What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

RightOfCenter · Dec 3, 2008

Ahmed Shaheen said:
ok , force me to get out if you can .

I completely have faith with what iam writing , so I wont be affected by some Frivolous opinions like yours .

Is the majority always right?

RightOfCenter · Dec 3, 2008

Ahmed Shaheen said:
dont need to be an American to know whats a bogey man.

Oh, your last post was an insult? If so it was pretty lame.

prove it then .

A majority of the people in the world are Christian. There ya go.

huh ? where is that majority's opinion which says that who dont believe that Jesus is the God is wrong , every one has his independent thinking of his own religion.

No, that is the one accepted tenet of the Christian religion. Jesus is God.

Ok , then why are you here ?

To debate the merits of ideas, whether or not they are the majority opinion. Why are you here?

the Dominant Idea in this forum is to take with the majority's opinion .

It definitely isn't.

do you think that your opinion will affect me or any religous person in this forum , at all you're making us stick more to our religion and show how stupid you are.

Really? By arguing the merits of your religion you just cling tighter and tighter to the ideals you cling to? I'm very open to ideas. If you can prove God exists I'll believe. I doubt you can. I wonder though, why do you believe in God? Because it's the majority's opinion? That really doesn't seem silly to you?

RightOfCenter · Dec 3, 2008

Truth Detector said:
It's times like these that you wish you could have an IQ gauge that assesses ignorance BEFORE it infests the forums.

(of course some here will now suggest that if that were the case, I would never get IN)

Just my :twocents:

So, you talking about me or Achmed?:mrgreen:

Truth Detector · Dec 3, 2008

RightOfCenter said:
So, you talking about me or Achmed?:mrgreen:

:funny Good lord Right, if you have to ask, I am going to CHANGE my answer. YES, it starts with an "a" and ends with a "d".

:rofl

rightwinghour · Dec 3, 2008

Truth Detector said:
I saw it, but it was a very weak attempt to redefine what Imperialism is.

I asked for a specific example, although I did get a legitimate one from another poster whom I won’t mention: mrgreen: I am looking for an example of REAL American Imperialism in the last century.

Here's a hint why you wont find one; we have the longest unprotected borders in the world with Canada and with Mexico. Obviously they, with their tiny military, feel no threat about some mythical American Imperialism.

:2wave:

Main Entry: imperialism im-!pir-E-u-+li-zum
Pronunciation: \ im-ˈpir-ē-ə-ˌli-zəm \
Function: noun
Date: 1826
Results
1. 1 imperial government, authority, or system

2. 2 the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas broadly the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence - union imperialism

It appears you want to cling to one definition, or part of one, while ignoring all other definitions and denying that imperialism can evolve over time. I did notice, though, that the definition you gave above fits quite well with what we did throughout the 20th century, and even up to the present: "or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas broadly the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence". This is a more subtle and palatable way of doing things in the era of the UN, much like Fabian Socialism is more palatable than full on Socialism. It is also much more effective and more affordable, even though it will eventually help bring about the end of our hegemony. Using Canada and Mexico as support for your position hardly works, since they are allies, and one doesn't exert force over one's allies. Also remember that the US, Canada, and Mexico make up the long pushed for NAU.

Truth Detector · Dec 3, 2008

rightwinghour said:
It appears you want to cling to one definition, or part of one, while ignoring all other definitions and denying that imperialism can evolve over time. I did notice, though, that the definition you gave above fits quite well with what we did throughout the 20th century, and even up to the present: "or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas broadly the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence". This is a more subtle and palatable way of doing things in the era of the UN, much like Fabian Socialism is more palatable than full on Socialism. It is also much more effective and more affordable, even though it will eventually help bring about the end of our hegemony.

The only one "clinging" here is you clinging to the absurd notion that our policies are Imperialistic.

My mom told me not to play with people in debate forums that make up their own realities. She said they are delusional and will only try to drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Carry on! :2wave:

RightOfCenter · Dec 3, 2008

Truth Detector said:
:funny Good lord Right, if you have to ask, I am going to CHANGE my answer. YES, it starts with an "a" and ends with a "d".

