PRESIDENT BUSH should be tried for war crimes!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by MikeH
That reminds me, I should get the Audioslave album.

It works already

Not really. Israel is nothing more than a side issue for Al Qaeda.

and what is the main issue? uniting all the muslims against the evil west.

Well Dubya is just trying hard to make that one come true, like he is a secret member.

[Ming]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Ming... maybe not... but admittedly you have voted for Libs... man this forum is making you soft

Nahhh... I voted for some libs long before I started posting on Internet Forums

Sometimes we can change them (opinions) as well if we find the reasons why...

I don't think so...
I base my opinons on many things... but what's said on an internet forum isn't one of my primary or even secondary sources

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
and what is the main issue? uniting all the muslims against the evil west.

US troops on Saudi soil.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS
"What about this?"

It's a flawed analysis. The Arab public in general is fixated on Israel, but the 9/11 hijackers were not.

Have you ever read their stories? US policies have had precious little impact on them.

no I haven't read them, are they anywhere on-line?

By the way, did they leave journals with reasoning behind, as noone survived

[Jack the Bodiless]

I found this amusing:

"The war on Iraq never stopped," Morello told NME.COM. "The US have been bombing and maintaining no fly zones for the last ten years. Look at the UN figures - at least one million dead because of bombing and sanctions, half a million of them children.

There might be a case for arguing that sanctions have indirectly killed a lot of Iraquis ("indirectly" because Iraq can buy all the food that it needs). But bombing? After all the recent televised use of precision-guided munitions in recent conflicts, why do so many people apparently still assume that "bombing" means carpet-bombing cities, Dresden-style?

But this guy tosses it in with "sanctions" as a cause of mass death. What about the thousands of people who die in the US every year due to Spider-Man comics and handguns? Or the millions who are dying in Africa due to the Disney Channel and AIDS?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ming


Nahhh... I voted for some libs long before I started posting on Internet Forums

Heh... you are going soft that is for sure

Originally posted by Ming





I don't think so...
I base my opinons on many things... but what's said on an internet forum isn't one of my primary or even secondary sources

After spending all the time here? More than most of us junkies... don't tell me that you never find any useful information here... if that wasn't so this would be torture.

And when you find something useful.. that implies it makes you think, and you do base opinions

I presume the variety here must be more objective for its variety than straightforward Reuters/CNN stories, at least you get to hear the other side more often.

[DanS]

One Foot: The Washington Post had a good series about a year ago, but I can't find it now.

The majority of the hijackers were from "Yemeni" Saudi Arabia. The flash point was as Dinodoc describes.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I found this amusing:

There might be a case for arguing that sanctions have indirectly killed a lot of Iraquis ("indirectly" because Iraq can buy all the food that it needs). But bombing? After all the recent televised use of precision-guided munitions in recent conflicts, why do so many people apparently still assume that "bombing" means carpet-bombing cities, Dresden-style?

But this guy tosses it in with "sanctions" as a cause of mass death. What about the thousands of people who die in the US every year due to Spider-Man comics and handguns? Or the millions who are dying in Africa due to the Disney Channel and AIDS?

Here you go Jack

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...aq1/000719.htm

An Interview With Dennis Halliday, Ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General Heading The UN Humanitarian Mission In Iraq

Resolution 1302 is a continuation of the Oil-for-Food programme, which was not designed to resolve the crisis in Iraq. When it was assembled in 1996, it was designed to stop further deterioration. But the fact is that Oil-for-Food has sustained the humanitarian crisis. Mortality rates of children under five years of age still remain at 5,000 per month, plus an additional 2,000-3,000 people per month among adults, other children and teenagers. These people are dying because of bad water, inadequate diets, broken down hospital care and collapsed systems.

We have massive malnutrition in Iraq, despite the Oil-for-Food programme. There is a huge social collapse, families falling apart with children out of school taking to the streets. The electric power is 35 per cent of what it was in 1990. So the Oil-for-Food programme has totally failed to bring about the well being of the Iraqi people. Having said that, it has, however, provided something like 20 million tonnes of basic food. It does make a huge difference in keeping the Iraqi people alive -- but only barely alive

Not so funny... maybe not a million over 10 years but close.

[DanS]

All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily.

[Arrian]

Yep. But people will happily blame us instead, Dan. Saddam's a bad dictator, so he's expected to do bad things, and we, of course, ought to know that and somehow prevent it. Or maybe we should just cave in and go away and leave him be. Then he'll be nice to his people.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DanS
All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily.

Exactly.
And the same point could be made about North Korea.
Here's a plagued country what can't even byild a road to the DMZ, but they claim to have nukes.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think Tom Morello was speaking from emotion. I can't say I entirely blame him... When Bush was first elect, I was generally unimpressed and rather indifferent to him. I was of the opinion that as long as he didn't majorly screw up, all would be well. Within his first few weeks, those sentiments turned to distrust. Then they became outrage. Then loathing, and by this point I would like nothing better than to take 100,000 of my countrymen and make the administration regret supporting the 2nd Amendment.



