IAP Political Forum

--------------
I thought you would mention the Poeple's Mujahedeen. Never mind. But you are prefectly right: They are terrorist (ennemies) when they don't agree with us (and in the ME that means that they want to kill us), else they are friend. I don't see what so strange with that. Maybe you would like us to take as friend those who disagree with us?
If a person change his mind and start to agree with us there is no reason to stay at war with him. We are rather happy instead. Wouldn't you?
_____________
----------
It's not that simple. In the West we have financial agencies rating countries for their "business friendliness". That includes, among mayne other factors, human right records because dictatorships are known for being usualy bad for business.
Such rating by agencies like Standard&Poors are closely followed by corporations and funds to decide whether to invest in a country or not. (Iaq's rating actualy is pretty low if not the lowest.)
You are right: we don't do that to "help the poors and the oppressed", we do that for business. The problem (in your theory) is that business as we see it needs personal and political freedom. For example US-based human groups have always been worried about Saoudi's strict macho sharia law because it didn't fit with our "business friendly standards" and precluded a certain level of risk given the large trade the US has with them.
For the same reason, supporting terrorists or dictators is not compatible with our business strategy. If some of our politicians (Bush, Chirac or whoever you like) did so, it was a mistake.
_____________
----------
I don't see what's wrong with that. The americans occupy iraq, it's normal that they promote their products there.
By contrast the russians opposed the war against Saddam. Why should they have any reconstruction contract now?
_____________

---------
I never said we were angles. When did I say that?
_____________
---------
I don't understand this question. What "goodness of our heart" has to do with trillions of dollars? I'm lost here.
===> Please write shorter sentences.
_______________
--------------
Controlling the oil reserves and watching what those who gets the money out of those reserves is the same.
I never said we tried to save the world. But we try to keep the business there profitable and to do so we have to monitor the area. In case of unrest, excessive dictatorship, local tribal wars, saber rattling by self-fanatized presidents or other worrisome events, we eventualy have to bring in troops and act militarily to protect our petroleum interrests.
If the world, or this part of the world is about to collapse it's the role of the oil lobby to save this part of the world.
________________

---------
No, it isn't. As I said above, their rating would be far higher if the local politians were less corrupts and gave more money to schools, orphanages, hospitals etc.
And these rating by financial institutions are very serious and followed by investors. We give far less money when they don't open schools and hospitals than when they do. We give far less money when they oppress their own poeple than when they don't. Everybody would like to invest in China because it's the highest growth market you can imagine. just one problem: their human right records. But no one would worry investing in Norvegian, Swedan or Danish stocks since their human right record is stellar and their corruption level the lowest in the world.
Giving to a few corrupt leaders doesn't pay off and the business world knows it.
________________

-------------

But you don't know what colonialization is. When the King of Belgium (I know this story because I'm belgian) funded with his own personal money, the exploration of Congo, he decided that the explorated terrirotories belonged to him as a private ownership.
Three quarters of the region known today as the "third world" was so owned by western monarchs, for whom state ownership and private ownership made little difference.

Now look at today: The only place where a western country is the administrative authority through occupation is Iraq. And this situation is wobbly to say the least.
The locals have much more power over their land than what the most powerful superforce today can project.
How come a small faction numbering a few hundreds poorly trained militiamen can have a balancing effect with a 160,000 hyper-modern force?
IMO that's far from colonializing.
_____________________

------------------
No, the west is not these "sunni insurgent groups". Last time I checked, "sunni insurgent groups" didn't qualify as "The West".
It's completely wrong to say that WE do what THEY do.
What is important is that they don't shot at american forces and that they help the americans in the hunt for al-qiada members.
Stealing cars and racketing the population is a relatively secondary problem, but the americans will eventualy ask these groups to stop such practice because it deters the fight against al-Qaida.
Now try to pretend you are a shiite in Lebanon but you are against Hezbullah. You'll see what happen. Consider yourself happy if you can keep your car or, should I say, if your car can keep her owner (alive) more than 24 hours.

______________________


--------------
Ok, ok, Iran "only" killed half a million in the Iran-iraq war.
But Iran never had nukes so far. When they will have nukes I'll tell you how many they have killed with them.
___________________
----------------
What Israel does and what Syria does has nothing to do with "our right to have weapons" or anything connected with us (the West). Well, anyway, as you bring up the question, I would say that from OUR point of view, we and our friends are indeed the only ones to have the right to have weapons and that our ennemies don't have this right.
Syria and Iran however would say that it's the West and Israel who don't have the right to have weapons. Why should we allow those who will eventualy fight against us to get weapons? I think that all this is logic. Not arrogance.

