Iraq is the Litmus

[corplinx]

When we declared a war on terrorism, Sharon was skeptical enough to ask "against _all_ terrorism?" I am proud that we did not stop with Bin Laden's network. There seems to be a thinking among our european friends that terrorism should be tolerated until after you have been the target.

In this case:
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, probably the worlds worst
His government is a collusion of terrorists.
His state supports terrorism financially.
His state accommodates terrorism training.
His state shelters terrorists.
He has pledged worldwide terrorism in the past from his state.

I am glad this mission has shown us which countries are truly serious about stopping terrorism.

[DanishDynamite]

corplinx:When we declared a war on terrorism, Sharon was skeptical enough to ask "against _all_ terrorism?" I am proud that we did not stop with Bin Laden's network. There seems to be a thinking among our european friends that terrorism should be tolerated until after you have been the target. Your last statement is so ignorant, I hardly know where to begin. Almost every European country has been the target of terrorism. In some instances for decades. How f*cking typical that you think the term was invented on Sept. 11, when for the first time your country was affected. Un-f*cking-believable!
In this case:
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, probably the worlds worstYour brainwashing is complete. Does, oh I don't know, Algeria for example, ring any bells?
His government is a collusion of terrorists.His government is probably full of thugs, but please show evidence for terrorists.His state supports terrorism financially. Agreed.
His state accommodates terrorism training. Agreed.
His state shelters terrorists. Pretty much follows from the previous point.
He has pledged worldwide terrorism in the past from his state.I don't recall this, but please enlighten me.
I am glad this mission has shown us which countries are truly serious about stopping terrorism.I'm glad that other American posters have a brain. Otherwise I might be liable to stereotype.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx

In this case:
Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, probably the worlds worst
His government is a collusion of terrorists.
His state supports terrorism financially.
His state accommodates terrorism training.
His state shelters terrorists.
He has pledged worldwide terrorism in the past from his state.

I am glad this mission has shown us which countries are truly serious about stopping terrorism.

Hey, don't you know that he is just baiting us? No one could possibly be this ignorant.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
corplinx: Your last statement is so ignorant, I hardly know where to begin. Almost every European country has been the target of terrorism. In some instances for decades. How f*cking typical that you think the term was invented on Sept. 11, when for the first time your country was affected. Un-f*cking-believable!


September 11 was not the first terrorist attack against the U.S..

[DanishDynamite]

ssibal:September 11 was not the first terrorist attack against the U.S.. You are right. There was one (1) previous attack on US soil: the first bombing of the WTC.

[My Final Spider]

You are right. There was one (1) previous attack on US soil: the first bombing of the WTC.

But let's not forget the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City.

Or are we not counting domestic terror?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Your last statement is so ignorant, I hardly know where to begin. Almost every European country has been the target of terrorism. In some instances for decades. How f*cking typical that you think the term was invented on Sept. 11, when for the first time your country was affected. Un-f*cking-believable.

His government is probably full of thugs, but please show evidence for terrorists.


Despite your best attempts to narrowly avoid ad hominem attacks, I will respond.

First, you missed the point entirely. The point is that most of europe believes Iraq should be left alone since they have not attacked the west. They believe they do not pose a threat. The only way I see France and Germany justifying this war in iraq is if Saddam attacked the west or western interests.

As for Hussein, if I have to convince you why he and his government are terrorists, that is a sad thing. I guess you don't remember Saddam's pledge of a global terror campaign led by his regime. Thankfully, their terror attacks were thwarted by their own incompetence.

If you did not know this, then I think you should look in a mirror before you go calling someone else ignorant.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Hey, don't you know that he is just baiting us? No one could possibly be this ignorant.

Ad hominem. No disputing of what was presented. Here's your sign.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by My Final Spider


But let's not forget the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City.

Or are we not counting domestic terror? I don't consider the lunacy of solitary individuals like McVeigh and the Unabomber as terrorism.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't consider the lunacy of solitary individuals like McVeigh and the Unabomber as terrorism.

