^^^ I'm not flattering myself--it's just a fact--joe_schmoe is frequently wrong.

^^ Then you need to read the post at issue again--especially the parts about terrorism in Saddam's Iraq.

8/2/2007 11:10:22 AM

Quote :

"Well why were the terrorists in the US who carried out the 9/11 attacks? By your logic the terrorists who carried out 9/11 are America's responsibility"

That's correct. You can put part of the responsibility for a radical Muslim wanting to attack the United States on our foreign policy and support of Israel. Contrary to what right wing pundit claim, they do not want to kill us because of our freedom, they want to kill us because we support and give aid to Israel, whom they feel has stolen their lands.

I agree with SkiSalomon. You quoted Joe about secure borders and terrorism, then quoted a speech from Clinton that had nothing to do with that.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 11:15 AM. Reason : *]

8/2/2007 11:12:29 AM

Quote :

"look here, dumbass: you point out to me any instance where Saddam Hussein's secular and largely westernized government had any problem with Islamic extremists or terrorists. His military and police forces kept the country secure. Admittedly there were serious human rights problems, but far less than we already overlook in China, N. Korea, or any number of African countries on a daily basis. but we've turned a fully-functioning country that had human rights abuses into an international tragedy with 100,000 + dead, many more permanently injured, AND AT LEAST 2 MILLION and counting as REFUGEES and INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS. this is not the military's fault. the military did their job (destroying the iraqi army), and their currently doing a job that they arent equipped or trained to do as well as can be expected (restore peace and rebuild an infrastructure). the problem is the stupid, shortsighted fools who sent the military there in the first place, on this illegal "fishing expedition" looking for non-existent WMDs dreamed up by by neocon proponents of the "Policy for the New American Century". is it any wonder that a major foriegn policy initiative there is to PRIVATIZE THEi IRAQI NATIONAL OIL FIELDS? look here, dumbass: "

Here is the post at issue from joe_schmoe, with the part you specifically referred to in Bold. I understand that you are arguing that the Hussein regime may have been involved in the sponsorship of terrorism or violated no fly zones, etc. Now how exactly does all of that analysis address joe's question about finding examples of instances where the Hussein regime had problems with terrorist or extremists whether foreign or domestic? (unless of course you are arguing that the US fits into one of these categories, which i doubt is your argument)

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason : p]

8/2/2007 11:28:25 AM

^^ Um. . .I suppose the United States being the "Great Satan" has nothing to do with any of it? The simplistic notion that if we just did this or that, the evil extremists would leave us alone is ill-informed.

PS: And please don't tell me about Sweden's neutrality. Sweden is not a superpower.

^ Read the post at issue--again. You're being purposely obtuse.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2007 11:34:28 AM

we don't have to be a military superpower.

8/2/2007 11:35:35 AM

some of you are confusing my replies with hooksaw's replies, as well as joe's quotes with erios' quotes...not a surprise really but i figured i'd point it out since nobody has any idea who anyone is talking to when they address the wrong people by name and attribute the wrong posts to the wrong person

8/2/2007 11:36:32 AM

Quote :

"I suppose the United States being the "Great Satan" has nothing to do with any of it?"

Umm, WHY do you think the US is called that in the first place by Arabs and Muslims? Exactly because it gives blind support to Israel, overthrows sovereign governments, etc. And that's exactly what Arabs and Muslims want to be stopped.

And the Sweden example is totally relevant. Bush doesn't say that the US is attacked because it is a superpower. He says the US is attacked because the turrists hate "our freedoms". Heck, even Blair said the exact same thing a couple of months ago about UK, and said it was not because of the Palestine problem.

So, if the turrists attack the US and UK because they hate the freedoms there, why don't the turrists attack other countries (at least a dozen), which have more freedom or are equally free, and are also easier to attack?

Anyway, there is no end to this argument and has been done here dozens of times, so I am not going to bother replying again.

8/2/2007 11:44:24 AM

Here is my post--once again--for those of you that have trouble reading:

Quote :

"you point out to me any instance where Saddam Hussein's secular and largely westernized government had any problem with Islamic extremists or terrorists. His military and police forces kept the country secure."

joe_schmoe

Let's examine the abovementioned quotation, shall we?

Bill Clinton, 1998 State of the Union Address

Quote :

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

Yes, Saddam did have terrorist connections.
By Christopher Hitchens

Quote :

"The two cases in point are Abdul Rahman Yasin, a crucial member of the team that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, currently the leader of a very deadly and ruthless group known as Monotheism and Jihad, operating in central Iraq."

http://slate.com/id/2108636/

US jets attack Iraqi fighters

Quote :

"American warplanes have clashed with Iraqi fighter jets in the no-fly zone over southern Iraq."