Did you make this post to deny that you are arrogant?  :o

I would write a lengthy reply, except you just proved my point. So I will settle for this sentence:

For Heaven's sake re-read what you posted. It is the definition of arrogance  ::)

West arrogant? Sure. So what? How are we more arrogant than the ME?


There's not much that's more arrogant than thinking you're god's choosen, or you know what God is thinking, or you know who God hates, or you know who God is, or you think you're doing Gods work or you figure God wants you to kill or God doesnt want you to marry this person or that or...or...or...or
....and you see that everywhere in M.E.



there is no lack of arrogance in the world.

Ahk

Most of what you wrote above does not apply only to the ME but to the entire planet especially the West. In addition to what we see everyday, I would say that makes the West more arrogant

I'm sorry but I don't see the same religious fervor that I see in the ME.

The people in the ME have the history to get them drunk on themselves. "I was born in the same city James was"...etc, etc. "MY people this..." and "My god that....".


Sure there are weirdos and fanatics everywhere but once you step foot in the ME the whole thing is stepped up to a new level.



Ahk

That's the point. Once you step foot in the ME.

However, when people think like this:


Calling those who don't agree with you terrorist >>>> Arrogance


Do you see them called terrorists? They will be when they start disagreeing with you >>>>> Arrogance


Putting people on trial for what you assume their intentions are >>>> Arrogance


And the winner is:

Optimum of arrogance


SHow me one place where they said that



Allow people to do something>>>>>> Arrogance

How do you read Fred's words?

He doesn't make a difference between war and terrorism. His definition of terrorism is: If people say no to us, they're terrorists. Period.

Says who?  >:(

Sorry Ahk. The ME can't beat you when it comes to arrogance.

Middle Easterners may think they are God's chosen (that would be mostly your allies anyway), they may think they know what God wants, but never once they declared themselves God, the way the West does.

Do what we say and you will be saved (the way we see fit btw), if you don't agree with us, you are automatically a terrorist and you will go straight to hell.

Rings a bell?

If you say so but you seem to believe these attitudes I describe from the ME are Western motivated, i.e.: if there was no Israel, if there was no oil, if there was no Western interest then everything would be fine. But you know better than that don't you? You know full well that arrogance such as I have described has been causing warfare not simply between religions but often more within religions that would cause no end of blood even if North America remained undiscovered and no one ever even looked the ME's direction.

For you, it seems like when I hear the US and the French call each other arrogant - it's imply amusing....a product of pride and ignorance...this isn't quite the same as saying, "I can kill your kid because he's a filthy Jew or Muslim or Shia or Sunni and God says it's ok". The mentality here, I'm afraid, imo, goes even deeper and even stronger than when the Catholic church was saying the same thing 500 years ago. It's not like this mentality can't be found in other people...people are people at the end of the day, but the ME has a certain paramount mythical 'feeling' behind that attitude that seems to dominate and permeate like nowhere else.


I'm not taking sides between you and Fred, but suffice to say Cedar does not equal Lebanon and Fred does not equal the West.



Ahk

Cedar, please YOU reread what I wrote because you quoted me partialy.


I will develop further my idea:

We call our ennemies "terrorists" because they use terrorism as a mean of action. But they are definetly poeple who also disagree with us. The 9/11 highjackers disagreed with us, Zarqawi dosagreed with us, the Bali smiling bomber disagreed with us (Try to prove that they didn't) and today OBL still disagree with us.
Maybe a better definition of a terrorist would be "someone who disagree with us to the point of using violence against us".

Now there are personalities who once disagreed with us and, when they did so, were terrorists. At other times, they change their mind and start to agree with us and as a consequence drop any terrorist activities against us so we don't call them "terrorist" anymore.
Yasser Arafat and Gadaffy are two important leaders who were at some points called by us terrorists and at other times not.

We don't call poeple "terrorists" because they don't agree with us (our wester politicians would call each other terrorist at every tv debate and the word would lose all meaning). We call them "terrorists" because they engage in terror acts against us and coincidentaly they do so when they disagre with us. These poeple are indeed terrorist when hey disagree with us. They are not when they don't.

I don't think it's arrogant to notice that.

Cedar, you are mixing simple logic with some notion of "arrogance".
Call it arrogance if you want but opposing our ennemies to have weapons is not arrogance in my mind: It's the only way to win against them.
If we are about to be at war with another country, we don't need to be "arrogant" to do our best to prevent this country to have weapons as powerful or more powerful as ours.

