Don't **** with the US electorate...

[CptStern]

Holy crap Stern, I didnt realize I wrote for Wilkepedia. Thanks for pointing it out! Im sure they left off thousands of other attacks as well, not just your one little poster child.

you're dodging the issue. You cant use the argument that terrorism is exculsive to radical groups. In most cases state sponsored terrorism has a far greater death toll than conventional terrorism. The US is being hypocritical in their war on terrorism.

Alright, going by your definition there were no terrorists in Iraq, that is because anyone who fought Saddam was killed. You have replaced the brutal regime of Saddam with a few years of unrest in Iraq. In the end, it will work out and we will see Iraq start to turn around.

I'm not so sure about that. The current PM, Iyad Allawi, is a terrorist (by your definition) and a murderer ..he's another saddam in the making

"A former Ba'athist, Allawi set up and remains the leader of the CIA-supported Iraqi National Accord which carried out bombings in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the INA provided intelligence about alleged weapons of mass destruction to MI6. Allawi is also alleged to have personally executed six Iraqi prisoners in June 2004 to "send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents".

source

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The dissidents were never allowed to organize. Whenever they did, they died.

Okay, now you're missing the point. Why would Saddam kill citizens who would plan to attack the west? And how would his oppressiveness rule out state-sponsored terrorism?

It has drawn thousands of terrorists, who knows how many it has created. You are assuming on that one. Nowhere near a fact.

I am judging by estimation. From my knowledge of the conflict in Iraq, there appear to be Al-Queda-allied insurgents in the thousands. How else could they hold of the US forces? A group just recently proclaimed its alliance over the internet. Could you provide a lower number?

It was, just not as loudly as the WMD argument.

But then why ignore Sudan? Or North Korea? Or any other place with human rights violations? Seeing as to how the WMD argument has about as much merit as the terror argument, the last one doesn't stack up.

I edited this into a previous post, and it seems some missed it:

The U.S. invasion probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam would have this year, even if he had carried out a major purge or two. For that matter, purges were not his forte. Everyday thuggery was enough to keep people running scared. The last big massacre was prompted by the Shiite uprising in 1991.

 

[seinfeldrules]

In most cases state sponsored terrorism has a far greater death toll than conventional terrorism.

That is why we are going after the states that sponsor the terrorists. THis is Bush's main plan in the War V. Terror, as Kerry's is to hit the individual cells. I'm sure you can find some examples of the US, Canada, and GB all supporting terrorists in some twisted way, but that isnt the same as Iran directly funding Al Qaeda type organizations.

I'm not so sure about that. The current PM, Iyad Allawi, is a terrorist (by your definition) and a murderer ..he's another saddam in the making

You're making wild assumptions. Allawi was only trying to hit Saddam targets, if I remember the article correctly. Can you blame the man after Saddam killed millions of his fellow citizens? Or after Saddam sent hit men that hacked him up with an axe during his sleep? Its a miracle he survived.

Okay, now you're missing the point. Why would Saddam kill citizens who would plan to attack the west? And how would his oppressiveness rule out state-sponsored terrorism?

Werent we talking about people hitting back at Saddam?

there appear to be Al-Queda-allied insurgents in the thousands. How else could they hold of the US forces? A group just recently proclaimed its alliance over the internet. Could you provide a lower number?

They are only in a pocketed few areas, according to military personnel. I would say that the insurgency is normal after having their way of life just ruined by the Allies. I would say that most of them are ex-Saddam loyalists who want him or another like him back. Al Qaeda is just there because it is a fight against America.

But then why ignore Sudan? Or North Korea? Or any other place with human rights violations? Seeing as to how the WMD argument has about as much merit as the terror argument, the last one doesn't stack up.

We cant do everything alone. Maybe the UN should help us with some of those problems. Are we the only ones willing to do anything about the worlds problems anymore? What is the point of the UN anymore?