(btw, since nobody seems to know, Rage Against the Machine was a Socialist group, so when he accuses the President of letting the economy sink its because he would rather have the a Socialist government running the economy)... I'm just explaining! I'm not Socialist in any way myself!! Don't shoot this messenger!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS
One Foot: The Washington Post had a good series about a year ago, but I can't find it now.

The majority of the hijackers were from "Yemeni" Saudi Arabia. The flash point was as Dinodoc describes.

Ok... what can I tell you, I would love to read it. I'll try and dig something up.

just someting I found on Frontline

What's the different conclusion?

That depends on understanding the problem. The problem is a phenomenon consisting of at least four ingredients. The first ingredient is the huge hatred of the United States because of its polices in Palestine, its policies in Iraq, its policies in the Arabian Peninsula.

The second element of this phenomenon is the hopeless leaders in our region, which are regarded by people as oppressors, as traitors, as [stooges] for the United States

Interview with and Saudi exile... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ews/fagih.html

So the statement above (The principal causes of terrorism are US economic and military domination, or perceived domination, in the Middle East ) from is not so inaccurate according to that Saudi exile.

... There's an important point here that this hate is not the natural hate people have to a prosperous superpower. It's not that sort of hate. It's very specific hate for the sake of policies in the Middle East, which people perceive or understand that those policies are very much directed against them in terms of their identity, being Arabs and Muslims.

They ask themselves why, for God's sake, America sacrificed its interests for the case of defending Israel. The interests of America are in oil in the Gulf and other areas. Why would America lose money and lose face and get continuous embarrassment for the sake of defending the aggressive, very, very bad policies of Israel, and keep declaring that nobody should touch the security of Israel, and stand in a way in which America with all its huge machine becomes a tool for Israel to manipulate?

If it has interests in the region and it hates Saddam Hussein, why does [America] not contain Saddam alone and leave the people alone? Let the people eat and drink. Why should America starve 20 million people and Madeleine Albright stand up and say it is the price? ...

edit: I guess that this gives the answer to the posts in between too... it is not only Saddams fault, why does [America] not contain Saddam alone and leave the people alone? Let the people eat and drink. Why should America starve 20 million people and Madeleine Albright stand up and say it is the price? ...
I would add, is a frontal attack the only way to get rid of Saddam After 10 years of the embargo?

All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily.

Not entirely true. The UN 661 council, which has been responsible for the sanctions and humanitarian exceptions, has been an abject failure. It was undermanned, and couldn't approve contracts fast enough, or just bureaucratically inept.

In many cases, things like components and chemicals for water treatment, have been blocked by the veto power of the US and UK as 'dual-use' even when scientists declared this was clearly not the case.. Another instance was the case of $280 million worth of vaccines for diseases like hepatitis which were blocked because of the potential for culturing bioterror weapons-again biochemists stated this was flatly impossible. It wasn't until the Wash. Post and Reuters was ready to expose the matter that the US approved these contracts. The burden of blame for the decline in the health and welfare of the Iraqi people doesn't fall on Saddam.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


no I haven't read them, are they anywhere on-line?

By the way, did they leave journals with reasoning behind, as noone survived

Heres one I found today

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.p...ang=e&dir=news

[DanS]

"The burden of blame for the decline in the health and welfare of the Iraqi people doesn't fall on Saddam."

You might as well have led with the conclusion and skipped those "reasons".

FACT: Saddam could have provided for his people, but chose to buy weapons instead. He's been smuggling enough oil since the Gulf War to provide for his people, even outside the oil for food program.

[Arrian]

why does [America] not contain Saddam alone and leave the people alone? Let the people eat and drink. Why should America starve 20 million people and Madeleine Albright stand up and say it is the price?

How, exactly? There were two options: 1) conquer Iraq and remove Saddam and 2) leave him in power and attempt to "contain" him with sanctions and such.

Option #1, if I understand things correctly, was deemed to be a coalition-breaker. The coalition had been formed to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not to remove him from power.

Option #2 was chose, and not just by the US. Then, surprise surprise, it didn't work (have sanctions EVER worked?) and everyone blames us. The primary fault still lies with Saddam, even if our policy was a mistake.

-Arrian

FACT: Saddam could have provided for his people, but chose to buy weapons instead. He's been smuggling enough oil since the Gulf War to provide for his people, even outside the oil for food program.

He's only earning around $20-25 million a month through oil sales - a pittance compared to the massive financial/humanitarian burden created by the sanctions, and the bombing of power plants, water treatment facilities, etc.

It's a joke and a gross oversimplification to think that Saddam is "starving" his people. The sanctions, and their cynical use as a coercive tactic, have affected all aspects of the Iraqis' lives. Everything from educational materials to dental supplies has been held back either from bureaucratic ineptness, or to cater to the whims of the UN's strongest members.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Heres one I found today

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.p...ang=e&dir=news

this is about student strike in Techeran,


This article is nice

http://www.usatoday.com/community/ch...05-16-kirk.htm

Pittsburgh, PA: Why isn't this guy dead? Can't Delta Force get to him, or are the political repercussions of an assassination too much for the U.S. to chance?

