Muslim Fundy: Fear of Islamic Terrorism Is Worse for of Terrorism

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273312,00.html

The gravest terrorist threat in the world today is Islamophobia, foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference said this week.

“It is something that has assumed xenophobic proportions,” they said.

The ministers described Islamophobia as a deliberate defamation of Islam and discrimination and intolerance against Muslims. They accused Western media of misrepresenting Islam and Muslims worldwide, according to a report in Arab News.

“The linkage of terrorists and extremists with Islam in a generalized manner is unacceptable," the ministers said.

We all know fundies are generally idiots, but this guys takes fundy idiocy to a new level. Frankly, I see no reason why I should tolerate the intolerance of muslim fundies in the name of tolerance.

[Darat]

It would seem the word terrorism is being hijacked to mean "things we don't like happening", that is terrorism of the language!

[Grammatron]

Tony reads Fox News.

[Tony]

Yeah, so?

[Oliver]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273312,00.html

We all know fundies are generally idiots, but this guys takes fundy idiocy to a new level. Frankly, I see no reason why I should tolerate the intolerance of muslim fundies in the name of tolerance.


Gee, those damned UK human rights groups:


In 1997 the British Runnymede Trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede_Trust) defined Islamophobia as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ideology) rather than a religion, that its criticisms of the West have no substance, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#_note-Runnymede5)

In 1996 the Runnymede Trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede_Trust), an independent anti-racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racism) think tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank) in the UK, established the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, chaired by Professor Gordon Conway, the vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Sussex). Their report, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, was launched in November 1997 by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Straw_%28politician%29). It described Islamophobia as involving eight distinctive features.

[Tony]

And? Did you have a point to make Oliver?

[Puppycow]

It would seem the word terrorism is being hijacked to mean "things we don't like happening", that is terrorism of the language!

This reminds me of something I read in the news here in Japan a few years ago. An ancient member of the Diet and former prime minister was asked by the current PM to step aside for the next election after about 4 decades in the Diet to let a younger candidate run for the same seat. He accused the PM of "terrorism" for making such a suggestion. This is just one of many examples I have heard of rhetorical terrorism.

[Azure]

I read Fox News too!

[Oliver]

And? Did you have a point to make Oliver?


Yes, if you read my post and therefore the definition of Islamophobia, you may understand what this is about. And even if you don't realize what it means, I know for sure that there is a real issue behind this. For example the grewing distrust towards Muslims after 9/11 and 7/7 in the so called "Western World".

Now you might say you don't care - and in this case I will ask you why you brought it up if not because the same prejudices I'm talking about?


We all know fundies are generally idiots, but this guys takes fundy idiocy to a new level. Frankly, I see no reason why I should tolerate the intolerance of muslim fundies in the name of tolerance.

[Mycroft]

Gee, those damned UK human rights groups:

In 1997 the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology rather than a religion, that its criticisms of the West have no substance, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified.[10]



Wow, that sure is an kooky definition of Islamophobia. I think a more rational definition would make it like other phobias, a simple fear and hatred of.

[Tony]

And even if you don't realize what it means, I know for sure that there is a real issue behind this. For example the grewing distrust towards Muslims after 9/11 and 7/7 in the so called "Western World".


The distrust was earned by the few Muslims whose murderous and tyrannical actions serve to tarnish the name islam. If muslims want to earn the trust of people in the west, they're going to have to do something to win the hearts and minds of people in the west besides whine when people have a negative reaction when members of their religion commit mass murder in the name of their religion.

Yes, if you read my post and therefore the definition of Islamophobia, you may understand what this is about.

I did read your post, and I know the farcical definition of islamophobia.

Now you might say you don't care - and in this case I will ask you why you brought it up if not because the same prejudices I'm talking about?

Because it's absurd to call an anti-religious (like anti-Islam) outlook "terrorism". I thought that was obvious. It's also pretty hilarious that this idiot making the claim actually is delusional enough to believe it. This is like Pat Roberson calling liberal politicians and skeptics "terrorists" because they oppose Christianist policies.

[Roadtoad]

More BS from the authors of BS.

You have better things to do with your time, Tony.

[steverino]

I read the story, and I still am not getting this thread. :confused:

Xenophobea is worse than Islamic what's its whose?

[scratchy]

I must say i allmost throw up un this kind of use of "phobia", like homophobia, etnophobia etc. Its just an Orwellian way of using language to mark thoughts and beliefs one doesnt like as psychological dysfunctions.

A phobia is an irrational fear that effects your daily life negatively. Im dont fear muslims, and i live among lots of them. But thats because i keep my mouth shut. In western Europe, anyone who publicly critisise islam has to be aware that its among the most dangerous things you can do.

[Tony]

In western Europe, anyone who publicly critisise islam has to be aware that its among the most dangerous things you can do.

I hope you realize that saying that makes you an islamophobe.

[knot]

One could receive death threats over insulting cartoons. There's a large group of people that overreact to the slightest bit of criticism. Perhaps severe self esteem issues.

I wouldn't call that phobic.


They accused Western media of misrepresenting Islam and Muslims worldwide, according to a report in Arab News. I think they should be accusing the fundies of misrepresenting Islam. Lay blame at the source.

People were celebrating in the streets. Is that Islam?

[Oliver]

In western Europe, anyone who publicly critisise islam has to be aware that its among the most dangerous things you can do.


Bwaaahahaha! :D Yeah, that's right. Far more dangerous than criticizing colored people in america. :rolleyes:

[brodski]

It would seem the word terrorism is being hijacked to mean "things we don't like happening", that is terrorism of the language!

Terrorism is the new racism.

[NeilC]

Bwaaahahaha! :D Yeah, that's right. Far more dangerous than criticizing colored people in america. :rolleyes:

That might be bad for your career but do you fear for your life when you do it?

I've noticed that comedians in the UK will take on almost any subject including racism and disability. They will dress up as nuns or jesus and take the piss out of the pope etc. Which is great. But do they take on Islam or Mohammed? No they do not. Not one sketch. Not one comment. Nothing. Why? Because they are scared of the results both commercially and for their own safety I believe.

I like that quote: "“The linkage of terrorists and extremists with Islam in a generalized manner is unacceptable," the ministers said."

Yeah I mean how dare we link 9/11 or the London bombings with Islam? it's not like they were done by Muslims in the name of Islam or anything? You'll be telling me Osama is an islamic terrorist next. Bloody islamophobes.

I also hate the phobe thing: homophobe, islamophobe. Like you can't criticise or it means you are mentally ill. You only criticise islam because you have a latent belief in mohammed as the one true prophet. Go on admit it.

[Darat]

...snip...

I've noticed that comedians in the UK will take on almost any subject including racism and disability. They will dress up as nuns or jesus and take the piss out of the pope etc. Which is great. But do they take on Islam or Mohammed? No they do not. Not one sketch. Not one comment. Nothing. Why? Because they are scared of the results both commercially and for their own safety I believe.


...snip...

I think that is more a reflection of your choice of what comedians to watch - I've seen plenty of comedians take the mickey out of Islam and so on. Recent mainstream comedy shows that have featured many humorous comments about "Islam" include the TV show Mock the Week and the radio show "The Now Show".

[brodski]

That might be bad for your career but do you fear for your life when you do it?

I've noticed that comedians in the UK will take on almost any subject including racism and disability. They will dress up as nuns or jesus and take the piss out of the pope etc. Which is great. But do they take on Islam or Mohammed? No they do not. Not one sketch. Not one comment. Nothing. Why? Because they are scared of the results both commercially and for their own safety I believe.


There have been comedians who target Islam in their acts, Goodness Gracious Me comes to mind Omid Djalili does some Islamic fundy stuff in his live act, there are others. But remember, Muslims make up less than 3% of the UK population, whilst Christians make up 71% of the population, it is not surprising that there are far more instances of comedians mocking Christianity as opposed to Islam, especially given eth legal privileges which Christianity has in the UK.

[Oliver]

That might be bad for your career but do you fear for your life when you do it?

I've noticed that comedians in the UK will take on almost any subject including racism and disability. They will dress up as nuns or jesus and take the piss out of the pope etc. Which is great. But do they take on Islam or Mohammed? No they do not. Not one sketch. Not one comment. Nothing. Why? Because they are scared of the results both commercially and for their own safety I believe.

I like that quote: "“The linkage of terrorists and extremists with Islam in a generalized manner is unacceptable," the ministers said."

Yeah I mean how dare we link 9/11 or the London bombings with Islam? it's not like they were done by Muslims in the name of Islam or anything? You'll be telling me Osama is an islamic terrorist next. Bloody islamophobes.

I also hate the phobe thing: homophobe, islamophobe. Like you can't criticise or it means you are mentally ill. You only criticise islam because you have a latent belief in mohammed as the one true prophet. Go on admit it.


Honestly - I never feared for my life when I asked Muslims critical questions concerning religion. There is a huge difference between Muslims who are familiar with european or western traditions in general and Muslims in the middle East - who have their own traditions and don't want to be dictated by the western world or their worldview. Just like we don't want to be dictated to have to believe in their worldview.

I only responded to the thread because Tony sounded like he has some prejudices against muslims. So I provoked him to check if this is true - but I really aren't afraid of muslims - if I would feel this way, I would have a phobia.

And I tell you why: There is no world-wide muslim-terrorist conspiracy trying to kill everyone in the western hemisphere.

The Truth is that they must be far more afraid of us instead we of them. Especially because we are jumping around in their neighborhood and killing many, many times more people than 19 Idiots killing 3000 on nine eleven.

Everyone who has a different view is not realistic about the current global situation, even if the Iraq war surely brought some good upraise for Al Qaida. I wonder if this was one of the intentions of the US - I mean, this was pretty foreseeable.

[WildCat]

Honestly - I never feared for my life when I asked Muslims critical questions concerning religion. There is a huge difference between Muslims who are familiar with european or western traditions in general and Muslims in the middle East - who have their own traditions and don't want to be dictated by the western world or their worldview.
3 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 lived in Germany in the 1990's.

Muslims demonstrated in the streets of London threatening to behead people over a fricking cartoon printed in a newspaper.

The radical Islamists are dangerous wherever they live.

[Oliver]

3 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 lived in Germany in the 1990's.

Muslims demonstrated in the streets of London threatening to behead people over a fricking cartoon printed in a newspaper.

The radical Islamists are dangerous wherever they live.


Sure, they are dangerous - just like the radical Neonazis, the radical Jews (do they really have nuclear weapans?), the radical Koreans (They have! Shall we invade? No, they really have WMD's!), the radical Christians or just the Radical Whatever.

So what? Oh GOD! NOW THEY DEMONSTRATE!
Would you find it outlandish if there would be a demonstration because some idiots think 9/11 was an inside job and they have Ideas like kill Bush, Cheney, Gravy and JREF-Members in general? So what's your point?

Yep, they lived in germany but didn't grew up here and lived all their live here - otherwise it would be difficult to convince them to blow up themselves (Because social welfare for EVERYONE who can't make it own his own) - even if there are people who actually turn crazy: OKC, The crazy Tankdriver, Klebold&Harris and so on.

Anyway: My point is that there is no threat. Even if they have one single, lousy nuclear weapon and would throw it somewhere because for their freedoms.

Oh wait, does this remind me to something in Japan? Yeah, right - "it was good, it was for our freedom". I wonder why terrorists are saying the same: "We are fighting for our freedoms". Oh - and look, the jewish people want their freedom, too.

It's one big Kindergarten and I'm sick of it. It's getting pretty hard to see who the terrorists are, isn't it?

[ponderingturtle]

It would seem the word terrorism is being hijacked to mean "things we don't like happening", that is terrorism of the language!

But that has always been meaning of terrorism.

[ponderingturtle]

hmm I do have to wonder if the people making this statement would concider the murder of Van Gogh the taking out of a terrorist.

[Roadtoad]

Allah only knows how they'd react to this one. (http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php)

Warning: NSFW!

[Oliver]

Allah only knows how they'd react to this one. (http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php)

Warning: NSFW!


Not as harsh as to this one:
http://images.google.de/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=de&q=iraq+corpse&btnG=Bilder-Suche

Or this one: Warning, reality!
http://rawstory.com/images/ishaqi/ishaqib.jpg

The Ishaqi incident refers to the reported mass murder of Iraqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) allegedly committed by the United states forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military) in the town of Ishaqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaqi) in March 2006.

[fishbob]

In 1997 the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology rather than a religion, that its criticisms of the West have no substance, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified.

That is a serious language hi-jack.

phobia definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phobia)
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation

Phobias say a lot about the person with the syndrome, and nothing at all about the object, activity, or situation.

By defiinition, Islamophobics are irrationally fearful.

ETA: Just because I am not Arachnophobic, does not mean I am going to stick my hand in a spider web. Not irrational does not mean stupid.

[Giz]

And I tell you why: There is no world-wide muslim-terrorist conspiracy trying to kill everyone in the western hemisphere.

Well, al-queda is worldwide, and muslim. They may be willing to settle for conversion or subjugation though.

Sure, they are dangerous - just like the radical Neonazis, the radical Jews (do they really have nuclear weapans?), the radical Koreans (They have! Shall we invade? No, they really have WMD's!), the radical Christians or just the Radical Whatever.

Yeeaaah, How many radical Nazis/Jews/Christianswhatevers have launched attacks like NY, London, Madrid, Bali, etc? Sure everyone is equally dangerous. Just like the Salvation Army is just as dangerous as any other army.


Anyway: My point is that there is no threat. Even if they have one single, lousy nuclear weapon and would throw it somewhere because for their freedoms.

Hold on there!! Are you saying that even if Al-Queda got their hands on a nuke, there wouldn't be a threat???!

It's getting pretty hard to see who the terrorists are, isn't it?

Yeahhh, real hard. Sure.

[Oliver]

Well, al-queda is worldwide, and muslim. They may be willing to settle for conversion or subjugation though.


Yeah, there are tenths of millions all over the world. Watch out, the Bogeyman is out to kill your cat at home. Honestly, do you believe this crap? You know - like the evil communists during Cold War who are going to get you at home. :boggled:

Yeeaaah, How many radical Nazis/Jews/Christianswhatevers have launched attacks like NY, London, Madrid, Bali, etc? Sure everyone is equally dangerous. Just like the Salvation Army is just as dangerous as any other army.


America did.
How many people actually did throw an atomic bomb on innocent people killing 265000 of them? ;)
Of course - from your point of view this is fine. As a Japanese during this time I would have said: "TERRORISTS!". And I would have been right from my point of view, wrong?

Hold on there!! Are you saying that even if Al-Queda got their hands on a nuke, there wouldn't be a threat???!


Yes, this still would be a local threat - not a global one like the US Gov uses to implore the World.

Yeahhh, real hard. Sure.


See - you're ignorant. You use to see the world from one single point of view, not "fair and balanced". So I have to assume that you're not able to put yourself into a neutral position.

[Ziggurat]

So what? Oh GOD! NOW THEY DEMONSTRATE!

Yeah, they demonstrate. Ever actually pay attention to what they demonstrate about? They've got funny definitions for things like "terrorism", for example:

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/Freedom2.jpg

Oh, and what do they propose to do if their demands aren't met? Well, some of them aren't too shy about letting that be known either (this one's from a protest in London):

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/behead_those_who_insult_islam.jpg

Islamophobia is a bigger threat than terrorism and its supporters? Well, yes, actually, that guy's got it right: Islamophobia is a greater threat to those who want to spread a Wahabist or other totalitarian version of Islam throughout the globe than terrorism is, that's quite plainly true. But then, he's not on my side, so what's a threat to him (Islamophobia) isn't necessarily a threat to me, and what's a threat to me (terrorism) evidently isn't a threat to him. And it's all the more ironic considering how Christophobic the muslim world is. They've got absolutely no right to even talk about religious freedom or tolerance in the west when it's illegal to build a church or hold a mass anywhere in Saudi Arabia, for example. He can go to hell. And the fact that you can't see through his pathetic charade, the fact that you think he's even got a point worth considering given the hypocracy he supports, is just sad.

[Oliver]

Islamophobia is a bigger threat than terrorism and its supporters?


No, read the whole thread again.

[Ziggurat]

hmm I do have to wonder if the people making this statement would concider the murder of Van Gogh the taking out of a terrorist.

Well, the woman holding the poster in the first picture of my previous post certainly would, yes.

[Oliver]

Well, the woman holding the poster in the first picture of my previous post certainly would, yes.


Watch out, she's going to get you. We should preemptively kill her in a good old fashioned Neocons way, what do you think?

[brodski]

Yeeaaah, How many radical Nazis/Jews/Christianswhatevers have launched attacks like NY, London, Madrid, Bali, etc? Sure everyone is equally dangerous. Just like the Salvation Army is just as dangerous as any other army.


I can remember white nationalist/ "Nazi" bomb attacks on my city (Soho, Brixton, Brick lane), as well as many Christian inspired ones. By far the largest stockpile of weapons discovered in the UK under the recent anti terrorist crackdown, was held by white nationalists.
Just because Islamic terrorism is the current hot topic, and represents the most well organised and well financed terrorist groups currently active, doesn’t mean that it is the only threat we face.

[Oliver]

I can remember white nationalist/ "Nazi" bomb attacks on my city (Soho, Brixton, Brick lane), as well as many Christian inspired ones. By far the largest stockpile of weapons discovered in the UK under the recent anti terrorist crackdown, was held by white nationalists.
Just because Islamic terrorism is the current hot topic, and represents the most well organised and well financed terrorist groups currently active, doesn’t mean that it is the only threat we face.


Honestly, I guess it was one of the smaller ones. I don't know in which scale this has changed since the current Iraq-War but if the official accounts are true and Al Qaida now operates in a former terrorist-free and stabil Iraq, I say :"Mission accomplished".

ETA: And I still wonder if this was planned because it was pretty obvious that there is a pretty high chance for this reaction.

[Tony]

I only responded to the thread because Tony sounded like he has some prejudices against muslims.

Based on the display of bigotry above, It sounds like you have some prejudices against skeptics and freethinkers.

I'm anti-religion generally and anti-Christian and anti-Islam particularly. If they keep their beliefs to themselves and out of my life and off my body, I don't care what they do. However, I see no reason why I should tolerate god inspired fascism in the name of tolerance. Did you come to the same defense of Jerry Falwell when he was condemned and ridiculed for blaming America's freedom for the 9/11 attacks?

[Bob Klase]

I hope you realize that saying that makes you an islamophobe.

But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one is following you.

[Oliver]

It they keep their beliefs to themselves and out of my life and off my body, I don't care what they do.


See? So why is the US jumping around in the middle-east for decades. I really doubt you wouldn't care if the Middle East would do this in your neighborhood, would you?

[richardm]

humorous comments about "Islam"

Not really an example of what you're talking about but I thought it was funny anyway :D


UNSETTLING THINGS TO HEAR FROM THE COCKPIT OF A PLANE

Help me with my seatbelt Abu, I can't do it with this damn hook.

[Tony]

Yeah, there are tenths of millions all over the world. Watch out, the Bogeyman is out to kill your cat at home. Honestly, do you believe this crap?


Are you saying that Bin Laden and his ilk are lying?

[Ziggurat]

Watch out, she's going to get you. We should preemptively kill her in a good old fashioned Neocons way, what do you think?

I think you're not interested in a serious discussion.

Oh, and there's no "old fashioned Neocons way" because neoconservatism (not capitalized, BTW) isn't old. Hence the "neo".

[Tony]

Not as harsh as to this one:
http://images.google.de/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=de&q=iraq+corpse&btnG=Bilder-Suche

Or this one: Warning, reality!
http://rawstory.com/images/ishaqi/ishaqib.jpg

Only to you. I doubt the typical fundy would find a dead child (who is now in heaven with 72 virgins because it died in jihad) more harsh than a cartoon making fun of mohammad.

[Tony]

But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one is following you.

Huh?

[Tony]

See?

See what?

So why is the US jumping around in the middle-east for decades.

Why are you asking stupid questions?

I really doubt you wouldn't care if the Middle East would do this in your neighborhood, would you?

Do what? What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with muslim fundies being violent?

[Oliver]

Only to you. I doubt the typical fundy would find a dead child (who is now in heaven with 72 virgins because it died in jihad) more harsh than a cartoon making fun of mohammad.


You really should take the time and actually talk to some muslims and their view about "fundies". That would be a very honest thing before prejudicing based on your single-sided point of view.

And don't get me wrong. I would argue in a same way if you would spout about Jews, Afro-Americans, Japanese or anyone else.

[sphenisc]

Watch out, she's going to get you. We should preemptively kill her in a good old fashioned Neocons way, what do you think?


I think we should tell her her banner is banned and then take it from her and destroy it. That way everybody's happy.

[Oliver]

I think we should tell her her banner is banned and then take it from her and destroy it. That way everybody's happy.


Forget it: "Free *beep* Speech" is holy for americans.

[Giz]

I can remember white nationalist/ "Nazi" bomb attacks on my city (Soho, Brixton, Brick lane), as well as many Christian inspired ones. By far the largest stockpile of weapons discovered in the UK under the recent anti terrorist crackdown, was held by white nationalists.
Just because Islamic terrorism is the current hot topic, and represents the most well organised and well financed terrorist groups currently active, doesn’t mean that it is the only threat we face.

Not the only. But the most significant. And the most widespread.

[Oliver]

Not the only. But the most significant. And the most widespread.


Do you take this threat for real?

[Giz]

America did.
How many people actually did throw an atomic bomb on innocent people killing 265000 of them? ;)
Of course - from your point of view this is fine. As a Japanese during this time I would have said: "TERRORISTS!". And I would have been right from my point of view, wrong?



If you cant see that ending WW2 via the use of A-Bombs and launching attacks on civilians in the 21st century is comparing apples and oranges then I give up... you're willfully blind.




Yes, this still would be a local threat - not a global one like the US Gov uses to implore the World.



Oh, so terrorists setting off a nuke in New York or London would not be as serious as the USA's economic influence. Got it; capitalism makes you cry.

[Giz]

Do you take this threat for real?

Why don't you go to a relative of someone who died on 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid etc and ask them?

[Oliver]

If you cant see that ending WW2 via the use of A-Bombs and launching attacks on civilians in the 21st century is comparing apples and oranges then I give up... you're willfully blind.


If you can't accept that human nature is still as selfish as 10,000 years ago, I will also give up. You have to understand human nature to understand the bigger picture. And I don't claim to see the whole picture yet.

Essentially the example was comparable in terms of "Terrorism", no matter if you like it or not. But feel free to address the message instead trying to whine about the messenger.


Oh, so terrorists setting off a nuke in New York or London would not be as serious as the USA's economic influence. Got it; capitalism makes you cry.


At least it would make people think about all aspects of the world since you didn't grasp the simple message on 9/11.

We (the western world) are fast to pick an enemy - but we don't care about others in the same standards, do we?

I try to understand our future but I don't cry about it because I don't have to worry about my children - So I don't really have to care if "the kindergarten" will blow themselves off the planet.

[Oliver]

Why don't you go to a relative of someone who died on 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid etc and ask them?


Why don't you ask someone in Hiroshima? We can spin this all day long but essentially I am right. If you think otherwise, feel free to address your point of view without question marks.

[Darth Rotor]

See? So why is the US jumping around in the middle-east for decades.
Oil. Haven't you been keeping up? Free flowing oil and low/modest prices is a catalyst to a robust global economy. The nations who benefit from the robust global economy are "most nations" and in particular, the developed industrial nations, like

Germany. :)

Your high standard of living in Germany is a direct result of Germany's benefit from robust international, global, trade, which in turn is enabled by easy to use energy in the form of oil. It helps that a lot of smart Germans take advantage of that state of play.

DR

[Oliver]

Oil. Haven't you been keeping up?

DR


It's not only Oil in my opinion - at least not in modern foreign policy.
There's much more to the game than just oil.

[Tony]

You really should take the time and actually talk to some muslims and their view about "fundies".

Why? What relevence does the non-fundy muslim view of muslim fundies have to do with the muslim fundy view of a dead child?

And don't get me wrong. I would argue in a same way if you would spout about Jews, Afro-Americans, Japanese or anyone else.

You're the one who is prejudiced. You automatically think fundy=all muslims. Why?

[Oliver]

Oil. Haven't you been keeping up? Free flowing oil and low/modest prices is a catalyst to a robust global economy. The nations who benefit from the robust global economy are "most nations" and in particular, the developed industrial nations, like

Germany. :)

Your high standard of living in Germany is a direct result of Germany's benefit from robust international, global, trade, which in turn is enabled by easy to use energy in the form of oil. It helps that a lot of smart Germans take advantage of that state of play.

DR


I really can't deny your assertion - and I wouldn't wonder at all. But in contrast to the US we actually try to reduce our Oil-dependance and also CO² emissions. The US didn't take this course in the last decades - so I guess they don't care?

[Darth Rotor]

It's not only Oil in my opinion - at least not in modern foreign policy.
There's much more to the game than just oil.

The simple version of the matter is of course rather complex, but without oil, and easy to get oil, in the heart of the Middle East, it loses a great deal of its strategic value to anyone in other nations and power blocs, and is thus less critical to anyone's security, and global security.

If you hadn't noticed, the US has been underwriting global security, with mixed results, since about 1941. The reason to attempt to provide/enhance security is to keep trade lanes open, and to enable trade, globally, which in turn is an avenue toward America being, and remaining, a wealthy nation.

This is not rocket science.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I really can't deny your assertion - and I wouldn't wonder at all. But in contrast to the US we actually try to reduce our Oil-dependance and also CO² emissions. The US didn't take this course in the last decades - so I guess they don't care?
By "the US" whom do you mean? Al Gore is from the US. So are the Sierra Club and Ralph Nader, as well as Noam Chomsky.

DR

[BPSCG]

It's not only Oil in my opinion - at least not in modern foreign policy.
There's much more to the game than just oil.Oh, please, do tell!

(...this should be good... :rolleyes: )

[Oliver]

Why? What relevence does the non-fundy muslim view of muslim fundies have to the muslims fundy view of a dead child?

You're the one who is prejudiced. You automatically think fundy=all muslims. Why?


I don't think that fundies are all muslims. I doubt that fundies represent a majority - even in "fundamentalistic" countries. My point is that foreign policies give them the fuel they need to spout their religious garbage. So we (the western world) are indeed part of the problem. No matter if we like it or not.

And you dodged my question:

I really doubt you wouldn't care if the Middle East would do this in your neighborhood, would you?

[Oliver]

By "the US" whom do you mean? Al Gore is from the US. So are the Sierra Club and Ralph Nader, as well as Noam Chomsky.

DR


By the "US" I mean the OIL- and Coal-Lobby and their "Friends" within the White House. Do you think they have no influence at all?

[Oliver]

Oh, please, do tell!

(...this should be good... :rolleyes: )


Well, the US-Media-Propaganda to spread democracy in Iraq - for example. It's a hoax, right? ;)

[Darth Rotor]

By the "US" I mean the OIL- and Coal-Lobby and their "Friends" within the White House. Do you think they have no influence at all?

Over what time period? Are we heading to CT land, Oliver?

FWIW, I have held the position, since about 1980 when licensing of new nuke plants had the wrench thrown into the gears by idiot greens and bleeding heart liberals, that American energy policy was, and remains, crap.

DR

[mr rosewater]

We really are just everywhere today Oliver, but never far from the U.S. is evil.

[Tony]

I don't think that fundies are all muslims.

Then why are you asking me to take into consideration the views of muslims when I'm clearly talking about the fundies?

I doubt that fundies represent a majority - even in "fundamentalistic" countries.

There is no reason for you to doubt. What does the evidence say? Do polls of people in the middle east show majority of fundy views or not?

My point is that foreign policies give them the fuel they need to spout their religious garbage.

Indeed. Why didn't you say this before? Of course it gives them the fuel, but that doesn't change the fact that it is religious garbage. Nor does American foreign policy negate the fact that calling anti-religion "terrorism", escpecially when violence is being perpetrated in the name of that religion, is the height of absurdity. I noticed you've completly ignored that and instead have opted to whine about the West and the US. It's telling that you can't stick to the subject.

So we (the western world) are indeed part of the problem. No matter if we like it or not.

No we're not. Some of the policies of Western governments are part of the problem, but that doesn't excuse them of their violent acts.

No I didn't. I said:

Do what? What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with muslim fundies being violent?

[Oliver]

We really are just everywhere today Oliver, but never far from the U.S. is evil.


I'm sorry - but I have to attack some ignorant views to achieve a neutral point of view from people that I'm talking with. Never mind. :)

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sorry - but I have to attack some ignorant views to achieve a neutral point of view from people that I'm talking with. Never mind. :)
And to get your daily dose of America bashing out of your system.

Done yet?

When is the next European Cup, and who do you think will win? I'm leaning toward Forza Italia.

Forza Italia: A Journey in Search of Italy and its Football

by Paddy Agnew.


DR

[Oliver]

Over what time period? Are we heading to CT land, Oliver?

FWIW, I have held the position, since about 1980 when licensing of new nuke plants had the wrench thrown into the gears by idiot greens and bleeding heart liberals, that American energy policy was, and remains, crap.

DR


Nope - in CT-Land they say Global Warming is a conspiracy from scientists who try to enslave us with taxes. :boggled:

You should know that Bush regime pushed the question aside as long as they could. And you know that Bush came from the Oil-Industrie. So what's your explanantion to dodge this issue while europe and other parts of the world actually did something about a possible threat.

I have no other explanation beside financial interests.

[Giz]

My point is that foreign policies give them the fuel they need to spout their religious garbage. So we (the western world) are indeed part of the problem. No matter if we like it or not.



I'm sure that you're aware (especially being German) that sometimes aggressive types can see a greivance/threat/jews etc even when there aren't any. Amending one's foreign policy is no guarantee of safety.

Also, having a foreign policy that causes someone to resent/attack you is not proof that the foreign policy is immoral. ( thinking of the US embargo on oil sales to Japan after Nanking, which led to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour).

[Oliver]

And to get your daily dose of America bashing out of your system.

Done yet?

When is the next European Cup, and who do you think will win? I'm leaning toward Forze Italia.

DR


Football sucks. :D I mean soccer. So I don't care who wins or loses.

You guys over there have a huge ego, that's what I can tell. Ron Paul actually told his opinion which is above a typical "Me, We, Us"-View. And EGO is a general western worlds problem. So we can bash germany, too - if you wish. I have no problem to do so. :D

[Oliver]

I'm sure that you're aware (especially being German) that sometimes aggressive types can see a greivance/threat/jews etc even when there aren't any. Amending one's foreign policy is no guarantee of safety.

Also, having a foreign policy that causes someone to resent/attack you is not proof that the foreign policy is immoral. ( thinking of the US embargo on oil sales to Japan after Nanking, which led to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour).


Yes, I can see and understand that. The only solution I see is to make friend instead enemies. I know this sounds unthinkable, but basically this is my point.

[Darth Rotor]

Nope - in CT-Land they say Global Warming is a conspiracy from scientists who try to enslave us with taxes. :boggled:

You should know that Bush regime pushed the question aside as long as they could. And you know that Bush came from the Oil-Industrie. So what's your explanantion to dodge this issue while europe and other parts of the world actually did something about a possible threat.

I have no other explanation beside financial interests.
It is very simple, Oliver. The view from Washington, regardless of the party in the White House, is very different than the view in Berlin.

I don't care if you like that or not, that is the way it is. You seem to assert that economic interest is only a motive for politics in America.

Wake up, Oliver.

What's your tax rate? What happened to the Deutschmark?

DR

[BPSCG]

Okay, I'm going to do a mini-thread here so everyone can get the gist of what you're trying to say. I've edited out the parts that aren't germane:
So why is the US jumping around in the middle-east for decades.

Oil. Haven't you been keeping up?

There's much more to the game than just oil.

Oh, please, do tell!

Well, the US-Media-Propaganda to spread democracy in Iraq - for example.

So my question is essentially, "For what other reason, besides oil, is the US 'jumping around in the middle-east for decades'?"

And your answer is, "Well, the US-Media-Propaganda to spread democracy in Iraq - for example."

Pardon me, but that's completely incoherent. Are you trying to say that the US has been "jumping around the middle east for decades" because of The New York Times? If not, then what are you trying to say?

[Oliver]

The view from Washington, regardless of the party in the White House, is very different than the view in Berlin.


So you know their view and interest but you choose to dodge this issue instead kicking my ass with facts? :D
I listen...

And I have no Idea what happened to the Deutschmark (Reichsmark?). That's not within the focus of my interest yet. Is it interesting?

[Tony]

The only solution I see is to make friend instead enemies. I know this sounds unthinkable, but basically this is my point.

I agree. However, making friends is a two-way street and there are groups on both sides who have interests in conflict. It's up to the liberals on both sides to win against the conservatives. Right now, the West is more liberal, more tolerant, and more accepting of different religions/view-points and more ready to make friends. The middle east is still suffering in a cultural state of ultra-conservatism and backwards belief and political systems.

[Pardalis]

Isn't liberalism about accepting all people, including conservatives?

[Oliver]

Okay, I'm going to do a mini-thread here so everyone can get the gist of what you're trying to say. I've edited out the parts that aren't germane:

So my question is essentially, "For what other reason, besides oil, is the US 'jumping around in the middle-east for decades'?"

And your answer is, "Well, the US-Media-Propaganda to spread democracy in Iraq - for example."

Pardon me, but that's completely incoherent. Are you trying to say that the US has been "jumping around the middle east for decades" because of The New York Times? If not, then what are you trying to say?


The Bush Doctrine is name given to a set of guidelines first unveiled by United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) in a speech given on June 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_1), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002). The policies, taken together, outlined a broad new phase in US policy that would place greater emphasis on military pre-emption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war), military superiority ("strength beyond challenge"), unilateral action, and a commitment to "extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions". The policy was formalized in a document titled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published on September 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_20), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002). The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory) and containment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment) that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) and the decade between the collapse of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) and 9/11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).

Paul Wolfowitz and the Defense Planning Guidance text of 1992

Tracing the history of the doctrine back through the Department of Defense it appears the first full explication of the doctrine was the initial "final draft" version of the internal Defense Planning Guidance guidelines written by Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz), then in the role of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in 1992. When the guidelines, commonly termed the Wolfowitz Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine), were leaked to the press and a controversy arose, the George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) White House ordered it re-written. The revised version did not mention preemption or unilateralism.


Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

Are you familiar with this?

[Oliver]

I agree. However, making friends is a two-way street and there are groups on both sides who have interests in conflict. It's up to the liberals on both sides to win against the conservatives. Right now, the West is more liberal, and more ready to make friends. The middle east is still suffering in a cultural state of ultra-conservatism and backwards belief systems.


I hate to say it but the current Administration and their preemptive policies look as ignorant as the conservatism on the "other" side of the fence. I guess it's the liberal point of view that leads to the division in terms of the US vs the rest of the world - and by that I mean that America isn't the ideal that we used to support as the western world did before the Iraq War.

[knot]

Responding to page one: Insult Jesus and you'll hardly get a reaction. Insult Muhammad and you may get a whole lot full of non-US moderates calling for death and possibly throwing Molotov cocktails at you.

[Darth Rotor]

So you know their view and interest but you choose to dodge
What makes you think I "know" what the view is in Washington with any accuracy? I have to guess a great deal, particularly since about October 2002, about what the aims really are.

I am aware of US security policy, and its purpose, in a general way over the past 30 years from having had to be on the front end of it, and from looking into it when I got to the level where I had a hand (a teeny tiny hand) in contributing to policy level work.

If you want to understand the roots of American foreign policy, on a consistent basis, I can recommend a very well written book by Walter Russell Mead , called

Special Providence.

It is one of the better neutral treatments of the topic I have seen to date.

I am still waiting for Niall Ferguson's book (Colossus: The Rise and Fall of The American Empire) to drop in price, or pop up at the local second hand book store, to get his take, so I can't offer any endorsement of his work. He did a lot of work on his two volume set on the Rothschild financial empire, however, so I have great hope for some of his other work.

So many good books, so little time.

A post on this forum can't do the topic justice.

Meade, on the other hand, does.

DR

[Tony]

Isn't liberalism about accepting all people, including conservatives?


Bwahahahahahahaha.

No.

Where did you get such a stupid idea?

[Oliver]

Insult Jesus and you'll hardly get a reaction. Insult Muhammad and you'll get a whole lot full of moderates calling for death and possibly throwing Molotov cocktails at you.


Call Gays a group of equal righted people under God - and the religious right will kick you ass, too.


But the problem is that you can't change religion from now to then. So you have to accept other views, not suppressing them. This leads to more aggression. Basically the jewish People could say: "You know what, we have enough and we leave this country in the name of piece." - But they also have their nutty religion and so they also say they are the ones who are right - every different opinion is wrong. :boggled:

[BPSCG]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

Are you familiar with this?What on earth does any of this have to do with "Media-Propaganda"?

[Oliver]

What makes you think I "know" what the view is in Washington with any accuracy? I have to guess a great deal, particularly since about October 2002, about what the aims really are.

I am aware of US security policy, and its purpose, in a general way over the past 30 years from having had to be on the front end of it, and from looking into it when I got to the level where I had a hand (a teeny tiny hand) in contributing to policy level work.

If you want to understand the roots of American foreign policy, on a consistent basis, I can recommend a very well written book by Walter Russell Mead , called

Special Providence.

It is one of the better neutral treatments of the topic I have seen to date.

I am still waiting for Niall Ferguson's book (Colossus: The Rise and Fall of The American Empire) to drop in price, or pop up at the local second hand book store, to get his take, so I can't offer any endorsement of his work. He did a lot of work on his two volume set on the Rothschild financial empire, however, so I have great hope for some of his other work.

So many good books, so little time.

A post on this forum can't do the topic justice.

Meade, on the other hand, does.

DR


Well, basically it's not history is not the primary thing I'm interested in - my main interest is about the world today and in the future - even if I also have to take history in account.

It's sad that secret policies are confusing and distrusting so much people - even within the US (See CT'ists), but I guess it's part of the American Society - even if, and without any intention of bashing, I can't consider this as democratic.

[Darth Rotor]

What on earth does any of this have to do with "Media-Propaganda"?

Oliver seems to think that Tony Snow crafts policy, and the New York Times dictates foreign policy.

Not a hard mistake to make, since Christiana Amanpour demonstrated on CNN that she wrote foreign interventionist policy for Bill Clinton. :D One could derive from that data point a more dominating contribution from the media in policy formation.

Me, I think that since about January 2001, Dick Cheney writes terse memos that become policy when delivered to cabinet officers, but I can't confirm it.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

It's sad that secret policies are confusing and distrusting so much people - even within the US (See CT'ists), but I guess it's part of the American Society - even if, and without any intention of bashing, I can't consider this as democratic.
But of course, since Germany has no secret policies, nor does anyone else, besides America.

*smacks head*

Why didn't I think of that?

As to the future, I consulted my eight ball, and it said:

"Future Hazy, ask later."

So, left on my own, I will tell you what the future is in one word: plastics. :D

DR

[knot]

Call Gays a group of equal righted people under God - and the religious right will kick you ass, too.


Perhaps the few from that weird family and that would be verbal rather the the almost rabid, "frothing at the mouth" anger displayed over the cartoons.

Isn't liberalism about accepting all people, including conservatives?Some define it as a mental disorder. After Having many "no plane" debates (war) with liberal Cts, I'm beginning to agree.

[Giz]

Basically the jewish People could say: "You know what, we have enough and we leave this country in the name of piece." - But they also have their nutty religion and so they also say they are the ones who are right - every different opinion is wrong. :boggled:

Did you know that Gandhi's answer to what the Jews should have done when faced with the Final Solution? Commit mass suicide.

Talk about people wanting them to go the extra mile.

[Tony]

I hate to say it but the current Administration and their preemptive policies look as ignorant as the conservatism on the "other" side of the fence.

Gotcha, stoning people to death for dating outside of their religion is equal and just as ignorant as some politicians making stupid and self-centered decisions. Are you this intellectually bankrupt on purpose?

I guess it's the liberal point of view that leads to the division in terms of the US vs the rest of the world - and by that I mean that America isn't the ideal that we used to support as the western world did before the Iraq War.

This doesn't make sense.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I can see and understand that. The only solution I see is to make friend instead enemies. I know this sounds unthinkable, but basically this is my point.

Sometimes the only way to make an enemy into a friend is to defeat them. And that's exactly what nuking Japan accomplished. The particulars of using a nuclear weapon are actually irrelevant to that issue, by the way (we killed more Japanese civilians with conventional bombing than with nukes). This is a bit of a tangent, but nuclear weapons are a unique threat now because they permit smaller powers (including failing states and potentially non-state actors) to do the kind of damage that previously required the full industrial warmaking capacity of major powers, not because there's anything uniquely horrific about dying from a nuclear weapon compared to other possible deaths. Fixation on the fact that we have used nuclear weapons in war and nobody else has obscures the real issue with proliferation threats.

Now back to the subject at hand. The jihadi vision of an ideal world is fundamentally incompatible with western values, and because their values permit any act of violence, with no restraint (something which has always existed in the west, even when we were willing to nuke Japan), the jihadists will allways be at war with us until either we or they are defeated. We cannot make friends with the jihadists until they are defeated (and maybe not even then). Pray tell, what do you think a western victory over the jihadists will look like? What do you think a jihadist victory over the west would look like? Which do you think involves more people being dead?

Now, given your answer to those questions: which side do you want to be on? I don't ask because I think you're on the jihadi side. I ask because I think you've concluded that you don't have to pick a side.

[Darth Rotor]

Gotcha, stoning people to death for dating outside of their religion is equal and just as ignorant as some politicians making stupid and self-centered decisions. Are this intellectually bankrupt on purpose?



This doesn't make sense.
Pssssssst

[stage whisper]

you are talking to Oliver

[/stage whisper]

DR

[knot]

the jihadists will allways be at war with us until either we or they are defeated.


Why they hate us

This post was in the MySpace political forum and it sums up what I believe to be true. It's just a shame that the "blame America crowd" has to find some fault within ourselves to justify terrorism.

Desert Rat wrote:
Most simply put, the terrorists do not hate us because of any foriegn policy issue. Countries might have problems with our foreign policy, but this does not necessarily breed terrorists.

Islamic terrorists want you dead if you are not a Muslim. They want you dead if you do not convert to Islam. They want you dead if you do not faithfully practice their religion according to them. They believe we are the Great Satan and must be destroyed. There is no negotiation. Convert or die. Understand that Middle Eastern states are not democracies, not dictatorships, or kingdoms. They are in fact theocracies. Every aspect of their lives is controlled by religion. They are raised this way, and have never known any other way. They (extremists) believe in their hearts we are the ultimate evil on this earth and we must be destroyed. They do not believe in negotiation with the devil.

So, why do they hate us?

Because we are who we are, that's it.

[Oliver]

But of course, since Germany has no secret policies, nor does anyone else, besides America.

*smacks head*

Why didn't I think of that?

As to the future, I consulted my eight ball, and it said:

"Future Hazy, ask later."

So, left on my own, I will tell you what the future is in one word: plastics. :D

DR


Well, I don't know one single, secret military intervention from germany after WW2. And the reason for that is that every military action has to pass the multi-party congress.

The Black-Budget allows to intervene secretly throughout the world, and nobody really looks into it. It's a free pass to undermine US-law. Someone brings something up? - Declare it as national security issue and congress can't tell about it anymore publicly.

And just forget my point of view for a minute: That's what makes people in the US sceptical. The CT'ists may be an extreme and a minority - but the general distrust is there from my experiences so far.

[Oliver]

Sometimes the only way to make an enemy into a friend is to defeat them.


This may be true in terms of Japan - in which only one country and one leader is involved. Even if I don't think that targeting civilians to get a result is the western way to archive a goal. No matter if it's the US or Al Qaida.

But to think that invading Iraq to spread democracy will impress the rest of the Muslim nations, was a foreseeable error - at least in my point of view. But maybe you have some interesting thoughts which will prove me wrong?

Now back to the subject at hand. The jihadi vision of an ideal world is fundamentally incompatible with western values, and because their values permit any act of violence, with no restraint (something which has always existed in the west, even when we were willing to nuke Japan), the jihadists will allways be at war with us until either we or they are defeated. We cannot make friends with the jihadists until they are defeated (and maybe not even then). Pray tell, what do you think a western victory over the jihadists will look like? What do you think a jihadist victory over the west would look like? Which do you think involves more people being dead?


Frankly? I don't see a threat.
How could the Jihadists beat the west? With some cool speeches?
They are no threat. And Saddam also was no threat. And even if the Media tells about an overwhelming terror-organization all over the world with tens of thousands of members, I don't believe this crap.

I don't believe it - so why do you? Just because the Government said so? :boggled:


Now, given your answer to those questions: which side do you want to be on? I don't ask because I think you're on the jihadi side. I ask because I think you've concluded that you don't have to pick a side.


I'm neutral and I also have no problem to bash germany or any other place on earth. To me the human race is a bunch of kindergarten-Kids, nothing else. But you have to look into both sides of the story to understand my point of view.

I guess my difference to you is that I am not patriotic. Germany lost that emotion after the crimes during Nazi-germany. Maybe others have to make similar experiences to understand the world in a really fair and balanced way - without any egoism, without any "we", "us" or "I".

[knot]

Frankly? I don't see a threat.
How could the Jihadists beat the west? With some cool speeches?
They are no threat. And Saddam also was no threat. And even if the Media tells about an overwhelming terror-organization all over the world with tens of thousands of members, I don't believe this crap.

I don't believe it - so why do you? Just because the Government said so? :boggled:




Many of us believed there was no thread (hehe, edit: threat) prior to 911.

Action speaks louder than words.

[Oliver]

Many of us believed there was no thread (hehe, edit: threat) prior to 911.

Action speaks louder than words.


Terror attacks is nothing new - at least to me. The US-Media may not have reported about the World in a way it was prior to 9/11. But it's nothing extraordinary that the US finally also got a terrorist attack on their soil.

So what? Now they attacked the US and the US finally woke up and saw what's happening "every day" all over the world. I wasn't surprised at all - even if I was shocked about the scale and the target.

[Ziggurat]

This may be true in terms of Japan - in which only one country and one leader is involved. Even if I don't think that targeting civilians to get a result is the western way to archive a goal. No matter if it's the US or Al Qaida.

Actually, civilians weren't the target of either nuke. Industrial capacity was. Civilians were collateral damage.

But to think that invading Iraq to spread democracy will impress the rest of the Muslim nations, was a foreseeable error - at least in my point of view. But maybe you have some interesting thoughts which will prove me wrong?

What do you mean by "impress"? Saddam's complete and utter failure to put up any significant resistance actually was quite a shock to the muslim world (and a number of people in the west to). He was the arab world's strongman, the great symbol of pan-arab nationalism, and he was shown to be impotent. And the message DID get around: arab states are weak.

Furthermore, Al Qaeda's tactics in Iraq are indeed backfiring. There's a perpetual focus in the west on what we do, on how our actions alienate people, and yet no concept among so many commentators (and it appears that you haven't considered this either) that our enemy's actions can also alienate people. Al Qaeda is killing Iraqis. Lots of them. We may get some blame for that, but Al Qaeda get's a lot of blame for it. And their popularity throughout the muslim world has taken quite a hit from the spreading realization that Al Qaeda was never really fighting for muslims. Is that "impressing" muslims? Maybe not. But it's having an effect.

Frankly? I don't see a threat.
How could the Jihadists beat the west? With some cool speeches?

They don't need to defeat us militarily. All they need to do is radicalize the muslim population within Europe, and let demographics do the rest. And that is EXACTLY what they're planning on doing. Now, how is Europe going to defend itself against that? How CAN Europe defend itself against that?

They are no threat. And Saddam also was no threat.

And the Taliban and Al Qaeda were no threat. Hell, they didn't have half the army Saddam had, they had no oil wealth, they were stuck in a land-locked country with none of our close allies within striking distance... and yet they caused a half a trillion dollars worth of economic damage to us.

Your perception of what qualifies as a threat has not adapted to reality.

I don't believe it - so why do you? Just because the Government said so? :boggled:

Uh, NO, actually. Official pronouncements from government sources have quite little to do with how I form my opinions. But it's revealing that this is the only basis upon which you think I could come to hold such opinions.

I'm neutral

You're NEUTRAL in the war between the west and the Jihadis?

I guess my difference to you is that I am not patriotic.

That I can understand. Germany has little to be proud of in terms of its national history. But that's your problem, not mine.

But this isn't about patriotism, anyways. It's about values. Do you value the right to vote? Do you value the right to express your opinions without being gunned down in the street ala Van Gogh? Do you value the right to believe in whatever god you choose, or to not believe in god at all? Do you value the right to change your beliefs without threat of death? Do you value the right of women to be considered legally equal to men? Do you value the right of women to be something more than merely the property of men? Because if you value any of these (and my guess is you probably value all of them, as do I), then you're either dishonest or clueless when you claim to be neutral. You are not neutral.

[Oliver]

Actually, civilians weren't the target of either nuke. Industrial capacity was. Civilians were collateral damage.


Uhm, you imply that the US didn't knew that there were hundred thousand civilians, do you? I mean to attack industrial capacity, it wasn't necessary to attack with nuclear force.

What do you mean by "impress"? Saddam's complete and utter failure to put up any significant resistance actually was quite a shock to the muslim world (and a number of people in the west to). He was the arab world's strongman, the great symbol of pan-arab nationalism, and he was shown to be impotent. And the message DID get around: arab states are weak.


Of course arab states are weak. The problem I have is that they are still weak, and the US-Government knows that. There was no reason to attack Iraq - especially because it was stable and opposed to terrorism.

Everything else was propaganda.

Furthermore, Al Qaeda's tactics in Iraq are indeed backfiring. There's a perpetual focus in the west on what we do, on how our actions alienate people, and yet no concept among so many commentators (and it appears that you haven't considered this either) that our enemy's actions can also alienate people. Al Qaeda is killing Iraqis. Lots of them. We may get some blame for that, but Al Qaeda get's a lot of blame for it. And their popularity throughout the muslim world has taken quite a hit from the spreading realization that Al Qaeda was never really fighting for muslims. Is that "impressing" muslims? Maybe not. But it's having an effect.


Sorry, but this is an unnecessary mess. Many lives could have been saved if the Bush-Administration would have hunted the responsible persons in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia. They didn't - and the world saw this hypocrisy. :(

They don't need to defeat us militarily. All they need to do is radicalize the muslim population within Europe, and let demographics do the rest. And that is EXACTLY what they're planning on doing. Now, how is Europe going to defend itself against that? How CAN Europe defend itself against that?


Bull*hit. They had no effect at all here in Europe. The Muslims here are opposed to the violence based on a Koran that doesn't support Al Qaida's twisted ideas.

And the Taliban and Al Qaeda were no threat. Hell, they didn't have half the army Saddam had, they had no oil wealth, they were stuck in a land-locked country with none of our close allies within striking distance... and yet they caused a half a trillion dollars worth of economic damage to us.


See, you understand how the real world works in contrast to the Media World who uses to portrait the World in a more patriotic way to please the audience.

Your perception of what qualifies as a threat has not adapted to reality.


BS! Our western worlds policies kills far more people than all terror-attacks together. You may not see it because you might have chosen to ignore your part of the story.

Uh, NO, actually. Official pronouncements from government sources have quite little to do with how I form my opinions. But it's revealing that this is the only basis upon which you think I could come to hold such opinions.


So? How many AQ terrorists are out there? How big is the imaginary threat? How much does Bush care about OBL? You're killing me.

You're NEUTRAL in the war between the west and the Jihadis?


Yep, they're both children. I live in a country with 3 million Muslims and they never even implied that their religion is better than my religion. My experience is that they are more tolerant than many are willing to believe.

That I can understand. Germany has little to be proud of in terms of its national history. But that's your problem, not mine.


Oh, we have some very great achievements we could be proud of - but the Nazis erased a lot of them. Nevertheless, I see it as opportunity because I know that patriotism, values and ideologies can lead to some pretty ugly things that the majority didn't want beforehand. So I don't see it as problem.

But this isn't about patriotism, anyways. It's about values. Do you value the right to vote? Do you value the right to express your opinions without being gunned down in the street ala Van Gogh? Do you value the right to believe in whatever god you choose, or to not believe in god at all? Do you value the right to change your beliefs without threat of death? Do you value the right of women to be considered legally equal to men? Do you value the right of women to be something more than merely the property of men? Because if you value any of these (and my guess is you probably value all of them, as do I), then you're either dishonest or clueless when you claim to be neutral. You are not neutral.


The Koran doesn't say that Women are a property of Men. That's a distortion which isn't based on faith or the Koran. Take a look into the Turkish society/politics.

I believe that people are able to do very good things. And whenever I see people doing really unselfish things, I know that there's is a God in all of us.

The difference is that I don't make the failure to give him a name, a face or a Bible/Koran/etc... Even if I grew up as roman-catholic.

[Ziggurat]

Uhm, you imply that the US didn't knew that there were hundred thousand civilians, do you?

Nothing of the sort. But if you want to judge based on intention, well, there's a difference between attacking a target and knowing civilians will die as collateral, and attacking civilians as the target.

I mean to attack industrial capacity, it wasn't necessary to attack with nuclear force.

So what? Any other form of attack would still have killed lots of civilians. As I already pointed out, non-nuclear bombing of Tokyo killed more people than nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course arab states are weak. The problem I have is that they are still weak, and the US-Government knows that. There was no reason to attack Iraq - especially because it was stable and opposed to terrorism.

Everything else was propaganda.

You have GOT to be kidding. Saddam? Opposed to terrorism? Uh, NO. Ever hear of the PKK? Or Abu Abas? Or how about Abu Nidal? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the fact that he celebrated it afterwards (something not even the Iranians felt comfortable doing, despite being major state sponsors of terrorism) should have made it clear to anyone with half a brain that he was not opposed to terrorism.

Bull*hit. They had no effect at all here in Europe.

Tell that to Aznar. Or Hirsi Ali. Or Theo Van Gogh.

Oh, sorry about that last one. I guess it's a little too late to tell him that.

The Muslims here are opposed to the violence based on a Koran that doesn't support Al Qaida's twisted ideas.

I'm not claiming most muslims are radical right now. But that's frankly not enough. Many of them DO support values that (correct me if I'm wrong) you oppose, such as inequality for women and a lack of free speech. Do you honestly think they'll be content to let those values hold sway when they attain majority? Do you not care if Sharia gets imposed on Europe, as long as it happens through the ballot box? Do you really not see the danger present if even a minority of muslims gets radicalized enough to actually commit acts of terrorism, if large parts of the majority still sympathizes with their cause?

BS! Our western worlds policies kills far more people than all terror-attacks together.

That's correct. Because once terrorists gain control of a state, the people they kill are no longer victims of terrorism. Cold comfort for the dead, but then, let's not concern ourselves with blood not on our hands. How... noble of you.

So? How many AQ terrorists are out there? How big is the imaginary threat? How much does Bush care about OBL? You're killing me.

Islamic terrorism does not start and end with Al Qaeda. It never did.

Yep, they're both children. I live in a country with 3 million Muslims and they never even implied that their religion is better than my religion. My experience is that they are more tolerant than many are willing to believe.

I'm sure most of them are tolerant. But that is frankly not enough, because a LOT of them are not tolerant. Don't take my word for it. Ask a fellow German (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/features/article_1271111.php/Ex-Muslims_form_anti-religion_group_in_Germany). Note especially the last line of that story. No effect indeed.

The Koran doesn't say that Women are a property of Men. That's a distortion which isn't based on faith or the Koran.

Doesn't matter: it gets interpreted that way by the jihadists, and you can't convince them otherwise. And I note that legal inequality between men and women IS part of the Koran, something you haven't tried to challenge. So too is killing those who renounce the muslim faith, as your fellow citizen in the above link has done.

Take a look into the Turkish society/politics.

I visited Turkey last year (that's where my brother took the photo I'm using for my avatar). I loved it, the people were really nice, I'd like to go back some day. But Turkey has problems (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Bible-Attack.php).

[Oliver]

Nothing of the sort. *snip*


There is no threat of a worldwide, thousands of men strong Al Qaida Network.

I don't believe this crap. So why do you? Unfounded Prejudices? :confused:

[Ziggurat]

There is no threat of a worldwide, thousands of men strong Al Qaida Network.

The obsession with labels on particular terrorist networks is rather beside the point. I don't care what name they adopt, but yes, there really are thousands of men interested in committing acts of terrorism against the west.

I don't believe this crap. So why do you? Unfounded Prejudices? :confused:

Unfounded? Hang out at www.memri.org and you might actually see that there's nothing unfounded about my opinions regarding radical Islam. But far be it from me to refuse you your right to play ostrich.

[BPSCG]

You're NEUTRAL in the war between the west and the Jihadis?

Yep, they're both children. Then you are objectively pro-terrorist.

Don't take my word for it. Take George Orwell's:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one.Scream all you want that you're neutral, but Orwell's logic is implacable. The jihadis wish us to not fight. If we do not fight, the jihadis will continue to kill us until there are none of us left.

Silly people who say they are neutral in the war between the jihadis and western civilization also wish us to not fight. Those silly people who say they are neutral, therefore, are on the side of a jihadi victory over western civilization. They wish the jihadis to continue to kill us until there are none of us left. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

Oh, but there's a difference between a pacifist and a neutral, you say. If you claim that you're not a pacifist, that you're simply a neutral, you are saying you don't care whether or not sha'aria ends up ruling the world. During a war, the difference between a pacifist and a neutral is insignificant.

Think Orwell is wrong? Then argue with Lincoln instead. In 1858, he ran for the US Senate in Illinois against Stephen A. Douglas. The great issue of the debate was whether slavery should be allowed to expand into the US territories that were not yet states. Lincoln argued it should not. Douglas was in favor of "popular sovereignty" on the issue; let the people of the territories decide whether slavery should be allowed to expand into their territories. Douglas said he personally didn't care which way a territory voted. It could vote to exclude slavery, or to permit it; he didn't care as long as it was the voters' choice.

Lincoln attacked that stance:
If you will take the judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him, -- as his declaration that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down," -- you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. If you claim to be neutral in the war between western civilization and fundamentalist Islam, that is a perfectly logical stance if you do not admit that violent radical Islam is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, you cannot logically say you are neutral.

[Oliver]

The obsession with labels on particular terrorist networks is rather beside the point. I don't care what name they adopt, but yes, there really are thousands of men interested in committing acts of terrorism against the west.

Unfounded? Hang out at www.memri.org (http://www.memri.org) and you might actually see that there's nothing unfounded about my opinions regarding radical Islam. But far be it from me to refuse you your right to play ostrich.


So why doesn't the Government care? Why don't they hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11? Why don't they touch Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia?

We can twist this all day long - the Truth is that the US government fooled you and they give a F**** about you and the wirepullers, they even blacked out and classified the important connections - and you Nuts still praise them for their lies - because truth hurts.

If it wouldn't be so sad - I really would laugh all day long about it.

[Tony]

Then you are objectively pro-terrorist.


No he wouldn't. He would be objectively pro-fascist. You guys should hang out, you two have alot in common. He's ok with islamofundies and you're ok with christofundies.

The jihadis wish us to not fight.

They do? Then why do they attack us? Do you have evidence for this bizarre claim?

If we do fight, the jihadis will continue to kill us until there are none of us left.

I seriously doubt it, they lack that power and it's likely they will never have it. They choose to be relgious idiots who adhere to backwards ideas, that is their greatest handicap and weakness.

To be fair, Oliver is somewhat right when he says the jihadis aren't a threat. They are a threat, but the threat they pose is negligible compared to Nazi Germany or the USSR. The best the jihadis can hope for is to detonate a nuke or two in a Western city, that would be terrible, but if they went that far, I've no doubt that the same would be visited upon their culture and cities until they surrender, or face total destruction. Let me go on the record by saying that I'd support a policy of deterrence by announcing that we (the US) would attack Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons in the event of a Western city getting attacked by jihadis with nuclear weapons. This would work as a deterrence on many levels. I'd also support that policy being carried out if said event was to ever occur.

Those silly people who say they are neutral, therefore, are on the side of a jihadi victory over western civilization.

I'm not neutral, but a jihadi victory over western civilization has about as much of a chance as happening as Jerry Fallwell rising from the death and ascending into heaven 3 days later. I think Oliver is aware of this.

Furthermore, how did this thread turn into an argument about terrorist? I wanted to make fun of fundies dammit!!!

[BPSCG]

No he wouldn't. He would be objectively pro-fascist. You guys should hang out, you two have alot in common. He's ok with islamofundies and you're ok with christofundies.Oh, lord, this from the guy who thinks Unitarians are fundies...

They do? Then why do they attack us? Do you have evidence for this bizarre claim?Sorry, typo on my part (I've gone back and corrected it). I meant to say they do not wish us to fight, i.e., they would prefer we would just sit back and not resist them.

I seriously doubt it, they lack that power and it's likely they will never have it. They choose to be relgious idiots who adhere to backwards ideas, that is their greatest handicap and weakness. Same typo.

[Ziggurat]

So why doesn't the Government care? Why don't they hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11? Why don't they touch Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia?

And how, pray tell, you you propose we do that? Honestly, what action do you think we can afford to take directly against either nation? Are you proposing an invasion of a nuclear-armed country? Or perhaps invasion of a country whose collapse could lead to global economic crisis (and likely genocidal wars in Africa in the wake of their inability to afford skyrocketing oil prices)? Give me a proposal and I'll evaluate it - but "touching" Pakistan or Saudi doesn't mean anything.

We can twist this all day long - the Truth is that the US government fooled you

I have no idea what "the Truth" is, but I suspect it doesn't really resemble that far more mundane English word "truth". And I don't get my information from the government. I already told you that. And yet, you ignored that completely and insisted that YOU know where I get my information from better than I do. I've also spent enough time on http://medienkritik.typepad.com/ to not take German accusations about American media brain washing seriously.

If it wouldn't be so sad - I really would laugh all day long about it.

Why did Hirsi Ali leave the Netherlands? You're still hiding your head in a hole.

[Oliver]

And how, pray tell, you you propose we do that? Honestly, what action do you think we can afford to take directly against either nation? Are you proposing an invasion of a nuclear-armed country? Or perhaps invasion of a country whose collapse could lead to global economic crisis (and likely genocidal wars in Africa in the wake of their inability to afford skyrocketing oil prices)? Give me a proposal and I'll evaluate it - but "touching" Pakistan or Saudi doesn't mean anything.


I don't care how America fights it's new imaginary world threats as long they don't stir up the whole world, jeopardize world-peace, making up evidence, telling lies, ignore the Nato/United Nations Mandates, invade sovereign countries who have nothing to do with their new Bogeyman - and so on... and on... and on...

And the Saudi- Pakistan connection does indeed mean something - otherwise it wouldn't be classified and hidden from you. But the US-Citizens don't deserve the truth ... remember: "We're fighting for your freedom. Oh, of course we have to pass the military commisions- and Homeland Security Act I,II and III to disable some freedoms. But nevertheless, it's all about your freedom." :covereyes

I have no idea what "the Truth" is, but I suspect it doesn't really resemble that far more mundane English word "truth". And I don't get my information from the government. I already told you that. And yet, you ignored that completely and insisted that YOU know where I get my information from better than I do. I've also spent enough time on http://medienkritik.typepad.com/ to not take German accusations about American media brain washing seriously.


Whatever. Fox News tells you the truth. Everybody know this already.

Why did Hirsi Ali leave the Netherlands? You're still hiding your head in a hole.


Who the heck is Hirsi Ali? :confused: Anyway - I have to apologize for my harshness, I'm tired as hell and will tweak your nose tomorrow again after some sleep. So never mind...

Peace,
Oliver :blush:

[WildCat]

Well, I don't know one single, secret military intervention from germany after WW2.
I note you're conveniently ignoring what went on in the DDR when it existed.

[Pardalis]

I don't care how America fights it's new imaginary world threats

Islamic terrorism is imaginary?

[g4macdad]

Islamic terrorism is imaginary?

American terrorism is imaginary?;)

[Pardalis]

American terrorism is imaginary?;)

You're a no-planer right?

[Ziggurat]

I don't care how America fights it's new imaginary world threats

In other words, you didn't even ask your question regarding the US acting against Pakistan or Saudi Arabia in good faith, because you wouldn't want us doing anything along those lines either.

And the Saudi- Pakistan connection does indeed mean something - otherwise it wouldn't be classified and hidden from you.

Is this one of those TruthTM things? :confused: What, pray tell, do you know that I don't regarding Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

Whatever. Fox News tells you the truth. Everybody know this already.

I don't watch Fox either. You're batting 0 for 2.

Who the heck is Hirsi Ali? :confused:

You really don't know? Huh.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a woman of Somali origin, raised in a fundamentalist muslim environment, sent of to have an arranged marriage with a distant cousin, who sought assylum in the Netherlands while en route to this marriage. There she underwent a political awakening and became one of Islam's most outspoken and eloquent critics. She was also elected a member of parliament for a while. She wrote the script for the movie "Submission", about the oppression that muslim women live under, which was directed by Theo Van Gogh. You know, the guy who got gunned down on the street by a muslim (born in Europe and radicalized as a teenager, BTW), who pinned a threatening screed to his corpse with a knife through his chest. Hirsi Ali then had to live under police protection, constantly on the move, because of threats against her life. She recently moved to the United States (where I would be proud to have her become a citizen, if she ever chooses to do so). I highly recommend looking her up - she's got a whole lot of first-hand experience with Islam in Europe.

Anyway - I have to apologize for my harshness,

Oh, you have to do more than this if you really want to offend me.

[g4macdad]

You're a no-planer right?

I am Me, and I don't care one bit about your insignificant labels.

Please explain the differences between Shock and Awe, and Terrorism?

[Pardalis]

I am Me, and I don't care one bit about your insignificant labels.

Oh right, you're the no-planer-creationist, now I remember.

[g4macdad]

Oh right, you're the no-planer-creationist, now I remember.

Oh! You have no real contribution to the topic at hand, so you resort to name calling. I gotcha!;)

BTW: Are you supporting our current leader's position? (He also claims to be a creationist you know):confused:

[Pardalis]

Oh! You have no real contribution to the topic at hand so you resort to name calling. I gotcha!;)

Guilty as charged. ;)

Why should I waste my time talking to someone who is impervious to logic and facts?

[WildCat]

Please explain the differences between Shock and Awe, and Terrorism?
The "shock and awe" bombing campaign was against military targets as recognized by the internationally accepted customs of warfare, by military personnell and materiel clearly marked with identifying insignia acting under a recognized chain of command responsible for the actions of those it commands.

Terrorism attacks civilians specifically, terrorists disguise themselves as non-combatants, wear no insignia, whose chain of command is secret and will disclaim responsibility if discovered. In short, they violate the customs of warfare at every turn.

[Ziggurat]

Please explain the differences between Shock and Awe, and Terrorism?

Shock and Awe was the intended effect of a campaign aimed at destroying an opposing military. Terrorism is the deliberate targetting and killing of civilians. Were you honestly not able to understand this difference without help? :rolleyes:

[g4macdad]

Shock and Awe was the intended effect of a campaign aimed at destroying an opposing military. Terrorism is the deliberate targetting and killing of civilians. Were you honestly not able to understand this difference without help? :rolleyes:

It was my understanding that this was the name of the operation from the beginning. And there were most definitely more than military targets. Of course there are few "facts" available on the subject due to their military implications. National Geographic researcher Bijal Trivedi stated that "Civilian casualties did occur, but the strikes, for the most part, were surgical." This "battle field" happens to be the most populated city and the capital of Iraq. We chose this location not them. At the time we were the only aggressors. In fact I never saw a uniformed Iraqi soldier fire a weapon against us to date. How can we confirm these military targets?

I guess we decide what the "facts" are.

[WildCat]

And there were most definitely more than military targets.
Can you inform us of the non-military targets?

[knot]

Shock and Awe was the intended effect of a campaign aimed at destroying an opposing military. Terrorism is the deliberate targetting and killing of civilians. Were you honestly not able to understand this difference without help? :rolleyes:

Terrorists and their sympathizers draw no distinction between civilians and combatants.

[knot]

Terror attacks is nothing new - at least to me. The US-Media may not have reported about the World in a way it was prior to 9/11. But it's nothing extraordinary that the US finally also got a terrorist attack on their soil.

So what? Now they attacked the US and the US finally woke up and saw what's happening "every day" all over the world. I wasn't surprised at all - even if I was shocked about the scale and the target.

So what's your point? First you say you don't see a threat then you say it's nothing new. You don't make much sense.

[mr rosewater]

You don't make much sense.

Bingo! Thank you.

[g4macdad]

Can you inform us of the non-military targets?

Can you inform us of the military targets?

Read the whole post please.

[knot]

Bingo! Thank you.

-Lol yeah, it looks like we've got a couple of live "truthers" here.

[knot]

http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1450

[WildCat]

Can you inform us of the military targets?

Read the whole post please.
I read the whole post. You made the claim that there were non-military targets. Could you show just one of these? Pretty please?

[g4macdad]

I read the whole post. You made the claim that there were non-military targets. Could you show just one of these? Pretty please?

You made the claim that there were military targets. Did you not?

[WildCat]

You made the claim that there were military targets. Did you not?
Yes. Are you claiming that there were no military targets of the "shock and awe" bombing campaign? If you're not, you can list the non-military targets you claim exist. But I see you suddenly have trouble remembering?

[g4macdad]

Yes. Are you claiming that there were no military targets of the "shock and awe" bombing campaign? If you're not, you can list the non-military targets you claim exist. But I see you suddenly have trouble remembering?

Where is your list?

If you read my post, you would see that they don't disclose the locations. So we can only assume either way.

Please fully read my posts before you decide to respond.

[Pardalis]

-Lol yeah, it looks like we've got a couple of live "truthers" here.

Actually, Ollie is sensible enough to not be a twoofer.

[g4macdad]

Actually, Ollie is sensible enough to not be a twoofer.

We are talking about Iraq. How do truthers come into play here?

[knot]

Actually, Ollie is sensible enough to not be a twoofer.

Perhaps, but not sensible enough to make sense. He must be one of the "blame America" crowd then (same difference)

[g4macdad]

Perhaps, but not sensible enough to make sense. He must be one of the "blame America" crowd then (same difference)

Sensible? Blame America for attacking Iraq? Blame Iraq for being attacked? Sensible?

Sounds like Gee Dubya is sensible to you.

[WildCat]

Where is your list?

If you read my post, you would see that they don't disclose the locations. So we can only assume either way.

Please fully read my posts before you decide to respond.
OK, so you have no example of a non-military target in the "shock and awe" bombing campaign.

[knot]

Sensible? Blame America for attacking Iraq? Blame Iraq for being attacked? Sensible?

Sounds like Gee Dubya is sensible to you.

Sounds like jihad is sensible to you.

Iraq wasn't attacked, Saddam was.

I spoke with many Iraqis, as well as many soldiers about the Iraqis, during my recent trip to Baghdad, both about the current situation there and about the effect of the American political debate on their lives and actions. Though the views of the Iraqi people, like those of Americans, span the spectrum of possible opinions, most of the Iraqis I met had one thing in common: a longing for freedom and safety, coupled with a knowledge that they need our help – at least in the near term.

“’It would be a disaster if you leave now,’” said Lt. Colonel James Crider, Squadron commander of the 1-4 Cavalry (“Quarter Cav”). “I’ve had several Iraqis tell me that. They want us here – not forever, but for now, until they can take care of themselves.” http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=975478

[g4macdad]

Iraq wasn't attacked, Saddam was.

:confused: ........:boggled: ........:confused:

WOW!

[g4macdad]

OK, so you have no example of a non-military target in the "shock and awe" bombing campaign.

It's not going to work. You havn't shown anything either. So give it up please.

[knot]

:confused: ........:boggled: ........:confused:

WOW!

Wow, clueless huh. Go figure, a Mac advocate. :rolleyes:

You think Iraqi people would want us to stay if we attacked Iraq? We ousted a sadistic dictator in Iraq. Saddam wasn't Iraq.

[g4macdad]

Wow, clueless huh. Go figure, a Mac advocate. :rolleyes:

You think Iraqi people would want us to stay if we attacked Iraq? We ousted a sadistic dictator in Iraq. Saddam wasn't Iraq.

Yu ar smart.

Did you cypher that all on yur own?:boggled:

[WildCat]

It's not going to work. You havn't shown anything either. So give it up please.
You can't come up with one single example of a non-military target hit during the shock and awe bombing campaign? How come you troofers never have a single fact to back up your nonsense?

[g4macdad]

You can't come up with one single example of a non-military target hit during the shock and awe bombing campaign? How come you troofers never have a single fact to back up your nonsense?

Troofers? Where are the towers?

A SINGLE FACT? YOU ARE JOKING? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is all you got? Puhleez!

[WildCat]

Troofers? Where are the towers?

A SINGLE FACT? YOU ARE JOKING? YOU DON'T HAVE ONE FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is all you got? Puhleez!
Don't you troofers think that the CIA/Mossad/PNAC/NWO/Globalists/Cheney/Bush/Larry Silverstein etc etc blew up the WTC, shot a missile/global hawk/remote control 757 into the Pentagon and then shot a missile into a field in PA in order to invade Iraq and take away our freedoms? And then, apparently, flew tens of thousands of combat sorties in Iraq and didn't bomb a single military target?

Wow...

[Mycroft]

Where is your list?

If you read my post, you would see that they don't disclose the locations. So we can only assume either way.

Please fully read my posts before you decide to respond.

I don't have a list, but a casual search does find indications that the campaign avoided civilian targets.


According to National Geographic researcher Bijal Trivedi, "Even after several days of bombing the Iraqis showed remarkable resilience. Many continued with their daily lives, working and shopping, as bombs continued to fall around them. According to some analysts, the military's attack was perhaps too precise. It did not trigger shock and awe in the Iraqis and, in the end, the city was only captured after close combat on the outskirts of Baghdad."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Campaign

Or here:

Civilian casualties did occur, but the strikes, for the most part, were surgical. Some buildings were completely demolished, while neighboring structures were untouched. Some buildings remained standing while their innards were gutted. In others still, only individual floors were erased.

On March 22, the producers saw what the military had advertised. They began filming anti-aircraft fire originating from the Republican Palace—Saddam's proudest residence. "Five minutes later," wrote Poe, "I got the best footage I will ever shoot as missiles thundered into the palace and blew it to bits. It was scary, for sure, but we were so far away and so well sheltered on our concrete balcony that we weren't worried about getting hit by pieces of wreckage."

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channel/blog/2005/03/explorer_shockawe.html

Hope that helps.

[Oliver]

I note you're conveniently ignoring what went on in the DDR when it existed.


Are you referring to military actions on the soviet side of Germany or are you implying that former western Germany interfered militarely? I would love to get some examples to look into it if you know some.

[Oliver]

Islamic terrorism is imaginary?


Nope, I say it's not a worldwide threat that could destroy our "Way of life". While we all heard about the big threat of Jihadism that is as big as the cold war threat, I think it's an illusion to scare the people.

The cold war propaganda itself was an illusion. There is no evidence that they really wanted to ruin your day by overthrowing the world.

Remember the Communist Paranoia in the US? A hoax.

[Oliver]

American terrorism is imaginary?;)

You're a no-planer right?


:D You did it again, Pardalis. I also have this uncomfortable question for you:
Why is American intervention not some kind of terrorism from the view of people who are actually affected by US-Interventions?

It's a matter of your point of view. And sadly, many people use to ignore the other side of the issue. So do you - which I define as pure and dangerous ignorance.

[Oliver]

Then you are objectively pro-terrorist.

Don't take my word for it. Take George Orwell's:
Scream all you want that you're neutral, but Orwell's logic is implacable. The jihadis wish us to not fight. If we do not fight, the jihadis will continue to kill us until there are none of us left.

Silly people who say they are neutral in the war between the jihadis and western civilization also wish us to not fight. Those silly people who say they are neutral, therefore, are on the side of a jihadi victory over western civilization. They wish the jihadis to continue to kill us until there are none of us left. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

Oh, but there's a difference between a pacifist and a neutral, you say. If you claim that you're not a pacifist, that you're simply a neutral, you are saying you don't care whether or not sha'aria ends up ruling the world. During a war, the difference between a pacifist and a neutral is insignificant.

Think Orwell is wrong? Then argue with Lincoln instead. In 1858, he ran for the US Senate in Illinois against Stephen A. Douglas. The great issue of the debate was whether slavery should be allowed to expand into the US territories that were not yet states. Lincoln argued it should not. Douglas was in favor of "popular sovereignty" on the issue; let the people of the territories decide whether slavery should be allowed to expand into their territories. Douglas said he personally didn't care which way a territory voted. It could vote to exclude slavery, or to permit it; he didn't care as long as it was the voters' choice.

Lincoln attacked that stance:
If you claim to be neutral in the war between western civilization and fundamentalist Islam, that is a perfectly logical stance if you do not admit that violent radical Islam is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, you cannot logically say you are neutral.


Bullcrap. I'm not pro-terrorism. All I say is that interventions like the Iraq war is also terrorism from Muslim point of view - which leads to more terrorism from Jihadis.

And even if I suspect that you don't like this point, you may understand what I'm saying if you imagine their point of view for some minutes.

Or let me give you an example. Why is muslim Turkey an ally of the US? Don't they have radical Muslims, too? What about radical and instable Pakistan? Why is that - why can we come along with them? And would they behave the same way if we would interfere militarily in their countries?

[BPSCG]

Now, given your answer to those questions: which side do you want to be on? I don't ask because I think you're on the jihadi side. I ask because I think you've concluded that you don't have to pick a side. I'm neutral

Bullcrap. I'm not pro-terrorism. If you claim to be neutral in the war between western civilization and violent fundamentalist Islam, that is exactly what you are. Maybe you haven't completely thought through the ramifications of claiming to be a neutral in a struggle against evil, but that's what it boils down to. Read again what I quoted you from Orwell and Lincoln, because they sum it up beautifully.

All I say is that interventions like the Iraq war is also terrorism from Muslim point of view - which leads to more terrorism from Jihadis. No, that's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying you are "neutral" between our side and the jihadi side (see exchange between Ziggurat and you above). Do you stand by that statement, yes or no?

[Oliver]

In other words, you didn't even ask your question regarding the US acting against Pakistan or Saudi Arabia in good faith, because you wouldn't want us doing anything along those lines either.


Wrong. My problem is that if someone kills your wife, you have the right to convict the Murderer. But you don't have the right to convict someone else you don't like. That's exactly what happened with Iraq. And it was immoral from the western view of law and order.

Is this one of those TruthTM things? :confused: What, pray tell, do you know that I don't regarding Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?


Saudi Arabia:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html

You might watch this Canadian production from 2003 which dismantles the conspiracy theories but also shows some pretty ugly connections between the Bush Family and Saudi Arabia:

-9169904580025714112

Pakistan:
Pakistan is one big mess. While they were part of setting up and protecting the Taliban, they also have diplomatic connections to the US because it's a strategic important landmark for the US and because the long collaboration with Government and their Secret Service ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)
way back before the Afghanistan War against the Soviets.

So it's unclear how much the Pakistani were involved. But there is a possibility that they worked against the US behind the curtains.

I don't watch Fox either. You're batting 0 for 2.


Frankly, I don't think it's just Fox. The Media in general doesn't show the world the way it really is - skipping patriotic coverage. It may be because the 2-Party-Mentality - but I still try to find out why most of the US-Media is so biased.

You really don't know? Huh.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a woman of Somali origin, raised in a fundamentalist muslim environment, sent of to have an arranged marriage with a distant cousin, who sought assylum in the Netherlands while en route to this marriage. There she underwent a political awakening and became one of Islam's most outspoken and eloquent critics. She was also elected a member of parliament for a while. She wrote the script for the movie "Submission", about the oppression that muslim women live under, which was directed by Theo Van Gogh. You know, the guy who got gunned down on the street by a muslim (born in Europe and radicalized as a teenager, BTW), who pinned a threatening screed to his corpse with a knife through his chest. Hirsi Ali then had to live under police protection, constantly on the move, because of threats against her life. She recently moved to the United States (where I would be proud to have her become a citizen, if she ever chooses to do so). I highly recommend looking her up - she's got a whole lot of first-hand experience with Islam in Europe.


While I hear about the Van Gogh incident, I really have to look deeper into it to understand what you're getting at here. Are you telling me the a murder proves that there is a global threat of Muslims? :confused:

I simply don't believe this. It's the environment that leads to extremes - not the religion. The Koran isn't more violent than the Bible/Torah/etc...

Just because the Republicans (mainly) are making up this global threat - the European Media doesn't portray this myth. Maybe the UK-Media does so - I don't follow their Media very much.

So why does America believe in this Myth while the rest of the World isn't afraid? Just because 9/11? :confused:

[Oliver]

If you claim to be neutral in the war between western civilization and violent fundamentalist Islam, that is exactly what you are. Maybe you haven't completely thought through the ramifications of claiming to be a neutral in a struggle against evil, but that's what it boils down to. Read again what I quoted you from Orwell and Lincoln, because they sum it up beautifully.

No, that's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying you are "neutral" between our side and the jihadi side (see exchange between Ziggurat and you above). Do you stand by that statement, yes or no?


Would you mind to stop putting your feet into my mouth? :D

My point is that I don't care who did what and when. I made this example before: Just imagine a pair of children crying: "He started", "No, he was the one who started", "No, that's not true", "Yes it is!".

My Point is from a neutral view: "Shut up! You both are guilty, no matter who started". ;)

[Oliver]

No, that's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying you are "neutral" between our side and the jihadi side (see exchange between Ziggurat and you above). Do you stand by that statement, yes or no?


Yep, I am indeed neutral and I tell you why: I would argue the same way in a controversial discussion with Muslims about the issue.

[Ziggurat]

It was my understanding that this was the name of the operation from the beginning.

Your understanding is wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe). It's a colloquial term for a doctrine, NOT an operation.

And there were most definitely more than military targets.

No, there weren't, except by accident. There were targets which were dual use (such as power generators and radio stations), but there were no deliberate purely civilian targets.

We chose this location not them.

Wrong. They chose to station troops in Baghdad. That made Baghdad a battlefield.

In fact I never saw a uniformed Iraqi soldier fire a weapon against us to date.

Argument from personal ignorance. I'm unimpressed.

[g4macdad]

If you claim to be neutral in the war between western civilization and violent fundamentalist Islam, that is exactly what you are. Maybe you haven't completely thought through the ramifications of claiming to be a neutral in a struggle against evil, but that's what it boils down to. Read again what I quoted you from Orwell and Lincoln, because they sum it up beautifully.

No, that's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying you are "neutral" between our side and the jihadi side (see exchange between Ziggurat and you above). Do you stand by that statement, yes or no?

You say OUR side, but there are few that are actually on YOUR side. You pretend my point of view is reserved for the few "truther" wackos.

This of course could not be further from the truth as evident by the recent actions taken by our government. Face facts! You are the minority now.

No one is buying your EVIL PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET "US" bs anymore.

And a few quotes for you:

Wyclef John: "If I was president. I'd get elected on Friday, Assassinated on Saturday, Buried on Sunday."

Bob Marley: "All you shall witness when Babylon fall"

Ziggy marley: "If there is no Love in your heart, There will never, ever, be hope for you."

George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." DAMN TRUTHERS! :cool:

[g4macdad]

Your understanding is wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe). It's a colloquial term for a doctrine, NOT an operation.



No, there weren't, except by accident. There were targets which were dual use (such as power generators and radio stations), but there were no deliberate purely civilian targets.



Wrong. They chose to station troops in Baghdad. That made Baghdad a battlefield.



Argument from personal ignorance. I'm unimpressed.

YOU My friend are the "TRUTHER". You make a boatload of claims as "FACTS", with absolutely not one shred of evidence to back a word of your ignorance. And the best part of all, Your view has become the dwindling, minority view, because of this.;)

[WildCat]

Are you referring to military actions on the soviet side of Germany or are you implying that former western Germany interfered militarely?
Now Oliver, don't act like you don't know what the DDR was...

I would love to get some examples to look into it if you know some.
Who built Saddam's bunkers?

[WildCat]

YOU My friend are the "TRUTHER". You make a boatload of claims as "FACTS", with absolutely not one shred of evidence to back a word of your ignorance. And the best part of all, Your view has become the dwindling, minority view, because of this.;)
Oh good, you're back. Could you name some of the non-military targets of the shock and awe bombing of Iraq?

[Oliver]

Now Oliver, don't act like you don't know what the DDR was...

Who built Saddam's bunkers?


I don't understand you point here. The DDR was part of the soviet union and therefore opposed to the Western Worlds POV. Do you think otherwise?

And concerning Saddam's Bunkers: No matter who built them. The Fact that the US provided ingredients to make WMD's while they simultaneously knew that Saddam is using these ingredients for genocides is a much more ugly fact, isn't it?

So the claim that Saddam had WMD's is no surprise - the US provided him all the necessary parts he needed to build them. :boggled: It's like the fact that the US provided support for the IRAN-nuclear program. And now this is firing back. And "Oh Wonder" - it's not americas fault at all. It's the mad Iran Government. :boggled:

[BPSCG]

You say OUR side, but there are few that are actually on YOUR side. You pretend my point of view is reserved for the few "truther" wackos.

This of course could not be further from the truth as evident by the recent actions taken by our government. Face facts! You are the minority now.

No one is buying your EVIL PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET "US" bs anymore.

And a few quotes for you:

Wyclef John: "If I was president. I'd get elected on Friday, Assassinated on Saturday, Buried on Sunday."

Bob Marley: "All you shall witness when Babylon fall"

Ziggy marley: "If there is no Love in your heart, There will never, ever, be hope for you."

George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." DAMN TRUTHERS! :cool:g4macdad, this is a courtesy post, for your benefit. I do not waste my time arguing with drunks, religious persuaders, or troofers. Drunks, religious persuaders, and troofers are equally impervious to facts, logic, and reason. The only difference among them is that some drunks and religious persuaders do not fill me with disgust.

Again, this is a courtesy post; in the future, don't waste any keystrokes replying to any of my posts, including this one, because you will get no reply.

[Oliver]

I would suggest that we all stick to the messages instead attacking the messengers - which would give us no results at all.

[g4macdad]

g4macdad, this is a courtesy post, for your benefit. I do not waste my time arguing with drunks, religious persuaders, or troofers. Drunks, religious persuaders, and troofers are equally impervious to facts, logic, and reason. The only difference among them is that some drunks and religious persuaders do not fill me with disgust.

Again, this is a courtesy post; in the future, don't waste any keystrokes replying to any of my posts, including this one, because you will get no reply.

I see. That's all you got?:eye-poppi

LOL:cool:

[WildCat]

I don't understand you point here. The DDR was part of the soviet union and therefore opposed to the Western Worlds POV. Do you think otherwise?
While it was part of the Soviet bloc, it was not part of the USSR. This is like claiming that the FDR was part of the United States, because it's a member of NATO.

And concerning Saddam's Bunkers: No matter who built them. The Fact that the US provided ingredients to make WMD's while they simultaneously knew that Saddam is using these ingredients for genocides is a much more ugly fact, isn't it?
Not at all true. The chemicals were for agriculture and medical purposes. And when we cut those things off because they were using them for making weapons you complained that the US killed 1,000,000 Iraqi's by cutting off medicine. Trying to have it both ways Oliver?

So the claim that Saddam had WMD's is no surprise - the US provided him all the necessary parts he needed to build them. :boggled:
I hope you're sitting down Oliver, because the following is going to break your heart and shatter everything you think you know about this:

According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack).

So according to the UN, West Germany supplied more chemical weapons precursors to Saddam than the US did.

What say you now Oliver?

[mr rosewater]

Come now Wildcat, everyone knows the West German government is a CIA front.

Sorry now he has me doing it.

[Oliver]

While it was part of the Soviet bloc, it was not part of the USSR. This is like claiming that the FDR was part of the United States, because it's a member of NATO.


Not at all true. The chemicals were for agriculture and medical purposes. And when we cut those things off because they were using them for making weapons you complained that the US killed 1,000,000 Iraqi's by cutting off medicine. Trying to have it both ways Oliver?


I hope you're sitting down Oliver, because the following is going to break your heart and shatter everything you think you know about this:

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack).

So according to the UN, West Germany supplied more chemical weapons precursors to Saddam than the US did.

What say you now Oliver?


*Lol* I know about the german scandal. But in contrast to the US, it wasn't a political issue supported by the Government, wrong?

Honecker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honecker) was a strong supporter of the USSR - why do you think the DDR was acting without dictations from Moscow? :confused:

And for your claim that the US stopped support after learning that he used chemicals and agents against humans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the nonprofit National Security Archive, provide new, behind-the-scenes details of U.S. efforts to court Iraq as an ally even as it used chemical weapons in its war with Iran.

[mr rosewater]

Oliver do you think its possible the U.S. was attempting to help end the Iran-Iraq conflict with Rummy's visits.

[WildCat]

*Lol* I know about the german scandal. But in contrast to the US, it wasn't a political issue supported by the Government, wrong?
Are you claiming that the German companies violated German law when they sold these chemicals to Saddam? Can you link to the prosecutions that resulted?

Honecker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honecker) was a strong supporter of the USSR - why do you think the DDR was acting without dictations from Moscow? :confused:
Why does it matter that they had the blessings of Moscow? It was German engineers who went to Iraq to build Saddam's bunkers.

And for your claim that the US stopped support after learning that he used chemicals and agents against humans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true
How does this support your case? Iraq was seen as a counterweight to Iran, the US was only too happy to see tham fight in a long stalemate. And I have seen over and over again from the anti-war side how the US played right into Iran's hands by toppling Saddam. So again, you're trying to have it both ways.

[Oliver]

Are you claiming that the German companies violated German law when they sold these chemicals to Saddam? Can you link to the prosecutions that resulted?

Why does it matter that they had the blessings of Moscow? It was German engineers who went to Iraq to build Saddam's bunkers.

I know all of this. But I still miss the German Governments involvement in all of this:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

In the early 1970s, Wayne Murphy ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) program.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-3) Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-iraq_wmd_2004_chap5)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-7) As part of Project 922 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_922&action=edit), German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas), sarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin), tabun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_%28nerve_agent%29), and tear gasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas) in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_%28nerve_agent%29) in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manfacture botulin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulin) toxin and mycotoxin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycotoxin) for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge) data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-8)


And I have no Idea what happened in the aftermath beside plugging the holes to stop these relations. But I appreciate to learn what happened to these people. I also don't know if it was illegal or not during this time - but I agree with you that it was at least highly immoral.

How does this support your case? Iraq was seen as a counterweight to Iran, the US was only too happy to see tham fight in a long stalemate. And I have seen over and over again from the anti-war side how the US played right into Iran's hands by toppling Saddam. So again, you're trying to have it both ways.


Don't you see it? The foreign policies is one big, ugly mess. You can't support nuclear programs, chemicals and agents and in the aftermath whine about it. That's dishonest. So the problem is to play around all over the world in the first place. All Blowbacks are connected to this kind of experiments.

And I don't blame the US for these historical facts - but I will blame them if they don't start to understand the consequences instead expanding their aggressive strategies.

I also don't blame the US citizens or the Congress. It's the secret area that is responsible for this mess. And I really wonder why no one is interested to look into the so called Black-Budget. This is undemocratic - why do you think otherwise? Doesn't the American citizens or at least the Congress deserve to know what's happening behind their backs??? :confused:

[WildCat]

I know all of this. But I still miss the German Governments involvement in all of this:
They were no less "involved" than the US government was. After all, it wasn't the US government that sold the chemicals to Iraq - it was private companies following the export laws at the time. And it was far, far less than what German companies provided.

Would you like to step off your high horse now?

I also don't blame the US citizens or the Congress. It's the secret area that is responsible for this mess. And I really wonder why no one is interested to look into the so called Black-Budget. This is undemocratic - why do you think otherwise? Doesn't the American citizens or at least the Congress deserve to know what's happening behind their backs??? :confused:
Could you clarify this? Because it seems you don't think a country has any legitimate use for secrecy.

[Oliver]

They were no less "involved" than the US government was. After all, it wasn't the US government that sold the chemicals to Iraq - it was private companies following the export laws at the time. And it was far, far less than what German companies provided.

Would you like to step off your high horse now?

Could you clarify this? Because it seems you don't think a country has any legitimate use for secrecy.


This is your misunderstanding. I'm pretty aware of my history and can't be proud about it because the Nazi-Era. So litereally: I have no horse at all.

Did you read the article?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true

Of course a Country must have secrecies - that's not the point. It's the secrecy that undermines the constitution or the public opinion that leads to Conspiracy Theories and general distrust within the public but also in the rest of the world.

Now you might say that the Twoofers are no problem at all - but you might agree that there's a growing distrust among the citizens nevertheless, don't you?

If no one is able to complain about Black Ops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project) sponsored by the Black Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget)
because no one knows about them, how can you declare this as being democratic?

You might misunderstand my agenda here. I grew up with the American way of life and America also was some kind of ideal to me - but this has changed since the Bush/Neocon-Regime and I wan't you to get back on track. So does the rest of the western world - Don't you get it?

[WildCat]

This is your misunderstanding. I'm pretty aware of my history and can't be proud about it because the Nazi-Era. So litereally: I have no horse at all.

Did you read the article?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13558-2003Dec18&notFound=true
The article does nothing to support your claims Oliver. The fact remains that West Germany provided far more material and equipment for Saddam's chemical weapons than the US did. So did Singapore, the Netherlands, and Egypt. Yet I never hear about these countries in your and other's rants for some reason...

If no one is able to complain about Black Ops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project) sponsored by the Black Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget)
because no one knows about them, how can you declare this as being democratic?
I really don't understand your point here. You think the stealth program should not have been a secret?

You might misunderstand my agenda here. I grew up with the American way of life and America also was some kind of ideal to me - but this has changed since the Bush/Neocon-Regime and I wan't you to get back on track. So does the rest of the western world - Don't you get it?
Yet your complaints about US policy go back to the Truman administration and earlier, not about events from January 2001 on.

[Oliver]

The article does nothing to support your claims Oliver. The fact remains that West Germany provided far more material and equipment for Saddam's chemical weapons than the US did. So did Singapore, the Netherlands, and Egypt. Yet I never hear about these countries in your and other's rants for some reason...


I would rant about these countries, too - if they would use military interventions to get their desired results. Which they don't do this way.

I really don't understand your point here. You think the stealth program should not have been a secret?


It should be a secret - but this doesn't include complete secrecy in terms of the security council or replacing Politicians in other parts of the world because "we don't like this guy". There is still this freaky NATO that is founded on the Idea to work together - not operate independent and "Give a F*** about the others".

Yet your complaints about US policy go back to the Truman administration and earlier, not about events from January 2001 on.


That's true. I never thought about these things before I saw Loose Change. But I'm pissed since I get a better picture about the world since I read in english sources, too.

Anyway: What was the message you recieved on 9/11? I immediately thought it was this one: " *Slap* Leave us alone! ". And I still think my impression was accurate.

[Skibum]

There is still this freaky NATO that is founded on the Idea to work together - not operate independent and "Give a F*** about the others". I don't think you understand what NATO is.






Anyway: What was the message you recieved on 9/11? I immediately thought it was this one: " *Slap* Leave us alone! ". And I still think my impression was accurate.

I always *Slap* bee's nests when I want the bees to leave me alone. Great idea on their part.

[Oliver]

I don't think you understand what NATO is.


Care to explain?

I always *Slap* bee's nests when I want the bees to leave me alone. Great idea on their part.


Did I say it was a good or bad Idea? :confused: I was talking about what their message was. If you "received" another message, what was it?

[Oliver]

I don't think you understand what NATO is.

I always *Slap* bee's nests when I want the bees to leave me alone. Great idea on their part.


By the way: What do you think about the military operations behind the back of the citizens - No matter if the US or any other country?

[WildCat]

I would rant about these countries, too - if they would use military interventions to get their desired results. Which they don't do this way.
That is a weak justification for railing against the US for supplying a small fraction of Saddam's chemicals, while ignoring the far greater contributions of chemicals and materiel supplied bu other countries, including your own.

It should be a secret - but this doesn't include complete secrecy in terms of the security council or replacing Politicians in other parts of the world because "we don't like this guy". There is still this freaky NATO that is founded on the Idea to work together - not operate independent and "Give a F*** about the others".
NATO always was and still is a military alliance. I don't know where this "idea to work together" thing came from.

Anyway: What was the message you recieved on 9/11? I immediately thought it was this one: " *Slap* Leave us alone! ". And I still think my impression was accurate.
That the inevitable clash between fundamental islam and western society has finally reached a flash point. And it will not go away until there is a major reformation in Islam as a whole. I really think that US policies and politics plays a minor role in all of this, and is just the excuse of the day claimed by the Islamists in order to blunt the opposition against it.

[Skibum]

Care to explain?



The purpose of NATO was established in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, which outlines the system of collective security:

“ The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

I wasn't we will ask what everyone else thinks before we do anything by ourself type deal.

Same thing with the UN security council you mentioned in the other thread. Neither one precludes a nation from doing anything by themself.

Did I say it was a good or bad Idea? :confused: I was talking about what their message was. If you "received" another message, what was it?

The message I got was "hey we want to fight". If they want us to leave them alone, they need to bring that up with the individual governments in that area that allow us to base troops there.

[Oliver]

That is a weak justification for railing against the US for supplying a small fraction of Saddam's chemicals, while ignoring the far greater contributions of chemicals and materiel supplied bu other countries, including your own.


I now that, Wildcat. Yet you can't provide any evidence that at least suggests that these Governments (Including my own) was actively part of it. And I have no problem if this is the case. And I also make no difference and have no problem to blame them, too. Germany isn't holy to me - even if I live there. That's the difference between me an you, isn't it?

