0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 11:26 am
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 02:53 pm
McTag wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
A few chinks of light shed on Guantanamo Bay

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4771774.stm

The prisoners' names are grudgingly released. Soon we may be told the charges, and when process of law can be instigated.
But I'm not holding my breath yet.

Under the Geneva conventions, prisoners of war are held without trial until the end of the war and then released, unless earlier part of a prisoner trade; but their names are provided prior to the end of the war.

By the way, these prisoners of war did not comply with the Geneva conventions up to the time each one was captured.


Prisoners of crap. Some of them were kidnapped by others and sold to the Americans. There are no charges, and we do not know what evidence exists against them. There is a major documentary on TV here about this, for broadcast this week. I doubt it'll get an airing in the USA.

Is there some particular relevance in your mention of Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of prisoners of war? The Geneva Conventions do not allow torture and murder of prisoners, either, but your Mr Rumsfeld apparently cares little about that.


McT,

I'll tell ya, it doesn't say much for your country, hanging around and backing up scumbags like us! You should get better friends with some integrity!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 08:05 pm
Joe Nation wrote:

...
And now Icann711nm flies in (he's a pilot, don't you know.) to edit the words of a warrior with his little song and dance about harboring ad nauseum.
Joe, truth is not dependent on who accepts it or who says it. Truth is dependent on reality.

Here's some reality.
(1) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
[quote]We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


(2) Friday, September 14, 2001 Congress passed:
Quote:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


(3) Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress:
Quote:
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.


(4) Wednesday, October 16, 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and gave these two subsequently verified, primary and sufficient reasons for doing so:
Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
[/color]

This is the face of your war, Ican711nm. Look deep into those eyes and tell him whether he deserves your respect.
...
Joe(get a grip)Nation
Blake Miller deserves my respect for his skill, courage and perseverance. Joe, you don't!

He has mis-stated an analogy, and I fixed his mis-statement. Certainly, that is no big deal.

But your mis-statements, Joe, are a big deal.
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 08:49 pm
McTag wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
A few chinks of light shed on Guantanamo Bay

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4771774.stm

The prisoners' names are grudgingly released. Soon we may be told the charges, and when process of law can be instigated.
But I'm not holding my breath yet.

Under the Geneva conventions, prisoners of war are held without trial until the end of the war and then released, unless earlier part of a prisoner trade; but their names are provided prior to the end of the war.

By the way, these prisoners of war did not comply with the Geneva conventions up to the time each one was captured.


Prisoners of crap. Some of them were kidnapped by others and sold to the Americans. There are no charges, and we do not know what evidence exists against them. There is a major documentary on TV here about this, for broadcast this week. I doubt it'll get an airing in the USA.

Is there some particular relevance in your mention of Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of prisoners of war? The Geneva Conventions do not allow torture and murder of prisoners, either, but your Mr Rumsfeld apparently cares little about that.

Our prisoners of war were captured by us.
Their prisoners of war were captured by them.

We instruct our troops on the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.
They do not instruct their troops on the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.

We comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by not cutting off the heads of our prisoners of war.
They do not comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by cutting off the heads of their prisoners of war.

We comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by not intentionally killing those known to us to be civilians.
They do not comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by intentionally killing those known to them to be civilians.

We try, convict and imprison those of us who have been proven to have violated the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.
They celebrate those of them who have been shown by their TV cameras to have violated the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.

Oh, yes, one additional item:
We comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by requiring our soldiers to wear specified uniforms.
They do not comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by not requiring their soldiers to not wear specified uniforms.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 09:28 pm
icann711nm writes re: his editing of the words of a warrior:
Quote:
He has mis-stated an analogy, and I fixed his mis-statement. Certainly, that is no big deal.


If you look up in the sky and see a blimp, look again to make sure you are not seeing Icann711nm's ego.

Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Ho hum.

A pair of mis-statements, yet no re-editing. Curious. At the time those statements were made they were false, or truth stretched so thin as to be transparent. Subsequently what? There was no threat to either citizens of the United States or this nation from the nation of Iraq that hadn't been held in check by the UN sanctions for nearly a decade, as Condi Rice had repeatedly said in the days before 9-11. What changed? A need for targets said Rumsfeld.

We know so much more now. We will learn more in the days to come.

