PDA

View Full Version : France and America



XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:05 PM
French still love U.S. - but not Bush
By Jim Bittermann
CNN Senior Correspondent

DEAUVILLE, France (CNN) -- Two years ago, after the catastrophe of September 11, a writer called the annual American film festival being held on the northern coast of France "the last days of innocence."

Two years later, though, the French fans at Deauville 2003 are out gawking as always at the Hollywood stars, the champagne is flowing -- and little seems different.

If there was an end to innocence, it is not to be seen in the popular passion here for American culture in general -- or for good action movies in particular.

But few could have predicted the splintering smashup in diplomatic relations between France and the United States.

French President Jacques Chirac was the first world leader to visit ground zero and pay his respects after September 11.

There was a genuine and bipartisan outpouring of grief in France after the attacks on America.

There was a French pledge to stand together with the United States in the war against terrorists in Afghanistan.

In return, analysts say, a French offer of military assistance was publicly belittled by defense chiefs in Washington.

And U.S. President George W. Bush, on his first visit to France, publicly ridiculed a White House reporter who dared ask a question of Chirac in French.

"The guy memorizes four words and he's Mr. Intercontinental," Bush quipped.

But it was differences over Iraq that brought the real clash.

To this day, some Americans cannot understand why France forgot its World War II obligations to the United States.


The Iraq war created a major split between Bush and Chirac.
And some French cannot understand how the United States has become so intolerant of those who disagree.

"To have a moral debt toward a country does not mean that you are obliged to follow blindly everything it says," says Eric Dior of Marianne Magazine.

With the second anniversary of 9/11, there's been every manner of debate, article and book here on the events of the past two years.

At least one of the authors reflecting on what has changed has observed that Americans are treating each other better and the world worse.

"I think the Americans are nicer inside the country and meaner outside the country," says Frederic Beigbeder, author of "Windows on the World."

Political scientists blame individuals within the Bush administration for much of the diplomatic damage and say they created a far more dangerous world when they cut short the United Nations' search for Saddam Hussein's lethal weapons.

"It would have taken time, it would have required patience, but at least we would have known where the damn things were," says Guillaume Parmentier of the French Foreign Relations Institute.

"With the war we have no idea. Perhaps they are in the hands of terrorists."

In Paris and other capitals there is always grumbling about the "on-the-job training" when a new president takes office in Washington. Many of Bush's predecessors were criticized for clumsy diplomacy.

But according to a recent trans-Atlantic survey, none has generated the antipathy Bush has, with fewer than one in six people in France approving of his leadership of world affairs.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:05 PM
French still love U.S. - but not Bush
By Jim Bittermann
CNN Senior Correspondent

DEAUVILLE, France (CNN) -- Two years ago, after the catastrophe of September 11, a writer called the annual American film festival being held on the northern coast of France "the last days of innocence."

Two years later, though, the French fans at Deauville 2003 are out gawking as always at the Hollywood stars, the champagne is flowing -- and little seems different.

If there was an end to innocence, it is not to be seen in the popular passion here for American culture in general -- or for good action movies in particular.

But few could have predicted the splintering smashup in diplomatic relations between France and the United States.

French President Jacques Chirac was the first world leader to visit ground zero and pay his respects after September 11.

There was a genuine and bipartisan outpouring of grief in France after the attacks on America.

There was a French pledge to stand together with the United States in the war against terrorists in Afghanistan.

In return, analysts say, a French offer of military assistance was publicly belittled by defense chiefs in Washington.

And U.S. President George W. Bush, on his first visit to France, publicly ridiculed a White House reporter who dared ask a question of Chirac in French.

"The guy memorizes four words and he's Mr. Intercontinental," Bush quipped.

But it was differences over Iraq that brought the real clash.

To this day, some Americans cannot understand why France forgot its World War II obligations to the United States.


The Iraq war created a major split between Bush and Chirac.
And some French cannot understand how the United States has become so intolerant of those who disagree.

"To have a moral debt toward a country does not mean that you are obliged to follow blindly everything it says," says Eric Dior of Marianne Magazine.

With the second anniversary of 9/11, there's been every manner of debate, article and book here on the events of the past two years.

At least one of the authors reflecting on what has changed has observed that Americans are treating each other better and the world worse.

"I think the Americans are nicer inside the country and meaner outside the country," says Frederic Beigbeder, author of "Windows on the World."

Political scientists blame individuals within the Bush administration for much of the diplomatic damage and say they created a far more dangerous world when they cut short the United Nations' search for Saddam Hussein's lethal weapons.

"It would have taken time, it would have required patience, but at least we would have known where the damn things were," says Guillaume Parmentier of the French Foreign Relations Institute.

"With the war we have no idea. Perhaps they are in the hands of terrorists."

In Paris and other capitals there is always grumbling about the "on-the-job training" when a new president takes office in Washington. Many of Bush's predecessors were criticized for clumsy diplomacy.

But according to a recent trans-Atlantic survey, none has generated the antipathy Bush has, with fewer than one in six people in France approving of his leadership of world affairs.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:19 PM
Interesting, I suppose, but the relevancy completely escapes me.

I would like to make an observation here, MNG: One that I am confident you will agree with, if only marginally.

The words that this "Gentleman" penned are rather vague, at best. I could, with little effort, submit an article addressing this very subject and pen it with more substance and strength.

There is too much vagueness, and "I believe," and "I suppose," and "sources say," in all too many 'Stories' submitted by "Correspondents" today, simply because they have a need to get an article out and to meet a deadline.


"Some Americans cannot understand, Some French cannot understand, can he be more vague?

"Leep writes": "Some Americans cannot understand how the French people can allow a man like Chirac to stay in office or to occupy any position of power. His arrogance and disdain for America , the American Presidency, and ultimately, the American people is unprecedented."

Sources close to Chiracs' office say that privately, Chirac holds President Bush in deep contempt, and calls him, "That uncouth, unwashed, loudmouth from Texas."

Sources also inform us that Chirac is in serious trouble with his 'Cabinet' and the French people are serious in their determination to remove this "Fool" from office as his arrogant stance has caused the French people, and the business community untold hardships, along with billions of dollars lost because Bush, along with that facist O'Reilly , from Fox news, has called for a general boycott of france and all French products. And, it has worked all too well.

It was said, by sources close to Chirac, that this has upset him so much that he has taken to frothing at the mouth and running naked in the woods during the "Fool" moon, howling at the top of his lungs, and singing "The Werewolfs Of London>"

Political scientists, in this country of course. have taken the position that French Political Scientists are neither scientific or political, and thus, anything that they espouse can not be taken seriously.

Guillaume Parementier, whose mother got his name from a French cereal box shortly after his birth, has been under investigation for months by the CIA, for transgressions against the state, I believe it was North Dakota, and , since this has come to light, publicly, he has been stripped of his title, and research has discovered that he received his degree from an internet 'College" Based in India, which, you must admit, brings into question virtually everything he has ever said or written. Pity, that.

The Trans atlantic survey you mentioned, our investigative reporters discovered, was conducted on the cruise line "Cinderella" Which was on its way back to port as all the people on board, including the staff and the "Driver" were suffering fron an unknown illness.

It is believed that they all contracted this illness after consuming both French wine and French Cuisine,

The political Science Community is baffled at these develpoments, and Chirac has disavowed any knowledge of this incident. But these same sources close to Chirac, say privately that he was seen, or someone who looks remarkably like him, leaving the freezer area of the cruise liner shortly before, uh, "Takeoff'
Our sources, you understand, must be protected and cannot , under any circumstances, be revealed. Unless, of course, you threaten to exile us to France, whereas the frogs can all go to hell and we will sing like a house full of canaries.
And, finally, to address the comments made about the "On the job training' that new presidents go through upon entering office, private sources close to our president say that Bush has stated that, while that may be somewhat true, at least Americans do not have to go through refresher courses in how to wipe first the smug, sarcastic looks off their faces, and then wipe their butts, or vice versa, and to wash their hands before engaging in this practice, which explains why Chirac always comes off like he is 'Shat faced" Wheras president Bush walked away chuckling to himself, shoulders shaking slightly, mumbling to his self, "Chirac, Shat faced', Hee hee hee, Chirac, shat faced" While the cabinet looked on silently.

Of course, the cabinet had been there since Lincoln moved it into the White House many, many years ago and it was rumored that it held great sentimental value for President Lincoln, but that succeeding presidents would get "Shat faced" and pee in it, muttering about world affairs and how they hated France and those prissy, smug, smelly faced a$$ holes even then.

I intend to submit this article to the Pullitzer Committee and am confident, as sources close to the committee, assure me that I will win hands down>

Then I intend to immediately go out with all my "Sources" and get S"Shat Faced"

Feel free to contact me any time if you need further clarification on this or any other matter, MNG, "cause. thats what I'm here for. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Leep Out:

And while, I am entirely certain, that "corresdespondent" (always room for new words MNG) spent many hours researching and writing, and rewriting this article until he was confident it would pass muster:

I, on the other hand, simply sat down and wrote: "All this from the quick, agile, nimble mind" of the "Great Leep"

Can any other mortal, alive or dead, make such a statement? I think not, at least , I think I do, ah think not, well sometimes I think.so therefore I am?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Leep Out , once more:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:27 PM
you must like to hear yourself talk.....there's my observation /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<center>http://www.portents.com/marek/transformers/autobot.jpg

<center>NSAagent's Respect List

<center>Beer
<center>Liquor
<center>Wine

<center><marquee loop="infinite" bgcolor="black" width=300> Why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots? - dr. evil </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:52 PM
Again with the facts Leep? give me a break /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:06 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif my head hurts

<Center>
<marquee loop="infinite" width=500>[b]http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:21 PM
Bambi can fix your head problems.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:31 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

- French still love U.S. - but not Bush
- By Jim Bittermann
- CNN Senior Correspondent

I think he meant French still love the US money - but not Bush.

By Jim Bittermann

Hmmmm....I wonder what he is Bitter about/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
-
-
- Two years later, though, the French fans at
- Deauville 2003 are out gawking as always at the
- Hollywood stars, the champagne is flowing -- and
- little seems different.

....then you wonder what is the attraction with all the celebrities and France...must be the constant *** kissing.
-
- But few could have predicted the splintering smashup
- in diplomatic relations between France and the
- United States.

Those that dont know what Loyalty means that is.
-
- French President Jacques Chirac was the first world
- leader to visit ground zero and pay his respects
- after September 11.

What do you expect he must have just come back from his vacation anyway.
-
- There was a genuine and bipartisan outpouring of
- grief in France after the attacks on America.

I am sure
-
- There was a French pledge to stand together with the
- United States in the war against terrorists in
- Afghanistan.

What about the "global" war on terrorism?
Oh yeah they need permission from the UN
-
- In return, analysts say, a French offer of military
- assistance was publicly belittled by defense chiefs
- in Washington.
-
- And U.S. President George W. Bush, on his first
- visit to France, publicly ridiculed a White House
- reporter who dared ask a question of Chirac in
- French.
-
- "The guy memorizes four words and he's Mr.
- Intercontinental," Bush quipped.

that was instead of "stop kissing his ***"
-
- But it was differences over Iraq that brought the
- real clash.

Yeah now we are getting into their "business"
-
- To this day, some Americans cannot understand why
- France forgot its World War II obligations to the
- United States.

They didnt forget
-
- The Iraq war created a major split between Bush and
- Chirac.
- And some French cannot understand how the United
- States has become so intolerant of those who
- disagree.

Did they stop to think that Saddam was an evil maniac?
or maybe they could be more agreeable?
-
- "To have a moral debt toward a country does not mean
- that you are obliged to follow blindly everything it
- says," says Eric Dior of Marianne Magazine.

No but when you pledge to fight terrorism you should be more open minded about getting rid of Evil.
-
- With the second anniversary of 9/11, there's been
- every manner of debate, article and book here on the
- events of the past two years.
-
- At least one of the authors reflecting on what has
- changed has observed that Americans are treating
- each other better and the world worse.

How can you blame us?
-
- "I think the Americans are nicer inside the country
- and meaner outside the country," says Frederic
- Beigbeder, author of "Windows on the World."

And Europeans are the opposite?
-
- Political scientists blame individuals within the
- Bush administration for much of the diplomatic
- damage and say they created a far more dangerous
- world when they cut short the United Nations' search
- for Saddam Hussein's lethal weapons.

I wonder how many Iraqi people would have been spared the torture of Saddam if he UN would have cut the search even shorter.
-
- "It would have taken time, it would have required
- patience, but at least we would have known where the
- damn things were," says Guillaume Parmentier of the
- French Foreign Relations Institute.

Yes if we waited about 10 more years.
-
- "With the war we have no idea. Perhaps they are in
- the hands of terrorists."

I thought there were'nt any WMD's
-
- In Paris and other capitals there is always
- grumbling about the "on-the-job training" when a new
- president takes office in Washington. Many of Bush's
- predecessors were criticized for clumsy diplomacy.

well it dont take much trainning to say we don't agree.

- But according to a recent trans-Atlantic survey,
- none has generated the antipathy Bush has, with
- fewer than one in six people in France approving of
- his leadership of world affairs.

But he is proving them wrong. A good leader does what needs to be done, period!


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:58 PM
If I want any crap outa' you NSAgent, I will lift the top of your head off and dip it out: /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Brief enough for you?

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:31 PM
Hornet, are you saying that in order to be a loyal american you have to dislike the french because they (and many americans, might I add) dont agree with the agressive US policy toward Iraq?
And second, if your wife cheated on you, hypothetically speaking here, what affect would it have on your loyalty?


