Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Hey Aunt Judy, this is why we're in Iraq, you retard..............

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com - 05 Dec 2005 23:52 GMT
Saddam trial told of horror in Room 63 By Michael Georgy and Paul Tait
Mon Dec 5, 3:12 PM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Men and women were tortured for days and babies
left to die in an interrogation facility which featured a meat grinder
for human flesh, the first prosecution witness to face     Saddam
Hussein told the court on Monday.

After weeks of delay and legal arguments over security and the
legitimacy of the court, the trial of Saddam and seven co- defendants
on charges of crimes against humanity heard confusing but graphic
witness evidence of torture and summary execution.

"I swear by God I walked by a room and on my left I saw a grinder with
blood coming out of it and human hair underneath," said 38-year-old
Ahmed Hassan, who said he had been kept in room 63 at the Hakmiya
intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

Hassan, the first witness to face Saddam in court, said he was 15 when
Saddam visited the village in July 1982 and Shi'ite militants tried to
assassinate him.

Speaking technically as an individual plaintiff alongside the state,
which is pressing charges of crimes against humanity, Hassan said he
and his family were among hundreds of people rounded up in a security
operation run by Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti after an attempt on Saddam's
life in the village.

Barzan, one of Saddam's three younger half-brothers and the former head
of the feared Mukhabarat intelligence service, is one of Saddam's seven
co-accused in the case relating to the killings of 148 mostly Shi'ite
Muslim men from Dujail.

"Barzan was present. He had red cowboy boots and blue jeans and a
sniper rifle," Hassan, a stockily built worker with a round face and a
graying beard, told the heavily fortified court in central Baghdad.

He said Saddam, from the Sunni Arab minority, asked a 15-year-old boy
if he knew who he was. "He said 'Saddam'. Then Saddam hit him in the
head with an ash tray," Hassan said.

Hassan risked reprisals by letting his face appear on television as he
gave evidence.

Toward the end of his testimony he stood facing Saddam as the former
president challenged his testimony. Hassan held Saddam's gaze as Saddam
asked how he could possibly remember the names and birth dates of
people he said were killed, responding that he had memorized them as
they were read out by guards.

With Barzan constantly interjecting from the dock and calling the
testimony lies, Hassan said he was among hundreds of people taken from
the Shi'ite village to the Hakmiya intelligence headquarters, run by
Barzan.

He said it was while he was climbing the stairs there that he saw the
meat grinder. "No one escaped torture," he said.

"They would put a mask on my eyes and because I was young it would fall
down. I saw women being tortured," he said.

"My brother was given electric shocks while my 77-year-old father
watched," Hassan said. "They told us, 'why don't you confess, you will
be executed anyway'," he said.

"One man was shot in the leg with two bullets... Some people were
crippled because they had their arms and legs broken."

He said they were held in Hakmiya for 70 days. While they were there a
woman told a guard that her infant baby needed milk or he would die.

"He died and the guard threw him from the window," Hassan told the
court. "Pregnant women gave birth in the prison. Their babies died."

Saddam and his co-defendants have all pleaded not guilty to the
charges. They could be sentenced to death if found guilty.
Daniel J. Stern - 06 Dec 2005 02:25 GMT
Yeah, well, the Chinese do pretty much exactly the same stuff to political
dissidents, but we're more than happy to throw bargeloads of money at
China. Now, why do you think that might be...you retard?
Aunt Judy likes it in the rear - 06 Dec 2005 02:49 GMT
> Yeah, well, the Chinese do pretty much exactly the same stuff to political
> dissidents, but we're more than happy to throw bargeloads of money at
> China. Now, why do you think that might be...you retard?

Sheer numbers might be one reason, retard.
Bernd Felsche - 06 Dec 2005 03:41 GMT
<Xeton2001IsATurdTampee.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> writes:

>> Yeah, well, the Chinese do pretty much exactly the same stuff to
>> political dissidents, but we're more than happy to throw
>> bargeloads of money at China. Now, why do you think that might
>> be...you retard?

>Sheer numbers might be one reason, retard.

That'd be right. Disappear millions of dissidents and you get no
quibbles. Disappear a few thousand and you're in deep manure.
Signature

/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | Economist    \E*con"o*mist\, n.
X   against HTML mail     | One with a ready explanation as to why
/ \  and postings          | his last prediction was so wrong

necromancer - 06 Dec 2005 20:11 GMT
Bernd Felsche, <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> was motivated to say
this in rec.autos.driving on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:41:57 +0800:

> <Xeton2001IsATurdTampee.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> writes:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> That'd be right. Disappear millions of dissidents

and hold a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

> and you get no quibbles.

> Disappear a few thousand

and you are a nobody country

> and you're in deep manure.
DTJ - 06 Dec 2005 04:02 GMT
Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
I couldn't snip it.  This sh.t makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
after listening to the rabid far left defend SH as if he should have
been crowned or something.

>Saddam trial told of horror in Room 63 By Michael Georgy and Paul Tait
>Mon Dec 5, 3:12 PM ET
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>Saddam and his co-defendants have all pleaded not guilty to the
>charges. They could be sentenced to death if found guilty.
Aunt Judy likes it in the rear - 06 Dec 2005 04:10 GMT
> Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
> I couldn't snip it.  This sh.t makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
> after listening to the rabid far left defend SH as if he should have
> been crowned or something.

That's why the rabid far left is so out of touch with reality.

Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left alone. I
wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were residents of Iraq
under his rule?

Perhaps that's why they are trying to ram their agenda down our
throats?
Pooh Bear - 06 Dec 2005 04:39 GMT
> > Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
> > I couldn't snip it.  This sh.t makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Perhaps that's why they are trying to ram their agenda down our
> throats?

Before you congratulate yourselves to much about the needless death of
amybe up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians since the US invaded be aware that the
situation is now no better than it was under Saddam.

" LONDON - Human rights abuses in     Iraq are as bad now as they were
under     Saddam Hussein and could become even worse, the country's former
interim prime minister said in an interview published Sunday...... "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq

Graham
todd_wasson@performancesimulations.com - 06 Dec 2005 06:22 GMT
> > > Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
> > > I couldn't snip it.  This sh.t makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Graham

Worse off now than with Saddam?  Any Iraqi I've talked to has had
exactly the opposite to say.  Why take the opinion of a British news
reporter over a Baghdad citizen, and where do you get the 100,000 Iraqi
civilian figure?
Bo Raxo - 06 Dec 2005 06:26 GMT
> > > > Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
> > > > I couldn't snip it.  This sh.t makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> reporter over a Baghdad citizen, and where do you get the 100,000 Iraqi
> civilian figure?

