"For some reason, after 2001 there were no terrorist attacks in the USA."
And your reasoning is?
Quote:For some reason, after 2001 there were no terrorist attacks in the USA.
So going to war with Iraq is working with AQ as long as it is attacking London or some other non blessed place besides the US of A?
Awe, shucks, revel, that was my punch line. It's okay that Spain, London, Bali, Philippines, Morocco, and Egypt all had terrorist attacks.....blah, blah, blah.... ican and his ilk doesn't give a shet about anybody else, even though the Brits who got involved in Iraq with the US.
revel wrote:So going to war with Iraq is working with AQ as long as it is attacking London or some other non blessed place besides the US of A?
cicerone imposter wrote:Awe, shucks, revel, that was my punch line. It's okay that Spain, London, Bali, Philippines, Morocco, and Egypt all had terrorist attacks.....blah, blah, blah.... ican and his ilk doesn't give a shet about anybody else, even though the Brits who got involved in Iraq with the US.
You guys demonstrated a wonderously strange, and even bazaar ability to miss and/or avoid my point.
I have repeatedly claimed that failure to exterminate
malignancy will result in horrible consequences for humankind worldwide.
While we have so far failed to exterminate malignancy (i.e., those who either mass murder civilians or are accomplices to those who mass murder civilians) in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the rest of the world, we must nonetheless persevere until we learn how and do exterminate it. The deadly consequences to us all of failure to do so are too horrible to contemplate much less endure!
If the USA were to leave Iraq before the Iraqis are capable of exterminating malignancy there, a severe escalation in the already high rate of mass murder of civilians would occur both worldwide and in Iraq.
In that context, my point is obvious. Before we invaded Iraq
malignancy was rapidly increasing its rate of mass murder of civilians. Obviously our invasion of Iraq did not cause that.
You guys have repeatedly claimed our invasion caused
malignancy. to increase that rate.That of course is bunk! The
malignancy has itself repeatedly claimed before we invaded Iraq that its goal is the conversion and/or subjugation of mankind to its version of Islam. Folks, judging by their actions they mean it!
The growth of
malignancy's rate of mass murder of civilians is caused solely by
malignancy's pursuit of goals it established for and by itself before either our invasions of Afganistan or Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq has at best slowed but has surely not eliminated their intended growth.
This sentence of mine
Quote:For some reason, after 2001 there were no terrorist attacks in the USA.
means,
I don't know the reason. I
guess the reason is at least partly due to our invasion of Iraq. I also
guess it is partly due to the fact that we, thanks to our President and a majority of the American people, appear very likely to become even more resolute, rather than less, in our pursuit of the destruction of
malignancy, if we were to be attacked again.
us and them
here is what the saudi foreign minister, prince saud al-faisal, has been telling the united states government. i believe that the saudis and the united states are still "allies" in the "war against terrorism". perhaps the u.s. government might do well to listen what has been said by the saudi foreign minister - he seems to have a fairly good understanding of what's going on in the middle-east and in iraq. ignoring this advice might cause great harm to the whole world. i doubt that these remarks were made gratuitously.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saudi official fears Iraq breakup
Regional conflict worries Prince Saud
- Joel Brinkley, New York Times
Friday, September 23, 2005
Washington -- Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said Thursday that he had been warning the Bush administration in recent days that Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration, a development that he said could drag the region into war.
"There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," he told reporters at the Saudi Embassy. "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart."
He said he was so concerned that he was carrying this message "to everyone who will listen" in the Bush administration.
Saud's statements, among the most pessimistic public comments on Iraq by a Middle East leader in recent months, were in stark contrast to the generally upbeat assessments that the White House and the Pentagon have been offering. President Bush, while once again expressing long-term optimism, warned Thursday that the bloodshed in Iraq was likely to increase in the coming weeks.
"Today, our commanders made it clear," he said after a Pentagon meeting with senior military officers, "as Iraqis prepare to vote on their constitution in October and elect a permanent government in December, we must be prepared for more violence."
U.S. commanders repeatedly have warned that insurgents would try to disrupt the voting, as they did before legislative elections in January.
Bush said that if the United States left Iraq now, it could turn into a haven for terrorists, as Afghanistan was before the fall of the Taliban. "To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," he said.
Saud, in Washington for meetings with officials, blamed several U.S. decisions for the slide toward disintegration, though he did not refer to the Bush administration directly. Primary among them was designating "every Sunni as a Baathist criminal," he said.
Saudi Arabia styles itself as the capital and protector of Sunni Islam, and the prince's remarks -- at times harsh and at other moments careful -- were emblematic of the conflicted Saudi-American relationship.
