The wisdom of Rumsfeld

[fek]

I dont like to repeat my self, but I haven't seen any of these incredibly dangerous attacks you are talking about in the last two years.

So if no attack is successful in two years, that mean's terrorism is over?

No. I haven't said that. It means there's pratically no serious terrorism threat. And you have no proof to counter this fact, since you haven't given me any number yet to justify something like the Patriot Act or the invasion and bombing of two countries.

2001 wasn't the only terrorist attack in our history. For someone who brags about reading books, you certainly are ignorant.

I cant see why you are taking it so personal and you keep insulting me for having a different opinion. If it wasn't the only serious terrorist attack on USA soil, name me another attack which killed so many ppl.

Do you understand the difference between bombing a building, and setting unleasing a biological or radiological weapon, neither of which, contrary to pax, need state support.

What's quite surprising is your ignorance. No terrorist organizations?

Sorry, but the only one who's stating facts here is me. And if the only way you have to counter my arguments is to call me ignorant, this is only showing who's the ignorant between you and me.
Yes, no terrorist organisation is posing any threat to western country at this moment. Do you have any fact to counter this?

[/quote]Yeah, it's so threatened by lack of socialism that it is recovering, while Eurozone economies are still struggling. When you have a trauma or you're old and need assistance, let's see how much you talk about your NHS, which as the BBC continually reports, has a pathetic track record. [/quote]

You only avoid my arguments. We are not talking of Europe now, we are talking of USA. Do you agree that your education system now is incredibly lousy and causing problems to your economy? Do you agree that you have no kind of serious welfare state and this overtaxing your economy?

But now that you mention it, the biggest enemy is socialism within. The largest terrorist attack of 2003 was 10,000+ helpless French people dying from a bad welfare state, healthcare system, short-socialist workweek with too much vacation, and a lack of modern amenities such as air conditioning. (p.s. just remember, you started this little tangent, since you are unable to prove any of your Patriot Act hyperbole by actual citation and comparison of legal text)

10.000 helpless french. Oh my god, I dont want to tell you how many USA citizens are below the poverty line (milions) and dieing cause they can't pay for health care. I dont want to tell you how many youths between 15/25 cant say who's the president of Mexico (more than 90%).
Really, you dont want to compare welfare systems and education in Europe and USA.

By the way, the French president is Jacque Chirac.

 

[Humus]

It means there's pratically no serious terrorism threat. And you have no proof to counter this fact

And you have yet to make a good argument why this is a "fact". Terrorism is still a large threat, not so much at my place, but certainly in the US. You can't draw the conclusions that terrorism isn't a threat anymore. It's definitely not a solved problem.

Yes, no terrorist organisation is posing any threat to western country at this moment. Do you have any fact to counter this?

You don't think Al-qaida exists?

I dont want to tell you how many youths between 15/25 cant say who's the president of Mexico (more than 90%).

Should people know this? I certainly don't know it.

 

[RussSchultz]

I don't ever remember Fox encouraging the idea that Iraq was involved in the WTC attacks, or directly supported Al Qaeda. They did, accurately, state that Saddam supports terrorism (via martyr grants), and that there were terrorist training facilities in Iraq and sanctioned by Saddam.

Which is false as many times CIA stated and Bush ignored.

What was false?

Did Saddam, or did he not, give money to Palestinian families of suicide bombers?

Was there, or was there not, a training ground with a modern airliner in Iraq, ostensibly used for hijacking training?

Was Abu Nidal obtaining sactuary in Iraq for years after the Achilles Lauro hijacking, or not?

Rather than simploy parroting what you read, why don't you go do some reading. You seem woefully ignorant of facts.

 

[fek]

Did Saddam, or did he not, give money to Palestinian families of suicide bombers?

Was there, or was there not, a training ground with a modern airliner in Iraq, ostensibly used for hijacking training?

According to CIA, there's no connection between Saddam regime and Bin Laden's network due to idelogic differences. In other words, they hate each other. You can read this on www.whitehouse.gov

Rather than simploy parroting what you read, why don't you go do some reading. You seem woefully ignorant of facts.

I see the only argument you can throw at me is calling me ignorant, while it's pretty clear who's believing all the lies that were told this year about Iraq.