Most people label McVeigh as a mass murderer. I have no problem with people labeling him a terrorist. I really don't care what you call him, he is dead now and will never kill again.

[schplurg]

Terrorism? In America?

Ok sure, we (America) have been the victim of terrorism 3 times or so, in what, the past 10 years or more? We still do not know what terrorism really is.

When I fear going to a local pub because some crackpot with explosives strapped to his chest may run in and blow it up, or when people are afraid to ride the bus or go to the mall because of the high occurrance of terrorist attack, when we fear leaving our homes and living our everyday lives...then we will know what terrorism really is.

We do not suffer from terrorism on our soil. I do not have any of these fears, at least not yet. Just wanted to point that out.

[My Final Spider]

I don't consider the lunacy of solitary individuals like McVeigh and the Unabomber as terrorism.

I think I can see your point here, but McVeigh did have Terry Nichols.

In any case, as stated, he's not going to be bothering anybody.

[Supercharts]

"PARIS (Reuters) - France said on Thursday police had found traces of the deadly toxin ricin in a Paris railway station, in a search ordered as part of an anti-terrorist plan stepped up because of security concerns over the Iraq "

And the point being made is...?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=586&e=5&cid=586&u=/nm/20030320/wl_nm/france_ricin_dc

[DanishDynamite]

corplinx:Despite your best attempts to narrowly avoid ad hominem attacks, I will respond.

First, you missed the point entirely. The point is that most of europe believes Iraq should be left alone since they have not attacked the west. They believe they do not pose a threat. The only way I see France and Germany justifying this war in iraq is if Saddam attacked the west or western interests. Once again, you are wrong. The main difference between France/Germany/China/Russia/etc and the US, is not whether Iraq should be disarmed, but how it should be done.
As for Hussein, if I have to convince you why he and his government are terrorists, that is a sad thing. I guess you don't remember Saddam's pledge of a global terror campaign led by his regime. Thankfully, their terror attacks were thwarted by their own incompetence. I already said I don't recall this pledge. Your reiteration that this pledge was made, is not useful. Links, please.
If you did not know this, then I think you should look in a mirror before you go calling someone else ignorant.I already told you why you are ignorant. I notice you haven't responded to this part of my post. Please do so. Or perhaps I should add "coward" to my list of your attributes?

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't consider the lunacy of solitary individuals like McVeigh and the Unabomber as terrorism.
Is it possible that you can be a more of an *******?
I think not. But do try to prove me wrong.
Whether or not it's a USA citizen or a Saudi they are the same.
Read the papers for Ed-Gods sake and get current. Are you suffering from a Euro surrender monkey point of view?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
corplinx: Once again, you are wrong. The main difference between France/Germany/China/Russia/etc and the US, is not that Iraq should be disarmed, but how it should be done.

I would start with Russia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/53903.stm) and France (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/airforce.htm) not selling their tanks and aircraft to Iraq.

[DanishDynamite]

Supercharts:Is it possible that you can be a more of an *******? In my wildest fantasies I couldn't ever hope to reach your level.
I think not. But do try to prove me wrong. "I think not" is probably a good characterization of your inputs.
Whether or not it's a USA citizen or a Saudi they are the same.Are you saying that any mass-murderer is a terrorist?
Read the papers for Ed-Gods sake and get current. Are you suffering from a Euro surrender monkey point of view? Are you suffering from an American child-executing dog point of view?

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:I would start with Russia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/53903.stm) and France (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/airforce.htm) not selling their tanks and aircraft to Iraq. Luke, I don't think we should get into who has supported and sold arms (biological or otherwise) to Iraq. Do you?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
.
I already told you why you are ignorant. I notice you haven't responded to this part of my post. Please do so. Or perhaps I should add "coward" to my list of your attributes?

Sadly, I will never read your reply to this message. Not unless I take you off ignore.