Quote :

"Last week, US planes fired on ground missile batteries in both zones after they said missiles had been fired at them from the ground. The latest incident was the third in less than a week involving US warplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. BBC Washington Correspondent Philippa Thomas said it was the most serious since the US and UK bombed Iraq in December in Operation Desert Fox."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/latest_news/249167.stm

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush

Quote :

"U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a 'firm and commensurate' response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April. The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said [emphasis added]. Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: 'We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people.'"

Quote :

"'It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi government and directed against a former president of the United States because of actions he took as president,' Clinton said. Bush led the coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. 'As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans,' Clinton said [emphasis added]."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

Wrong on all points as usual, schmoe.

If you can't see or choose not to see how I meaningfully addressed the points in schmoe's post, then that's your problem.

^ Yeah, you probably shouldn't reply. I mean, you do realize that the United States gives all sorts of aid to countries other than Israel, yes?

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

8/2/2007 11:47:36 AM

Quote :

"Umm, WHY do you think the US is called that in the first place by Arabs and Muslims?"

probably the same reasons they treat their women like animals and blow up civilians for Allah...cause they're fucking crazy

8/2/2007 11:48:40 AM

Quote :

"^^ Um. . .I suppose the United States being the "Great Satan" has nothing to do with any of it? The simplistic notion that if we just did this or that, the evil extremists would leave us alone is ill-informed. "

Tell me then why it is ill-informed. Find me studies that back up your claims. There is reams of information out there that very simply states that the movement or state of mind that is al Qaeda is due to our involvement in Israel.

There is, however, nothing that backs up the claim that they'd still want to kill us if we weren't there. Not because they hate our freedoms. Go back to any time period before 1948, and find me instances where Muslims wanted to attack the United States.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 11:50 AM. Reason : *]

8/2/2007 11:49:57 AM

So, if you disagree with someone or some country, you can feel free to attack and kill them and it's justified? Is that really the argument you're putting forth?

8/2/2007 11:54:52 AM

Quote :

"Not because they hate our freedoms"

I thought they just hated Christians and the US is basically known as a Christian nation

it just seems like everyone who says they hate us because of our foreign policy thinks if we leave the middle east that they'll just stop fucking with us and I don't think you can just turn off their crazy switch that easily

8/2/2007 11:55:20 AM

Quote :

"So, if you disagree with someone or some country, you can feel free to attack and kill them and it's justified? Is that really the argument you're putting forth?"

No, that is not the argument I am putting forth.

Quote :

"it just seems like everyone who says they hate us because of our foreign policy thinks if we leave the middle east that they'll just stop fucking with us and I don't think you can just turn off their crazy switch that easily"

Al qaeda is some of the most extreme form of Islam. It is clear, that if we leave the Middle East (including Israel), if we stop trying to impose our way of life onto people that don't want it, then the fence sitters that continue to fuel the radical movement will fall by the wayside. If moderate Muslims can prosper in peace, and keep their women shrouded, and put religion into their every day way of life, there is a real good chance that Osama bin Laden gets ostracized from the Imams and the moderates that he was previously able to get to convert to his radical movement. Then, he has to turn his energy to attacking moderate Muslims for not being Muslim enough. If he doesn't have legions coming in droves to fight "The Great Satan" then what does he have? Not much.

But, we need oil. So our hands are tied and we should just spend more effort on trying to ferret out the terrorism via more traditional means (following the money, on the ground intelligence) rather than arrogantly assuming we establish a completely foreign way of life in some reasonable time frame.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 12:07 PM. Reason : *]

8/2/2007 11:58:34 AM

Quote :

"If you can't see or choose not to see how I meaningfully addressed the points in schmoe's post, then that's your problem"

That's the point, I see how you addressed his post, I just don't believe that you actually provided what he was challenging others to show. I'm not being 'purposely obtuse', I'm just trying to better understand how you see your post as answering his challenge. Perhaps my reading comprehension sucks and that would indeed be my problem.

8/2/2007 11:59:29 AM

^^ Well, it sure as hell sounds like it. In addition, your position seems to be a bit of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of logic. I mean, can you prove that the rise of Islamic extremism wouldn't have happened anyway?

^ You said it, not me.

8/2/2007 12:06:17 PM

Quote :

"I mean, can you prove that the rise of Islamic extremism wouldn't have happened anyway? "

Not being able to prove (and also to disprove) it wouldn't have happened anyway isn't the correct rebuttal for post hoc.

