I voted "Somewhat Justified," because of the way the war on terrorism has been implemented. It's the difference between 'frontier justice' and due process. While due process may be less satisfying, it requires functioning of the brain's higher levels.

I do not like resorting to violence. Knowing how to negotiate an acceptable solution takes a wiser person than I am. But I do believe that there are wiser people who should be listened to when they say that there are ways to solve things in a peaceful manner.

Perhaps if the World Court were not ridiculed or ignored, it would have a chance of being more effective in prosecuting those accused of crimes against humanity. If these people were extradited for the trial, who knows?

I'm completely in support of taking military action against terrorism and terrorists. People always say things like, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Is it wrong for us to retaliate against those who have attacked us? By taking action, we are actually, defending ourselves. Attacking the threat of terrorism directly is the only way to stop it. We can't reach a peaceful agreement. Here's an analogy to get across what I'm saying. Pretend for a minute that your an extreme religious fanatic, following all of your religion's rules to the letter. What if it says directly in your religion that you should smack non-religious nincompoops such as myself? You, being a strong follower, would smack me. (you'd do that to sweet little me?) Anyway, back on topic. I say to you, "I don't like getting smacked, why don't you stop following the ideals of your religion?" Are you really going to do that? NO! The analogy is, you:smacking me, as terrorists:attacking the U.S.. NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STOP ATTACKING US BECAUSE THEIR RELIGION TELLS THEM TO ATTACK US! And they're not going to stop believing just by us asking them to. Thus, in the end, the only solution is the militant one.

It would take quite a pacifist to argue with that premise. I can't think of one person I've ever heard or talked to that wouldn't want to open up a can of "Whoop A$$" on somebody that attacked us.

But here's the problem. Even though a bunch of country songs tell us different, Iraqis did not fly airplanes into our buildings. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. As bad as Saddam was to his people and neighbors in border disputes, he's never been a sponsor of international terrorism.

So, we went to war in the name of terrorism because failure to do so would result in massive destruction to us (your getting smacked analogy) because of the WMD Iraq had..errr...could've had...errr...maybe had....errr, well, we freed a bunch of peace loving Muslims (which is an oxymoron if you ask me) because apparently, Castro never has hit the human rights violation bar required for an invasion.

But don't feel bad. 60% of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11. Which is not surprising since they also think Al Gore is the democratic front runner for president in '04.

I guess paying $15 K to Palestinian bombers doesn't count as supporting int'l terrorists?

Why not Israel decide IT can co-exist with the Muslim world? After all it is ALONE in the region. Israel is constantly egging the US on, to change the entire face of the Muslim world for its single minded benefit. As far as 'cleansing a religion' of murderous extremists, I would surely wish the Jewish religion to cleanse itself of Sharon, a murderous extremist. Religion is not the basis of Muslim discontent with the US, but the avenue of belief to adhere to, in shedding what they feel is injustice. Allah is envoked, much as our Christian god is envoked in conflict of any kind. Not the reason but the helper.



Dear dear dear, how ignorance prevails when one does not comprehend the first thing about other cultures, religions and what motivates people. Now that statement will not get anyones ear, but to continue...

Noone is attacking anyone about religion. Their religion does not tell them to attack us. This is 100% incorrect. Islam teaches that Jews, Christians and Muslims are born of the same person, Abraham, and each should be respected, however, there is no reason that any one of these 'religions', when in real world politics they are disrespected that they have no right to retaliate, and call up the scriptures and their gods to help them. This is normal human behavior.