:rofl

:mrgreen:

Never can be sure with you TD

Truth Detector · Dec 3, 2008

RightOfCenter said:
:mrgreen:

Never can be sure with you TD

Okay that's it :ws starts with an "r" and ends with an "r". :2funny:

rightwinghour · Dec 3, 2008

Truth Detector said:
The only one "clinging" here is you clinging to the absurd notion that our policies are Imperialistic.

My mom told me not to play with people in debate forums that make up their own realities. She said they are delusional and will only try to drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Carry on! :2wave:

Goodness, you just ignored the last half of your definition and accused me of making up realities. Perhaps you'd like to edit your post and delete that portion of the definition.

jin1776 · Dec 3, 2008

rightwinghour said:
Imperialism often refers to empire in the sense of grabbing territory, but it can also refer to political/social superiority.

No actually it doesn't that only applies to made up definitions of imperialism created specifically to allow the United States to fall into the category.

I look at our imperialism as a mix of the two. We subscribe to American exceptionalism, and that's where our political/social superiority comes from. We tell other nations what kinds of weapons they can have, and how many, as if we automatically have that authority.

That's called economic and military global hegemony, one can have global hegemony and maintain the status of republic, just look at the Roman republic.

We use the CIA to overthrow governments and install leaders that will do our bidding at that time,

And empires rule directly through governers, and it's only been shown that the U.S. aided in the overthrow of governments twice, once with Arbenz in Guatemala and once in Iran with Mossadeq, however, the latter was a countercoup as under the Constitutional monarchy of Iran the Shah was the legitimate head of state, it was Mossadeq who tried to overthrow the Iranian Constitutional monarchy by dissolving parliament through a fraudulent referendum when the Majilis refused to grant him direct control over the military.

even though that leader may be a devil to his subjects. And we put bases all over the world and station our soldiers there,

Lol empires don't have bases in foreign lands only with the expressed consent of the sovereign power. There is not one U.S. military base in which we don't have the permission of the sovereign to be there.

for we are without a doubt the world's police. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of this hybrid imperialism.

lmfao empires wouldn't be setting up constitutional republics they would be establishing governates under their direct control.

We lied to get in,

No we didn't, the Taliban aided in the murder of 3000 of our citizens and Saddam was in material breach of the ceasefire for more than a decade, he had WMD programs, and he was cooperating with terrorists to attack U.S. interests including with AQ affiliates according to the Pentagon review of the DOCEX release.

we took out the unfavorable party (in Iraq at least), and put in a puppet government.

Now you're just lying through your damn teeth, we established a Constitutional Republic of, by, and for the Iraqi people, the Iraqi people created their own government in a Constitutional national referendum and national election which were certified as free and fair by international observers, can you name me one empire in the history of the world that granted their conquered territorial client states their natural rights to popular sovereignt and self determination under Constitutional democratic republicanism? I don't think so!

And there will be something like eight bases there for the foreseeable future, and a huge embassy to boot.

And when has the dually elected government of Iraq requested that we completely withdrawal and not have this embassy there? Call me when we establish our governate.

We are everywhere, and we are ever expanding.

Global Hegemon =/= Empire.

As for violating the Constitution, there are myriad examples of this, especially from Lincoln onward. A different discussion thread would be needed to discuss that.

No you made the assertion in this thread so you can list some of these myriad examples here.

jin1776 · Dec 3, 2008

Ahmed Shaheen said:
hh , I dont give a sh*t for your opinion , your sight about that Expansion that they are atrocities is so expected from a person who is Resentful about the religion .

dont give a damn too , I fully believe that my religion are innocent from that BS , and I live in peace with my dhimmi homies .
the last thing i need to hear is an Athiest opinion about me or my religion .

Well then you're living in a state of denial.

jin1776 · Dec 3, 2008

rightwinghour said:
It appears you want to cling to one definition, or part of one, while ignoring all other definitions and denying that imperialism can evolve over time. I did notice, though, that the definition you gave above fits quite well with what we did throughout the 20th century, and even up to the present: "or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas broadly the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence". This is a more subtle and palatable way of doing things in the era of the UN,

There are only two modern examples in which the U.S. indirectly obtained control through our support of coups IE Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadeq in Iran, and as I said in the case of the latter it was a countercoup and in the case of the former today Guatemala is a free liberal democracy.

