld and the President being sued?

"This situation has given the occupiers a free hand and put them above the law."
Obviously untrue. 8 years for Abu Ghraib soldier

"They are not held accountable, no matter what they do, under current Iraqi jurisdiction. "

Meh a few bad apples have been sent to jail or have court pending. As it should be.

"As a result, we now have a failed country in which murder, bombings, raids and sectarian killings occur on a daily basis and under the glare of the sun."

I agree with the fact its pretty hot over there at times.
Ok you suckered me into that waste of time.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Dead wrong. It started on January 16 1991

We violated articles 6 and 51 of the UN Charter. Your the one who is dead wrong. There isn't a single international lawyer you can quote that would back you up!

 

[akyron]

I
Oh, by the way, were those sniper positions "theirs" or "ours".

Im not sure what you are referring to. One marine was killed in the graveyard with a russian sniper rifle. They were forced to brink up a tank to knock the multistory building down to get him if that is what you are referring to.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Im not sure what you are referring to. One marine was killed in the graveyard with a russian sniper rifle. They were forced to brink up a tank to knock the multistory building down to get him if that is what you are referring to.

My dearest akyron,

I am talking about the reports of us setting up sniper positions all over the city then shooting everything that moves. Men, women and children. Everything. The ones that survive that, we drive over in our Bradleys.

 

[akyron]

We violated articles 6 and 51 of the UN Charter. Your the one who is dead wrong. There isn't a single international lawyer you can quote that would back you up!

Just the original resolution. What else is needed?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron:
Just the original resolution [don't you mean Final Solution?]. What else is needed?

The UN has already come out and stated they did not give the US authorization to act unilaterally. It wasn't Bush's call.

 

[akyron]

If your trying to justify Fallujah, then you certainly do not care about the truth. You have an agenda that you mask with intelligent conversation. But the lepoerd allways shows it's spots.

Whoa whoa whoa. There is no good thing about war. That boy looks to be about my sons age. If I were his parents I would have left weeks ahead of time like so many others did.


My agenda is only to the truth. Bad stuff happens in war. No one I ever heard of is pro-war. You do what you have to do and move on as best you can. Holding your head in the sand wont make anything better. Problems need to be addressed. You complain an awful lot but never have I heard any better solutions except to roll over and play dead.