If the only solution is a militant one, then we are one and the same with our Muslim brothers, who have resorted to violence against us, and now it becomes who has bigger guns or ability to inflict harm. Its not religion, its self preservation.
They have tired of our impositions and wishy washy stances, the wars they have to die for as we support one dictator or guerilla force against another and continually switch sides. In the end , its their people who are sacrificed to 'anglo/European' political whims and continual colonialism and many years of war. We have finally become the enemy above and beyond their personal infights. This is a logical conclusion, because all people desire self determination, understanding of their values and control over their resources.
Whether it be the Brits, Soviets or the US, we have wanted our greedy hands on what they have, and made innumerous attempts to get it, most failed. Baloney about WMD and Liberations. The Soviets did not want 'liberation' of Afghanistan, nor did the US, and anyone who thinks that Iraq was about a nasty dictator is naive. If we were worried about nasty dictators, or 911, we'd go after Saudi Arabia or so many others. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are key situations in controlling oil and gas flow to Europe and Asia and a monetary control of US dollar against the Euro.

We continue to play these people as pawns, and they Know It. They do not have big armies and fighter jets and atomic bombs. They use what they do have, and history proves this to be a force to be reckoned with. Militant solutions will of course work, only in the short term, as long as one can maintain that force. How many tenacles of oppression and colonization can one country maintain? In history, a colonial force cannot maintain over a peoples desire for self determination. We kid ourselves into thinking our leaders are going to let Iraqis determine their own future. If they were, there would have been no war. Iraq will want Islamic government and law, they are in fact Muslim. We may allow this if it serves our interests, making the entire Iraq war and 'liberation' bullcrap from start to finish. Iraqi democracy is a fallacy, there is no basis for the possibility in any near future, an idea concieved in nation that has no deep understanding about Islamic culture, religion or tribal influences, nor does it care to. Typical supremist, colonialist error.

To add, no retraction, abating or end to terrorism what-so-ever. There is no viable reason any Islamic country would allow, bow down to, or be grateful to a primarily judeo/christian nation for liberation, nor withstand any government by them for any length of time. The culture and value systems are completely different. I believe we have bought ourselves years of conflict.

I would like to note that at one time 'WE' wanted our freedom from an opressive nation. We did not have a large army, we were farmers and relatively poor but with the ideals of self determination which were largely considered 'heretic'. Freedom to express our religious beliefs without foreign government interference and freedom to control our own resources allowed us to liberate ourselves, with very little organization against large armies we gained our rights.

If might is right, Israel serves a bad example of what can happen.

Iraq has gone through this before and the Brits were forced to leave. Of course noone had the weapons of today, but , self determination is a strong force. These people are inheritors of the beginning of civilization. I seriously doubt we can control them and bring them around to believing that MacDonalds, Coke, Hooters and Reality Tv are truly beneficial to their way of life. Or should I say, baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and lemonade?

Yeah, we should have left those Iraqis to be killed by their chosen dictator because that's what they wanted. Hogwash.

"Liberation" of Iraq was a nice side benefit, not a goal. Regime change was the goal.

Why regime change? The guy was a brutal dictator, an international liar who could not provide evidence that he did away with his WMDs (which he did, at one point, admit to having but never proved he destroyed).

The war in Iraq also sends a clear message to would-be sponsors of terror and proliferators of WMDs that they will be punished, militarily if necessary. The message was just as important as regime change.

But why Iraq? Because he was already on the "bad guy" list, even at the UN (even the dictatorial countries in the UN voted for 1441). He was an "easy" sell. Not without reason.

Now we are in a position to take on the "big boys" of terrorism : Iran, Syria, possibly North Korea (although NK is more of a proliferator than a sponsor).

Your position on Islamic religion flies in the face of reality. Osama bin Laden quoted the Quran to invoke his followers to attack the "infidels". He quoted passages which say that all non-Muslims must be attacked. Fanatical religion is never peaceful, not even Christianity.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11 were Saudi's. Yet we attacked Iraq. A judge recently awarded a large settlement to two of the families of 9/11 victims in a judgment against Iraq for their part in the attack. Investigators with the press were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks. Why does it seem Iraq is paying for crimes that are more likely to belong to S.A.?Why is S.A. being shielded from scrutiny? I don't know.