Leep, if youre gonna send that in to the Pulitzer people, make sure you spell their name correctly/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif j/k

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:48 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:

- Hornet, are you saying that in order to be a loyal
- american you have to dislike the french because they
- (and many americans, might I add) dont agree with
- the agressive US policy toward Iraq?

Not because they disagree but the extend that they will go to disagree when the truth is clearly known or at the very least strongly suspected. A loyal american would not jepordise the credibility of his country or he should'nt be living and prospering in it. As for the French loyalty maybe old france.

- And second, if your wife cheated on you,
- hypothetically speaking here, what affect would it
- have on your loyalty?

I would hypothetically divorce her /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:50 PM
Keyword there: Intolerant.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:56 PM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Keyword there: Intolerant.

9/11 <<<<======/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Last day of Tolorence

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:07 PM
So you're all racist, nationalist homophobes?

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:36 PM
this isn't a direct quote, but: "it would have taken time, it would have taken patience, but at least we would know where they were. Now they could be in the hands of Terrorists"--Foreign Affairs

If I recall correctly, were they not saying that Hussein didn't HAVE any WMD a few months ago?

Odd.

Other then that, it was an interesting read, thank you MNG.

http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/farnham2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:41 PM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- So you're all racist, nationalist homophobes?

Well, I'm none of the above. So where exactly did you pull this one from?

"From books, we learn what can be done. To actually learn, we need to do those things."

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:56 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- Cowanchicken wrote:
-- So you're all racist, nationalist homophobes?
-
- Well, I'm none of the above. So where exactly did
- you pull this one from?
-

He pulled it out of his color coordinated non homophobic *** where else?


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:07 AM
Just asking, since Hornet seems to think the US is now intolerant because of 9/11

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:20 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:

- Just asking, since Hornet seems to think the US is
- now intolerant because of 9/11
-
-
I was referring to terrorism Cow. Just simply saying that since 9\11 we woke up......some of us anyway.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:40 AM
But because you woke up, the rest of the world had to listen to the song the USA was playing on its war drum?
I'm not saying the war on terrorists is not important, but for years the US let terrorism go on ALL over the world, but as soon as it happened on the homeland, pow, the whole world better join in on the fight against terrorism.


And because Canada didn't dance to the tune you played, now the US gov. thinks we are just as evil.

<Center>
<marquee loop="infinite" width=500>[b]http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:22 PM
ScrubberManFSJ wrote:
- But because you woke up, the rest of the world had
- to listen to the song the USA was playing on its war
- drum?

No we simply said either you lead follow or get out of our way, there is work to be done.

- I'm not saying the war on terrorists is not
- important, but for years the US let terrorism go on
- ALL over the world, but as soon as it happened on
- the homeland, pow, the whole world better join in on
- the fight against terrorism.

That is why I said we just woke up /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
- And because Canada didn't dance to the tune you
- played, now the US gov. thinks we are just as evil.

We don't think Canada is evil, come on Scrubberman but when your neighbor who is a very important part of the security issue to America should be more willing to help.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:07 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- there is work to be done.

Don't you mean "people to kill"?

- Should be more willing to help.

Don't you mean "do as they're told"?



<img src=http://home.btconnect.com/redbarn/joe2.jpg>
Plastic tubes and rib cages do not mix well.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:38 PM
joeschmoe22nd wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- there is work to be done.
-
- Don't you mean "people to kill"?

of course! what else do you do with terrorists?
oh yeah! you negotiate with them.............NOT!!
-
-- Should be more willing to help.
-
- Don't you mean "do as they're told"?

No I meant "help" or "get out of our way" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

Message Edited on 09/11/0311:39AM by Hornet57

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:15 PM
Tell me hornet, what percentage of the Iraqis killed, or who are currently being detained right now, are terrorists?

And what about the guys sitting in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? None of them have had a trial or anything. One of them was released because they realized he was innocent, after being there for over a year!

Killing them all and letting god sort them out is not the right thing to do, and if anything it makes the situation work. All it does is fuel the hatred.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:02 PM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Tell me hornet, what percentage of the Iraqis
- killed, or who are currently being detained right
- now, are terrorists?

No one will be able to give you that information on this board. Nor is that a relevant question. The war with Iraq was against the regime there, not terrorist groups. The fact that terrorists happen to be there only increases the number of targets we have to deal with.

- And what about the guys sitting in Guantanamo Bay,
- Cuba? None of them have had a trial or anything.

You're wrong. A number of them have faced tribunals.

- One of them was released because they realized he
- was innocent, after being there for over a year!

Far more than "one of them" have been released, and all after thorough investigations. There is a difference between being "innocent" and "acquitted."

- Killing them all and letting god sort them out is
- not the right thing to do, and if anything it makes
- the situation work. All it does is fuel the hatred.

No, it would not the make the situation worse [sic] if you do it right. However, while "kill them all and God will know his own" went out with the Crusades, killing all terrorists would certainly be a positive step.

Do you have a compelling argument for keeping terrorists alive?

"From books, we learn what can be done. To actually learn, we need to do those things."

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:57 PM
Cowanchicken wrote:

- Tell me hornet, what percentage of the Iraqis
- killed, or who are currently being detained right
- now, are terrorists?

Like Geist said, How would I or you know that.
But I could tell you one thing for sure....many of Saddam's military,including the Elite and the suicide brigade (well the suicide brigade killed themselves)are now dead if they didnt take our offer and surender from the beginning of the war.

- And what about the guys sitting in Guantanamo Bay,
- Cuba? None of them have had a trial or anything.
- One of them was released because they realized he
- was innocent, after being there for over a year!

and what about our 3000 inocent men and women that got executed? when did their trial start? what about their rights? If you are an American you have a pretty good chance of being on their "execute Americans" list.
Those in Cuba that are inocent will get to go back home. And those that are part of Al-Qaeda should get injected with
"Martyrdome Juice"

- Killing them all and letting god sort them out is
- not the right thing to do, and if anything it makes
- the situation work. All it does is fuel the hatred

If we kill them all,god willing there will be no terrorist around to hate us, unless the
rest of the world has a soft heart for the Terrorists, and I dont think that is true.
-
-
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:07 PM
Maybe for a new reality game show. People can call in and vote on how they would like to see the terrorist killed.
And contestants could compete in question and answer or physical challenge for the right to be the person pushing the button/pulling the trigger/driving the train/etc.
Put it on pay-per-view, make millions, lather, rinse, repeat./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"I'll take 'trampled by elephants' for 200, Alex"



http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:56 PM
what does aiaiaiaiaiaiaiai mean?

what a terrorist will say after 100k volts of electicity runs through his sorry ***.



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:40 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-- And what about the guys sitting in Guantanamo Bay,
-- Cuba? None of them have had a trial or anything.
-- One of them was released because they realized he
-- was innocent, after being there for over a year!
-
- and what about our 3000 inocent men and women that
- got executed? when did their trial start? what about
- their rights? If you are an American you have a
- pretty good chance of being on their "execute
- Americans" list.
- Those in Cuba that are inocent will get to go back
- home. And those that are part of Al-Qaeda should get
- injected with
- "Martyrdome Juice"

You don't seem to understand how justice works, Hornet. Until these guys have a trial they are still just suspects, regardless of how many people died 2 years ago. Innocent until proven guilty. It's not fair for the innocent ones to be kept there, without a trial, already serving a sentence for something they may have had no part of.


-- Killing them all and letting god sort them out is
-- not the right thing to do, and if anything it makes
-- the situation work. All it does is fuel the hatred
-
- If we kill them all,god willing there will be no
- terrorist around to hate us, unless the
- rest of the world has a soft heart for the
- Terrorists, and I dont think that is true.

Terrorists aren't the only people being killed. It's innocent civilians too.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 12:08 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- You don't seem to understand how justice works,
- Hornet. Until these guys have a trial they are
- still just suspects, regardless of how many people
- died 2 years ago. Innocent until proven guilty.
- It's not fair for the innocent ones to be kept
- there, without a trial, already serving a sentence
- for something they may have had no part of.

Actually, you don't seem to understand how "justice" works. What you described is not "justice," but a "justice system." While the two are hopefully interrellated, that is not necessaarily the case. In many cases, the latter has very little to do with the former. In other cases, one may simply be a formality for the other.

- Terrorists aren't the only people being killed.
- It's innocent civilians too.

And how do you propose to protect the innocent civilians from the terrorists?

"From books, we learn what can be done. To actually learn, we need to do those things."

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:05 AM
-MDS_Geist wrote:
- Actually, you don't seem to understand how "justice"
- works. What you described is not "justice," but a
- "justice system." While the two are hopefully
- interrellated, that is not necessaarily the case.
- In many cases, the latter has very little to do with
- the former. In other cases, one may simply be a
- formality for the other.

And since those suspects in Camp X Ray don't really fit in any justice system they are still kept on a small patch of an island, not represented by a lawyer, not charged with a crime and completely deprived of anything but the most rudimentary human rights.

No justice, no justice system.



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:09 AM
Leep wrote:
- Interesting, I suppose, but the relevancy completely
- escapes me.


Its simple .. there is none ..

MNG = Troll

http://www.bpclan.com/Images/dagosig%20copy.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:11 AM
buccaneer wrote:
--
- And since those suspects in Camp X Ray don't really
- fit in any justice system they are still kept on a
- small patch of an island, not represented by a
- lawyer, not charged with a crime and completely
- deprived of anything but the most rudimentary human
- rights.
-
- No justice, no justice system.

Look at it this way buc, they could have been dead instead of captured. If they are inocent they are at the very least protected from their own country's terrorists. If found guilty they will join their terrorist friends that are now enjoying down there beeing fed grapes from the virgins that Alah has provided for them.
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:24 AM
buccaneer wrote:
- And since those suspects in Camp X Ray don't really
- fit in any justice system they are still kept on a
- small patch of an island, not represented by a
- lawyer, not charged with a crime and completely
- deprived of anything but the most rudimentary human
- rights.

That is both inflammatory and erroneous. Many of them are enjoying decent food and shelter for the first time in their lives. Their religious freedoms are in no way being violated, and the schedule at the detention facilty (you do know that most of them are not at "Camp X-Ray" do you not?) is specifically set to accomodate prayer times for them. They have far more than "the most rudimentary human rights."

Further more, there is no difference on how "small" the patch of land is, a prison is a prison. They're being detained until further determinations are made regarding their status, and a number of them have been released.

- No justice, no justice system.

That's a purely subjective determination.

"From books, we learn what can be done. To actually learn, we need to do those things."

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:50 AM
Fyredawg wrote:
-
- Leep wrote:
-- Interesting, I suppose, but the relevancy completely
-- escapes me.
-
-
- Its simple .. there is none ..
-
- MNG = Troll
-

Mature of you. Hey Fyredawg, where are the weapons of mass destruction?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:52 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Mature of you. Hey Fyredawg, where are the weapons
- of mass destruction?

That's an easy one - Syria!

"From books, we learn what can be done. To actually learn, we need to do those things."

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:58 AM
Leep wrote:
- Interesting, I suppose, but the relevancy completely
- escapes me.


Let me fill you in /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

According to recent surveys of popular opinion average Americans apparently regard France (who had nothing to with 9/11) with greater animosity than they do the Saudis (who apparently had a lot to do with 9/11). Its remarkable really how angry Americans are with the French simply because they disagreed with the President. This isremarkable and a little disturbing considering that America is a nation built on the liberal principles of free discourse and debate - meaning the right and responsibility to question authority.

Now America appears to be regressing towards facism. I do think however that this is a emotional response to 9/11 and will not be a lasting trend, at least on the surface.

However this speaks volumes of the power of government propaganda which has convinced many that France is their enemy, the Saudis are their friends and Saddam was behind 9/11.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:02 AM
MNG, lets apply some cowboy logic on the Saddam issue shall we?

2+2 allways equals 4

water never runs uphill

and when ever there's smoke there's a fire somewhere.

Charlie Daniels 'Aint no rag'

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:14 AM
Geist wrote:
"(you do know that most of them are not at "Camp X-Ray" do you not?)"

Camp X-Ray is the popular one with the nifty name! Of course that has to be the ONLY one, let's chat about this, shall we? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MNG wrote:
"Mature of you. Hey Fyredawg, where are the weapons of mass destruction?"

Ooh ooh, Al Franken! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh wait, this isn't "guess that quote?" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif And I thought I won...

"Its remarkable really how angry Americans are with the French simply because they disagreed with the President."

Nah, I've hated the French long before this happened. I totally expected them to not cooperate. The oil contracts they had almost gave that one away...

"Now America appears to be regressing towards facism. I do think however that this is a emotional response to 9/11 and will not be a lasting trend, at least on the surface."

Yah, so when we were all backing Clinton it was different then right? Too bad all Clinton did was launching a few symbolic cruise missiles toward foreign tylenol factories instead of actually doing something to take care of the people who killed all the American soldiers in the middle-east at the time. Oh, let's not forget the people killed at the WTC bombing in 1993 while he was office too.

"However this speaks volumes of the power of government propaganda which has convinced many that France is their enemy, the Saudis are their friends and Saddam was behind 9/11."

Actually Bush's advisers urged him to strike at Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously while they were planning their war against the Taliban, but he refused it because he knew that effort had to be focused on the people directly involved. They will take care of the other countries who are indirectly involved by harboring and/or training terrorists, such as Iraq, unless you want to try to deny the terrorist training camps we found there. Also, Iraq has illegal weapons, and he most likely had chemical weapons, and the main reason why we are so sure of this, is because we were the ones that gave it to him a while back, it didn't just disappear, it must have went somewhere, whether they sold it or shipped it to Syria, or whatever, we still have to do something about it. About the illegal weapons, we already proved he had missiles that had a greater range than they were allowed to keep. Already good enough reasons to go to war with them in my opinion.