Correction:  Why take the word of former interim prime minister Allawi, whom
the U.S. picked to run the first post-Saddam Iraqi government, over Todd
Wasson at Performance Simulations.  Well, gee, I can't imagine why we
wouldn't go with your claims Todd.  Please, tell us the names of some of
these Baghdad citizens you've talked to.
todd_wasson@performancesimulations.com - 06 Dec 2005 10:48 GMT
> > > > > Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so
> powerful
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> wouldn't go with your claims Todd.  Please, tell us the names of some of
> these Baghdad citizens you've talked to.

Sarcasm noted.  Lovely talking with you.

Moving right alone, I should have corrected myself there indeed.
Neglected to read the article and didn't realize the view was of
Allawi's.  My mistake.  It contradicted what I've heard from Iraqis and
saw "London" and "Yahoo" and jumped to an irresponsible conclusion.

As far as the names of the Baghdad citizens goes that I've talked to
that would disagree with Mr. Allawi wholeheartedly, I honestly don't
recall their names and would probably have some difficulty pronouncing
them anyway ;-)  There weren't very many, but they really went out of
their way to make sure I understood how much better things were there
and how thankful they were that Saddam was gone.

Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word
of our troops when they get back.  I'm just a nobody as you've
delightfully pointed out.  My point was it's not a bad idea to speak to
an Iraqi citizen that has lived under Saddam's rule about whether life
is better now or pre-Saddam in Baghdad or anywhere else in Iraq when
you get a chance.  Might also be a good idea to ask whether the person
you're speaking to worked for Saddam at the time too.  Chances are if
he did and is now unemployed he might not be as happy as the rest of
the folks.  Or so I was told by one of the Iraqi's ;-)
DTJ - 06 Dec 2005 23:52 GMT
>Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word
>of our troops when they get back.

I have listened to our troops.  A local group invites any returning
troops from the area to speak at forums.  Every single one has talked
about how happy the Iraqi people are for what we have done.  Not one
has ever complained about an Iraqi doing something that harmed an
American, unless the Iraqi was a former Bath party member.  Why?
Because the Iraqis WANT US THERE.  They appreciate what we are doing.
They look forward to when we leave, only because that will be a time
when the proud nation of Iraq will have regained the ability to defend
itself from the terrorists that are present.
Pooh Bear - 07 Dec 2005 00:22 GMT
> >Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word
> >of our troops when they get back.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> when the proud nation of Iraq will have regained the ability to defend
> itself from the terrorists that are present.

Considered taking off those rose coloured glasses ?

I can't even begin to imagine how you've obtained such a distorted view of
what's going on there but I hardly expect that US troops are a very good
source of info.

The sad truth is that Iraq is in a total mess.

Graham
todd_wasson@performancesimulations.com - 07 Dec 2005 03:03 GMT
> > >Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word
> > >of our troops when they get back.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> what's going on there but I hardly expect that US troops are a very good
> source of info.

He just told you how he obtained that view, as did I.

> The sad truth is that Iraq is in a total mess.

The OP was making the point that post-Saddam Iraq is just as bad as
pre-Saddam Iraq.  I beg to differ on account of conversations with
Iraqi's that I've personally had.  How can someone think an Iraqi is
wrong about what his daily life is like while someone in another
country watching the nightly news on television is somehow better
informed?

There's no point in arguing this any further really in this thread, but
please, please speak to Iraqi citizens or US/coalition troops or others
that have had intimate contact with them before forming a  final
opinion on whether life in Iraq was better with Saddam than without
him.  It doesn't matter what I say about Iraq, I'm just your average
American Joe.  I've never been in the service, much less Iraq.  An
Iraqi's opinion should be valued far above my own on any such matter,
shouldn't it?  I'm sitting safe and sound thousands of miles away on my
PC, with no dictator ought to slaughter me for dissent, thank goodness
:-)
Pooh Bear - 07 Dec 2005 09:01 GMT
> > > >Nobody has to take my word for that of course, but I'll take the word
> > > >of our troops when they get back.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> country watching the nightly news on television is somehow better
> informed?

Well, that's a good point and I'd like to say that although I haven't the
benefit of knowing any Iraqis personally I've seen some excellent reportage here
in the UK where 'everday Iraqis' have been interviewed by reporters who have put
their lives on the line who I consider totally reliable.

I'm sorry to say that your experience doesn't mirror what i've seen.

I'm also sorry to say that US reporting seems to be influenced by the idea that
criticism of the war is unpatriotic. That's a very serious handicap to US
reports and has to invalidate much of them.

Here's a link to a brief overview of a programme I recently saw which showed
that US forces in Baghdad have effectively 'subcontracted' security to local
'warlords' and clans.

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/I/iraq_the_reckoning/

In it the reporter was regularly approached by persons who were too afraid even
to be properly interviewed who clearly stated that the country is in the hands
of a few cliques ( dispensing Islamic justice ).

Another programme I saw recently showed the new and widesread trade in
prescription drugs that are now available over the counter that are in heavy
demand to treat depression, anxiety and symptoms of fear. Notably valium and one
I'd never previously heard of called Parkinsol which is used to treat nervous
trembling !!!!!!!

http://www.iraq-today.com/article.php?id=1004&sp=&searchstring=&section=6

> There's no point in arguing this any further really in this thread, but
> please, please speak to Iraqi citizens or US/coalition troops or others
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> PC, with no dictator ought to slaughter me for dissent, thank goodness
> :-)

Well, I respect your view but I fear you're simply getting a pre-prepared pretty
picture for domestic consumption. I especially note the unwillingness of the US
media to show seriously critical reportage for example, kind of on pain of being
seen as 'unpatriotic'.

Heck, it was only a week or so ago that Rumsfeld or Cheney or whoever said it
was OK to be crtical of the war ! Excuse me ! He didn't think any previous
criticism was even *acceptable*. That is so blinkered it begs belief.

I'm really sorry that the situation in Iraq has become so bad. I can see why
politcians would seek to pretend it isn't as bad as it is though.

In the end it will be the truth that comes through and it ain't pretty.

Graham
Matthew Russotto - 07 Dec 2005 02:49 GMT
>I have listened to our troops.  A local group invites any returning
>troops from the area to speak at forums.  Every single one has talked
>about how happy the Iraqi people are for what we have done.  Not one
>has ever complained about an Iraqi doing something that harmed an
>American, unless the Iraqi was a former Bath party member.  Why?
>Because the Iraqis WANT US THERE.

Several decades of oppression has given the Iraqis a keen
appreciation for the benefits of telling one's rulers what they want
to hear.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

todd_wasson@performancesimulations.com - 08 Dec 2005 09:17 GMT
> >I have listened to our troops.  A local group invites any returning
> >troops from the area to speak at forums.  Every single one has talked
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>   There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
>   result in a fully-depreciated one.

The folks I talked to were not in Iraq at the time we spoke.  Again,
the responsible thing to do would be to personally speak with Iraqis
before making up one's mind on issues such as this.  If they say to
you, "it's worse here now than it was with Saddam," so be it.  But not
many non-Bathists are saying that.
cp - 08 Dec 2005 05:51 GMT
> As far as the names of the Baghdad citizens goes that I've talked to
> that would disagree with Mr. Allawi wholeheartedly, I honestly don't
> recall their names and would probably have some difficulty pronouncing
> them anyway ;-)  There weren't very many, but they really went out of
> their way to make sure I understood how much better things were there
> and how thankful they were that Saddam was gone.

