2
   

Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:47 am
blatham wrote:
RexRed wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Christ Jesus, representing the kingdom of heaven, led ""ARMIES"" into hell... (So much for turning the other cheek.) Christ "triumphed" over evil and took of the spoils of war and gave gifts unto men...

What are you citing here in these two quotes?


Col 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


That doesn't quite do the trick.


That is as close to war talk as you can get my friend.

Spoils of war,

Made a public show of them,

Triumphing over them.


Re 17:14
These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Re 19:11
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Re 19:19
And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 08:49 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
Thomas wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
Author may have gone a bit too far, but I agree that your typical peace movement, despite good intentions, is almost always exploited by our enemies. In fact, I'd argue that our enemies see the peace movement as strong surrogates who can take their cause and fight their battles on our own soil...

I suppose this is in contrast to America's war movement, whose good intentions for Iraq haven't been exploited by AlQuaeda, who turned that country into a recruiting pool and terrorist battleground?


Al Queada was bound and determined to take the battle to us anyway. If you're contending that American presence in Iraq has led to a proliferation of extremism worldwide or even in Iraq, in particular, I'd argue to the contrary. 3000 dead on 9-11 proved that muslim extremism was not going away if we ignored it.

I think our definition of terrorist might be too broad. In Iraq, we fought extremists who hated us and wanted to kill us simply because of who we are and where we lived. But that threat has now largely been supplanted by an insurgency that has, unfortunately, adopted terrorist tactics. The key difference is that this action is infighting for domestic control of the country. It is not action directed against the US and americans simply because of our religious beliefs and culture. It is directed against our support of the existing Iraqi government.

Al Queada and muslim extermism of its ilk are clearly on a downward spiral. What you see now is the flexing of the political muscle of islamic countries and governments. The only thing that will revive Al Queada is if we allow extremism to once again take root and grow, unopposed, in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, or other country.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 09:14 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
slkshock7 wrote:
Al Queada was bound and determined to take the battle to us anyway. If you're contending that American presence in Iraq has led to a proliferation of extremism worldwide or even in Iraq, in particular, I'd argue to the contrary. 3000 dead on 9-11 proved that muslim extremism was not going away if we ignored it.

A nice summary of the Bush position. Slkshock goes from Al Qaida, then directly to Iraq, and then back to 9-11, without ever mentioning that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with either Al Qaida or 9-11 (a point which even GWB has belatedly and reluctantly admitted). This careless conflating of Al Qaida with Iraq, as if the two were somehow linked, is a hallmark of the disingenuous and deceptive policy that got us involved in this illegal war in the first place.

slkshock7 wrote:
In Iraq, we fought extremists who hated us and wanted to kill us simply because of who we are and where we lived.

Yes, they want to kill us because we're Americans and we're living (or rather squatting) in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 09:39 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
Al Queada was bound and determined to take the battle to us anyway. If you're contending that American presence in Iraq has led to a proliferation of extremism worldwide or even in Iraq, in particular, I'd argue to the contrary. 3000 dead on 9-11 proved that muslim extremism was not going away if we ignored it.

A nice summary of the Bush position. Slkshock goes from Al Qaida, then directly to Iraq, and then back to 9-11, without ever mentioning that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with either Al Qaida or 9-11 (a point which even GWB has belatedly and reluctantly admitted). This careless conflating of Al Qaida with Iraq, as if the two were somehow linked, is a hallmark of the disingenuous and deceptive policy that got us involved in this illegal war in the first place.

slkshock7 wrote:
In Iraq, we fought extremists who hated us and wanted to kill us simply because of who we are and where we lived.

Yes, they want to kill us because we're Americans and we're living (or rather squatting) in Iraq.


Al Qaeda and Iraq are certainly linked now.

Imagine if Al Qaeda could take over Iraq and the wealth of her oil fields??? John Murtha would love that!

Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan and now they need to be driven out of Iraq too, and any other place they infect with their hatred and disregard for innocent life.

The Iraqi army will grow and rid Iraq of Al Qaeda scum all in good time.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 09:41 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
Al Queada was bound and determined to take the battle to us anyway. If you're contending that American presence in Iraq has led to a proliferation of extremism worldwide or even in Iraq, in particular, I'd argue to the contrary. 3000 dead on 9-11 proved that muslim extremism was not going away if we ignored it.