Well, maybe in the ME mindset, the rules of honnor would dictate that we should let our ennemies having the same choice of weapon, so that we, in return, would be gratified by a large number of martyrs in our ranks. That using a method that kill the enemy without killing ourself is not up to the real Allah's fighter. Sorry but we are not ME poeple and we are "arrogant infidels" who lobby the UN for banning weapons to our ennemies and cowardly develops weapons and armor which reduce the risk for our soldiers at the same time. How dare we?

No Ahk,

What I am saying is not that all would be fine without the West. But you can't say that if the West hadn't been around, they would still kill each other so it's ok if we do it. The facts being what they are, and the West being a party to the conflict, they should be held accountable for their part of the bloodshed. If it had been someone else doing it, then that someone else should have been held accountable too. You don't get away with murder just because if you don't do the killing someone else would.

And when someone comes and says this:


Then this is what I call arrogance. Now you and I both know Ahk (even if Fred is innocent when if comes to these things which is why I am always patiend with him) that such militias don't just steal and frighten the population. They torture and kill those who stand in their way, don't they Ahk?

Now you tell me. Why is it that they were hunted when they were working against US soldiers as terrorists, whereas now that they are working on your side, they are no longer terrorists even if they still bomb and kill and steal and terrorize the population and they get more weapons to do that for the price of a few Al Qaida members. They do the exact same thing they did before, except they are on your side and that makes their actions suddenly justified? Why are they no longer terrorist? Because a ME civilian's blood is different from a westerner's blood?

Terrorism should not defined in terms of who brutally kills Americans or Israelis or Westerners, but in terms of who brutally kills period.

Terrorism should not be defined in terms of who uses terrorist tactics, but in terms of all those who use terrorist tactics, including the West.

Victim of terrorism is not only a westerner or a western capital killed or blown up by a Middle Easterner allied to Syria or Iran, but also in terms of innocent Easterners killed by those allied to the West.

That is why I called the West arrogant. Because they define terrorism in terms of who kills them. And if the same tactics are used by them, then it is not terrorism.

Definition of Arrogance (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=arrogance):
overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

Does this apply to the Western behavior or not?

Do you make sure that they don't kill you or anyone else or just you?

A person allied to you who kills someone else using the support you give them and the weapons you give them are not terrorists?

So it is about who agrees with you and who doesn't. Because agreeing with you is being given a license to kill.


Are you trying to prove my point for me Fred?

So you just said that in addition to being arrogant you are also without honor?  :o

Remember you opened this thread because I called the West arrogant. You seemed to think otherwise as you tried to deny it. Not anymore I see.

Thanks Fred  :)

Anyway, you can read my reply to Ahk about why I said the West was arrogant.

No.



Yes.


No it's because they don't know what else to do. What the US never seems to realize or pay credence to in their foreign diplomacy (and military action is an arm of diplomacy) is that when you are the strong or capable one you don't need to rattle the saber. I mean the US's military capacity is well known. No one has to spy on them to find out their troop strength. Before you ask yourself if you are the US what are you going to do about Iranian nuclear weapons, you really have to ask, why is it truly worse for me if they have them, especially countered against the price to try and stop it militarily.

So why remind people all the time? Why is the "no negotiation. No backing down" card always played? It's really not smart especially when everyone knows you can. Why is it not smart? Because it's the only card you're playing yet it's the only card everyone knows you have. It is pointless to continually say you will not negotiate with 'terrorists' when the possibility plainly exists. The problem is regardless of whether or not youre capable or willing to use military force - it isn't what you want to achieve. Threatening to attack is always a 'bluff' because it's not really what you want.

Case in point: Do you want to invade Iran or have some influence in their nuclear program? How is threatening the obvious, something they are already prepared for, going to achieve anything? It does nothing but make both politicians in question look like the 'strong man'.

I dont think the US really cares or doesnt expect countries like Iran or Syria to procure nuclear weapons. That isn't really a realistic expectation of any nation. But I think a strong 'enemy' like Iran (and visa-versa) that every party can 'argue' with in order to look strong benefits from this.


I agree in principle to this. The defining of 'terrorist' is naturally going to be precarious, but one needs also to remember that any opponent must - pretenses of morality aside - must sink to relatively close to the same species of brutality it is faced with or it will not win..