Monk-Eye · Dec 3, 2008

Emulating Virtue

"Emulating Virtue"

RightOfCenter said:
He is a servant of Satan by leading people away from accepting Christ as God and their only path to paradise, according to the (correct by your standards) majority.

Muhammad was a giver of laws and taditions to the Quraysh tribe, for the city state of hejaz, for the preservation of the patriarchal lineage of ishmael.
Similarly, moses was a giver of laws and traditions to the Israeli tribe, for the city state of israel, for the preservation of the patriarchal lineage of isaac.

RightOfCenter said:
The doctrine of the Christian church is that only through accepting Jesus as God can one achieve eternal life in Paradise. Do Muslims accept Jesus as God?

If you wish to discuss the parallels between exodus, whereby the blood of the sacrificed spring lamb was used to mark the doorposts by those who did so as an act of faith which allowed judgement to pass over ("passover") even the guilty so that the isreali people may be redeemed from slavery, and christianity, which asserts that the blood of jesus sacrificed in situ with the pascal tradition may be adorned through faith so that mankind may be redeemed from slavery, so be it.

Anecdotally, non israelis and ishmaelis are only obligated to the seven laws of noah, according to abrahamic tradition.

But rest assured, the metaphorical meaning of a chance at eternal life is the perpetuity of one's genetic identity and that is the conjectural basis of religion for obedience to the law and for renunciation of ruinous behaviors.

Figuratively, "God" is synonymous with an idealized virtue, often consistent with sacrifice in the life death cycle.

As someone fated with the consequences of natural law resultant from orchestrated events, a ritual invokes orders even without (or with) a reanimation of the body.

As an anthropoligal realist, other religions and philosophies lend themselves to ethnic preservation and equitable cultural success.

lawshume · Dec 3, 2008

Your vote options don't represent the real situation.
Europe doesn't seem to control any other groups at
this time.

My guess is that most humans oppose imperialism
(supremacy) of any kind.

jin1776 · Dec 3, 2008

lawshume said:
Your vote options don't represent the real situation.
Europe doesn't seem to control any other groups at
this time.

My guess is that most humans oppose imperialism
(supremacy) of any kind.

I was including historical European Imperialism, feel free to include things which you might consider "western imperialism".

RightOfCenter · Dec 4, 2008

Truth Detector said:
Okay that's it :ws starts with an "r" and ends with an "r". :2funny:

rightwinghour?

Ahmed Shaheen · Dec 4, 2008

Truth Detector said:
:funny Good lord Right, if you have to ask, I am going to CHANGE my answer. YES, it starts with an "a" and ends with a "d".

:rofl

thanks god , My name starts with "a" and ends with "n" ,,,
Ahmed Shaheen

Ahmed Shaheen · Dec 4, 2008

RightOfCenter said:
Is the majority always right?

Yeah , am with the majority .

Ahmed Shaheen · Dec 4, 2008

RightOfCenter said:
A majority of the people in the world are Christian. There ya go.

Christians doesnt reject my existance , but they object your existance ..

RightOfCenter said:
No, that is the one accepted tenet of the Christian religion. Jesus is God.

all my respect to thier tenet , and am sure they do respect mine .

RightOfCenter said:
To debate the merits of ideas, whether or not they are the majority opinion.

your political opinion is so respected here , but no the religous one .

RightOfCenter said:
Why are you here?

I came here to discuss politics , until some Athiest came and offended me , so I must had responsed .

RightOfCenter said:
It definitely isn't.

no it is , why do they call it POLL then , like the one up there ..
Majority's opinion is the only thing that makes you think and discuss

RightOfCenter said:
I'm very open to ideas.

yeah , I see , every post you write same sayings : (Jesus is God , your religion is wrong) ....