The U.S. invasion probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam would have this year, even if he had carried out a major purge or two. For that matter, purges were not his forte. Everyday thuggery was enough to keep people running scared. The last big massacre was prompted by the Shiite uprising in 1991.

Say 400,000 over 15 years. That is 26,666.67 a year.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Edit: Still, it does seem rather unfair play to have foriegn people taking part in the election. Say all you like about "We are all of the world" but I find it annoying when Westminster plays around with my area to please London...Having an American come of here to tell me who to vote for would quite frankly be patronising, and perhaps a little laughable.

I laugh when Canadians, Brits, and people for Portugal tell me who to vote for. I also laugh when a certain person plans to wipe us all of the map just because Bush gets voted into office. Who cares! When the United States is whiped off the map, I'll gawk.

But until then, I'm going to vote. ...and guess what? NOT THIS YEAR.

...fu-k-k-ing Kerry betrayed my hopeful vote...

 

[Neutrino]

But until then, I'm going to vote. ...and guess what? NOT THIS YEAR.

...fu-k-k-ing Kerry betrayed my hopeful vote...

What do you mean?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Let me cry, like all American children do when their birthday party is'int celebrated by an epidemic of toys, cake, and friends...

There both against Gay Marriage (Bush, Kerry). I hope San Francisco riots--just because it would'nt be anything violent. More like a nude rave with lots of drugs and sporty cars.

 

[Neutrino]

Let me cry, like all American children do when their birthday party is'int celebrated by an epidemic of toys, cake, and friends...

There both against Gay Marriage (Bush, Kerry). I hope San Francisco riots--just because it would'nt be anything violent. More like a nude rave with lots of drugs and sporty cars.

True. Atleast Kerry is against a contitutional ban though.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I think Kerry is silently for a Constitutional Ban of it; moreso, though not worded, a silent agreement on the topic I believe is being carried on by him, for hisself.

Course, I think Kerry jaded at the last minute. I think he's trying to reach a religious vote.

 

[Neutrino]

I think Kerry is silently for a Constitutional Ban of it; moreso, though not worded, a silent agreement on the topic I believe is being carried on by him, for hisself.

Course, I think Kerry jaded at the last minute. I think he's trying to reach a religious vote.

Hmm, interesting. I somewhat think that he's actually for gay marriage being legal, but to say that openly would be political suicide. He did say he thinks people are born gay, which is a rather non-religious attitude.

Who knows though.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yea, I was a little blank on it before. Perhaps its just a feign.

 

[seinfeldrules]

At least the Bush team doesnt low ball Kerry's family.

 

[CptStern]

That is why we are going after the states that sponsor the terrorists. THis is Bush's main plan in the War V. Terror, as Kerry's is to hit the individual cells.

I was referring to countries like the US, Russia, China etc ..you're not understanding the term "state-sponsored terrorism" ...it's not literally a state that gives money to terrorists :

"State terrorism is violence upon a national population committed by national governments or their proxies. State terrorism can be effected directly, at the hands of national military or security forces, or indirectly, through state sponsored terrorist organizations. States can terrorize their own populations, to secure rule and suppress dissent, or foreign citizens, to support favoured or destabilize unfavoured foreign regimes. "

I'm sure you can find some examples of the US, Canada, and GB all supporting terrorists in some twisted way, but that isnt the same as Iran directly funding Al Qaeda type organizations.

what? now Iran is on your terrorist-state list? preparing for the eventual invasion? anyways, it's exactly the same, if not worse ..Orlando Bosch was wanted for the murders of 73 people when he was captured by the FBI in Miami. At his application for amnesty the Attorney General had this to say:

"As a result of this review, the conclusion is inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch. I have moreover concluded that he is an alien excludable from the United States under 8 U.S.C.- 1182 (a) (27), (28) (ii), (28) (iii), (28) (iv) and (29), and that his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation should be and herein are denied."

but before that could happen, George H Bush, at the request of his son Jeb Bush pardoned a wanted Terrorist ...to this day he walks the streets a free man ...oh did I mention Bosch worked as an informant for the CIA in the 80's?

source

You're making wild assumptions. Allawi was only trying to hit Saddam targets, if I remember the article correctly.

you're a hypocrite:

"Both (eye-witnesses) insisted that Allawi shot the handcuffed and blindfolded men (6 iraqi prisoners) in cold blood, in front of U.S. military and Iraq police witnesses, while visiting the Al-Amariyah security center in Baghdad."