Case in point: US in Iraq. How many losers have come here to basically suggest that if only the US would run the country with the same iron fist that Saddam did then everything would be 'secure'? Lots.



Ok. It's better to be killed by a local? You said this:
"But you can't say that if the West hadn't been around, they would still kill each other so it's ok if we do it."
You're not suggesting that it's only worse when it's an outsider doing it?

Well I think we're all pretty arrogant Cedar. More directly I think North America and most of Europe are just very disconnected with the ME. Those who are 'anti-war' don't really understand it anymore than the 'pro-war' ones are. I know I don't claim to 'understand' the ME.


Yes, but again: this attitude is only worse because they are 'foreign' to the ME?



Ahk

I was suggesting that when people use the same terrorist tactics, they should both be considered terrorists, not one terrorist one justified, but now that you mention it, yes when done by the West it could be considered worse.


No Ahk, this attitude is worse because it is being shown as justified.

It is worse because it makes people like Fred think that for the time it takes to save American soldiers who have no business being in Iraq in the first place, it is ok if a few civilians get butchered by your allies because eventually you will ask them to stop. Do you know what eventually means for a civilian in such a situation?

It is worse simply because some are presented as evil whereas others are presented as the knight in shining armor.

It is worse because of the double standards applied, because among those who use the exact same tactics, there are those who are called terrorists and hunted down, and those who get away with murder.

It is worse because of the lack of justice.

Why is it that if Hizbullah kills an Israeli civilian once every ten years, that makes them terrorists and those who arm them terrorists too. But a militia armed by Israel can kill 3500 Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila in less than three days and under the watchful eyes of the Israelis and they are never declared terrorist and are to this day allied to the West?

Why does the blood that is shed identify who is terrorist and who is not?

That is why it is worse.

Otherwise, they would be on equal terms, no one worse than the other.

But under no terms would the west be better.

Cedar,

You sound exactly what you accuse others. I think you want it your way all the time. See the hypocrisy?

War has no rules, no winners. Only survivors. Quite simply that is it, no sides, no arrogance, just survivors. You can see that can you not?


Warm regards
Terry

No.



This post of yours makes no sense to me. Sorry Terry.

If you had a point I totally missed it.

Well I think she knows that but maybe one of the differences someone in her position might point out is that while what you say is true we 'see' it on tv, while she 'see's it on her front lawn.



Just sayin',
Ahk

What is arrogant is internationalism, globalism and interventionism. Wars result and the wrong people die and the wrong people get rich. An eternal tragedy and travesty.

OswaldTheOsprey

Yeah Ahk, I realize that. But to throw up arrogance and act like she has a corner on 'War' is a bit of a streache is going a tad too far mate.


CM Ahk
Terry

.

Well I'm not in complete agreement with her either.





However...the nasty question remains in my head like a wad of gum stuck under the desk, I can't dislodge it: when was the last time someone from North America or Australia for that matter, came home to a smoking shell hole?

Perspective is everything.
Ahk

Bloody oath, yer spot on there mate!


Warm regards
Terry

been happening for millions of years, no need to think you can change it now.

Applaud for putting it the way it is...

We will have peace soon, when the fundamentalists reign is over...

This whole arguing about arrogance is what starts wars anyway.

We are human. We all want the same thing.  When we can't have it we become confused.  When we are confused we misunderstand.  When we misunderstand we become fearful.  We become scared of uncertainty.  We get paranoid.  We let our instincts overcome the best of us.  We become self-interested.  We invade.  We conquer.  To the winner all the spoils...

And even after all the death and destruction, we can't seem to realize that all we wanted was just a hug.

Well said, no one could have summed this thread up any better, so kudoes to you!  ;)



Kindest regards
Terry

I'm tired of all this.

Fred,
Good luck saving the world....from all those who don't agree with you....from behind your computer screen

Ahk,
I may be against politicians, and politics, but I am never against soldiers. The West DOES create terror groups same as Syria and Iran or whatever and you know it. They can be created in a country where there is no military presence of the west to be their fighters by proxy, or they can be created because they can do what the regular army can't do even if militarily present. So when you arm thugs, you pretty well know beforehand that the killing and terrorizing of innocent people is a by-product of your creation and you do it anyway. Meaning, even if you think this is the ONLY way to do it, this does not remove the fact that you are STILL responsible for the death of innocent civilians by the groups you create. You KNOW they are going to use the same tactics used by your enemies (which is the reason you create them), those tactics you call terrorist.This is what I am criticizing and I gave the example of Hizbullah killing an Israeli civilian once every ten years, and the massacre of 3500 plaestinian civilians in Sabra and Shatila in less than 3 days by a pro-western militia under the watchful eyes of Israeli soldiers. No one bothered to answer as to why Hizbullah is a terrorist organization and the Lebanese forces are not. This is hypocrisy.

