You forgot the rolleyes.
Oh! Touche! What a clever riposte! I am forced by your powerful rhetoric to recant everything I have written in this thread.
Now how’s that for an answer.
Well if I was in charge we would have already.
Do you always have faith in what the terrorists say? That you doubt you vice president is quite understandable, but that you apparently take Laden’s word for the real stuff is somewhat ironic. Anyway, who gives a shit what the terrorists say? Their rationalization is quite irrelevant. Their methods must be show to be self-destructive - whether their grievances are fair or not.
No what I said was that they had been led to believe by prior US inaction that you were weak and incapable of any meaningful retaliation and thus could attack you with impudence. I don’t think they believe so anymore. Though of course they still hate you, which is good. The day islamofacist love you is the day it’s time to rethink your policies.
- There are certain aspects of modern society and technology that makes terrorism much more dangerous than it has been anytime before in history. Terrorism is not something new, but its potential destructiveness today means it’s a new situation. 2) The fuckers directly responsible and the fuckers willingly helping, and the whole cesspool the begat them. 3) You mean like how you had it coming and it’s really just your own fault the whole thing. And if you had just been a bit kinder Bin Laden would have been a host on morning tv?
Sorry that first brilliant quote was misattributed to World Eater from Ale
Not more briliant that saying that is fine by you to start a war where thousands would die to avenge a single death; are you really an imbecile or you´re just posting imflamatory stuff to stir the shit up?
It’s amazing how easily you throw American troops in harms way. Do the Danes really need us to fight their fights?
You are coming here and enlisting aren’t you?
You feel attacking Saudi Arabia is the best route to preventing further terrorist attacks? I’m sure billions of people will be thrilled when we drop a daisy cutter on Mecca.
I didn’t say I believe his word as gospel, just that he himself has given his reasons for doing what he does. I certainly don’t agree with his “truth” but I don’t think he’s lying.
I’m with you up to…
I don’t think it deters them much. Does OBL really give a shit that thousands of Iraqis have been killed? As long as his plans don’t get fucked up, he really could care less about the trail of destruction he leaves in his wake.
Well I think it’s more of a meet in the middle. To me the real problem is that any nut, even those with the most unrealistic grievance, has to be taken seriously. That’s impossible because there’s an endless supply of these people.
I agree 100%
Well, to a certain degree, yes. There are plenty of valid reasons why we’re not liked, perhaps we should start fixing those, and then take it from there. Of course, we won’t (and shouldn’t) cater to everyone, but we really should take a look in the mirror.
There is not only little doubt, there is substantial evidence that Hussein was not a player on the world terrorism stage following the first Gulf War. A review of all the “terrorist associations” compiled by the U.S. government in the months prior to the occupation turned up:
one anti-Iranian group that were sheltering in Iraq, but not being funded to launch raids into Iran (whom the U.S. initially proposed enlisting as active agents against Iran, after the invasion),
two or three sick old ex-terrorists who moved to Baghdad to die in peace,
a handful of donations to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (the closts he actually came to sponsoring terrorism,
one independent terrorist who sought medical treatment in Iraq and who has been falsely labeled a member of al Qaida ever since,
and a lot of Bush rhetoric*.
“Very active in support of terrorists” is so far from the truth as to wander into either the realm of ignorance or of mendacity.
*(This would include the “associations” that the current adminstration claimed, based on the fact that several terrorist organization were operating out of Iraq from the Kurdish protection zone from which the U.S. and U.K. had prohibited Hussein from carrying out his own intention to eliminate them. Here, we are going to force you to let these bad people play in your back yard, then blame you because it is your yard from which we prevented you from evicting them.)
I’ll also add that there is a new US hostage being held by AQ terrorists in Saudi Arabia.
All I ask is that you don’t give me some “we’re going after countries that harbor terrorists” bullshit. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That’s not correct. Saddam did not support Hamas and Islamic Jihad, he merely gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Extremely reprehensible in that it gave Iraq’s seal of approval to this terrorism, but not much more than PR. He was not sponsoring the organisations in question, sponsoring the bombings themselves, or ordering Iraqi personnel to carry them out.
He had closer ties with some minor secular Palestinian groups, including the PLF, the group of Abu Abbas, behind the Achille Lauro hijacking. But he did not support Islamist groups such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
The freedom-loving peoples of the world are fortunate indeed that you have no authority to bring your astonishingly stupid and bloody-minded insanities to fruition.
Impunity is the word you wanted. It means without fear of consequence. Impudent is sort of sassy impertinence.
