Why terrorism against the US & the West

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
According to article 8 of the last Iraq resolution, Iraq shall take NO attacks on allied forces enforcing UN resolutions.

Iraq argues that the No-fly zones aren't part of UN resolutions.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Arrian
For the sake of argument, Chris, speaking of the UN...

If the UN did grow a backbone, what would happen when it moved to enforce resolutions w/regard to Israel? Removal of the settlements, for instance. The existence of the settlements is as much a slap in the face to the UN as Saddam's violations.

-Arrian

First, there is a difference between general assembly resolutions and security council resolutions.

Be that as it may, I favor their removal, as do many Israelis.
There is precedence for this, Israel forcebily removed settlers from Sanai after the treaty with Eygpt, and they would do it again.

The UN is a dead issue, the game has started again, but Saddam and Kofi don't realize Bush has changed the rules.

Expect Iraq to be invaded withen 30 days, tops.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Arrian

A lot of it has to do with the overall political situation in the Middle East. The Arab nations are despotic, and thus people who would otherwise (under a democratic system) probably be active in political parties are driven underground and become part of more shadowy organizations, perhaps terrorist ones.

-Arrian

I agree with alot of what you are say. The arguments I have heard are that we are keeping alot of the despot regimes in power. Those same regimes that always point the blame at us and that are the root cause of alot of frustrations.

We [the West] should stop supporting the despots full stop IMHO.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Iraq argues that the No-fly zones aren't part of UN resolutions.

And that justifies live fire it what way?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
And that justifies live fire it what way?

If the no fly zones aren't apart of UN resolutions then it doesn't qualify as a "material breach" under the terms of the Article 8 of the last UN resolution.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually, the Brits and French are virtually alone in taking the blame for shaping the middle east aas it is today.

It's not quite that simple. I reckon it would be hard for the Brits alone to push for the creation of the Israeli homeland though the UN without US help. The siutuation would not be this bad either if the US didn't decide to prop up Israel and petty dictators in the region.

[Chris 62]

The article says that armed forces acting in support of UN resolutions, which is what they are doing.
Ol Saddam,....er,..ah,..."Kofi" says this isn't so, and thus will bring on the war they hoped to stymie.

More fun and games, Bush has refused a private meeting with Germany over the new Nato nations, the fall-out of "Elect us, the USA sucks" that Sheroder pulled is just begining.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It's the heart of the matter Dan.

9 times out of 10, the starter of this kind of thread fully intends it to be a lengthy condemnation of the United States, as they are of a Leftist or Socialist blend, so to speak, and live in a world where all the worlds problems can be squarely laid at the US door, irreguardless of the facts.

Just wanted to see what ideas were out there. And not believing everything the government spoon feeds you does not make you of a Leftist or Socialist blend or out to condemn the US.

Present an argument and it might be interesting.


Here one to think about, when someone like OBL accusses the West [Chiefly the US] of killing women and children, why not ask the questions when where. Have we done this if no then we can put his words down to rant, but id the answer is yes then we have to start asking ourselves some tough questions. Questions we may not want to hear.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The article says that armed forces acting in support of UN resolutions, which is what they are doing.

Which resolutions are they acting in support of?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which resolutions are they acting in support of?

According to our UN ambassador, the original one from 1990.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I think it's obvious the US got it wrong with Saddam, we trusted him once, and now we know better.

But what is surprissing is why all those "humanists" out there, that oppose the removeal of Saddam, don't lift a FINGER to help the people of Iraq, who have suffered under this clown for decades.
I'm sure someone will say the US didn't do anything either, but we have tried to, for over a decade, only to be blocked by our old "friends", the French, and even more unbelivably, the UN!

Actually the US and the UK doubled his credit to buy arms at the same time as he was gasing his own people and the Iranians. Mainly because he was seen as a friend who could punish & keep the Iranians at bay.

It is a sickening amount of hypocracy for countries to talk about attrocities commited by Sadamn when they were complicite in those very same crimes.

Hypocracy!

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
who is the terrorists?
and why do you call them terrorists?

I don`t know who the terrorists are the only face we have been given is OBL and the info has gone from head of a loose organisation of nutters to direct responsibility. So appart from OBL I don`t know.

They are terrorists because they attack as their primary object civilian targets as policy.

[Arrian]

I agree with alot of what you are say. The arguments I have heard are that we are keeping alot of the despot regimes in power. Those same regimes that always point the blame at us and that are the root cause of alot of frustrations.

We [the West] should stop supporting the despots full stop IMHO.

I happen to agree w/regard to support of despots. I think that is a major mistake we have been making for a long time (the concept of "our sonufa*****").

But there are problems with actively opposing dictatorship as well. Everytime we try it, there are those who step up and argue for something called "engagement." Those who favor engagement argue that the best way to promote democracy is to trade with, provide aid to, and otherwise avoid alienating the subject country. I am not sure of the best path myself, though I have been leaning more and more against the idea of "engagement" as a method of spreading democracy.