Buc wrote:
"Camp X Ray don't really fit in any justice system"

Well, we are not dealing with criminals here, if we were, the police would have them, not the military. terrorists fit into a whole new category, and I think these terrorists are actually being treated better than our prisoners, and I think we are being too lenient on them already! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:39 AM
-- Leep wrote:
--- Interesting, I suppose, but the relevancy completely
--- escapes me.
--
-
- Fyredawg wrote:
-- Its simple .. there is none ..
--
-- MNG = Troll
--
MisterNiceGuy wrote:


- Mature of you.


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Oh and you going about here with no other purpose other than to see what kind of stink you can stir up is? LMAO And who ever implied that I WAS / AM "mature" I sure as hell didn't I wear a funny hat and ride a big red truck every third day .. what kid dont want to do that? Heck I play computer games for fun. Maybe, I just call em like I see em. "Bud" your a troll. Now you dont have to take that to heart .. It can be just like water on a ducks back .. let it roll right off. But an ace is an ace a spade a spade.

- Hey Fyredawg, where are the weapons
- of mass destruction?

Probably hidden with all the UN sanctions that those morons complied with /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.bpclan.com/Images/dagosig%20copy.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 11:08 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:

- That is both inflammatory and erroneous. Many of
- them are enjoying decent food and shelter for the
- first time in their lives. Their religious freedoms
- are in no way being violated, and the schedule at
- the detention facilty (you do know that most of them
- are not at "Camp X-Ray" do you not?) is specifically
- set to accomodate prayer times for them. They have
- far more than "the most rudimentary human rights."

So to you food, shelter and prayer are far more than the the most rudimentary human rights?

Take away the prayer and you are left with nothing than a animal in a zoo. Take away the food and shelter and you die. It doesn't get more rudimental than this.

They are also deprived of any legal representation. So no justice. Subjective determination or not, various Lawyer Comitees (US and worldwide) and the geneva convetion seem to agree with me.



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:19 PM
buccaneer wrote:
- So to you food, shelter and prayer are far more than
- the the most rudimentary human rights?

"Rudimentary human rights" would be a smock, a cave and some raw meat. They're getting far more than that. Furthermore, they also have access to imams (who aren't telling them that they have to die to make allah happy), full and complete health care and other things that have been unknown to them.

- Take away the prayer and you are left with nothing
- than a animal in a zoo. Take away the food and
- shelter and you die. It doesn't get more rudimental
- than this.

Hardly the case. They are not animals in a zoos and are being treated well. Whether or not they even deserve that much is another issue entirely. However, they are certainly not on display and are not there for people's amusement. Your zoo analogy fails.

- They are also deprived of any legal representation.
- So no justice. Subjective determination or not,
- various Lawyer Comitees (US and worldwide) and the
- geneva convetion seem to agree with me.

No, the Geneva Convention does not address this. Your interpretation of it may, but that is hardly binding or relevant. Again, justice is subjective and relative. You're making a value judgement. Last time I checked, legal representation was a characteristic of justice systems and not justice itself. Again, a relative issue that appear to be trying to portray as an absolute.

"From books, we learn what can be done. To actually learn, we need to do those things."

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:06 PM
Well, here's example of the "Justice System" currently operating in Iraq. This is a pretty common story.

Disappearing" Iraqis
Why Are So Many Citizens Arrested and Detained by the American Occupying Force?
Story by Rich Miller


Article Posted Wednesday, September 10 2003 ~ 10:01am

Editor's note: This is the second in a series of articles being filed from Iraq by River Cities' Reader political columnist and Chicago-based journalist Rich Miller. Last week's story can be found at ( http://www.rcreader.com).

The American soldiers smashed through 68-year-old Ali Ahmed's door at 2:30 in the morning.

According to Ali, the Americans roughed up one of his four sons who had gone downstairs to see what all the commotion was about. Then they handcuffed everyone except his wife and 12-year-old boy.

The soldiers ransacked their tiny apartment, took what little money they had, and finally hauled Ali and three of his sons off to what was formerly known as Saddam Hussein's presidential palace, a sprawling compound not far from Ali's home.

For the next month, Ali essentially disappeared from the face of the earth. His wife and young son, Hassan, tried desperately to find him, but without success. There were no phone calls, no letters, no hints of whether he was alive or dead or would ever be returning home.

A few weeks after finally being released, Ali, a carpenter by trade, sat in his sweltering apartment above a ramshackle store in a rundown Baghdad neighborhood and offered flat Pepsi to two visitors who had come to hear his bizarre but all-too-common story.

The living-room wall behind him was badly cracked and, except for a garish red and gold clock in the shape of a rooster, completely bare. He has not been able to work since his ordeal, exhausted by the physical and mental stress, and anguished that three of his sons are still somewhere in U.S. custody.

Ali said he was handcuffed for four days at the palace while sitting in the blistering heat with his sons. He was never told why he was arrested, was interrogated only once, on the first day, and asked just two questions: "What is your name?" and "Do you have any enemies?" He said he has no idea why he was asked if he had any enemies, and claims he has none.

Ali and his sons were eventually moved to the Baghdad soccer stadium, where they stayed for more than a week with about 30 other prisoners in an abandoned storeroom. The water, no longer warm as it was at the palace, was still tepid, but their handcuffs were finally removed.

A week later, they were transferred to the Baghdad International Airport, where U.S. forces have constructed a makeshift prison. Ali and two of his sons were put in a tent with about 50 other prisoners. The third son, Omar, who sold pottery from a little stand in front of the stairs leading up to the family apartment, was taken away. Ali's tent shared just two latrines with five other tents. The filth, he said, was overwhelming.

A diabetic, Ali finally collapsed from the stress and lack of medicine. Unable to speak or even stand, he was hospitalized and treated for severe dehydration and given drugs for his illness. (Ali showed me prescriptions from an American military hospital at the airport.)

After six days, Ali recovered and was moved to the notorious Abu Graeb prison, about 45 minutes from Baghdad. Again, he was put into a tent with about 40 other prisoners. But this time his sons were not transferred with him.

Eleven days after arriving at Abu Graeb, Ali was told he would leave the following morning. He had, by then, been in custody for almost a month. But he says he was never allowed any contact with the outside world, and was never told why he was arrested. His prisoner identification card, assigned to him soon after he was detained, gives the reason for his arrest as "Baath Party," in English, not Arabic.

A longtime family friend insists, however, that Ali has never been even remotely politically involved. And even if he was, prior membership in the Baath Party by a poor carpenter is not in and of itself a crime. The friend, who was outraged at the arrests, also insisted that the family has never been in any sort of trouble with the law.

Ali's wife, Lemiah Ibrahim, said she was rebuffed by the local police about her husband's whereabouts and ran into a brick wall at the Red Cross, but never approached the American military because, she said, she was too afraid.

"Why would she be afraid of us?" asked one relatively high-level official with the Coalition Provisional Authority's media office when he was told this story. The official seemed sincere, but the maddening ignorance of his question illustrated a growing worry here in Iraq that the Americans have no idea how they are perceived by ordinary Iraqis.

According to numerous aid workers and local and international activists, Ali's abduction story is far from rare. The Americans, criticized throughout the world for not providing enough security for the people of Iraq, have detained thousands of people without formally charging them, at least hundreds for undefined political crimes.

"What they're doing is completely stupid," snapped one experienced private security worker recently. "They don't provide enough security generally, and the few times they do they go all the way overboard."

"They've occupied all of Saddam's palaces, so maybe that has caused them to act like him," suggested one Iraqi, who pointed out that the ousted dictator regularly arrested people in the middle of the night and whisked them away without informing anyone why they were detained, where they were, or if they were ever coming home again.

The Americans bristle at the suggestion that they are "disappearing" Iraqi citizens, and claim that one reason prisoners' families have not been able to find their loved ones is because the American tracking system could not cope with the various English spellings of the detainees' Arabic names. The system is fixed now, they say, and the families should be able to locate at least some of their relatives. But other detainees, and the Americans won't say who those are or how many they might be, will remain in an informational black hole.

American soldiers guarding the Abu Graeb prison, the final stop on Ali's journey, said the facility could not provide any information about Ali's former status. A large sign near them warned Iraqis that they would not be allowed to visit prisoners and that there was not any means of finding information about inmates.

"You'll have to contact 'Seemah,'" said one of the soldiers. When asked what "Seemah" was, and where it was, the soldier said he had no idea.

It turns out "Seemah" is the Civilian Military Affairs unit, or CMA. The CMA is where the Americans keep the computerized list of Iraqi prisoners. But if Americans guarding one of the country's main prisons don't even know what "Seemah" is, it's doubtful that many Iraqis do, either.

As for the conditions of Ali's confinement, an American military spokesperson said prisoners are "treated as human beings and given all comforts."

As of yet, there is no judicial system in Iraq, so there are absolutely zero checks and balances on the powers of American troops and the Iraqi police. A spokesperson for the U.S. military said there is no timetable for getting the judiciary up and running.

Asked why he thinks he and his sons were arrested, Ali is completely at a loss. The only thing he can think of, he said, was that after the local Muslim immam asked the neighborhood to turn in the looters who had decimated the area, his son Omar informed on a few of the worst characters. Perhaps, Ali said, the looters took their revenge by fingering his family to the Americans.




http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:13 PM
Demon_Mustang wrote:

- Actually Bush's advisers urged him to strike at
- Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously while they were
- planning their war against the Taliban, but he
- refused it because he knew that effort had to be
- focused on the people directly involved. They will
- take care of the other countries who are indirectly
- involved by harboring and/or training terrorists,
- such as Iraq, unless you want to try to deny the
- terrorist training camps we found there. Also, Iraq
- has illegal weapons, and he most likely had chemical
- weapons, and the main reason why we are so sure of
- this, is because we were the ones that gave it to
- him a while back, it didn't just disappear, it must
- have went somewhere, whether they sold it or shipped
- it to Syria, or whatever, we still have to do
- something about it. About the illegal weapons, we
- already proved he had missiles that had a greater
- range than they were allowed to keep. Already good
- enough reasons to go to war with them in my opinion.

OK quickly then:

*The terrorist training camp had nothing to do with Saddam.
*No evidence of WMD has been found in Iraq.
*The missles were virtually useless anyway. Their most devastating effect was to slightly damage a Kuwaitee shopping mall.
*If these are good reasons then you are well on your way to being a Stalinist. Congratulations comrade!



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:30 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- OK quickly then:
-
- *The terrorist training camp had nothing to do with
- Saddam.

If the training camps where on Iraqi soil(and they where), you bet your turben it has to do with Saddam.

- *No evidence of WMD has been found in Iraq.

*This is getting tiring*, the search has not ended as of yet.

- *The missles were virtually useless anyway. Their
- most devastating effect was to slightly damage a
- Kuwaitee shopping mall.

Thats probably because they missed but the intent was there.

- *If these are good reasons then you are well on your
- way to being a Stalinist. Congratulations comrade!

If you believe what your saying then you are on your way to being an Iraqi information minister. Sorry but it looks like you are out of a job. That position has been termninated. Ok back into just being dilusional.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:18 PM
MDS_Geist wrote:
- No, the Geneva Convention does not address this.
- Your interpretation of it may, but that is hardly
- binding or relevant. Again, justice is subjective
- and relative.

The reason why the Geneva Convention does not address this is because the US made sure to keep them somewhere where they do not fit any justice system. According to US law, these prisoners couldn't have been kept like this on American soil. Bringing them outside US sovereign territory (which may legally correct but a joke nevertheless) is nothing but bypassing international and US domestic law.

- You're making a value judgement.
- Last time I checked, legal representation was a
- characteristic of justice systems and not justice
- itself. Again, a relative issue that appear to be
- trying to portray as an absolute.

I'm not trying to portray anything as an absolute. Without legal representation for the accused you cease to have a working justice system. And without legal representatation you don't have an effective way to determine whether an accused person is quilty or not.

But then a again, quilty of what? These people haven't been charged of any crime yet.




<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>


Message Edited on 09/12/0304:20PM by buccaneer

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:06 PM
Hornet57 wrote:

-- *No evidence of WMD has been found in Iraq.
-
- *This is getting tiring*, the search has not ended
- as of yet.

Well then take a break /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You'll find God a long time before you find WMD.


-- *If these are good reasons then you are well on your
-- way to being a Stalinist. Congratulations comrade!
-
- If you believe what your saying then you are on your
- way to being an Iraqi information minister. Sorry
- but it looks like you are out of a job. That
- position has been termninated. Ok back into just
- being dilusional.

I didn't use the term loosely. The standard of proof that you and Demon display for the existence of WMD in Iraq is similar to that standard which Stalin displayed in the trial of Bakunin. It is also apparently the standard used to hold Iraqi civilians without charge.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 06:31 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- I didn't use the term loosely. The standard of
- proof that you and Demon display for the existence
- of WMD in Iraq is similar to that standard which
- Stalin displayed in the trial of Bakunin. It is
- also apparently the standard used to hold Iraqi
- civilians without charge.

Some of those civilians could be part of the Baath Party loyalists, so it beats getting our guys blown up every day.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 07:05 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
-- I didn't use the term loosely. The standard of
-- proof that you and Demon display for the existence
-- of WMD in Iraq is similar to that standard which
-- Stalin displayed in the trial of Bakunin. It is
-- also apparently the standard used to hold Iraqi
-- civilians without charge.
-
- Some of those civilians could be part of the Baath
- Party loyalists, so it beats getting our guys blown
- up every day.