You like questions. Answer this:

- Is it true that 15 out of 19 hijackers where Saudi citizens?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia was declared by Amnesty Internation one of the more ruthless and antidemocratic regimes in Middle East?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia government has many economic connections with Bush family?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia is funding Al Qaida with the money coming from these connections?
- Is it true that CIA shows Bush a report stating all the responsabilitied of Saudi Arabia in 11/9 and this was ignored by Bush himself?
- Is it true that USA didnt attack Saudi Arabia?

 

[fek]

You don't think Al-qaida exists?

As I said, I think it exists and it poses no real threat to the west as statistics and facts clearly state.

 

[RussSchultz]

Christ, you lack reading comprehension also.

I never stated there was a definate connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. I stated he supported terrorism, and I've provided plenty of easily checkable facts that show that he obviously did.

I've not mentioned any links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, because the only support out there is mostly only circumstantial evidence along with rumors of hard facts.

Much like your connect the dot game from Bin Laden to Bush.

 

[fek]

Christ, you lack reading comprehension also.

You lack some dialectic skills, cause you don't know that insulting your adversary makes your points weaker. I suggest you to read Schopenauer. Kinda enlighting on this subject.

I never stated there was a definate connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. I stated he supported terrorism, and I've provided plenty of easily checkable facts that show that he obviously did.

Sorry, I cant understand you. What kind of terrorism are we talking about here? Al Qaeda network or what? Afaik, this is the only terrorist network aknowledged by CIA and Bush. And while Bush (and you, from what it might look here) stated that Iraq supported terrorism, CIA doesnt agree with you both.
So, here's the point: how could Saddam's regime support terrorism, like providing training camps and funding I guess, without supporting Al Qaeda itself, better, being an ideologic enemy of Al Qaeda?
It looks a bit contraddictory to me.

I've not mentioned any links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, because the only support out there is mostly only circumstantial evidence along with rumors of hard facts.

So, there's no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Why bombing Iraq then? Can you answer this pls?

 

[RussSchultz]

Sorry, I cant understand you. What kind of terrorism are we talking about here? Al Qaeda network or what? Afaik, this is the only terrorist network aknowledged by CIA and Bush.

Note: as far as you know. Except you apparently don't know enough to talk about the topic, beyond what your groupthink receptors command you to.

Here's a list, current as of 2001, on the US state department website, of about 30 named groups that the Secretary of State has designated FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2450.htm

This doesn't even begin to list the organizations that FUND terrorism.

So, there's no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

Well, no. There's me, with only the internet at my disposal, to try to prove the link to you, or for your to disprove the link. Therefore its easier just to say there's no concrete evidence of a connection, just rumor and conjecture.

On the other hand, there's no evidence that there wasn't a connection, except conjecture (that Saddam being a securalist would not get in bed with Al Qaeda). I'm more inclined to think its possible, but am undecided.

Why bombing Iraq then? Can you answer this pls?

For a list of reasons you won't agree with, because you've already made up your mind, so its pointless to discuss.

If it were up to me, I'd have kicked him out in '91. Mostly because he's was a dictator with the blood of millions on his hands.

 

[fek]

Sorry, I cant understand you. What kind of terrorism are we talking about here? Al Qaeda network or what? Afaik, this is the only terrorist network aknowledged by CIA and Bush.

Note: as far as you know. Except you apparently don't know enough to talk about the topic, beyond what your groupthink receptors command you to.

Apart saying that I'm an ignorant and saying that I belong to groups, without even knowing me (that's pretty good intelligence from you), you haven't answer one single question I asked you.

Why? Scared? You have no answer? You have answers but you dont want to believe them?

Btw, I dont belong to any organisation or group. I use to think with my brain not CNN's or Bush'es or Rumsfeld's.

You like questions. Answer this:

- Is it true that 15 out of 19 hijackers where Saudi citizens?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia was declared by Amnesty Internation one of the more ruthless and antidemocratic regimes in Middle East?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia government has many economic connections with Bush family?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia is funding Al Qaida with the money coming from these connections?
- Is it true that CIA shows Bush a report stating all the responsabilitied of Saudi Arabia in 11/9 and this was ignored by Bush himself?
- Is it true that USA didnt attack Saudi Arabia?

Just in case you have missed this.