A nice summary of the Bush position. Slkshock goes from Al Qaida, then directly to Iraq, and then back to 9-11, without ever mentioning that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with either Al Qaida or 9-11 (a point which even GWB has belatedly and reluctantly admitted). This careless conflating of Al Qaida with Iraq, as if the two were somehow linked, is a hallmark of the disingenuous and deceptive policy that got us involved in this illegal war in the first place.

slkshock7 wrote:
In Iraq, we fought extremists who hated us and wanted to kill us simply because of who we are and where we lived.

Yes, they want to kill us because we're Americans and we're living (or rather squatting) in Iraq.


Other then saying Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism and that al-qaeda were also terrorists, the Bush administration did not say Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Anything beyond that lies in the realm of the talking heads.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 09:47 am
The Iraq regime change was necessitated because of Hussein's fascination with WMD and disregard for UN resolutions...but this discussion has been held ad nauseum and, if you'd like, I'm sure you'l find plenty others that are willing to rehash this with you. My last words on the issue are that although I strongly believe that hindsight is 20-20..I don't think we haven't reached the hind yet.

Muslim extremists were going to fight us in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the US. They didn't care. They just seized upon our action in Iraq as a good place to base their operations after they were kicked out of Afghanistan. It was opportunistic. I find it incredibly naive that you think only if we had not gone into Iraq, we would not be fighting Al Queada now, but instead be enjoying ourselves in carefree peace and tranquility.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 09:48 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
RexRed wrote:
Al Qaeda and Iraq are certainly linked now.

Imagine if Al Qaeda could take over Iraq and the wealth of her oil fields??? John Murtha would love that!

Naw, the only Americans who stand to profit from that scenario are Texan oil field owners, who'd see the price of their merchandize explode. Since you just offered your favorite conspiracy theory, let me share mine: The Bush administration is messing up Iraq on purpose to boost their core constituency's revenue. So there. Nothing like a good conspiracy story.

RexRed wrote:
Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan and now they need to be driven out of Iraq too, and any other place they infect with their hatred and disregard for innocent life.

Ah, the charm of the passive voice. May I ask who drove them into Iraq in the first place? One thing's for sure: It wasn't the American peace movement.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 09:58 am
"Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan"? Yeah things are going just swell in Afghanistan. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=afghanistan&btnG=Search+News
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 10:24 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
McGentrix wrote:
Other then saying Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism and that al-qaeda were also terrorists, the Bush administration did not say Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Anything beyond that lies in the realm of the talking heads.

You've got to be joking. The Bush administration routinely and repeatedly linked Iraq and Al Qaida. For instance:
    President Bush insisted today that "numerous contacts" between the ousted government of Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network showed that the former Iraqi leader was a threat to the United States, despite a report by the Sept. 11 commission that found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html]Washington Post, June 17, 2004[/url] Bush said the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should be considered part of the war on terror "because of the nature of Saddam Hussein." "He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late." [url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/]CNN, January 30, 2003[/url] The claims, from National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, are of top-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq going back a decade. Further, Ms Rice says that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have said that Iraq had provided "some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development". Mr Bush himself has weighed in with the "what if" threat. What if Iraq teamed up with al-Qaeda or another terror group and gave it weapons of mass destruction? [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2284123.stm]BBC, October 28, 2002[/url] The Bush Administration has asserted that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. On March 17, 2003, in a speech announcing a 48-hour deadline for Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq in order to avoid war, President Bush said, "the [Iraqi] regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." [url=http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34715.pdf]Congressional Research Service report, "Iraq and Al Qaeda: Allies or Not?" February 5, 2004[/url]