Maybe Passion51 is right. Maybe we lucky souls have an administration that can tell good from evil just by looking and has given the the Saudi Royals his ULTRAPLUSGOOD stamp of approval. Yeah, that's it.
Anyway, he're more.

Well that settles it then! Can't ask for more than that.

Well, we could but... we're gonna let 'em off with a warning.

We are currently pulling out of our bases in Saudi Arabia.

Believe what you will, I think we are privately trying to put pressure on the Saudi government. Remember that most monarchs in that region have a very tenuous grasp on power. Religious fanatics are waiting to weaken any pro-West rulers.

Saudi Arabia is, and continues to be, a problem.

Danya, I am not sure what you are advocated here? You say (mockingly) that we gave them a pass... I am not sure if you want us to provide our own security for private citizens in foreign countries (occupation force?) or forbid people to travel, or what.

I would like you to back this up. Not 'all non muslims' should be attacked, but the 'infidel Americans' might be more accurate. If I remember Bush Sr also invoked God, as has Bush Jr., in that we should win our wars, and God is on our side. Why any difference? If you can provide information otherwise, please do. On the other hand, Osama Bin Laden was a CIA operative who supposedly 'turned' within 12 years. I would not consider him a representative of Islamic faith. Islamic religion is not that of extremists nor terrorists, as Christian faith is not that of clinic bombers or financial predators upon the elderly and handicapped. Yet all take advantage of others religious weaknesses.



Really? I thought it was an imminent threat to US security. Because he was a brutal ditator and an international liar who had wmd, is that it? Then in fact, he was just part and parcile to a crap load of others, who actually WERE responsable for 911 and never touched for their part, whom we still support.



I suppose you feel this nation is wealthy enough to engage in perpetual wars, I hope you pay loads of taxes, because I am not supporting this continuing farce.

I'm simply wondering where all the suspicion and critisism and investigation is as far as S.A. is concerned. There have been financial links made, the attackers come from there, and yet they are protected from scrutiny. I wonder why no one thinks it's significant that almost all of the hijackers were from that country.

Yet no one questions the need to chase down threats in every other country, even militarily if necessary, and S.A. get's a pass from all of that. Where are all the veiled threats and warnings that we give everyone else? Makes no sense to me.

I voted "somewhat justified" because the U.S. does have the right to defend itself against an enemy that is determined to destroy us. The first law of nature is self-preservation and if I have to chose between George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden, well, that's no choice at all is it?

However, the problem with this "war on terrorism" is how it has become an attack upon the personal freedom, liberties and privacy of American citizens. Patriot Act I and the proposed second Patriot Act are power grabs by John Ashcroft and a Justice Department that would subvert democracy to defend it.

Additionally, when the U.S. was going after Al Qaeda, the majority of the world was with us. But the whole war with Iraq has done very little to make us safer now than we were before. Oh sure, there's one less despot in the world, but the weapons of mass destructions haven't been found (and may never be) and the ballyhooed link between Saddam and bin Laden has yet to be firmly established.

Suspending the Bill of Rights and due process is not the way to win a war. Challenging the patriotism of those who disagree with the policy and tactics of this President is not the way to win a war. Sacrificing our principles is not the way to win a war.

Islam: A Peaceful Religion?




bin Laden invoked these passages. They (the passages) say nothing about Americans. bin Laden, of course, is mainly anti-American, so I stand corrected.

'You have to kill in the name of Allah until you are killed'
OBL FAQ

I also stand corrected on the Quran passages. I have also read those that say the 3 religions should be respected. Holy books tend to have alot of conflicting ideas.

That said I concurr with:



The Bible is one of the most warlike books ever written, which claims that war, rape and even the killing of ones own children by Gods will is fine.

US Presidents also have invoked God in acts of war, this time preemptive. To blame one religion for 'warlike' qualities, or a people for warlike qualities is still hypocritical.

