How the rest of the world sees us.



Status
Not open for further replies.
bomba wrote:
> Tristan wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately, we can only draw conclusions from the information that we're given...
>>>
>>
>> It's easy to draw the conclusion that you're a Saddam sympathizer.
>
>
> You obviously got confused with all those big words again. This shouldn't need explaining, but you
> clearly need extra help: Just because I don't support war against Iraq does not mean that I
> support Saddam Hussein.
>
>> Thank God that Tony Blair and W. Bush have the balls to take out the garbage. If security was
>> left to cowards like you, we would all be

>
>

See, you are scared..

In all honesty, I think all of us are a bit on edge. However, appeasement is never the answer.

And Bomba, I apologize for calling you a coward. I just get so irate at people and their complacent
stance on stopping terrorism with Peace.
 
"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
|
| > | So the US killing their own people with chemicals is ok?
| >
| > Yes, because the lawful killing of convicted criminals is different than using WMD,
|
| It still all boils down to executing your own people with chemicals, which contradicts your
| initial argument.

Not at all. Context is key.

| which is what the discussion has been about until you took it
| > off on a jolly semantic tangent.
|
| I thought it was you who asked the initial question about the US using chemicals on its
| own people.

Context boy, context. Please pay attention to a thread that you are trying to participate
in.

Terrorism and WMD have nothing to the government executing a murderer that has received
due proccess.

| > Like I wrote, a lost cause.
|
| Ha ha. You're precious. Just dismiss someone as a 'lost cause' because you're flailing around.

Yes, a lost cause. "Flailing around" would be the lost cause who is equating capital punishment to
Saddam killing civilians.

But you already know that.

--
Pete Fagerlin

Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
 
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeremy Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9FD0A6.11069%[email protected]...
> | On 20/3/03 8:01 pm, in article [email protected], "P e
t
> e
> | F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote:
> |
> | > "Jeremy Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9FCDA0.10CE4%[email protected]...
> | > |
> | > | So - do you have some reason to believe that there is a link between
> Iraq
> | > | and terrorism (whatever that may be), or is this just a word game?
> | >
> | > Yes, and it's also a word game.
> | >
> | > Main Entry: ter·ror·ism Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun Date: 1795
> | > : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
> | >
> | > http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
> |
> | So - in a nutshell, "terrorism is what the other guy does" and therefore
> by
> | definition Saddam must be supporting terrorism. Or else "terrorism is
> what
> | everyone does" with the same implication.
>
> Nope.
>
> Saddam commits terrorist acts as well as supporting terrorists, like Al Qaeda.
>
> See the Al-Zarqawi link for starters. IN addition, I think its quite plausible that the US
> government hasn't released, and won't release, all
of
> the intelligence links that they have, in order to protect sources,
methods
> and intelligence assets, worldwide.
>
> "terrorism is what everyone does"
>
> Hmmm...when was the last time the US used chemical weapons on its own people?
>
> --
> Pete Fagerlin
>
> Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
>
>

I don't remember the US using chemical weapons against it's own people, but there are a number of
instances where they've tested biological and nerve agents (as well as hallucinogenic drugs) on it's
military personnel, and also on civilians without their knowledge, in the case of the first. The
British government/Military have done exactly the same.

The last time the US used chemical warfare to my knowledge - Vietnam, Agent Orange! With lots of
dire consequences not only for the environment, but also for the Vietnamese people and US military
personnel.

Now, as in the previous Gulf War, they'll be using DU armaments. Wonderful! Lots of depleted uranium
lying around to inflict miserable illness and death on more innocent people.

Ian

Ian Rogers
 
> Hmmm...when was the last time the US used chemical weapons on its own people?
>

The US still stands as the ONLY nation ever convicted and penalized by the UN for state supported
terrorism (a fine, by the way, the US chose to ignore).

All chemical weapons Iraq was ever known to posess were sold to them by the US in support of Iraqi
war efforts against Iran. There is currently no proof Iraq has manufactured its own nuclear or
chemical weapons.

Maybe in a week this will be behind us, and George will show us some evidence that makes this all
worthwhile. But, if that were going to happen, don't you think he'd have shared it with the leaders
of such countries as Canada, Germany, France, Australia, Belgium, etc.?

As it stands, the offensive maneuvers of the United States are unjustified.

It is a popular feeling among unintelligent Americans that this "war" is necessary. Ask yourself
this: if your son or daughter was sent off to Iraq, and a week later you received a letter begining
"Dear Sir, we regret to inform you...", would you think they died for a good reason? Would their
life be worth it?

Chris Human first, American second
 
"bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Tristan wrote:
>
> >> Unfortunately, we can only draw conclusions from the information that we're given...
> >>
> >
> > It's easy to draw the conclusion that you're a Saddam sympathizer.
>
> You obviously got confused with all those big words again. This shouldn't need explaining, but you
> clearly need extra help: Just because I don't support war against Iraq does not mean that I
> support Saddam Hussein.
>
> > Thank God that Tony Blair and W. Bush have the balls to take out the garbage. If security was
> > left to cowards like you, we would all be

>

How so?

darsh

>
> Have you read that quote by Goering that's been posted a couple of times?
 
