war on terrorism

Monsieur Kennkid,
Je veux envoyer quelque chose par email.will que vous donnez m'a l'adresse?

These cases were inappropriately applied to support your stance.

The list is long and marks the interaction of US with the world. In each of its involvement, without American intervention of spread of Communism, the Godless Red Army would have marched south conquering Saudi Arabia in its infancy against the mighty USSR. Without American bombing of Japan, WW2 wouldn't have ended in such a dramatical fast halt which if prolonged would continue to costs millions of lives.

By now you should have realised the quote "Damn if you do, damn if you don't!"

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-31 04:51 PM:
These cases were inappropriately applied to support your stance.

The list is long and marks the interaction of US with the world. In each of its involvement, without American intervention of spr ...

Yes, like the 'Domino Theory' where countries in Southeast Asia were 'supposed' to have fallen into communist hands one by one if not for the yankee interference in Vietnam huh? Are we communists now? Did the Domino Theory come true? Did America win the war in Vietnam? is Communism flourishing?

Your frantic need to steer away to focus on America isn't impressing one bit. It is becoming more & more pathetic.

Are we communists now?

I wonder if you're Malaysian at all. By the time of US intervention in Vietnam, Malaysian communist movement is limited & confined to jungle retreat receiving no assistances from their brethrens in the North that are facing American challenge!

Did America win the war in Vietnam?

No. Vietnam was capitulated. Nonetheless it halted the Red flames from burning all of SEA.

is Communism flourishing?

Consigned into the trash courtesy of unabated American intervention. You should be thanking America for saving Mecca from the Red ruling!

Originally posted by WICKED at 2004-5-31 04:43 PM:
Monsieur Kennkid,
Je veux envoyer quelque chose par email.will que vous donnez m'a l'adresse?

Monsieur Wicked,

j'ai re鐄 votre email. Merci.

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-5-31 05:09 PM:
Your frantic need to steer away to focus on America isn't impressing one bit. It is becoming more & more pathetic.

I wonder if you're Malaysian at all. By the time of US intervention in Vi ...

The Domino Theory was first espoused by President Eisenhower  and was originally applied to Indochina (which includes Vietnam).

Many opponents of intervention in Vietnam thought the theory was highly exaggerated. After the DRV took over in 1975, Laos and Cambodia also "went Communist," prompting some to conclude the domino theory had been vindicated. Others pointed out that Laos had been dominated by North Vietnam for years and that Cambodia's Khmer Rouge were enemies of the Vietnamese.

Richard Nixon once said that the strongest argument for the domino theory was that the "dominos believed it," and indeed there was often fears in countries that bordered communist nations that their governments were in danger of subversion. This fear led to policies such as the NATO alliance and other forms of containment, dedicated to protecting non-communist nations from "falling."

Academics, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that the "real domino theory" is that if one country successfully developed itself into a successful socialist state independent of foreign interference, other countries would follow by example. Chomsky called this the "threat of a good example" and believes it is the main reason for American intervention in otherwise insignificant countries such as Cuba, Guatemala, East Timor, and Angola. This theory has been criticized for downplaying the influence of the Soviet Union in the third world.

The domino theory has been renounced by many of its original advocates, but continues to be used as an argument for military intervention. Today it is often applied in the United States to refer to the potential spread of both Islamic theocracy and liberal democracy in the Middle East. During the Iran-Iraq War the United States and many other western nations supported Iraq, fearing the spread of Iran's radical theocracy throughout the region. The United States also supplied arms to Iran during this conflict, in what was to be known as Irangate. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, American neoconservatives argued that by invading Iraq a democratic government could be implemented, which would then help spread democracy and liberalism across the Middle East.


[ Last edited by KENNKID on 31-5-2004 at 05:29 PM ]

Kennkid, if you're taking that Jewish bloke Chomsky to support your stance, you're making a mistake on me for I am not at all impressed with his pathetic ranting reeks of publicity rhetoric to attract gullible readers like you.