RightOfCenter said:
Really? By arguing the merits of your religion you just cling tighter and tighter to the ideals you cling to? I'm very open to ideas. If you can prove God exists I'll believe. I doubt you can. I wonder though, why do you believe in God? Because it's the majority's opinion? That really doesn't seem silly to you?

Actually , oncs I'd asked myself many questions : who created the world , planets , solar system , angels , devils , soul , atoms , cells and all the Paranormal things that we discovered or we haven't yet ..
and I found only one answer : God .
If you got another answer tell me .

Ahmed Shaheen · Dec 4, 2008

jin1776 said:
Well then you're living in a state of denial.

Never ....

rightwinghour · Dec 4, 2008

jin1776 said:
No actually it doesn't that only applies to made up definitions of imperialism created specifically to allow the United States to fall into the category.
That's called economic and military global hegemony, one can have global hegemony and maintain the status of republic, just look at the Roman republic.

Answers.com
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Merriam Webster
1: imperial government, authority, or system2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas ; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

Encarta
1. belief in empire-building: the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies

2. domination by empire: the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another

3. takeover and domination: the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination

I'm not making anything up. This is not a new idea, this is accepted common knowledge. Being a republic does not exclude one from being an empire. Rome was a good example of this.

jin1776 said:
And empires rule directly through governers, and it's only been shown that the U.S. aided in the overthrow of governments twice, once with Arbenz in Guatemala and once in Iran with Mossadeq, however, the latter was a countercoup as under the Constitutional monarchy of Iran the Shah was the legitimate head of state, it was Mossadeq who tried to overthrow the Iranian Constitutional monarchy by dissolving parliament through a fraudulent referendum when the Majilis refused to grant him direct control over the military.

Your narrow and exclusive definition of empire/imperialism has been refuted. As for US involvement in coups and such, it has happened more than twice. Never forget the failed attempt on Cuba, of course. We also put Saddam in power in Iraq. There's also Syria, Greece (twice), South Vietnam, South Korea (twice), Laos (three times), Guatemala (twice), Cambodia,
Grenada, Chile, and Haiti.

jin1776 said:
Lol empires don't have bases in foreign lands only with the expressed consent of the sovereign power. There is not one U.S. military base in which we don't have the permission of the sovereign to be there.

Once again your exclusive definition is used as a basis for your argument. No one is saying we don't have permission to have our bases in so many countries, although it is funny you don't think it is at all odd that we have so many spread across the world when our military is supposed to be for defense of the US only.

jin1776 said:
lmfao empires wouldn't be setting up constitutional republics they would be establishing governates under their direct control.

Your exclusive definition is once again used as your foundation.

jin1776 said:
No we didn't, the Taliban aided in the murder of 3000 of our citizens and Saddam was in material breach of the ceasefire for more than a decade, he had WMD programs, and he was cooperating with terrorists to attack U.S. interests including with AQ affiliates according to the Pentagon review of the DOCEX release.

Actually, the Taliban didn't aid in those murders. They just didn't do what we wanted them to do. We delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban regarding Bin Laden and AQ. They responded to it and demanded we show them the evidence that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 before they handed him over. We of course couldn't do that, so we just flat out invaded Afghanistan. Incidentally, Bin Laden isn't listed as a suspect for 9/11 on the FBI's own website. And as of March of this year, the Pentagon has admitted there was no link between Iraq and AQ.

jin1776 said:
Now you're just lying through your damn teeth, we established a Constitutional Republic of, by, and for the Iraqi people, the Iraqi people created their own government in a Constitutional national referendum and national election which were certified as free and fair by international observers, can you name me one empire in the history of the world that granted their conquered territorial client states their natural rights to popular sovereignt and self determination under Constitutional democratic republicanism? I don't think so!

Again, you relied on your exclusive definition of empire/imperialism. Also, I'm not lying, and I resent the accusation. Even years after the first elections, we control much of what goes on there. We set up their new government, not them. We controlled the process, and we made sure what was created was favorable to us.

jin1776 said:
And when has the dually elected government of Iraq requested that we completely withdrawal and not have this embassy there? Call me when we establish our governate.

