0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 04:21 pm
Let's see, how long was it between the first attack on the WTC and Sept. 11th? Can we expect to wait that long before the next one to shout "triumph?" How many Americans have been killed by terrorist not within the actual borders of the U.S.? Let's get some perspective here. Hasn't it been pointed out that terrorism is an international problem by Bush & Co. and that we need cooperation -- we can't do it all? It's not our problem if the terrorism is against an ally or even a peaceful country who hasn't become allied with the U.S.?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 04:37 pm
The "Increase in Terrorism" you wave about, c.i., includes the fact nearly 50% of all terrorism casualties last year stem from fewer than a dozen incidents, reflective of a shift in terrorist tactics to mass-casualty efforts as exemplified in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Spain, which three incidents by themselves account for nearly half of the casualties across the dozen largest attacks out of 208 reported. Meanwhile, more terrorist plots have been foiled, and more terrorists killed or captured, and more nations have become actively involved in The War On Terror than ever before. This is a war, and The Enemy is fighting, as logically may be expected. The Enemy, however, enjoys neither the initiative nor the advantage.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 04:44 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Let's see, how long was it between the first attack on the WTC and Sept. 11th? Can we expect to wait that long before the next one to shout "triumph?" How many Americans have been killed by terrorist not within the actual borders of the U.S.? Let's get some perspective here.


Who's shouting triumph? I guess we better wait at least 8 years, 7 months before we shout even so far so good.

Were either of these attacks caused by our invasion of Afghanistan?

Were either of these attacks caused by our invasion of Iraq?

What would have happened if we chose not to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

What would have happened if we invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq?

What would the surviving Al Qaeda in Afganistan have done if we invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq?

Is the worldwide increase in terrorist attacks caused by our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

www.britannica.com
Quote:
Prior to 2001 the complex had sustained a major terrorist attack. On February 26, 1993, a large bomb planted by terrorists exploded in the underground garage of Two World Trade Center, damaging the base of the building (subsequently repaired), killing 6 people, and injuring some 1,000. The attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, was much more destructive. Hijackers deliberately flew two commercial airliners into the towers, the first striking the north tower at 8:46 AM (local time) and the second hitting the south tower at 9:03. Badly damaged and engulfed in flames, the weakened south tower collapsed at 9:59; the north tower fell about a half hour later. Debris from the towers also destroyed or damaged other buildings in and around the complex. Some 2,800 people were killed.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 04:55 pm
What would the surviving Al Qaeda in Afganistan have done if we invaded Afghanistan but not Iraq?

We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.
We invaded Iraq in March 2003, one year, 6 months later. Why did we wait so damn long when it was clear many of the Al Qaeda were fleeing to the temporary sanctuary of Irag?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 05:14 pm
Quote:
The cause was the preservation and integrity of the United States and the emancipation of people of colour. It was a war for freedom, dignity and the rule of law. A war that had to be fought.


Timber, do you really mean to compare this to the invasion of Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 05:27 pm
Many Al Qaeda were fleeing for the temporary sanctuary of Iraq? Exactly how many is that? How about the other countries we suspect they escaped to?

The Civil War? An inevitable war and after it was over, how long did it take before Afro-Americans could be said to have achieved the good life along with equality? Has that even happened yet?
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 06:30 pm
So many morons, so little time.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 06:31 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Many Al Qaeda were fleeing for the temporary sanctuary of Iraq? Exactly how many is that? How about the other countries we suspect they escaped to?


I'm still counting! 19 were enough to accomplish 9/11. Far more Al Qaeda than 19 have thus far been killed in Iraq. While I can't prove it, odds are that many more of 'em will be killed in Iraq.

My computations are delayed by a concurrent project. I'm trying to prove that the sun will come up again tomorrow. The probability looks pretty good, but I so far I am unable to prove to a certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow. I won't know for certain until tomorrow. :wink:

Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia are the probable other countries--what do you want to know about them?

Lightwizard wrote:
The Civil War? An inevitable war and after it was over, how long did it take before Afro-Americans could be said to have achieved the good life along with equality? Has that even happened yet?


The point of that Canadian article about our Civil War was that the same accusations currently being plowed onto Bush were also plowed onto Lincoln. Lincoln's efforts nonetheless paid off despite those accusations.

Lincoln went to war in 1861 to save the union of American States: that is, to keep the United States of America united. Because America was eventually kept united, the 13th Amendment freeing all the slaves in America was submitted for adoption January 1865, about 4 months before the end of the Civil War (Lincoln was shot about a month before the end of the war), and adopted December 1865, about 7 months after the end of the Civil War . In this war, about 125,000 Union soldiers were killed.
No preservation of the Union, no 13th Amendment! Capire?

Bush went to war against Al Qaeda in 2001, also an inevitable war: a war to protect ourselves and the innocent people of the middle east from terrorism. If Bush were to follow Lincoln's time table, this war will be be won by 2005. I expect the number of American casualties will be considerably fewer.

The Afro-Americans, as you call them, are considerably better off than Afro-Africans these days. Afro-Africans are murdering each other by the thousands while the UN continues to observe. Hay, don't discount the UN yet; they may pass a shame-on-you resolution or two.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 06:40 pm
IronLionZion wrote:
So many morons, so little time.


