 |
|
|
#71
09-07-2005, 02:54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you want to fight your more than welcome! You say your not going to be fair about it? Thats my point neither are they! You say that innocent lifes were lost on your home soil first? I pressume you are talking America? And if thats the case, Can you anwser me one question? Why did they attack your country in the first place? I put it too you that, Your country has been medling in there affairs for far to long, Your goverment were the ones who gave Israel there weapons and backed them up to the hilt against the palestians, Your goverment was the one who let Israel take up settlement illegally on palestian land and keep it. What about all the innocent palestians who were murdered by the Irsaeli troops in there own country by the weapons of America? Are you still sure that innocent lives were taken in your country first? Well let me tell you something, These people dont see it that way, And thats were there hate for America comes from, Always remember they didnt start it. Your country also gave a certain saddam hussain the power and the weapons to take control of Iraq in the first place. But because he had so much power in a country rich with oil, They decided to use 9/11 as cover for an illegal war in Iraq, And make no mistake about it, It was Illegal, Even the UN said so, They were told there was no WMDs in Iraq before they entered, But hey they already knew that, Didnt they? It was all for the oil and that was it. And what good did it do, Well except from taking down a cruel dictator who they put there in the first place, Absolutly nothing! The place is worse now than it ever was, And through that illegal war, You have brought together even more of these groups who have nothing but hate for all western countrys because they think were all the same. If they really wanted to take down a dictator, They would have gone after the worst of them all, Robert Maugabe! But they wont do that, And the reason why? Because there is no oil there, Simple!
__________________
LIFES A BIT*H THEN U MARRY 1 
|
|
#72
09-07-2005, 03:05
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your country gave Israel the weapons, And those weapons have been used ever since to kill innocent palestians on the gaza strip which is a part of palestian land, So I put it to you without you, If you had not of been so quick to back Israel up to the hilt, Then maybe all those innocent palestians would not have been murdered on there home soil. The war was totally Illegal, Were are these WMDs that were supposedly all over Iraq? It was done for financial gain, Simple.
__________________
LIFES A BIT*H THEN U MARRY 1
|
|
#73
09-07-2005, 03:40
|
||||
|
||||
|
No offence to my cousins across the pond, but seems to me the British held Palestine for an awfully long time. Things were much better then.
And just so we don't get distracted from the truth. Let's not forget that the first democratic elections in Iraq had a greater than 70% turn out. Notwithstanding the fact that every voter was thumbprinted with indelible ink and risked thier lives just to vote. How many of our countries can say that. Doesn't sound like the people didn't embrace the change. We live in a time when one country holds more power than any others. But in this case, the leaders of that country answer to thier people every four years, unlike previous superpowers, including the British. And if it means anything at all, the US has the power and the technology that if they had wanted to they could have leveled the desert, killed all life and taken the oil without a single drop of US blood shed. Could these terrorists show the same restraint?
|
|
#74
09-07-2005, 03:54
|
||||
|
||||
|
all i have to say, and i saw it coming awhile ago, is that this thread is going to turn ugly. i think its good to have some political debate on this forum, its actually refreshing from all the bg and lb talk, but i just dont think anything is going to be served by it. of course i am american, and have my own views, but i dont steadfastly stand by all of america's doings. but from the 1st post in this thread i knew that it would turn to america has done this and america has done that. and you are correct, our country has, but when you are in the position that america is in, you are going to ripe for critics, either justly or unjust. we all have our opinions, and going back and forth on it and really not gettign anything accomplished doesnt help the 50+ people killed and countless injured. i think we should all agree that no innocent people, be it amricans, iraquis, british, or anyone else, should die or be harmed. we are not going to agree on anythign else, leave it at that. and i do think alot of bm's make very good and informed point, even if i agree and disagree, and thats all you can ask for.
|
|
#75
09-07-2005, 04:43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes your right paul, I agree with you, There are a lot of emotions running at this time, And maybe this is not the right time or the place to discuss these matters, So I will not respond to anymore posts on this thread, If anyone wants to discuss anything I have said, Then PM me instead. And the one thing we all have in common is that, We all agree that is so sad that innocent people get killed, My heart goes out to the familys of all the victoms.