Terrorists use what they can, governments use the word terrorism too flagrantly, as opposed to freedom fighters when it suits them.

Name me one country in that hellhole of a region (besides Israel) that is NOT paying Palesinian bomber families.

Heck, Hamas has offices in Iran and Syria. Your quote is a clear double-standard. That hardly qualifies as international terrorism. As much as I hate the murderous thugs on the west bank, it's a simple fact of life that everyone in that region wants Israel destroyed.

Dayton, you don't really expect this rationalization to go unchallenged, do you? You are saying that just because everyone else does it, it's ok?

Sheesh, my mom taught me that was no excuse many many moons ago.

And where's the double-standard you speak of? Not the same rationalization, is it?

Actually, no. It does not. First, Iraq never paid a bomber. They paid surviving family members of bombers. And, for what it's worth, they never said, if you die in a suicide attack, we will pay your surviving family members, so they weren't even providing an overt incentive. Second, none of the bombers whose families were compensated were "international" by anyone's definition - unless, of course, you believe (as many in our current administration do) that Israel is the foremost of our fifty-one states and that our foreign policy should be set by the Likudniks.

Nice try, but our invasion of Iraq remains totally unjustified.

Our invasion is completely justified. For twelve years, the Iraqis have been building up their weapons supplies, this being a violation of the rules and specifications set by the U.N.. And, they've been constantly told to disarm for these past twelve years. Despite this though, ourinvasion is also freeing a sociey from a tyrannical government. Just in case you managed to miss these few little "details":

1. If anyone slandered the Iraqi government and/or regime, they would have their tongues cut out, or, in some cases, be killed.

2. The Iraqis have gone around raping women.

3. They give the people no say whatsoever in the government (Whereas this alone is not cause for invasion, it is a "strike" against Iraq if you will, and it is against the ideals and values that we as americans hold sacred.)

Nice try Wertz, but our invasion remains completely justified.

'International' is defined as two or more nations. I think Israel and Palestine are close enough to the spirit of this definition. At least for those interested in legitimate debate.

As for Saddam's payments, just one source for you. I'm surprised you weren't aware of his offers. They were widely reported for quite some time.
Homicide bombers get a raise

It should be noted that Saddam Hussein paid money to the surviving families of all Palestinian casualties; however he paid more to the families of suicide bombers.

Bean:


Over 50% of Iraqis are women. Nice demonizing, though!

Insert only if allowed: When I got here I thought this was all real serious but lately Im laughing my *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off. Maybe I just needed a good laugh and see humor where there shouldnt be, I dont know.

12 years building up, huh? That must be why so many of our military are coming home with broken legs tripping all over them.

By the way...in regards to the UN resolutions. If the US considered the UN irrelevant (when they didn't consider Iraq an immediate threat and wanted more inspections), how can their resolutions be relevant?

Do you honestly think the Iraqis are going to say, "hey, here are our weapons!" Of course not, so more inspections were demanded by the UN. Keep in mind that the scientists who to UN inspectors talked to, were told by members of the Republican Guard and the Regime something along the lines of (I'm afraid that I can't recall the exact phrasing ) That no answers that could be considered "treasonous" or "overly revealing" about the state of the iraqis' weapons were to be given tot he inspectors. Thus, the UN wasn't officially able to state that the Iraqis were in possession of the weapons, so the US decided it to be pointless to wait for the UN to discovr weapons, because that sure as heck wasn't gonna happen.

Uh, don't you mean "for those interested in fallacious hairsplitting in order to justify spurious arguments at any cost"? Last time I looked at recent history, it seemed that the fact that Palestine is not a nation was causing a bit of trouble in that neck of the woods. Correct me if I'm wrong - maybe my map is out of date. In any event, the term "international terrorist" is usually taken to imply a bit more than localized freedom fighting.


If you expect me to stand corrected by a report from the self-described "author of trashy thrillers" at FOXNews.com, you clearly have no idea what many people would consider a credible source.