Why do you mock your intelligence? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 07:25 pm
This should clear things up a bit ..... Wink

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/732.jpg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 07:43 pm
Gels, That is toooo funny! We all know when Cheney was asked about this connection, Cheney just said "go fuxk yourself.!" Such intelligent people in our government. Makes us all proud Americans.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 07:59 pm
What he really said was 'go fuock yourself while it's still legal'. Big difference ......... Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 08:19 pm
That is a funny one, thanks.
Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 06:14 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I wonder why C.I. doesn't make the connection that WMD is a valid point in the War against Terrorism, especially when they are in the hands of terrorists?


Terrorism and terrorist are emotive and variable terms, depending entirely on your viewpoint.

For instance, consider that there are more arabs terrified of the USA than Americans terrified of the arabs.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 06:19 am
timberlandko wrote:
I'll point out too that despite the media spin, the causus beli re Iraq was not Iraq's possession of WMD, but Iraqs defiance of demands Iraq clearly and unambiguously document and prove divestiture of known proscribed assets and capabilities.....


Since when was the US the executive arm of the United Nations?

You can't have this argument both ways.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 06:26 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And, at the time we invaded Iraq, Bush believed what (almost) everybody else did, including those who voted not to go to war with Iraq, that Saddam had WMD. I again will refer you to the William Raspberry column: "We Didn't Dare Wait". It is posted elsewhere here on A2K or you can google Raspberry and get it. It explains it quite clearly.

If we had the luxury of making all decisions based on hindsight, you would have a valid argument C.I. But, as we all do, the President has to make decisions based on the information available to him at the time the decision is made.


Bollocks. They cooked it up. Your own senators have been on TV this week, explaining this.
See my later post from The Observer, today.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 06:42 am
Blair's lies are now unravelling.
This from The Observer today:

Spy chiefs 'withdrew' Saddam arms claim

Gaby Hinsliff and Antony Barnett
Sunday July 11, 2004
The Observer

Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein posed a 'current and serious' threat to Britain is challenged by dramatic new allegations today that Britain's spy chiefs have retracted the intelligence on which it was based.
The supposed proof that the Iraqi dictator was still trying, even in the run-up to war, to produce chemical and biological weapons became crucial to the Prime Minister's case for urgent military action rather than waiting for inspectors to finish their task.
Yet, according to a senior intelligence source interviewed by BBC1's Panorama tonight, MI6 has since taken the rare step of withdrawing the intelligence assessment that underpinned the claim that Saddam had continued to produce WMD - an admission that it was fundamentally unreliable.
The charge leaves Blair open to serious questions over why, if the nature of the proof had changed, he did not tell the public that the evidence of WMD was crumbling beneath him.
It will increase speculation that he may be forced to disown chunks of the controversial September dossier on banned weapons when Lord Butler publishes his report this week on the handling of intelligence on Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/story/0,14750,1258812,00.html
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 07:22 am
Most of the dots they connected didn't exist.

Flawed intelligence? Yes. Flawed thinking? Yes.

Flawed brains? Probably.

Quote:


"The Dots Never Existed"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 09:07 am
McTag wrote:

Terrorism and terrorist are emotive and variable terms, depending entirely on your viewpoint. For instance, consider that there are more arabs terrified of the USA than Americans terrified of the arabs.


My viewpoint:
Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:
Prior to 2001 the complex had sustained a major terrorist attack. On February 26, 1993, a large bomb planted by terrorists exploded in the underground garage of Two World Trade Center, damaging the base of the building (subsequently repaired), killing 6 people, and injuring some 1,000. The attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, was much more destructive. Hijackers deliberately flew two commercial airliners into the towers, the first striking the north tower at 8:46 AM (local time) and the second hitting the south tower at 9:03. Badly damaged and engulfed in flames, the weakened south tower collapsed at 9:59; the north tower fell about a half hour later. Debris from the towers also destroyed or damaged other buildings in and around the complex. Some 2,800 people were killed.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2004 09:28 am
McTag wrote:
Since when was the US the executive arm of the United Nations? You can't have this argument both ways.


Way #1: The United Nations executive arm is at best incompetent; it can't lead the defense of anyone not even the thousands of Africans being murdered and maimed in Africa by Africans.

My viewpoint:
Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:

Prior to 2001 the complex had sustained a major terrorist attack. On February 26, 1993, a large bomb planted by terrorists exploded in the underground garage of Two World Trade Center, damaging the base of the building (subsequently repaired), killing 6 people, and injuring some 1,000. The attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, was much more destructive. Hijackers deliberately flew two commercial airliners into the towers, the first striking the north tower at 8:46 AM (local time) and the second hitting the south tower at 9:03. Badly damaged and engulfed in flames, the weakened south tower collapsed at 9:59; the north tower fell about a half hour later. Debris from the towers also destroyed or damaged other buildings in and around the complex. Some 2,800 people were killed.


That of course, does not include those who were murdered in the Airliner that crashed in the Pennsylvanian field, nor those who were murdered or maimed by the Airliner crash into the Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

Way #2: We Americans are going to defend ourselves the best way we can, like we always have. We will make our mistakes like we always have. We will rectify our mistakes ourselves like we always have. We will defend ourselves without a by-your-leave from you or anyone else like we always have.


And the likes of you will continually villify us like you always have.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:41:56