Stoid
On a mission
Do you have any concept of what terrorism even is? Let’s review, shall we?
It’s kind of dependent on actually articulating those demands. What do you think al Qaeda has to gain by spitefully lying about aiming to drive American forces from the Middle East?
Oh right, I forgot-- their true motivation is that they “hate our freedom.”
Slipped my mind.
Oh, but that’s not the best part. The best part was the REASON that was being floated around was that killing him would hurt the case for war, because as long as he was there, we could claim that top Al Qaeda leaders were in Iraq, even though that was a joke to anyone who knew the real situation.
Interesting - got a cite?
OK, I’ve listened to Rune a bit more, and he’s not as alarming as I thought. Still, I think it would be best to shave his head and check for those numbers. You know, just to be on the safe side.
No I’m afraid you got it backwards. There has never been a single terrorist attack in Denmark. From a purely egocentric view, Denmark has next to nothing to gain by backing the US in Iraq/Afghanistan. On the contrary it has to some small degree put us in the terrorists spotlight (though so far they seem to have mistaken us for Norway), and already caused substantial problems in Europe. It would have been difficult but you could probably have scraped by without Denmark’s help, however the US has needed Denmark more than Denmark needs the US in this case. But I believe we’re all in this boat together. That attacks in New York, Madrid, Tel Aviv and Moscow should be treated as attacks on us all.
Stupid me. Of course you’re right. I’m mostly here to practise a bit of english, thank you for pointing it out without any snide remarks about my intelligence. Though Bin Laden is a bit impudent too I think. Needs a good spanking is what he does.
You mean freedom like women’s emancipation, religious freedom, basic human rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, freedom to dress how you like, to eat what you like, to believe what you want etc.? No. Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda/Hamas absolutely love those – that’s why Al Jazeera call them freedom fighters. But the act of flying passenger jets into skyscrapers, blowing up school busses, taking hostage whole theatres etc. has rendered any grievances they had completely irrelevant in the way they should be dealt with.
uh? Don’t have to do that. I’m #24321/A model 214 fresh off the Bush/Cheney patriotic factory line. But I’m still in beta which you can see by my lousy English. Also I’m off for vacation.
Rune:
I’d just like to make a quick, critical comment on the following line of argumentation which I often find employed in defense of the Iraq invasion:
The reasoning behind this assertion goes approximately like this: if terrorists know they will suffer mightily as a result of violent acts, they’ll hesitate, or even desist, in such acts. In other words, terrorism is deterrable. A strong military presence, coupled with a policy of brutal retaliation, will deter terrorists from initiating violent attacks.
The historical record argues against this view. Leaving aside questions of moral justification, an inspection of relations between Israel and Palestine, for example, clearly reveals the counter-productivity of such a hard-line approach. Current statistics recently released by the State Department show that the number of acts of terrorism have increased, not decreased, over the last year. Terrorists have not been deterred from striking at the US military in Iraq, from bombing trains in Spain, or from raiding the offices of western oil corporations in Saudi Arabia. These trends directly contradict your assertions.
But on top of that, the belief that terrorism is undeterrable actually forms the basis of the current administration’s preventative war security strategy. It is argued that because terrorists are undeterrable, the US has the right (and possibly the imperative), as a nation, to action preemptively in its own defense. Thus, in articulating his administration’s NSS, Bush declared:
Obviously, one cannot claim that, on the one hand, deterrence is no longer effective in current world affairs – thus justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq – while simultaneously claiming that terrorists can be deterred by strong military action – thus justifying the preemptive invasion of Iraq – without stumbling over the fact that these two arguments contradict each other. If the threat of an overwhelming military response gives terrorists pause, then surely we had no reason to invade Iraq, because that invasion was based precisely on the fact that our military superiority could no longer be relied upon as a deterrent. If, on the other hand, deterrence can no longer be relied upon in relation to terrorists, then the argument that the invasion of Iraq will have a deterring effect on terrorists can’t possibly hold water.
Specialists generally agree that terrorist networks such as al-Qaida are not susceptible to traditional forms of military deterrence. When we conflate threats like al-Qaida, on the one hand, and Iraq, on the other, we make a mistake. Jeffery Record, author of the Army War College report Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, argues this point quite persuasively:
He continues:
Anyway, my point is that one can’t argue that terrorism is both deterrable and undeterrable at the same time, and use both arguments as justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
PunditLisa I wouldn’t normally be pedantic about typos, especially in the Pit. However, it appears you’ve spelt ‘naive’ ‘c-y-n-i-c-a-l’ by mistake…
If you really care and have money to burn, lookee here
You don’t need money for this one.