I simply submit that the man who called for a global terrorism campaign against America because of desert storm. The man who funds and shelters terrorists (although not al q.). The man who launched missiles at Israeli civillians. The man who terrorized the Kurdish people who are not under his control. That man is a terrorist.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
LukeT:Luke, I don't think we should get into who has supported and sold arms (biological or otherwise) to Iraq. Do you?

I think the numbers would come down heavily in favor of France, Russia, and China.

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:I think the numbers would come down heavily in favor of France, Russia, and China. I assume you are aware that from 1985 to 1989, the United States government approved 70 shipments of anthrax and other disease-causing pathogens to Iraqi scientists.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
LukeT: I assume you are aware that from 1985 to 1989, the United States government approved 70 shipments of anthrax and other disease-causing pathogens to Iraqi scientists.

I assume you haven't read this. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=388583#post388583)

[DanishDynamite]

corplinx:Sadly, I will never read your reply to this message. Not unless I take you off ignore. Thanks, corplinx. I can understand how you only wish to see viewpoints which mirror your own.

I've been harsh, I know. But your uninformed attacks against Europeans (of which I am one) have been too callus for me to remain calm.
I simply submit that the man who called for a global terrorism campaign against America because of desert storm. The man who funds and shelters terrorists (although not al q.). The man who launched missiles at Israeli civillians. The man who terrorized the Kurdish people who are not under his control. That man is a terrorist. Except for the first sentence, which I have yet to see evidence for, I agree.

corplinx, I think it is a shame that someone puts anyone on ignore.

I can understand DD's initial reaction to the first paragraph of your first post. Europe has been dealing with far more terrorism for far longer than we have.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by LukeT


I assume you haven't read this. (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=388583#post388583) You are correct, I haven't read it. But seriously Luke, were these armaments sales illegal? And what is their relation to WMD, such as anthrax warheads? And how does this sale of conventional armaments compare to any support the US gave Iraq during its war with Iran?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You are correct, I haven't read it. But seriously Luke, were these armaments sales illegal? And what is their relation to WMD, such as anthrax warheads? And how does this sale of conventional armaments compare to any support the US gave Iraq during its war with Iran?

Since we had just been through the hostage crisis with Iran, we weren't exactly disappointed to see Iraq at war with them.

Enemy of my enemy, and all that crap.

As for anthrax, the only stuff I have seen was that it was sold for vetinary research, IIRC. I don't know anything about "anthrax warheads."

As far as I know, anthrax is still sold around the world for legitimate purposes.

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:Since we had just been through the hostage crisis with Iran, we weren't exactly disappointed to see Iraq at war with them.

Enemy of my enemy, and all that crap.Understandable. Still, it doesn't exactly provide a moral highground.
As for anthrax, the only stuff I have seen was that it was sold for vetinary research, IIRC. I don't know anything about "anthrax warheads." Likewise, I don't know anything about "anthrax warheads". I do know, however, that they require anthrax and warhead technology. The US has, as a minimum, provided the first part of this equation.

I don't necessarilly blame them for this, but it does make blaming of others for their sales, rather hard.
As far as I know, anthrax is still sold around the world for legitimate purposes. I expect you are right. Given developments within the last few years, however, I expect these sales are under close scrutiny.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally posted by corplinx



As for Hussein, if I have to convince you why he and his government are terrorists, that is a sad thing. I guess you don't remember Saddam's pledge of a global terror campaign led by his regime. Thankfully, their terror attacks were thwarted by their own incompetence.

Well, no, you don't have to convince me that SH and his government are terrorists and should be dealt with accordingly. (i.e., killed)

But I have never heard of Saddam's pledge of a global terror campaign led by his regime. Please explain and/or post links.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
But I have never heard of Saddam's pledge of a global terror campaign led by his regime. Please explain and/or post links.

Well, my easiest reference of it is from something called a book. Unfortunately I can't post a link. If you hit google hard enough I am sure you can find it.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx


Ad hominem. No disputing of what was presented. Here's your sign.

OK, fine. By what standard is Saddam a terrorist threat to the United States? He has been meticulous in avoiding just that charge!