Even at that, your novelist's "report" - despite the sensationalistic headline - only mentions two out of forty-seven payments "to grieving Palestinian families" which were related to suicide bombers at all. The rest went to "those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military". Even if all of the awards had gone to surviving family members of such bombers, as you and your author would like to imply, rather than victims of Likud violence, there is nothing in the article which indicates that there was any advertising of such awards prior to the deaths of the "martyrs" involved. Again, no incentive was provided before the fact. I do not, however, deny that Iraq is guilty of supporting the Palestinian freedom movement. So is the Bush administration, if the "road map" is anything to go by.

And, by the way, if this was so "widely reported for quite some time", why does the "just one source" that you managed to find, this Fox News thriller writer, report in the article you cite that "you have to spend some time looking for any mentions" of these awards and that "it was news [as recently as March 26, 2002] even to the Palestinian officials questioned"??? Next time you try shooting from the hip, try removing your gun from its holster.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


I've been resisting responding to any of your posts, Bean, as your notion of America is so diametrically opposed to my own (on this topic, at least), that you and I will never find any common ground here - nor will either of us be able to present any argument which will budge the other in the least. I am of the belief that America should never - under any circumstances - be the world's vigilante. You believe it should. Only if one believes as you do - that it is the business of the US to wage undeclared, unprovoked war in any country that we see fit - could the Iraqi invasion even begin to seem justified. We must agree to disagree - utterly.

That said, I don't believe that you will find anyone here who would argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a tyrant and that Iraq may eventually be better off without him. I - and many other patriotic Americans - just wish that it hadn't taken compromising everything for which the United States of America had once stood to effect the end of his tyranny. This particular man of yours is - how you say? - made of straw.


Sure as heck doesn't look like weapons are being discovered anyway, does it?

The Palestinian murderous thugs are now nothing more than 'localized freedom fighters' . Those who select innocent civilians as targets to maximize the terroristic effect of their actions are 'freedom fighters'. Those who wrap their bodies in explosives and enter a religious holiday dinner and kill scores of pure innocents, women and children included, are merely 'freedom fighters'.

'Freedom' from having to live next to those stinking infidels.

'Fighters' of those heavily-armed families eating their dinner.

That rationalization for the slaughter of innocents is quite popular for those who want to see the Jews wiped off the face of the earth. Thankfully, that is an ever-shrinking minority view. As those who hold to it become evermore isolated, their shrill voices will become louder. Eventually they will have noone left to hear their cries but others of their ilk, Hitler comes to mind.

I leave to each of you to decide just where those final wails will be heard.

When's the last time you heard a United States president declare a 'holy war' ?

If we ran our country based on the religious pretexts of the Bible, we'd all be in big trouble. Fortunately, that doesn't happen here.

I'm just wondering (because I too would probably not label the Palestinian bombers as "freedom fighters"):

If America were occupied by a foreign power, and her populace forcibly disarmed, how would we view ourselves? Unable to match arms with the occupier's military garrisons, would we resort to "any means necessary" to remove them from our soil? Would we be "freedom fighters" for doing so? I wonder, would people like yourself be calling on other Americans to not fight back? Would you be calling for a peaceful solution?

I wonder...

PS: I'm not making this statement to try and justify the slaughter of innocents. I'm merely wondering how people would feel if the "shoe was on the other foot."

Gee, sorry - I keep getting these terms mixed up. It's people like the Nicaraguan contras who are "freedom fighters", right? At least that's how Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush described them - correct?

Okay, let's see what constitutes a "freedom fighter":
By the mid-1980s, these "freedom fighters" had caused 14,000 casualties, including teachers, health workers, local government officials, technicians, school-children, church workers, peasants and other innocent civilians. The number of children and adolescents killed exceeded 3,000 and more than 6,000 children had been turned into war orphans. In four years, the contras assassinated 910 state officials and attacked nearly 100 civilian communities, causing the displacement of over 150,000 people from their homes and farms. And we financed this.