 

[RM. Andersson]

Sorry, I cant understand you. What kind of terrorism are we talking about here? Al Qaeda network or what? Afaik, this is the only terrorist network aknowledged by CIA and Bush.

Note: as far as you know. Except you apparently don't know enough to talk about the topic, beyond what your groupthink receptors command you to.

Apart saying that I'm an ignorant and saying that I belong to groups, without even knowing me (that's pretty good intelligence from you), you haven't answer one single question I asked you.

Why? Scared? You have no answer? You have answers but you dont want to believe them?

Btw, I dont belong to any organisation or group. I use to think with my brain not CNN's or Bush'es or Rumsfeld's.

You like questions. Answer this:

- Is it true that 15 out of 19 hijackers where Saudi citizens?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia was declared by Amnesty Internation one of the more ruthless and antidemocratic regimes in Middle East?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia government has many economic connections with Bush family?
- Is it true that Saudi Arabia is funding Al Qaida with the money coming from these connections?
- Is it true that CIA shows Bush a report stating all the responsabilitied of Saudi Arabia in 11/9 and this was ignored by Bush himself?
- Is it true that USA didnt attack Saudi Arabia?

Just in case you have missed this.

Why do you think it´s wrong to try to stop terrorism? Perhaps you can answer that question.

If you are not a member of any group of leftist or Islamists. Why?

You must understand that people are suffering in countries that support terrorism. They get murdered and tortured and they have no rights or freedoms at all.
Removing a dictator in a country like that helps the people. It makes you a friend to that people. Someone that prefer to support the dictator and thugs that murder them will be an enemy to that people.

To talk about a dictators right to continue to rule the country but never talk about the peoples rights. Rights that are not respected at all. It´s morally wrong to think like that.
You know, people that actually live in those countries are the real victims.
Perhaps you should start to care about them instead. And be happy for them if someone tries to help them and give them a better life and a better future.

 

[DemoCoder]

Hey Russ, you better watch it, fek has book learnin'

And you know, since your odds of dying in a terrorist attack is much smaller than your odds of dying by plane or car, we shouldn't worry about it, since there are obviously no externized effects of terrorist attacks, and when an attack kills someone, it only effects that one person.

But hey, I've just realized that Fek's reasoning allows us to solve the middle east peace crisis. There is no crisis! According to Fek's book-learned statistics, your odds of dying from a terrorist attack in Israel are only 3 in 10,000. The odds of dying in a traffic accident are about 1 in 7000 worldwide. Ditto for Palestinians.

It seems to me that armed with these awesome new book-learned facts, we need a new international peace conference on the "Traffic War", and all countries should urge traffic killers to stop their attacks.

Al Qaeda? Get real. The world's biggest terrorist organization is the Department of Motor Vehicles. And there are schools far worse than Madrasas funded by Saudi's. It's the drivers education schools funded locally! These things are worse than a Taliban mosque!

Also, my book learning tells me that the DMV is like Nazis, and DMV=Bush=Nazis=WTO=IMF=Capitalism=Racism=Greed=Hitler.. I just put that on a protest sign and I'm off to protest the "war", err, "occupation"

BTW, I'm an intellectual, and obviously, people who aren't "progressive", don't adore Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, or Mumia (free Him!) are ignorant rednecks who simply don't know how wrong and silly they are.

 

[Willmeister]

BTW, I'm an intellectual, and obviously, people who aren't "progressive", don't adore Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, or Mumia (free Him!) are ignorant rednecks who simply don't know how wrong and silly they are.

Those that proclaim themselves 'intellectuals' use it to create a false sense of superiority over others. It's nice to see the Sophist tradition continues to live on...

Apart saying that I'm an ignorant and saying that I belong to groups, without even knowing me (that's pretty good intelligence from you), you haven't answer one single question I asked you.

He asked you such an emotionally charged question to precisely avoid answering yours. He didn't even attempt to answer yours which is quite indicative. It's a common tactic of those who know they're trapped and just won't face up and admit to it.

 

[DemoCoder]

Fek's questions themselves are a dodge and a non-sequitur.