-Arrian

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by BlackStone
Actually the US and the UK doubled his credit to buy arms at the same time as he was gasing his own people and the Iranians. Mainly because he was seen as a friend who could punish & keep the Iranians at bay.

Actually, your talking out your backside, he got 99% of all of his weapons from two sources, NEITHER of which is the US or Britain.
Let's give you some hints, one is filled with Cheese eating surrender monkees, the other likes Vodka and oderless gases.

It is a sickening amount of hypocracy for countries to talk about attrocities commited by Sadamn when they were complicite in those very same crimes.

See what I mean?
No matter what the facts, it's always the US's fault.
This is why I don't take you seriously.

Hypocracy!

Yes, you practice it well.

[Chris 62]

Here is a list of the weapon systems used by Iraq, you will note that not a SINGLE US or Brit system is included, only the nations I hinted at:

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqiarmedforces.cfm

I guess ol Saddam pocketed those "credits", eh?

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Kofi Annon showed again today why the UN is really the league of nations.

According to article 8 of the last Iraq resolution, Iraq shall take NO attacks on allied forces enforcing UN resolutions.
Since Blix arrived, the Iraqis have been shooting at British and US planes, flying in the "no fly zone", a zone set up to PROTECT the Iraqi people from Saddam!

The US said, and quite rightly, this is a material breech, but Annon airily dismissed it, saying HE didn't think so, since no resolution specifically allowed the No-Fly zone.
Annon, appeazer to his last breath.

You know I heard that on several occasions UK & US planes have been order to pull out of the no fly zones when heavily armed Turkish jets have gone in and latter when our planes go back Kurdish villages are on fire.

With the assumption that the Turks are putting the boot in on the Kurds [again] and no doubt our compliance for the use of air bases how does this fit with your picture of us being beyond critism.

Sodom is a first rate murderer and we help to achieve that ranking.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by BlackStone
You know I heard that on several occasions UK & US planes have been order to pull out of the no fly zones when heavily armed Turkish jets have gone in and latter when our planes go back Kurdish villages are on fire.

I heard the world was flat once, I put as much stock in that as your little "occasions".
Maybe they wern't Turkish planes at all, but were really UFOs, out to test new weapon systems, that's just about as credible.

With the assumption that the Turks are putting the boot in on the Kurds [again] and no doubt our compliance for the use of air bases how does this fit with your picture of us being beyond critism.

Ah, another favorite tactic, when exactly did I say the US was above criticism.
If you used you reasoning powers, you could see how damn silly you look.

Sodom is a first rate murderer and we help to achieve that ranking.

That's Saddam, and I mentioned several posts earlier the US stupidly trusted him at one time, under the fool "enemy of my enemy is my friend" notion.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Arrian


I happen to agree w/regard to support of despots. I think that is a major mistake we have been making for a long time (the concept of "our sonufa*****").

But there are problems with actively opposing dictatorship as well. Everytime we try it, there are those who step up and argue for something called "engagement." Those who favor engagement argue that the best way to promote democracy is to trade with, provide aid to, and otherwise avoid alienating the subject country. I am not sure of the best path myself, though I have been leaning more and more against the idea of "engagement" as a method of spreading democracy.

-Arrian

I think that engagement can be very powerful if we aim to promote and encourage good behaviour and moves towards even greater democracy. Unfortunately it ussually means we give the means to stay in power and the weapons to go from small time thug to mass murderer.

[Arrian]

I think that engagement can be very powerful if we aim to promote and encourage good behaviour and moves towards even greater democracy. Unfortunately it ussually means we give the means to stay in power and the weapons to go from small time thug to mass murderer.

Read that again. You essentially say that engagement usually provides thugs with the means to stay in power. That's the conclusion I'm seeing too. So I don't think that engagement is a "powerful tool."

-Arrian

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Let's give you some hints, one is filled with Cheese eating surrender monkees, the other likes Vodka and oderless gases.

"Cheese eating surrender monkees"




The hypocracy part was aimed at both our nations. I have watched our foreign secretary doing the same over the past months.

As for the weapons in the very same week that Sodom gassed Kurdish villages we [the UK governemnt] doubled his export credit with the us.

There was a race to see who could sell him the most weapons and we [US and UK] where at the top of the list. And I don`t like it anymore then you do.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I heard the world was flat once, I put as much stock in that as your little "occasions".
Maybe they wern't Turkish planes at all, but were really UFOs, out to test new weapon systems, that's just about as credible.

The reports came from UK pilots serving in the no fly zone.

And i prefer to call him sodom.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by BlackStone




What Planet are you on. My country stood against Nazi Germany when everyone else in the world had gone silent. We stood against them alone while your country was still keeping itself neutral.

To turn round and say that we did something to the Jews when we fought against the Nazi`s is yet another example of ignorance, which goes nicely along with the remark that because the Jews have suffered that is why the Palestinians are being made to suffer, who is the apologist now.


Also I am not discounting what the European powers have done but you only need to look at the country who has the bases and troops on the ground to know why they single out the US.