"According to a July 11 New York Times feature by Dexter Filkins, Allawi cut off one prisoner's hand to make him confess about "terrorist" activities."

"According to former CIA officers, these attacks included the bombing of a cinema as well as a school bus that killed school children."


is this democracy in the making? is this nation building? replacing one tyrant with another? ...mark my words, we'll be having this same debate 10 years from now when the US declares "Iyad Allawi possess WMD, and he's going to use them on freedom-loving americans"

Can you blame the man after Saddam killed millions of his fellow citizens? Or after Saddam sent hit men that hacked him up with an axe during his sleep? Its a miracle he survived.

you make me ill ..you're making him sound like a "freedom fighter" ...he's an effing terrorist looking out for his own political agenda ...you're justifing terrorism ...what the hell, have you no conscious? how can you villify saddam yet support someone who's just as bad

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I was referring to countries like the US, Russia, China etc ..you're not understanding the term "state-sponsored terrorism" ...it's not literally a state that gives money to terrorists :

By State sponsored terrorism, you're reguarding people who put terrorists in office, correct?

"State terrorism is violence upon a national population committed by national governments or their proxies. State terrorism can be effected directly, at the hands of national military or security forces, or indirectly, through state sponsored terrorist organizations. States can terrorize their own populations, to secure rule and suppress dissent, or foreign citizens, to support favoured or destabilize unfavoured foreign regimes. "

Source?

what? now Iran is on your terrorist-state list?

It also happens to be on Canada's aswell...

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News arc...s Threat Against Iran Over Kazemi Verdict.htm

^ About some chick who was killed...also has some info on the topic...

...then this.

^http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/08/31/canada.iran.journalist.reut/

This one is much better.

Then this...of course, more UN-i'fied.

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/10/14/56608.html

Its appearing to the UN, Iran is festering up for its own terrorism. Course, im counting on its weapons program, of which, it has'nt dropped. Numerous deaths have been accounted in Iran Political Prisons, were UK, and Canadian Reporters, have been shot or beaten to death reguarding their reports.

at the request of his son Jeb Bush pardoned a wanted Terrorist

Amnesty sucks, does'nt it? Would've you preferred to not let this terrorist go? From your own opinion; and dont worry, their is no strings attached.

"Both (eye-witnesses) insisted that Allawi shot the handcuffed and blindfolded men (6 iraqi prisoners) in cold blood, in front of U.S. military and Iraq police witnesses, while visiting the Al-Amariyah security center in Baghdad."

"According to a July 11 New York Times feature by Dexter Filkins, Allawi cut off one prisoner's hand to make him confess about "terrorist" activities."

"According to former CIA officers, these attacks included the bombing of a cinema as well as a school bus that killed school children."

Source...this seems new...

is this democracy in the making? is this nation building? replacing one tyrant with another?

Well, which do you want? The "dead" Jordanian in Fallujah? Bush? Or Iraqs internal minister? You can only choose one...

you make me ill ..you're making his sound like a "freedom fighter" ...her an effing terrorist looking out for his own political agenda ...you're justifing terrorism

This is news from you CptStern. I've never known terrorism to concern you.

how can you villify saddam yet support someone who's just as bad

Again...who are we talking about here?

 

[CptStern]

By State sponsored terrorism, you're reguarding people who put terrorists in office, correct?

no, terrorist acts perpetrated by governemnts

It also happens to be on Canada's aswell...