Yes, and the Ukrainians were also quite happy when the Germans came and liberated them from the communists.

A family friend told of evangelical Christian German SS soldiers that came to their village in southern Russia, these Russians had
positive views of these invaders and so it is with some of the Iraqis.

There are three main population groupings in Iraq; the Shiites religious group, the smaller Sunni religious group and the Kurd
ethnic group. Not all groups have the same opinion of the invasion and occupation. Perhaps a much larger opinion sample should be
taken before conclusions are made.

cp
DTJ - 06 Dec 2005 23:45 GMT
>Worse off now than with Saddam?  Any Iraqi I've talked to has had
>exactly the opposite to say.  Why take the opinion of a British news
>reporter over a Baghdad citizen, and where do you get the 100,000 Iraqi
>civilian figure?

Please, replying to trolls like pooh-on-his-face does not work.  He
and the rest of the illiterate in this country believe that they can
spout made up figures of 100's of thousands killed, and that people
will believe them.  Well, the illiterate themselves will, but nobody
intelligent.

There were claims like this a long time ago.  They were all refuted,
yet idiots keep referencing them as if there were any truth at all to
them.
Pooh Bear - 07 Dec 2005 00:22 GMT
> >Worse off now than with Saddam?  Any Iraqi I've talked to has had
> >exactly the opposite to say.  Why take the opinion of a British news
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> yet idiots keep referencing them as if there were any truth at all to
> them.

I appreciate that the truth isn't popular in the USA.

There figure of  "up to 100,000 deaths" NOT 100's of thousands please -
don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the
war came from an independent report published over a year ago now.

Indirect deaths include deaths for example as a result of the crippling of
the Iraqi hospital system which means ppl are dying who likely could have
been saved by medical treatment.

Many have been killed in explosions resulting from insurgent activity too.

It is not suggested that those 100,000 were all direct civilian casualties
of allied military action.

Whilst the figure of 100,000 is perhaps controversial, I believe there is
wide acceptance of a figure of 25-30,000 even among those who would prefer
it not to be so.

"    Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence"
have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for
civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led
invasion.     "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

The Lancet is the highly respected journal of the British Medical Assocation
and hardly has any axe to grind.

I suggest you take your blinkers off.

Graham
Matthew Russotto - 07 Dec 2005 02:50 GMT
>There figure of  "up to 100,000 deaths" NOT 100's of thousands please -
>don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the
>war came from an independent report published over a year ago now.

Yes, a study with error bars nearly as big as the data and with
systemic data collection problems.  It was advocacy disguised as a
study, put forth for no reason other than to get that 100,000 figure
out there.  Obviously, it succeeded.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Pooh Bear - 07 Dec 2005 09:13 GMT
> >There figure of  "up to 100,000 deaths" NOT 100's of thousands please -
> >don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> study, put forth for no reason other than to get that 100,000 figure
> out there.  Obviously, it succeeded.

There are just as many critiques stating that the information gathering was
entirely valid.

e.g.

" The fact that the survey uses an extrapolation technique does not automatically
mean that it is less likely to be accurate than a body count. In fact, it is more
likely to be accurate than existing attempts at body counts of Iraqi civilians.
This is because in Iraq, where there are so many no-go areas, it would be
impossible to count every casualty. "

http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/041101lancetpmos.html

" The Chronicle article recounts in detail the methdology used for the study's
8000 interviews, in which 30 homes in each of 33 neighborhoods all over Iraq were
visited. And other statisticins confirm the validity of the Lancet study's
methdology: "Scientists say the size of the survey was adequate for extrapolation
to the entire country. 'That's a classical sample size,' says Michael J. Toole,
head of the Center for International Health at the Burnet Institute, an
Australian research organization. Researchers typically conduct surveys in 30
neighborhoods, so the Iraq study's total of 33 strengthens its conclusions. 'I
just don't see any evidence of significant exaggeration,' he says. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-23.htm

I can see very easily OTOH why 'the powers that be' would want to discredit the
report though.

Funny really since I've noticed that Americans are normally quite critical of
pro-goverment 'propaganda'.

Graham
Matthew Russotto - 10 Dec 2005 03:43 GMT
>> >There figure of  "up to 100,000 deaths" NOT 100's of thousands please -
>> >don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>There are just as many critiques stating that the information gathering was
>entirely valid.

Anyone can write a "me too".

Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

TedKennedyMurderedHisPregnantMistress.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com - 09 Dec 2005 23:19 GMT
> > > Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
> > > I couldn't snip it.  This sh.t makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> amybe up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians since the US invaded be aware that the
> situation is now no better than it was under Saddam.

No, but it has a hell of a lot better chance of IMPROVING now that
sodamn insane is not in control. But go ahead and ignore that little
fact.
Pooh Bear - 10 Dec 2005 07:55 GMT
> > > > Apologies to everyone for the top post, but this post was so powerful
> > > > I couldn't snip it.  This sh.t makes me sick, yet I feel even worse
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> sodamn insane is not in control. But go ahead and ignore that little
> fact.

What makes you think it's going to improve ?

Like Yugoslavia under Tito, the place is falling apart on ethnic lines once the
ruling dictator is removed.

Graham
223rem - 14 Dec 2005 07:36 GMT
> What makes you think it's going to improve ?
>
> Like Yugoslavia under Tito, the place is falling apart on ethnic lines once the
> ruling dictator is removed.
>
> Graham

Bush fans have are not likely to have any idea of
who Tito was.

They're generally pretty ignorant.
Pooh Bear - 14 Dec 2005 09:22 GMT
> > What makes you think it's going to improve ?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> They're generally pretty ignorant.

That's the disturbing part. The 'leader of the free world' is an ignorant a.shole !

Anyone remember that before he got elected he didn't know who the Prime Minister of
Pakistan was ? He got the 'General' bit but didn't know his name.

Intruiging that Gen Pervez Musharaf is currently the US's 'big ally' in that area (
they get some toys to play with like fighter jets previously embargoed ). More
intruiging still that there is *zero* support for the US in the wider population of
Pakistan.

Graham
Alex Rodriguez - 06 Dec 2005 21:54 GMT
>Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left alone. I
>wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were residents of Iraq
>under his rule?

If you wanted to send in the troops to get Sadam, then say so.  Don't be
such a chicken sh.t and make up a lame excuse like WMD.  
-------------
Alex
Pooh Bear - 07 Dec 2005 10:45 GMT
> >Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left alone. I
> >wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were residents of Iraq
> >under his rule?
>
> If you wanted to send in the troops to get Sadam, then say so.  Don't be
> such a chicken sh.t and make up a lame excuse like WMD.