So I guess you're right, Passion51, compared to real "freedom fighters" what the "murderous thugs" in the occupied territories have been up to in their quest for freedom - in their "war of liberation" - is pretty small-scale. May we assume that you were wailing for the people of Nicaragua at the time? Did you actively oppose our policy of military and financial support for these "freedom fighters"? Did you thoroughly and utterly condemn the arms-for-hostages deals and demand that those responsible be tried and punished?

Or is your maudlin concern for the slaughter of innocents as facile, opportunistic, self-serving, and hypocritical as the rest of our American reactionaries?

God killed the first born of every family in Egypt because the Pharoh didn't let the Israelites go

I was addressing the use of the term 'freedom fighter' as applied to the homicide bombers of the Middle East. If you desire a new discussion about the old news from Nicaragua I think a new topic would be called for.

You seem to be trying to turn another thread into something personal as is clear from the last few sentences of your post. I've told you before that I'm not interested in playing that game with you, so please find another playmate. Thanks.

I know what you were addressing. I'm just trying to put some of the terms that keep getting bandied about here (like "murderous thugs" and the ludicrous "homicide bombers") into some sort of context.


Well, yes, I was trying to elicit a personal, rather than received, opinion from you. That's often the way it works here.


If this means that you are finally going to desist in your personal attacks and targeting of me as an individual, all I can say is "Thanks be to God." Your abuse will not be missed.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

I have to agree with Artemise (and the example provided by goamerica - though there are many, many more). Those who keep going on about how warlike the Quran is, should really look to their own scripture (and, yes, I do assume that the overwhelming majority of those who criticize Islam on these grounds are Judeo-Christian). Indeed, it the Old Testament from which the Likudniks derive their own violent agenda - and claim they will not rest until there is an Israeli state extending "from the Nile to the Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18). Historically, the Bible is (or bastardized readings of it) are responsible for far more war and terror than the Quran could ever hope to compete with.

Or - here's a thought - maybe those making such claims should actually try reading the Quran itself - rather than decontextualized quotes lifted by racists and fundamentalist fanatics?

I think you need to revisit the meaning of 'abuse'. Challenging and disagreeing with your opinions does not constitute abuse.

We , in our current state often forget that we were once rebels and revolutionaries, that wanted freedom from an oppressive nation. We won those freedoms by what would be considered today as terrorist actions. We were only a small militia in compared to a large army. We used ambush and unethical tactics. We attacked the enemy on Christmas Eve, a time of family and religiously sacred. The basis being self determination, at all cost. There were no rules when it came down to it. There was nothing to lose and everything to gain. We were 'murderous thugs' who did not respect the 'rules'.

Peoples who desire self determination will go to ANY end to achieve it, because the 'other' is unacceptable. Once upon a time we understood this to the core.

As for 'murderous thugs', when poised against state run armies, when youre not big enough to have one, what would be your way of fighting back? I dont think it was out of context to bring up Nicaragua, that is a topic worth declaring the US blatantly hypocritical in terms of terrorism.

I will say that if I am being corralled, enslaved and see no way out, supposed to just sink to my knees and submit? Not a chance in hell. Ill take out everyone I can before I die for the cause and teach my children to do the same until the end is achieved, even and especially against a superpower.
If I were a Palestinian, Im not only gonna throw some rocks, while I get my *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** kicked and my family dead from US weapons and my house bulldozed by the Israeli army. ( I do understand the complications of Israel/Palestinian conflict and that they 'blew their chance' in some past agreements, however, the murderer Sharon now seems bent on thier total enhilation with US support or complacency)

Its better to die standing than live your life on your knees, I think that was Emilio Zapata.