> Thank God that Tony Blair and W. Bush have the balls to take out the garbage. If security was left
> to cowards like you, we would all be

Balls? Yea right! This war is a rout. Compared to the US, Iraq is a defenceless country.

Now if Bush stands up to N. Korea, then maybe he has balls. But invading Iraq? No balls
needed there.

Besides, this war was planned long before 9/11. Click the link below and read the letter from 1998.
Be sure to pay attention to the names at the bottom of the letter. Quite telling if you ask me.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

scott
 
Tristan wrote:
>
>
> It's easy to draw the conclusion that you're a Saddam sympathizer. Thank God that Tony Blair and
> W. Bush have the balls to take out the

>
>
>

Body, wanna feel your body, body, baby, such a thrill, your body Body, wanna touch your body,
body, baby, it's too much, your body Body, check it out, your body, body, baby, don't you doubt,
your body Body, talking about your body, body, baby, checking out your body

Listen here

Every man wants to be a macho man To have the kind of body always in demand Joggin' in the mornings,
go man go Work up to the hill's top, muscles grow You can best believe me You're a macho man Glad he
took you down with anyone you can Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey

Macho, macho man You gotta be a macho man Macho macho man You gotta be a macho

Macho, macho man You gotta be a macho man Macho macho man You gotta be a macho

Body, your body, body, wanna feel your body Body, baby, body, body, come and thrill your body Body,
baby, body, body, love to funk, your body Body, baby, body, body, it's so hot, oyur body

So hot, yeah your body Allright

Everyman ought to be a macho, macho man To live a life of freedom, machos make a stand

Have your own lifestyles and ideals Access the strip of competence, that's the skill You can best
believe that you're a macho man He's the special god son in anybody's land hey, hey, hey, hey, hey

Macho, macho man You gotta be a macho man Macho macho man You gotta be a macho

Macho, macho man You gotta be a macho man Macho macho man you gotta be a macho

Macho, macho man You gotta be a macho man Macho macho man You gotta be a macho

You gotta be a macho man You gotta be a mucho mucho, macho macho man You gotta be a macho

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
Darsh wrote:
> "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Tristan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thank God that Tony Blair and W. Bush have the balls to take out the garbage. If security was
>>>left to cowards like you, we would all be
>

>

>
>
> How so?
>

"...you can kill some of the people all the time and you can kill all of the people some of the time
but you can't kill all of the people all of the time. When a whole population hates you fanatically,
it's difficult to rule." - Margaret Atwood commenting on the fall of Napoleon's empire. Those who
ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And we are dooming ourselves right now.

Greg

--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Darsh wrote:
> > "bomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Tristan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thank God that Tony Blair and W. Bush have the balls to take out the garbage. If security was
> >>>left to cowards like you, we would all be
> >

> >

> >
> >
> > How so?
> >
>
> "...you can kill some of the people all the time and you can kill all of the people some of the
> time but you can't kill all of the people all of
the
> time. When a whole population hates you fanatically, it's difficult to rule." - Margaret Atwood
> commenting on the fall of Napoleon's empire.

> Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And we are dooming ourselves right now.

I don't agree, sorry.

darsh

>
> Greg
>
> --
> "Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and
> hard, just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dennis Baker wrote:
>
> > I kindly suggest that the rest of the world would react differently if 3000 of their innocent
> > civilians lives were snuffed out by terrorists while working on a Monday morning.
>
> But Iraq doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. If there was a proven link then you'd get a
> lot more support. People let you get on with Afghanistan, but now it just looks like
> war-mongering.

Tell that to the Kurds they gassed or to their own civilians whom Sudam's son's have killed in
cold blood.

Is this terrorism? http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/opinion/3_18_03saddam.html

What about raping and murdering women ?
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.html

> > 2) Does Iraq have ties to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations?
>
> The CIA and FBI couldn't find a link...

To me, this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html is a proven link to terrorism. Suddam
is paying/ encouraging the Palestinian suicide bombers. That to me is a very direct link to
terrorism. As far as ties to al Queda go, I don't know and neither do you. This doesn't mean that
they don't exist. I would hope that President Bush has access to a bit better information than I do.

As I said, I don't really know what to think because I don't have all of the information. Some make
up their minds without having all the facts.

-- The Ogre http://ogrehut.com
 
Tristan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> bomba wrote:
> > P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >
> >> If I have to explain why the US doesn't make all of its intelligence methods, sources, and
> >> information public knowledge, then there's no reason to discuss this any further.
> >
> >
> > Proving a link between Iraq and terrorism was one of the Bush administration's main goals prior
> > to the war. Of course, there's the possibility that they're hiding such information, but
> > announcing a link would have been beneficial to their cause.
> >
> > Secondly, if the link did exist, why was it not made available to the security council? I'm sure
> > they would have got a second resolution authorising force if they did.
>
>
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, we can only draw conclusions from the information that we're given...
> >
>
> It's easy to draw the conclusion that you're a Saddam sympathizer. Thank God that Tony Blair and
> W. Bush have the balls to take out the

Nice and to the point. I wonder if these naysayers watched Colin Powell, (whom I've met, btw)
summarize the case to the UN? I once had a government job taking out the garbage, and most of the
time you'll be misunderstood and have your motives questioned, called all sorts of names, etc.,
etc., because you simply can't jeopardize the lives of others to try and appease the cynics and
skeptics who wouldn't be convinced even if a gallon of VX was delivered to their mail box with an
Iraqi return address.