Oh, but your country has had its dark, anti-semitic side too. I'm not just talking about the dire consequences of one war, but instead I'm talking about centuries of systematic persecution for which your country bears the blame as much as any other European nation. IIRC Henry VIII expelled the jews during his reign. One of the boats taking them away ran into a sand bar. The captain ordered the jews off the boat and onto the sand bar. As the tide came back in, covering the sand bar and freeing the ship, the captain sailed off without the jews. Leaving them to drown the captain is said to have taunted them with something to the effect that they should ask Moses to part the waters for them. IIRC that wasn't the first time your country did this. More recently, in the 19th century an English bishop came up with the "Christian Identity" movement, based on a warped idea that Christians, especially English Christians, were the true descendants of the tribes of Israel and that those who called themselves Jews were in fact imposters. Before you distance yourself from this bigoted English clergyman, let me remind you that the CofE is an established church and is legally under the control of your government.

So I'm not the one who is ignorant.

[Felch]

Originally posted by BlackStone
The reports came from UK pilots serving in the no fly zone.

I hate to be a ***** about such things, but when controversial evidence like that is cited, it's expected that people provide some documentation to back it up, from the BBC or some other trustworthy news source.

[GePap]

I love to see the blind argue tha blind: that is, people who have never been, or never know what it is like to be at the otehr side argue with people who are just the same.

Does anyone wonder why lybians, Syrians, and Iraqis are so undererpresented in Al Qaeda, or why the most pro-US state in the MIddle east after Israel is Iran?

Let me give you a clue: when someone comes at night to take a family member or close friend away, and the little stamp on the weapon that the guards aree using says 'made in the US', how dos that endear one to great all American values? Yes, Britain and France did much to create the modern Middle east, butt hat was 80 years ago. Most people in th Middle East are under 30: what do they care about 1920? they care about today. It is the US, not UK or France, that give Mubarak 2 billion dollar a year, and it is the US who has troop in Saudi Arabia to guard the house of Saud, and we are their biggest arms dealers by far. Yes, Iranians came to hate us for our support of the Shah, so why wuld things work any differently in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two biggest sources of anti-American terrorists?

Chris62:

It is documented that the US sold weapons to Iran. were we the main suppliers? NO. but we did give them weapons. Not large weapon systems, but still some arms. same for Iraq. I wonder why the US send Rummy to Baghdad in 1983 to reopen relations with Baghdad, if we were so terribly opposed to him? I know, because we weren't terribly opposed to him.


Of course islamist dislike the US way of life, as they do the way of life in the non-Islamist world. BUt why aren' they bombing Japan, or the Netherlands, or Brazil, or mexico, or spain, or China? Because none of thse states has much to do in the ME. This tells me then that simply thinking the other side immoral is not enough to get one oin the target list.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Oh, but your country has had its dark, anti-semitic side too. I'm not just talking about the dire consequences of one war, but instead I'm talking about centuries of systematic persecution for which your country bears the blame as much as any other European nation. IIRC Henry VIII expelled the jews during his reign. One of the boats taking them away ran into a sand bar. The captain ordered the jews off the boat and onto the sand bar. As the tide came back in, covering the sand bar and freeing the ship, the captain sailed off without the jews. Leaving them to drown the captain is said to have taunted them with something to the effect that they should ask Moses to part the waters for them. IIRC that wasn't the first time your country did this. More recently, in the 19th century an English bishop came up with the "Christian Identity" movement, based on a warped idea that Christians, especially English Christians, were the true descendants of the tribes of Israel and that those who called themselves Jews were in fact imposters. Before you distance yourself from this bigoted English clergyman, let me remind you that the CofE is an established church and is legally under the control of your government.

So I'm not the one who is ignorant.

Tell me if we are going that far back where were your founding fathers from.


And which continent can around 70% of your population trace its roots back to.


Its a small world

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by GePap
I love to see the blind argue tha blind: that is, people who have never been, or never know what it is like to be at the otehr side argue with people who are just the same.

Well thank you very much

[Illyrien]

What in the world does it matter who made the weapons the "insert evil organisation" uses. It is the organisations, not the arms manufactors that is responsbile for its use

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Illyrien
What in the world does it matter who made the weapons the "insert evil organisation" uses. It is the organisations, not the arms manufactors that is responsbile for its use

I think the question is should we arm these regimes knowing what they will do.

And if we profit from them can we not expect to pay some of the price when the wrongs are righted.


Also I don`t think that we can see these sales as simple transactions. We are providing support to countries and regimes that suit our ambitions at the time. Or alternatively we are buying our freedom and wealth with others suffering.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BlackStone
Also I don`t think that we can see these sales as simple transactions. We are providing support to countries and regimes that suit our ambitions at the time. Or alternatively we are buying our freedom and wealth with others suffering.

Would you cut off trade with China?

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Would you cut off trade with China?

I would link trade with China to reform [mainly human rights].

I think were China is concerned the greatest worry is who they are selling weapons to not the other way round.