There are only a few true believers left now, the ones who haven't learned, those who have refused to listen. They are those who still believe Saddam and Osama were in cahoots, after even GW Bush says there was no connection between the attacks on New York and Washington on 9-11 and Iraq. But here we see the same old tune being played. What crust. What thickness. And there are those who think the present insurgency is being waged by forces from outside of Iraq, they are looking through some telescope from some distant edge of the earth. I hope they don't fall off the edge. They have already fallen out of reality.

We know so much more now. We will learn more in the days to come.

Joe Nation
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 10:31 pm
Joe Nation wrote:

...
A pair of mis-statements, yet no re-editing. Curious. At the time those statements were made they were false, or truth stretched so thin as to be transparent. Subsequently what? There was no threat to either citizens of the United States or this nation from the nation of Iraq that hadn't been held in check by the UN sanctions for nearly a decade, as Condi Rice had repeatedly said in the days before 9-11. What changed? A need for targets said Rumsfeld.
Joe, it doesn't serve you well to argue against that which is not my argument and then try to pretend it is my argument. Hint: It is not the nation of Iraq before 9/11 that presented the threat to the USA; it is the nation of Iraq from December 2001 until our invasion that presented the threat to the USA.

The nation of Iraq from December 2001 until March 2003 allowed sanctuary to al-Qaeda, just like the nation of Afghanistan did May 1996 until September 2001. We know what the consequences were for failure to invade Afghanistan sooner. It surely doesn't require an astro-physicist to undertand what would have subsequently happened had we waited to invade Iraq.


We know so much more now. We will learn more in the days to come.

There are only a few true believers left now, the ones who haven't learned, those who have refused to listen. They are those who still believe Saddam and Osama were in cahoots, after even GW Bush says there was no connection between the attacks on New York and Washington on 9-11 and Iraq. But here we see the same old tune being played. What crust. What thickness.
There you go again. Joe, it doesn't serve you well to argue against that which is not my argument and then try to pretend it is my argument.

And there are those who think the present insurgency is being waged by forces from outside of Iraq, they are looking through some telescope from some distant edge of the earth. I hope they don't fall off the edge. They have already fallen out of reality.
Who are those folks that think that? I think al-Qaeda is inside Iraq joined with the Saddamists et al waging war inside Iraq principally against the civilian population inside Iraq.

We know so much more now. We will learn more in the days to come.
As long as you continue to argue against that which is not my argument and then try to pretend it is my argument, you won't learn a damn thing!

Joe Nation
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 11:12 pm
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_terr.html

That the CIA is a terrorist organization is clear from its record of terrorist activities (sometimes called "counterinsurgency" or "low intensity conflict"). Here are just a few examples:


During the Vietnam war the CIA conducted Operation Phoenix, an assassination program. The goal was not only to eliminate those Vietnamese who might oppose the U.S. (which in practice meant most of the population of Vietnam) but also to terrorize the entire population of South Vietnam and to suppress opposition to the occupying U.S. forces. Over 20,000 Vietnamese were murdered, often at random.
The CIA also recruited a mercenary army in Vietnam (financed by profits from the CIA's heroin smuggling), particularly from among the Hmong villagers, which was used to terrorize the civilian population and to prevent them from assisting the Viet Cong.
The CIA organized and financed (with the profits from its cocaine smuggling) the activities of the Contras in Nicaragua, who murdered tens of thousands of civilians, and tried to disrupt the economy, in an attempt to destabilize the legitimate Sandinista government. (For this the U.S. was condemned in the World Court for engaging in international terrorism, and it rejected a U.N. security council resolution calling upon it to observe international law.)
The CIA planned and organized the military coup d'etat in 1973 in Chile which overthrew the legitimately elected government of Salvador Allende (because he would not implement economic policies designed in Washington to favor American corporations doing business in Chile) and brought to power the regime of General Augusto Pinochet; this regime abducted, tortured and killed thousands of Chilean citizens in an attempt to suppress opposition.
The CIA organized and supported the Turkish government's persecution of its Kurdish minority during the 1990s, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and millions of refuges; the aim being the suppression of Kurdish culture and the elimination of Kurdish demands for a separate state.
The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are widely regarded as terrorist acts. There is evidence of CIA involvement. See Michael Ruppert's Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks.
Further examples could very easily be given (and may be found documented in the many books, magazine articles and web pages about the CIA). Much relevant information will be found in Ralph McGehee's CIA Support of Death Squads, which gives details about the CIA's terrorist activities in over forty countries.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 11:45 pm
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
A few chinks of light shed on Guantanamo Bay

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4771774.stm

The prisoners' names are grudgingly released. Soon we may be told the charges, and when process of law can be instigated.
But I'm not holding my breath yet.