I kinda agree.

Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole adventure
look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist ( like the UN
weapons inspectors said btw ).

If you want to topple a dictator why not be proud to do it ?

Graham
Dave Head - 07 Dec 2005 11:57 GMT
>> >Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left alone. I
>> >wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were residents of Iraq
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>I kinda agree.

Yes, that'd be nice, but it couldn't be done that way 'cuz the American people
wouldn't go along with it for that reason.  The WMD's, had they existed, would
have been a direct threat to the US since Saddam might have given them to
terrorists.  Even then, I think most people were willing to take that chance,
rather than get involved in the mideast some more, except for the possibility
that some of the WMD's were, or were about to be nuclear.  We can put up with a
gas or bio attack that kills locally a few thousand people.  A few million, and
most of the infrastructure of a major city like New York or DC would be a whole
different ballgame, being pretty close to unthinkable.  _That's_ a good enough
reason to invade and make sure the madman doesn't achieve a goal of building
nukes and then giving them to terrorists.

Unfortunately, that's the same problem we have right now with respect to Iran.
If these turds get a nuke, where's it going to end up?  NYC?  DC? LA? Vegas?  I
don't think that the American people are going to be OK with going into Iran
for _any_ reason now, because of how things have gone in Iraq, but Iran is
still a problem.

I think the problem could be solved another way, by going back to a version of
MAD.  That is, if a terrorist nuke goes off in one of our cities, we absolutely
assure the state that sponsored it, and we can be pretty sure that we can
identify it, that they will _all_ glow in the dark, nationwide, in retaliation.
The individual terrorists may or may not be from Iran, but if an Iranian bomb
goes off here, the entire country of Iran would be guaranteed to be totally
destroyed in a nuclear attack that they can't possibly even imagine.  Such a
credible threat should be all that's needed to keep those nukes at home. (Same
goes for N. Korea, BTW - MAD worked with the biggest, nastiest bunch of
bad-guys on the planet, the Russians, for decades, and it'll work with these
turds too.  The _leaders_ are always OK with sending _someone else_ out to get
killed, but when they know that they, personally, are going to die in a nuclear
firestorm, that changes things a lot.)

>Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole adventure
>look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist ( like the UN
>weapons inspectors said btw ).

All the world's intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq probably had WMD's and
wasn't too far away from having a nuke. The UN weapons inspectors were a
farcical endeavor aimed at publicity - if someone wants to hide a weapons
program in a country that's larger than the state of California, no outsiders
are going to be able to find it, especially when the team was not allowed to
have _our_ experts on it - we were supposed to believe a bunch of people from
foreign countries who had _not_ had their buildings demolished by a bunch of
Arab a.sholes and who might have had a few good reasons _not_ to find weapons
of mass distruction even if they were there.  Plus, the inspection team was
being delayed, denied access, etc. repeatedly, while the locals were sneaking
stuff out the back door.

>If you want to topple a dictator why not be proud to do it ?

Don't really think it was about that.  There are tons of similar dictators
around the world, and we don't give a sh.t about them 'cuz they don't threaten
_our_ interests.   Its great to have Saddam not in power, but it was really
about neutralizing a threat to this country.

Dave Head

>Graham
Pooh Bear - 07 Dec 2005 12:42 GMT
> >Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole adventure
> >look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist ( like the UN
> >weapons inspectors said btw ).
>
> All the world's intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq probably had WMD's and
> wasn't too far away from having a nuke.

You mean in 1992 ?

Maybe then, but the UN weapons inspectors systematically detroyed the capabilty (as
they were indeed instructed to do ).

> The UN weapons inspectors were a
> farcical endeavor aimed at publicity -

No. Absolute rubbish, The UN inspectors did indeed do their job as instructed but
the USA *hates* the UN so therefore wants to deny its successes.

Al Baredei deserves serious credit.

> if someone wants to hide a weapons
> program in a country that's larger than the state of California, no outsiders
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> being delayed, denied access, etc. repeatedly, while the locals were sneaking
> stuff out the back door.

Look. *NO* WMDs were found after the recent war. It was a *con* by the Iraqis that
they inferred they had any. They were simply posturing.

> >If you want to topple a dictator why not be proud to do it ?
>
> Don't really think it was about that.  There are tons of similar dictators
> around the world, and we don't give a sh.t about them 'cuz they don't threaten
> _our_ interests.   Its great to have Saddam not in power, but it was really
> about neutralizing a threat to this country.

Iraq never ever posed the tiniest treat to the USA.

You'd have to mad to imagine that. What were they going to do ? Throw camels at you
?

Graham
James C. Reeves - 08 Dec 2005 02:49 GMT
I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My guess is
that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in opposition to the
positions Winston Churchill held at the time.  And as history has taught us,
you would have been dead wrong (emphasis on "dead").  Now lets take the
clarity of that lesson of history and come forward to 2005.   What do you
see now?
Arif Khokar - 08 Dec 2005 03:05 GMT
> I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My guess is
> that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in opposition to the
> positions Winston Churchill held at the time.

Yes, because a country with a diapidated military force and in economic
ruin is obviously a worldwide threat.
Jim Yanik - 08 Dec 2005 04:00 GMT
>> I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My
>> guess is that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in
>> opposition to the positions Winston Churchill held at the time.
>
> Yes, because a country with a diapidated military force and in
> economic ruin is obviously a worldwide threat.

Look at what AlQueda did with hijacked airliners.
They are not even a nation.

Iraq with a nuclear,chemical,or biological weapon could easily be a
"worldwide" threat.It was also a REGIONAL threat,in a *critical* region.
(major petro producing region) With longer range ballistic missiles bought
from N.Korea,it could threaten Europe.
It already used chemical weapons,already attacked two neighbors,threatened
Saudi Arabia,launched ballistic missiles at Israel,violated many UN
Resolutions,was continuing it's WMD programs in -violation- of those UN
resolutions,and had stockpile of uranium,both yellowcake and partially
(30%) enriched U.
Iraq also supported terrorism.

I imagine some folk would want to wait until a Western city was actually
nuked or poisoned before acting.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

223rem - 08 Dec 2005 03:12 GMT
> I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My guess is
> that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in opposition to the
> positions Winston Churchill held at the time.  And as history has taught us,
> you would have been dead wrong (emphasis on "dead").  Now lets take the
> clarity of that lesson of history and come forward to 2005.   What do you
> see now?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Fact: Saddam and his Baath Party was an enemy of (extremist) Islam.
Syria (another country the NeoConParty/Likud want taken out) is
also run by Baathists.

What Europe is blind about is the Islamic threat from within (France,
Spain, Denmark, Belgium, the UK, etc). Instead of firmly dealing with the
Islamists, Western Europe appeases them. That's where your analogy would
would work.
Pooh Bear - 08 Dec 2005 12:07 GMT
> > I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My guess is
> > that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in opposition to the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Syria (another country the NeoConParty/Likud want taken out) is
> also run by Baathists.