Saud, who said he had met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, said American officials generally responded to his warnings by telling him that the United States successfully carried off the Iraqi elections, and "they say the same things about the constitution" and the situation in Iraq now. "But what I am trying to do is say that unless something is done to bring Iraqis together, elections alone won't do it," Saud said. "A constitution alone won't do it."
Saud, a son of the late King Faisal who has been foreign minister for 30 years, said he sits on a council of Iraq's neighboring countries -- Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia -- "and the main worry of all the neighbors" is that the potential disintegration of Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states would "bring other countries in the region into the conflict."
Turkey, he noted, has long threatened to send troops into northern Iraq if the Kurds there declared independence.
He said Iran was sending money and weapons into Shiite-controlled southern Iraq and would probably step up its involvement should the south become independent. Iran is a Shiite theocracy, and Saudi Arabia has long been wary of its influence in the region.
"This is a very dangerous situation," Saud said, "a very threatening situation."
I didn't know Saudi Arabia was mostly a Sunni Islam. What does Saud, the foreign minister, recommend Bush to do to avoid Iraq splitting up into the three states?
revel wrote:I didn't know Saudi Arabia was mostly a Sunni Islam. What does Saud, the foreign minister, recommend Bush to do to avoid Iraq splitting up into the three states?
I bet his real answer to your question is: reinstate Sunni dictatorial power over the whole of Iraq.
[
boldface added by ican]
Quote:www.m-w.com
Main Entry:
Sun·ni
Pronunciation: 'su(n)-(")nE
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic sunnIy, from sunnah
1 : the Muslims of the
branch of Islam that adheres to the orthodox tradition and acknowledges the first four caliphs as rightful successors of Muhammad -- compare SHIA
2 : a Sunni Muslim
- Sunni adjective
Main Entry:
Shia
Pronunciation: 'shE-(")ä
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic shI'ah sect
1 : the Muslims of the
branch of Islam comprising sects believing in Ali and the Imams as the only rightful successors of Muhammad and in the concealment and messianic return of the last recognized Imam -- compare SUNNI
2 : SHIITE
3 : the branch of Islam formed by the Shia
Main Entry:
Wah·habi
Variant(s): also Wa·habi /w&-'hä-bE, wä-/
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic wahhAbIy, from Muhammad born 'Abd al-WahhAb (Abdul-Wahhab) died 1787 Arabout religious reformer
: a member of a
puritanical Muslim sect founded in Arabia in the 18th century by Muhammad ibn-Abdul Wahhab and revived by ibn-Saud in the 20th century
- Wah·hab·ism /-'hä-"bi-z&m/ noun
- Wah·hab·ite /-"bIt/ adjective or noun
the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme
--------------------------------------------------------
revel asked : "What does Saud, the foreign minister, recommend Bush to do to avoid Iraq splitting up into the three states? "
saudi may not know what the united states is willing to accept as a solution, but he probably learned the humpty- dumpty nursery rhyme (from his english nanny ?) :
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the King's horses and all the King's men,
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
(might it have been better to let humpty sit on the wall and keep an eye on him ?)
wasn't it colin powell who told president bush : " you broke it, you bought it ? "
can't really expect someone else to fix what you broke, can you ? hbg
I agree it would have been better to let humpty sit on the wall and kept an eye on him.
I think it is beyond anyone's control including the Bush administration and the coalition forces to do anything but just watch and see how it unfolds in Iraq. I can't see what good we are doing there except both Iraqi citizens and coaltion forces getting killed in an attempt to prevent more killing.
Ah, we went to the ME with bombs and artillery because "we have chosen to stop them killing each other", you say?
Why, because we can do it quicker?
No, that wasn't the reason we went there at all.
Yeah, great.
For how long have we heard from the Righties that there is 'no evidence' and those caught committing abuse and torture were 'lone cases?'
It should be quite obvious now that the problem is wide-spread....
Cycloptichorn
McTag wrote:Ah, we went to the ME with bombs and artillery because "we have chosen to stop them killing each other", you say?
Why, because we can do it quicker?
No, that wasn't the reason we went there at all.
Again you hypothesize without supporting evidence.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Yeah, great.
For how long have we heard from the Righties that there is 'no evidence' and those caught committing abuse and torture were 'lone cases?'
It should be quite obvious now that the problem is wide-spread....
Cycloptichorn
Who are these "Righties" who say that there is 'no evidence' and those caught committing abuse and torture were 'lone cases'?
By the way, what is a "lone case"?
Are you concerned about
malignancy murdering more than an average of 30 Iraqi and other civilians per day?