Well it doesn't because our guys are still getting blown up every day.

Hard to see what threat a 73 year old man poses to the US military.

But maybe we should apply that same logic to the US. Maybe we should turn the entire country into a prison camp. That way everyone would be safe from criminals.




http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 07:24 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
--
- Well it doesn't because our guys are still getting
- blown up every day.

Imagine how many of our soldiers would be getting killed if we didnt take these measures. You dont think by doing this we would be able to find more Saddam Loyalists?
-
- Hard to see what threat a 73 year old man poses to
- the US military.

A 73 year old man can easily pass information to our enemy or even let "someone" hide explosieves or weapons on his property.
-
- But maybe we should apply that same logic to the US.
- Maybe we should turn the entire country into a
- prison camp. That way everyone would be safe from
- criminals.

I must be confusing you for someone that makes sense.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.
- jpg">
-
- <center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
- <style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap
- lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is
- attacked, and every man will be glad of those
- conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently
- study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of
- them; and thus he will by and by convince himself
- that the war is just, and will thank God for the
- better sleep he enjoys after this process of
- grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font
- color="red"><font size="2"
- style="Verdana"><center><marquee>
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:21 PM
MNG wrote:
"The terrorist training camp had nothing to do with Saddam."

Uhhhhh, did we NOT make it perfectly clear that a nation that willingly harbors them will be treated as terrorists themselves? Saddam knew they were there and didn't do a damn thing about it because they both have a common enemy. Hm, I'm almost sure this was gone over many times before.

"No evidence of WMD has been found in Iraq."

Our intelligence was derived from defectors from Iraq who told us they still pssessed much of the WMD that WE GAVE THEM. Also, records of them being destroyed were absent. So basically, here are the facts. We KNOW they had some to start out with, because we gave it to them, they didn't simply evaporate, he is unable to provide any record or proof that they were destroyed, and then high-ranking defectors confirm to us that he has them, what other conclusion would you draw from this? The fact still remains, there is no evidence he had destroyed them, so they had to have went somewhere. If they are buried in a random point out in the desert, we are NOT going to stumble upon it. If he shipped them out of the country, we are NOT going to stumble upon it. There are many ways that they can still have them without us finding them simply by looking underneath his rugs in his palaces. I can hide a huge stash of weapons in California, and they can send in an army and I bet they won't find it unless someone snitches on me. That doesn't mean it's not there.

"The missles were virtually useless anyway. Their most devastating effect was to slightly damage a Kuwaitee shopping mall."

Oh what an excuse, you should work for them. The fact is, they are not allowed to have them, they had them. If you're in elementary school, and slingshots are not allowed in school, but you built your own that can still sling things, but not very accurately, should the dean just go, "well, this is useless anyway, let him keep it."

Yep, sure.

In fact, almost any weapon would be useless in the hands of the Iraqis, so we might as well give them everything they want. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"If these are good reasons then you are well on your way to being a Stalinist. Congratulations comrade!"

Oh yes, this will scare us to believe in your side, just mention Stalin or the Nazis, and people will cower in fear of being associated with them. So only Stalin would destroy an evil regime? Damn, so what did the civilized world do? Destroy civilized regimes??

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:24 PM
Ok MNG, I can expect more smartass comments to respond to all that, so let's stop being all logical and all that, and keep it simple. If you like, you can simply address this simple question. We KNOW they had the WMD to begin with, this is a FACT because WE GAVE IT TO THEM. So tell me, since they cannot provide proof or even record of their destruction, where did they go? Did they leave it out too long and it all evaporated? Oops, someone's going to get fired. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:43 PM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Ok MNG, I can expect more smartass comments to
- respond to all that, so let's stop being all logical
- and all that, and keep it simple. If you like, you
- can simply address this simple question. We KNOW
- they had the WMD to begin with, this is a FACT
- because WE GAVE IT TO THEM. So tell me, since they
- cannot provide proof or even record of their
- destruction, where did they go? Did they leave it
- out too long and it all evaporated? Oops, someone's
- going to get fired.

Once again Stalinistic reasoning comes to your rescue (or is Orwellian?). The lack of evidence is evidence of a crime.

Sometimes I find your simplistic reasoning almost too frustrating to take the time to bother responding. The fact is, for you, belief in Iraq's WMD is an article of faith, like belief in God. However this is one God we know no longer exists.

I tell you what Demon, lets try a little game. Why don't you try and come up with your own objections to the argument you just made and see if you can articulate your way out of your confused, delusional little maze.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:20 PM
Demon_Mustang wrote:

- Oh yes, this will scare us to believe in your side,
- just mention Stalin or the Nazis, and people will
- cower in fear of being associated with them. So only
- Stalin would destroy an evil regime? Damn, so what
- did the civilized world do? Destroy civilized
- regimes??

By calling us Stalins and Hitlers Demon,they are trying to get us mad like they get when we call them Liberals. But the difference is, we have a good reason to call them Liberals./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:47 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- If the training camps where on Iraqi soil(and they
- where), you bet your turben it has to do with
- Saddam.

So by this logic if there is a crackhouse on US soil, the president has something to do with it?

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:56 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- By calling us Stalins and Hitlers Demon,they are
- trying to get us mad like they get when we call them
- Liberals. But the difference is, we have a good
- reason to call them Liberals.


Go ahead and call people liberals. It just shows a rather dumb philosophy that many people have.

The world consists of two kinds of people, republicans, and liberals. I am (republican/liberal) therefore anyone who is (republican/liberal) is stupid.

Brilliant.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:58 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- If the training camps where on Iraqi soil(and they
-- where), you bet your turben it has to do with
-- Saddam.
-
- So by this logic if there is a crackhouse on US
- soil, the president has something to do with it?

Well not quite. But did you know that if some happens to be walking past your house smoking a joint and they toss said joint onto your front lawn, the DEA could seize your property on the presumption that you are a drug lord? So you see the government is merely being consistent in applying the same perverse logic to Iraq.

As for Liberals... tsk, tsk, Hornet and Demon you lads really need to do some reading. The United States is by definition a Liberal country since it was founded on the Liberal principles of the Enlightenment. The way you guys criticize Liberals you actually come off sounding like Socialists (or Stalinists whatever...).

But lets be honest - you guys really don't know the difference between a Liberal, a Republican or a Socialist do you?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 01:34 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- If the training camps where on Iraqi soil(and they
-- where), you bet your turben it has to do with
-- Saddam.
-
- So by this logic if there is a crackhouse on US
- soil, the president has something to do with it?

Maybe with your logic yes, but here in the US the Law Inforcement is closing the crackhouses not the president.
But if you believe that Saddam didn't know that there are terrorist camps on his country, Then you probably believe that Saddam was the Village idiot....and I understand how much respect you have for him and all.
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 01:44 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Hornet57 wrote:
-- By calling us Stalins and Hitlers Demon,they are
-- trying to get us mad like they get when we call them
-- Liberals. But the difference is, we have a good
-- reason to call them Liberals.
-
-
- Go ahead and call people liberals. It just shows a
- rather dumb philosophy that many people have.
-
- The world consists of two kinds of people,
- republicans, and liberals. I am
- (republican/liberal) therefore anyone who is
- (republican/liberal) is stupid.

Did I say Liberals are stupid? you said it not me,
I simply believe that Liberals are people that see a problem and they say what should be done.....Republicans are people that solve the problem.
You can be brilliant, sharp as a rasor but unless you take action you might as well be a sleep.

If you are republican/liberal means you are not sure yet of what you are. Work on it and get back

- Brilliant.

Not really, but I'm glad you think so./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-
-
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 02:07 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
- Well not quite. But did you know that if some
- happens to be walking past your house smoking a
- joint and they toss said joint onto your front lawn,
- the DEA could seize your property on the presumption
- that you are a drug lord? So you see the government
- is merely being consistent in applying the same
- perverse logic to Iraq.

MNG, I was born at night......but not last night my friend.
Those terrorist camps and the Jetliner to practice Highjackings are not equivelant to a joint. It's not like they found one terrorist sympathizer. And as for the DEA presuming you are a drug lord because someone threw a joint outside on your property sounds like spring cleaning at your barn....and as we all know you raise bulls.

Now let me tell you what does make sense. Drug sales on your property. DEA has a pretty good Idea you are a drug dealer. Which by the way would be equal to a small terrorist camp .
-
- As for Liberals... tsk, tsk, Hornet and Demon you
- lads really need to do some reading. The United
- States is by definition a Liberal country since it
- was founded on the Liberal principles of the
- Enlightenment. The way you guys criticize Liberals
- you actually come off sounding like Socialists (or
- Stalinists whatever...)

But lets be honest - you guys really don't know the
- difference between a Liberal, a Republican or a
- Socialist do you?

Put your dictionary away MNG, You know what a new wave Liberal is all about dont you?
France started out agreeing with us that it was the right thing to do when we liberate them from the Germans, that was what 50 years ago?
Liberals change too.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:18 AM
People can't be separated into two groups. It doesn't work that way. One guy might be for the war in Iraq and pro gun control and pro-choice. Then next guy might be anti-abortion and against the war in Iraq... you can't put them in either category.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:41 AM
MNG wrote:
"Once again Stalinistic reasoning comes to your rescue (or is Orwellian?). The lack of evidence is evidence of a crime."

Blah blah blah, stop patronizing people like you think you're so intelligent. You are still dodging the obvious. We KNOW they had it because WE GAVE IT TO THEM. How can you deny that? If you gave someone something yourself, why would you question yourself if they actually have it????

Answer that simple question please. I see you took me up in only addressing that if you wanted to dodge everything else, good for you, except you dodged the main concept of even that simplified version, geez.

Of course, your excuse is that it's MY fault you're dodging it because I simply don't have the massive mental intellect you do so you feel all belittled to answer my question. Please, get over yourself and answer it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif If you can wear down a mirror by looking into it, I bet yours is just a hole in the wall.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 04:02 AM
Tsk tsk MNG, and you should know these definitions change every now and then. Not the ideals themselves, but the political parties, and by liberal, we're talking current political, "left-wing" whatever, or marxists if you want to go far left enough. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:34 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:

- Go ahead and call people liberals. It just shows a
- rather dumb philosophy that many people have.
-
- The world consists of two kinds of people,
- republicans, and liberals. I am
- (republican/liberal) therefore anyone who is
- (republican/liberal) is stupid.
-
- Brilliant.

You just made me laugh out loud. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And saved me a lot of typing.

Cow, are you sure you're just 16??



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:37 AM
Hey, I call people liberal not to call them stupid, a fact is a fact, if you want to associate liberal with stupid, that's your problem. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Edit: Yah, HUGE surprise that Buc will support you, haha. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

Message Edited on 09/13/0312:37AM by Demon_Mustang

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:38 AM
buccaneer wrote:
- Cow, are you sure you're just 16??

17.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:39 AM
Its an odd world, liberals in Holland are considered to be right wing.

Makes you wonder about our left wing, doesn't it? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:41 AM
No Demon, it's pretty obvious that you think liberal means stupid. Otherwise you're just stating the obvious.


Yes, some of my political standpoints are the same as some people who call themselves liberal.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:44 AM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Edit: Yah, HUGE surprise that Buc will support you,
- haha.

Its no suprise. If you examine my posts thoroughly you will find that I support all the intelligent people on this board. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:46 AM
lol, alright buc. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:06 AM
Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
-- Well not quite. But did you know that if some
-- happens to be walking past your house smoking a
-- joint and they toss said joint onto your front lawn,
-- the DEA could seize your property on the presumption
-- that you are a drug lord? So you see the government
-- is merely being consistent in applying the same
-- perverse logic to Iraq.
-
- MNG, I was born at night......but not last night my
- friend.
- Those terrorist camps and the Jetliner to practice
- Highjackings are not equivelant to a joint. It's not
- like they found one terrorist sympathizer. And as
- for the DEA presuming you are a drug lord because
- someone threw a joint outside on your property
- buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz.....

It has already happened. I'll have to look up the specific cases but drugs don't even have to be involved. Deposit an unusually large amount of cash at the bank and expect a call from the government.

- But lets be honest - you guys really don't know
- the
-
-- difference between a Liberal, a Republican or a
-- Socialist do you?
-
- Put your dictionary away MNG, You know what a new
- wave Liberal is all about dont you?
- France started out agreeing with us that it was the
- right thing to do when we liberate them from the
- Germans, that was what 50 years ago?
- Liberals change too.

Fine I'll help you out. The Liberal philosophy of government is a philosophy of laissez-faire limited government with firm respect for property rights. Those you call Liberals are actually Social Democrats - not at all the same thing. Both Republicans and Democrats are Social Democrats - the only difference is that the Republicans are better at being Socialists than the Democrats IMP.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:13 AM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- MNG wrote:
- "Once again Stalinistic reasoning comes to your
- rescue (or is Orwellian?). The lack of evidence is
- evidence of a crime."
-
- Blah blah blah, stop patronizing people like you
- think you're so intelligent. You are still dodging
- the obvious. We KNOW they had it because WE GAVE IT
- TO THEM. How can you deny that? If you gave someone
- something yourself, why would you question yourself
- if they actually have it????
-
- Answer that simple question please. I see you took
- me up in only addressing that if you wanted to dodge
- everything else, good for you, except you dodged the
- main concept of even that simplified version, geez.
-
- Of course, your excuse is that it's MY fault you're
- dodging it because I simply don't have the massive
- mental intellect you do so you feel all belittled to
- answer my question. Please, get over yourself and
- answer it!