Under the Geneva conventions, prisoners of war are held without trial until the end of the war and then released, unless earlier part of a prisoner trade; but their names are provided prior to the end of the war.

By the way, these prisoners of war did not comply with the Geneva conventions up to the time each one was captured.


Prisoners of crap. Some of them were kidnapped by others and sold to the Americans. There are no charges, and we do not know what evidence exists against them. There is a major documentary on TV here about this, for broadcast this week. I doubt it'll get an airing in the USA.

Is there some particular relevance in your mention of Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of prisoners of war? The Geneva Conventions do not allow torture and murder of prisoners, either, but your Mr Rumsfeld apparently cares little about that.

Our prisoners of war were captured by us.
Their prisoners of war were captured by them.

We instruct our troops on the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.
They do not instruct their troops on the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.

We comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by not cutting off the heads of our prisoners of war.
They do not comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by cutting off the heads of their prisoners of war.

We comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by not intentionally killing those known to us to be civilians.
They do not comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by intentionally killing those known to them to be civilians.

We try, convict and imprison those of us who have been proven to have violated the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.
They celebrate those of them who have been shown by their TV cameras to have violated the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.

Oh, yes, one additional item:
We comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by requiring our soldiers to wear specified uniforms.
They do not comply with the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war by not requiring their soldiers to not wear specified uniforms.


This is risible claptrap, and most of it seems to have come from your own fevered imagination.

There is easily-obtainable evidence to refute all of it, but I do not propose to dig it out for you.

But, you have pointed to an important difference: terrorist murder gangs film and publicise their murder crimes, for their own reasons. Allied forces suppress evidence of theirs.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Mar, 2006 11:58 pm
Here's what happened to some "prisoners of war" who weren't

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1717845,00.html

"Almost two years ago, I sat in a room for most of a day in a house in north London with three men who seemed to have achieved the impossible. Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Ruhel Ahmed, childhood friends from Tipton in the West Midlands, had just rematerialised after more than two years in the legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay, where they had been denied all contact with the world beyond the wire. Having been cleared of any involvement in terrorism by the British and US authorities, they told their story in a five-page interview for this newspaper, exposing both Guantanamo and the process that consigned them there as a horrifying mixture of incompetence and brutality…..."
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:04 am
From the BBC today, an Amnesty report about treatment of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4777214.stm

Not sure if it mentions compliance with any Conventions being observed. Please check.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 09:33 am
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/60minutes/main1364163.shtml

60 minutes story on the two Afghanis who were beat to death while hanging from chains last year.

Quote:
Capt. Beiring acknowledges that there was some confusion. "Because a lot of people didn't really know, what are their status? Who are these people? Did they sign the Geneva Convention? Who are they and what do we do with them? So there was some confusion," he says.

"Can you tell me whether anyone up the chain of command above you was aware that the prisoners were being shackled with their hands up about shoulder high?" Pelley asked.

"Absolutely," Beiring said.

"Who knew?" Pelley asked.

"Several of my leaders knew because we had them like that, you know, there was probably one or two like that any given day. And we didn't change the procedure if someone came through whether they were a colonel or a general, we left them the same. They seen (sic) what was going on there," Beiring answered.

Pelley asked Brand if other leaders knew what was going on.

Gen. Daniel McNeill, the top officer in Afghanistan, said "we are not chaining people to the ceilings."

Brand disagreed. "Well, he's lying obviously. I mean because we were doing it on a daily basis," he says.

"Gen. Theodore Nicholas, he was the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan said that he did not recall prisoners being shackled with their arms overhead. Is that reasonable?" Pelley asked.

"No," Brand replied.

"Lt. Col. Ronald Stallings told investigators, quote, 'he had no idea,' end quote, that prisoners were being chained overhead for 24 hours and more. What you seem to be saying is that it was common knowledge," Pelley said.