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News arc...s Threat Against Iran Over Kazemi Verdict.htm

^ About some chick who was killed...also has some info on the topic...

no, this has nothing to do with terrorism ..it's the case of Zahra Kazemi a canadian journalist who was beaten to death while in police custody ..we are threatening sanctions because the iranian government refuses to try all the police involved

Its appearing to the UN, Iran is festering up for its own terrorism. Course, im counting on its weapons program, of which, it has'nt dropped. Numerous deaths have been accounted in Iran Political Prisons, were UK, and Canadian Reporters, have been shot or beaten to death reguarding their reports.

you're mixing facts ..so what does the US plan to do about the fact 40,000 civilians in darfur who were slaughtered in the last few months? China openly uses torture in all of it's prisons, turkey uses (US ally) torture, so does Saudi arabia ..there's tons of evidence that the hotbed of terrorism is in fact saudi arabia ...hmmm will the US do something about it? oh I forgot, they're allies

Amnesty sucks, does'nt it? Would've you preferred to not let this terrorist go? From your own opinion; and dont worry, their is no strings attached.

re-read it kerberos before I make a fool of you ..they were trying to get him deported to stand trial until G H Bush stepped in

Well, which do you want? The "dead" Jordanian in Fallujah? Bush? Or Iraqs internal minister? You can only choose one...

wtf are you talking about? I dont think you even know. Allawi killed women and children

This is news from you CptStern. I've never known terrorism to concern you.



Again...who are we talking about here?

pay attention ..the prime minister of Iraq: Iyad Allawi

 

[Mechagodzilla]

At least the Bush team doesnt low ball Kerry's family.

If you're referring to Cheney's gay daughter, how is that an insult? She's gay, she was openly gay, she's part of the Bush-Cheney campaign and therefore a celebrity part of the public eye.

It's as if John Edwards were for whatever reason, passing laws against black christian converts, even though he had a black daughter who converted to christianity. It's pointing out the hypocracy of it.

Edit: And Kerebos, I think you'd better step down on this one. Calling the Kazemi case state-sponsored terrorism? Huh?
You clearly don't know what you're on about.

 

[Phraxtion]

If you're referring to Cheney's gay daughter, how is that an insult? She's gay, she was openly gay, she's part of the Bush-Cheney campaign and therefore a celebrity part of the public eye.

It's as if John Edwards were for whatever reason, passing laws against black christian converts, even though he had a black daughter who converted to christianity. It's pointing out the hypocracy of it.

Edit: And Kerebos, I think you'd better step down on this one. Calling the Kazemi case state-sponsored terrorism? Huh?
You clearly don't know what you're on about.

I would have to agree with Seinfeldrules on this one, it was kinda of a low blow.

I read somewhere she was pissed off about it as well.

 

[Neutrino]

At least the Bush team doesnt low ball Kerry's family.

I agree that it was slightly inappropriate to bring up Cheney's daughter. However you have to factor in that it is already public knowledge and that Cheney has spoken publically about it before. Furthermore, Edwards talked about it at the VP debate and all Cheney did was thank him. If he had a problem with his daughter being talked about in the debates he should have brought it up then. To not do so then and wait to bring it up now makes it a purely political move in my opinion, thus making him a hypocrit for accusing Kerry of using it for politics.

Also, I was not impressed by what Cheney's wife had to say. Alright, perhaps Kerry shouldn't have talked about her daughter, but he never said anything negative. In fact he was trying to support her lifestyle by arguing that it is not a choice. To me it almost sounded like Cheney's wife disagreed and was ashamed of her daughter somehow. Now I have no idea if that is true or not, but that's how she came across to me. She sounded more like a politician than a caring mother.

So was it the wrong thing to say? Possibly.

Was it a low ball to Cheney's family? Not at all.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I would have to agree with Seinfeldrules on this one, it was kinda of a low blow.

I read somewhere she was pissed off about it as well.

Oh well. This is one of those controversial things that nobody can agree on.