Whats the point? I could show you a signed statement from God saying that there were no WMD and it still wouldn't be good enough. I cannot prove you wrong because the lack of proof of the existence of WMD is for you, proof that they do exist. They are just well hidden. I cannot convince a madman that he is mad because from his demented perspective he is rational and everyone else is insane.

Again your reasoning is simple. Just because you gave something to someone does not mean that they still have it. Surely I shouldn't have to explain such a basic idea to you Demon.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:38 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
- Whats the point? I could show you a signed
- statement from God saying that there were no WMD and
- it still wouldn't be good enough.

Well let me interupt here a minute....How exactly we would know its a real signature of god? hmmm? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I cannot prove
- you wrong because the lack of proof of the existence
- of WMD is for you, proof that they do exist.
- They are just well hidden. I cannot convince
- a madman that he is mad because from his demented
- perspective he is rational and everyone else is
- insane.

Since we all know he is a madman we don't need to convince him of anything, because he is a Madman...
-
- Again your reasoning is simple. Just because you
- gave something to someone does not mean that they
- still have it. Surely I shouldn't have to explain
- such a basic idea to you Demon.

Its not like we gave him a ratchet wrench and he lost it MNG, If he got rid of them he should show proof of their distruction. Since he already violated 18 resolutions he is the one that needs to come up with proof.
We just have to solve the puzzle. Which you agree is not an easy task.

I still don't get as to why you guys are standing up for Saddam's Regiem?

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:26 AM
Well, we gave them tons of this crap, and it just all "disappeared?" You're stupid to just take their word on it, even IF they don't still have it, they did SOMETHING with it, which is most likely given or sold to one of the neighboring countries, either way, this was against our agreement.

You're just quick to take their side and take their word that they destroyed them. Oh yes, back anyone who's against us. I guess that's how it works now...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:35 PM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Well, we gave them tons of this crap, and it just
- all "disappeared?" You're stupid to just take their
- word on it, even IF they don't still have it, they
- did SOMETHING with it, which is most likely given or
- sold to one of the neighboring countries, either
- way, this was against our agreement.
-
- You're just quick to take their side and take their
- word that they destroyed them. Oh yes, back anyone
- who's against us. I guess that's how it works now...

We did not give them tons of the stuff and that is one of the fundamental errors of your argument. We gave them knowhow and the chemical/biological building blocks to create their own arsenal. We do not truly know how much of the stuff they created.

In a Stalinist regime such as Saddam's record keeping is shoddy and politicized as analysts fudge the numbers in order to make the targets. Therefore, the regime probably did not know how much CBW it had made either.

In any case, the proof is in the pudding. The US investigation team is about to report no evidence of a CBW arsenal.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:41 PM
Demon, Hornet please see the following articles:

http://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?id=9A041FEC-0ED6-4863-931C-AD88EE5FC1AC

"Speaking on CNN, Hans Blix said the facts presented by Iraq in the dossier may have been accurate. "With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991, may well be the truth," he said.

The retired Swedish diplomat, who headed the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission for Iraq, has become increasingly outspoken since stepping down from his post.

His inspectors worked in Iraq for 3 1/2 months in late 2002 and early 2003 and "did not find any smoking gun." This was a disappointment to senior U.S. officials, including Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor."

'U.S. and British experts searching in Iraq since Saddam's fall have yet to turn up any of the weapons, he noted. "I cannot fail to notice that some of the things that they expected us to see, that they have turned out not to be real weapons of mass destruction."

Other weapons inspectors suggest the "unaccountables" may have been no more than incomplete paperwork that failed to note destruction of banned chemical and biological weapons years ago.

Some may represent miscounts, while others could stem from employees' efforts to satisfy the boss by exaggerating reports on arms output in the 1980s.

"Under that sort of regime, you don't admit you got it wrong," Ron Manley of Britain, a former chief UN advisor on chemical weapons, said on the weekend.

His encounters with Iraqi scientists in the 1990s convinced him that when they were told to produce a certain amount of a weapons agent, "they wrote down what their superiors wanted to hear, instead of the reality."'

And:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/965905.asp?vts=091320030820&cp1=1

' THE HUNT for weapons of mass destruction, so far, has been a bust. Intelligence officials told NBC News there is no smoking gun. They thought they'd discovered a biological weapons lab, but it wasn't one.
A massive CIA investigation, led by former U.N. weapons inspector Kay, is turning up only what former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein planned - not what he produced.
"He's not finding the kinds of things the administration expected to find - large quantities of biological and chemical weapons or evidence that they were destroyed prior to the war," said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector.'


The evidence is insurmountable. You gentlemen may as well cease your pointless arguments and accept the truth



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:43 PM
MNG, finding no proof of weapons yet, does NOT mean there are or where no weapons. I dont think I said that the weapons are definetly still in Iraq, therefore the search is still in progress and we are still fighting sneak attacks. So wipe away you silly grin and wait.

P.S WMD's or not Saddam's Regiem had to go in anycase.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

Message Edited on 09/15/0305:46PM by Hornet57

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:55 PM
Hornet57 wrote:
- MNG, finding no proof of weapons yet, does NOT mean
- there are or where no weapons. I dont think I said
- that the weapons are definetly still in Iraq,
- therefore the search is still in progress and we are
- still fighting sneak attacks. So wipe away you silly
- grin and wait.

Lies. The government already said they would find proof and that the place was stacked top to bottom with WMD's.

- P.S WMD's or not Saddam's Regiem had to go in
- anycase.

Why not 20 years ago? Oh, that's right, the US already had economic transactions going on.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:04 PM
Basically, as long as he can assume they simply don't have it, he will. So why bother arguing. They could have picked a spot in the desert and just buried it, or shipped it to another country. Either way, no matter how much we search, we're most likely not going to find it. Just like trying to find a stash of weapons or chemicals hidden in some random point in California, you're just not going to be able to cover every square inch of the state, so you're not going to find it. The only way they will find it is through information given by someone who knows. That's basically how we concluded they had it in the first place, by accounts by seceral defectors.

Not only that, we already have enough confirmed information that would support us going in. Any violation of the agreements signed by Saddam Dodo himself must not go unpunished, or he can simply break every other rule without fear. Everytime I try to mention the missiles we did find, which goes against this, I hear the same excuses, "Oh, but they're inaccurate anyway, who cares?"

Right...

Also MNG, I personally know someone in the DoD, not someone who shares "top secret" information with me and I don't claim to know any, but it's no secret that we gave it to them, and he didn't hesitate to admit it too. So I'll pass on reading some article written by someone who doesn't know. Thanks anyway.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:15 PM
Cowanchicken wrote:
-
- Lies. The government already said they would find
- proof and that the place was stacked top to bottom
- with WMD's.

yeah and Saddam was busy hiding them, while playing hide n go seek with the UN inspectors.
-
-- P.S WMD's or not Saddam's Regiem had to go in
-- anycase.
-
- Why not 20 years ago? Oh, that's right, the US
- already had economic transactions going on.

20 years ago we didnt know what we know now, imagine what the UN would have said then. They see what a mad man Saddam was and still dont find it nesseseary to Liberate Iraq.



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 02:23 PM
Just on the offchance that anybody has any kind of interest in the truth.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0307/wmdhunt.html

p.s. did you know a guy in California has just been sent down for 12 years using the reinforced post-911 anti-terrorism laws. He was in posession of WMD, according to the court.

He was arrested because he had a pipebomb on his own property..... go figure.



The Great WMD Hunt
The media knew they were there--but where are they?
By Seth Ackerman

By the time the war against Iraq began, much of the media had been conditioned to believe, almost as an article of faith, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was bulging with chemical and biological weapons, despite years of United Nations inspections. Reporters dispensed with the formality of applying modifiers like "alleged" or "suspected" to Iraq's supposed unconventional weapon stocks. Instead, they asked "what precise threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America" (NBC Nightly News, 1/27/03). They wrote matter-of-factly of Washington's plans for a confrontation "over Iraq's banned weapons programs" (Washington Post, 1/27/03). And they referred to debates over whether Saddam Hussein was "making a good-faith effort to disarm Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" (Time, 2/3/03).

All of this came despite repeated reminders from the chief U.N. weapons inspector that it was his job to determine if Iraq was hiding weapons, and that it should not simply be assumed that Iraq was doing so.

So with much of southern Iraq in the hands of coalition forces by the weekend after the opening of hostilities, reporters naturally started asking where the weapons were: "Bush administration officials were peppered yesterday with questions about why allied forces in Iraq have not found any of the chemical or biological weapons that were President Bush's central justification for forcibly disarming Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government," the Washington Post reported (3/23/03).

Miraculously, the answer seemed to come that Sunday night (3/23/03), when military officials told the media of a "chemical facility" found in the southern town of Najaf. "Bob, as you know, there's a lot of talk right now about a chemical cache that has been found at a chemical facility," MSNBC anchor Forrest Sawyer told White House correspondent Bob Kur. "I underscore, we do not know what the chemicals are, but it sure has gotten spread around fast."

It sure had. Over on Fox News Channel (3/23/03), the headline banners were already rolling: "HUGE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY FOUND IN SO IRAQ.... REPORTS: 30 IRAQIS SURRENDER AT CHEM WEAPONS PLANT.... COAL TROOPS HOLDING IRAQI IN CHARGE OF CHEM WEAPONS." The Jerusalem Post, whose embedded reporter helped break the story along with a Fox correspondent, announced in a front-page headline (3/24/03), "U.S. Troops Capture First Chemical Plant."

The next day (10/24/03), a Fox correspondent in Qatar quietly issued an update to the

story: The "chemical weapons facility discovered by coalition forces did not appear to be an active chemical weapons facility." Further testing was required. In fact, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long ago (Dow Jones wire, 3/24/03).

"First solid confirmed existence"

So went the weapons hunt. On numerous occasions, the discovery of a stash of illegal Iraqi arms was loudly announced--often accompanied by an orgy of triumphalist off-the-cuff punditry--only to be deflated inconspicuously, and in a lower tone of voice, until the next false alarm was sounded. In one episode, embedded NPR reporter John Burnett (4/7/03) recounted the big news he'd learned from a "top military official": "the first solid confirmed existence of chemical weapons by the Iraqi army." According to Burnett, an army unit near Baghdad had discovered "20 BM-21 medium-range rockets with warheads containing sarin nerve gas and mustard gas."

When NPR Morning Edition anchor Susan Stamberg asked Burnett, "So this is really a major discovery, isn't it?" he assented: "If it turns out to be true, the commander told us this morning this would be a smoking gun. This would vindicate the administration's claims that the Iraqis had chemicals all along." Of course, it turned out not to be true. A Pentagon official, Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told reporters the next day (4/8/03) that he had "seen nothing in official reports that would corroborate that."

On April 26, ABC World News Tonight blared an "exclusive" report: "U.S. troops discover chemical agents, missiles and what could be a mobile laboratory in Iraq." Correspondent David Wright explained that the Army soldiers had found "14 55-gallon drums, at least a dozen missiles and 150 gas masks" testing positive for chemical weapons, including a nerve agent and a blistering agent. He added that an Army lieutenant "says the tests have an accuracy of 98 percent."

Perhaps somewhat self-consciously, ABC followed Wright's report with a short segment about previous weapons claims that turned out to be false alarms. But the network continued to pump the story the next day, with anchor Carole Simpson introducing it as the lead segment on World News Sunday (4/27/03): "For the second day in a row, some of the preliminary tests have come back positive for chemical agents."

But when the U.S. Mobile Exploration Team (MET Bravo) arrived on the scene to conduct its own tests, it "tentatively concluded that there are no chemical weapons at a site where American troops said they had found chemical agents and mobile labs," the New York Times reported the next day (4/28/03). A member of the team told the Times simply: "The earlier reports were wrong."

True believers

Some of the more gung-ho media weren't discouraged at all by the constant false alarms. According to Rush Limbaugh's website (4/7/03), "We're discovering WMDs all over Iraq.... You know it killed NPR to report that the 101st Airborne found a stockpile of up to 20 rockets tipped with sarin and mustard gas.... Our troops have found dozens of barrels of chemicals in an agricultural facility 30 miles northwest of Baghdad."

"The discovery of these weapons of mass destruction doesn't surprise me," Limbaugh explained on his radio show (4/7/03). "The only part of it that surprises me is that we discovered them in Iraq." If U.S. forces were to look in Syria, he proposed, they would probably find an additional "huge cache" of smuggled weaponry.

On April 11, a Fox News report, still posted to the network's website as late as July,

announced: "Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex." Sourced to an embedded reporter from the right-wing Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the story was soon debunked by U.S. officials (AP, 4/15/03).

Fox didn't mention that the "massive" underground facility "discovered" beneath a military compound had actually been subject to continuous on-site U.N. monitoring for years. Instead, the network featured a soundbite from "former Iraqi scientist" George Gazi, who declared: "I think this demonstrates the failure of the U.N. weapons inspections and demonstrates that our guys are going to find the weapons of mass destruction."


But by the beginning of May, the administration gave up the ghost--apparently deciding that the day-by-day coverage of the weapons search, a slow drip of constant negative findings, was eroding the credibility of their prewar claims. In a series of interviews and off-the-record conversations, officials tried to talk down expectations, letting it be known that they now predicted no weapons would be found at all: An anonymous leak from a "senior Bush administration official" yielded a front-page article in the Financial Times (5/2/03): "The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he would be 'amazed if we found weapons-grade plutonium or uranium' and it was unlikely large volumes of biological or chemical material would be discovered." Condoleezza Rice speculated that Iraq's weapons programs might only exist "in bits and pieces" (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/1/03).

So how had the media come to be so convinced of the weapons' existence? And could they have seen past the White House spin had they chosen to?