Absolutely right.

Saddam would simply never have tolerated extremist Islamic activity during his
time.

> What Europe is blind about is the Islamic threat from within (France,
> Spain, Denmark, Belgium, the UK, etc). Instead of firmly dealing with the
> Islamists, Western Europe appeases them. That's where your analogy would
> would work.

I understand why you might say that.

You're not actually living here, so I'll suggest to you that the average person
may actually be rather more aware of the issue you raise than you might suppose.

I do indeed loathe the appeasers of Islam. If Moslems want to live in the West
they should live according to Western norms. I despise the presumption that they
have a holy pretext to set themselves up as superior in some way and change our
way of life and I'm sure that it will eventually be soundly rejected.

Graham
Matthew Russotto - 10 Dec 2005 03:53 GMT
>> I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My guess is
>> that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in opposition to the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Fact: Saddam and his Baath Party was an enemy of (extremist) Islam.

Sure;  Saddam was a secular dictator.  Didn't stop him from funding
extremest Islamists in the West Bank, though.

Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

223rem - 13 Dec 2005 18:28 GMT
> Sure;  Saddam was a secular dictator.  Didn't stop him from funding
> extremest Islamists in the West Bank, though.

And this is America's problem how?
Pooh Bear - 13 Dec 2005 22:28 GMT
> > Sure;  Saddam was a secular dictator.  Didn't stop him from funding
> > extremest Islamists in the West Bank, though.
>
> And this is America's problem how?

Think of the Jewish lobby.

Graham
multi - 08 Dec 2005 06:17 GMT
>I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My guess is
>that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in opposition to the
>positions Winston Churchill held at the time.

"Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they
be used 'against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment'. He dismissed
objections as 'unreasonable.'  'I am strongly in favour of using
poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

Anybody who compares Iraq in 2003 to Germany in 1939 is an ignorant
fool.  If Iraq was such a threat to the world, then why, after two
years of training and billions of US taxpayer dollars in aid, are
their combined army, police, and other security forces still unable to
deal with a small number of insurgents, without 150,000 American
troops to help them?
Matthew Russotto - 10 Dec 2005 03:55 GMT
>fool.  If Iraq was such a threat to the world, then why, after two
>years of training and billions of US taxpayer dollars in aid, are
>their combined army, police, and other security forces still unable to
>deal with a small number of insurgents, without 150,000 American
>troops to help them?

Because all the competent Iraqis are numbered among the enemy?

Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Pooh Bear - 08 Dec 2005 12:01 GMT
> I take it Pooh Bear that you are a resident of Great Britain.  My guess is
> that if this were the late 1930's, you would be in opposition to the
> positions Winston Churchill held at the time.

I rather doubt it.

>  And as history has taught us,
> you would have been dead wrong (emphasis on "dead").  Now lets take the
> clarity of that lesson of history and come forward to 2005.   What do you
> see now?

Iraq was never a threat to the west after Gulf War I. To be honest it wasn't a
threat to the west ever ! It was only ever a threat to its neighbours at that
time.

After Gulf War I it was then nicely boxed up and under control. The UN weapons
inspectors destryoyed what equipment existed that could be used for nukes.

Now the genie is totally out of the bottle and it's a recruiting ground for
anti-western terrorists.

Brilliant move - NOT !

Graham
Dave Head - 08 Dec 2005 03:27 GMT
>> >Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole adventure
>> >look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist ( like the UN
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>You mean in 1992 ?

No, 2002 - plus the whole of the Clinton administration got the same story, for
the entirity of its stay in office.

>Maybe then, but the UN weapons inspectors systematically detroyed the capabilty (as
>they were indeed instructed to do ).

No, they didn't destroy anything.  Turns out that, if you _believe_ the
surviving Iraqis that tell it, the WMD's were destroyed by Iraqis themselves
sometime in the mid-90s.  However, it was done in secret, and the false story
was promoted that they still had them, probably so as to scare Iran, Syria, et.
al. out of attacking.

>> The UN weapons inspectors were a
>> farcical endeavor aimed at publicity -
>
>No. Absolute rubbish, The UN inspectors did indeed do their job as instructed but
>the USA *hates* the UN so therefore wants to deny its successes.

Hate's too strong a word, but we certainly don't trust 'em.

>Al Baredei deserves serious credit.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Look. *NO* WMDs were found after the recent war. It was a *con* by the Iraqis that
>they inferred they had any. They were simply posturing.

Yep - but if our Democrat controlled congress hadn't declared the CIA to be an
evil entity, and defunded them to the extent that they couldn't maintain a
credible spy network (boots on the ground, so to speak) and instead had them
trying to do everything with satellites, then _maybe_ we'd have had a bit more
truth available to us.  But, as it was, it was a seriously awful chance to take
that maybe Saddam -was- about to perfect a nuclear weapon, and maybe Saddam
_would_ give it to a bunch of terrorists and maybe they _would_ level NYC.  It
was worth going into Iraq for just that reason alone.

>> >If you want to topple a dictator why not be proud to do it ?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Iraq never ever posed the tiniest treat to the USA.

Well, we know that he didn't have WMDs - as far as a threat, he shot at our
aircraft almost every day.

>You'd have to mad to imagine that. What were they going to do ? Throw camels at you
>?

Float a 5 megaton device into New York harbor on some cargo ship, if they got
the chance.

Dave Head

>Graham
Jim Yanik - 08 Dec 2005 04:09 GMT
>>> >Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole
>>> >adventure look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>>
>>Look. *NO* WMDs were found after the recent war.

Wrong.Several chemical shells were found.Also prohibited ballistic
missiles.And they -still- are finding buried aircraft.

>> It was a *con* by the
>>Iraqis that they inferred they had any. They were simply posturing.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Well, we know that he didn't have WMDs - as far as a threat, he shot
> at our aircraft almost every day.

We actually do NOT "know" that he had no WMD.There's indications of
shipments to Syria.And actually,several chemical shells were found.
He also had many tons of(500+) yellowcake uranium,and ~3 tons of 30%
enriched U,not too far from weapons-grade.He was using UN "oil-for-food"
funds to pay for materials to continue his WMD programs.

>>You'd have to mad to imagine that. What were they going to do ? Throw
>>camels at you ?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>>Graham

There's evidence some countries are experimenting with SCUD missiles
launched from container ships,that could standoff several hundred miles
from the US coast and still strike the US East coast.
The US does NOT have early warning for such threats,nor for cruise
missiles.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

223rem - 08 Dec 2005 04:38 GMT
> We actually do NOT "know" that he had no WMD.

Of course, that'd be an impossibility.

> There's indications of  shipments to Syria.

Right. "Indications" from the same purveryors of bullshit that
staged the shameful Colin Powell presentation at the Security
Council.

