war on terrorism

kid

Originally posted by Kazuo at 30-5-2004 01:19 AM:

why are u so sure the bombing was intentional?  u're saying that us soldiers purposely attack innocent ppl attending a wedding?  there's news that iraqis themselves did it so they can blame it  ...

That wasn't the first time ... I think you didn't read news? we had evidence that US terrorize Iraqis civilians, shooting at civilians cars, bombing civilians area, and intentionally torture them... that's nothing secret... you miss the train

Seraphim

Originally posted by whitepig at 27-5-2004 11:03 AM:
>>I don't think that Iraq was a plus towards winning the war on terror<<

yeah but at least they got the oil reserves.

Yeah and more dead Americans in body bags and also lots more dead Iraqis ...

Kazuo

Originally posted by kid at 2004-5-30 02:59 AM:


That wasn't the first time ... I think you didn't read news? we had evidence that US terrorize Iraqis civilians, shooting at civilians cars, bombing civilians area, and intentionally torture th ...

so if u read the news, how come u didn't know terrorists/iraqi soldiers posing as civilians?  us soldiers tortured/mutilated too but of course they put themselves in that position in the 1st place.... semua 2x5.

kid

Originally posted by Kazuo at 30-5-2004 08:02 AM:

so if u read the news, how come u didn't know terrorists/iraqi soldiers posing as civilians?  us soldiers tortured/mutilated too but of course they put themselves in that position in the 1st pl ...

Get your mind clear.... you said "terrorist/iraqi soldier" .... as if Iraqi soldier are terrorist, what the hell is that? instead they are the the people who defend their country from being invaded are worth lablelled as "warrior and hero". If American invade our country and you defend our country you are a terrorist?

So your way of thinking is only from one side, but you dont think on the other side... when US soldier kill civilians and torture Iraqi they can't be labelled as terrorist because it was unintentional, but Iraqi army as a whole are terrorist despite what they are doing...???

sonny~~

Originally posted by kid at 2004-5-30 10:43 AM:


Get your mind clear.... you said "terrorist/iraqi soldier" .... as if Iraqi soldier are terrorist, what the hell is that? instead they are the the people who defend their country from ...

. . . when US soldier kill civilians and torture Iraqi they can't be labelled as terrorist because it was unintentional, but Iraqi army as a whole are terrorist despite what they are doing...???

strange.  when superdonkey bush rapes iraq, hes dubbed anti terrorist democracy hero

when iraqi army fight for their iraq, they're dubbed terrorists

likewise when hamas fight for PALESTINIANS rights, they're called terrorists

when israel raped PALESTINIANS, they're called defendin their israel.  wot rot  

peace

Seraphim

Originally posted by sonny~~ at 30-5-2004 11:39 AM:


likewise when hamas fight for PALESTINIANS rights, they're called terrorists

when israel raped PALESTINIANS, they're called defendin their israel.  wot rot  

likewise when IDF fight for ISRAELIS safety, they're called terrorists

when  palestinians raped ISRAELIS, they're called defendin their palestine.  wot rot  

You get the general idea..Wash and rinse this situation with other incidents

ariyamusafir

The fact still remains that US is an imperialist and that Israel has Nuke while they are against those around them to have the same thing. Correct me if I am wrong.

Why does of War on Terrorism condescends into Iraq & Israel ranting? This is not what is being discussed in this thread everyone!

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-26 08:49 AM:
Hi darsita,

Applying the label of "terrorism" should be made against the backdrop of intention.

The bombing of the wedding is still unclear to me. I'm still wai ...

So what is the "intention" of US invasion by way of terrorism in Iraq? ~ freedom, democracy for oil etc  huh? ;)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1311.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm

Horsnell, however, is clear on one thing: 揑f there had been no invasion, then the current oil price would be lower.

Kennkid,

Read again what is being discussed. The wedding party not invasion!

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-31 01:40 PM:
Kennkid,

Read again what is being discussed. The wedding party not invasion!

I know. The topic of this thread is "War on Terrorism". Why should terrorism be restricted to the wedding party in the Israeli/Palestinian context, which to me is within the realm of a larger scale terrorism by an Israeli ally invading occupier in the guise of a 'savior' in Iraq?  Read the urls I pasted for you. To me Iraq, Palestine are all inter-related ~ its all part and parcel of the bigger US imperialistic endeavour.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 31-5-2004 at 02:04 PM ]

The War on Terror is defined specifically to fight terrorist organizations subscribed & accepted by the rest of the world.

If America is to be shoved into this category that are intentionally targetting civilians, it would requires their acknowledgement of doing so for a purpose!

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-31 02:04 PM:
The War on Terror is defined specifically to fight terrorist organizations subscribed & accepted by the rest of the world.

If America is to be shoved into this category that are intentionall ...

So, its the superpower which decides what is "terror" and what is not ~ who is a "terrorist" and who is not. The rest of the world should just echo & give a standing ovation ~ until the "terror" of the superpower is inflicted upon them.

That is just your pathetic interpretation which had gone haywire failing to comprehend the given elucidation. Nobody can decide for we all know what terrorism means.

In this case, your premise should provide whether the US Army condone deliberate targetting of civilians if so what is their cause & struggle of doing so. An inconclusive justification for an invasion does not sufficiently warrant the label terrorism. Japanese terrorised much of Asia during WW2 however they are still not terrorists but state warfare of diplomatic level!

Terrorist organizations do not negotiate. They insists compliance of their petty demands. They openly declare their action regardless of consequence & cause. They take no heed of civilian innocence! This is the type of threat we exterminate. First option is always cut-off their supplies especially gullible manpower. I would have agreed Iraq War is a watershed. However, lumping US Army under Bush-administration as terrorists organization reflects improper analysis of the case.

when  palestinians raped ISRAELIS, they're called defendin their palestine.  wot rot  

do you have any proof to your claim that palestinians rapes israelis, they're called defending their palestine. So what do you call those israelis who raped palestinians? Defending their pride?? :hmm:

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-31 02:31 PM:
That is just your pathetic interpretation which had gone haywire failing to comprehend the given elucidation. Nobody can decide for we all know what terrorism means.

In this case, your pr ...

Whats the difference between a warmonger and a terrorist?

Before you answer that, hope you enjoy this:;)


"A Warmonger explains war to a Peacenik"
(author unknown)

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S.
Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has
expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into
a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security
Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

Irrelevant! Had been discussed.

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-31 03:27 PM:
Irrelevant! Had been discussed.

You're beginning to sound like the Warmonger (WM) in the discussion above ~ or Bush himself..:lol

You're beginning to sound like Arab spin doctors.


->your premise should provide whether the US Army condone deliberate targetting of civilians

->state warfare of diplomatic level

->Terrorist organizations do not negotiate. They insists compliance of their petty demands. They openly declare their action regardless of consequence & cause. They take no heed of civilian innocence!

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-31 03:37 PM:
You're beginning to sound like Arab spin doctors.


->your premise should provide whether the US Army condone deliberate targetting of civilians

->state warfare o ...

Thats on paper, to look pretty. In reality its something else.

Pls read:

http://www.geocities.com/WestHol ... /American/list.html