The Domino Theory ... Many opponents of intervention ... Laos and Cambodia also "went Communist,"... This theory has been criticized for downplaying the influence of the Soviet Union

Why thank you. That sums it all.

Today it is often applied in the United States to refer to the potential spread of both Islamic theocracy

Pretty lame. In fact, baseless assertion! Saudi Arabia is also theocratic rule. So is Afghanistan. Do they care a hoot?

by invading Iraq a democratic government could be implemented, which would then help spread democracy and liberalism across the Middle East

Only you would rather Iraq be continue under the armpit of Saddeh Hussin or a clerical rule. If that is so comfortable, many would return & emigrate to these heaven-made countries. ;)

Why not we renounce democracy? Oh its a good governing system? Then it should be a gift to Iraq.

Only you would rather Iraq be continue under the armpit of Saddeh Hussin or a clerical rule. If that is so comfortable, many would return & emigrate to these heaven-made countries.

Why not we renounce democracy? Oh its a good governing system? Then it should be a gift to Iraq. [quote: Admiral CH]

Most certainly not a single tear was shed when Saddam Hussain disappeared from world politics. Certainly not by me.

But is the battle really over Saddam Hussain, Iraq or something else?

Many world governments now believe the real issue is neither Iraq, nor Saddam, but whether the world should be expected to revolve around the United States. Whether Iraq will be bombed this week or the week after is no longer the issue.

The real battle then (Prior to march 2003) had shifted to another ground since the firm announcement by both France and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council, that they would use their veto power against a second resolution the U.S. and United Kingdom had been trying to promote among the council's members.

At least that's how one leading European publication saw it. Under the heading "America Loses Patience", the German Die Zeit printed an illustration of a tied up American giant surrounded by tens of small people, suddenly waking up with anger and cutting loose.

This brings to mind the famous fiction Gulliver's Travels, when Gulliver is washed from the planet's oceans to an unknown beach in the Island of Lilliput, only to find himself tied up with strings and surrounded by hundreds of small people.

But Die Zeit's giant is real by definition. After the collapse of the former Soviet Union and its satellite states, the world was left with only one "hyperpower" which has not been able yet to reshape stable international relations according to the new reality.

The  attacks of September 11 seemed to have turned things upside down for George Walker Bush's Administration. These attacks have made the U.S. a wounded giant who cannot see the surrounding world any more than the small people surrounding  Gulliver.


[ Last edited by KENNKID on 31-5-2004 at 06:12 PM ]

Kazuo

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 ...

what the hell is that??  it simply means terrorists or iraqi soldiers ....these 2 + some others were reported to hv been fighting agst the handover of iraq to the iraqi ppl... or didn't u know?  

how u justify ppl so call 'defending own country' & how i judge that justification obviously comes fr completely different point of views.  the thing is i don't think like u & there's not a darn thing u can do ab it... especially when nobody is interested in discussing the kurds & why they & other iraqis wanted usa to attack iraq.

Kennkid,

You're going round in circle wanting us to focus on America instead of Terrorist Organizations. In your small little world, America is the biggest threat not terrorist organizations that are staging assault in every corner of the world taking lives wantonly with arrogant admission.

Reality calling Kennkid. Terrorist organizations had been attacking America even before Bush came to power. Therefore, your above post is rubbish!

Have yourself a shake!

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-6-1 08:57 AM:
Kennkid,

You're going round in circle wanting us to focus on America instead of Terrorist Organizations. In your small little world, America is the biggest threat not terrorist organizations tha ...

Bush himself legitimizes terrorism, so I suggest you have yourself a more vibrant shake, Cheng ho.;)

...... So President George Bush tears up the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and that's okay. Israeli settlements for Jews and Jews only on the West Bank. That's okay. Taking land from Palestinians who have owned that land for generations, that's okay. UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that land cannot be acquired by war. Forget it. That's okay.

Does President George Bush actually work for al-Qaeda? What does this mean? That George Bush cares more about his re-election than he does about the Middle East? Or that George Bush is more frightened of the Israeli lobby than he is of his own electorate. Fear not, it is the latter.