Personnally, I don't see how calling a gay person gay would be offensive. It's certainly nothing to be ashamed about.
And if she didn't want to be scrutinized, she shouldn't have joined the political theatre. That's my view of things.

Edit: And I agree 100% with what Neut just said too.

Edit2: Which is more of a low blow? That or this: http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm

 

[K e r b e r o s]

no, terrorist acts perpetrated by governemnts

...like, putting Terrorists in office.

no, this has nothing to do with terrorism ..it's the case of Zahra Kazemi a canadian journalist who was beaten to death while in police custody ..we are threatening sanctions because the iranian government refuses to try all the police involved

Oh, I think it has to do with something. She was going to report on the tortures and harsh re-education policies enforced by the Prison...when she was suddenly arrested...and killed...by accidental...military interrogation.

..so what does the US plan to do about the fact 40,000 civilians in darfur who were slaughtered in the last few months?

Source...?

China openly uses torture in all of it's prisons, turkey uses (US ally) torture, so does Saudi arabia

So did Germany at one point, and the UK did too. We all did. So your point here is...what? ...

...hmmm will the US do something about it? oh I forgot, they're allies

To do something about tortures? I think frankly, thats every countries problem. Their unwilling to try themselves in the face of being laughed at, or discerned for being cruel. US or Saudi alike, other countries use the same policies aswell. But at least the United States Judicial system is finally getting its hands on torture cases.

You dont think I was worried about the PoW's too? Your mistaken to believe that I never cared.

...even though it was perpetrated by the US Government that the prisoner release was an action commited by the US Military, a Supreme Court investigation IS what prompted/forced the following Prisoners to be released:

http://www.journal.com.ph/news.asp?pid=6&sid=15&nid=7975&month=8&day=3&year=2004

You think we know everything about Iraq, here in America dont you? Well...thats a stupid question, but go ahead and answer it anyway...but for the record, it was a very hard process to get going for our Judicial System to, even be able to try our own soldiers.

Now were releasing prisoners. Eat this: Either no progress at all, or some.

Better. Than. Nothing.

re-read it kerberos before I make a fool of you ..they were trying to get him deported to stand trial until G H Bush stepped in

Besides the retort, of which I dont feel pressured by, I think you should realize my comment came in based on what criteria you left me. Your last point, was that we released a terrorist out into the "wild".

So...whats your point about that? Whats the third party point here...?

wtf are you talking about? I dont think you even know. Allawi killed women and children

So, which of the evils do you want in power?

The dead Jordanian, George Bush with Poland (and his Coalition of 90% US Casualties), or the new interim prime minister?

pay attention ..the prime minister of Iraq: Iyad Allawip

Duh. Now, can you answer my question(s)?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Edit: And Kerebos, I think you'd better step down on this one. Calling the Kazemi case state-sponsored terrorism? Huh?
You clearly don't know what you're on about.

You misread, and I think you need to go back. I never linked State Sponsored Terrorism with the Kazemi case. They were two different opinions, and both were seperated and not placed into direct comment of each other.

Scroll up, please.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So did Germany at one point, the UK did too. We all did. So your point here is...what?

Because Saudi Arabia and the rest are doing it now. As we speak, practically. The fact is, without the WMD motivation, and the Al-Queda ties motivation (both of which were false), the US would have never attacked Saddam.

So, when you try to weigh the good done, it's like Bush got drunk and just hit some random guy with his car, and then it turned out the victim was a murderer.

Bush is like: "Yay, I saved the town from a killer who was at large"
But the fact that's left out was that it was entirely a result of ineptitude.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Your point was that it happens in canada. You mentioned a crime in Iran. It doesn't make sense.

No, thats not my point. Here it is: She was killed ironically. Yes, we know their not releasing the body, and Canada is sanctioning the UN for action to be taken in order to gain custody of the body.

