quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
i assume DM, perhaps wrongly, that you spent no time in London during the 70's and 80's when the IRA was bombing us. If you had then perhaps you would understand why those of us who have lived through such times know that the only answer to terrorism is to take away the ressons for it.....answering violence with more violence is not the solution, it is at best an inadequate band-aid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren



I suspect many of the  people who lived through those times also came to realize there is "no perfect safety" :the mantra of the Right ("we can give you safety.")  The solution is not to bomb to rubble or to arrest indiscriminately, but careful, targeted police work coupled with diplomatic alliances.

quote:

MEATCLEAVER:
They attacked a civil facility which is terrorism in anyones book and killed innocent civilians not military personel.

quote:

 The facility was built by France to house a French reactor!!!!
The monster you are talking about was supported by the USA at the time.
The attack was unprovoked and France was thinking of retaliation. Israel is a loose canon that is unquestioningly supported and bank rolled by the USA. It is strange how YOUR MONSTERS are always the good guys.

quote:

As for having no moral compunction about killing other Arabs, I have seen little moral compunction by the USA when it comes to looking after its interests.

quote:

Your world is completely American-centric.

quote:

Other people to you seem to do things for no other motivation or reason other than they are bad or evil, while the US always reacts out of self defence or for superior moral reasons.

quote:

I suggest you get a passport and travel around the world and see what the USA and its businessmen are doing in YOUR name.

quote:

You might realise that terrorism does not exist because certain people are intrinsically evil but they are reacting (albeit in a warped way) to things that are done to them and their people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear
Got a question for you DM. In 'Nam we opperated well into North Vietnam uniudentifiable combat clothes, non US weaponary. Nothing to tie us to the US at all.. We subverted, spied, or collected valuable intel if you prefer, either assinated or set up local government officials so they were executed as traitors, bombed instiulatiuons and generally did what many terrorists do today... We also lived and worked with Montenyard tribsman who were fighting  for their freedom.... Now in todays terminology we were running covert opperations and black opps working and living with local Freedom Fighters..... In you opinion, were we Terrorists????

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

"You've got to be kidding me. You know as well as I do that it's a war on radical Islamic terror"

........so not a war on terror then, merely a war on one sort of terror......terror employed by friendly countries can be safely discounted?

quote:

quote:

"If Zimbabwe was harboring terrorists that targeted America, do you think for one minute we wouldn't do what we could to target Zimbabwe?"

....wrong way round......if Zimbabwe was of strategic interest to the states then it would soon become apparent that they were harbouring terrorists who want to target america....but even the way round you have it is revealing........what about terrorists that target countries other than america?

quote:

quote:

"philosophy, I guess you feel that there's no danger to any of us from WMDs in the hands of regimes like Saddam's or like the Ayatollah's. Is that right? What exactly would stop terrorists from getting nukes from regimes like that and smuggling them into Britain or America?"

......i dont feel we are in any danger of getting nuked as long as we act honourably and even handedly. You ask what would terrorists attacking......well there is a tried and tested answer to that, albeit an incomplete one........decent intelligence prevents attacks,

quote:

attacking other countries merely provokes them.

quote:

i assume DM, perhaps wrongly, that you spent no time in London during the 70's and 80's when the IRA was bombing us. If you had then perhaps you would understand why those of us who have lived through such times know that the only answer to terrorism is to take away the ressons for it.....answering violence with more violence is not the solution, it is at best an inadequate band-aid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Do you take paranoia pills DM? You suffer from the world being round and see everyone that is not American as plotting against America. Do you check under your bed at night?

quote:

France had every right to build a civil nuclear power station for Iraq. It had every right to retaliate against Isreal if it so desired because Isreal was the country that carried out an action of aggression.

quote:

You make assumptions of aggressive intentions were there is no evidence. No doubt you are a Republican, you obviously think like one and have their limited grasp of international diplomacy.

quote:

If you believe in the right to attack on suspicion then the terrorists on 9/11 were not terrorist but making a premptive defencive strike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You link al qaeda and Saddam when there is NO such link. You are playing Bush's game.

quote:


One document posted on the Internet by the government last week, after it was excerpted in the most recent issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, sheds additional light on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The internal Iraqi Intelligence memo was written at some point after January 1997 and described the efforts by the IIS to strengthen its relationships with four Saudi opposition groups. One of those groups was the "Reform and Advice Committee," run by Osama bin Laden. The New York Times reported that a Pentagon task force that studied the document concluded that it "appeared authentic." Last week, the investigative unit of ABC News summarized the document in a report.

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

The summary was followed by an "Editor's Note" assessing the contents and meaning of the document.