His language, his narrative, his discourse on history, has been such a lie these past three weeks that I wonder why we bother to listen to his boring press conferences. Ariel Sharon, the perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1,700 Palestinian civilians dead) is a "man of peace" - even though the official 1993 Israeli report on the massacre said he was "personally responsible" for it. Now,  Bush is praising  Sharon's plan to steal yet more Palestinian land as a "historic and courageous act".

"What Bush has actually done is give way to the crazed world of Christian Zionism. The fundamentalist Christians who support Israel's theft of the West Bank on the grounds that the state of Israel must exist there according to God's law until the second coming, believe that Jesus will return to earth and the Israelis--for this is the Bush "Christian Sundie" belief--will then have to convert to Christianity or die in the battle of Amargeddon."


http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk04162004.html

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 1-6-2004 at 09:24 AM ]

ariyamusafir

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 31-5-2004 14:04:
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 ...

First of all, what do you mean by terrorism and terrorist? A terrorist is one who commits terrorism. Isn't the US a terrorist since they are commiting terrorism??? Aren't they terrorising the many people especially in Iraq? They say they are fighting terror organisations but if it is true, they are fighting terror with terror which makes them no different. However, what they are doing is not fighting terrorism but fighting and destroying those elements or organisations which is against their act of imperialism. However, to deceive the world, they also show that they fight terror organistaions around other parts of the world, but on a very much lower scale. Of course, they might be sincere in that fight agaisnt terror but the war on terror  by the US now is not a real war agaist terror but a war against those who really take up arms against their act of imperialism. This is what I can observe.

We are talking about War on Terror.

Instead of contributing how it can be won, you're dwelling into America & Israel ranting! At hand, we have terrorism to tackle. Taking the world by ransom with terror. Forcing compliance with incredulous demands. I am talking about Al-Qaeda as its activities are worldwide. Israel-Palestine issue is confined to that small geographical region. That is a territorial fight. Their business! Terrorists are wreaking havoc everywhere including Saudi Arabia! Which is more critical? War on Terror is talk about how we fight terrorism against terrorist organizations.

There's a few things to retort.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 says that land cannot be acquired by war. Forget it. That's okay

Yes. It is not OK. This sentence refers to Arabs!

I've met with this charges many many times. I believe you've been reading the same crap. To shatters your argument is easy. It says:
1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Israel is unable to withdraw unilaterally without their compliance and had been waiting for the last 37 years(1967-2004) and counting.

President George Bush tears up the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and that's okay

Which one? Is this the contributing factor of terrorism activities? No! Terrorism started long before him! This argument is rubbish!

Sharon, the perpetrator of the Sabra and Shatila massacre

Is this the contributing factor of terrorism? No! Because killing of Muslim civilians by Muslim authorities far exceeded Sharon, namely in Syria & Iraq. This argument is rubbish!

Aren't they terrorising the many people especially in Iraq

Already been said. This is a political conflict of diplomatic level. Is this the contributing factor to terrorism? No! It started long before Bush.

fighting and destroying those elements or organisations which is against their act of imperialism

Terrorist had been attacking US interests long before Bush came to power. Just few weeks he became President, his country is attacked. When did the imperialism started?

to deceive the world, they also show that they fight terror organistaions around other parts of the world, but on a very much lower scale

Deceive? Which place has more resistance?

Bush's ambition is insignificant in this thread. How do you propose we win WOT?

Originally posted by Adm_Cheng_Ho at 2004-6-1 10:09 AM:
We are talking about War on Terror.

Instead of contributing how it can be won, you're dwelling into America & Israel ranting! At hand, we have terrorism to tackle. Taking the w ...

Dismissing other people's opinion as "rubbish" is a short-cut to escapism from reality. But, if you want to know what really goes on or has gone on, it is best to get as many perspectives as possible and then  make up your mind. I'm not one who believes in having someone else tell me what to think or how to.