Suppose we can reduce that average 3 per day, if we abuse and torture, and do not kill, maim, or disable
malignancy. Should we? If not, why not?
Which do you think is worse:
1. Abusing and torturing, and not killing, maiming, or disabling
malignancy in order to further reduce
malignancy murders;
2.
Not abusing and torturing, and not killing, maiming, or disabling
malignancy in order to further reduce
malignancy murders.
Washington Post:
New Reports Surface About Detainee Abuse
Mistreatment Was Routine, Soldiers Say
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 24, 2005; Page A01
Two soldiers and an officer with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division have told a human rights organization of systemic detainee abuse and human rights violations at U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, recounting beatings, forced physical exertion and psychological torture of prisoners, the group said.
A 30-page report by Human Rights Watch describes an Army captain's 17-month effort to gain clear understanding of how U.S. soldiers were supposed to treat detainees, and depicts his frustration with what he saw as widespread abuse that the military's leadership failed to address. The Army officer made clear that he believes low-ranking soldiers have been held responsible for abuse to cover for officers who condoned it.
The report does not identify the two sergeants and a captain who gave the accounts, although Capt. Ian Fishback has presented some of his allegations in a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Their statements included vivid allegations of violence against detainees held at Forward Operating Base Mercury, outside Fallujah, shortly before the notorious abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison began. The soldiers described incidents similar to those reported in other parts of Iraq -- such as putting detainees in stress positions, exercising them to the point of total exhaustion, and sleep deprivation.
They also detailed regular attacks that left detainees with broken bones -- including once when a detainee was hit with a metal bat -- and said that detainees were sometimes piled into pyramids, a tactic seen in photographs taken later at Abu Ghraib.
"Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid," an unidentified sergeant who worked at the base from August 2003 to April 2004 told Human Rights Watch. "This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement."
And like soldiers accused at Abu Ghraib, these troops said that military intelligence interrogators encouraged their actions, telling them to make sure the detainees did not sleep or were physically exhausted so as to get them to talk.
"They were directed to get intel from them so we had to set the conditions by banging on their cages, crashing them into the cages, kicking them, kicking dirt, yelling," the soldier was quoted as saying. Later he described how he and others beat the detainees. "But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug."
Army and Pentagon officials yesterday said they are investigating the allegations as criminal cases and said they learned of the incidents just weeks ago when the Fort Bragg captain's concerns surfaced. Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said the Army began investigating as soon as it learned of the allegations.
Lt. Col. John Skinner, a Pentagon spokesman, severely criticized the report and emphasized that the military has taken incidents of detainee abuse extremely seriously since the Abu Ghraib scandal, changing policies and procedures to prevent such mistreatment. There have been hundreds of criminal investigations and more than a dozen major inquiries.
"This is another predictable report by an organization trying to advance an agenda through the use of distortions and errors in fact," Skinner said. "It's a shame they refuse to convey how seriously the military has investigated all known credible allegations of detainee abuse and how we've looked at all aspects of detention operations under a microscope. . . . Humane treatment has always been the standard no matter how much certain organizations want people to believe otherwise."
In addition to talking to Human Rights Watch, Fishback has made his concerns known in a series of signed letters and memos sent to Capitol Hill. Fishback, a West Point graduate who has served in Afghanistan and Iraq, wrote that no one in his chain of command has been able to give him a clear explanation of what humane treatment is, and he believes that U.S. soldiers have regularly violated the Geneva Conventions by torturing detainees and taking family members hostage as a means of coercion.
"Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees," Fishback wrote in a Sept. 16 letter to McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam. "I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment." Fishback, reached by telephone yesterday, declined to comment.
Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said yesterday that the report again shows the need for an independent investigation into detainee abuse, and for Congress to define how U.S. soldiers are to treat detainees in their custody. "Even officers who wanted to behave honorably found it difficult to do so because there was no clarity about what the rules are," Malinowski said.
SOURCE
Wriggle room for the deniers.....I assume there are some left, or have they all moved to "They are worse" and "they deserve it" and so forth already?
Will the usual suspects scream, as usual, that this is "dishonouring the troops"?
Seems that there are some very honourable folk in your military who dare to blow the whistle.
I sre hope we have people of similar courage in ours.
ican : anything you would like to tell the saudi foreign minister ?
you said : "Wasn't it President Bush who said: "we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them."
what is the united states going to do to stop the saudis from harbouring some of your so-called "malignencies" ?
any invasion of saudi-arabia in the cards soon ?