"Parroting the so-called experts"

In part, journalists absorbed their aura of certainty from a battery of "independent" weapons experts who repeated the mantra of Iraq concealment over and over. Journalists used these experts as outside sources who could independently evaluate the administration's claims. Yet often these "experts" were simply repeating what they heard from U.S. officials, forming an endless loop of self-reinforcing scare mongering.

Take the ubiquitous David Albright, a former U.N. inspector in Iraq. Over the years, Albright had been cited in hundreds of news articles and made scores of television appearances as an authority on Iraqi weapons. A sample prewar quote from Albright (CNN, 10/5/02): "In terms of the chemical and biological weapons, Iraq has those now. How many, how could they deliver them? I mean, these are the big questions."

But when the postwar weapons hunt started turning up empty, Albright made a rather candid admission (L.A. Times, 4/20/03): "If there are no weapons of mass destruction, I'll be mad as hell. I certainly accepted the administration claims on chemical and biological weapons. I figured they were telling the truth. If there is no [unconventional weapons program], I will feel taken, because they asserted these things with such assurance." (Recently, Albright has become a prominent critic of the government's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq.)

A similar case was Kenneth Pollack, the influential and heavily cited war advocate at the Brookings Institution. Before the war, Pollack had absolutely no doubt Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons. "Does he have the ability to attack us here in the United States?" Oprah Winfrey asked him on her talkshow (10/9/02). "He certainly does," Pollack explained. "He has biological and chemical agents that he could employ, but he'd have to use terrorist means to do so, which he's done in the past.... Right now, his capabilities to do so are fairly limited. The problem is that we know that he is building new capabilities as fast as he can."

As Pollack is a former CIA analyst who specialized in Persian Gulf military issues, many reporters no doubt took these as first-hand assessments. Yet in a post-war interview, when asked to defend his claims about Iraq's arsenal, Pollack demurred (NPR Weekend All Things Considered, 5/24/03): "That was the consensus of opinion among the intelligence community. It was hearing things like that that brought me to the conclusion that, you know, 'Boy, if this is the case, we've got to do something about this guy.' That was not me making that claim; that was me parroting the claims of so-called experts."

Some "experts" had a political axe to grind. Charles Duelfer, another former inspector, had been a State Department functionary for years before joining the UNSCOM inspection team. At the U.N. Security Council, critics of U.S. policy viewed him with suspicion as a Trojan horse. Once his U.N. tour of duty was over, he became a "resident scholar" at the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, appearing on TV news shows as an impartial authority. He answered technical questions on subjects like liquid bulk anthrax and aerial satellite photos, offering his considered judgment that Iraq unquestionably was hiding a huge arsenal.

But off-camera, Duelfer admitted he was a committed proponent of regime change whether Saddam was harboring illegal weapons or not (Endgame, Scott Ritter): "I think it would be a mistake to focus on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. To do so ignores the larger issue of whether or not we want this dictator to have control over a nation capable of producing 6 billion barrels of oil per day.... If you focus on the weapons issue, the first thing you know, Iraq will be given a clean bill of health."

"Inactionable intelligence"

The U.S. and British governments were proactive in managing the media on the weapons issue. Beginning in the fall of 1997, the British intelligence agency MI6 ran a disinformation campaign to promote the idea that Iraq was still hiding banned arms, according to sources cited by Seymour Hersh (New Yorker, 3/31/03). MI6 secretly arranged for an unidentified UNSCOM official sympathetic to Anglo-American policy to funnel false or unverifiable information--so-called "inactionable intelligence"--to the spy agency, which then planted the stories in newspapers in Britain and abroad.

"It was intelligence that was crap, and that we couldn't move on, but the Brits wanted to plant stories," a former U.S. intelligence official told Hersh. An unnamed former Clinton administration official said the U.S. approved the operation: "I knew that was going on," he told Hersh. "We were getting ready for action in Iraq, and we wanted the Brits to prepare."

Within the press, perhaps the most energetic disseminator of "inactionable intelligence" on Iraq's putative weapons has been the New York Times' Judith Miller. A veteran of the Iraqi WMD beat, Miller has accumulated a bulging clippings file over the years full of splashy, yet often maddeningly unverifiable, exposés alleging various Iraqi arms shenanigans: "Secret Arsenal: The Hunt for Germs of War" (2/26/98); "Defector Describes Iraq's Atom Bomb Push" (8/15/98); "Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites For Chemical and Nuclear Arms" (12/20/01); "Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq, Officials Say" (1/24/03).

In May, an internal Times email written by Miller found its way to the Washington Post's media columnist (5/26/03). In the message, Miller casually revealed her source for many of these stories: Ahmed Chalabi, the former Iraqi exile leader (and convicted embezzler) who for over a decade had been lobbying Washington to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime: "I've been covering Chalabi for about 10 years," Miller wrote. "He has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper." Chalabi, with his network of defectors and exiles, is known in Washington foreign-policy circles as a primary source for many of the weapons allegations that career CIA analysts greeted with skepticism, but that Pentagon hawks promoted eagerly (UPI, 3/12/03).

Miller's most noted contribution to the postwar media weapons hunt was a widely criticized article (4/21/03) about an Iraqi scientist in U.S. custody who led soldiers to a batch of buried chemicals that he claimed had been part of an illegal weapons program. (He also testified that materials had been smuggled into Syria and that the Iraqi government was liaising with Al Qaeda.) Despite having been written under a bizarre set of military-imposed ground rules--barring Miller from talking to the scientist, visiting his home or naming the chemicals in question, and establishing a three-day embargo on the article's publication--the Times chose to run the piece on the paper's front page.

"While this reporter could not interview the scientist," Miller reported, "she was permitted to see him from a distance." She confirmed that he was "clad in nondescript clothes and a baseball cap" as he "pointed to several spots in the sand where he said chemical precursors and other weapons material were buried." The story quickly fizzled out as senior Pentagon officials told reporters they were "highly skeptical" of the scientist's claims about Al Qaeda (AP, 4/22/03) and analysts pointed out that most chemical weapons precursors also have widespread civilian uses. In subsequent weeks, the administration has let the matter drop, and never made public the types of chemicals that had been found.

A question of accounting

In short, the longstanding "consensus" in official circles that Iraq must have been harboring illegal arms has always had somewhat murky origins. Behind the thundering allegations issued at heavily publicized official press conferences, a careful observer might have noticed quiet signs of dissent: the "senior intelligence analyst" who anonymously told the Washington Post four days before the war started (3/16/03) that one reason U.N. inspectors didn't find any weapons stockpiles "is because there may not be much of a stockpile." Or Rolf Ekeus, the former head of UNSCOM, who told a Harvard gathering three years ago (AP, 8/16/00) that "we felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's [WMD] capabilities fundamentally." Or, for that matter, UNSCOM alum Scott Ritter, whose publicly aired doubts about the alleged weapons led a raft of scornful newspaper profiles to scoff that he must be some kind of crank (New York Times Magazine, 11/24/02; Washington Post, 10/21/02).

Ultimately, the claims and counterclaims about Iraq's weapons boiled down to a question of accounting. In the early 1990s, Iraq had handed over thousands of tons of chemical weapons to the U.N. inspectors for disposal. But it hid the existence of other pre-Gulf War weapons programs, such as VX and anthrax, and the inspectors only learned the full details of these programs after the 1995 defection of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, Iraq's weapons chief. By 1996, the U.N. teams had destroyed Iraq's last remaining dual-use production equipment and facilities, rendering the regime incapable of making new weapons. All that was left unaccounted for were old quantities of biological and chemical arms that Iraq produced in the late 1980's but could not prove it had eliminated.

The regime claimed these materials had been hurriedly destroyed in secret in the summer of 1991 as part of an ultimately failed effort to conceal how far their weapons programs had gotten. Using forensic techniques, the inspectors confirmed that Iraq indeed "undertook extensive, unilateral and secret destruction of large quantities of proscribed weapons" (UNSCOM report, 1/29/99), but they were never able to measure exactly how much had been destroyed--leaving open the possibility that some remained hidden. This was the famous "26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulin, one-and-a-half tons of nerve agent VX, [and] 6,500 aerial chemical bombs" that administration officials spent the prewar period crowing about (Ari Fleischer press conference, 3/3/03).

With remarkable unanimity, former Iraqi scientists interviewed since the war about the status of the weapons programs--including VX specialist Emad Ani, presidential science advisor Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, nuclear scientist Jafar Jafar and chief U.N. liaison Brigadier-Gen. Ala Saeed--have all maintained that the regime did, in fact, destroy these stockpiles in the early 1990s, as it claimed. "According to a U.S. intelligence official, the top scientists are all 'sticking to the party line, that Saddam destroyed all his WMD long ago,'" the Los Angeles Times reported (4/27/03).

But journalists looking for clues should not have had to wait for the end of the war to find evidence of this. "In my view, there are no large quantities of weapons," former UNSCOM chief Rolf Ekeus told Arms Control Today in March 2000. "I don't think that Iraq is especially eager in the biological and chemical area to produce such weapons for storage. Iraq views those weapons as tactical assets instead of strategic assets, which would require long-term storage of those elements, which is difficult. Rather, Iraq has been aiming to keep the capability to start up production immediately should it need to."

Given that no serious evidence of ongoing Iraqi production capability ever turned up--especially after inspectors returned last year and were given unfettered, no-notice access to suspected sites--there were few grounds for assuming that Iraqi retained a significant WMD capability.

Another clue reporters missed: Weeks before the war began, the transcript of Hussein Kamel's 1995 private briefing to U.N. inspectors was leaked and posted to the Internet (Newsweek, 3/3/03). The interview revealed a crucial fact that the Clinton and Bush administrations, which both promoted the defector's story as evidence of an ongoing Iraqi WMD threat, had long neglected to mention: Kamel told the inspectors that all the weapons had been destroyed. Coming from the head of Iraq's secret weapons industries, a source the Pentagon, CIA and U.N. had all praised for his intelligence value, the revelation should have been front-page news. Instead, it was barely covered (Extra!, 5-6/03).

Centerpiece or hot air?

Having suffered a series of public humiliations from the conspicuous absence of unconventional weapons, the administration made it known that it was pinning its hopes on two trailers found in northern Iraq, which they termed mobile biological weapons labs. On May 12, NBC News correspondent Jim Avila, reporting from Baghdad, declared that the labs "may be the most significant WMD findings of the war." Joining him was hawkish former U.N. nuclear inspector David Kay (now an "NBC News analyst"), who was flown to Iraq to perform an impromptu inspection for the cameras. Armed with a pointer, he rattled off the trailer 's parts: "This is a compressor. You want to keep the fermentation process under pressure so it goes faster. This vessel is the fermenter...." In his report, Avila didn't explain how and why Kay and the NBC crew obtained access to the trailers while the legally mandated U.N. inspection team, UNMOVIC, had been barred from looking at them.

The trailers quickly became the "centerpiece" (New York Times, 5/21/03) of the administration's argument that Iraq was indeed hiding a biowarfare program, and Bush himself used them to proclaim (5/31/03) that "for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." No actual biological agents were found on the trucks, though; nor were any ingredients for biological weapons. In fact, no direct evidence linked the trailers to biological production at all.

U.S. officials said the trailers' equipment was capable of making such agents. Even then, the unconcentrated slurry that resulted could not have been put into a weapon: "Other units that we have not yet found would be needed to prepare and sterilize the media and to concentrate and possibly dry the agent, before the agent is ready for introduction into a delivery system," the CIA's report admitted (5/28/03).

Iraqi scientists who worked at the institute where one of the trailers was found offered a different explanation: They told interrogators that the labs were used to produce hydrogen for military weather balloons. "Even while conceding that the equipment could, in fact, have been used occasionally to make hydrogen" (New York Times, 5/21/03), the CIA report dismissed that explanation, reasoning that such a production technique "would be inefficient." (Yet the weapon-making technique imputed to the trailers was also "inefficient," an intelligence official admitted--New York Times, 5/29/03.) In fact, a technical analysis alone, they said, "would not lead you intuitively and logically to biological warfare" (New York Times, 5/29/03).

On the other hand, the trailer's equipment "appeared to contain traces of aluminum, a metal that can be used to create hydrogen." Yet that was discounted by U.S. officials, who said the aluminum "might have been planted by Iraqis to create the illusion that the units had made gas for weather balloons" (New York Times, 5/21/03).

A few weeks later, a front-page New York Times article by Judith Miller and William Broad (6/7/03) quoted senior intelligence analysts who doubted the trailers were used for biological weapons. "I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter," one WMD specialist said of a key piece of equipment on the trailer. (In his TV performance on NBC, David Kay had evinced total confidence that it was.) The CIA report, he said, "was a rushed job and looks political."

Analysts noted that the trailers "lacked gear for steam sterilization, normally a prerequisite for any kind of biological production." "That's a huge minus," said a U.S. government biological expert who had been quoted in an earlier Judith Miller article endorsing the administration's theory. "I don't see how you can clean those tanks chemically." A senior administration official was quoted admitting that "some analysts give the hydrogen claim more credence."

It's worth noting that in the 1980s, the British defense contractor Marconi received a government-backed loan to sell the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System, an artillery radar system that uses weather balloons to track wind patterns (London Guardian, 2/28/03).

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:36 PM
Hmm: Give me 12 years and a wheelbarrow and a pick and shovel, and I'll put a whole herd of elephants in the ground where you will never find them, here in Montana, By Myself;

Give me 12 years and a couple million "soldiers" and several billion dollars, to bribe nearby countries, and I could hide those elephants, taken apart into miniscule pieces, almost anywhere, never to be found.