You don't like ad hominem attacks... then quit lying about Saddam. Next you'll tell me that Saddam is stealing candy from babies too. Fact: Nobody ever seriously called Saddam a terrorist until 9/11, when it became a buzz phrase for anybody we don't like.

Saddam is as evil as they come, but he is the opposite of a terrorist. He uses state-sponsorship to carry out his evil agenda. But that is hardly a justification for the US to violate the UN Charter and invade someone we don't like.

Say it for what it is. Cowboy George and his cronies have a bee in their bonnet about Saddam. That is why we are in Iraq. He never wanted to mess with the UN, that was forced upon him and he pretended to go through the motions. Everyone has known this war was coming since last summer.

As you state, Europe is not with us on this issue because they don't fear Saddam. We didn't until either, until Cowboy started making up propaganda about Saddam - lies that some people repeat. Why be afraid of the facts?

The undisputed facts? Saddam is not a terrorist. He does not have a network of sleeper cells in the US like Osama. The FBI is detaining Iraqi "suspects" to perpetuate the myth that Saddam is an eminent threat to the U.S.

As for Saddam "supporting" terrorism: may I remind you that the biggest state supporter of world-wide terrorism in the past 50 years has been the United States. Sorry, but we supported terrorist insurrections in Cuba (remember the Bay of Pigs), Nicaragua & Iran (remember that clown Ollie North), etc.

The United States is the master of the double standard. The rest of the world knows this only too well, because we cram it in their face time and again (remember Vietnam and the domino theory). And here we are with Iraq, thumbing our nose at the international community because we know we are the biggest baddest bully on the block. And proud of it.

Let's hope Iraq does not become the litmus test. I fear permanent war as the logical result of this latest action.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


[b]Saddam is as evil as they come, but he is the opposite of a terrorist.

Sorry, but we supported terrorist insurrections in Cuba (remember the Bay of Pigs), Nicaragua & Iran (remember that clown Ollie North), etc.


What do you think a terrorist is? A terrorist is not a guerilla. A terrorist targets civillians intentionally instead of military targets. This is why Hamas is a terrorist group and not a guerilla faction.

The Cuban insurrection was a guerilla war was it not? The Iran-contra affair was hardly official US policy. Not only that I find the whole "you can't attack Iraq now because you did _______ in the past" to be the poorest and most intellectually devoid arguements.

Indeed, Saddam Hussein has killed more innocent civillians in acts of terror than Bin Laden ever has. The only difference between them is one is officially recognized as the leader of a county and has killed more people.

Try to convince me he is not a terrorist...... I really am open to being wrong.

[corplinx]

Some people ask if Saddam is a threat. Let me pose something to you. Is Bin Laden a threat? Bin Laden does not have missiles, thousands of liters of biological and chemical agents, close ties with a nuclear north korea, or a country to call his own. Bin Laden's group proved that where there is a will, there is a way.

Yes Saddam is a threat and threat of a scale greater than Bin Laden ever was. Saddam can afford to do much more than spring for airfare.

[My Final Spider]

I think Saddam is less of a threat for reasons you just stated. Saddam has a country - we know where he is. Saddam knows that if he carries out any kind of biological or chemical attack against the US or its allies, Iraq is going to be a glowing parking lot for a long time. Saddam can be deterred (and was) by threat of removal from power.

This dosn't apply to Osama, who has nothing to lose and is unlocateable. A country can be easily defeated, as the US is proving right now. A stateless, unfindable terror network is a much tougher proposition.

[ssibal]

Wait we know where Saddam is? I do not think so. He is probably as elusive as bin Laden. I would be surprised if he is confirmed to be killed or captured.

[My Final Spider]

Wait we know where Saddam is? I do not think so. He is probably as elusive as bin Laden. I would be surprised if he is confirmed to be killed or captured.