__________________
LIFES A BIT*H THEN U MARRY 1
|
|
#76
09-07-2005, 04:53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agree wholeheartedly with the last 2 posts. It's been suggested in the media that this kind of mass reaction, inevitable though it is, is one of the aims of the sub-humans that carry these rotten instances out.
I reiterate, IMO, anyone planting or manufacturing bombs for the indiscriminate murder of civilians going about their daily business, do not deserve to live. If they find them & are found to be 'British Subjects', then they should be tried for treason. Rant over.
|
|
#77
09-07-2005, 06:43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So Mr. livingstone has full knowledge of who planted the bombs and why does he? Better give the forensic lads a call and tell them to go home.
|
|
#78
09-07-2005, 07:30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thanks Steveski, There will always be terrorists of some sort or other and London will always be a target. Unless these terrorists come up with something absolutely horrrific (such as killing 100,000s on the underground in one go by chemical posioning) then Londoners will always get back to normal. I lived there for 15 years and like most people treated terrorism as an occassional inconvenience. We all agree that what happened was absolutley disgusting. We do not agree however as to the causes or the correct way forward. No government has come up with a solution, so the chances are neither will we. A couple of BMs have already said that the conversation has gone far enough and I will sign up to that so this is my last post on the subject as well.
|
|
#79
09-07-2005, 07:32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I should have of course added "in his opinion" I bow to your Grammar if not to your opinions.Anyway i concur with other posts that we all agree to differ and respect the dead and injured.
|
|
#80
09-07-2005, 18:02
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That statement is 100% false. Hussein came to power through family and military connections in the 60"s and 70's. At that time the Baath party was a socialist party, allied with among others the Soviet Union and the Marxist regime in Yemen. At one point, they actually instituted 5-year plans, same as the Soviets. The US was part of an alliance that supported and armed the Kurd to fight against Bakr and Hussein's regime. Excerpts from All-Refer.com Reference Country Study and Country Guide - Iraq. This history was written in May 1988. The link for the full history of Iraq frmo ancient times is: http://reference.allrefer.com/countr...aq/iraq18.html THE EMERGENCE OF SADDAM HUSAYN, 1968-79 By 1968 his ideological pull had waned, enabling the Iraqi Baath to focus on pressing domestic issues. The party also was aided by a 1967 reorganization that created a militia and an intelligence apparatus and set up local branches that gave the Baath broader support. In addition, by 1968 close family and tribal ties bound the Baath's ruling clique. Most notable in this regard was the emergence of Tikritis--Sunni Arabs from the northwest town of Tikrit--related to Ahmad Hasan al Bakr. Three of the five members of the Baath's Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) were Tikritis; two, Bakr and Hammad Shihab, were related to each other. The cabinet posts of president, prime minister, and defense minister went to Tikritis. Saddam Husayn, a key leader behind the scenes, also was a Tikriti and a relative of Bakr. Less than two months after the formation of the Bakr government, a coalition of pro-Nasser elements, Arif supporters, and conservatives from the military attempted another coup. This event provided the rationale for numerous purges directed by Bakr and Saddam Husayn. Between 1968 and 1973, through a series of sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidations, the party ruthlessly eliminated any group or person suspected of challenging Baath rule. Two men, Saddam Husayn and Bakr, increasingly dominated the party. Bakr, who had been associated with Arab nationalist causes for more than a decade, brought the party popular legitimacy. Even more important, he brought support from the army both among Baathist and non-Baathist officers, with whom he had cultivated ties for years. Saddam Husayn, on the other hand, was a consummate party politician whose formative experiences were in organizing clandestine