Terry,
I hardly understand what you posted, but here is the thing. I see the West as equal to Syria or Iran or Israel or whatever. They are all the same to me and this is not hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy to me is when you claim they are different.

And no, there is a difference between war and crimes against humanity. I have seen both. You can go to war, in a legitimate act to survive, but cold blooded murder is not tolerated not under the Geneva conventions and not under any other convention even when you are in a state of war. When these cold blooded murders are done by an Anti-western militia, it is a terrorist act. When these are done by Pro-western militias, they are a legitimate act of self-defense, that is IF anyone hears about them. How is the murder of innocent civilians by a pro-western militia a legitimate act of self-defense? Why is not labeled terrorism?

I do not expect any answers. I'm done posting in this thread.

To me, when I see Iran calling America the great evil, OR when I see America labeling Hizbullah a terrorist organization, what comes to my mind in BOTH CASES is this: It is like a prostitute teaching people about chastity.


See you all around

I don't think i denied this Cedar. In fact you said the same thing to me this thread, I quoted it and indicated I agreed.


Ahk

Ahk, I think we are all tired of this thread, so we all have some harmony let this one sink away please.  :'(

Let's not forget that Hezbollah was created by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. 
Interesting too that the 1000 odd dead killed by the IDF in Lebanon last year, most of whom were civilians was called a "measured and justified response" by many western leaders. 
I'd hate to find out what is a "unmeasured and unjustifed response is. 

And someone above (correct me if I'm wrong) wrote that religious extremists are more prominent in the Middle East than in the west. 
I seem to recall Pat Robertson, the right wing christian fundamentalist calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez on his own tv show a few years back.  Rumsfeld said at the time that everyone has the right to their own opinion.  Well given that logic I could go onto my own tv show and call for the assassination of BushII - to be "taken out" to be more precise. 

Cedar,

You are unfair on two points:

1/ That we don't call "terrorist" those who are on "our side". That's not true. First because "our side" is a very vague notion in the ME even as Israelis are concerned. Second becuase we eventualy call them "terrorist".
Those who did Shabra & Shatila were defentily and repeatedly called "terorist" and other names in the western media. I remeber this event very well. It was literaly presented as horror on Earth.

In Iraq, everybody is a terrorist as soon as it terrorises civilians. If the new tribes fighting al-qaida were realy terrorizing the population the way al-Qaida does, that  would be against the american interrests there which is to create an atmosphere of safety for the occupation.
Why? Because what is annoying for the american is not the ideology of the terrorist groups nor even their power, but the very fact that by creating unstability, they jeopardize the legitimacy of the pro-US governement. And if they do, sooner or later they will have to face US troops.

Also, There is no evidence that the new group uses terror tactics against the population. If you have such evidence, plese post them here. The fact is that the population turned against al-Qaida because they were under constant threat. The tribe sheiks don't have any reason to terrorize a population.

But even if this is the case and if the US military doesn't say anything, western human right groups, anti-war goups and the Democrats will expose the fact and eventualy call them "terrorist".
You fail to realize that the majority of poeple and politicians in the oposition in the West is against this war in iraq and would be shocked at the very idea of having troops working with terrorists. That would be a political disaster for Bush.

Maybe we have very poor understanding of the ME, but you have very poor understanding of the West.

2/ You blame us (the West) for actions that we didn't do under the pretext that they are our allies. Being our allies doesn't mean to be "the West". The sheiks in Anbar and the police in Kabul are not westerners, I told you that already.

The reality is that americans (who seems to represent the West there) have no control and no mean to repress illegal, inhuman or terrorist activities of the groups they are working with if they ever work with them.

Furthermore, once they don't attack US troops, they definetly have nothing to do with the US anymore and the inter-muslim warfare is realy none of our business. We realy have NO responsability in it anymore. If killing, torturing and terrorising each others is what they want, who are we to forbid them these pleasures?

--->
Then I must read that:

Yeah, How dare we, he?

No, Cedar, we don't see any honnor in weakening ourself. Your reaction to this (sarcastic) point is revelating. Somehow you esteem Hezbullah and similar groups for letting themeslves bombed by forces 100X superior to them. For you too, Jihadist martyrdom is a honnor, despite your christian background? Sometimes I understand why the West is not supporting you arab christian more.