It's a reasonable assertion that without a stimulus for radicalization, radicalization wouldn't have happened.

Hey guys, lets be radical for the sake of it. We have a message, we just aren't sure what it is, so we're going to be radical and hope you get it.

8/2/2007 12:11:26 PM

Yes, i did indeed day that. But lets address something that you said:

Quote :

"Let's examine the abovementioned quotation, shall we?"

Copying and Pasting excerpts from articles hardly constitutes substantial examination, that is what I'm hoping that you can provide. Care to help connect the dots?

8/2/2007 12:17:26 PM

^ I already did. You're not going to work me--do your own work.

8/2/2007 12:21:06 PM

you reposted you original post, that hardly provided any clarification. I admitted that my reading comprehension may be lacking but I am confident in my ability to read.

8/2/2007 12:26:04 PM

Quote :

"It is clear, that if we leave the Middle East (including Israel), if we stop trying to impose our way of life onto people that don't want it, then the fence sitters that continue to fuel the radical movement will fall by the wayside"

that sounds nice and all but its anything but "clear"...like I said, you cant just turn off a crazy switch...and sure in practical terms if you or I are a fencesitter on a particular issue or topic, we might change...but we're not talking about somewhat rational Americans...we're talking about people who are on the fence about blowing themselves up in the name of Allah...forgive me for not being optimistic about their ability to change and become peaceful

8/2/2007 1:16:06 PM

Without US/Western/Israeli foreign policy in the region, there would still be radicals. The major difference is that the radicals would not be supported/tolerated by any meaningful proportion of the population.


Also, there was terrorist activity in Iraq prior to 9/11, the second Iraq war, etc. However, there was less terrorist activity than nearly every country in the region, particularly if you exclude the semi-autonomous no-fly zones. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon all had far more terrorist activity than Iraq.

8/2/2007 1:37:03 PM

Quote :

"you cant just turn off a crazy switch..."

I don't see why not.

Sure, there are going to be bad people until the end of time. But just like ^ said, they won't be tolerated by the moderates (just like killers and rapists aren't tolerated here).

I've read your posts regarding Muslims for many months now, and you seem to have a severely flawed impression that violence and murder is inherent in the religion, and it isn't.

You should study Islam a bit more, and not let the entire religion be judged by the most extreme parts of it.

8/2/2007 1:41:21 PM

make that 8 out of 21

8/2/2007 1:42:00 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/gates.iraq.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Quote :

"U.S. officials underestimated how difficult it would be for the Iraqi government to pass political reforms, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, adding that the "depth of mistrust" among the factions is greater than anticipated."

Imagine that, folks in our administration were arrogant and thought they knew what the hell was going on over there.

I just don't see why a bunch of Western Civilization Christians would need to know anything about 1000 years of Middle Eastern Islamic infighting before invading their country to attempt to set up a democracy there.

Quote :

"Talking to reporters on board his plane as he returned from a four-day swing through the Middle East, Gates said he is more optimistic about improvements in security in the war-torn nation than he is about getting legislation passed by the bitterly divided government."

No problem Iraqi government officials, we'll just keep spending $texas taxpayer money while you fuck around and bicker with each other. It's been 1000 years, no hurry.

Quote :

"On Thursday Gates said the political developments are "somewhat discouraging at the national level," but he hopes it can be patched back together."

I dunno about you guys, but I think it makes for good strategy to base foreign policy on "hope".

Quote :

""I am optimistic on the security side because of what I see in al Anbar, and what we're seeing in some of the other provinces where we're getting some cooperation," he said."

So far, they have been trumpeting the success in Anbar for several months now. It seems this is the only area where we poured enough troops in to push the insurgents out (hint - they just went to other places).

8/2/2007 2:18:21 PM

^couldnt that post have gone in this thread instead \message_topic.aspx?topic=470363

8/2/2007 2:21:27 PM

Yea, sure, I don't see why not.

8/2/2007 2:23:33 PM

8/6/2007 11:09:35 AM

^ I'm not surprised you'd post a cartoon talking about "get it up", huh old man?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_world

8/6/2007 11:25:47 AM

MAN TALKING SHIT ABOUT BUSH REALLY GETS ME HARD

8/6/2007 12:08:51 PM

Quote :

"that sounds nice and all but its anything but "clear"...like I said, you cant just turn off a crazy switch...and sure in practical terms if you or I are a fencesitter on a particular issue or topic, we might change...but we're not talking about somewhat rational Americans...we're talking about people who are on the fence about blowing themselves up in the name of Allah...forgive me for not being optimistic about their ability to change and become peaceful"

This clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the terrorists and their motivation to commit terrorism in the first place. The basic assumption is that these people are acting irrationally, which is incorrect. In a nutshell, islamic terrorism exists for the following reasons:

1) Western nations forcefully took Islamic-owned lands and created Israel.