The people who wanted Iraq taken out want Syria taken out, and for
the same reasons.
Pooh Bear - 08 Dec 2005 12:13 GMT
> >>> >Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole
> >>> >adventure look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> The US does NOT have early warning for such threats,nor for cruise
> missiles.

You're an idiot Yanik.

Graham
Pooh Bear - 08 Dec 2005 12:13 GMT
> >> >Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole adventure
> >> >look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist ( like the UN
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> No, they didn't destroy anything.

You're an idiot.

I've seen film of the UN inspectors destroying the cyclinders that could be used for gas
centrifuges for example.

You are the very worst kind of denialist around. You are simply plain wrong.

Graham
Dave Head - 09 Dec 2005 00:21 GMT
>> >> >Using a false pretext to attack Saddam ended up making the whole adventure
>> >> >look rather stoopid when the WMD were found not to exist ( like the UN
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>You're an idiot.

You seem to have a 1 note piano there - I just saw that on the last post I
looked at to Jim Yanik.

>I've seen film of the UN inspectors destroying the cyclinders that could be used for gas
>centrifuges for example.

Yeah, but we're talking about the huge stockpile of gas and germs that he had
still existing after GW 1.  Those the Iraqis destroyed themselves.  There were,
therefore, nothing (much) for the inspectors to destroy in the time-frame they
were inspecting.

>You are the very worst kind of denialist around. You are simply plain wrong.

Naw, its just a matter of "how much".  To hear you tell it, the inspectors
would have set fire to 1000's of tons of gas and germ materials, when in fact
those had already been secretly taken care of in the mid-90's.

DPH

>Graham
Jim Yanik - 07 Dec 2005 16:07 GMT
>>> >Yet these "caring liberuls" think Saddam should have been left
>>> >alone. I wonder what these hypocrites would think if they were
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> American people wouldn't go along with it for that reason.  The WMD's,
> had they existed,

They DID exist,they WERE used,and WMD (and prohibited missile systems)were
found after the invasion.
Also a lot of intelligence on their WMD programs.

> would have been a direct threat to the US since
> Saddam might have given them to terrorists.  Even then, I think most
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> would be a whole different ballgame, being pretty close to
> unthinkable.

It definitely is NOT "unthinkable",and waiting for it to happen without
doing something is madness,and defeatism.

>  _That's_ a good enough reason to invade and make sure
> the madman doesn't achieve a goal of building nukes and then giving
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> be pretty sure that we can identify it, that they will _all_ glow in
> the dark, nationwide, in retaliation.

Too many IFs.
I'd rather we preempted a WMD strike on OUR people,instead of waiting until
a cityfull of OUR people gets killed by them.

You forget that MAD only works with both sides RATIONAL.
The Islamic fanaticists are NOT rational.(suicide bombers)

> The individual terrorists may or
> may not be from Iran, but if an Iranian bomb goes off here, the entire
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
>>Graham

Part of the rationale for attacking Iraq was to PREVENT Iraq from
developing their WMD and delivery systems. There's plenty of evidence that
Saddam was going to continue his development of WMD,and that
"containment"(what a Neville Chamberlin word) was already failing.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Pooh Bear - 08 Dec 2005 12:13 GMT
> Part of the rationale for attacking Iraq was to PREVENT Iraq from
> developing their WMD and delivery systems. There's plenty of evidence that
> Saddam was going to continue his development of WMD,and that
> "containment"(what a Neville Chamberlin word) was already failing.

Bollocks.

Iraq was effectively bankrupt.

There was no money to do anything of the sort. I don't doubt that the intent
was there but there was ZERO capability.

Graham
Dave Head - 09 Dec 2005 00:25 GMT
>> Part of the rationale for attacking Iraq was to PREVENT Iraq from
>> developing their WMD and delivery systems. There's plenty of evidence that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Iraq was effectively bankrupt.

Yep, but we couldn't be _sure_ of that because of all the goody-two-shoes
Democrats that thought that nasty stuff like spying was beneath us, and so
raped the CIA's budget so they couldn't do their jobs.  Had we had a credible
network of spies in Iraq, this whole scenario likely would never have occurred.
Of course, Saddam would still be in power, but we wouldn't be in Iraq, and
overall that would be better, I think.  _Just_ getting Saddam out of power
would not have been "worth it."

>There was no money to do anything of the sort. I don't doubt that the intent
>was there but there was ZERO capability.

The intent was certainly there, but until we could prove to ourselves that no
activity was going on, it would be really reckless _not_ to go in and _make
sure_ that there wasn't a nuke cooking in some secret laboratory, ready to fall
into the hands of terrorists (or maybe transported by Saddam's bunch himself -
he _did/does_ hate us, after all) that ultimately would result in the
vaporization of most of NYC, or DC, or LA, or Vegas, etc.

Dave Head

>Graham
louisianajon@netscape.net - 09 Dec 2005 00:43 GMT
So if Columbia might be developng a nuclear capability we should invade
because the coke-heads and drug lords might use it against us for
destroying their crops? Up until this administration it has never been
the policy of the U.S. to invade a country on the suspicion that they
had ill intent toward us.
Jim Yanik - 09 Dec 2005 03:55 GMT
> So if Columbia might be developng a nuclear capability we should invade
> because the coke-heads and drug lords might use it against us for
> destroying their crops? Up until this administration it has never been
> the policy of the U.S. to invade a country on the suspicion that they
> had ill intent toward us.

SO WHAT?

After 9/11,policy *needed* to be changed;things are different now than
before 9/11.
Why do you folks want to wait until a nuke or chemical attack happens
before doing something proactive,instead of reacting? Are you nuts?
(of course,if such a thing did happen,then you all would be whining about
how the administration did nothing,and let it happen.)

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 09 Dec 2005 10:26 GMT
> Why do you folks want to wait until a nuke or chemical attack happens
> before doing something proactive,instead of reacting?

I'm sure our reaction has made it more likely we'll fall victim to such
an attack.  Bush, and most other people, neglect the fact that this
whole Al-Qaida thing started by us stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to
protect against a figment of the US government's imagination.
Jim Yanik - 09 Dec 2005 16:37 GMT
>> Why do you folks want to wait until a nuke or chemical attack happens
>> before doing something proactive,instead of reacting?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> whole Al-Qaida thing started by us stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to
> protect against a figment of the US government's imagination.

Considering the many attacks before the present administration was
elected,I doubt it was anything -we- caused.Al-Queda themselves have said
that it's because Western influence is bad and must be eliminated,and we
are the leader of that influence.

Besides,why shouldn't we stand up for freedom and democracy,and continue
opposing the opposite? In the worldview,it all comes back to us anyways.

I guess in your view,we should just stand back,and allow the Islamics to do
whatever they want to whomever they want.Reminds me of that saying about
how a person stood by when they came for the Jews,and stood by when they
came for the....,and there was no one left when they came for him.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 09 Dec 2005 19:21 GMT
> Considering the many attacks before the present administration

Name any terrorist attacks in the US prior to the 1993 WTC bombings.