Link? :o
I mean when and who said that? from what i'v read and heard western leaders said exactely the oposite. But maybe we don't have the same notion of "The West".

Yeah Yeah Fred whatever.... ::)

I either agree with you or I am a terrorist supporter >>>> Arrogance

That's what I have been saying all along.

Keep posting Fred. You are making my point better than me.

Yes Fredledingue - its was indeed called "a measured response"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Harper_government

At the outset of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Harper defended publicly Israel's "right to defend itself," and described the invasion of Lebanon as a "measured" response

Suddenly when Canadian citizens were killed by the IDF we didn't hear from him again.
I guess the killing of children is a "measured" response.

And here in Australia, John Howard, yet Bush poodle, said the same thing

Waylander mate, [removed]! You don't come even close to what us True Blue Aussies believe. And don't come the raw prawn with me boy.  >:(



T.

.

Is that all you can post is ad hominems Terry?

Avoidance suits you, but I really have no interest. You provide nothing useful.


T.

Avoidance of you?
I didn't know you stated anything to reply too apart from an ad hominem posting.

What's the matter Terry - you don't like how I proved that Western leaders like the Howard poodle used the words "measured response"?
You must be missing your 'Peisi' mate because he provides the content you can agree with :)
But don't worry Terry, we can't all be lap dogs

.



<disinterested>




T.


CIA

Here you go Fred. This is who you remind me of, you and all those who think like you. You have as much a sense of justice as this wolf.

The Wolf and the Lamb (http://www.aestheticrealism.net/poetry/Wolf-Lamb-LaFontaine.htm), By Jean de La Fontaine
Translation by Eli Siegel     

The reason of those best able to have their way is always the best:
We now show how this is true.
 
A lamb was quenching its thirst
In the water of a pure stream.
A fasting wolf came by, looking for something;
He was attracted by hunger to this place.
—What makes you so bold as to meddle with my drinking?
Said this animal, very angry.
You will be punished for your boldness.
—Sir, answered the lamb, let Your Majesty
Not put himself into a rage;
But rather, let him consider
That I am taking a drink of water
In the stream
More than twenty steps below him;
And that, consequently, in no way,
Am I troubling his supply.
—You do trouble it, answered the cruel beast.
And I know you said bad things of me last year.
—How could I do that when I wasn't born,
Answered the lamb; I am still at my mother's breast.
—If it wasn't you, then it was your brother.
—I haven't a brother.—It was then someone close to you;
For you have no sympathy for me,
You, your shepherds and your dogs.
I have been told of this.I have to make things even.
Saying this, into the woods
The wolf carries the lamb, and then eats him
Without any other why or wherefore.

Commentary


Friendly advice: Read the last highlighted sentence carefully Fred.

 ..And that would apply to ALL people Cedar, not just Fred.   ;)



Warmest regards
Terry


.

It's YOU who says that. NOT me nor "the West".
It's islamists who claim proudly and arrogantly to be terrorist as soon as they disagree with us.

You are cherry-picking the few quotes out of context, of course.
I could quote thousnads of opposite views from western politicians and intellectuals.

I think it's more accurate to say that people become terrorists after they are given reason to want to exact revenge on those who abuse them and their countries. In the current situation where terrorists have attacked the US and Britain I can see no reason to suspect that they are not justified in seeking revenge. If they strike agaisnt targets in Canada or Canadian I will have to be honest with myself and admit that we have been the cause of their anger because of our complicity in US wars of aggression.

Dunno, all terrorists Are arrogant, but all westerners are not arrogant. What price do normal people have to give to get along with terrorists,eh?  ;)

How are the quotes out of context?

And let's see the 'thousands' of opposite views

And this justifies it in your mind. Non-involvement justifies attacking our civilians. I see. Very compelling.

BTW - what 'compliance'? Canada was openly against the war invasion of Iraq and if you're speaking of Afghanistan well since when attacking after being attacked a war of aggression? Maybe "war of aggression" is just a nice catch-phrase to regurgitate? Most wars are aggressive so although it sounds like it says something, it really says and means nothing at all.


Do you think about the things you say, or do you just say them?


Ahk

Well for what it's worth Terry, and that's obviously not much on this forum, you're dead wrong on that too. Is it really necessary for me to explain why? Just think though, had 911 never happened the US would still be praising the Chechen terrorists for killing school children. As they were wont to praise Chechen terrorists before 911. Praising terrorists because the enemy of their (US') perceived enemy became their friend.