2) The US has meddled in Middle Eastern politics in the past due to its need for oil.

3) The US invaded a middle eastern country under false pretenses (discovered after the fact) and, as a result, thrown that country into economic and political chaos for the past four years.

Like it or not, PartisanHack has it right:

Quote :

"You can put part of the responsibility for a radical Muslim wanting to attack the United States on our foreign policy and support of Israel. Contrary to what right wing pundit claim, they do not want to kill us because of our freedom, they want to kill us because we support and give aid to Israel, whom they feel has stolen their lands."

8/6/2007 12:47:43 PM

Quote :

"The basic assumption is that these people are acting irrationally, which is incorrect"

oh i'd say they're acting quite irrationally...unless its rational to want to blow yourself up?

Quote :

"You can put part of the responsibility for a radical Muslim wanting to attack the United States on our foreign policy and support of Israel"

you could put part of the responsibility for a poor man wanting to rob a bank on the guy being poor but that doesnt amount to shit except for a sheisty lawyer

8/6/2007 12:50:27 PM

Quote :

"you could put part of the responsibilitymotivation for a poor man wanting to rob a bank on the guy being poor "

Fixed it for ya.

8/6/2007 12:55:14 PM

^^ The Germans designed airplanes to crash into American and British bombers in WWII. The Japanese had the Kamikazis. They are sacrificing their lives for their religious beliefs and to send a message to their enemy. Historically, this kind of behavior HAS happened before.

I don't condone terrorist, terrorism, or the reasoning for terrorism. Ignoring the basis for it, however, only exacerbates the problem. You have study the root of the problem in order to administer the best solution. Terrorism is the symptom, not the problem. The problem at hand stems from Islamic resentment to the influence of Western Nations in the Middle East. Only by addressing the problem will any progress be made.

It is not weak, liberal, or stupid to suggest that we should consider the terrorists' motivation behind their actions. It's common sense. Ignoring their motivation to commit terror AND labeling them all crazy is simple-minded, ineffective, and downright dangerous.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM. Reason : link]

8/6/2007 1:02:13 PM

Quote :

"You can put part of the responsibility motivation for a radical Muslim wanting to attack the United States on our foreign policy and support of Israel"

there, all better

Quote :

"Terrorism is the symptom, not the problem"

Anyone who doesn't think terrorism is a problem is a total idiot. I don't think anyone would care if they peacefully resisted Western influence. The problem is when they resort to violence and terrorism. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

8/6/2007 1:02:32 PM

Quote :

""You can put part of the responsibility motivation for a radical Muslim wanting to attack the United States on our foreign policy and support of Israel" there, all better"

Thank you for seeing my point. The responsibility for creating his motivation where it didn't exist before rests squarely on the shoulders of US foreign policy.

This B league trolling you are doing is already tedious, and it's barely past noon on a Monday. Looks like TSB is in for a long week so long as no Crackberry crisis happens at your work.

Quote :

"Anyone who doesn't think terrorism is a problem is a total idiot. I don't think anyone would care if they peacefully resisted Western influence. The problem is when they resort to violence and terrorism. THAT IS THE PROBLEM."

Yea, imagine if our forefathers peacefully resisted the British...your teeth would be even more fucked up than they already are.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : *]

8/6/2007 1:10:33 PM

Quote :

"The responsibility for creating his motivation where it didn't exist before rests squarely on the shoulders of US foreign policy"

thats pretty fucking stupid but you said it so thats no surprise...i guess if my neighbor gets a new Mercedes and from me seeing his Mercedes over and over again I get jealous that he has a nicer car than me...so I decide to break into his house, kill him, and steal his Mercedes...the responsibility for creating my motivation where it didn't exist before rests squarely on the shoulders of my neighbors

continue with your batshit way of thinking though please, its somewhat humorous but mostly sad and pathetic...bending over backwards ignore personal responsibility in favor of playing the blame game

Quote :

"Yea, imagine if our forefathers peacefully resisted the British"

so you're also saying terrorism is not a problem...another completely stupid statement

8/6/2007 1:14:40 PM

Can you make a post without an obtuse and complete failure of an analogy as your attempt at making a point?

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : V more trolling in 3....2...1...]

8/6/2007 1:16:16 PM

You guys, Erios is pretty much right here.