Fek claimed in this thread (he started the latest round):
1) Patriot Act/US = Nazis (never provided a SINGLE quote from Patriot Act itself to back up assertion)

2) There are no terrorist organizations (Russ provided a state department list of 30)

3) Saddam has no links to terrorism (Russ never claimed Al Qaeda/Bin Laden link, Russ said links to terrorism. Saddam, PUBLICALLY, proclaimed he gives $20k per family to Palestinian suicide bombers. That's STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM )

Fek responds by misinterpreting Russ's posts and asks a bunch of red herring questions that have nothing to do with anything Russ has been saying, attempting to shift the topic and bait Russ on some other issue.


Once again: The topic is: Patriot Act and US? Are they equivalent to Nazis and Germany (fek assertion) and Second, should the US even bother to respond to terrorism, since according to Fek, it is not a real world problem (despite what all the world governments and UN says), and results in little risk of life compared to other issues in the world.

These are the issues. Fek's attempt to turn this into a debate on the War and the supposed claims of the news media linking Saddam to Al Qaeda are a separate and irrelevent topic.

Fek has still yet to defend his ridiculous hyperbole comparing America to the nazis.

I'm waiting.

p.s. Fek is the one hinting at intellectual status, you know "I read books". It's like saying "I eat an McDonalds" as if book reading is some rarified thing.

 

[RussSchultz]

Apart saying that I'm an ignorant and saying that I belong to groups, without even knowing me (that's pretty good intelligence from you), you haven't answer one single question I asked you.

He asked you such an emotionally charged question to precisely avoid answering yours. He didn't even attempt to answer yours which is quite indicative. It's a common tactic of those who know they're trapped and just won't face up and admit to it.

Um, you're talking about Fek, right?

 

[Natoma]

I don't ever remember Fox encouraging the idea that Iraq was involved in the WTC attacks, or directly supported Al Qaeda. They did, accurately, state that Saddam supports terrorism (via martyr grants), and that there were terrorist training facilities in Iraq and sanctioned by Saddam.

Which is false as many times CIA stated and Bush ignored.

What was false?

I think he's saying that Iraq had no connections to Al-Qaeda. Iraqis were not on board the planes that flew into the WTC and the Pentagon and downed in PA. It's a sad sad fact that a majority of americans think Saddam personally ordered the strike against us, and that the majority of the hijackers were Iraqi, when in fact they were Sauds.

The sad fact is that the administration never bothered to actually say publically that what people were thinking was incorrect, only until a few weeks ago. Little late don't you think?

And lets not mention the fact that the CIA told the administration many times that there was no Uranium purchase in Niger and that the Aluminum tubes were not high enough quality to be used to purify Uranium into fissible material for a bomb. All which the administration ignored in the lead up to war.

Did Saddam, or did he not, give money to Palestinian families of suicide bombers?

Yes, he did.

Was there, or was there not, a training ground with a modern airliner in Iraq, ostensibly used for hijacking training?

Yes there was, but not in a part controlled by Saddam. Those camps were in the northern region controlled by the Kurds.

I'd say it's akin to those crazy militias in Montana.

Was Abu Nidal obtaining sactuary in Iraq for years after the Achilles Lauro hijacking, or not?

Well that was in the 80's/early 90s. Anyways, the US government has done some despicable things as well. We sold illegal arms to the iranians to fund the contras (as well as providing them free arms) in nicaragua and we also funded and supported Saddam Hussein in the 80s. Only after he invaded Kuwait did he become the great tyrant satan that he is today. But he wasn't a problem for our government when he was using chemical weapons on the iranians, who we had a problem with thank-you-very-much-shah-revolution. Hell even Rumsfeld went to visit him.

We've also mucked up almost every country in the middle east over the past 6 decades. So we're not exactly one to be calling other countries bad for the political things this country has done.

 

[RussSchultz]

Salman Pak (the training ground with the aircraft), was somewhere south of Baghdad. NOT in the supposed "kurdish controlled" area.

Abu Abbas (leader of Abu Nidal) was only recently assasinated in Iraq (1999, I believe), supposedly because he decided to retire from terrorism. Saddam fully supported terrorism up until the day he was deposed. He apparently still supports it, though I doubt he's the one behind the recent car bombings.

 

[Natoma]

Why do you think it´s wrong to try to stop terrorism? Perhaps you can answer that question.

If you are not a member of any group of leftist or Islamists. Why?