"Yes," Brand said.

"It wasn't being kept a secret from the chain of command?" Pelley asked.

"No," Brand replied.


They all knew. Of course they did. They wanted intelligence, and didn't care how it was gotten.

Makes me sick, that this sort of thing is done in America's name.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 10:15 am
I was so disgusted with General Pace's lies and talking points spins. His performance was a disgrace to military integrity. I despise military leaders who put their career and party or presidential loyalty above that of taking care of their troops. The repentent Colin Powell must be disgusted with this man.---BBB

Posted on Sun, Mar. 05, 2006
Top general touts progress in Iraq, disputes assessments on civil war
By James Kuhnhenn and Nancy A. Youssef
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The nation's top general said Sunday that Iraq isn't slipping into civil war and blamed the violence there on a "relatively small number of individuals" who he said are trying to restore "tyrannical rule."

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there's been progress in training Iraqi defense forces and disputed accounts, some from conservative commentators, that U.S. efforts in Iraq are failing.

"It is not a great smiley picture nor is it a disaster," Pace said. "What is it is a very tough environment that still has a lot of work to be done but one in which we're making very, very good progress."

Pace disputed a steady stream of CIA assessments, reported last week by Knight Ridder, that the Sunni insurgency has deep roots, is likely to worsen and could lead to civil war. His more optimistic appraisal is expected to set the tone for a meeting this week among President Bush and his top military commanders to assess the war and decide how many U.S. troops should remain in the country.

Pace, who also appeared on Fox News, denied reports in two British newspapers that the United States and Britain were preparing to withdraw troops from Iraq by the spring of 2007.

In Baghdad, efforts to form a new government remain stalled nearly three months after parliamentary elections on Dec. 15, pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to abandon his campaign to remain in power, and sectarian fighting continued on Sunday.

Just after midnight in one western Baghdad neighborhood, residents heard an imam begging for help on their local mosque loudspeaker. He said that he and the mosque were under attack, witnesses said. Some Sunni residents ran toward the mosque carrying weapons while other fired from their yards.

The fighting, which killed three people and wounded seven, continued for a half-hour and was brought under control only when American helicopters arrived, nearby residents said. The attack was broadcast live on local television.

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was more cautious than Pace was.

"We're not certain yet whether it's civil war, but it could be," Lugar said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "The question really is whether Iraqis want to be Iraqis, as opposed to Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds. "That hasn't been decided. We're on the cusp of a decision."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who's abandoned his initial support for the war, said Pace mischaracterized conditions in Iraq.

"We've made no progress at all," he said on "Face the Nation." "There's two participants fighting for survival, fighting for supremacy inside that country and that's my definition of a civil war. I think we're not making progress; we're caught in a civil war."
---------------------------
Kuhnhenn reported from Washington, Youssef from Baghdad, Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 11:30 am
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I was so disgusted with General Pace's lies and talking points spins. His performance was a disgrace to military integrity. I despise military leaders who put their career and party or presidential loyalty above that of taking care of their troops. The repentent Colin Powell must be disgusted with this man.---BBB

Military Integrity - What a laugh! These jerks wouldn't know integrity was if it jumped up and bit them in the ass!!

Posted on Sun, Mar. 05, 2006
Top general touts progress in Iraq, disputes assessments on civil war
By James Kuhnhenn and Nancy A. Youssef
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The nation's top general said Sunday that Iraq isn't slipping into civil war and blamed the violence there on a "relatively small number of individuals" who he said are trying to restore "tyrannical rule."

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there's been progress in training Iraqi defense forces and disputed accounts, some from conservative commentators, that U.S. efforts in Iraq are failing.

"It is not a great smiley picture nor is it a disaster," Pace said. "What is it is a very tough environment that still has a lot of work to be done but one in which we're making very, very good progress."

Pace disputed a steady stream of CIA assessments, reported last week by Knight Ridder, that the Sunni insurgency has deep roots, is likely to worsen and could lead to civil war. His more optimistic appraisal is expected to set the tone for a meeting this week among President Bush and his top military commanders to assess the war and decide how many U.S. troops should remain in the country.

This is so typical of the happy, happy, smiley positive bullshit the military keeps trying to put on this fricking disaster to cover their total fricking incompetence!! Our right wing intelligentsia here however seems to suck it up !!