Mike Kirk: Because real life is not a movie. Delta Force cannot drop in and assassinate any bad guys all by themselves. There was great planning involved in using a Delta team to kill bin Laden during the Clinton years, but when you total up the necessary extraction teams and other logistical elements, it became much more complicated than it seemed at first blush. If you doubt that, take a look back at what happened when we tried to rescue our hostages in Tehran, Iran. The mission was a failure and an embarrassment, and worst yet, there was a loss of many American lives. You can also look at the mission to extract Aideed from Mogadishu in 1993. Additionally, there are at least 11 Saddam Husseins walking around in Baghdad. Which one would you kill

[SpencerH]

Perhaps I misunderstood. Its a webpage of news from an arabic perspective (in english). I thought you wanted to read about what the Arabic world thinks of world events and countries such as the USA.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian


How, exactly? There were two options: 1) conquer Iraq and remove Saddam and 2) leave him in power and attempt to "contain" him with sanctions and such.

Option #1, if I understand things correctly, was deemed to be a coalition-breaker. The coalition had been formed to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not to remove him from power.

Option #2 was chose, and not just by the US. Then, surprise surprise, it didn't work (have sanctions EVER worked?) and everyone blames us. The primary fault still lies with Saddam, even if our policy was a mistake.

-Arrian

Well true, as 1) the Arab states were afraid of a democracy in Iraq, and they did not want to support it. and 2) well a failure, but US was not the only one that chose it.

Anyway, US is still singled out as the enemy because of Israel, still UK is becoming a very likely enemy #2.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Perhaps I misunderstood. Its a webpage of news from an arabic perspective (in english). I thought you wanted to read about what the Arabic world thinks of world events and countries such as the USA.

well I was asking whethere there was a link to "reasoning for 9-11" by the attacker, Dino says it is US army in Saudi Arabia, I thought one of the main reasons was Israeli occupation of Palestine and US support.

[Arrian]

Didn't one of the hijackers leave a note or something?

Other than that, OBL clearly has a burr up his ass about the troops in Saudi, and it is the basis for his "declaration of war" against the US in 1993. The Pals/Israeli dispute got tacked on post 9/11/01.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

While searching for a link re: 9/11 motivations, I came across the 1998 Fatwah vs. Americans by the World Islamic Front. Accordingly to the website, OBL helped author it.

The first and primary transgression listed is "occupation" of Saudi Arabia by US troops. The second is our actions vis-a-vis Iraq, and the third is our support for Israel.

Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

The accusations:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

-Arrian

[Lord Merciless]

Why OBL ultimately hates us:

Our support of the corrupt Saudi royals prevented him from overthrowing that unpopular regime and thus gaining resources to fund a world-wide Islamic revolution(terror campagne).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian
While searching for a link re: 9/11 motivations, I came across the 1998 Fatwah vs. Americans by the World Islamic Front. Accordingly to the website, OBL helped author it.

The first and primary transgression listed is "occupation" of Saudi Arabia by US troops. The second is our actions vis-a-vis Iraq, and the third is our support for Israel.

Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

The accusations:



Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

-Arrian

Excellent stuff, I was looking for something similar from transcripts of OBL's rhetoric but couldnt find it. "The crusader-zionist alliance" What a toad!

[Arrian]

That "crusader-zionist alliance" phrase is pretty commonplace in the ME... a lot of people buy into it.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

Why OBL ultimately hates us:

Our support of the corrupt Saudi royals prevented him from overthrowing that unpopular regime and thus gaining resources to fund a world-wide Islamic revolution(terror campagne).

There's the nail. Lord Merciless is the hammer. BAM! Right on the head...

[DanS]

"He's only earning around $20-25 million a month through oil sales "

You've got severe math problems and it's clear that you haven't checked Saddam's propaganda against reality.

You're off by a factor of 50x. More like $20-25 million a day through the "old" oil-for-food regime. This represented 60-70% of Iraq's OPEC quota. Then all he could smuggle above and beyond that was gravy.

Through the "new" oil-for-food program, he can sell as much as he wants, just as long as it's for food and medicine. And he's outputting about 2 million barrels of oil a day--100% of his OPEC quota.

Hell, the US was buying $20-25 million a day worth of oil from Iraq up until a couple of months ago.

"It's a joke and a gross oversimplification to think that Saddam is "starving" his people."

Let me guess. You also believe that Gulf War I wasn't Saddam's fault. Or the Iran-Iraq War.

This guy is bad news.

[Oerdin]

If you folks like this stuff then you should try listening to the Pacifica Network's broadcasts here in California. Pacifica bills itself as the "Voice of Progressive reason in a world dominated by Republican greed!"; when I first heard that statement I thought it was supposed to be a joke. Saddly it was true and the entire 24 hour a day broadcast is of old 60's radicals saying the same sort of stuff as in this thread.

I listen to it once in a while but I can only take so much of "Bush is an illegitamate President who stole the elections!" and "white culture's smoothering of minority cultures is only the latest phase in a racist Anglo-Saxon plot to dominate the world!" before I begin to laugh uncontrolably. I'm a Democrat and I can't even listen to it with a straight face!