opposition activity. He was adept at outmaneuvering--and at times ruthlessly eliminating--political opponents. Although Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, by 1969 Saddam Husayn clearly had become the moving force behind the party Despite Baath attempts to institutionalize its rule, real power remained in the hands of a narrowly based elite, united by close family and tribal ties. By 1977 the most powerful men in the Baath thus were all somehow related to the triumvirate of Saddam Husayn, Bakr, and General Adnan Khayr Allah Talfah, Saddam Husayn's brother-in-law who became minister of defense in 1978. All were members of the party, the RCC, and the cabinet, and all were members of the Talfah family of Tikrit, headed by Khayr Allah Talfah. Khayr Allah Talfah was Saddam Husayn's uncle and guardian, Adnan Khayr Allah's father, and Bakr's cousin. Saddam Husayn was married to Adnan Khayr Allah's sister and Adnan Khayr Allah was married to Bakr's daughter. The most serious threat facing the Baath was a resurgence of Kurdish unrest in the north. ln March 1970, the RCC and Mustafa Barzani announced agreement to a fifteen-article peace plan The 1970 agreement unraveled throughout the early 1970s. After the March 1974 Baath attempt to assassinate Barzani and his son Idris, full-scale fighting broke out. In early 1974, it appeared that the Baath had finally succeeded in isolating Barzani and the KDP by coopting the ICP and by signing a treaty with the Soviet Union, both traditionally strong supporters of the KDP. Barzani, however, compensated for the loss of Soviet and ICP support by obtaining military aid from the shah of Iran and from the United States, both of which were alarmed by increasing Soviet influence in Iraq. When Iraqi forces reached Rawanduz, threatening to block the major Kurdish artery to Iran, the shah increased the flow of military supplies to the Kurdish rebels. Using antitank missiles and artillery obtained from Iran as well as military aid from Syria and Israel, the KDP inflicted heavy losses on the Iraqi forces. To avoid a costly stalemate like that which had weakened his predecessors, Saddam Husayn sought an agreement with the shah. Saddam Husayn's economic policies were largely successful; they led to a wider distribution of wealth, to greater social mobility, to increased access to education and health care, and to the redistribution of land. The quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 and the subsequent oil price rises brought on by the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran greatly enhanced the success of Saddam Husayn's program. The more equitable distribution of income tied to the ruling party many Iraqis who had previously opposed the central government. For the first time in modern Iraqi history, a government--albeit at times a ruthless one, had thus achieved some success in forging a national community out of the country's disparate social elements. Success on the economic front spurred Saddam Husayn to pursue an ambitious foreign policy aimed at pushing Iraq to the forefront of the Arab world. Saddam Husayn's economic policies were largely successful; they led to a wider distribution of wealth, to greater social mobility, to increased access to education and health care, and to the redistribution of land. The quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 and the subsequent oil price rises brought on by the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran greatly enhanced the success of Saddam Husayn's program. The more equitable distribution of income tied to the ruling party many Iraqis who had previously opposed the central government. For the first time in modern Iraqi history, a government--albeit at times a ruthless one, had thus achieved some success in forging a national community out of the country's disparate social elements. The biggest boost to Saddam Husayn's quest for regional power, however, resulted from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's signing the Camp David Accords in November 1978. Saddam Husayn viewed Egypt's isolation within the Arab world as an opportunity for Iraq to play a leading role in Arab affairs. He was instrumental in convening an Arab summit in Baghdad that denounced Sadat's reconciliation with Israel and imposed sanctions on Egypt
__________________
LOS is warm, soft, smooth, and brown. 
Last edited by JayBee : 09-07-2005 at 18:15.