70 percent of Iraqis want withdrawal, so why don't their elected officials make that happen? Aren't they in control?

jin1776 said:
No you made the assertion in this thread so you can list some of these myriad examples here.

Korean War, Vietnam War, both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, all the military deployments Clinton did, Grenada, Cuba, etc.

Monk-Eye · Dec 4, 2008

Temptation

"Temptation"

Ahmed Shaheen said:
Christians doesnt reject my existance , but they object your existance ..
all my respect to thier tenet , and am sure they do respect mine .
your political opinion is so respected here , but no the religous one .
I came here to discuss politics , until some Athiest came and offended me , so I must had responsed .
no it is , why do they call it POLL then , like the one up there ..
Majority's opinion is the only thing that makes you think and discuss
yeah , I see , every post you write same sayings : (Jesus is God , your religion is wrong) ....

Religion in general is deficient in objectivism.

The personification of "God" as an extrinsic, cognizant entity which intercedes, with an exalted purpose, for the facility and direction of mammon, or for the whim of the entity itself (dependent upon the weather), is indicative of the self serving human ego.

Ahmed Shaheen said:
Actually , oncs I'd asked myself many questions : who created the world , planets , solar system , angels , devils , soul , atoms , cells and all the Paranormal things that we discovered or we haven't yet .. and I found only one answer : God .
If you got another answer tell me .

Who -- is personification, which leads to a presumption of motivation (why?).
Is the motivation clear?
It seems the only thing that this who can seem to do is eek out signs and muffled grumblings with an expectation that the intuitions of an occasional, selected visionary will relate a message that every one should obey.

What -- is objective, at least with respect to how.
How -- is objective, at least with respect to why.

The proponents of monotheism have some explaining to do.
Is the world comprised of an inordinant number of monads, a substance whose quality is the same, a substance which is infinite in its existence?

To help with the understanding of a monad, consider an irrational number, suppose half of the square root of two 0.707106781186547524400844.......
The size and quality is relatively the same, yet at each moment there is a transition to a similar representation.
The number is without end, infinite, eternal; by virtue, it is being and becoming with some manner of transition.

A consistent quality of a monad would lead to principles of order, conservation would lead to principles of accountability, and the possibility of diversity exists only within the bounds of the monad itself.

Now, number is indifferent, yet any composite of monads will emulate being and becoming with some manner of transition through induction.
And sophistication would imply that affirmation of being and becoming occurs by deduction.
Procreation is a manner of emulating and or affirming being and becoming.

jin1776 · Dec 4, 2008

rightwinghour said:
Answers.com
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Merriam Webster
1: imperial government, authority, or system2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas ; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

Encarta
1. belief in empire-building: the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies

2. domination by empire: the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another

3. takeover and domination: the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination

I'm not making anything up. This is not a new idea, this is accepted common knowledge. Being a republic does not exclude one from being an empire. Rome was a good example of this.

Rome ended its days as a republic when it became an empire. Hegemony =/= imperialism. Under your definition of imperialism you wish to place any influential country under the banner of empire.

Your narrow and exclusive definition of empire/imperialism has been refuted. As for US involvement in coups and such, it has happened more than twice. Never forget the failed attempt on Cuba, of course.

We were backing political dissidents opposed to totalitarian communist rule in Cuba.

We also put Saddam in power in Iraq.

That is a blatant lie and there is no evidence what so ever for this assertion outside of fringe websites which provide no documentation to back their claims.

There's also Syria,

Prove it.

Greece (twice),

Prove it.

South Vietnam,

That's true JFK killed Diem.

South Korea (twice),

Prove it.

Laos (three times),

Prove it.

Guatemala (twice),

I'm aware of Arbenze prove the 2nd assertion.

Cambodia,

Prove it.

Grenada,

That wasn't a coup it was a limited military engagement to restore democracy.

Chile,

There is no evidence what so ever that the U.S. directly supported the coup plotters against Allende. The most there is is evidence that we financed opposition political parties and media outlets.

and Haiti.