How we as revolutionaries forgot our values, that all people deserve self determination and somehow became imposing, pompous, self righteous, religiously moral, intolerant imperialists is beyond me. Then again, decades of lack of education has shown itself to yield a premium. Half of America could not tell you what this country was fought for, probably something about tea or cherry trees.

The problem is, we didn't target and blow up the British army's 8 year old kids and wives.

Your premise is so flawed, there's not enough room on this board to dissect it.

"Freedom fighters" do not reject peace to blow up kids. "Freedom fighters" do not demand the elimination of another race. "Freedom fighters" would resist the true occupiers of their land with any means necessary against their oppressors. Innocent women and children are not oppressing anybody.

They are too cowardly to pick a fight with somebody that can fight back. And they are too cowardly to pick a fight with the country that has 80% of the land they used to occupy (not sure it was ever theirs) - Jordan.

You are attempting to install righteousness into an abhorrent method of extermination of Jews.

When the Palestinian scum start actually "freedom fighting", they'll get about anything they want within reason. As long as they murder innocents, I hope they all rot in hell.

My example was to show that God was justified in his actions of killing firstborns. Muslims kill because we are "non-believers" and supposivly the "great Satan"

I voted justified.

On 911 3,000 in america were murdered by terrorists. That is a declaration of war on our soil. Yes, defending one's country against an organized entity who would murder again is always justified. kill or be killed. is it that much of a choice?

Ok, if anyone answered this one, sorry, I haven't finished reading the whole topic yet.

I'll tell you what it is the US government did in the past 30 years that could infuriate more than one.

First of all, the war in Viet-Nam, where you were supposed to protect the vietnamese from communism but ended up burning up their villages and carpet bombing their jungles. Then, there was the war in Afghanistan, in which the US government trained bin Laden, and gave him billions of dollars. There was also the fact that the US government funded Iraq in order for them to wage war on Iran. Then they put Saddam in power. There was the 1st Gulf war, where US troops retrieved from Iraq when the civilian uprising against Saddam was starting. There's also the whole war on terror that was and is still very unjustified.

Need I add more?

Yes please.
You have yet to state why you think the war on terror is unjustified.

[quote=Passion51,Apr 21 2003, 03:03 PM] [QUOTE=unabomber,Apr 21 2003, 04:31 PM] ..and we shouldn't have built those dang towers so high in the first place! Nor should we be so prosperous. And no way should we be spending our hard-earned money on foreign aid, how gauche! Oh, and yeah, if another country gets invaded, well, mind our own business dammit!

Yes bomber, you are right. It is all our fault. We're nothing but a rape victim wearing high heels and a short skirt. [/quote]
hey! this is really a pretty good response.

There is something about blaming the victim that always rings disingenuous. We, America being the victim that is.

That is true.

I think the war on terror is unjustified because I think it's an excuse for Bush to attack countries when really, all he wants is the economic resources of the countries he attacks, or he attacks for strategic reasons (such as Afghanistan, which I call strategic because pipelines are passing under that country).

The war in Iraq has yet to be justified with solid proof, and Bush tries as much as possible to avoid discussing the subject. If he has nothing to hide, why does he avoid discussions on the so-called "War on Terror"?

Trained him Yes. Gave him money: No



Oh Yeah. BUT it just so happens that the group that is responsible for the attack on the WTC on 9/11 is in Afghanistan, a country with an oil pipeline running through it. Give me a break.

It is understandable to hear comments on resources when each attack ends in failure. At least fighting for wealth and land makes sense. Making wmd allegations that we're supposed to just forget about doesn't. Today they were iraq, tommorrow the weapons magically move to syria and maybe by next thurday we'll find some in iran. C'mon..

No concrete proof to date has been presented on Osama's death. No effort was made to round up the Tehran when they drove them off into the hills. No effort was made to stop the opium and poppy seed operations that proliferate there. It is estimated 75% of the world's heroin supply comes from this small country.