Islamic terrorism exists because we are fucking around on Muslim lands. Terrorists blow themselves up because of a very weak precident in scripture that basically says that a muslim should be willing to give his life to protect his holy land from foreigh control and occupation.

We get the fuck out, quit supplying arms to Israel, and I can almost 100% guarantee there will never be another attack.

8/6/2007 1:16:36 PM

Quote :

"We get the fuck out, quit supplying arms to Israel, and I can almost 100% guarantee there will never be another attack. "

ERRRR, wrong answer

YOU CAN'T JUST TURN OFF A CRAZY SWITCH

If you guys asserted yourselves you could probably be some great trial lawyers like old Breck Girl...say whatever you have to to convince a jury that a person isn't responsible for their own actions

8/6/2007 1:17:43 PM

Quote :

"and I can almost 100% guarantee there will never be another attack."

Dear Noen,

You just invited the classic Twista "you can't prove that strawman" to be dropped on this thread. Thanks a lot!

8/6/2007 1:18:05 PM

^go use some rogaine faggot

8/6/2007 1:19:21 PM

Keep using ad hominems in lieu of worthy rebuttals. It makes you look so cool and clever, why, even a tdub broad might want to fuck you!

8/6/2007 1:24:42 PM

go get a job you slack bald troll...creating a new screenname every month when the old one gets suspended isnt technically an occupation

8/6/2007 1:25:13 PM

Quote :

"thats pretty fucking stupid but you said it so thats no surprise...i guess if my neighbor gets a new Mercedes and from me seeing his Mercedes over and over again I get jealous that he has a nicer car than me...so I decide to break into his house, kill him, and steal his Mercedes..."

Did you fail reading comprehension in grade school or what?

Quote :

"I don't condone terrorist, terrorism, or the reasoning for terrorism. Ignoring the basis for it, however, only exacerbates the problem. You have study the root of the problem in order to administer the best solution."

I'm not justifying terrorism. I'm saying that an explanation for it DOES EXIST. By ignoring that explanation we prevent ourselves from taking the preventative measures to stop it.


Imagine that a person robs a bank. He's arrested and convicted for theft. However, it is later revealed that the bank erroneously lost the arrested man's money and refused to correct the mistake. The man used this as justification for robbing the bank.

Now, I don't condone the man's actions. He robbed the bank, which is illegal, and should rightfully go to prison. However, I also understand his motivation. As such, I would open an investigation with the bank to determine why the funds were lost in the first. This measure would hopefully prevent future robberies of this nature.

So it is with terrorism. I don't condone it, but I understand the motivation. Addressing the motivation is the key to long-term success. You can keep killing terrorists the same way you could continue to arrest bank robbers trying to retrieve their money. To me, however, it makes a lot of sense to address THE PROBLEM, which is the bank losing peoples' money, and not just simply addressing the SYMPTOM, which is the robbery itself.

I'd explain more but I ran out of crayons...

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 1:28 PM. Reason : sdv]

8/6/2007 1:26:26 PM

Quote :

"go get a job you slack bald troll...creating a new screenname every month when the old one gets suspended isnt technically an occupation"

Are you trying to get suspended?

8/6/2007 1:28:40 PM

^^did I fail reading comprehension? that comment was directed at BaldHate409c, so you must need some help with your reading comprehension

and what about all the people who rob banks where the bank never lost or mishandled their money? how does your analogy treat those people? you know, the majority of bank robbers who robbed the bank because they're greedy and didn't want to work for their money

8/6/2007 1:29:41 PM

The point is valid regardless of where you directed it.

If you want to continue on in this discussion with the simple-minded idea that all terrorists have a "crazy switch" that canot be turned off, that's your perogative. I'm simply saying that your position is certifiably fucking stupid and I sincerely hope no one ever takes you or your miserably inane opinions seriously.

8/6/2007 1:39:43 PM

i'm just glad we've got people like you all to do whatever is in your power to try and justify what the terrorists do...the big bad evil United States is in the middle east so the poor righteous suicide bombers have justification for their crimes...its sad that you guys hate your own country so much...the terrorists are the victims here...gimme a fucking break you guys are pathetic

8/6/2007 1:42:39 PM

Your classic "they are getting disinterested in my drivel banter so lets make a terribly absurd statement to try and bait them back in" trolling was old many many months ago and it is still old.

8/6/2007 1:44:32 PM

isnt it about time to create a new screenname you bald troll? better yet, get a job you loser...you clearly should spend more of your day at work and less of it jacking off to pelosi's blog

8/6/2007 1:45:04 PM