However, the Prison she was reporting on delt with a lot of different methods of torture and internment. Some of most of the people in these prisons, are being speculated to have been Iraqis, Saudis, and some Jordanians. People, who are also being speculated, held no clear or present danger to Iran itself.

I have the source lingering somewhere...its why I edited my post.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Because Saudi Arabia and the rest are doing it now. As we speak, practically.

So is Russia. ...so are the provinces in Korea.
Everyone. Is. Doing. It. How do you propose to stop a world-wide problem?

Solve it for one, then nobody else?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

So, when you try to weigh the good done, it's like Bush got drunk and just hit some random guy with his car, and then it turned out the victim was a murderer.

So, what does a drunk texan have to do with this? Oh, I get it! Its a metaphor for the Iraq situation. Well, incase you missed your own point, and mine to be exact, we were discussing the situations going on in Iran.

Bush is like: "Yay, I saved the town from a killer who was at large"
But the fact that's left out was that it was entirely a result of ineptitude.

So...what does this mean?

^ See above

The fact is, without the WMD motivation, and the Al-Queda ties motivation (both of which were false), the US would have never attacked Saddam.

Completely different point, and it was'nt my discussion.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, thats not my point. Here it is: She was killed ironically. Yes, we know their not releasing the body, and Canada is sanctioning the UN for action to be taken in order to gain custody of the body.

However, the Prison she was reporting on delt with a lot of different methods of torture and internment. Some of most of the people in these prisons, are being speculated to have been Iraqis, Saudis, and some Jordanians. People, who are also being speculated, held no clear or present danger to Iran itself.

I have the source lingering somewhere...its why I edited my post.

Yeah, I just noticed that I misunderstood your original wording from before you edited. Thanks for clearing it up.

Still, I think this is proof that Iran was a much more valid target, what with thier open quest for nukes, thier terrorist ties (both state-sponsored and otherwise), and thier deplorable human rights violations.

So is Russia. ...so are the provinces in Korea.
Everyone. Is. Doing. It. How do you propose to stop a world-wide problem?

Solve it for one, then nobody else?

My point is that if war in Iraq were only about human rights violations, like everyone is now saying the war is, then there were many, many more valid targets.

And yes, Bush is only solving it for one, and nobody else. There is absolutely no indication that he will do anything to these other countries on the scale of his actions in Iraq.

His current spinned motivation for Iraq is not enough motive to start wars in any other country. Apparently Bush is only concerned with overthrowing oppressors when it turns out the other reasons were wrong after the fact.

He needed WMDs and Al-Queda to justify the war for a reason: Saddam's opression was not a good enough motivation.

So, what does a drunk texan have to do with this? Oh, I get it! Its a metaphor for the Iraq situation. Well, incase you missed your own point, and mine to be exact, we were discussing the situations going on in Iran.

I'm supporting Stern's (and my own) previous argument that stopping human rights violations was not an adequate motivation for war in Iraq, under Bush's own standards. It only became a motivation after the fact.

Your post co-incided with that, since you were responding to Stern's. If that's not what you're on about, then just pretend I'm talking to seinfeldrules.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Still, I think this is proof that Iran was a much more valid target, what with thier open quest for nukes, thier terrorist ties (both state-sponsored and otherwise), and thier deplorable human rights violations.

Okay. This clears up a bunch.

My point is that if war in Iraq were only about human rights violations, like everyone is now saying the war is, then there were many, many more valid targets.

It pisses me off what we did (the US), and what people did in retalliation (name whatever group you want to for the beheadings), but do you know how hard it was to even let Congress allow a Judicial outreach to the PoW's?

It took the UN to slap bush's hand a bit in order for several prisoners to be released. Now that we've made that breakthrough, who knows...its only too bad we did'nt make these successes earlier.

And yes, Bush is only solving it for one, and nobody else. There is absolutely no indication that he will do anything to these other countries on the scale of his actions in Iraq.

Oh, you never know...he just might go after Iran. ...I know Kerry's getting ready for it...god knows how he'll balance that act.