Troops came in, troops searched caves, set a some charges, and left. They did not leave this part of the world a better place after coming to it. European papers had a field day upon hearing the warlords were back in business and firing potshots and the US garrison. Now in concrete terms please tell me what this accomplished?

Rewind and play same frontal assault strategy. Except this time insert Basra and Baghdad. Let key information burn because only two ministries were protected. How does one pursue old regime terror figures when the records go up in smoke? Claim victory and let the the UN embassy take a hit. Have a cigarette and watch a local newpaper get mortared while an english journalist stands in befuddlement over the inaction. What's improving?

Where is the wmd that the US sold Saddam 15 odd years ago? If any further claims of wmd are made show us the goods before a new assault. If Saddam is accused of crimes against his people - extradite him so he be prosecuted. Now where is he? Seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars to wage a war and lose the primary objective. Sadder still is when ground zero becomes a greater terror target the before the war began. Again, what's improving?

As for fighting terror, one must trace the money trails and that is CIA and FBI jurisdiction. Trash the office of special plans and let the professionals do their job. Terror is less likely to happen when you don't give people a reason to be angry.

What are you talking about? We still have over 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. My previous unit is deploying to replace another in January. We are still conducting extensive operations Afghan-Paki region. If you don't know about it, blame mainstream media, not the administration.


Everybody DOES understand that we sold them chemical pre-cursors, most of which were dual use, don't we. People unhappy with Bush make it sound like we loaded up some nukes and rockets with Sarin and shipped them right over to Saddam.

No concrete proof he's still alive either



Then how come Afghan officials are trying to deal with the problem?




Blix would tell you those weapons have been destroyed after the Gulf War

Perhaps more attention needs to be on focused back on Afhganiston? By making light of the ongoing problems, maybe more soldiers and resources can be sent. Closure of some sort is needed because the confidence of the public will weaken and the frustration of the military will grow. What I hope doesn't happen is a permanent dispatch of soldiers to remain for the next 20 years. I don't want another gulf war 1 result of "protecting interests" when the only interest is to find dead or alive one single man. If you were to tally the total bill of all personel in Afhganistan from beginning to end and see how many billions were spent to capture one man - wouldn't you get angry?

As for dealing with the ongoing drug problem - I sincerely hope they build more than one facility. Currently there is only one and holds 10 beds. Men only. Please feel free to correct or update me here.



Since nothing was found than maybe we should believe Blix when he said there were none to be found? If that were the case, than maybe it is time to question and hold accountable the very people who made these allegations in the first place?

Two possible questions arise from this statement.
-Either Blix was false in his assessment and we simply haven't found them (which doesn't look competant considering Iraq is only the size of California)

-or Blix was right and someone superceded his authority because of their own personal agenda.

Either way I'm left with a sour taste in my mouth that in pursuing terror one is creating it.

Thoughts/feelings?

I voted "not justified", assuming the original poster was talking about the current efforts and wars that we've been involved in. We're simply doing more of the same that brought down the terrorists on us in the first place.

I don't believe we should be expected to improve the condition of a country for attacking us. That idea would make a good satirical novel though.

So, what about all those weapons him and his followers had? Where do you suppose he got the funding to buy all of them?




http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

I suggest you read this webpage.

The Taliban obviously supplied them with weapons and also the weapons given to them during the USSR conflict but most of the shelter and money came from the Taliban and charities known to have funded Al-Queda

there is a flaw in that article: At the beginning, it says within a few hours, Bush knew it was Al-Queda. Actually, after hundreds of meetings and 3 days passing, he knew it was Al-Queda. Also, that security briefing he recieved in Aug. of that year specifically said that Al-Queda was thinking of using hijacked airplanes.

His good friends the Bush family, perhaps? For bin Laden being a known terrorist for many years, isn't it interesting that Bush still maintains a friendly relationship with his family, even during the 9/11 attack?

Sight your sources.

I am sure the Bush family has or had ties with the Bin Laden family, but not with Osama directly.