If this was a war on terror then it should have begun from Israel, the dagger of terror planted in the heart of the Arab world and held in place by help from the United States.

But since it is nothing of the kind & from New York's Twin Towers, or rather their rubble, which has leapfrogged straight to Afghanistan - on a body of circumstantial evidence that would fail to convince even a drinking judge of a county court - it becomes valid to question America's strident, and increasingly tiresome, rhetoric and the half-truths it is expecting the rest of the world to swallow.

If this was a war on terror what about the US's own record in this field?

What a shining list of scumbags the US has supported in Asia, Africa and Latin America, all in the name of freedom and the fight against communism. The Trujillos, Somozas and Batistas signified the kind of rulers the US was happiest with. No matter how corrupt and tyrannical, they were kosher, and high in American esteem, so long as they played lackey to US interests. The word banana republic comes from the Caribbean and denotes the kind of dependent and compliant state the US favoured.

What was Fidel Castro's great crime? Cuba was no threat to the US. The very idea is laughable. The US just could not tolerate a regime 90 miles off its coastline that had the temerity to stand up to it. Havana was a playland and a brothel for America's rich. Castro put an end to that and took Cuba out of the American orbit, an act of audacity for which the US has never forgiven him. He wasn't even a communist to begin with, but became one as a response to American hostility.

What was the Bay of Pigs except an exercise in naked terror? It was an invasion of Cuba by an army of Cuban exiles armed and funded by the CIA. The Reagan administration broke American laws to provide funds and arms to the Contra rebels (or terrorists) it helped put up against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

This list can go on and on. The overthrow of Mosssadegh in Iran, Lumumba's killing in the Congo, the brutalization and naked terror practised by the US in Vietnam, the totally pointless war foisted on Cambodia (from which that country has yet to recover), and training and funding the same Arabs and Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the eighties whom the US is now attempting to destroy.

Those idealists who consider the US as the land of hope and liberty should consider the US record in Latin America and the Third World before getting wet-eyed on this score. Now we are witnessing another exercise in muscle-flexing in the name of freedom - this time Enduring Freedom. The irony surrounding this venture is thicker than the bombs which fell on Afghanistan.

Democracy and the rule of law at home should not be confused with unprincipled conduct abroad. European colonialists abided by rules at home which they discarded as soon as they left their shores. So it has been always: one law for Rome, another for the barbarians vanquished by Rome. So it is with the new imperium: a different light shining from the Statue of Liberty, a different morality beamed at the outside world.

After 50 years of supporting the politics of terrorism in the Middle East, and of exporting CIA-led terror elsewhere across the globe, the US is alight with uncontrolled indignation because the unimaginable has occurred and it too has been struck by terrorism.

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 1-6-2004 at 10:54 AM ]

vixen

Adam_Cheng_Ho wrote:
Terrorist had been attacking US interests long before Bush came to power. Just few weeks he became President, his country is attacked. When did the imperialism started?

The WTC was bombed way back in 1993.

[ Last edited by vixen on 1-6-2004 at 10:31 AM ]

Taking a handful of incoherent ranting to make a cheap pot shot at America is indeed a load of rubbish!

Your points just doesn't click! That's how rubbish applies.

it is best to get as many perspectives as possible and then  make up your mind

You've perfectly shown how deceitful you are when obfuscate actual account of Res242. Just to name ONE.

Israel, the dagger of terror planted in the heart of the Arab world and held in place by help from the United States

Nobody planted Israel. Partition Plan was never implemented. Israel was declared to protect Jews from ongoing hostile Arabs. It was attacked by Arabs. US is perfectly justified to defend Israel from these aggressions. Only sickos would revels in Israeli destruction.

The contributing factor is not being Israel defending itself. The contributing factor is distortion of truth which induces hatred that produces legions of bigots! In the name of God & religion!!

What was the Bay of Pigs ...

Bay of Pigs hosted Soviet nuclear missiles. And you say the Cuban Missile Crisis is laughable. Cuba was no threat to the US. You are indeed laughable.