Pace, who also appeared on Fox News, denied reports in two British newspapers that the United States and Britain were preparing to withdraw troops from Iraq by the spring of 2007.

In Baghdad, efforts to form a new government remain stalled nearly three months after parliamentary elections on Dec. 15, pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to abandon his campaign to remain in power, and sectarian fighting continued on Sunday.

Just after midnight in one western Baghdad neighborhood, residents heard an imam begging for help on their local mosque loudspeaker. He said that he and the mosque were under attack, witnesses said. Some Sunni residents ran toward the mosque carrying weapons while other fired from their yards.

The fighting, which killed three people and wounded seven, continued for a half-hour and was brought under control only when American helicopters arrived, nearby residents said. The attack was broadcast live on local television.

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was more cautious than Pace was.

"We're not certain yet whether it's civil war, but it could be," Lugar said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "The question really is whether Iraqis want to be Iraqis, as opposed to Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds. "That hasn't been decided. We're on the cusp of a decision."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who's abandoned his initial support for the war, said Pace mischaracterized conditions in Iraq.

"We've made no progress at all," he said on "Face the Nation." "There's two participants fighting for survival, fighting for supremacy inside that country and that's my definition of a civil war. I think we're not making progress; we're caught in a civil war."
---------------------------
Kuhnhenn reported from Washington, Youssef from Baghdad, Iraq.



Only the totally disconnected would think that this disaster is anything but a complete circlejerk!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 11:35 am
While the USA was in Vietnam, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon were presidents.

George Bush is president now. He was president when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Americans have done good things. Americans have done bad things.

XXX have done more good things than Americans. XXX have done less bad things than Americans. Who are XXX?

Terrorist Malignancy has always done, and is doing, bad things. Terrorist Malignancy has intentionally cut off heads of its prisoners. Terrorist Malignancy has intentionally killed civilians and is intentionally killing civilians. Terrorist Malignancy has intentionally killed and is intentionally killing those whose religion is different than theirs. Terrorist Malignancy has declared war against Americans.

Americans do more good things than Terrorist Malignancy. Americans do less bad things than Terrorist Malignancy.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 11:44 am
Americans ARE a Terrorist Malignancy.

Anon
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:07 pm
FACT: The state of Afghanistan allowed sanctuary to al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from May 1996 to October 2001 (one month after 9/11), when the USA invaded Afghanistan to end their sanctuary in Afghanistan.

FACT: The state of Iraq allowed sanctuary to al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from December 2001 to March 2003, when the USA invaded Iraq to end their sanctuary in Iraq.

FACT: al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy murdered 3,000 American civilians in America five and a half years after it obtained sanctuary in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: If USA had not invaded Iraq, how many years after al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy obtained sanctuary in Iraq would al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy have murdered more American civilians in America?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:14 pm
Those who libel or slander Americans by claiming them to be "a Terrorist Malignancy" are in fact abettors and advocates of Terrorist Malignancy, and thus are themselves Terrorist Malignancy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:19 pm
What is the best way to cure Terrorist Malignancy?
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:22 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Those who libel or slander Americans by claiming them to be "a Terrorist Malignancy" are in fact abettors and advocates of Terrorist Malignancy, and thus are themselves terrorist malignancy.


Just calling things as they are ... wake up and smell the stench!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Mar, 2006 12:29 pm
Since you insist on using the Cancer analogy, wouldn't you agree that:

1, there are many different types of 'malignancies' and lumping them all together, from a treatment point of view, doesn't make sense;

2, even for the same types of malignancies, there are several different ways to treat/cure them.

That being said, a multiple-vector approach is probably the one which is going to be the most successfull; a mixture of police action, economic action, humanitarian aid to the region, and military intervention when absolutely neccessary only will be neccessary to combat this persistent threat to our way of life.

To continue the analogy, any doctor will tell a cancer patient that if they don't want further occurance of cancer, they should watch their diet; in our case, the same advice holds true. A penetrating and frank assessment of our 'intake' will show that there are behavioural changes that we can make in order to practice preventive medecine, and will have the side benefit of leading to greater health in other, non-terrorist related aspects of our American life.

Cycloptichorn
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 10:50:57