> elected,I doubt it was anything -we- caused.Al-Queda themselves have said
> that it's because Western influence is bad and must be eliminated,and we
> are the leader of that influence.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Osama bin Laden has
been saying.  I've gone over this before.  He as well as many others
were pissed at the fact that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabai.

> Besides,why shouldn't we stand up for freedom and democracy,

We've never stood for freedom and democracy.  If we really did, then we
wouldn't have so many enemies.

Enemies are made by engaging in unpopular actions, providing armaments
and financial assistance to states that oppress their own populations or
those in territories that they occupy, and preventing diplomatic pressue
from being applied to those states.

> I guess in your view,we should just stand back,and allow the Islamics to do
> whatever they want to whomever they want.

Most Muslims won't stand by and let a bunch of backward reject
extremists determine what is and what isn't acceptable in their
communities.  For instance, I'm a Muslim, and I'm not like those
potrayed on tv (I have a low tolerance for retards who claim to be Muslim).
Jim Yanik - 10 Dec 2005 00:32 GMT
>> Considering the many attacks before the present administration
>
> Name any terrorist attacks in the US prior to the 1993 WTC bombings.

Considering that US Embassy property IS "US soil",there were two of
those,the Khobar Towers bombing,the USS Cole (more US property).
The attacks do NOT have to be IN the US proper.

>> elected,I doubt it was anything -we- caused.Al-Queda themselves have
>> said that it's because Western influence is bad and must be
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> others were pissed at the fact that we stationed troops in Saudi
> Arabai.

You seem to have focused narrowly on that alone,and ignored the REST of
what he's been saying.

>> Besides,why shouldn't we stand up for freedom and democracy,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> and financial assistance to states that oppress their own populations
> or those in territories that they occupy,

Got news for ya;Israel existed long before any "Palestinians".
There never was any "state of Palestine",the "occupied territories" were
occupied by Jordan and Egypt for many years before Israel capured them
during the many attacks upon the State of Israel.
Nobody bitched much about THEIR oppression.

> and preventing diplomatic
> pressue from being applied to those states.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> potrayed on tv (I have a low tolerance for retards who claim to be
> Muslim).

Maybe you better go back and look at the history of the area known as
"Palestine",back to before 0 AD. Jews lived there way before 0 AD.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 10 Dec 2005 01:41 GMT
>>Name any terrorist attacks in the US prior to the 1993 WTC bombings.

> Considering that US Embassy property IS "US soil",there were two of
> those,the Khobar Towers bombing,the USS Cole (more US property).
> The attacks do NOT have to be IN the US proper.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  What part of "prior to
1993" do you not understand?

>>You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Osama bin Laden
>>has been saying.  I've gone over this before.  He as well as many
>>others were pissed at the fact that we stationed troops in Saudi
>>Arabai.

> You seem to have focused narrowly on that alone,and ignored the REST of
> what he's been saying.

And you seem to be selectively ignoring it.  We weren't a target of Al
Qaida prior to gulf war I.

>>Enemies are made by engaging in unpopular actions, providing armaments
>>and financial assistance to states that oppress their own populations
>>or those in territories that they occupy,

> Got news for ya;

Look, I don't see any need for sidetracking this debate.  If you have
issues with ancient Babylonians and Romans, that's your problem.  In the
present, we have an oppressed population.  End of story.

> Maybe you better go back

Perhaps you should go back to elementary school and (re)learn basic
reading comprehension and math skills.  1996 is greater than 1993.  2000
is greater than 1993.  Ancient Babylonians and Romans have nothing to
with the present day situation in the middle east.
Jim Yanik - 10 Dec 2005 18:34 GMT
>>>Name any terrorist attacks in the US prior to the 1993 WTC bombings.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  What part of "prior to
> 1993" do you not understand?

I'm not going to fall for your artificial limit.
What I quoted ARE "terrorist attacks" upon the US.

>>>You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Osama bin Laden
>>>has been saying.  I've gone over this before.  He as well as many
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Look, I don't see any need for sidetracking this debate.

No "sidetrack",it's shows who's land it really was.

> If you have
> issues with ancient Babylonians and Romans, that's your problem.  In the
> present, we have an oppressed population.  End of story.

Wrong,a population that fled their lands by order of the Arab religious
leaders now wants Israel to disappear.Other "Palestinians" remained,and
live in peace inside Israel,even are part of the Israeli government.
Of course,NO Arab country tolerates Jews,behavior they expect for their
"Palestinians",and they do not even allow the "Palestinians" to become
citizens of Arab countries.(they're USING the Pals for their own hatred of
Israel.)

>> Maybe you better go back
>
> Perhaps you should go back to elementary school and (re)learn basic
> reading comprehension and math skills.  1996 is greater than 1993.  2000
> is greater than 1993.  Ancient Babylonians and Romans have nothing to
> with the present day situation in the middle east.

If you believe that,no wonder you cannot understand it.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 10 Dec 2005 21:38 GMT
>>>Considering that US Embassy property IS "US soil",there were two of
>>>those,the Khobar Towers bombing,the USS Cole (more US property).
>>>The attacks do NOT have to be IN the US proper.

>>Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  What part of "prior to
>>1993" do you not understand?

> I'm not going to fall for your artificial limit.

It's not artificial because we had no problem with an organization
called Al Qaida prior to 1993.  We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia in
1990 and maitained a presence there well after it was needed.

That was the source of the terrorism problem we're experiencing today.
The reason we continue to have a problem is because we moved our troops
from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.
Jim Yanik - 11 Dec 2005 06:37 GMT
>>>>Considering that US Embassy property IS "US soil",there were two of
>>>>those,the Khobar Towers bombing,the USS Cole (more US property).
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> called Al Qaida prior to 1993.  We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia in
> 1990 and maitained a presence there well after it was needed.

Here's what YOU asked;

>>>Name any terrorist attacks in the US prior to the 1993 WTC bombings.

ANY terrorist attacks.
Not specifically Al-Queda attacks,but ANY terrorist attacks.
That says something about YOUR reading comprehension.

>> Considering that US Embassy property IS "US soil",there were two of
>> those,the Khobar Towers bombing,the USS Cole (more US property).
>> The attacks do NOT have to be IN the US proper.

> That was the source of the terrorism problem we're experiencing today.
> The reason we continue to have a problem is because we moved our troops
> from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.

You just keep on believing that.
Al-Queda is just one more facet of terrorism against the US.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

DTJ - 11 Dec 2005 17:10 GMT
snip of majority of islamic bullshit

>> That was the source of the terrorism problem we're experiencing today.
>> The reason we continue to have a problem is because we moved our troops
>> from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.
>
>You just keep on believing that.
>Al-Queda is just one more facet of terrorism against the US.

I read yesterday that there are 2 billion Christians, and allegedly
1.2 billion muslim terrorists.  If I do my match correctly, that means
each christian couple simply needs to turn off one allah sucking c.nt.
Problem solved.