This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting--on November 13, 1995--terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.

quote:

Most countries in the middle east want nukes because Israel has them, they are at Isreals's mercy. It's rational for any country not to want to be in that situation.

quote:

Look at Iran, America its enemy has invaded two of its neighbouring countries and keeps making threats against it. Its neighbours, Pakistan and Russia have nukes. In that situation it is completely rational for Iran to want nukes not irrational as Bush insists it is.

quote:

If America was really concerned about peace which no one in the middle east really believes it is, it would rein in Isreal and stop Isreal stealing Arab land and treating Arabs in its care worse than dogs. Bush always talks about freedom and democracy but when it comes to actions he fails miserably because he refuses to insist America's allie Israel should be subject to the demands he makes of the Arabs.
Hypocrisy has been America's biggest enemy in the middle east.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
I could say, "Yes, those pills are in the bathroom cabinet right next to your political blindness pills," but let's not descend to the level of MsMacomb and wulfchyld. [

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

Your response continues to have this weird moral equivalence: If the U.S. can do it, a terrorist-supporting state should be able to do it. If Israel can have nukes, then wacko Iran is reasonable to want nukes. Why don't we just give nukes to everybody, meatcleaver?

1. It isn't Israel that's been threatening to destroy other Mideast states, it's other Mideast states that have been threatening to drive the Jews into the sea. You know that.
2. Israel has had nukes for quite a while. If there were a rational fear that Israel was about to use them, well, hasn't Israel had time enough to blow some country or countries to smithereens already? I mean, if Israel was going to use them, why hasn't it? Israel has withdrawn from territory, it isn't expanding into new territory. It hasn't made threatening statements such as we've been seeing over and over again from Arab countries and Iran. You know that too.
3. See my first paragraph above.

See my first paragraph above. 

"Treating Arabs in its care worse than dogs." And how do Arab states treat their prisoners? How does Iran? This is what's so weird about your postings: You're all over America and its allies but always (maybe there are exceptions, I just can't recall them) looking the other way when it's America's enemies that you're describing.

And by the way, how does anyone in authority in Palestine treat Israelis? How do the mobs who rule in Palestine treat Israelis? By supporting the terrorists in their midst, by sending out suicide bombers. If they treated them like dogs it would be an improvement. You know this.

George Bush hasn't supported democracy in the Mideast? He's done more than any other world leader, ever, to support it there. You know that.

And Bush is hypocritical because he doesn't make Israel more democratic? Israel is the most democratic nation in the Mideast. You know that.

Edited to say: Do I think that you'll look at any of my arguments or evidence with an open mind? Will you even read the whole thing? You don't seem to have done so before, so I doubt it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
"Hey, if a police officer can be justified in shooting somebody, then a bank robber should have the same right, shouldn't he? If I can live across the street from an elementary school, then a convicted child molester can, too -- right?"

quote:

it seems to me that this quote encapsulates the differences between our positions. The first comparison relies totally on hindsight.......a bank robber is only known to be a bank robber once they have robbed the bank, not before.

quote:

The second part of the quote assumes that you are beyond reproach.......now, i'm sure you personally are perfectly safe to be allowed near kids........but it is a false comparison to cast America in that role.

quote:

There are a number of living memory occasions where america has either officially or unofficially supported terrorism or terrorists. The shameful way that americans funded both sides in northern ireland, the various insurgents in south america......and Israel..........Ariel Sharon was welcome in america, shook hands with bush......and he was part of a terrorist attack that left british soldiers dead in pre-israeli palestine.........

quote:

The problem is DM, is that you don't seem able to accept that America has done some very bad things in recent years and should be held accountable for them.

quote:

This is not to say that other countries have been wonderful paragons of diplomatic virtue, far from it, but very few other countries attempt to hold moral high ground to which they are patently not entitled to........ a corrupt policeman shooting people who might be bank robbers, but only the ones he doesnt like the look of,  is a better way of describing the current situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
On Saddam Hussein and al qaeda.---- Blair has catergorically stated that there is NO evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al qaeda and has, albeit in a meally way, apologised to the British electrate. If anyone was praying for a link to be found, it was him. Every so called link that has been put forward has been laughed at and pulled apart in the European media. Maybe it isn't accepted in the US but it is accepted in this part of the world as fact. No link.

quote:

On Israel. As an occupying power, under the UN charter, Israel has a duty of care for civilians under its occupation. It assassinates anyone it calls a militant without producing evidence,

quote:

using air to surface missiles and usually murders innocent civilians, be it woman and children in the process. Two things here. Executions without judicial process. Against the UN charter. The killing of innocent civilians. Against the UN charter. Collective punishment. Against the UN charter. Confiscation of occupied land. Against the UN charter. It destroys homes of occupied civilians as a collective punishment. Against the UN charter. Building settlements on occupied land. Against the UN charter.

quote:

If your enemy holding nukes is irrelevent, why is it necessary for the US to have nukes? Self protection? Mutually assured destruction? Why is it so irrational for an enemy of a nuclear power to want nukes? So they can blow each other to kingdom come? Nope. Self protection, the freeing themselves of nuclear blackmail through mutually assured destruction. It's not irrational but quite the opposite but dangerous yes but powers that have nukes should have thought about that years ago when they where happy throwing their weight around.