|
|
#81
09-07-2005, 19:36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The last post addressed your contention that the US put Hussein in power. This post addresses you contention that they supplied hiim with weapons that helped him take power. The Hussein faction, then led by Bakr, took power peacefully in 1968 during the confusion that resulted by an internal coup d'etat in the Arif regime, by Arif's discontented lieutenants, who effectively brought down Arif, but were unable to consolidate their own power. The Baaths, led by Bakr and Hussein, politically outmaneuvered the inept perpetrtors of the coup and took power without firing a shot. That was in 1968. The US supplied weapons to the Baath-controlled Iraq for the first time in 1983 and then did so until 1988. In 1983, US supplied 0.5% of arms purchased by Iraq, in 1984 - 0.12%, in 1985 - 0.2%, in 1986 - 0.26%, in 1987 - 0.73%, and in 1988 - 5.4%. So, the only year in which the US supplied over 1% of Iraq's arms purchases was 1988 in which they supplied Iraq with only 5.4% of it's arms acquisitions that year. The major suppliers of arms to Hussein were USSR, France, and China, in that order. USSR supplied Iraq with 57% of all arms imported by Iraq in the years 1973 to 1991. France was 2nd with 13%, China 3rd with 12%. So 82% of all arms imported by Iraq for the years there are records for (1973-2002) were supplied by those 3 countries. Among the illustrious countries who supplied more arms than the US to Iraq are Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya. The US was tied with South Africa, and Austria, with Switzerland not far behind. 81% of arms were supplied by Communist countries actively at odds with the US. Remember the "Cold War"? 13% were provided by France, not known to be a big US backer, even back then. The fact that the avowed enemies of the US supplied 81% of arms to Iraq(which was then a socialist state), proves beyond any shadow of a doubt who aided and aremd Hussein and it wasn't the US, who did not supply significant supplies to Hussein until 1988 when it appeared Iran might overrun Iraq. The US, contrary to ppopular misinformation was neutral, and did not want to see the socialists of Iraq conquer Iran any more than it wanted to see Iran conquer Iraq. They were quite happy to see them weakening each other, and supplied arms to both combatants in the Iran/Iraq war. Other countries who supplied arms to Hussein's Iraq in significant amounts included(in no particular order) Canada, UK, Italy, Spain, Germany(East & West), Yugoslavia and Hungary. So, should we hold the Danes and Brazilians responsible for Hussein's rise to power since both of those countries provided substantially more arms to Iraq than the US ever did. What about the Austrians(apro. equal to US). How about those reckless, warlike Canadians? I will, however, admit that the Irish provided no arms to Iraq!! The information quoted was complied by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute(SIPRI), who is gernerally considered to be the world's unbiased authority on international armaments. The full text and web links to the Iraq arms suppliers info can be found at:http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/at_data.html
__________________
LOS is warm, soft, smooth, and brown.
Last edited by JayBee : 09-07-2005 at 19:41.
|
|
#82
09-07-2005, 19:39
|
||||
|
||||
|
When USA and UK approached the UN to allow them to go to war against Iraq, and the UN voted 'No'. What happened ?
They took no notice and went ahead with an ILLEGAL war (under the disguise of looking for weapons of mass destruction). The first military action that the UK and USA carried out was in my view, just as much an act of terrorism as the bombers in London. One day in Iraq, the innocent people are going about their daily routine, next thing, their houses, businesses and families are blown to bits by a jet fighter dropping bombs. In any war it is ALWAYS the innocent people that get hurt. 99.99% of muslims are decent, honest people - they are like everyone else in the world - they just want to get on with their normal lives. Ask yourself this question - Why would someone want to fly a plane into the twin towers, or blow up trains on the underground ? - because they have been totally provoked. Unfortunately, I think things have gone too far in Iraq to pull out now - we are there for the long haul. As sad as it seems, I think this may only be the beginning 
__________________
Dirty Mike You can beat an egg, but you cant beat a wank. 
|
|
#83
09-07-2005, 19:53
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sorry to have pressed the point about Saddam and arms. I hadn't gotten to this above post yet. I agree 100% with you. It is a sad time for many families and friends of those who have lost their lives, lost their friends or family members, and had their lives perhaps irretrievably changed and not for the better, by the event of the last 2 days. It is unfair, and a horrible tragedy that innocent people have lost lives or loved ones. And although we express different points and debate them, it is because we all feel deeply about the unconscionable acts that have occurred and the terrible consequences those hideous deeds have wrought. My condolences and sincere regards go out to all who have suffered in these tragic, unhappy days.
__________________
LOS is warm, soft, smooth, and brown.
|
|
#84
09-07-2005, 20:05
|
||||
|
||||
|
While America may have not been the end supplier of the arms the US government bent over backwards to support Hussein through soft loans, aid programs, etc all through the early 80's and the iran iraq war while it was known he was already using chemical weapons..
At the time an Iranian victory was likely and was not in American interests.. 10 mins on goiogle will list you document after document stating the US support and assistance on keeping him in power.. Pictures of a smiling Rummy shaking hands and all pally with him were the second link I clicked.. Its kind of ironic that both of the current bogeymen (taliban and Iraq) were US supported for years.. I make no moral judgement on supporting those groups as realpolitik is a rough and ready business..