Maybe, I could bribe Wyoming to hide some of them. I gurantee you I could talk, bribe North Dakota into taking anything I might choose to send there, and convince them it was fertilizer that would make their state bloom with money trees in 25 years.

Syria, North Dakota. "Shivers" Just a thought to promote independent thinking, it is possible. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"The many are controlled by the few, and most of the few that are controlling the many are less tham capable., or truthful, or even very good looking." "Leep" 7:14

Leep Out:



http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:52 PM
I'm not entirely certain Leep, but I think you just insulted North Dakota by comparing it with Syria... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:58 PM
Leep wrote:
- Hmm: Give me 12 years and a wheelbarrow and a pick
- and shovel, and I'll put a whole herd of elephants
- in the ground where you will never find them, here
- in Montana, By Myself;
-
- Give me 12 years and a couple million "soldiers"
- and several billion dollars, to bribe nearby
- countries, and I could hide those elephants, taken
- apart into miniscule pieces, almost anywhere, never
- to be found.

Very true Leep. This is why that whole excercise to invade Iraq to "dissarm" Saddam was bound to fail. If he had those weapons it would be very difficult to find them. And if he had them there is no telling who's got their hands on them now. Syria might be a possibility, but whats next? Invade Syria too?



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>


Message Edited on 09/19/0310:34PM by buccaneer

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 08:10 PM
"Syria might be a possibility, but whats next? Invade Syria too?"

I think you're going to find a frustratingly large number of people saying "Yup" on that one.

Wait, does Syria have any oil? Maybe not.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:26 PM
buccaneer wrote:
-
- Very true Leep. This is why that whole excercise to
- invade Iraq to "dissarm" Saddam was bound to fail.
- If he had those weapons it would be very difficult
- to find them. And if he had them there is no telling
- who's got their hands on them now. Syria might be a
- possibility, but whats next? Invade Syria too?

If they dont fess up and come clean, what other choice do we have?


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:57 PM
Can't somebody else be the World's Police??? Why suck all our money so nobody around the middle-east gets bombed for not conforming to fundamentalist Muslim beliefs? It's getting quite annoying, instead of trying to disarm them, we should give them all short-range nuclear and checmical warhead equipped missiles and let them destroy themselves. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ok, not really, but if only there weren't any innocent people there, that would be a good idea.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:13 AM
Hornet57 wrote:

- If they dont fess up and come clean, what other
- choice do we have?

First of all I seriously doubt that the US is capable of fighting another middle eastern war.Not that it lacks the necessary firepower but with troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, moving on to Syria would spread the available recources very thin and I don't think that the american public wants another Iraq-like war whith the possibility that the government is forced to reinstall draft.

But then what? Invade Syria based on the same shakey evidence that was used to get support to invade Iraq? Only to find out that the aledged weapons have been moved again to Iran or Pakistan?

This way you could go on for ever. Maybe the UN could lend a hand in Iraq but wait...Oh yeah, I forgot. The US dismissed the SC so we won't be able to expect much support from them.

Let me tell you this. G.W. Bush and the US had the support of almost the entire planet shortly after 9/11. He managed to vaporise that support due to his wild west approach, the infamous "You are with us or with them" speech and the total contempt for international law and institutions like the UN. If he had played it smart (and listend a little bit more to Powell instead of Rumsfeld) and gave France, Russia and China the 2 months of extra weapons inspections they asked for, there would be an UN force in Iraq right now.

Instead the UN is very reluctant to help. Iraq is a mess. So is the US economy which doesn't stop Bush to ask for another 87 bilion of your tax money In Afghanistan the Taleban is on the rise again. Osama is somewhere safe in a cave, Saddam is sending audiotapes left and right, there are no WMD found and if they ever exsisted they are propably in the hands of people far less controlable than Saddam.

And now Syria is on the agenda?

Way to go Dumbya!





<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:26 AM
Well, if a country doesn't actively support terrorism, but at the same time doesn't actively oppose them in their country. They simply "don't care." That country could very well be a safe house for terrorists because they know the government isn't in a real big rush to get rid of them. Technically, they are helping terrorists along and if they don't agree to do something about it, then I would agree they are "against us." I really doubt Bush was saying if you don't actively support the USA in the wars, you're against us, simply that if you're not with us in the fight AGAINST terrorists, then you're against us since the country is now a safe place for the terrorists to regroup and plan. Which is bad. Not to sound too black or white, but that's how I see it.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:59 AM
buccaneer wrote:
-
- First of all I seriously doubt that the US is
- capable of fighting another middle eastern war.Not
- that it lacks the necessary firepower but with
- troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, moving on to
- Syria would spread the available recources very thin
- and I don't think that the american public wants
- another Iraq-like war whith the possibility that the
- government is forced to reinstall draft.

Fighting terrorism is not limitted to all out war every time. Teams of Special Forces can cause alot of damage and a lot cheaper too.
-
- But then what? Invade Syria based on the same shakey
- evidence that was used to get support to invade
- Iraq? Only to find out that the aledged weapons have
- been moved again to Iran or Pakistan?

The proof we have is that they support terrorists by allowing them to habitate on their country and help Iraq against the US. That makes them our enemy I would think.
-
- This way you could go on for ever. Maybe the UN
- could lend a hand in Iraq but wait...Oh yeah, I
- forgot. The US dismissed the SC so we won't be able
- to expect much support from them.

It will go on untill terrorism is under control.
As far as help from the UN the best help they could have given would've been to pounce on Saddam from the get go.

- Let me tell you this. G.W. Bush and the US had the
- support of almost the entire planet shortly after
- 9/11. He managed to vaporise that support due to his
- wild west approach, the infamous "You are with us or
- with them" speech and the total contempt for
- international law and institutions like the UN.

Bush didnt vaporise any true support. The "wild west approach" critisism was always in the thoughts of the Europeans. They watch too many cowboy flix.
Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" was talking about countries that knowingly harbor terrorists. But again you guys have your own interpetations.
Now you want to speak about contempt of international law look it up under Saddam. The UN made themselves irelevant and weak.


If he had played it smart (and listend a little bit
- more to Powell instead of Rumsfeld) and gave France,
- Russia and China the 2 months of extra weapons
- inspections they asked for, there would be an UN
- force in Iraq right now.

You actualy believe after 2 months of finding nothing France Germany Russia China would given their blessings for the War on Iraq? I don't believe that even for a second.
-
- Instead the UN is very reluctant to help. Iraq is a
- mess. So is the US economy which doesn't stop Bush
- to ask for another 87 bilion of your tax money In
- Afghanistan the Taleban is on the rise again. Osama
- is somewhere safe in a cave, Saddam is sending
- audiotapes left and right, there are no WMD found
- and if they ever exsisted they are propably in the
- hands of people far less controlable than Saddam.
-
- And now Syria is on the agenda?

why not? but first take out Arafat, and start talking with Iran about their Nuclear programs.
Maybe one day the terrorists will give France and Germany a "good reason" to fight terrorism where it is born. Russia I think is on the verge of changing their minds.

- Way to go Dumbya!

Three cheers for G.W Bush

four more years, four more years, four more years.



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:07 AM
Terrorists are going to congregate in every middle eastern country, because a huge number of them hate the US, religious fanatics or not. This is why you see American flags and stuffed shirts being burned all the time. Systematically bombing the crap out of and occupying all of them is not going to reverse anti-US sentiment, it's going to make it worse.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:32 AM
Well, they hate Israel too, it seems they just don't like capitalism.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:36 AM
Either that or US exploitation of thier homeland.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:37 AM
Um, oh yes, it's OUR fault. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:55 AM
Oh please, our hands have been in the cookie jar for years.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:00 AM
uh huh...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:02 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<Center>
http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:09 AM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Oh please, our hands have been in the cookie jar for
- years.
-
- well why not everybody got their hands in our pockets.



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:59 PM
Cowanchicken wrote:
- Terrorists are going to congregate in every middle
- eastern country, because a huge number of them hate
- the US, religious fanatics or not. This is why you
- see American flags and stuffed shirts being burned
- all the time. Systematically bombing the crap out
- of and occupying all of them is not going to reverse
- anti-US sentiment, it's going to make it worse.

And I'm sure the US was responsible for the Barbary Pirates as well. They were just peace loving Musilim sailors until the US began to exploit them.

Reality seems to dictate otherwise. Most arab nations are ruled by corupt regimes which us the US and Israel as scapegoats for their own failings. They do not take good care of their people and them say that the Jews are responsible for their people's plight. It's a load of crap and they know it. But the people who they keep in squalid conditions don't know to believe otherwise.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:36 PM
MDS_Geist wrote:

Most arab nations are ruled by corupt regimes which us the US and Israel as scapegoats for their own failings. They do not take good care of their people and them say that the Jews are responsible for their people's plight. It's a load of crap and they know it. But the people who they keep in squalid conditions don't know to believe otherwise.

Cownchicken, This is THE reason why people strap on a jacket decorated with explosives and think they will soon see Alah, because that is what these corupt regimes teach them.....it is called Brainwashing.

Unless you open your eyes to reality you will not see it either, and then you just start thinking what they want you to think.....so far it looks like it is working


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:00 PM
"It's called brainwashing" LOL

Read a book about Middle East History; come to terms with the role the US has played in setting up those corrupt regimes, understand that the people that live there have legitimate reasons for viewing the US with less than rosy tint spectacles.

In your new history book you will find that THE main cause of conflict in the Middle East is that a country called Palestine (formerly a British colony) was, in a spectacular act of alchemy, transformed into a country called Israel, where a form of religious apartheid, reinforced by the content of a holy scripture that only one faction believed in, turns non-jews into second class citizens.

If, having read about the 30 year old refugee camps where non-jews live in squallor with no prospect of employment, prosperity or freedom of opportunity, and having enlightened yourself that 30% of US foreign aid (~$3B) is given in military hardware to the Orwellian-named Israeli Defence Force, who defend territory taken from arabs, you still believe that there is no good reason for anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, then maybe we should talk about brain washing.

<center>
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/propaganda_shutmouth.jpg



Message Edited on 09/22/0311:34AM by SimonMcM

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:49 PM
SimonMcM wrote:
- Read a book about Middle East History; come to terms
- with the role the US has played in setting up those
- corrupt regimes, understand that the people that
- live there have legitimate reasons for viewing the
- US with less than rosy tint spectacles.

I have an advanced degree in that area and am quite familiar with Middle East history. Which book did you read that you feel so ennobles your position?

- In your new history book you will find that THE main
- cause of conflict in the Middle East is that a
- country called Palestine (formerly a British colony)
- was, in a spectacular act of alchemy, transformed
- into a country called Israel, where a form of
- religious apartheid, reinforced by the content of a
- holy scripture that only one faction believed in,
- turns non-jews into second class citizens.

You'll only learn this if your "new history book" isn't a very good one. Ther has never been a "country called 'palestine,'" which was a regional named given by the Romans circa 132 C.E. If was first divided in two to make the country of Transjordan (now called Jordan) byt the British, and then the UN partition plan in 1947 re-established the State of Israel.

You should go there. You'd realize that there is no "religious apartheid" there (what type of silliness have you been reading), and that it is in fact the only Middle Eastern country which has religious freedom. Israeli citizens are citizens regardless of their faith - be they Jew, Christian, Muslim, B'hai, Jain, Buddhist, etc.

By the way, Jews and Christians do share some of the same holy scriptures, including the Abrahamic Covenant. Your "book" may have neglected that fact. You do realize that there are quite a number of Christians in Israel as well do you not?

- If, having read about the 30 year old refugee camps
- where non-jews live in squallor with no prospect of
- employment, prosperity or freedom of opportunity,
- and having enlightened yourself that 30% of US
- foreign aid (~$3B) is given in military hardware to
- the Orwellian-named Israeli Defence Force, who
- defend territory taken from arabs, you still believe
- that there is no good reason for anti-US sentiment
- in the Middle East, then maybe we should talk about
- brain washing.

If you knew about those "refugee camps," then you should also have learned that they were caused by the other arab nations and not Israel. You might also have learned that there is no effort being put forth by anyone but Israel to eliminate those camps and to help people live in homes with modern amenities. Of course, you might also realize that a number of those "camps" are adjacent to cities and are kept for propaganda and training. Their situation is solely the responsiblity of their corupt leadership and "arab brothers."

You might also have enlightened yourself to the fact that most of the US foreign aid sent to Israel is brought right back to the US. TO say nothing of the fact that the Israelis develop and test equipment for the United States military, and then either give it or sell it to the US at a steep discount. Of course, a good history would also have taught you that Israel is the only country which freely shares medical, scientific, technological and engineering advances with the US.

We should also discuss your brainwashing regarding the myth of "territory taken from arabs." The Israeli Defense Force defends Israel from Arab aggression. Sadly, something they have had to do a number of times. And works ceaselessly to defend Israeli civilians from arab terrorists. If you are attempting to make a reference to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, you would have learned in a good and accurate book that those lands were being illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt, who did practice apartheid and ethnic cleansing, something Israel has not and does not do.

You need to go out and read some new books.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:21 PM
Dear Geist

Unfortunately I don't have an advanced degree in Middle Eastern Studies - most of my information comes from books and friends who have lived in Israel, studied the history or served in the Army there. Two of these friends have done a combination of the above and as such have actually served in the IDF. All of them are Jewish Israelis, so I don't think there are any grounds for accusation of bias. (I recommend "Revenge; a story of hope" by Laura Blumenfeld for an intersting perspective).