I will personally be amazed if in a month Saddam isn't dead and Osama isn't still on the loose.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx
Some people ask if Saddam is a threat. Let me pose something to you. Is Bin Laden a threat? Bin Laden does not have missiles, thousands of liters of biological and chemical agents, close ties with a nuclear north korea, or a country to call his own. Bin Laden's group proved that where there is a will, there is a way.

Yes Saddam is a threat and threat of a scale greater than Bin Laden ever was. Saddam can afford to do much more than spring for airfare.

What is a threat? You may be surprised to find that there are many countries in the world whose firepower substantially exceeds that of Saddam. Some even have ACTUAL "nu-cu-ler" weapons. So the firepower must not be the issue.

The UN Charter specifically prohibits the kind of "defense" we are trying to claim as our basis for invasion of Iraq. In other words, perception of a threat is not grounds for crossing borders. So following the UN Charter is not the issue.

Cowboy George is practicing the Texas Two-step. When he says he is invading to protect the US, and he is called on it... (step) he then says he is doing it to enforce UN resolutions. When it is pointed out that such action was not authorized by the UNSC, he again does a (step) and starts talking about defending our national interests.

If you think we should blow off the UN, just say so. If you think the world will be a better place when Saddam is not in it, then say so. But don't say we are invading Iraq to protect ourselves from Saddam. Because that is not true.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx


Try to convince me he is not a terrorist...... I really am open to being wrong.

I already asked you: by what standard Saddam is a terrorist? I would expect to see mountains of evidence readily available if such were the case. After all, he is such a fiend that we are going to war with him.

But instead, you give basically zilch. You call him "terrorist" as a justification for what we are doing in Iraq. Do two wrongs make a right?

So let's see if I get this right. We jailed the conspirators in the World Trade Center I bombing. They are members of an Egyptian religious/political extremist sect led by a blind religious leader. One of the members is alleged to have some ties to Iraq at some previous time. During the trial, it was never alleged that Iraq had any involvement in the bombing plot.

So this is your "proof" that Saddam is a terrorist who has acted against the US? I could do a better job of connecting Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam than that. See for instance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29.

Or do you dispute that? Generally accepted opinion around the world does not place Saddam as a terrorist. Generally accepted opinion has him as a very evil person. Or else... what do you have that will convince?

I acknowledge: I have no proof he is not a terrorist. I also have no proof he is not an alien cockroach.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese


But instead, you give basically zilch.

Go back and read my previous post. I don't want to post some of those same reasons again.
His attacks on the Kurds
His scud launchings at Israel
His funding of palestinian terror
His sheltering of terror camps

He is far worse than Bin Laden. His government is basically a terror regime in power and he sponsors terrorism. How then is he not a terrorist himself?

I am sick of pointing out the obvious here folks. Lighting oil wells ablaze and trying to destroy the ecology of the persian gulf by trying to fill it with oil do not accomplish military objectives. This man is a terrorist.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
How f*cking typical that you think the term was invented on Sept. 11, when for the first time your country was affected. Un-f*cking-believable!

That's another thing that doesn't surprise me at all. Nice exapmle for this behavior: lots of americans not only believe that the US where the first democracy they even believe democracy was invented by the US.

You're right: if it doesn't affect the US it doesn't exist.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by armageddonman

You're right: if it doesn't affect the US it doesn't exist.


Funny, sometimes I think most europeans have the same mindset about Iraq.

Believe it or not, there are American who know who wrote "The Republic", knew terrorism was a threat to US interests since the PLO reign of terror, and don't live in the white tower you imagine.

Can we stop painting each other's societies with these broad brushes? I will be man enough to admit that I did it and it was wrong.

[Mike B.]

In regards to Europe not being victims of terrorism remember:

IRA
UVF
Red Brigades
Red Army Faction
Abu Nidal's attacks in Rome
ETA -Basque

There are a number of groups that have been doing European terrorism.