Yes Orwell it's the endless swinging door of Washington's favoured 'friend' to dastardly 'foe'.

Consider when Saddam committed the gas attack on the Kurds in Halabja, the US government cynically tried to blame it on Iran.
They even continued to treat Saddam as a favoured friend with more weapons 20 months after the Halabja attack.

You need some serious counselling and some history work. On second thought, you aren't even worth the effort. Piss off.  ::)



T.

Interesting subject Waylander! I think the jury will always be out on that one. CIA agent Pelletiere investigated it and said that it was done by the Iranians. But then of course he could have been involved in a damage control propaganda effort because it Saddam did it then the US would have been complicit in supplying the stuff.

Are you familiar with the whole story? If not I will look it up for you on the internet or you could look it up yourself by searching for Halabja Pelletier or something of the sort. My own personal opinion? I have actually seen Pelletier interviewed on the question and I believed him when he said that it wasn't Saddam. I don't think we will ever really know for sure until the Iraq war is over and more people in the know come clean on the issue. We do know that the US kangaroo court which tried and executed Saddam stayed far away from the question. Saddam needed to be dead first. Your opinion?

Wasn't a US court that tried and executed him. Are you suggesting he was murdered for fear he could reveal secrets that he could've revealed at any time in the last 15 years worth of saber-rattling against the US? Or even through written word long after death?

He needed to be shut up, is that what you're suggesting? if so I admit confusion since the guy has been yapping non-stop for a long time and never once seemed it appropriate to reveal any of these damaging secrets.


Ahk

Did you just call me an Islamist Fred, or make equal to them in thinking?

I have always envied you your world. Not living in Lithuania or Belgium, not that world, but the one in your head.

You should really consider writing children's books, they will make great fairy tales.

I can't believe how someone can reach your age and still be this clueless, not only about world issues, but about human nature as well.

Goodbye

PS: This is really a disgusting post

Now hold on Cedar!

I think there is a failure to properly communicate. Especially where it is East and West. Cedar, what happened to you? You were a shining light, teaching those of us in the west. Or maybe you made your mind up that you can't bridge the gap.

And that, my dear, would truly be a tragedy.  :'(



Warmest regards,
Terry


.

I said a US kangaroo court because that was in fact what it was but it's really not worth arguing further. I'm saying that the US couldn't allow Saddam to be tried on the Halabja gassing issue or the use of poison gas in any of his wars. It was necessary for the US to make sure that the issues dealt with were small issues relating to individual deaths which could be substantially proven with living witnesses. I make no mistake angry man, Saddam had blood on his hands but the scale paled in comparison compared to the US blood on it's hands on a much, much grander scale. And most importantly of all, it's simply hypocritical to even consider the issue when the US motives were not in the interest of aiding Iraqi citizens in the least.

No. I said two different things. But I must admit that sometimes you have the reaction of an islamist or of hardline leftist. The difference is that leftists very rarely engage in terrorist activities (at least in recent history) so I would say that you behave like a leftist thought I don't think you are one in the marxist sens, but more in the "non-aligned movement" sens, if you know what i mean.

In the West we never say that poeple are terrorist only because they don't agree with us but islamists and hardline leftists pretend that we say so.
It's also true that muslims who don't agree with us, I mean with our basic value, will support islamoterrorism. Of course not all those who oppose the occupation of Iraq are terrorists but all those who are vocal about the return and expansion of islamic values are.

that was the two main ideas of this post. I don't know why it's disgusting or why I look like a wolf. i just try to have a constructive conversation with you.

____________________________
It was out of context because this (saying that Israel's response was moderate) was a reaction to a barrage of indignation in the west.

Once again throws his hands against his ears and refuses to address the issue.



Blah blah blah.....as predicted complete avoidance of the simple logic:

If there was a reason to shut Saddam up, something damning he knew he could tell others - then why not announce that at anytime in the last 15 years?

If you can't answer this exceedingly simple question and if you can only "debate" by deciding your definitions -- even without a shred of proof -- are the only ones acceptable then how exactly are you here to "debate"....how exactly are you "open minded" or "critically thinking?"

You're not. You're acting like a baby.

I ask again now and 1000 posts from now - simple logic - you can either deal with it or you can't:

If there was a reason to shut Saddam up, something damning he knew he could tell others - then why not announce that at anytime in the last 15 years?