(ican : you seem unusually quiet about colin powell's comments to president bush : "you broke it, you bought it ?" . ) hbg
hamburger wrote:ican : anything you would like to tell the saudi foreign minister ?
you said : "Wasn't it President Bush who said: "we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them."
what is the united states going to do to stop the saudis from harbouring some of your so-called "malignencies" ?
any invasion of saudi-arabia in the cards soon ?
I previously posted:
Quote:PRIOR TO OUR INVASION OF IRAQ
Pakistan:
1. government's average daily mass murder rate of its civilians was low.
2. government agreed to USA request to remove al Qaeda from its midst.
3. no active al Qaeda training camps in its midst at time of Iraq invasion.
Saudi Arabia:
1. government's average daily mass murder rate of its civilians was low.
2. government agreed to USA request to remove al Qaeda from its midst.
3. no active al Qaeda training camps in its midst at time of Iraq invasion.
Iran:
1. government's average daily mass murder rate of its civilians was low.
2. government agreed to USA request to remove al Qaeda from its midst.
3. no active al Qaeda training camps in its midst at time of Iraq invasion.
Syria:
1. government's average daily mass murder rate of its civilians was low.
2. government agreed to USA request to remove al Qaeda from its midst.
3. no active al Qaeda training camps in its midst at time of Iraq invasion.
Afghanistan:
1. government's average daily mass murder rate of its civilians was not low.
2. government ignored USA request to remove al Qaeda from its midst.
3. active al Qaeda training camps in its midst at time of its invasion.
Iraq:
1. government's average daily mass murder rate of its civilians was high.
2. government ignored USA request to remove al Qaeda from its midst.
3. active al Qaeda training camps in its midst at time of Iraq invasion.
Therefore, at the time of USA invasion of Afghanistan, Afghanistan was the first choice for invasion, and Iraq was second choice. But at the time of USA invasion of Iraq, Iraq was first choice for invasion.
USA currently lacks sufficient military resources to invade those countries that have failed to keep their agreement with USA to remove al Qaeda from their midsts.
(ican : you seem unusually quiet about colin powell's comments to president bush : "you broke it, you bought it ?" . ) hbg[/quote]
Unusually quiet? My previous responses are in blue:
Quote:wasn't it colin powell who told president bush : " you broke it, you bought it ? "
Wasn't it President Bush who said: "we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them."
can't really expect someone else to fix what you broke, can you ? hbg
Apparently not! The Baathists and al Qaeda will not stop growing that stack of murdered Iraqis and trying to climb back on it again. So we have choosen to stop them whether we are expected to or not.
The
malignancy is attempting to break Iraq, but the
malignancy hasn't bought Iraq!
Nobody is willing toi admit it yet, but civil war in Iraq has already started:
Bombings and Gun Battle Kill at Least 25 in Iraq
Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article
By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: September 25, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 25 - A suicide bomber swerved his sedan across a highway median and detonated it alongside a police convoy in southeast Baghdad today, in the worst of several attacks and gun battles that left at least 25 people dead and dozens wounded, Iraqi officials said.
Skip to next paragraph
Mohammed Hato/Associated Press
Iraqis brought a wounded civilian to a hospital following a suicide bombing in Baghdad on Sunday.
The violence came amid demonstrations and sharpening sectarian tensions across Iraq over the upcoming nationwide referendum on Iraq's constitution. American military officials have said they expect to see more attacks as the Oct. 15 referendum approaches.
The suicide bombing in Baghdad killed three members of an elite police commando unit and six civilians, including several people selling bread outside a bakery not far away, witnesses said.
South of the capital in Musayyib, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle detonated explosives in a crowd of civilians near a well-known Shiite shrine, killing six people and wounding 19, Interior Ministry officials said.
Attacks on Shiite civilians, one of the Sunni-led insurgency's chief targets, have grown in recent weeks. Earlier this month, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Iraq's most notorious terrorist, declared an "all-out war on Iraq's Shiites."
Musayyib was the site of a suicide bombing in July that left 71 people dead, in one of the worst single attacks Iraq has yet seen.
Nearby in the town of Hilla, a bomb placed on a bicycle exploded today morning in a street full of bookshops, killing one civilian and injuring 20, Interior Ministry officials said.
The violence came hours after gun battles broke out early this morning in Baghdad between militia fighters loyal to the renegade Shiite cleric Moktada al Sadr and American and Iraqi troops, Iraqi officials said. At least seven Iraqis died in the fighting in Sadr City, the Shiite slum in northeast Baghdad, the officials said.
I guess if we left the militants would take over the Iraqi government without US and coalition troops there to at least keep that from happening. In the meantime I guess Iraqis can kill each other more slowly.