Saddam's opression was not a good enough motivation.

This is true. Heres a typical american question: Does'nt Afghanistan border...Iran?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well, I guess everything's cleared up then.
I edited mine post more, if you'd like to address those points too.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Your post co-incided with that, since you were responding to Stern's. If that's not what you're on about, then just pretend I'm talking to seinfeldrules.

Done. :cheers:

 

[Tinneth]

Hey England, Scotland and Wales,
Mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidental election. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German. And if America would have had a president, then, of the likes of Kerry, you'd all be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace. YOU ARE NOT WANTED!! Whether you want to support either party. BUTT OUT!!!

Does he not realise that without England he wouldnt be speaking English at all? And if it wasnt for us in the war he would be speaking German/Japanese.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

He also doesn't seem to realise that he's describing the benefits of America ending it's policy of isolationism, while simultaneously pledging American isolation.

Arguably, if Kerry had been prez then, the US would have entered WWII sooner. (Given his focus on alliances and so-on)
He might not have waited 'til Pearl Harbour.

 

[Korgoth]

Guys some of the comments on there are just stupid. I sincerely hope that the you don't think all Americans are the stereotypical ummmm "redneck racists?"... We aren't

I don't see the problem. I understand the whole world has a stake in this election and every election in every country. It only takes one mad man to start a world war afterall right? (not accusing bush of anything so don't bite me)

 

[ComradeBadger]

I just read the article in G2 today. I read one of the replies we've been sending off.

What a pile of offensive bollocks. I'd ****ing take offence if someone mailed me on the election and told me that the Prime Minister is a war crimanal and that my country is reviled.

This is mass media at it's mother****ing worst. These people didn't sign up to recieve ****ing offensive letters from activists.

Jesus ****ing christ.

 

[CptStern]

...like, putting Terrorists in office.

like Ilyad allawi? ya, what's your point?

Oh, I think it has to do with something. She was going to report on the tortures and harsh re-education policies enforced by the Prison...when she was suddenly arrested...and killed...by accidental...military interrogation.

yes but I'm directly refuting your claim that canada is actively sanctioning Iran because of terrorism, which is untrue

Source...?

"over 40,000 people had been violently killed between September 2003 and February 2004"

So did Germany at one point, and the UK did too. We all did. So your point here is...what? ...

quite self-evident, I thought ...seinfeldrules (and you) made claims that Iran is a rogue state that tortures it's people ..ya well so do many regimes including as you yourself have said, the US

To do something about tortures? I think frankly, thats every countries problem. Their unwilling to try themselves in the face of being laughed at, or discerned for being cruel. US or Saudi alike, other countries use the same policies aswell. But at least the United States Judicial system is finally getting its hands on torture cases.

You dont think I was worried about the PoW's too? Your mistaken to believe that I never cared.

...even though it was perpetrated by the US Government that the prisoner release was an action commited by the US Military, a Supreme Court investigation IS what prompted/forced the following Prisoners to be released:

http://www.journal.com.ph/news.asp?pid=6&sid=15&nid=7975&month=8&day=3&year=2004

You think we know everything about Iraq, here in America dont you? Well...thats a stupid question, but go ahead and answer it anyway...but for the record, it was a very hard process to get going for our Judicial System to, even be able to try our own soldiers.

Now were releasing prisoners. Eat this: Either no progress at all, or some.

ahhh but the US has a torture policy in place in Iraq ...it's not a "few bad apples" as bush would have you believe ...the CIA have set up torture camps throughout iraq

Besides the retort, of which I dont feel pressured by, I think you should realize my comment came in based on what criteria you left me. Your last point, was that we released a terrorist out into the "wild".

no my point was that you harbour and continue to do so a wanted terrorist responsible for the deaths of 73 civilians in complete contradiction to this:

"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-- President George Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001

So...whats your point about that? Whats the third party point here...?

the point is that the US is being hypocritical (pretty obvious I think)