Approve or disapprove, it's our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters fighting
over there, and they deserve our support.

Paladin
 
Pete Fagerlin wrote:
> Hmmm...when was the last time the US used chemical weapons on its own people?

I assume you're referring to Iraq's gassing of the Kurds in '87? Well, that incident didn't seem to
bother the first Bush administration.

Scheer writes in his latest column: http://www.robertscheer.com/
: "Bush repeatedly has made a lie of omission by telling us Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people"
: but neglecting to mention that in the immediate aftermath of that attack fifteen years ago, his
: father gave Hussein's government $1.2 billion in financial credits."
 
On 21/3/03 5:42 am, in article [email protected], "Dennis Baker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Dennis Baker wrote:
>>
>>> I kindly suggest that the rest of the world would react differently if 3000 of their innocent
>>> civilians lives were snuffed out by terrorists while working on a Monday morning.
>>
>> But Iraq doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. If there was a proven link then you'd get a
>> lot more support. People let you get on with Afghanistan, but now it just looks like
>> war-mongering.
>
> Tell that to the Kurds they gassed or to their own civilians whom Sudam's son's have killed in
> cold blood.
>
> Is this terrorism? http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/opinion/3_18_03saddam.html
>
> What about raping and murdering women ?
> http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.html

You provide a meaningful definition of "terrorism" and I'll tell you.

>>> 2) Does Iraq have ties to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations?
>>
>> The CIA and FBI couldn't find a link...
>
> To me, this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html is a proven link to terrorism.
> Suddam is paying/ encouraging the Palestinian suicide bombers. That to me is a very direct link
> to terrorism. As far as ties to al Queda go, I don't know and neither do you. This doesn't mean
> that they don't exist. I would hope that President Bush has access to a bit better information
> than I do.

For heavens sake use your head, Dennis. What encourages a suicide bomber - 50 bucks from the Man
with a Moustache? Or the knowledge that the rest of their life is to be spent inside Israeli barbed
wire, with no job, no home, not enough to eat or drink, and no prospect of a change since the
Israelis are bankrolled by the one superpower? The biggest encouragement to "terrorism" (and you may
care to take up the challenge that Pete Fagerlin flunked) is Ariel Sharon.
 
Tristan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> bomba wrote:
> > Tristan wrote:
> >
> >>> But Iraq doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. If there was a proven link then you'd get
> >>> a lot more support. People let you get on with Afghanistan, but now it just looks like
> >>> war-mongering.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Coward !!
> >
> >
> > Please expand on this theory. I'm interested as to why you think I'm a coward.
> >
>
> You blame Tony Blair and W. Bush for potential attacks of Londonistan? That's appeasement.
> Cowardice, pure and simple.

Are you fighting in this war? Go on, pick up your weapons and fight like the brave man you are, us
cowards will thank you after we bury you in the name of anti-terrorist terrorism (or
whatthehellever). I'm sure you'll make your family proud.

Shaun aRe
 
"P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeremy Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA9FCDA0.10CE4%[email protected]...
> |
> | So - do you have some reason to believe that there is a link between
Iraq
> | and terrorism (whatever that may be), or is this just a word game?
>
> Yes, and it's also a word game.
>
> Main Entry: ter·ror·ism Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun Date: 1795
> : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Just as a side note, cannot the " Shock and Awe" campaign of bombing (or atleast the promise of it)
be considered terrorism as defined above? I suppose that it cannot because the USA has declared
"War" on Iraq. And rememeber that WAR is Different from Terrorism... Something to compare and
consider...
--
Westie

>
> http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
>
>
> --
> Pete Fagerlin
>
> Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
 
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Westie wrote:

>> : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

> Just as a side note, cannot the " Shock and Awe" campaign of bombing (or atleast the promise of
> it) be considered terrorism as defined above? I suppose that it cannot because the USA has
> declared "War" on Iraq. And rememeber that WAR is Different from Terrorism... Something to compare
> and consider...

A war of aggression is by definition coercion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Example of Bill Zaumen LYING: "Mikey, I'm going to flush the rest of your posts"
Replies
39
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Bill Z.
B
J
For JG and the rest of us imbibers
Replies
6
Views
257
Mountain Bikes
Bill Sornson
B
M
  • Locked
OT: Rest stop on the road to Baghdad
Replies
1
Views
568
Mountain Bikes
Slacker
S
I
  • Locked
To Carla, Jimbo, Greg and the rest of the freaks
Replies
3
Views
915
Mountain Bikes
Ifjoe
I
D
  • Locked
Guess you focks can't give it a rest huh?
Replies
47
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Stephen Baker
S
Top Bottom Back