The Bush administration has been far more circumspect about linking Iraq and the 9-11 conspirators, but that doesn't mean it hasn't done so.
    On the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus failed to challenge White House press secretary Tony Snow's false claim that President Bush has never linked the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Snow claimed that Bush told him and NBC's Tim Russert that "there's no demonstrated link between Saddam [Hussein] and 9-11, and we're never going to make that argument." Snow then asserted that Bush "never has" claimed such a link. But both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, in fact, explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11. Bush did so in a March 21, 2003, letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and president pro tempore of the Senate notifying them of the use of military force in Iraq after the failure of diplomacy, as Media Matters for America has previously noted. In the letter, Bush stated that "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In addition, Cheney also linked Iraq to 9-11 during two appearances on Russert's NBC program Meet the Press, as Media Matters for America has also noted. On the December 9, 2001, edition of Meet the Press, Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11," and the vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. Then, on the September 14, 2003, edition of the NBC program, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." [url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200606190008]Media Matters, June 16, 2006[/url]
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 10:26 am
slkshock7 wrote:
The Iraq regime change was necessitated because of Hussein's fascination with WMD and disregard for UN resolutions...but this discussion has been held ad nauseum and, if you'd like, I'm sure you'l find plenty others that are willing to rehash this with you. My last words on the issue are that although I strongly believe that hindsight is 20-20..I don't think we haven't reached the hind yet.

Well, in talking with you I think we're getting mighty close to it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 10:31 am
Quote:
That is as close to war talk as you can get my friend.


Yes. So the question arises...what permits you to add to his words? What permits you to take "when hit, turn the other cheek" and claim that he actually did not mean what those explicit words say?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 10:41 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Other then saying Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism and that al-qaeda were also terrorists, the Bush administration did not say Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Anything beyond that lies in the realm of the talking heads.

You've got to be joking. The Bush administration routinely and repeatedly linked Iraq and Al Qaida. For instance:
    President Bush insisted today that "numerous contacts" between the ousted government of Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network showed that the former Iraqi leader was a threat to the United States, despite a report by the Sept. 11 commission that found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html]Washington Post, June 17, 2004[/url] Bush said the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should be considered part of the war on terror "because of the nature of Saddam Hussein." "He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late." [url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/]CNN, January 30, 2003[/url] The claims, from National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, are of top-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq going back a decade. Further, Ms Rice says that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have said that Iraq had provided "some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development". Mr Bush himself has weighed in with the "what if" threat. What if Iraq teamed up with al-Qaeda or another terror group and gave it weapons of mass destruction? [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2284123.stm]BBC, October 28, 2002[/url] The Bush Administration has asserted that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. On March 17, 2003, in a speech announcing a 48-hour deadline for Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq in order to avoid war, President Bush said, "the [Iraqi] regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." [url=http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34715.pdf]Congressional Research Service report, "Iraq and Al Qaeda: Allies or Not?" February 5, 2004[/url]


Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Quote:
The Bush administration has been far more circumspect about linking Iraq and the 9-11 conspirators, but that doesn't mean it hasn't done so.
    On the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus failed to challenge White House press secretary Tony Snow's false claim that President Bush has never linked the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Snow claimed that Bush told him and NBC's Tim Russert that "there's no demonstrated link between Saddam [Hussein] and 9-11, and we're never going to make that argument." Snow then asserted that Bush "never has" claimed such a link. But both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, in fact, explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11. Bush did so in a March 21, 2003, letter to the speaker of the House of Representatives and president pro tempore of the Senate notifying them of the use of military force in Iraq after the failure of diplomacy, as Media Matters for America has previously noted. In the letter, Bush stated that "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In addition, Cheney also linked Iraq to 9-11 during two appearances on Russert's NBC program Meet the Press, as Media Matters for America has also noted. On the December 9, 2001, edition of Meet the Press, Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11," and the vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. Then, on the September 14, 2003, edition of the NBC program, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." [url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200606190008]Media Matters, June 16, 2006[/url]


That's all well and good Joe. Did you read what you pasted befor doing so?

Quote:
"the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


read that again and explain to me where it links Iraq to 9/11. Let me help you...

Quote:
"the use of a pool stick against pool balls is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against all pool balls, including the red ones, the yellow ones, the blue ones and the striped ones."


All pool balls are round and spherical. To not include the red ones when referring to them would be kind of stupid wouldn't it? Iraq supported terrorism. Do you question that? Do you have any doubts what-so-ever that Iraq supported terrorism? Because they did so, Iraq was included in on the war on terrorism. just like Afghanistan which aided terrorists.