Prove it. And FYI you're going to have a tuff go of proving these accusations considering that the CIA has already aired its dirty laundry regarding these time periods:

The CIA's Family Jewels

Once again your exclusive definition is used as a basis for your argument. No one is saying we don't have permission to have our bases in so many countries, although it is funny you don't think it is at all odd that we have so many spread across the world when our military is supposed to be for defense of the US only.

They are there in defense of U.S. interests. And can you name me a single example of an empire that placed troops in foreign lands only with the permission of the sovereign government?

Your exclusive definition is once again used as your foundation.

Actually, the Taliban didn't aid in those murders. They just didn't do what we wanted them to do. We delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban regarding Bin Laden and AQ. They responded to it and demanded we show them the evidence that Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 before they handed him over. We of course couldn't do that, so we just flat out invaded Afghanistan.

Your knowledge regarding the AQ-Taliban relationship is quite limited, AQ was a member of the Taliban ministry of defense, and the Taliban even had brigades made up completely of AQ fighters. AQ funded the Taliban and in return the Taliban granted them a base of operations from which to launch attacks.

Incidentally, Bin Laden isn't listed as a suspect for 9/11 on the FBI's own website.

He has been indicted in Spain and the only reason he hasn't been indicted for 9-11 is because there is already a superceding indictement on capital charges and a 2nd indictement would be superfluous:

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

Besides bin laden has confessed on video twice in the first video from 2001 it is clear from the video that 9-11 was an AQ operation:

YouTube - Osama bin Laden - November 9th, 2001

And then in 2004 just before the U.S. Presidential Elections he directly confesses to 9-11:

YouTube - Osama Bin Laden in 2004 speech (English Translation)

jin1776 · Dec 4, 2008

rightwinghour said:
And as of March of this year, the Pentagon has admitted there was no link between Iraq and AQ.

Tat is a completely dishonest misrepesntation of the Pentagon's findings the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists (including AQ affilliates) and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.

Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun

Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)

Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6

Not to mention the fact that Saddam had fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone on an almost daily basis, was in material breach of numerous U.N. resolutions, was in fact harboring AQ operatives who had attacked the U.S. on our own soil, and had even once attempted to assasinate our former head of state one George Herbert Walker Bush.

Again, you relied on your exclusive definition of empire/imperialism. Also, I'm not lying, and I resent the accusation. Even years after the first elections, we control much of what goes on there. We set up their new government, not them.

Bull**** the Iraqi Constitution was written by the Iraqi's and that Constitution was ratified by the Iraqi people in a nation wide referendum.

We controlled the process, and we made sure what was created was favorable to us.

Prove that the U.S. encroached on the writing of the Iraqi Constitution or that we did anything to make the elections anything less than free and fair.

70 percent of Iraqis want withdrawal, so why don't their elected officials make that happen? Aren't they in control?

It's called representative democracy not direct democracy, the dually elected represenatives of the Iraqi people have not demanded our withdrawal, however, we have come to an agreement whereby U.S. troops have to be out by I believe 2011.

Korean War,

We were bound by treaty.

Vietnam War,

There was an AUMF which tantamount to a declaration of war as the Constitution does not specify what type of legislation the Congress must write.

both Iraq wars,

Both had an AUMF.

Afghanistan,

Aumf

all the military deployments Clinton did,

True he did not have congressional authorization, we were not bound by treaty, and they were not limited engagements.

Grenada,

That was a limited engagement, did the U.S. require a formal declaration of war for the quasi-war with the French under John Adams? Was one of our Founding Fathers an imperialist?

Cuba, etc.

Cuba did not involve U.S. troops.

Truth Detector · Dec 4, 2008

RightOfCenter said:
rightwinghour?

:funny I see you are also an EXPERT at deflection; I bow at your superior forum skills.

:2bow: :applaud

What's worse European Imperialism or Islamic Imperialism?

What's worse...

European imperialism

Islamic imperialism

Both are roughly equivalent

Other - please specify

Dangerous Spinmaster

Dangerous Spinmaster

Dangerous Spinmaster

Member

Dangerous Spinmaster

Member

Dream Walker

Member

Dangerous Spinmaster

Herzschmerz !

Herzschmerz !

Herzschmerz !

Herzschmerz !

Member

Dream Walker

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency