Written 9-12-01

[King of the Americas]

An Essay of Explanation & Blame
September 12, 2001

“This message will be difficult for some of you to hear and almost impossible for most to accept, but it needs to be said none the less.

Yesterday, several individuals sacrificed their lives to deliver a blow to two great symbols, and they killed many innocent people in the process. They used the most simple of tools and weapons in conjunction their very lives to deliver a message. When in the course of human events, people chose to take their own lives in order to make a statement we MUST be willing to take notice. Not unlike the rebellion that began this great nation, when people are so dedicated to a cause that they would end their very lives in pursuit of it, very little can be done to stop them.

The present media leadership has confused the issue and is twisting this act into something it is NOT. Many have claimed this to be an attack on American Freedom, and innocent Americans. Politicians use this event to garner support for bigger military projects and more intelligence operations. My fellow Americans, nothing could be further from the truth, or more of a mistake.

These targets were not people or freedoms, but symbols of what some people have done with their freedoms. One was the symbol of our nation’s military, and the other the cornerstone of western capitalism. The time has come for us to ask, “What could they have done to provoke such an attack?� Is our military involved in fights that are not their own, have we quartered soldiers in foreign lands where they are not welcome? Is western capitalism enslaving poor countries for its benefit, is it offering low prices for labor in subhuman working conditions, and then turning around only to claim righteousness? Could these entities have done ANYTHING to cause such a reaction? When in the course if human events, men are willing to take their own lives in the pursuit of a goal, we MUST be willing to take notice.

Many have spoke about ‘instant retaliation’, and that those responsible have to be brought to justice immediately. I hold that those responsible are already dead. The only people responsible for those attacks were those at the helms of those planes. No one can force a man to act, in any way other than that he has not already chosen. If indeed, Osama bin Laden ‘taught’ these people to take part in these acts, one can not discount the individual responsibility of these suicide murders. Free Speech is a cornerstone of Our Constitution, by crushing one man’s right to speak freely we trample the very document that provides us with the American Freedom we so cherish. If you cut the head off of this teacher and spiritual leader, the beast will grow many more heads in his students who hold him in high regard. When you kill the figurehead of an organization, you only fuel its members to struggle harder. When in the course of human events, our own American Soldiers are willing to take up arms and strike out at own Federal Buildings, we MUST be willing to take notice. When in the course of human events, individual men are willing to take their lives to strike a blow at the Pentagon & the World Trade Center we MUST be willing to take notice.

While I do NOT condone the taking of any innocent lives, I also can not discount the lives of those responsible for hijacking those planes. Human Life is paramount, and that means ALL human life. The American Federal Government and it’s Military have enemies as does Western Capitalism, and the enemy has breached our walls and they are among us. If these institutions are responsible for provoking men into taking their own lives to stop them, then we MUST take notice of these actions. Let us not forget that to offer your own life, is the supreme sacrifice that can be made to a cause and we MUST take notice of these sacrifices.

When in the course of Human Events, Men are willing to give their lives to a cause, We MUST be willing to take notice. The questions of When and How have been answered, as well as the question of Who. However, it is not until we answer the question of Why, that we will ever be even close to stopping this from happening again.

Now, I would like offer up a prayer, That We may all someday be willing to work together, to build a global community that offers better resolutions to change than the suicide murder of thousands. I pray We may work to show everyone that human life does not need to be taken to make changes in this civilized world.

In conclusion, We MUST be willing to look into the possible fault of these entities attacked, to indeed see if they have done or are doing anything that would provoke such an attack. If these institutions ARE the cause of this anger and changes aren’t made, then these attacks WILL continue, and more innocent people’s lives will be taken. When in the course of Human Events, Men are willing give their lives to a cause, there really is very little that can be done to stop them. We MUST be willing to hear the message, and not just demonize the messengers.�

[Tricky]

(Edited to fix KOA’s formatting marks)
Originally posted by King of the Americas
An Essay of Explanation & Blame
September 12, 2001

This message will be difficult for some of you to hear and almost impossible for most to accept, but it needs to be said none the less.

Yesterday, several individuals sacrificed their lives to deliver a blow to two great symbols, and they killed many innocent people in the process. They used the most simple of tools and weapons in conjunction their very lives to deliver a message. When in the course of human events, people chose to take their own lives in order to make a statement we MUST be willing to take notice. Not unlike the rebellion that began this great nation, when people are so dedicated to a cause that they would end their very lives in pursuit of it, very little can be done to stop them.

The present media leadership has confused the issue and is twisting this act into something it is NOT. Many have claimed this to be an attack on American Freedom, and innocent Americans. Politicians use this event to garner support for bigger military projects and more intelligence operations. My fellow Americans, nothing could be further from the truth, or more of a mistake.

These targets were not people or freedoms, but symbols of what some people have done with their freedoms. One was the symbol of our nation’s military, and the other the cornerstone of western capitalism. The time has come for us to ask, “What could they have done to provoke such an attack?" Is our military involved in fights that are not their own, have we quartered soldiers in foreign lands where they are not welcome? Is western capitalism enslaving poor countries for its benefit, is it offering low prices for labor in subhuman working conditions, and then turning around only to claim righteousness? Could these entities have done ANYTHING to cause such a reaction? When in the course if human events, men are willing to take their own lives in the pursuit of a goal, we MUST be willing to take notice.

Many have spoke about ‘instant retaliation’, and that those responsible have to be brought to justice immediately. I hold that those responsible are already dead. The only people responsible for those attacks were those at the helms of those planes. No one can force a man to act, in any way other than that he has not already chosen. If indeed, Osama bin Laden 'taught’ these people to take part in these acts, one can not discount the individual responsibility of these suicide murders. Free Speech is a cornerstone of Our Constitution, by crushing one man’s right to speak freely we trample the very document that provides us with the American Freedom we so cherish. If you cut the head off of this teacher and spiritual leader, the beast will grow many more heads in his students who hold him in high regard. When you kill the figurehead of an organization, you only fuel its members to struggle harder. When in the course of human events, our own American Soldiers are willing to take up arms and strike out at own Federal Buildings, we MUST be willing to take notice. When in the course of human events, individual men are willing to take their lives to strike a blow at the Pentagon & the World Trade Center we MUST be willing to take notice.

While I do NOT condone the taking of any innocent lives, I also can not discount the lives of those responsible for hijacking those planes. Human Life is paramount, and that means ALL human life. The American Federal Government and it’s Military have enemies as does Western Capitalism, and the enemy has breached our walls and they are among us. If these institutions are responsible for provoking men into taking their own lives to stop them, then we MUST take notice of these actions. Let us not forget that to offer your own life, is the supreme sacrifice that can be made to a cause and we MUST take notice of these sacrifices.

When in the course of Human Events, Men are willing to give their lives to a cause, We MUST be willing to take notice. The questions of When and How have been answered, as well as the question of Who. However, it is not until we answer the question of Why, that we will ever be even close to stopping this from happening again.

Now, I would like offer up a prayer, That We may all someday be willing to work together, to build a global community that offers better resolutions to change than the suicide murder of thousands. I pray We may work to show everyone that human life does not need to be taken to make changes in this civilized world.

In conclusion, We MUST be willing to look into the possible fault of these entities attacked, to indeed see if they have done or are doing anything that would provoke such an attack. If these institutions ARE the cause of this anger and changes aren’t made, then these attacks WILL continue, and more innocent people’s lives will be taken. When in the course of Human Events, Men are willing give their lives to a cause, there really is very little that can be done to stop them. We MUST be willing to hear the message, and not just demonize the messengers.

[HarryKeogh]

While I certainly agree we must ask ourselves "what did we do to provoke such a response" (i.e. the 9/11 attacks) do you think Bin Laden and company are asking themselves "what did we do to provoke such a response" (i.e. american invasion of afghanistan).

in the two years since 9/11 Al qaeda has managed to have thousands of it's members killed or arrested, several thousand arab civilians killed ( many more injured), had it's seat of power (Afghanistan) removed, displayed it's cowardly tactics to a worldwild forum and managed to make tens of millions of people hateful of the religion they are willing to die for.

one of al quada's goals is the destruction of the infidels. that includes me since i dont believe in their religious nonsense. it's very difficult to reason with those kinds of beliefs. While the US certainly can do a lot to improve it's relations with the arab world and take a more balanced stance in the israeli/palestinian affair i'm not sure if a group like al qaeda would ever be satisfied with our actions.

[Upchurch]

NPR this morning had a piece about the effects of the Iraqi war on Al Queda. I don't remember what was exactly said (I was still waking up), but the gist was that our invasion and occupation of Iraq is fueling muslim hatred of America and there have been massive amounts of recruits to Al Queda. While those in charge of Al Queda pre-9/11 are mostly gone, there are plenty of new members to replace and fill the ranks.

Essentially, we played into the islamic fundamentalists' hands.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
NPR this morning had a piece about the effects of the Iraqi war on Al Queda. I don't remember what was exactly said (I was still waking up), but the gist was that our invasion and occupation of Iraq is fueling muslim hatred of America and there have been massive amounts of recruits to Al Queda. While those in charge of Al Queda pre-9/11 are mostly gone, there are plenty of new members to replace and fill the ranks.



Do you fear muslim hatred? What do you suggest we do?

[Dancing David]

Yes KoA, we all need to recognise the circle of life and take resposibilty for the evil we create that leads to eveil.

But the 9-11 bombers are KOOKS! They could have done a million other things to help the people they want to help, but no , they had to be KOOKS and just kill.

The truely brave person builds in the face of evil and only kills when absolutely nessecary.

KOOKS!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tony



Do you fear muslim hatred? What do you suggest we do?

I suggest that we sit on Ariel Sharon until he stops acting like a facist, and that we use our grain surplus to feed the hungry.

If we had wanted to topple Saddam peacefully, how much would that have cost. 'Constructive engagement' could have been used in Iraq, saved lives and built the image of the USA as a positive force in world politics.

Islam is no more dangerous than Xianity.

You fight haterd by building trust, now there is another generation of arabs that sees us as the short sighted bully on the block.

Respectfully

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
Do you fear muslim hatred? What do you suggest we do? When it comes down to it, I fear just about anyone's hatred, because hatred often makes people act irrationally.

As for what we do about it now, I have no idea. I'm just saying that, especially in retrospect, attacking and occupying Iraq was not a good idea as it now looks like it may have hurt us more than it's helped us overall.

This is, of course, assuming I heard the radio correctly and that the piece itself was correct.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony



Do you fear muslim hatred? What do you suggest we do?

Er Tony, I take it that you have not actually listened to the NPR story Upchurch mentioned and I belive that he is saying the war has turned an incorrect assessment (Iraq is the biggest terrorist haven since Afganistan, so we have to attack them now) into a correct assessment (beacuse the Iraqi borders are so porus and there are so many Americans in Iraq, that it is drawing in numerous terrorists so we have to attack them now).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow
belive that he is saying the war has turned an incorrect assessment (Iraq is the biggest terrorist haven since Afganistan, so we have to attack them now) into a correct assessment (beacuse the Iraqi borders are so porus and there are so many Americans in Iraq, that it is drawing in numerous terrorists so we have to attack them now). Yeah, that's right. I forgot about that part of the piece. Iraq became a sort of self fullfilling prophesy. Whether or not it had any real ties to terrorist networks, our being there has, in essense, "collapsed Iraq's terrorist wave function" and made it have real ties to terrorist networks.

(pardon the mixed metaphore)

[RCNelson]

King of the Americas:
Many have spoke about ‘instant retaliation’, and that those responsible have to be brought to justice immediately. I hold that those responsible are already dead. The only people responsible for those attacks were those at the helms of those planes. No one can force a man to act, in any way other than that he has not already chosen. If indeed, Osama bin Laden 'taught’ these people to take part in these acts, one can not discount the individual responsibility of these suicide murders. Free Speech is a cornerstone of Our Constitution, by crushing one man’s right to speak freely we trample the very document that provides us with the American Freedom we so cherish. So here you're telling us that Osama bin Laden was merely exercising his right of free speech and was not responsible for his followers flying into the WTC.

King of the Americas:
In conclusion, We MUST be willing to look into the possible fault of these entities attacked, to indeed see if they have done or are doing anything that would provoke such an attack. If these institutions ARE the cause of this anger and changes aren’t made, then these attacks WILL continue, and more innocent people’s lives will be taken. And here you're telling us about the "fault of these entities attacked".

Now here's a question for you, King of the Americas:

What actually WAS the terrorist's reasons for the 9-11 attack?

And how do you know?

[King of the Americas]

The truely brave person builds in the face of evil and only kills when absolutely nessecary.

KOOKS!

---

SUMMATION: The United States by invading Iraq, is not 'brave' and is in fact "KOOKY" for doing so.

Look, people kill for a lOT of different reasons, ONE of which being the protection of their homeland. To IGNORE this motive completely isa folly in my opinion, and will only lead to worsening attacks.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I suggest that we sit on Ariel Sharon until he stops acting like a facist,

And let Arafat continue to do the same?

I think we should encourage and defend Sharon, he is defending his country and his people from rabid fanatics.

and that we use our grain surplus to feed the hungry.

The GM modified grain? I thought the euro-sissies were anti-GM.

Islam is no more dangerous than Xianity.

You're blinded by your bigoted views on christianity.

You fight haterd by building trust, now there is another generation of arabs that sees us as the short sighted bully on the block.

What evidence is there that suggests muslim fanatics in the middle east respect good will and non-violence?

And how do you propse we build trust when those governments force feed their populations anti-western propaganda?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch


As for what we do about it now, I have no idea. I'm just saying that, especially in retrospect, attacking and occupying Iraq was not a good idea as it now looks like it may have hurt us more than it's helped us overall.




Just to clarify, do you not think it was worth it to take out a dictator like saddam?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony


And let Arafat continue to do the same?

I think we should encourage and defend Sharon, he is defending his country and his people from rabid fanatics.No. of course not. Both Arafat and Sharon have made mistakes and rather big ones at that. I don't know what the correct answer is, but until both of them get over this irrational hatred, nothing will get accomplished.

btw, I'm not saying that there aren't rational reasons for each side to dislike each other, but in the end, those must be put aside if a practical solution is to be found. What I'm saying is the fact that they haven't put the rational hatred aside for the mutual benefit of both of their people is irrational.
and that we use our grain surplus to feed the hungry.

The GM modified grain? I thought the euro-sissies were anti-GM.

Islam is no more dangerous than Xianity.

You're blinded by your bigoted views on christianity.
Funny succession of thoughts there. "euro-sissies" followed by an accusation of bigotry.

Anyway, Islam isn't any more dangerous that Christianity. It's fanaticism and extremism, in any religion, that is dangerous. Islam has them, but so does Christianity. Recognizing an equality or simularity isn't bigotry.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
Just to clarify, do you not think it was worth it to take out a dictator like saddam? Oh, I think removing Saddam was a good thing. But (1) I don't think it has made us any safer from terrorism and (2) I don't see how the U.S. has the authority to remove another country's government.

There are a lot of governments in the world that we don't agree with, but that doesn't give us the right to forcibly remove those governments.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Recognizing an equality or simularity isn't bigotry.


Making equivalence when there is none is bigotry. To say that global christian fanaticism is just as dangerous or prevalent as global Islamic fanaticism is just laughable.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Funny succession of thoughts there. "euro-sissies" followed by an accusation of bigotry.


You have to allow the token irreverence now and then. :)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
Making equivalence when there is none is bigotry. To say that global christian fanaticism is just as dangerous or prevalent as global Islamic fanaticism is just laughable. There are many ways to judge "dangerous".

What is more dangerous to the American way of life? (After all, didn't we only really become interested in "global" terrorism once it happened on US soil?) Islamic extremists who have killed several thousand people, but haven't really changed the basis of the US or Christian extremists who are trying redefine or amend the Constitution to conform to their narrow view of right and wrong and make this a Christian nation?

As far as pure physical violence goes, I agree the Islamic extremists have the Christian extemists beat here in America in terms of total number of people dead. (I think. It depends on how far back in history you want to go.) As far as number of incidents of terrorism on US soil, the Christian extremists have the Islamic extremists beat.

On a gloabal scale, going back throughout history, I don't know which side has the larger numbers, to be honest.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
You have to allow the token irreverence now and then. :) Hey, we all get carried away once in a while.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The truely brave person builds in the face of evil and only kills when absolutely nessecary.

KOOKS

---
SUMMATION: The United States by invading Iraq, is not 'brave' and is in fact "KOOKY" for doing so.

Exactly. Not American's supported this war nor do we believe it was the right or correct thing to do, nor do all American's believe how the Iraq situation is being handled now is appropriate.


Look, people kill for a lOT of different reasons, ONE of which being the protection of their homeland. To IGNORE this motive completely isa folly in my opinion, and will only lead to worsening attacks.

But sadly, the attacks that took place on 9-11 was not to protect anyone's homeland, but to encourage and increase hate. These were not rational people run by a rational ideal, but people blinded by religious bigotry; these were fanatics.

I do agree that the United States has made some severe mistakes and have brought corruption and exploitation to many third world countries, and that the US government has unfairly strong armed many a nation, but IMHO, 9-11 had little to do with that. Yes, it was a strike at symbols, but more symbols of what *they* dislike because they are fanatics rather than symbols of dislike of the actions this country has taken.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Upchurch
NPR this morning had a piece about the effects of the Iraqi war on Al Queda. I don't remember what was exactly said (I was still waking up), but the gist was that our invasion and occupation of Iraq is fueling muslim hatred of America and there have been massive amounts of recruits to Al Queda. While those in charge of Al Queda pre-9/11 are mostly gone, there are plenty of new members to replace and fill the ranks.

Essentially, we played into the islamic fundamentalists' hands.

I don't really believe this at all.

We need to take a long-term view of the terrorist problem. So first I want to lay out a bit of what I think the problem is. Fascist islam (which is basically what the terrorists believe in) is a delusional belief system. It denies reality. Many in the arab world, and not just the terrorists, subscribe to ideas with absolutely no connection to reality, and they often even seem to claim belief in contradictory things. Here's one example of such a contradiction: belief that the 9/11 attacks were a justified retaliation against the US and belief that it was carried out by the CIA or Mossad and not Islamic terrorists. The terrorists want to start a world war, because they think they can win. They cannot. If they get what they want (a total war between arabs and the west), they will lose, and very badly. It's just like with the Palestinian terrorists: they're constantly trying to escalate the cycle of violence, but if the cycle ever did TRULY spiral out of control, it would be the palestinians, not the Israelis, who would be eradicated. The terrorists deny reality. And they prosper in an environment that also denies reality, where ironies like the arab league (which has no freely elected democratic leaders) criticising the legitimacy of the Iraqi governing council for not being democratically elected happen on a regular basis, where the rest of the arab world was actually shocked that the Iraqi army wouldn't put up more of a fight to defend the man who made Iraq such a miserable place. As long as delusional belief systems dominate (and they extend FAR beyond the terrorists themselves), the terrorists will find it easy to prosper. Now here's a key point: we are already the terrorist's enemy. They can always redirect the frustration of people on the streat against us, regardless of what we do. And as long as oppressive regimes dominate the middle east as they do now, there will always be plenty of problems that can be unfairly blamed on us, and plenty of governments willing to redirect anger properly aimed at them to the nearest available scapegoat. In other words, not only can we not appease the terrorists, but even trying to appease the ordinary arab on the street is not going to solve the problem.

What we need to do is break the delusional belief systems. And invading Iraq was actually part of that. It is waking up parts of the arab world to the fact that their concept of reality was wrong. Iraq did not stand up against our invasion. Saddam was not the hero the rest of the arab world wanted to believe. The Iraqi people are glad to see Saddam go, even if it required a US invasion, and the rest of the arab world is still struggling with reality slapping them in the face on this one. And if we succeed in creating democracy in Iraq, they will also have to face the fact that the only democracy in the region was brought about BY the americans. They may finally begin to wake up to the fact that radical islam holds no solutions to their problems. Our invasion does indeed stir up passions, and may provide a short-term boost to terrorist recruiting. But that's not as important in the long run as waking people up to reality. People operating under rational belief systems do not pilot planes into buildings full of civilians for a cause that cannot be won, even if they hate us. I think waking the arab world to the reality they live in is more important than tiptoeing around their sensibilities in hopes of not rileing the terrorists.

[King of the Americas]

Look what happens when I apply my previous reasoning"

"But sadly, the attacks that took place on Iraq were not to protect anyone's homeland, but to encourage and increase hate. These were not rational people run by a rational ideal, but people blinded by religious bigotry; these were fanatics. "

[Kodiak]

Islamic terrorists don't attack the West because of what we do.


They attack the West because of what we are.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kodiak
They attack the West because of what we are. Source?

[King of the Americas]

EXACTLY!!!

:mad:

You guys are ignoring 'emplied motive' and submitting your own.

In Osama's Tapes...(Why do I feel like that deserves a drum rap?), he gives you verbalized and recorded motive. WHY are you ignoring that!?!?!

Yeah, they don'y like what Britney and Madonna do on stage, but that isn't the reason they are sending people over here to die. They are here because they see us as invading their homeland, and NOW they see us as they to change their very culture by setting up a base in Iraq, who also happens to be the world's 4th largest oil supply...

Oh COME ON!?!?!?!?

Let's be real here.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
You guys are ignoring 'emplied motive' and submitting your own.Sorry? What implied motive? Osama speaks for Al Queda, not Iraq and Saddam. I, personally was ignoring Osama because he has no relevence to the Iraqi war.

As for why "they" hate us, I'm asking for what specifically Kodiak was refering to.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Source?

Statements by Al-Qa'ida spokesman:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802

He never puts in in quite the words your looking for, but I think it's clear nonetheless that America's crime is not simply its actions.

"America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited."

[King of the Americas]

So WHAT!

My God has bigger balls than your God does, who gives a flying f*ck!?!?

Just so long as you are trying my kids they need do what your God says, I don't care what you do. You can THINK any damn thing you want, just don't try to 'invade my home and tell me what MY family is going to think.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The truely brave person builds in the face of evil and only kills when absolutely nessecary.

KOOKS!

---

SUMMATION: The United States by invading Iraq, is not 'brave' and is in fact "KOOKY" for doing so.

Look, people kill for a lOT of different reasons, ONE of which being the protection of their homeland. To IGNORE this motive completely isa folly in my opinion, and will only lead to worsening attacks.

Well, despite the wrath and wroth I will draw, yes I do believe that GWB is a KOOK! But in democracy I only get to vote for president every four years. I do npt feel that the inavsion of Iraq will stop terrorism.

But the 9-11 bombers did not do so to 'protect thier homeland', most of them were from Saudi Arabia, which has yet to be invaded.

The 9-11 bombers were evil KOOKs they could have spent thier time and money to build lives and trust, then they would not be kooks, they would be hero's. Now they are just dead scumbags. I can't glorify them anymore than I would glorify a child molester, a rapist or a perpetrator of domestic violence.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
In Osama's Tapes...(Why do I feel like that deserves a drum rap?), he gives you verbalized and recorded motive. WHY are you ignoring that!?!?!

Nothing more than pretense.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Upchurch
NPR this morning had a piece about the effects of the Iraqi war on Al Queda. I don't remember what was exactly said (I was still waking up), but the gist was that our invasion and occupation of Iraq is fueling muslim hatred of America and there have been massive amounts of recruits to Al Queda. While those in charge of Al Queda pre-9/11 are mostly gone, there are plenty of new members to replace and fill the ranks.

Essentially, we played into the islamic fundamentalists' hands.

Exactly, all we have done is validate their ideologies, just liek we did with the Communsits by our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and South America. Vietnam especially since they asked repeatedly for help from us and they di not was to work with the Chinese or Russians and did not beleive that conflict with the west was inevitable. We then denied that cooperation and attcked them, only proving to the Vietnamese that the Russians and Chinese were right, which they did not want to admit, but when they finally saw that they were right they decided to put up the fight.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tony


And let Arafat continue to do the same?

I think we should encourage and defend Sharon, he is defending his country and his people from rabid fanatics.
There asre p[lenty of war criminals over there, I think that justice would involve trying them all for crimes against humanity. It would deplete the ranks of the PLO and the Israeli government.


The GM modified grain? I thought the euro-sissies were anti-GM.
I doubt they would turn down the golden rice and grain, excuse me but is Iraq in the EU? I missed that one.


You're blinded by your bigoted views on christianity.
Lots of yucks Tony, can you show me how Xianity is not a bigoted religion, the teachings of Jesus are widely ignored by his alleged followers. Whose propaganda wagon are you riding?

What evidence is there that suggests muslim fanatics in the middle east respect good will and non-violence?
What eveidence do you have that any of the factions have made a good faith effort to build trust?
And how do you propse we build trust when those governments force feed their populations anti-western propaganda?
The same way you build trust for the side that force feeds thier population anti islam propaganda.

Trust takes time and patience on all sides,
but hey, lets raise another generation of hate filled kids, thats done greatr so far. Especialy in Bosnia. More hate thats what i say, it's what made America great.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Source?

Their own words.

Infidels...

World-influencing capitalists...


This article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/25/214306.shtml) sums it up pretty well...

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Just so long as you are trying my kids they need do what your God says, I don't care what you do. You can THINK any damn thing you want, just don't try to 'invade my home and tell me what MY family is going to think.

I'm not exactly sure who you're responding to, or what you're arguing against in this post. Are you arguing against our invasion of Iraq? If so, this is repleat with irony. Saddam was the one who was telling Iraqis what to think. We've given them the only free press in the arab world, so not only can they think whatever they want, they can even say it too.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Exactly, all we have done is validate their ideologies, just liek we did with the Communsits by our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and South America.


We haven't validated their ideology at all, we've shown how useless it really is. We demonstrated, quite contrary to their expectations, that Iraqis were not willing to rise up against the "western devil" invading their country in order to support Saddam, that given the choice between a western democracy and an arab dictator, the dictator is not in fact the lesser evil. There's a lot of confusion in the arab world about this, but it's no surprise to those not blinded by ideology (note that's not a reference to you).

[Brian]

"While I do NOT condone the taking of any innocent lives, I also can not discount the lives of those responsible for hijacking those planes. Human Life is paramount, and that means ALL human life. "

I don't buy this. Some people are better than others. Some lives are more valuable than others.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Brian
Some lives are more valuable than others.

Be careful about posting that in this forum!

Crossbow and a few select others will lambaste you as an unfeeling, indifferent, right-wing war monger...

I should know.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Be careful about posting that in this forum!

Crossbow and a few select others will lambaste you as an unfeeling, indifferent, right-wing war monger...

I should know.

Yes you should know, but I doubt that you do.

Brian was referring to a specific case and the role of specific individuals in that case.

As opposed to your more general statements about how some lives are worth more than others, and that killing is a necessary part of the modern state, and how the USA should get out of the UN, etc.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


We haven't validated their ideology at all, we've shown how useless it really is. We demonstrated, quite contrary to their expectations, that Iraqis were not willing to rise up against the "western devil" invading their country in order to support Saddam, that given the choice between a western democracy and an arab dictator, the dictator is not in fact the lesser evil. There's a lot of confusion in the arab world about this, but it's no surprise to those not blinded by ideology (note that's not a reference to you).

I was not talking about Saddam, I was talking about Al-Queda. The guys from Al-Queda hated Saddam too, it has validated the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalists that aggression is the way to do things.

[Brian]

I don't think my outlook justifies or gives validity to warfare.

It's just this. A heart surgeon, a Garbageman, a homeless person & a rapist. I value the lives of the first 3 equally and the 4th not at all.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Yes you should know, but I doubt that you do.

Brian was referring to a specific case and the role of specific individuals in that case.

As opposed to your more general statements about how some lives are worth more than others, and that killing is a necessary part of the modern state, and how the USA should get out of the UN, etc.

You have no idea how thankful I am that no one ever has to go into battle under your command.

Since you still don't (or refuse to) understand, I'll make it simple: try watching U-571, Saving Private Ryan, or Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. All three films address what I'm talking about.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Brian
I don't think my outlook justifies or gives validity to warfare.

It's just this. A heart surgeon, a Garbageman, a homeless person & a rapist. I value the lives of the first 3 equally and the 4th not at all.

Crossbow and the others are probably fine with you then...

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

I was not talking about Saddam, I was talking about Al-Queda. The guys from Al-Queda hated Saddam too, it has validated the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalists that aggression is the way to do things.

What, are you suggesting pacifism on our part would have convinced Al-Queda to use peaceful methods? I don't think so. They already fully believed in violence, they needed no validation of that. Al-Queda may not have liked Saddam, but we were clearly the enemy, not him. They hoped that the population of Iraq would rise up against us, but it didn't. Why? Because our evil, corrupting, secular western ways aren't really the source of their problems, Saddam was, and the people of Iraq knew that even if Al-Queda and much of the Arab world wanted to pretend differently. And that's EXACTLY what they were doing. Not just the terrorists, but much of the arab world blamed us for the misery that Saddam was inflicting on his own people. Want to disprove that? Take over and show them the real difference between how we run things and how Saddam ran things.

Like I keep saying, the threat from the terrorists is NOT simply the methods they will resort to, their very goals are anathema to civilization. There will always be people willing to resort to any means to achieve what they want, and they need no "validation". But we can wake up the Arab world to reality, which is that their problems are created and perpetuated by their own leadership, not by us. The arab world has stagnated both economically and culturally for most of this century, and if they want to do anything about that they need to change their OWN society, not ours. When they wake up to that fact, they will turn away from radical ideologies that promise false hope of victory over an enemy that isn't even the source of their problems.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


What, are you suggesting pacifism on our part would have convinced Al-Queda to use peaceful methods? I don't think so. They already fully believed in violence, they needed no validation of that. Al-Queda may not have liked Saddam, but we were clearly the enemy, not him. They hoped that the population of Iraq would rise up against us, but it didn't. Why? Because our evil, corrupting, secular western ways aren't really the source of their problems, Saddam was, and the people of Iraq knew that even if Al-Queda and much of the Arab world wanted to pretend differently. And that's EXACTLY what they were doing. Not just the terrorists, but much of the arab world blamed us for the misery that Saddam was inflicting on his own people. Want to disprove that? Take over and show them the real difference between how we run things and how Saddam ran things.

Like I keep saying, the threat from the terrorists is NOT simply the methods they will resort to, their very goals are anathema to civilization. There will always be people willing to resort to any means to achieve what they want, and they need no "validation". But we can wake up the Arab world to reality, which is that their problems are created and perpetuated by their own leadership, not by us. The arab world has stagnated both economically and culturally for most of this century, and if they want to do anything about that they need to change their OWN society, not ours. When they wake up to that fact, they will turn away from radical ideologies that promise false hope of victory over an enemy that isn't even the source of their problems.

Most of the current combatants attacking coalition forces and the new Iraqi police are non-Iraqi fundamentalists coming into the country specifically to harass and kill officials of the new democratic government and the US/UK forces still in-country.

[Kodiak]

80 foreign jihadists captured by U.S. forces in Northern Iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97074,00.html)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You have no idea how thankful I am that no one ever has to go into battle under your command.

Since you still don't (or refuse to) understand, I'll make it simple: try watching U-571, Saving Private Ryan, or Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. All three films address what I'm talking about.

I would not want to lead anyone into battle nor would I like to go into battle myself, and I am quite glad that has not happened.

And I have seen all those films you mentioned and I fail to see how they address what you are talking about.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
And I have seen all those films you mentioned and I fail to see how they address what you are talking about.

U-571: The sacrificing of lives for the success of the mission, or for the greater good, even if that means suicide...

Wrath of Khan: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Saving Private Ryan: Protecting civilians interferes with the success of the mission and puts soldiers at an unacceptable risk. The life of one man is more valuable than an entire squad of Rangers...

[Furious]

Like I keep saying, the threat from the terrorists is NOT simply the methods they will resort to, their very goals are anathema to civilization. There will always be people willing to resort to any means to achieve what they want, and they need no "validation". But we can wake up the Arab world to reality, which is that their problems are created and perpetuated by their own leadership, not by us. The arab world has stagnated both economically and culturally for most of this century, and if they want to do anything about that they need to change their OWN society, not ours. When they wake up to that fact, they will turn away from radical ideologies that promise false hope of victory over an enemy that isn't even the source of their problems.

Well said in regards to Islamo-fascists such as Al-Queda.

With regards to Iraq, I believe this is the general feeling among Iraqis:

Thanks for getting rid of Saddam, we couldn't have done it without you. However, don't feed me the "We care about Iraqi freedom" ********, otherwise you would have done something during the Shia revolt ten years ago when we wanted your help. Get us back on our feet and get the hell out, please.

We should be in Iraq for as long as it takes, and not a moment longer.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


U-571: The sacrificing of lives for the success of the mission, or for the greater good, even if that means suicide...

Wrath of Khan: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Saving Private Ryan: Protecting civilians interferes with the success of the mission and puts soldiers at an unacceptable risk. The life of one man is more valuable than an entire squad of Rangers...

Well, Kodiak, while those three movies are a very good form of entertainment and they do present some good information, one should be aware that they are works of fiction and as such one has to be rather careful about applying what is presented to the real world.

Now then, if you want to get a good idea of what war actually about (the training, the preparation, the planning, the weapons, the traveling, the physical exhaustion, the fear, the death, the killing, and the living with it after the war is over) without actually going to war, then I suggest the following (note: most of these books had accompanying video programs or were made into movies, and all of them, except the last book, are non-fiction).

War by G. Dyer
The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, and The Last Battle by Corneilus Ryan
The Execution of Private Slovik, sorry I do not recall the author
The Objector, sorry I do not recall the author
All Quite on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque
About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, by David H. Hackworth
The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage Counterespionage and Covert Action, by Harry Rositzke
A Book of Five Rings, by Miyamoto Musashi
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer
Miracle at Midway, by Gordon William Prange
Pearl Harbor, by Randall Wallace
Hitler: The Last Ten Days.,by Boldt Gerhard
Angles of Attack: An A-6 Intruder Pilot's War, by Peter Hunt
Flight of the Intruder, by Stephen Coonts
And there are numerous documentaries and interviews with war veterans, historical re-enactors, scholars, etc. that are available in several different formats.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, Kodiak, while those three movies are a very good form of entertainment and they do present some good information, one should be aware that they are works of fiction and as such one has to be rather careful about applying what is presented to the real world.

Now then, if you want to get a good idea of what war actually about (the training, the preparation, the planning, the weapons, the traveling, the physical exhaustion, the fear, the death, the killing, and the living with it after the war is over) without actually going to war, then I suggest the following (note: most of these books had accompanying video programs or were made into movies, and all of them, except the last book, are non-fiction).

War by G. Dyer
The Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, and The Last Battle by Corneilus Ryan
The Execution of Private Slovik, sorry I do not recall the author
The Objector, sorry I do not recall the author
All Quite on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque
About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, by David H. Hackworth
The CIA's Secret Operations: Espionage Counterespionage and Covert Action, by Harry Rositzke
A Book of Five Rings, by Miyamoto Musashi
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer
Miracle at Midway, by Gordon William Prange
Pearl Harbor, by Randall Wallace
Hitler: The Last Ten Days.,by Boldt Gerhard
Angles of Attack: An A-6 Intruder Pilot's War, by Peter Hunt
Flight of the Intruder, by Stephen Coonts
And there are numerous documentaries and interviews with war veterans, historical re-enactors, scholars, etc. that are available in several different formats.

I chose those specific examples in the hope you would be familiar with them. Even works of fiction can carry truths within them.

Like I said in a previous post, I was keeping it simple because you said you didn't understand, and then I had to expand on each example because you said you still didn't understand.

An excellent, though incomplete, list (obvious even to you, I'm sure). I can recommend at least a dozen books that delve much deeper into the tactics, strategy, and philosophy of modern (or ancient, or anywhere in-between) warfare, if you're interested. (quick modern examples would be Churchill, Patton, Guderian, MacArthur, Galland, Rommel, Clausewitz (SP?), Toland, Schwartzkopf, ect...)

Its seems you were playing stupid after all!!

[King of the Americas]

First and foremost, I think it is chicken-***** to kill 'leaders' of groups, organizations, or nations. I'd much rather bring them to justice to serve trial in a gobal court. THAT is why you don't set out to bomb Osama or Saddam. Instead, you bomb whose who put him into power, so that they see the error in their ways and offer him up to you.

Basically, I believe you have to hold people accountable for their actions, and NOT their beliefs.

Personally, I don't CARE that these guys don't like our way of life, but I don't fault them from trying to protect their homeland from our invasion and military occupation. If YOU come into MY home and try to tell ME and My Family about this new set of better rules, I am gonna tell you to get the f*ck out of my house. And if you don't take you and your new rules and get out, I am gonna use FORCE to remove you.

'I' don't have a problem with Osama or Saddam, until they send troops into North Texas to force us all to worship Allah and Mohamad or die.

The WTC & the Pentagon are 'symbols of oppression', to many people, around the world. Those who died were not targeted because of the personal freedom, but rather for the sins of the institutions which they worked for.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
'I' don't have a problem with Osama or Saddam, until they send troops into North Texas to force us all to worship Allah and Mohamad or die.
[/B]

What, so Osama's attack on New York doesn't matter because it wasn't Texas? Saddam's attacks against the Kurds don't matter because they're also Iraqis? What the hell is wrong with you? You have no morals that include anything other than your own self-interest, you evidently have no scruples, why the hell should anyone care at ALL about your opinion on this matter?

[King of the Americas]

Not that it doesn't 'matter', bu that it doe shave a different 'meaning' than is currently being implied.

The 9-11 attacks were a 'jab' to get our attention.

We will continue to get 'jabbed', because our over-extension has left us open to such attacks, and it is our over-extended occupation that is causing these reactive jabs to occur. 'I' don't fear from such things because the mere odds are greatly in my favor. Moreover, these jabs aren't at my personal freedom or liberty, but are rather at symbols that can be re-built. "America" can never be destroyed, for it is not a building or a person, but rather the concept of personal freedom.

So in these regards, the attacks DO 'matter', but they aren't meant to be a danger to my democratic livelyhood.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
but I don't fault them from trying to protect their homeland from our invasion and military occupation. If YOU come into MY home and try to tell ME and My Family about this new set of better rules, I am gonna tell you to get the f*ck out of my house. And if you don't take you and your new rules and get out, I am gonna use FORCE to remove you.

Pretense.

Care to explain, then, why the vast majority of those fighting the US/UK coalition forces in Iraq are non-Iraqis??

Again, from my earlier post above... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97074,00.html)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
"America" can never be destroyed, for it is not a building or a person, but rather the concept of personal freedom.

And that is why they attack us.

[King of the Americas]

Iraq is the central front in a War, for control over a regional area. Iraq is but a single territory in this region, over which other middle easternERS don't wish to see under U.S. military control.

Imagine if China wanted to take over Oklahoma, and then during hte conflict china starts to find fighters coming from Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico. Well it is the same way in the Middle East. Iraq is a state, that suffered from inner governmental corruption, but that doesn't mean they WANT a replacement system built in OUR image. Moreover, it is perfectly clear, that their neighbors don't want to see it happen.

Got it chief?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Iraq is the central front in a War, for control over a regional area. Iraq is but a single territory in this region, over which other middle easternERS don't wish to see under U.S. military control.

Imagine if China wanted to take over Oklahoma, and then during hte conflict china starts to find fighters coming from Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico. Well it is the same way in the Middle East. Iraq is a state, that suffered from inner governmental corruption, but that doesn't mean they WANT a replacement system built in OUR image. Moreover, it is perfectly clear, that their neighbors don't want to see it happen.

Got it chief?

Tripe...

Jihadists don't want to see us there, obviously.

I don't see any of Iraqs "neighbors" sending troops in to stop us.

Besides, you said: "...I don't fault them from trying to protect their homeland from our invasion and military occupation. If YOU come into MY home and try to tell ME and My Family about this new set of better rules, I am gonna tell you to get the f*ck out of my house. And if you don't take you and your new rules and get out, I am gonna use FORCE to remove you."

Are you now trying to tell me you were referring to Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and Yemenese?? :rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

Isn't Syria right NEXT to Iraq? Doesn't that make them a 'Iraqi neighbor'?

The same with Saudi Arabia...

And yes, I WAS referring to other middle eastern-ERS. WE are trying to invade THEIR region, and they are fighting against this invasion and occupation.

They see Iraq as an American Occupatory Attempt at regional control over the middle east, and people in states other than Iraq are coming to see that it fails.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

'I' don't fear from such things because the mere odds are greatly in my favor. Moreover, these jabs aren't at my personal freedom or liberty, but are rather at symbols that can be re-built.


Yup, I was right, you're a selfish little worm. A dead person's life cannot be rebuilt. The terrorists have explicitly said that they want to kill millions of Americans. Those aren't symbols, they're people. But you don't care, because it's not you. At least not yet. But I do care. I do fear the death of other Americans. Am I not enough of a callous bastard for your tastes for feeling this way?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I chose those specific examples in the hope you would be familiar with them. Even works of fiction can carry truths within them.

Like I said in a previous post, I was keeping it simple because you said you didn't understand, and then I had to expand on each example because you said you still didn't understand.

An excellent, though incomplete, list (obvious even to you, I'm sure). I can recommend at least a dozen books that delve much deeper into the tactics, strategy, and philosophy of modern (or ancient, or anywhere in-between) warfare, if you're interested. (quick modern examples would be Churchill, Patton, Guderian, MacArthur, Galland, Rommel, Clausewitz (SP?), Toland, Schwartzkopf, ect...)

Its seems you were playing stupid after all!!

I guess you are right and that you are just too smart for me.

Thanks anyway!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

They see Iraq as an American Occupatory Attempt at regional control over the middle east, and people in states other than Iraq are coming to see that it fails.

Yes, and they didn't see Saddam as an oppressive dictator either. So I don't exactly think that viewpoint has much validity. In fact, the Iraqis themselves are rather resentful of Syria and other neighbors, and rightly so, for supporting Saddam for so long. It doesn't matter if those outside Iraq "see" American occupation of Iraq as regional control, they're wrong to interfere with what the Iraqis themselves want in their OWN country, which is peace.

But you don't care about peace either, because you're a selfish little worm.

[King of the Americas]

Look, you aren't going to want to hear this, but your fears and worries are irrational.

They are NEVER going to kill "millions of Americans", period. Even if they managed to fully weaponize sand, they aren't going to represent an imminent threat to "millions of Americans".

The ONLY way they will ever do so, is if MILLIONS of Americans show up in the middle east.

I am sorry if I seem cold, harsh or uncarring, but I just don't see the stastical danger in terrorist attacks. You are MUCH more like to encounter a drunk driver, than a terrorist.

I think your fears are misplaced.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Iraq is a state, that suffered from inner governmental corruption, but that doesn't mean they WANT a replacement system built in OUR image. Moreover, it is perfectly clear, that their neighbors don't want to see it happen.

Got it chief?

Who says they're going to get a system built in our image? They'll get some sort of democracy, which means they WILL get what they want, for the FIRST bloody time. Do you think they wanted Saddam? Hell no. Do you think their neighbors have any justifiable say in what they get, when they SUPPORTED Saddam against his own people? Hell no.

Got it worm?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Isn't Syria right NEXT to Iraq? Doesn't that make them a 'Iraqi neighbor'?

The same with Saudi Arabia...

And yes, I WAS referring to other middle eastern-ERS. WE are trying to invade THEIR region, and they are fighting against this invasion and occupation.

They see Iraq as an American Occupatory Attempt at regional control over the middle east, and people in states other than Iraq are coming to see that it fails.

We've invaded Syria!? :confused:

I thought Saudi Arabia was still considered an ally!? When did we invade?? :confused:

Why aren't Iraq's "neighbors" sending troops into Iraq to stop "our senseless aggression"?? :rolleyes:

Funny...it seems the only "middle easterners" not fighting the occupation of Iraq is the Iraqi citizenry themselves!!! :roll:

The simple answer you refuse to acknowledge is that the foreign jihadists are pouring into Iraq because it is there they will find a large number of easily accessible Western targets for their fundamentalist hatred.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

They are NEVER going to kill "millions of Americans", period. Even if they managed to fully weaponize sand, they aren't going to represent an imminent threat to "millions of Americans".

The ONLY way they will ever do so, is if MILLIONS of Americans show up in the middle east.

I am sorry if I seem cold, harsh or uncarring, but I just don't see the stastical danger in terrorist attacks. You are MUCH more like to encounter a drunk driver, than a terrorist.

I think your fears are misplaced.

I don't think they're misplaced at all, and as I said, unlike you I'm concerned about much more than just myself. The three thousand americans killed on 9/11 weren't in the middle east. Neither were the embassy workers in Africa who were bombed, or the vacationers in Bali killed in the nightclub bombing. The threat is global. Is the million number a realistic threat? Long term, hell yes. You see, there's a little something called a nuclear weapon. Detonate that in New York (which they've already shown themselves willing to attack), and you've got yourself millions of dead Americans. That threat is long-term, as in we will likely be facing this for many decades. But we cannot afford to let the problem fester, because otherwise it WILL come to that eventually if we do not start doing something about it now.

[King of the Americas]

To Ziggie:

Look, you have been programmed to think that we are ONLY there to insure liberty and freedom for Iraqis.

This just isn't the case. We are there to sit up a government that will sell us cheap oil. If that is a democracy, great! If not, no big deal, unless the system we put in place doesn't want to play ball , then we'll just remove them and replace them with one that is more friendly to our economic needs.

I was just wondering how Democratic is Kuwait, now after we Liberated them from Saddam's rule?

Look, NO ONE is arguing that Saddam was a good guy, or that everyone loved him. But to say that they (Iraqis or other middle easterners) want the U.S. in their country or region building a local America, complete with military bases. You are sadly mistaken.

It would seem that you are very mistaken in your understanding of our motives and agenda in our occupatorial endeavor in Iraq.

[King of the Americas]

We've invaded Syria!?

*NO, Syrians preceive us as invading the middle east, further.

I thought Saudi Arabia was still considered an ally!? When did we invade??

The Saudi Royal family is considered an ally, but the common people there see our presence as occupation and invasion.

Why aren't Iraq's "neighbors" sending troops into Iraq to stop "our senseless aggression"??

*They ARE.

Funny...it seems the only "middle easterners" not fighting the occupation of Iraq is the Iraqi citizenry themselves!!!

*Actually 'some' Iraqis ARE actively fighting against our invasion and occupation. AND the more innocent Iraqis we hold, torture, or kill the more of them who will resist our 'assistance'.

The simple answer you refuse to acknowledge is that the foreign jihadists are pouring into Iraq because it is there they will find a large number of easily accessible Western targets for their fundamentalist hatred.

*That AND they get to fight for the protection of their homeland (the middle east), against the invasionstic forces of capitalistic military occupation.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

It would seem that you are very mistaken in your understanding of our motives and agenda in our occupatorial endeavor in Iraq.

I don't think so. You see, I'm actually paying some attention to what's happening, not what Noam Chomsky or Ted Rall are saying is happening. Yes, the Iraqis want us to leave soon. And guess what? We WANT to leave soon too, but we're not going to leave when doing so would make the country slide into chaos. You also seem to be under some kind of misapprehansion about how the oil market works. The Iraqis are not going to sell oil to "us". They're going to sell oil, to anyone who wants to buy. Oil is a global commodity market. The only time people were getting oil at special, below-market values from Iraq was when Saddam was bribing people (mostly Russians and French) through abuses of the oil for food program.

Oh, and one more subtlety: I can legitimately support the war for motives that are not identical to the Bush administration. See if you can grasp that without your head exploding.

[King of the Americas]

I don't think they're misplaced at all, and as I said, unlike you I'm concerned about much more than just myself. The three thousand americans killed on 9/11 weren't in the middle east.

*3,000. Note that number. 18,000 people die EVERY year from drunk drivers. WHERE is the greater more consistant danger?

Neither were the embassy workers in Africa who were bombed, or the vacationers in Bali killed in the nightclub bombing. The threat is global.

*The threat of cancer is too, but we aren't actively fighting THOSE causes? If you want to stop terroristic attack, stop the root causes of it, and stop trying to kill people who don't like what you are doing!

Is the million number a realistic threat? Long term, hell yes. You see, there's a little something called a nuclear weapon. Detonate that in New York (which they've already shown themselves willing to attack), and you've got yourself millions of dead Americans.

*IF this were a realize this threat, then I blaim those who would use our military forces for foreign occupation, and NOT for the protection of our borders. If you can't control your boarders, you are vulnerable to attack. However, even with our military spread out, I think the possibility of a million deaths on American soil from a terrorist attack is very unlike, although not impossible. Given that there are 245 million people in America, even if 2 major cities where to get hit with nuclear bombs, not a destoryed America would that make.

That threat is long-term, as in we will likely be facing this for many decades.

*The ONLY sincere threat we face is from those who would sacrafice Liberty for Security.

But we cannot afford to let the problem fester, because otherwise it WILL come to that eventually if we do not start doing something about it now.

*What we need to do is protect our homeland from invasion from outside forces, and NOT force our culture and military onto people and places where it is unwelcome. We can not make the world think like us, but we can hold those who would attack us, responsible. We HAVE to withdraw our forces from places where they are NOT welcome. So long as we are seen as the invaders and occupiers, we are going to have enemies will to risk their lives to attack us. You, or shall I say 'We' can't just go around bombing countries that don't run their country like we do. Nor can we just replace regeims that don't favor our policies. continuing to do so, while ignoring the real motives for the attacks against us WILL put more American's lives in danger, period.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

*Actually 'some' Iraqis ARE actively fighting against our invasion and occupation. AND the more innocent Iraqis we hold, torture, or kill the more of them who will resist our 'assistance'.


Got any evidence that we're torturing Iraqis? Or do you just like to talk out your backside?


That AND they get to fight for the protection of their homeland (the middle east), against the invasionstic forces of capitalistic military occupation.

And keep it safe for brutal fascist dictators. How touching. As long as they're home-grown, who cares? Is that your take?

These terrorists do not represent the populace of either Iraq or their neighbors. They are actively working against the interests AND will of the Iraqi people. How the hell does them thinking they're justified actually change that, worm?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
NO, Syrians preceive us as invading the middle east, further.

En Masse?? Evidence, please.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The Saudi Royal family is considered an ally, but the common people there see our presence as occupation and invasion.

See above.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
They ARE.

Evidence, please, that military troops from Iraq's neighbors are entering Iraq to fight US and UK forces.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Actually 'some' Iraqis ARE actively fighting against our invasion and occupation. AND the more innocent Iraqis we hold, torture, or kill the more of them who will resist our 'assistance'..

Yeah. :rolleyes: Deposed Baath party members and Saddam loyalists which represent only a small minority of the muslim fundamentalists still resisting in Iraq.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
That AND they get to fight for the protection of their homeland (the middle east), against the invasionstic forces of capitalistic military occupation.

You sound like a jihadist yourself when you don't use quotation marks around those Islamic fundie propaganda buzz-words.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

If you want to stop terroristic attack, stop the root causes of it, and stop trying to kill people who don't like what you are doing!


We are fighting the root causes of terrorism, which are a delusional world view that festers in oppressive societies. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that terrorists are merely responding to external aggression. They are not. They are striving for fascist islamic rule of the entire world. This is their clear and stated goal. It is you, worm, who does not seem to understand them. It is you, worm, who does not address the real root causes of terrorism, but merely resorts to the nearest theory from Chomsky and the like to blame us for their crimes. You don't have to think too much if you just assume everything is our fault.

[King of the Americas]

They are striving for fascist islamic rule of the entire world.

*THIS is an unrealistic goal, and one I have absolutely NO FEAR of ever happening.

Look, you are under the mistaken understanding that just because someone doesn't want to live by Our Rule, in THEIR country, that this equates to an imminent threat to Our Way of Life, here.

Just so long as YOU, yourself keep arms, no one is going to invade your lands and force you to think the way they do. I repeat, YOU ARE NOT IN DANGER from occupation by an islamic fascist rule!!!

Look, I am just of the opinion that Freedom OF America, also means freedom FROM America. If you WANT to live by our rules, then come HERE and do so. We souldn't be in the business of trying to make other countries like us, or in our own image. It is NOT our job to liberate the world from evil dictators that do NOT represent a proven imminent threat to our security.

It is not shocking that someone as brain-washed as you would willing defend the President's decision to go into Iraq.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
THIS is an unrealistic goal, and one I have absolutely NO FEAR of ever happening.

That doesn't stop them from trying!

Not a resident of New York City, huh? Your level of fear might change if you ever wind up in close proximity to one of their attacks.

[King of the Americas]

I don't think so. You see, I'm actually paying some attention to what's happening, not what Noam Chomsky or Ted Rall are saying is happening. Yes, the Iraqis want us to leave soon. And guess what? We WANT to leave soon too, but we're not going to leave when doing so would make the country slide into chaos.

*WE don't WANT to leave, at least not without setting up a government frieldy to our economic needs.

You also seem to be under some kind of misapprehansion about how the oil market works. The Iraqis are not going to sell oil to "us".

*And we aren't RIGHT NOW securing contracts with Iraqi/Halliburton companies to start shipping cheap oil from Iraq? WE have right NOW, several written agreements with Saudi Arabia to seel us oil, outside of OPEC.

They're going to sell oil, to anyone who wants to buy. Oil is a global commodity market. The only time people were getting oil at special, below-market values from Iraq was when Saddam was bribing people (mostly Russians and French) through abuses of the oil for food program.

*And why do you think it was so importnat for us to secure all of the oil wells and pipelines, upon our initial invasion?

The truth is that we NEED this Iraqi oil supply, so that we can point the sh!tty end of the stick at Saudi Arabia. However, we can't do this until we actually get Iraq under control and we start pumping out of their supplies and into out economy. Right NOW, we still depend on Saudi Arabia, so we can't yet accuse them of wrongdoing of any kind, or even admit that they were behind the 9-11 attacks. Nor can we even admit the real reason we are in Iraq today.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
They are striving for fascist islamic rule of the entire world.

*THIS is an unrealistic goal, and one I have absolutely NO FEAR of ever happening.


They cannot be appeased or disuaded from their goal by us becoming isolationists, as you seem to suggest we should do. I do not fear them achieving their goal, I fear the damage they will do in their quest for it. Because again, unlike you, I'm not a selfish worm who doesn't care if others suffer and die at the hands of these radicals.


Look, you are under the mistaken understanding that just because someone doesn't want to live by Our Rule, in THEIR country, that this equates to an imminent threat to Our Way of Life, here.


I'm not mistaken about anything. And you have it quite backwards. It is the fact that we are living in a secular state that is an offense to them. Again, they do NOT simpy want to live their lives their own way in their own home, they want to force their beliefs on the entire world by violent means.


Just so long as YOU, yourself keep arms, no one is going to invade your lands and force you to think the way they do. I repeat, YOU ARE NOT IN DANGER from occupation by an islamic fascist rule!!!


And I repeat, you are a selfish worm. Other people are in danger. My personal risk is low, but that's not the only issue. The fact that it's probably other people, not me personally, who are likely to suffer and die does not make it OK.

Edited for a missing word.

[King of the Americas]

I'll tell you the same thing I told Ziggie above:

Your fears are irrational. You are MUCH more likely to die from an inopportune meeting with a drink driver than you EVER are to with an international terrorist.

Maybe YOU'D be more affraid of drunk drivers if you had loved ones killed or injured by one. Your fear of a terrorist attack is myopic, and you are being hampered by both your perception of the 9-11 events and the manner in which they have been characterized to you.

America is NOT in danger of destruction by ANYONE but our own citizenery and lawmakers who would sacrafice our civil liberty for temporary security.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I'll tell you the same thing I told Ziggie above:

Your fears are irrational. You are MUCH more likely to die from an inopportune meeting with a drink driver than you EVER are to with an international terrorist.

Maybe YOU'D be more affraid of drunk drivers if you had loved ones killed or injured by one. Your fear of a terrorist attack is myopic, and you are being hampered by both your perception of the 9-11 events and the manner in which they have been characterized to you.

America is NOT in danger of destruction by ANYONE but our own citizenery and lawmakers who would sacrafice our civil liberty for temporary security.

Strawman and Projection.

When were we discussing my fears??

It is your absolute lack of fear which is irrational...

...and when did I mention comparitive mortality risks?? :confused:

Your two-step of jihadist propaganda and obvious obfuscation is growing tiresome, KOA... :(

Are you having a bad day? :rub:

[King of the Americas]

They be appeased or disuaded from their goal by us becoming isolationists, as you seem to suggest we should do. I do not fear them achieving their goal, I fear the damage they will do in their quest for it. Because again, unlike you, I'm not a selfish worm who doesn't care if others suffer and die at the hands of these radicals.

*There are LOTS of different kinds of radicals in this world, I just don't understand your over-reaction to the possible danger these specific terrorists represent. I am not a selfish worm, as you suggest. I am just a realist who can see and decipher sincere danger.

I'm not mistaken about anything. And you have it quite backwards. It is the fact that we are living in a secular state that is an offense to them. Again, they do NOT simpy want to live their lives their own way in their own home, they want to force their beliefs on the entire world by violent means.

*AND, what IF they DID, only want to live their lives in THEIR country, how THEIR population decided they wanted to. I mean freedom isn't something that can be 'given' to you. It is something YOU have to be will to fight and dies for, to perserve it. I hold that UNLESS you and your country are will to send troops HERE not only to attack but occupy America. THEN I am ready and willing to say, "Hold on here, Mr. Towelhead!"


And I repeat, you are a selfish worm. Other people are in danger. My personal risk is low, but that's not the only issue. The fact that it's probably other people, not me personally, who are likely to suffer and die does not make it OK.

*Then WHY aren't you MUCH more inraged about the possible danger represented by tobacco, alcohol, or falling debris in Walmart? ALL of these are statistically more dangerous than an attack from international terrorists.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

AND, what IF they DID, only want to live their lives in THEIR country, how THEIR population decided they wanted to.


What if pigs could fly? I thought we were talking about the reality we live in, not some hypothetical one.


Then WHY aren't you MUCH more inraged about the possible danger represented by tobacco, alcohol, or falling debris in Walmart? ALL of these are statistically more dangerous than an attack from international terrorists.

Who says that I'm not enraged by tobacco companies? And again, it's not just me, or even just americans, that I'm concerned about. Are drunk drivers, for example, really more of a threat to the Kurds than Saddam? But you don't care about them, because you're a selfish worm.

[King of the Americas]

No, I don't care about the Kurds.

If you aren't going to fight for your own freedom, then WHY the hell should WE have to provide lives to liberate you?

No one came in and told us that we NEEDED to be liberated from King George. WE took it upon OURSELVES to fight for Our Freedom and Liberation. If the Kurds aren't willing to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam's rule, then why in hell would WE be willing to do the fighting for them???

It would be one thing is the Kurds were ACTIVELY fighting for a democratic style freedom, then SURE I'll sell them ammunition and guns to aid their endeavor, and I could more easily allow our troops to go in. However, in this case, these people were happy ENOUGH with Saddam's rule to NOT overthrow him... Regardless of his brutality, everyone has a breaking point. His citizens obviously hadn't reached it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
...because you're a selfish worm.

Am I sensing a theme here, Zig? ;) :D

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
No, I don't care about the Kurds.

If you aren't going to fight for your own freedom, then WHY the hell should WE have to provide lives to liberate you?

No one came in and told us that we NEEDED to be liberated from King George. WE took it upon OURSELVES to fight for Our Freedom and Liberation.

Yeah...France (a superpower at the time) didn't help us at all... :rolleyes:

[Furious]

*Then WHY aren't you MUCH more inraged about the possible danger represented by tobacco, alcohol, or falling debris in Walmart? ALL of these are statistically more dangerous than an attack from international terrorists.

This is an asinine analogy. The reason why these are statistically more dangerous is because we're paying people to protect us from international terrorists and foreign dangers in general. Commit a third of our national budget to the stated goal of eliminating the threat of any of your three examples and those statistics will go to nearly zero too.

Also, there is the small matter of distribution. If those 18,000 people died on the same day, do you really think nothing would be done about it? 3,000 deaths in one day from anything will get a problem noticed. Walmart would be shut down in a second.

Accidental death or taking known risks that lead to it are in a completely different realm than something forcibly taking your life away.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If the Kurds aren't willing to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam's rule, then why in hell would WE be willing to do the fighting for them???

It would be one thing is the Kurds were ACTIVELY fighting for a democratic style freedom, then SURE I'll sell them ammunition and guns to aid their endeavor, and I could more easily allow our troops to go in. However, in this case, these people were happy ENOUGH with Saddam's rule to NOT overthrow him... Regardless of his brutality, everyone has a breaking point. His citizens obviously hadn't reached it.

Would you have the gall and audacity to say the same thing about the german jews during Hitler's reign??

[King of the Americas]

Almost...

...the difference being that one was threatened with sincere extermination, and the other just brutal or even tryannical rule.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Almost...

...the difference being that one was threatened with sincere extermination, and the other just brutal or even tryannical rule.

What do you call the gassing of villages and the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens since the beginning of Saddam's regime??

[King of the Americas]

Are you suggesting that We are unable to decipher sincere loss, unless it happens all at once?

Now THAT is ignorant.

3,000 lives ONE time, in ONE year. vs. 18,000 lives EVERY year

How about addressing numeric priority.

[King of the Americas]

"Brutal and tyrannical rule."

Mass extermination was never Saddam's goal. However, Hitler constantly verbalized this AS his objective, the elimination of the Jewish culture. Saddam was more about punishing the Kruds for their uprising.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
"Brutal and tyrannical rule."

Mass extermination was never Saddam's goal. However, Hitler constantly verbalized this AS his objective, the elimination of the Jewish culture. Saddam was more about punishing the Kruds for their uprising.

Using your ignorant twisted logic, you should have nothing against any of US actions, because US are merely punishing.

[King of the Americas]

I didn't say what Saddam did was OKAY! I said it wasn't reason enough to sacrafice American troop lives.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
No, I don't care about the Kurds.


That's what I thought, you selfish worm.


If the Kurds aren't willing to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam's rule, then why in hell would WE be willing to do the fighting for them???


They were willing to, and they did. But without our protection, Saddam would have been able to crush them, killing tens of thousands of civilians, like he has done in the past. Next time you want to spout off about something, I suggest you learn a thing or two about the subject.


It would be one thing is the Kurds were ACTIVELY fighting for a democratic style freedom, then SURE I'll sell them ammunition and guns to aid their endeavor, and I could more easily allow our troops to go in. However, in this case, these people were happy ENOUGH with Saddam's rule to NOT overthrow him... Regardless of his brutality, everyone has a breaking point. His citizens obviously hadn't reached it.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The Kurds did rebel. The Shia rebelled too, although they were crushed. The people of Iraq did reach a breaking point. The problem is they WERE broken. They had no ability to overthrow Saddam from within. You obviously know nothing about what life is like under a repressive dictatorship, or even any basic history of Iraq. You are not only selfish, but ignorant as well, worm.

[King of the Americas]

I think your are confusing historically events with current events.

I would have had no problem if we WOULD have continued the rebellion when the Kurds WERE rising up against Saddam, during the end of the last Gulf War. However, we failed to restrict Saddam from flying his helicopter gunships, so he managed to put down that rebellion.

The Kurds were NOT 'actively' partaking in a rebellion against Saddam's rule when we took part in this last invasion of Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The Kurds were NOT 'actively' partaking in a rebellion against Saddam's rule when we took part in this last invasion of Iraq.

That depends what you mean by "actively". They were not marching on Baghdad, but they had their own autonomous region free of Saddam's rule, protected on the ground by their own troops and in the air by the NATO-enforced no-fly zone. I'd call that actively rebelling.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Am I sensing a theme here, Zig? ;) :D

You are indeed. I am quite vocal in my criticism of the anti-war croud (such as Malachi, Manifesto, etc) because I think they are terribly mistaken in their assesment of the threat Saddam posed not only to us but to the world (as well as the effectiveness of institutions like the UN), but most of them have basically good intentions. But all worm can offer is selfishness and ignorance.

[Pyrian]

Kodiak:
Nothing more than pretense.More specifically, it is propaganda. Whether it represents the motivation of Osama bin Laden in particular does not so much concern me; he's only one man. What it DOES represent is what that one man thinks will appeal to potential recruits, and in THAT aspect it IS important. I would say it is MORE important than whatever may lie under your assumption of pretense.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Upchurch
NPR this morning had a piece about the effects of the Iraqi war on Al Queda. I don't remember what was exactly said (I was still waking up), but the gist was that our invasion and occupation of Iraq is fueling muslim hatred of America and there have been massive amounts of recruits to Al Queda. While those in charge of Al Queda pre-9/11 are mostly gone, there are plenty of new members to replace and fill the ranks.

Essentially, we played into the islamic fundamentalists' hands.

Saddam's Defeat is Bin Laden's Victory (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17520&highlight=cruise)

[Dancing David]

This is a really oneteresting discussion, and it seems that new territory has been broached. If I squit out the xtremeist rhetoric it seems there is a discussion occuring.

KOA: has stated that he feels we are overreacting to the 9-11 attack, and that we are giving the terrorists power by responding so strongly. It is a very valid point that so far the war on terrorism will do little to protect us from terrorism.

Zig; has stade an interesting point that he may support the war without supporting the Bush administration's reasoning.

Kodiak: sorry, I can't encapsulate your well written posts.

Thanks to all , including Crossbow for you intelligent discussion.

This time there is a dialouge.

KoA: You have said things that make sense to me, I don't agree with all that you say, but you do have some points about ,perhaps, that American response to war.

Did you all know that 14,000,000 million children die each year from preventable causes, a good reason to stop the fighting if you ask me.

Respectfully.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I was not talking about Saddam, I was talking about Al-Queda. The guys from Al-Queda hated Saddam too, it has validated the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalists that aggression is the way to do things.

In Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa, he mentions Iraq quite a bit as a reason why he hates America, but there is no mention of hatred towards Iraq or Saddam.

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm)

[King of the Americas]

...a C-SPAN rerun, and a caller just asked (in reference to the Patriot Act) "Why NOT give law enforment officials MORE ability to find the terrorists? Do you want to risk another 9-11, another 3,000 lives!?"

Man 3,000 is a drop in the bucket, compared to other causes of death!

I think our military should be used to defend our borders, and our homeland. We should use our navy and airforce to control the oceans. THEREIN are we safer. Using our military to invade and occupy territories that are rich in natural resources, in the name of freeing people from dictators, and claiming that this peoples represent an immenient threat to us, is FOLLY!!!

I repeat WE, that which is America is in NO danger from invasion. No one is going to occupy your town with force and make you worship their God. That is what our Second Amendment is for.

These attacks were reactionary to OUR misdeeds in THEIR country.

ANY attmept to destroy America is doomed to fail, unless it happens from the inside. When citizens are willing to sacrafice Liberty for Security, and give up their right to be able to protect themselves and their privacy...THEN we are truly finished, as a nation and idea.

[King of the Americas]

....all for your time and insight.

---

And remember, 9-11 was NOT an unprovoked invasion, but rather a reactionary attack. NO 'invasion' of America will or could ever succeed. The ONLY danger America will ever be in, is in the belief that it is okay to trade Liberty for Security.