That's not fair. Being a "leftist" has no bearing whatsoever on wanting to stop terrorism. I live in NYC. I worked only 10 minutes from the WTC and I watched those towers come down, scared shitless. I want all terrorism to be crushed if possible. And I'm a big time "leftist".

Tread carefully. We heard far too many "If you dissent, you're in league with the evil doers" in the early days post 9/11. It's not needed that in intelligent discussion.

You must understand that people are suffering in countries that support terrorism. They get murdered and tortured and they have no rights or freedoms at all.

Removing a dictator in a country like that helps the people. It makes you a friend to that people. Someone that prefer to support the dictator and thugs that murder them will be an enemy to that people.

To talk about a dictators right to continue to rule the country but never talk about the peoples rights. Rights that are not respected at all. It´s morally wrong to think like that.

You know, people that actually live in those countries are the real victims.
Perhaps you should start to care about them instead. And be happy for them if someone tries to help them and give them a better life and a better future.

I agree with this. However, we spent a great many years supporting Saddam Hussein and his tyranny. The Reagan Administration and Bush I were quite known for that. And lets not forget our never ending support for the Saudi Royal Family, who are one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world.

The reasoning is sound and good, but the implementation of our government is most certainly not. If we are to truly do something like that'd, we'd need to take out most of the governments in the world. China (tibet), Russia (chechnya), Saudi Arabia, almost any African government, etc etc etc. Hell India has some of the worst human rights abuses on record. The caste system is an atrocious religious relic that needs to be done away with.

As I hope you've seen, there are problems with trying to save the whole world. My only problem with people saying that it was ok for us to get rid of Saddam because he was an evil dictator, and not because we haven't found any of the WMD that he was purportedly amassing, is the fact that if we go down that route, we're going to be at war for the next century. I disagree that freeing the Iraqis is good enough, because then the majority of the world can ask, "Why not us?? Help us!"

No, we went to Iraq for one thing and one thing only. WMD. And to date, we have found none, and to date, we have found that in fact the administration simply glossed over the details in order to make its case for war. That is where I and many other "leftists" take umbrage with this administration. Considering this war, or any war for that matter, could have cost me my brother's life, I take a very personal stance with it as well. If we're going to risk americans, it better be for the reason that is given to get people to support it.

Frankly, and this will sound jaded, the american public wouldn't have given a damn if it was just about getting rid of an evil dictator. We've let Castro sit under our noses for 50 years, and he's arguably just as bad as Saddam. Why not him? He's far easier to take out and the Cuban people would finally be free. See where the "lets get rid of the evil doer" logic fails when it's used as a crutch to support a war that has no other foundation?

150 americans have died so far, and so far it has seemed needless, given the stated intentions of this war. All of this imho of course.

 

[Natoma]

Salman Pak (the training ground with the aircraft), was somewhere south of Baghdad. NOT in the supposed "kurdish controlled" area.

Never heard of Salman Pak. Reading up on it now.

Abu Abbas (leader of Abu Nidal) was only recently assasinated in Iraq (1999, I believe), supposedly because he decided to retire from terrorism. Saddam fully supported terrorism up until the day he was deposed. He apparently still supports it, though I doubt he's the one behind the recent car bombings.

Eh? According to CNN he was captured this year, alive.

Anyways, I'm not saying that Saddam didn't deserve to be deposed. It was something a long time coming. I'm just saying that all of the evidence that we were given to go to war with Iraq has turned out to be rather sketchy at best.

 

[Ilfirin]

I wouldn't call the stuff happening in Iraq right now (car bombings, etc) terrorism. Those are people desperately trying to take back their own country, or people sympathetic to those who are.

You'd see the exact same things happening in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) if a foreign country took us over.

Not that it's right or anything, but the word 'terrorism' gets thrown around for everything these days. (6 months or so ago they were trying to charge a couple of kids with terrorism for playing with cherry bombs around here)

 

[RussSchultz]

I'll have to disagree natoma. You've distilled the "reasons for war" down to one that you find easy to vet.

While I'm not in "the know", I'd guess the real reason is likely more strategic in nature. Yes, the whole neo-con thing. 1) Make democracy in Iraq; 2) ween ourself from Saudi Oil; 3) then tackle the Saudi problem.

War on terrorism, spread democracy, ensure stable oil markets to the whole world (and particularly the US).