Quote:
In addition, Cheney also linked Iraq to 9-11 during two appearances on Russert's NBC program Meet the Press, as Media Matters for America has also noted. On the December 9, 2001, edition of Meet the Press, Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11," and the vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. Then, on the September 14, 2003, edition of the NBC program, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." Media Matters, June 16, 2006


Evidence does not support Cheney's first claim that they met as it has remained circumstantial. Cheney's second claim is spot on. If we ARE successful in Iraq then we WILL have struck a blow against terrorist organizations. Is it because he mentions 9/11 that you believe he is saying Iraq had anything to do with it?

Get a grip Joe. If this is the extent with which you are going to hang the Bush administration for saying Iraq had connections to 9/11 you are either supremely biased (of which there is really any doubt) or just ignorant.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 10:43 am
blueflame1 wrote:
"Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan"? Yeah things are going just swell in Afghanistan. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=afghanistan&btnG=Search+News


So, in that fevered brain of yours, Taliban=Al Qaeda? Tell me, do you order a whopper at McDonalds too?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 11:11 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
McGentrix wrote:
Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Does that work both ways? Because here's what I initially wrote:
    A nice summary of the Bush position. [b]Slkshock[/b] goes from Al Qaida, then directly to Iraq, and then back to 9-11, without ever mentioning that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with [u]either Al Qaida or 9-11[/u] (a point which even GWB has belatedly and reluctantly admitted).

In response, you wrote:
    Other then saying Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism and that al-qaeda were also terrorists, the Bush administration did not say [u]Saddam had anything to do with 9-11[/u].

Note that I said that the administration has carelessly conflated Iraq with both Al Qaida and 9-11, while your response simply (and incorrectly) asserted that the administration had not linked Iraq and 9-11. I suppose, then, that you admit that the administration has carelessly conflated Iraq and Al Qaida, correct?

McGentrix wrote:
That's all well and good Joe. Did you read what you pasted befor doing so?

Sure I did. I even read the entire linked story before I copied and pasted an excerpt from it.

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
"the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


read that again and explain to me where it links Iraq to 9/11. Let me help you...

Quote:
"the use of a pool stick against pool balls is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against all pool balls, including the red ones, the yellow ones, the blue ones and the striped ones."

Really, McG, you are a piece of work. In talking about Iraq in the context of "nations...who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," it should seem obvious to all but the most blinkered apologists for the administration that Bush was speaking of Iraq as one of those "nations."

McGentrix wrote:
All pool balls are round and spherical. To not include the red ones when referring to them would be kind of stupid wouldn't it? Iraq supported terrorism. Do you question that?

There would be no need to mention the red balls specifically in the context of all pool balls, unless one were making some particular point about the red balls. Do you question that?

McGentrix wrote:
Do you have any doubts what-so-ever that Iraq supported terrorism? Because they did so, Iraq was included in on the war on terrorism. just like Afghanistan which aided terrorists.

Depends on how you define "terrorists." Iraq supported Palestinian terrorists in a largely symbolic (and ineffectual) manner. On the other hand, it had no meaningful relationship with Al Qaida. In contrast, the United States had a much richer and more intense relationship with various terrorist organizations in the past (e.g. the Nicaraguan Contras). For some reason, however, I'm sure that you would not have advocated an Iraqi invasion of the United States as an adjunct to the war on terror.

McGentrix wrote:
Evidence does not support Cheney's first claim that they met as it has remained circumstantial. Cheney's second claim is spot on. If we ARE successful in Iraq then we WILL have struck a blow against terrorist organizations. Is it because he mentions 9/11 that you believe he is saying Iraq had anything to do with it?

You're kidding, right? Of course I believe that Cheney thinks that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 precisely because that's what he says.

McGentrix wrote:
Get a grip Joe. If this is the extent with which you are going to hang the Bush administration for saying Iraq had connections to 9/11 you are either supremely biased (of which there is really any doubt) or just ignorant.