Perhaps we can say that the terrorism has been relatively quiet compared to the 70s and 80s.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
corplinx: Your last statement is so ignorant, I hardly know where to begin. Almost every European country has been the target of terrorism. In some instances for decades. How f*cking typical that you think the term was invented on Sept. 11, when for the first time your country was affected. Un-f*cking-believable!
Your brainwashing is complete. Does, oh I don't know, Algeria for example, ring any bells?


Sure, europe has been repeatedly victimized by terrorists. That is mostly because European governments have repeatedly rewarded terrorism. The government of W. Germany under Brandt made a deal with the black September terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics....handing three captured terrorists back over to their comrades after being threatened that German planes would be hijacked.

Abu Nidal terrorists who hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro surrendered to the Italians and then were quickily released by the Italians after shady deals were made with terrorist sponsor Libya.

These are just the ones I can remember from the Dershowitz book "Why Terrorism Works"

Now DD,...the largest single terror event in world history happened on 9/11/01. The term was not invented on that day, but you'd have to be a fool to think that it was not given new meaning...in fact reinvented on that day. The US has decided that it will not sit back and wait to see a day when the term is reinvented yet again by an even more devastating event. The US has decided to go a different route....we will not reward terrorism. We will crush it.

It's a new tactic I know...and not something that our kinder and gentler brethren in Europe would have ever come up with. You folks seem to be more concerned with attending to the "root causes" of injustice which breed terrorism. Europe's lame attempts at this tactic of accepting blame and attempting to address historic wrongs has done nothing to limit terrorism...but in fact have grown terrorism. You guys have shown the terrorists how well their tactic works. Had it not been for liberal hand wringing over historic wrongs, there would likely have been no 9/11.

Sure, we've done bad things in the past, so has Europe. Hell, so has every country now in exsitence. However, rewarding terrorism as the cure is far worse that the disease. There are legitimate ways of righting historic wrongs. Also, there are desperate people all over this planet who do not resort to terrorism to further their goals.

Now, by allowing terrorism to flourish in Europe it has finally made it to the USA. But here, we are far less inclined to put up with it. You have seen the WOT and the fall of Afghanistan. You are seeing the fall of Iraq right now. Soon you will be seeing either the official rejection of terror as a tactic by NK and Iran, or they will fall as is Iraq. Further, there will be a Palestinian state. Which will very quickily cease to exist if it continues to harbour Hamas and other terrorists.

The US did not want this war. Terrorists and tyrants have shown us the danger of ignoring them, Europe has shown us the danger of appeasing them. Don't hate us for doing what we feel has to be done. Truth be told, had they left us alone none of this would be happening now.

In other words, don't f*ck with America, because we will stomp a mud hole in your ass.l

-zilla

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx


Go back and read my previous post. I don't want to post some of those same reasons again.
His attacks on the Kurds
His scud launchings at Israel
His funding of palestinian terror
His sheltering of terror camps


His attacks on the Kurds - Evil, but not terrorism, and no threat to US.

His scud launchings at Israel - Evil, but not terrorism, was done during wartime before he surrendered, and no threat to US.

His funding of palestinian terror - Disputed as to amount, but certainly a distant 2nd behind Saudi Arabia. To the extent this occurred, I can see some link to terrorism. Evil, and no threat to US.

His sheltering of terror camps - Disputed, there is the possiblity that some training has occurred within his borders which is not under his control. Doubtful if it goes much further than that.

The terrorism link is VERY weak. Not generally accepted by any standard. It has little or nothing to do with why we are at war. Bush doesn't care what lies you buy into... if you take the bait on any, he wins.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sure, europe has been repeatedly victimized by terrorists. That is mostly because European governments have repeatedly rewarded terrorism.

-zilla

Right, blame the victims.

And I guess that is why 9/11 occurred too. And the OKC bombing. And WTC I. Or do you blame the victims here too?

Selectively pick and choose how to apply your "high moral standards" to make yourself and your views look good. It is called a double standard, my friend.

Fact: the people of the world don't like terrorism, and no one knows how to stop it other than going after terrorists when and where they show their faces. Saddam has nothing to do with this struggle.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Right, blame the victims.