__________________
Men have only 2 emotional states, hungry and horny.. So ladies, if you see me without an erection, make me a sandwich.
|
|
#85
09-07-2005, 23:48
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think we're forgetting that non of this has any bearing on the terror attacks. Groups like this are fundamentalist. They don't hate only the US or England. They believe that thier path is the path to righteousness. Anyone not espousing to thier beliefs is an infidel and as such deserves to die. This includes other moslems. Nothing we can do can change this. There will never be a peace with these groups. They are sworn to destroy non-believers of every faith.
What helps them out is that so many people lump all Muslims together whenever an incident occurs.
|
|
#86
10-07-2005, 05:13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hey Mike, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but whatever the povocation there is absolutely no justification in flying aircraft full of people into office blocks full of people. That, as was the bombing of public transport in London, was a disgusting, cowardly attack on people who had no quarrel with anybody. The people who are doing these things believe that all the rest of us, you me and everyone else, who are not living by their strict interpretation of a minority religion deserve to die. I did nothing to provoke them, why would they want to kill me? They are not prepared to live and let live and yet we are, I worked with a Muslim lady yesterday and she is just a person with different beliefs who I have no problem with. How did I provoke anyone? You might, just maybe, link the bombing of London with the war in Iraq. But correct me if I'm wrong here, those bastards killed all those people in America before Iraq came onto anyones radar, so what the fcuk has 9/11 got to do with Iraq?
|
|
#87
10-07-2005, 09:46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
total 100% agreement Quote:
Thats where I think people miss the point a little.. Yes these were innocent civilians going about thier business but by targetting the financial heart of a global financial center in the west they were / are striking at the center of a society they feel are attacking thier life and society.. Quote:
I dont think it is a case of even the fundamentalists wishing all other to die, its a case of thier fundamental views wish thier society to remain in a static strictly adherant to Islamic law system.. That is impossible to maintain when satellite TV broadcasts the 'bold and the beautiful' / porn channels / beverly hills 90210, etc around.. Attempting to create an isolationist environment in the modern world is near impossible and the fundamentalists have the desire for this strict adherance.. Also in Islamic society there is no division between church and state.. Religious scripture law is law.. I dont want to come accross as an apologist for the actions of these people, but I do always want to repeatedly point out that the reasons are not as clearcut so as to attempt to stop the knee jerk 'send em home' type comments and feelings that often come out after events such as this.. I also believe that the current iraq war and actions of the cowboy in charge have created an environment that fosters and creates the very people he claims to wish to stop... Terrorism is never beaten by war, terrorism is beaten by increased education and raised living standards. Middle class people dont strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up. People without hope or future and people that feel pressured out of society do that. Anyway I hope my comments are understood in the way they are intended.
__________________
Men have only 2 emotional states, hungry and horny.. So ladies, if you see me without an erection, make me a sandwich.
|
|
#88
10-07-2005, 13:16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I beg to differ. Correct me, if I am wrong but were not the 19 terrorists who perpetrated the Twin Towers conflagration all middle class and upper class Arabs, mostly from Saudi Arabia? International terrorists are usually recruited from young people who are looking for meaning in their lives, and are seduced by not only the righteous ideology of radical religious/political theories, but by the adventure, romance, and excitement. They think of themselves as heroes devoted to a heroic cause. Also in many cases the leaders of these cells are egomaniacs who enjoy excercising petty power over the followers. The belief that one is somehow a part of some great cause that is bigger and more important than anything else gives people a feeling that they are better than ordinary people, because they are "doing great things to change the world," as opposed to other people, who in their way of thinking are unconscious, unenlightened schmucks. They have a savior complex. IMHO, most poor people are more concerned with where their next meal or rent payment is coming from than they are about international politics. And the ones who aren't are often future politicians, who enjoy the celebrity among their peers, and sense of power, and a sort of glamour, in being the underdog "hero." Suicide bombers almost never come from the ranks of those actively fighting for a cause as part of an organized group, participating on a day-to-day basis. Those people don't want to die. They think that they are too valuable to the cause to sacrifice themselves. They specifically recruit the bombers from the ranks of the average guys, brainwashing them, making them feel important, and filling their minds with talk of everlasting glory. It is not courage, not heroism. It is extremely effective brainwashing.
__________________
LOS is warm, soft, smooth, and brown.
|
|
#89
10-07-2005, 13:37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
most military organizations tend to employ similar strategy for recuitment
|
<