NATO always was and still is a military alliance. I don't know where this "idea to work together" thing came from.


You might read this one to understand the meaning and intention of the NATO:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

"The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security."


That the inevitable clash between fundamental islam and western society has finally reached a flash point. And it will not go away until there is a major reformation in Islam as a whole. I really think that US policies and politics plays a minor role in all of this, and is just the excuse of the day claimed by the Islamists in order to blunt the opposition against it.


I don't apologize for Islamists. You know that it didn't start on 9/11. And you know that all these intervention didn't worked to avoid 9/11 - because 9/11 would never happened if it worked.

Yet I don't believe in a global threat. Why the Heck does America believes so? To me it looks like propaganda because the "Threat-Vacuum" caused by the collapse of the USSR. Evil jihads are nothing but a replacement for the former communist threat to have an imaginary enemy to justify everything.

Why do you believe this crap?
How many Al Qaida people are actually out there to get you?
How many Muslims care about all this *****?

You see a threat that is laughable compared to the deaths that took place since the Iraq war. Why do you believe the Hype?

[Oliver]

The purpose of NATO was established in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, which outlines the system of collective security:

Same thing with the UN security council you mentioned in the other thread. Neither one precludes a nation from doing anything by themself.

The message I got was "hey we want to fight". If they want us to leave them alone, they need to bring that up with the individual governments in that area that allow us to base troops there.


"We want to fight".

You got it wrong. That's exactly what they're doing since decades. 9/11 was the message to make you aware of this fact - and like many others, you failed to understand it. :(

[WildCat]

I now that, Wildcat. Yet you can't provide any evidence that at least suggests that these Governments (Including my own) was actively part of it. And I have no problem if this is the case. And I also make no difference and have no problem to blame them, too. Germany isn't holy to me - even if I live there. That's the difference between me an you, isn't it?
You still don't get it - the German government was every bit as involved as the US government was. Just as in Germany it wasn't the government selling the chemicals and materiel to Saddam but private companies, it wasn't the government of the US selling chemicals to Saddam but in fact private companies.

Did you really think that it was the US government that sold the chemicals?

You might read this one to understand the meaning and intention of the NATO:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

"The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security."
And...?

I don't apologize for Islamists. You know that it didn't start on 9/11. And you know that all these intervention didn't worked to avoid 9/11 - because 9/11 would never happened if it worked.

Yet I don't believe in a global threat. Why the Heck does America believes so? To me it looks like propaganda because the "Threat-Vacuum" caused by the collapse of the USSR. Evil jihads are nothing but a replacement for the former communist threat to have an imaginary enemy to justify everything.

Why do you believe this crap?
How many Al Qaida people are actually out there to get you?
How many Muslims care about all this *****?

You see a threat that is laughable compared to the deaths that took place since the Iraq war. Why do you believe the Hype?
The fact is, in nearly every country where Muslims have a majority they have used that majority to systematically deny rights to other religions, persecuted members of other religions, given them unequal status in the eyes of the law, and basically adhered to a brutal justice system rooted in the 6th century. It's not surprising that as technology shrinks the globe, clashes between Muslims and the west are going to occur, and will occur until a reformation within Islam itself gets the out of the 6th century and into the 21st.

Oliver, the difference between us, I think, is that you see this in political terms and I see it as a clash between a fundamentalist religion ill-equiped to cope with the modern world and the modern world at large. The politics are but a byproduct, not the cause.

[Oliver]

You still don't get it - the German government was every bit as involved as the US government was. Just as in Germany it wasn't the government selling the chemicals and materiel to Saddam but private companies, it wasn't the government of the US selling chemicals to Saddam but in fact private companies.

Did you really think that it was the US government that sold the chemicals?


Honestly - I miss the link between german governments involvement and the Washington Post article that actually points to the knowledge of officials concerning this issue. And I know the difference between "commercial interests" and "commercial interests supported by governments".

Still I have no problem to blame the german government, too - if they also knew about the commercial trades.

And...?


And what? This is the NATO treaty. Yet you didn't address the ignored opposition that took place before the morally and in terms of world-security unjustified war. Why is that?

The fact is, in nearly every country where Muslims have a majority they have used that majority to systematically deny rights to other religions, persecuted members of other religions, given them unequal status in the eyes of the law, and basically adhered to a brutal justice system rooted in the 6th century. It's not surprising that as technology shrinks the globe, clashes between Muslims and the west are going to occur, and will occur until a reformation within Islam itself gets the out of the 6th century and into the 21st.


Bull*it. Turkey is an example where they also have Churches and also tolerate Jews. Yet they also believe in the Koran.

But that's my Point. The Problem isn't the Koran - it's our western worlds influence that supports the "Muslim Twoofers" hate down there.

Do you understand this connection?

Oliver, the difference between us, I think, is that you see this in political terms and I see it as a clash between a fundamentalist religion ill-equiped to cope with the modern world and the modern world at large. The politics are but a byproduct, not the cause.


I can't accept this because I actually grew up with Muslim friends from Iran, Turkey and Tunisia. It's not the religion - it's the ignorance on both sides which leads to hate. And even if I would blame the Muslims on a Muslim Forum, too - right now I blame the "Westerns" on western Forum. And America is the leading western and military nation - you know that!

[g4macdad]

I suggest we put wildcat on ignore. The guy obviously lives in a political vacuum where we can behave however we feel and there will be no consequences. This goes right along with the guy he voted for.

See where this ingenious philosophy has taken us?

Not only that but they are incapable of learning. They both suggest we have been, and still are doing the right thing. They want to stay the course.

Fortunately the rest of us are not the same, and this will never happen.

The madness is finally coming to a close for them both whether they accept it or not. :cool:

[mr rosewater]

WildCat is attempting to inform you, read his post and learn g4.

[Roadtoad]

It's been said before, but bears repeating.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!

The thing I hate about this is that there were things I was interested in learning about, and now, people who have that information have been driven off. Thanks, Oliver. Appreciate it.

[Skibum]

Still I have no problem to blame the german government, too - if they also knew about the commercial trades.


Are you saying that the German government pays no attention to what companies export?

Yet you didn't address the ignored opposition that took place before the morally and in terms of world-security unjustified war. Why is that?


We didn't go to the U.N. for permission, we were asking if they would help.

[Pardalis]

See where this ingenious philosophy has taken us?

What is your philosophy again?

Controlled demolitions destroyed the Twin Towers?
No plane hit the Pentagon?
The Earth is 6000 years old?
Evolution is not true?

Yeah right:rolleyes:

[Oliver]

It's been said before, but bears repeating.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!

The thing I hate about this is that there were things I was interested in learning about, and now, people who have that information have been driven off. Thanks, Oliver. Appreciate it.


Huh? What are you getting at - what did I do besides using my right to speak free? :confused:

[Roadtoad]

Oh, and no, I'm not about to put Wildcat on Ignore. A few others, but not the Cat.

[g4macdad]

What is your philosophy again?

Controlled demolitions destroyed the Twin Towers?
No plane hit the Pentagon?
The Earth is 6000 years old?
Evolution is not true?

Yeah right:rolleyes:

Of course once again, way OT, because you have no contribution.

You must play professional dodge ball or something.:boggled:

[Oliver]

Are you saying that the German government pays no attention to what companies export?


I have no Idea if they know everything every time. Do you have evidence supporting that they knew?

We didn't go to the U.N. for permission, we were asking if they would help.


So? Why Iraq? What do you think was the reason for this decision in your own understanding? :confused:

[Ziggurat]

YOU My friend are the "TRUTHER". You make a boatload of claims as "FACTS", with absolutely not one shred of evidence to back a word of your ignorance. And the best part of all, Your view has become the dwindling, minority view, because of this.;)

When you can figure out the difference between a military doctrine and a military operation, we might have something to discuss. Until then, bugger off.

[Ziggurat]

Bull*it. Turkey is an example where they also have Churches and also tolerate Jews. Yet they also believe in the Koran.

Did you not notice that link I posted about some Turks killing some Christians for distributing bibles? Do you not understand that it's Turkey's military which has always been NEEDED to keep the radicals in check?

But that's my Point. The Problem isn't the Koran - it's our western worlds influence that supports the "Muslim Twoofers" hate down there.

Let me give you a little history lesson. Do you know the first war the US got involved in after we gained independence? For quite some time I thought it was the war of 1812, with England. But it wasn't. Our first post-independence war was the Barbary wars (actually sort of a serious of small wars). Our merchant ships were being attacked, and our citizens sold into slavery, by the Barbary states in North Africa. Thomas Jefferson asked their ambassador in Paris why they were attacking us when we had done nothing to them. Do you know what his answer was? He said that the Koran permitted it, since we were infidels. Hostility between the US and the muslim world started a LONG time ago, we weren't the ones who started it, and the Koran does indeed have quite a lot to do with it, EVEN IF most muslims don't read it that way. Hell, most muslims don't really read it at all: it's not supposed to be translated (Allah speaks in arabic, don't you know). The Koran really isn't like the bible. The fact that most muslims are much more moderate than the Koran doesn't change the fact that the Koran itself really is extremist, and permits any act of violence against kufir like you and me in the service of spreading Islam (which, BTW, means "submission").

And now, for a little homework assignment, look up the definitions of "dhimmitude".

[knot]

Wow, clueless huh. Go figure, a Mac advocate.

You think Iraqi people would want us to stay if we attacked Iraq? We ousted a sadistic dictator in Iraq. Saddam wasn't Iraq.

Yu ar smart.

Did you cypher that all on yur own?:boggled:

Figures, you've got no rebut but to attack me. Answer the question.

[Oliver]

Did you not notice that link I posted about some Turks killing some Christians for distributing bibles? Do you not understand that it's Turkey's military which has always been NEEDED to keep the radicals in check?

Let me give you a little history lesson. Do you know the first war the US got involved in after we gained independence? For quite some time I thought it was the war of 1812, with England. But it wasn't. Our first post-independence war was the Barbary wars (actually sort of a serious of small wars). Our merchant ships were being attacked, and our citizens sold into slavery, by the Barbary states in North Africa. Thomas Jefferson asked their ambassador in Paris why they were attacking us when we had done nothing to them. Do you know what his answer was? He said that the Koran permitted it, since we were infidels. Hostility between the US and the muslim world started a LONG time ago, we weren't the ones who started it, and the Koran does indeed have quite a lot to do with it, EVEN IF most muslims don't read it that way. Hell, most muslims don't really read it at all: it's not supposed to be translated (Allah speaks in arabic, don't you know). The Koran really isn't like the bible. The fact that most muslims are much more moderate than the Koran doesn't change the fact that the Koran itself really is extremist, and permits any act of violence against kufir like you and me in the service of spreading Islam (which, BTW, means "submission").

And now, for a little homework assignment, look up the definitions of "dhimmitude".


Are you kidding me? So you're saying that during the cold war the radical Muslims were no problem at all (Afghan support) but they suddenly were a threat after there was no "evil soviet world conspiracy" anymore after the Russians gave up? :confused:

I never met one single Muslim who tried to kill me or who said that Muslims have a better religion. Actually the Turks have a traditional conflict with the Kurds (Also Muslims):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_the_Kurds_in_Turkey
"hundreds of thousands of Kurds have been killed by Turkish state"

Seriously: You should be scared of the Turks if you're a Kurd, not as a western citizen. And I would love to see the facts that the military is suppressing the radicals who are trying to kill us. Sounds like a funny fairytale.

[knot]

Bullcrap. I'm not pro-terrorism. All I say is that interventions like the Iraq war is also terrorism from Muslim point of view


Muslim point of view (http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1450)

[knot]

I never thought about these things before I saw Loose Change.

'nuff said.......

[Ziggurat]

Are you kidding me? So you're saying that during the cold war the radical Muslims were no problem at all (Afghan support) but they suddenly were a threat after there was no "evil soviet world conspiracy" anymore after the Russians gave up? :confused:

I'm saying nothing of the sort. But Islam has been at war with ALL its neighbors for centuries. It's not just Christians, either: wherever they come into contact with other religions (animists, Hindus, Budhists, whatever), there is bloodshed.

I never met one single Muslim who tried to kill me or who said that Muslims have a better religion.

And I've never met a communist who tried to kill me either. Cold comfort for the 20 million Stalin did killed, of course, but there you have it.

Actually the Turks have a traditional conflict with the Kurds (Also Muslims)

Tell me something I don't know. Or perhaps you missed my earlier reference to Saddam's support of the PKK?

Seriously: You should be scared of the Turks if you're a Kurd, not as a western citizen.

I'm not scared of the Turks, and if you thought I was, you missed my point. I visted Turkey last year. That's where my brother took the photo I'm using as my avatar. My point isn't that the Turks present a direct threat to us, but that even they still have ongoing, SERIOUS problems with radicals in their midst. And they're basically the most secular and progressive muslim state out there. It simply isn't a coincidence that most muslim-majority states are weak or failing states.

[Oliver]

Muslim point of view (http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1450)

'nuff said.......


Nuff said??? :confused: I don't believe in Loose Change. All I said was that this was the trigger that awoke my interest in US-Politics. :boggled:

By the way: Here's a link to the "US-Opinion" about the IRAQ-War:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php :boggled:

[knot]

Nuff said??? :confused: I don't believe in Loose Change. All I said was that this was the trigger that awoke my interest in US-Politics. :boggled:

By the way: Here's a link to the "US-Opinion" about the IRAQ-War:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php :boggled:

It figures you would think a bunch of twoofers qualified as being US opinion.

[Oliver]

It figures you would think a bunch of twoofers qualified as being US opinion.


No, I was referring to your Idea that your link (http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1450) represents a general, muslim view.

[knot]

No, I was referring to your Idea that your link (http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1450) represents a general, muslim view.

Former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University is a far cry from the loose screw kids.

[Oliver]

Former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University is a far cry from the loose screw kids.

Sorry, I'm pretty tired: Did you actually mean "Loose Change Kids"?

[strathmeyer]

Of course once again, way OT, because you have no contribution.

You must play professional dodge ball or something.:boggled:

What was your contribution? I couldn't find it. Please point it out for me.

Maybe it's right after you list of non military shock and awe targets?