And I guess that is why 9/11 occurred too. And the OKC bombing. And WTC I. Or do you blame the victims here too?

Selectively pick and choose how to apply your "high moral standards" to make yourself and your views look good. It is called a double standard, my friend.

Fact: the people of the world don't like terrorism, and no one knows how to stop it other than going after terrorists when and where they show their faces. Saddam has nothing to do with this struggle.

That is the whole point. "Europe" is seldom the "victim". the Victim in my earlier examples were Israel (Black September) and the United States (Leon Klinghofer...Achille Lauro) In both cases European governments sought to stop possible terrorism directed against them by setting captured terrorists free.

Germany was not the victim of Black September...Israel's innocent kids competing in the Olympics were. Italy was not the victim of Abu Nidal in the Achille Lauro case....the US citizens were the victims.

Simply put....when you reward terrorism you get more of it. How do you suppose the PLO got special observer status at the UN? Was it before or after they started murdering civilians? How 'bout the two times Arafat was an honored speaker at the UN? Both times preceeded by acts of terrorism too numerous to list.

European appeasement of terrorism is how we got to where we are today. Now, kindly sit down and shut up as the US does what it takes to fix this mess that is the evil offspring of European appeasement. One again American soldiers do the fighting and dying so that the idiots at the UN can act as if they are making the world a better place. You think the UN, and human rights are good things? Go thank an American soldier...he buys you these things with his courage and professionalism.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


His attacks on the Kurds - Evil, but not terrorism, and no threat to US.

His scud launchings at Israel - Evil, but not terrorism, was done during wartime before he surrendered, and no threat to US.

His funding of palestinian terror - Disputed as to amount, but certainly a distant 2nd behind Saudi Arabia. To the extent this occurred, I can see some link to terrorism. Evil, and no threat to US.

His sheltering of terror camps - Disputed, there is the possiblity that some training has occurred within his borders which is not under his control. Doubtful if it goes much further than that.

The terrorism link is VERY weak. Not generally accepted by any standard. It has little or nothing to do with why we are at war. Bush doesn't care what lies you buy into... if you take the bait on any, he wins.

Please offer a rebuttal to these "weak links" I posted all this, gleaned from 4 different books at the end of January. To this date none of the people here have even attempted to refute this information. The thread is called "Proof Iraq has been in Material Breach of UNSC res 687 since inception.


#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link

#4. Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #!. Was at the time suspected of being an active Iraqi intelligence agent. Also, when finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The link

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.


For those of you who continue to cry for evidence I ask you now to attempt to rebut these facts. Put up or shut up.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Please offer a rebuttal to these "weak links" I posted all this, gleaned from 4 different books at the end of January. To this date none of the people here have even attempted to refute this information. The thread is called "Proof Iraq has been in Material Breach of UNSC res 687 since inception.



Sorry, most of those points have nothing to do with terrorism. The rest are the weak links.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla

European appeasement of terrorism is how we got to where we are today. Now, kindly sit down and shut up as the US does what it takes to fix this mess that is the evil offspring of European appeasement. One again American soldiers do the fighting and dying so that the idiots at the UN can act as if they are making the world a better place. You think the UN, and human rights are good things? Go thank an American soldier...he buys you these things with his courage and professionalism.

-zilla

Now Europe is the cause of terrorism. Earlier it was the victims. I think you are confused. Cowboy George explained to us after 9/11 that it was Osama. Are you going to argue with him?

Yes, I think the UN and human rights are good things.

And if you want me to shut up, you will have to send the FBI over to beat me up.

[Victor Danilchenko]

corplinx

Sorry to pick on you, dude, but this was just too funny to pass up.

armageddonman: lots of americans not only believe that the US where the first democracy they even believe democracy was invented by the US.

corplinx: Believe it or not, there are American who know who wrote "The Republic"I hate to break it to you, but Plato didn't invent democracy either... Nor did he defend it, for that matter. If anything, Plato was the original philosophical defender of totalitarianism.