Too bad the Crusades failed.
Arif Khokar - 11 Dec 2005 20:15 GMT
> ANY terrorist attacks.

In the US prior to 1993.  If you can name examples that actually fulfill
the criteria, then be my guest.
Jim Yanik - 11 Dec 2005 23:49 GMT
>> ANY terrorist attacks.
>
> In the US prior to 1993.  If you can name examples that actually fulfill
> the criteria, then be my guest.

I did.
Embassies are considered US soil;an attack on an embassy is an attack on
the country.

Maybe you need to keep on redefining your criteria.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 12 Dec 2005 00:31 GMT
>>>ANY terrorist attacks.
>>
>>In the US prior to 1993.  If you can name examples that actually fulfill
>>the criteria, then be my guest.

> I did.

You didn't.  Embassies bombed in 1998 don't count.
DTJ - 11 Dec 2005 17:05 GMT
>>>>Considering that US Embassy property IS "US soil",there were two of
>>>>those,the Khobar Towers bombing,the USS Cole (more US property).
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>called Al Qaida prior to 1993.  We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia in
>1990 and maitained a presence there well after it was needed.

Bullshit.  We have had trouble with al queda since its inception.
See, in the civilized world there are things called treaties.

>That was the source of the terrorism problem we're experiencing today.
>The reason we continue to have a problem is because we moved our troops
>from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.

No, the source of the terrorism problem is all you f.cked up muslim
allah f.cking c.nts.
DYM - 11 Dec 2005 21:24 GMT
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in news:Qmqmf.846$OU3.479
@news01.roc.ny:

>>>Name any terrorist attacks in the US prior to the 1993 WTC bombings.
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> is greater than 1993.  Ancient Babylonians and Romans have nothing to
> with the present day situation in the middle east.

Not to the residents of the mid-east. There is a lot of animosity still
today about what happened from about 1050 on.

Doug
Arif Khokar - 12 Dec 2005 02:56 GMT
> Not to the residents of the mid-east. There is a lot of animosity still
> today about what happened from about 1050 on.

Hardly.  The ancient Babylonians and Romans were long gone by 1050 (not
counting the Byzantine empire).  ISTR that any animosity is a result of
the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour Declaration which was only partly
implemented, the establishment of the state of Israel against the wishes
of the local population and regional governments.  All of this took
place within the last 100 years.
DYM - 12 Dec 2005 18:19 GMT
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in news:EF5nf.1003$OU3.162
@news01.roc.ny:

>> Not to the residents of the mid-east. There is a lot of animosity still
>> today about what happened from about 1050 on.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> of the local population and regional governments.  All of this took
> place within the last 100 years.

This is when the Crusades started. It's (to Arabs) never been the same
since.

Doug
Jim Yanik - 13 Dec 2005 00:31 GMT
> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in news:EF5nf.1003$OU3.162
> @news01.roc.ny:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Doug

The "regional governments" are all Arabic,Islamic nations,Islam HATES
Jews,and were the main reason FOR the establishment of the State of Israel.
(on the Jews ancestral lands,...by the United Nations.)

Moslems in Israel can live without persecution,participate in
government,but Jews in any Arab or Moslem country are
persecuted,unbelievers,lower than dogs,and absolutely ZERO chance of
government participation. Most Islamic countries are not even democracies.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 13 Dec 2005 01:01 GMT
> The "regional governments" are all Arabic,Islamic nations,Islam HATES
> Jews,

Source?  They're considered people of the book in Islam.

> Moslems in Israel can live without persecution,

Much like blacks in the US prior to the civil rights movement.
Jim Yanik - 13 Dec 2005 01:56 GMT
>> The "regional governments" are all Arabic,Islamic nations,Islam HATES
>> Jews,
>
> Source?  They're considered people of the book in Islam.

They're considered infidels.

>> Moslems in Israel can live without persecution,
>
> Much like blacks in the US prior to the civil rights movement.

FAR better than Jews in any Arab country.

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 13 Dec 2005 02:45 GMT
>>>The "regional governments" are all Arabic,Islamic nations,Islam HATES
>>>Jews,

>>Source?  They're considered people of the book in Islam.

> They're considered infidels.

No they're not.  They're considered "people of the book," just like
Christians are.

BTW, it would be nice if you would stop making up stuff to support your
arguments.
Matthew Russotto - 17 Dec 2005 00:54 GMT
>> The "regional governments" are all Arabic,Islamic nations,Islam HATES
>> Jews,
>
>Source?  They're considered people of the book in Islam.

Source?  What next, demanding a source for the blueness of the sky?

>> Moslems in Israel can live without persecution,
>
>Much like blacks in the US prior to the civil rights movement.

I'm pretty sure there weren't any black members of the House or
Senators at the time.  There are Islamic members of the Knesset.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Jim Yanik - 17 Dec 2005 04:13 GMT
>>> The "regional governments" are all Arabic,Islamic nations,Islam HATES
>>> Jews,
>>
>>Source?  They're considered people of the book in Islam.

Arif should research "dhimmitude".

> Source?  What next, demanding a source for the blueness of the sky?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I'm pretty sure there weren't any black members of the House or
> Senators at the time.  There are Islamic members of the Knesset.

Here's something interesting about Islam and terrorism;

http://nationalreview.com/comment/london200512160955.asp

Signature

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar - 17 Dec 2005 06:12 GMT
> Arif should research "dhimmitude".

What's that supposed to mean?  I can't even find that word on
dictionary.com.

> Here's something interesting about Islam and terrorism;
>
> http://nationalreview.com/comment/london200512160955.asp

"an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim
terrorists"

They were provoked.  The "we didn't do anything/they hate our
freedoms/other bullshit excuses" cop-out isn't going to get you anywhere.
Matthew Russotto - 17 Dec 2005 16:07 GMT
>> Arif should research "dhimmitude".
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>They were provoked.  The "we didn't do anything/they hate our
>freedoms/other bullshit excuses" cop-out isn't going to get you anywhere.

If I get angry every time someone says "Niagra Falls", then when I
slug such a person I can claim I was provoked.  The person I hit is
not likely to agree.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Arif Khokar - 17 Dec 2005 20:04 GMT
> If I get angry every time someone says "Niagra Falls", then when I
> slug such a person I can claim I was provoked.

Give a convincing reason where your claim that the evidence class of
some individual saying "Niagra Falls," has any similarity to the
evidence class of a country maintaining a military presence in another
country over the objections of the local population.
Jim Yanik - 18 Dec 2005 00:37 GMT
>> If I get angry every time someone says "Niagra Falls", then when I
>> slug such a person I can claim I was provoked.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> evidence class of a country maintaining a military presence in another
> country over the objections of the local population.

Heck,that's how Islam spread itself;by the sword;convert or be a inferior
caste,and pay the "poll tax",or suffer.Parts