Is this the contributing factor of terrorism? I don't see Cuban attacking US. This argument is rubbish to say the least!

Enduring Freedom. The irony surrounding this venture is thicker than the bombs which fell on Afghanistan

Irony is you. Taleban protects Osama & refuse to hand him over. Only fool would advocate leaving him alone.

Is this the contributing factor of terrorism? If you think with your mind, any common people can think that Osama had been attacking America long before 911. Therefore, this argument is rubbish!

Is this the contributing factor of terrorism? If you think with your mind, any common people can think that Osama had been attacking America long before 911. Therefore, this argument is rubbish![Quote: adm_chen_ho]

Fearing the truth by merely dismissing them will not kill the truth.

Yes, this was the "attack"  by Osama on America, "long before 911".;)

"resident Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of the bin Laden family business, one of the biggest construction companies in the world, invested in Bush's start-up oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc."

http://www.americanfreepress.net ... _-_george_w__b.html

And this was what sparked the War on Terror in Afghanistan;)

"The United States tried in 1997 to negotiate with the then-ruling Taleban to construct a 1,300km pipeline to carry gas across Afghanistan's harsh terrain so it could be sent to Pakistan and India, bringing vast amounts of money to energy companies in the U.S., including Enron."
__________________

"What is interesting, however, is the US Air Force was stood down from routine airspace security regulations for more than an hour while the attacks in the United States were in progress. The President knew of the crisis at a much earlier time than had been officially admitted, and pretended not to know until after the attacks on the WTC. After being "officially" told, he continued to read with school children about pet goats, smiling and joking for more than 20 minutes, at the same time as a third hijacked plane flew towards Washington. Also this was clear because he showed no emotion nor did he seem unduly disturbed during his first televised speech, some time after the attacks, by what had happened in Washington and New York."
_________________


"Two weeks before the attacks, the director of the FBI resigned in protest over being ordered to back off investigations into bin Laden and Al Qaeda and investigations into reports provided to the United States by Thailand and Egypt that some sort of massive terrorist attack was due on the United States by al Qaeda. On August 29, 2001, Commander Wuttichai Saistean, of the Royal Thai Navy intelligence office, sent a message to both the CIA and the FBI offices at the American Embassy in Thailand from his home at 1810 Soi Ladprao 62-64 Ladprao Road in Bangkok, of an imminent attack on the United States by al Qaeda, possibly using hijacked airliners, although neither the modus operandi nor the date of the attack had yet been determined in detail. The former FBI director was given the job of head of security at the WTC, and was killed in the attacks on his first day in the job."

______________________


"Since declaring bin Laden wanted for terrorism, successive US administrations had twice turned down opportunities to take him into custody."

http://www.geocities.com/dong_nam_a/0202/SEA-talebangas.html

More to know:

http://www.iacenter.org/nowar_truth.htm

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 1-6-2004 at 11:55 AM ]

Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of ...

It was Salem. Not Osama. 2 different person with 2 mind 2 thinking 2 souls 2 mentality. Are you that confused?

Osama loves Arsenal. Is Peter Hill-Wood involved?

United States tried in 1997 to negotiate with the then-ruling Taleban to construct a 1,300km pipeline to carry gas across Afghanistan's harsh terrain so it could be sent to Pakistan and India

This is getting funnier!

US is friend of Osama. Osama friend of Taleban. But Taleban enemy with US. So Osama help US plot Taleban downfall by attacking America since early 1990's before 1997. Berputar belit.

Look here. If it wasn't for ALQ's attack on America, Bush would not have any excuse to attack recalcitrant Afghanistan. This is reality! You may choose to ignore it & lives in lies.

he continued to read with school children about pet goats, smiling and joking ...he showed no emotion nor did he seem unduly disturbed

How will u react in front of children & on television?

Wuttichai Saistean

How did he know when he's in Thailand?

osama was in bed with the bushies from day1.

get your head out from your rectum.