quote:

It is no argument to say, our enemies would do much worse if given the chance or our enemies are much worse in the same situation.

quote:

You are judged by your own purported standards.

quote:

 Bush is leading an ideological war based on his definition of freedom and civilisation.

quote:

People look at US actions and judge it, they look at what they see as US satelites such as Israel and judge it.

quote:

 If you think that the USA should be the modern equivalent of the Roman Empire, then say it but don't pretend Freedom and Civilisation come into it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

I think European nations have failed in their moral duty to maintain military forces that could, for instance, help patrol the Darfur region of Ethiopia to prevent further massacres there. Those massacres are blood on the hands of today's European governments who haven't done enough for Darfur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

Having insulted me in the past and not apologized for it, you should have no expectation I'll ever answer a question of yours, but because I find this one interesting, I will. Don't expect it in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear
Got a question for you DM. In 'Nam we opperated well into North Vietnam uniudentifiable combat clothes, non US weaponary. Nothing to tie us to the US at all.. We subverted, spied, or collected valuable intel if you prefer, either assinated or set up local government officials so they were executed as traitors, bombed instiulatiuons and generally did what many terrorists do today... We also lived and worked with Montenyard tribsman who were fighting  for their freedom.... Now in todays terminology we were running covert opperations and black opps working and living with local Freedom Fighters..... In you opinion, were we Terrorists????

Anyone who targets innocent civilians instead of targeting the military and those people and places that are vital to supporting the enemy's military is a terrorist. American, Australian, Arab or anyone else. I've already said that we may have done serious wrong in bombing Cologne in World War II. You must've missed that post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

Having insulted me in the past and not apologized for it, you should have no expectation I'll ever answer a question of yours, but because I find this one interesting, I will. Don't expect it in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear
Got a question for you DM. In 'Nam we opperated well into North Vietnam uniudentifiable combat clothes, non US weaponary. Nothing to tie us to the US at all.. We subverted, spied, or collected valuable intel if you prefer, either assinated or set up local government officials so they were executed as traitors, bombed instiulatiuons and generally did what many terrorists do today... We also lived and worked with Montenyard tribsman who were fighting  for their freedom.... Now in todays terminology we were running covert opperations and black opps working and living with local Freedom Fighters..... In you opinion, were we Terrorists????

Anyone who targets innocent civilians instead of targeting the military and those people and places that are vital to supporting the enemy's military is a terrorist. American, Australian, Arab or anyone else. I've already said that we may have done serious wrong in bombing Cologne in World War II. You must've missed that post.

Ohhhhh dear diddums did we hurt your widdle fewwings did we??  Never mind the Bad Old Bear will ask Goldylocks to change a widdle nappy and give you a nice new comforter (dummy) to suck on whilst she reads you little Wed Widing Hood.

Appologise to you? Why in all that I hold Holy should I appologise to you? There was nothing to appolgise for! I insulted you? Bloody hell 90% of your posts are an insult to my intelligence as well as that of many others here!  I was replying to a comment you made to me which incorporated a question.. I have never intentionally insulted you but just treated you like in my opinion you deserve to be treated (a petulant child with problems). You son, never had the balls to respond to that... Seems that your grasp on reality excludes philosophy and arguments other than bashing and bullying. I gave you several honourable ways out of the corner you have again boxed yourself into but no you love corner time dont you? BTW I never mised the posts you mentioned it is just they are so small compared to the posts you make about those who you don't like it is just a small entry to attempt to demonstrate they you are a fair minded bloke... heh.. I'll not post my views on that one because I have no particular desire to be completely and permanantly banned from CM.  You probably woun't reply to me in the future???? Ohh dear god I'm shattered and I..I...I  thought you liked me so much << Tries to get the bottom lip trembling and ends up pounding the desk roaring with laughter>> EEEHAAAA!!!! Hurrayah!!! Jolly Good Show!!!!!  Is that a promise now?????  Sure you won't get lonly?  Go for it son and I'll still sit and read your posts which are at least better comedy that the Comedy channel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
hmmmm, this is strange, I read most of DM's threads and I haven't saw anything to rude. I also read IronBears posts and didn't see anything highly offensive. hmmmmm, You both seem reasonable to me most of the time. Maybe I missed it, why do you guys dislike each other. Is it just because you guys don't agree on the US's role in the world? Well, okay, but that's hardly a reason to dislike someone. If that's the case I guess I better get into my fighting stance. Maybe a common enemy will bring you together, LOL. Because I disagree with some of what both of you said during the course of reading various threads not mention the 50 posters I've disagreed with from time to time.

Really, what's the problem? Is it just you guys don't agree on some ideas? Come on, I thought everyone was bigger than that here. Ok, maybe not everyone but most.