The point I was trying to make was that anti-US sentiment in the region did not come out of nowhere; US foreign policy in the region has been far from progressive in previous years, and has indeed played a role in establishing repressive regimes. I think you'll agree that the US government played a most reprehensible role in the 1953 Iranian coup, and that by supporting both sides simultaneously during the Iran-Iraq war 1980-88, in which at least 1.5M soldiers were killed, the reputation of the USA was severely undermined.

I am not trying to say that these wars would not have occurred without US intervention, nor am I blaming America as a society for the mistakes of its former rulers. I am simply saying that the reason many Arabs dislike America is firmly rooted in historical fact and further amplified by opportunistic use of propaganda. US policy has played a role in the establishment of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. If you feel you have facts that may contradict this, I'd enjoy discussing them with you.

As far as my views on Israel go, I think that the view of Israel as an apartheid-like society is not novel nor is it unsubstantiated; for example on July 31, Israel's Knesset passed an apartheid-like marriage law, forbidding Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens from obtaining Israeli citizenship or permits to live with their spouses and children in Israel. The Knesset has also proposed preventing Arabs from entering Israeli territory on the grounds of suicide bombing prevention. Unfortunately this would also effectively exile Israeli Arabs, who are not exempt. Call it whatever you want - it's segregation/apartheid.

Israel is not the only Middle Eastern country with religious freedom - ironically Iraq was secular and has historically had an active Jewish and Christian population. As I'm sure you know, Tariq Aziz, deputy prime minister of Iraq, was Christian. Obviously citizenship is not dependant on religion in most countries; a notable exception is the fundamentalist Islamic Republic of Iran. How did they ever get into power? Pointing out that Jews and Christians do share some of the same scriptures is a very valid point - I'm sure you're aware that the same texts also feature in the Koran.

I am not of the opinion that the testing of military equipment on behalf of the US makes it okay to give billions of dollars to the Israelis in the form of military aid. I do not think military aid is morally acceptable in a country where military operations in civilian areas result in the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women and children every year. I am all for charitable donation, but think that peace initiatives that may actually reduce hostility on both sides would be a better application of this money.

Just to make myself absolutely clear, I am neither anti-Israeli nor opposed to the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland. I just feel that the Israelis are equally culpable for the current vicious circle of escalating violence as the Palestinians, and I do not think the Israeli government is taking necessary precautions to safeguard the lives of civilians in the area. After all, the Israeli army killed at least 1,000 Palestinians in 2002, most civilians, whereas Palestian terrorist groups killed 420 Israelis (at least 265 civilian; source http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/2md-index-eng). Likewise I think suicide bombers are hardening the resolve of the Israelis to wipe the terrorists out.

To side with either the Israelis or the terrorists is to bloody one's hands - to work with both sides in a progressive manner, and to actively discourage civilian casualties (perhaps with penalties in financial aid received) would both be the 'right' thing to do and would also increase benevolence towards the USA in the region.

Cheers,
Simon

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:36 PM
Geist, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Lebenon have a lot of "Palestinians" living there as slaves? I've read this somewhere and have had it confirmed by several people I know over in the middle-east, but there are also contradicting views, mainly the people claiming the Israelis are oppressing the Palestinian people.

So I really don't have much faith in the latter, but I want to ask you about this since you are knowledgable about this.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:06 AM
SimonMcM wrote:
- Unfortunately I don't have an advanced degree in
- Middle Eastern Studies - most of my information
- comes from books and friends who have lived in
- Israel, studied the history or served in the Army
- there. Two of these friends have done a combination
- of the above and as such have actually served in the
- IDF. All of them are Jewish Israelis, so I don't
- think there are any grounds for accusation of bias.
- (I recommend "Revenge; a story of hope" by Laura
- Blumenfeld for an intersting perspective).

Laura is a lovely young woman and she writes quite well. She's also quite nice to talk to. However, that in no way ennobles her point of view. And yes, I've spoken with her about that as well. Saying that you have friends who have been personally involved also does nothing to absolve you of bias.

I do not know you and can only respond to what you post here. What you have posted seems to indicate both ignorance and bias.

- The point I was trying to make was that anti-US
- sentiment in the region did not come out of nowhere;

And the point of this is what exactly? The fact that something may have a root cause (regardless of how valid or invalid) does not justify it. Furthermore, if you have studied the history of the region, you would know that shifting the blame for your own failings is a time honored arab tradition.

- US foreign policy in the region has been far from
- progressive in previous years, and has indeed played
- a role in establishing repressive regimes. I think
- you'll agree that the US government played a most
- reprehensible role in the 1953 Iranian coup, and
- that by supporting both sides simultaneously during
- the Iran-Iraq war 1980-88, in which at least 1.5M
- soldiers were killed, the reputation of the USA was
- severely undermined.

You're ignoring a very key fact - the ignorance of most of the people in the region. The "reputation of the USA" is generally undeserved, but not as much as Israel's reputation is. Because the people believe what their despotic governments tell them - no freedom of the press here.

- I am not trying to say that these wars would not
- have occurred without US intervention, nor am I
- blaming America as a society for the mistakes of its
- former rulers. I am simply saying that the reason
- many Arabs dislike America is firmly rooted in
- historical fact and further amplified by
- opportunistic use of propaganda. US policy has
- played a role in the establishment of anti-American
- sentiment in the Middle East. If you feel you have
- facts that may contradict this, I'd enjoy discussing
- them with you.

The problem is you're drawing a conclusion based on what you yourself or someone like you would. And that's a very grave error. You're not accounting for cultural or historical differences, to say nothing of what I mentioned earlier - people often do not know accurate history. An Egyptian diplomat noted a few years ago that he "did not know that Egypt lost in 1973 until he came to the US." If you go to Egypt, you will see monuments to the "glorious victory in the Ramamdan war." The fact that they were soundly defeated is unknown to most people.

US Policy is generally misrepresented to the populace. Their corupt leadership which takes advantage of American largess and aid, then turns around and stokes the fire of hatred to cover their own failings and coruption.

- As far as my views on Israel go, I think that the
- view of Israel as an apartheid-like society is not
- novel nor is it unsubstantiated; for example on July
- 31, Israel's Knesset passed an apartheid-like
- marriage law, forbidding Palestinians who marry
- Israeli citizens from obtaining Israeli citizenship
- or permits to live with their spouses and children
- in Israel. The Knesset has also proposed preventing
- Arabs from entering Israeli territory on the grounds
- of suicide bombing prevention. Unfortunately this
- would also effectively exile Israeli Arabs, who are
- not exempt. Call it whatever you want - it's
- segregation/apartheid.

No, your view is sadly not novel. However, it remains inaccurate. More to the point, you're either presenting your facts incorrectly or are simply wrong. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right. It only applies to PA residents rather than arabs who self-identify as "palestinian." Of course, I'll wait to hear your moral indignation about far older arab apartheid laws that prevent "palestinians" from owning land in Lebanon and laws which make selling land to a Jew a capitol offense.

The proposed legislation in the Knesset preventing arabs from entering Israeli territory would not exile Israeli arabs by any stretch of the imagination. It would keep them out of secure zones, which someone who is not in the military has to stay out of anyway. People with Israeli passports (e.g. Israeli arabs) would not be "exiled."

Segregation is not apartheid by the way. The arab states are apartheid states, as are countries such as Sudan. Israel is not.

- Israel is not the only Middle Eastern country with
- religious freedom - ironically Iraq was secular and
- has historically had an active Jewish and Christian
- population. As I'm sure you know, Tariq Aziz, deputy
- prime minister of Iraq, was Christian. Obviously
- citizenship is not dependant on religion in most
- countries; a notable exception is the fundamentalist
- Islamic Republic of Iran. How did they ever get into
- power? Pointing out that Jews and Christians do
- share some of the same scriptures is a very valid
- point - I'm sure you're aware that the same texts
- also feature in the Koran.

You're kidding right? Let's go with some fairly recent history, such as 1948 or even 2002. In 1948, Jews were killed or driven out - because they were Jews, even though they had been in Iraq for over 2,000 years - before Islam was created. Until the al-Hussein al-Tikriti regime was overthrown Shi'a Muslims were prevented form observing the majority of their holy days. They were also massacred on a number of occasions. Christians were also oppressed, but usually not massacred.

And citizenship is dependent on religion in much of the Arab world. Jews cannot become citizens in Lebanon or Syria. For that matter, neither can "palestinians."

The "same texts" do NOT feature in the Qu'ran, but some similar texts do. In many cases, they are superceded by later surahs in the Qu'ran. Islam is a supercessionist faith as is Christianity (although Vatican II altered this for some Catholics) - except that many Muslims still view violence as the preferred fashion for spreading Islam.

- I am not of the opinion that the testing of military
- equipment on behalf of the US makes it okay to give
- billions of dollars to the Israelis in the form of
- military aid. I do not think military aid is morally
- acceptable in a country where military operations in
- civilian areas result in the deaths of hundreds of
- innocent men, women and children every year. I am
- all for charitable donation, but think that peace
- initiatives that may actually reduce hostility on
- both sides would be a better application of this
- money.

And as soon as you can come up with a viable peace initiative to reduce hostilities, please be sure to let me know. However, you're going to have to do quite a bit of work in order to get the Arab world to actually accept the existence of Israel and Jews as a whole. Until such an event occurs, it's a waste of time.

Your opinion is so noted, as is your ignorance. They actually develop the military equipment to save lives, and share it with us. They're not testing it for us, they're using it to stay alive.

Furthermore, your ignorance of military operations in civilian areas is quite unfortunate, but like your views, also quite common. The blame lies on the terrorists who base themselves in civilian areas. Israel does everything it can to minimize civilian casualties, as any experienced and honest military analyst will tell you - often to their own detriment and loss. Furthermore, you don't seem to be protesting the huge amounts of money given to the "palestinians" who use the money to support terrorism.

- Just to make myself absolutely clear, I am neither
- anti-Israeli nor opposed to the idea of Israel as a
- Jewish homeland. I just feel that the Israelis are
- equally culpable for the current vicious circle of
- escalating violence as the Palestinians, and I do
- not think the Israeli government is taking necessary
- precautions to safeguard the lives of civilians in
- the area.

That's nice. Let me make the reality of the situation even more clear - there is no "circle of escalating violence." The arabs murder Israeli civilians and Israel responds with very little force to try and kill the arab terrorists. The fact that you "do not think the Israeli government is taking necessary precautions" only indicates that you have far less knowledge of the situation that I was willing to credit you with. Israel has used downpowered tank rounds and lighter ordinance than prudence and military doctrine would recommend in order to minimize the loss of life caused by arab terrorists hiding among the civilian populace.

- After all, the Israeli army killed at
- least 1,000 Palestinians in 2002, most civilians,
- whereas Palestian terrorist groups killed 420
- Israelis (at least 265 civilian)Likewise I think
- suicide bombers
- are hardening the resolve of the Israelis to wipe
- the terrorists out.

Your source fails to differentiate between work accidents, homicide bombers, infiltrators and actual bystanders. Hardly particularlyl useful numbers. Of course, the very idea of parity in warfare is in and of itself an idiotic idea that ignorant people tend to use as some form of obscene "scorecard." It doesn't work that way.

- To side with either the Israelis or the terrorists
- is to bloody one's hands - to work with both sides
- in a progressive manner, and to actively discourage
- civilian casualties (perhaps with penalties in
- financial aid received) would both be the 'right'
- thing to do and would also increase benevolence
- towards the USA in the region.

You are either dreaming or deluding yourself if you really think that benevolence towards the USA would increase by working in a "progressive manner." Clinton tried that and failed miserably. more accurately - Arafat failed everyone except for himself and his terrorist cohorts.

The Israelis are the aggrieved party here, and attempting to equate them with the terrorists betrays your bias. There is no working with terrorists - they must be destroyed.

Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Geist, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Lebenon
- have a lot of "Palestinians" living there as slaves?
- I've read this somewhere and have had it confirmed
- by several people I know over in the middle-east,
- but there are also contradicting views, mainly the
- people claiming the Israelis are oppressing the
- Palestinian people.

Not slaves, no. But they are kept in refugee camps by the UN and the arabs. If they attempt to leave the camps (except as terrorist infiltrators or terrorist trainees) they are usually shot (if they get past the mine fields). Selling land to a "palestinian" is a capitol offense. THe Israelis aren't oppressing the people in the camps - the UN and their "arab brothers" are.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:27 AM
Geist wrote:
"Not slaves, no. But they are kept in refugee camps by the UN and the arabs. If they attempt to leave the camps (except as terrorist infiltrators or terrorist trainees) they are usually shot (if they get past the mine fields). Selling land to a "palestinian" is a capitol offense. THe Israelis aren't oppressing the people in the camps - the UN and their "arab brothers" are."

Oh ok, well, a few people described them as slaves, I guess what they meant was they are not free. I just had to ask this because nobody knows this, no media would publish this, basically, they don't care that Palestinians are openly oppressed by the Lebenese government, only when a Muslim civilian is killed by the USA or Israel does it matter...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
‚ ‚ Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 03:37 AM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Oh ok, well, a few people described them as slaves,
- I guess what they meant was they are not free. I
- just had to ask this because nobody knows this, no
- media would publish this, basically, they don't care
- that Palestinians are openly oppressed by the
- Lebenese government, only when a Muslim civilian is
- killed by the USA or Israel does it matter...

Sadly, that's pretty much the way it has been for a long time. No one seems to care about arab atrocities against other arabs, or against anyone in general unless it is politically expedient. Not when Jordan killed 20,000 or Syria 40,000+.

The truth is that the arabs care nothing for the "palestinians" and use them as tools against Israel. The "palestinians" have been expelled or slaughtered by most of their "arab brothers" for decades. But they swear to "avenge" their "martyrs" who die murdering Israeli civilians.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."