Spoken like an expert on bias and ignorance.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 11:16 am
joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
The Iraq regime change was necessitated because of Hussein's fascination with WMD and disregard for UN resolutions...but this discussion has been held ad nauseum and, if you'd like, I'm sure you'l find plenty others that are willing to rehash this with you. My last words on the issue are that although I strongly believe that hindsight is 20-20..I don't think we haven't reached the hind yet.

Well, in talking with you I think we're getting mighty close to it.


.... Laughing and same to you.... Cool
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 11:27 am
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Does that work both ways? Because here's what I initially wrote:
    A nice summary of the Bush position. [b]Slkshock[/b] goes from Al Qaida, then directly to Iraq, and then back to 9-11, without ever mentioning that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with [u]either Al Qaida or 9-11[/u] (a point which even GWB has belatedly and reluctantly admitted).

In response, you wrote:
    Other then saying Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism and that al-qaeda were also terrorists, the Bush administration did not say [u]Saddam had anything to do with 9-11[/u].

Note that I said that the administration has carelessly conflated Iraq with both Al Qaida and 9-11, while your response simply (and incorrectly) asserted that the administration had not linked Iraq and 9-11. I suppose, then, that you admit that the administration has carelessly conflated Iraq and Al Qaida, correct?


Yes, it does go both ways and I should have read what you wrote more carefully. mea culpe.

Quote:
McGentrix wrote:
That's all well and good Joe. Did you read what you pasted befor doing so?

Sure I did. I even read the entire linked story before I copied and pasted an excerpt from it.

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
"the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."


read that again and explain to me where it links Iraq to 9/11. Let me help you...

Quote:
"the use of a pool stick against pool balls is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against all pool balls, including the red ones, the yellow ones, the blue ones and the striped ones."

Really, McG, you are a piece of work. In talking about Iraq in the context of "nations...who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," it should seem obvious to all but the most blinkered apologists for the administration that Bush was speaking of Iraq as one of those "nations."


See, I read that to say "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations.'

There should be a period there, but it continued to go on to remind people of why we are doing what we are doing and what we are trying to prevent in the future.

Quote:
McGentrix wrote:
All pool balls are round and spherical. To not include the red ones when referring to them would be kind of stupid wouldn't it? Iraq supported terrorism. Do you question that?

There would be no need to mention the red balls specifically in the context of all pool balls, unless one were making some particular point about the red balls. Do you question that?


Yes, especially when so many in the room hate the pool player and look for any reason to criticize his game.

Quote:
McGentrix wrote:
Do you have any doubts what-so-ever that Iraq supported terrorism? Because they did so, Iraq was included in on the war on terrorism. just like Afghanistan which aided terrorists.

Depends on how you define "terrorists." Iraq supported Palestinian terrorists in a largely symbolic (and ineffectual) manner. On the other hand, it had no meaningful relationship with Al Qaida. In contrast, the United States had a much richer and more intense relationship with various terrorist organizations in the past (e.g. the Nicaraguan Contras). For some reason, however, I'm sure that you would not have advocated an Iraqi invasion of the United States as an adjunct to the war on terror.


Symbolic and ineffectual?

Quote:
In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."


Quote:
McGentrix wrote:
Evidence does not support Cheney's first claim that they met as it has remained circumstantial. Cheney's second claim is spot on. If we ARE successful in Iraq then we WILL have struck a blow against terrorist organizations. Is it because he mentions 9/11 that you believe he is saying Iraq had anything to do with it?

You're kidding, right? Of course I believe that Cheney thinks that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 precisely because that's what he says.

McGentrix wrote:
Get a grip Joe. If this is the extent with which you are going to hang the Bush administration for saying Iraq had connections to 9/11 you are either supremely biased (of which there is really any doubt) or just ignorant.

Spoken like an expert on bias and ignorance.


I have no problem admitting that I am biased. Do you? I am also quite expert in seeing ignorance in others, especially when it is willful on their part.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 12:27 pm
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
McGentrix wrote:
Symbolic and ineffectual?

Quote:
In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

Yes, ineffectual. The payment of bounties to the families of suicide bombers no doubt encourages suicide bombers to some extent, but as a systematic means of spreading terror, it is largely ineffectual. After all, it only goes to creating an additional incentive for suicide bombing, and there is already plenty of incentive for suicide bombers to kill themselves gratis (witness those who are blowing themselves up in Iraq right now without the benefit of Saddam's largesse). Much more effective would be the provision of explosives or the means of entering the target country, neither of which (as far as I know) Iraq has been accused of doing. As a means of causing terror, then, the payment of cash bounties is a rather poor substitute for direct action.