I look forward to more of your comical, "I'm right because I say I'm right",  posts. Very entertaining.


Ahk

You've truly not been listening to the other side's propaganda if you haven't heard the accusations. He made those accusations and Iraq made them on his behalf. Many other factions even in the US made those accustions for him as we know from the testimony of Pelletier. What needed to be done was to allow Saddam an audience by charging him with those crimes and allowing a fair trial in the international court at the Hague where the world would be it's witness. Of course othe lesser charges were dealt with first, Saddam was quickly found guilty, and was put to death in record time, even for the US which usually is civil enough to see execution verdicts and appeals exhausted over years before the sentence is carried out. If in fact any death penalty can be considered civilized!

That's the short answer to your simple question so let's see how you deal with it now. I don't mind giving you a second chance.

I ask again until you answer:






Ahk

Orwell's,
Saddam's trial and execution was done in record lenght time. By Iraqi standard his trial would not even lasted one minute. The US keep this stooge alife for as much as they could in hope to get informations from him.
 

Look Fred, there's not much denying that the US demanded the offing of Saddam along with his sons to keep them quiet. To pretend that they have and had all the answers is just plain ridiculous. An 'is, is not' argument between us is only scratching the surface and unless we are to get into examining the facts more closely than you appear to be willing to do then it's a waste of time. Give me something to work with and I'll be more than happy to oblige. The simple fact is that the US should have ensured that Saddam was tried in an impartial world court for his alleged crimes against humanity and it should have been open to the scrutiny of the world. And the US had every right to demand that if what they charged and alleged was true. It's really completely incorrect according to any justice system to execute a person before the complete details of the alleged crimes are examined. I really wish you would at least relent a little on that so I could take you seriously.

Ahkenaten- Be quiet, pay attention, and listen for a while. You're wasting cyberspace much more than you are causing me any discomfort.

Well that's great because it's not my intention to cause you discomfort. I do realize however why a troll would rush to make that assumption. No farthest thing from my mind. You've made a contention. I see what I think is a hole in the logic of that contention. I ask you about it. Either you can answer or you can ignore it or you can cop out. So far you continually choose to cop out. I am content with either. It just allows us to laugh harder when you proclaim it's everyone else who can't debate or face the tough questions.
Here's the question again:

 

You contend the US executed him to shut him up. Either you have reason to believe this or you are delusional. Since you can't seem to explain why there was a need to shut him after he had been captured when in fact he could've revealed any supposed information at any time with in 3 days previous to be ing captured....even though every television in the world was focused on him while he had his chance to say whatever he liked and instead preferred to point his finger at the judge insisting he had no right to do this because he was the 'lawful' president of Iraq....

...during all that he didn't say a peep yet you contend the US executed him to "shut him up".

You want me to listen more and talk less. I have listened. I want you to think before you talk. What are the chances of that happening?

Why would there be a need to rush to shut him up when he's had years and years before, during and after the invasion to say whatever he wanted - - in fact he did and didn't once mention your ambiguious unseen "secrets" you're so certain exist

Is it that my line of questioning is so completely base and simple it confuses you? Is the reasoning or logic so spartan that you assume it must be deceptive?





And predictably what do you do between your cop outs in your replies to me? You continue with the 'ad homen' attacks and name calling you so arrogantly proclaim you're above. I think if you can call me angry man, I can call you dickless punk? You see now how you are as responsible for the conduct here as anyone.

Also I am not understanding the logic here. Saddam is a murderer, but since there are other murderers existing he should be let go?


Ahk

Orwell

Saddam couldn't be extradited to The Hague because Iraqis wanted to dispose of him themselves. Saddam had nothing to say or to hide. He was toast from day one and he's got a very fair trial under iraqi arab standards.

His sons also had "fair trials", the arab way.

I don't see why you are looking for more mysteries around this.

lieexposer!

lol! I knew your smack-talk and obvious grudge were familiar.


Buh bye!

Ahk

Fred wrote:

Took ya a while though. see you in a while as ............??

Bye asshole!

"Took me a while", he says triumphantly? I suppose you're proud you recognized me right away with your incredible reading skills...no doubt had I got it right away you'd try to 'shame' me for having nothing better to do! LOL!! LOL!


I told you before, if I needed any smart come back from you I'll just wipe it off your lip.

Eww good one! Did you come up with that yourself, or did one of your posse suggest it? :) LOL!




Ahk

Well, you're consuming valuable oxygen and creating greenhouse gasses, so bloody answer Ahk's query!  ::)




Terry


.