So, which of the evils do you want in power? The dead Jordanian, George Bush with Poland (and his Coalition of 90% US Casualties), or the new interim prime minister?

shouldnt the people of iraq make that decision? I dont think iraqis would knowingly support a known terrorist and murderer

Duh. Now, can you answer my question(s)?

dont get pissed because you dont understand the issues. I've answered your question, now answer mine:

why does the us harbour terrorists? if they themselves are targeting terrorists?

why did the US install as the democratic head of a country someone who has ties with terrorism, if there's a declared war on terrorism? ...am I missing something here? is there such a thing as bad terrorists and good terrorists? ..or are they just being selective in who they target?

 

[Fat Tony!]

Oh I'm not saying I dont care for the British people, quite on the contrary. I am also not saying we dont need your help on most issues. I am saying we dont need your help in electing our leaders. If I felt President Bush was truly going to harm Britain in some way, then I wouldnt vote for him. I dont think this is the case and I feel the President is actually helping to protect your country.

Why didnt you say that in the first place? your name is cleared in my view. But you should have broader views tbh

 

[K e r b e r o s]

dont get pissed because you dont understand the issues. I've answered your question, now answer mine:

I was'nt pissed. But the wording you used has told me thats exactly what you've been feeling.

But sure...I'll go...since you've not answered my questions anyway (lead by example):

why does the us harbour terrorists? if they themselves are targeting terrorists?

Which Terrorists? The ones before 9/11, or after?

why did the US install as the democratic head of a country someone who has ties with terrorism, if there's a declared war on terrorism?

Are we talking about Iraq, or the United States?

...am I missing something here? is there such a thing as bad terrorists and good terrorists?

Apparently so. Hassan believes some of these "terrorists", should'nt be called "terrorists". Good, bad? Depends upon your viewpoint. Evil men, think Evil is good. Much like good men, think "good", is good. Its all relative to ones perspective.

..or are they just being selective in who they target?

Who...?

 

[CptStern]

I was'nt pissed. But the wording you used has told me thats exactly what you've been feeling.

But sure...I'll go...since you've not answered my questions anyway (lead by example):



Which Terrorists? The ones before 9/11, or after?



Are we talking about Iraq, or the United States?



Apparently so. Hassan believes some of these "terrorists", should'nt be called "terrorists". Good, bad? Depends upon your viewpoint. Evil men, think Evil is good. Much like good men, think "good", is good. Its all relative to ones perspective.



Who...?

there's no use in continuing this debate if you're going to sidestep the questions, you know perfectly well the meaning behind my questions ...save yourself the trouble and just say "i dont know"

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh this reminded me. I plan on responding eventually, I'm just a little stressed at the moment so I dont know when will be a good time.

 

[Jackal hit]

and the Al-Queda ties motivation (both of which were false), the US would have never attacked Saddam.

actually, lemme clarify something that was repeated many many times. the US government never said al qaeda and saddam had links.
although it's been proven that saddam/saddams advisors had meetings with al qaeda in indonesia...

edit: btw, this thread i WAY THE F*CK OFF TOPIC... this thread is about the replies to what the gaurdian did with the e-mails. not about who c*ck blasted who with greater sperm count and achieved greater terrorism infiltration bullshit.

on topic: i thought the replies were pretty funny, in the sense of really pushing the stereotypes, however i think they were very needlessly belligerent. although along the same lines, one must wonder in what tone the emails sent to ohio were written in. you guys are overlooking this line of thought.

 

[Cooper]

What the hell is a "Limey?" I have never heard an American use that word.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

there's no use in continuing this debate if you're going to sidestep the questions, you know perfectly well the meaning behind my questions ...save yourself the trouble and just say "i dont know"

Considering you did'nt know the specifics, I think you just wanted to end the trouble of even bothering to answer. I'm assuming you hoped this would end bloodless, with your point reigning supreme. Thus far, you've not made a point.

But you have brought up topics...but again with no point.