McGentrix wrote:
I have no problem admitting that I am biased. Do you?

Yes. I am biased in favor of logic, clear thinking, and common sense, and biased against all those who do not share these biases.

McGentrix wrote:
I am also quite expert in seeing ignorance in others, especially when it is willful on their part.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 03:04 pm
"If the peace movement really were a peace movement, its members would be denouncing the true threats to peace and trying their damndest to disarm and neutralize the likes of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. etc. Instead, they champion these groups,"

Does anybody have an example of a pacifist that has championed Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. This is one of the stupidest things iv'e ever heard. an out right contradition.

What are the grounds of this argument?

Peace through war?

Peace causes war?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 06:13 pm
Re: Pacifism only serves to enable and support evil
Thomas wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Al Qaeda and Iraq are certainly linked now.

Imagine if Al Qaeda could take over Iraq and the wealth of her oil fields??? John Murtha would love that!

Naw, the only Americans who stand to profit from that scenario are Texan oil field owners, who'd see the price of their merchandize explode. Since you just offered your favorite conspiracy theory, let me share mine: The Bush administration is messing up Iraq on purpose to boost their core constituency's revenue. So there. Nothing like a good conspiracy story.

RexRed wrote:
Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan and now they need to be driven out of Iraq too, and any other place they infect with their hatred and disregard for innocent life.

Ah, the charm of the passive voice. May I ask who drove them into Iraq in the first place? One thing's for sure: It wasn't the American peace movement.


Maybe ISLAMIC FASCISM???? Take off the rose colored glasses.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jul, 2006 07:01 pm
RexRed wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Pacifists mooch off of the freedom that others sacrifice themselves for. Pacifism is an oxymoron. It negates itself in morality. The pacifist has no value for life, because they does not fight to protect it.


As opposed to murdering warriors who destroy civilizations and innocent people by the millions. I call that real value for life.


And WHO would these "murdering warriors who destroy civilizations and innocent people by the millions" be? Suicide bombers?

When your neighbor tries to kill you you have to either retaliate or keep facing attack until they kill you. Even DUMB wild animals understand this. It is called SURVIVAL... Or, you can be a pussy wimp and let terrorists behead you in the name of countless virgins they will receive in paradise for killing the infidel! What idiots.

How can one respond humanely when other humans desire to "wipe you off the face of the earth"?. If humans are going to behave in a wild and uncivilized manner than we have to respond in a like manner in order to survive. Anyone who cannot see the danger in allowing the "enemy" to infiltrate your home base is a FOOL...

It would be nice if we could get all Buddha and Gandhi on people but as long as there is murder and evil in the world and people who desire to do harm to innocent people there will be the need for self defence.

Humans can be much more cunning and treacherous than lions. Anyone who cannot understand the concept of self defence needs to spend a few minutes in a cage with some lions at the zoo.

Pacifism is like swimming and drownding at the same time. Why bother to even exert the effort to stay afloat? Why bother to swim to shore? Why be born at all?

Christ Jesus, representing the kingdom of heaven, led ""ARMIES"" into hell... (So much for turning the other cheek.) Christ "triumphed" over evil and took of the spoils of war and gave gifts unto men...


I don't intend to respond to every point of this diatribe. In the first place, I made the point early on that I meant both sides in these wars. You think by calling people with the grit to refuse to play these stupid games "pussies" "wimps" and "fools" to inflict hurt on them, but that is because you hide under such words the fear that your version of reality will be exposed for all its weakness. Got to insult them and scream them down, hey? Work yourself into a manly lather? [Go home at the end of a day of warfare and tell yourself how it was justified you killed little children because they were in the way of your killing the enemy].

You have to lay a groundwork for peace. It can't just happen. If you wake up in the middle of the night with an army at your door, you have not pursued the peace diligently, or intelligently, enough.
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 0.09 seconds on 02/21/2024 at 02:59:08