[hyteckit]

I think China has a better way on dealing with terrorism compare to what the US is doing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/...china_pakistan

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I think China has a better way on dealing with terrorism compare to what the US is doing.

Huh? What's the difference to what the US is doing?

[f1000]

Pakistani militants killed three Chinese engineers in Pakistan, not in China; for the Chinese, it's a small price to pay to use Pakistan against both India and the United States.

China would react differently if Pakistanis rammed an A380 into the future Shanghai World Financial Center, collapsing it and killing tens of thousands of people. China regularly executes real terrorists, and it's invaded neighboring countries such as Korea, India, and Vietnam for lesser offenses.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by f1000

Pakistani militants killed three Chinese engineers in Pakistan, not in China; for the Chinese, it's a small price to pay to use Pakistan against both India and the United States.

China would react differently if Pakistanis rammed an A380 into the future Shanghai World Financial Center, collapsing it and killing tens of thousands of people. China regularly executes real terrorists, and it's invaded neighboring countries such as Korea, India, and Vietnam for lesser offenses.

Well, Iraq didn't crash a plane into the WTC. Hope you weren't brain washed by the Bush Admin.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Well, Iraq didn't crash a plane into the WTC. Hope you weren't brain washed by the Bush Admin.

You mean the left. They are the ones making the WTC <> Iraq connection.

The Bush Administration made the Terrorist <> Iraq connection.

The left spun that into "BUSH THINGS SADDAM WAS IN CHARGE OF 9-11!11"

[f1000]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Well, Iraq didn't crash a plane into the WTC.

No, Iraq didn't, but we invaded Iraq in order to suppress the spread of WMDs and to, frankly, humiliate Arabs (the fantasy bubble-deflation doctrine).

That still doesn't change the fact that you're making an absurd analogy between America's reaction post 9/11 versus China's reaction post three murdered engineers. The CCP is one of the last organizations to look towards for guidance on rational or enlightened policies.

Besides, those Pakistanis probably thought that the engineers were trying to invade their country. The poor Pakistanis weren't terrorists; they were freedom fighters! They probably killed those Chinese engineers using Chinese made AK-47's. No wonder Hu's smiling.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by f1000

No, Iraq didn't, but we invaded Iraq in order to suppress the spread of WMDs and to, frankly, humiliate Arabs (the fantasy bubble-deflation doctrine).

That still doesn't change the fact that you're making an absurd analogy between America's reaction post 9/11 versus China's reaction post three murdered engineers. The CCP is one of the last organizations to look towards for guidance on rational or enlightened policies.

Who's making an analogy between America's reaction post 9/11 versus China's reaction post three murdered engineers? I'm not. I'm just mentioning there are different ways of handling terrorism. US way so far created many new insurgents and suicide bombers. China's way is to create an environment where terrorism doesn't thrive.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

US way so far created many new insurgents and suicide bombers.

There is NO WAY to measure such a thing. Anyone that says this is spreading FUD.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

China's way is to create an environment where terrorism doesn't thrive.

Before there was a "war on terror," China had a different name for the crackdown on Uighur separatists. It was called the Strike Hard campaign. Part of a nationwide "anticrime" initiative, the Strike Hard campaign resulted in widespread arrests and even executions of political dissidents.

The border province of Xinjiang has thus become the death-penalty capital of the world, according to human-rights groups. While more prisoners are executed in China than in the rest of the world put together, the largest percentage are in this restive region–and almost all of the executed are Uighurs.

Uighur separatists in western China have carried out 260 attacks over the past decade, killing 160 people and injuring 440, state media reported Tuesday in a rare disclosure.

[Powerbook]

Ivan Danko: Chinese find way. Right after revolution, they round up all drug dealers, all drug addicts, take them to public square, and shoot them in back of head.
Art Ridzik: Ah, it'd never work here. ****ing politicians wouldn't go for it.
Ivan Danko: Shoot them first.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

China's way is to create an environment where terrorism doesn't thrive.

Isn't a bit early to tell, here? Replace "China" with "The U.S." and return to the very beginning of the Iraqi war decision.

Pakistan's government itself has been linked to many attacks around Kashmir in the past. Can you for certain say that they're in no way responsible for some of the more recent India-based attacks? Can you also say that China's friendly extension will change Pakistan's attitudes towards India?

Musharraf has made statements, since Pakistan attained nuclear status and had its brief stand-off with India (which arguably continues to this day), that he will no longer support those terrorist attacks, but I think you have to be more skeptical of the face value of words.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You mean the left. They are the ones making the WTC <> Iraq connection.

The Bush Administration made the Terrorist <> Iraq connection.

The left spun that into "BUSH THINGS SADDAM WAS IN CHARGE OF 9-11!11"

Bush did publicly stumble around the topic and connect the actual terrorist attack on American soil as at least part of the reasoning behind invading Iraq.

The Left were the ones that pointed out this discrepancy in order to discredit the administration.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You mean the left. They are the ones making the WTC <> Iraq connection.

The Bush Administration made the Terrorist <> Iraq connection.

The left spun that into "BUSH THINGS SADDAM WAS IN CHARGE OF 9-11!11"

You mean, asside from the Bush Administration being quoted as indicating they were? Then when confronted, didn't do anything to deter the idea that was propogating? Yes, this was a huge left spin. That's why after the speach that you claim he didn't say Iraq was responsible, over 70% of Americans believed Iraq was responsible.

It also didn't help that the Bush Administration would constantly name Iraq as "al Qaueda's allies" when referring to 9/11.

You're right, it's all left spin. I don't understand how people could possibly come to the conclusion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 from anything the Bush Administration said.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There is NO WAY to measure such a thing. Anyone that says this is spreading FUD.

Um... I didn't say "more", I said "many new".

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Isn't a bit early to tell, here? Replace "China" with "The U.S." and return to the very beginning of the Iraqi war decision.

Pakistan's government itself has been linked to many attacks around Kashmir in the past. Can you for certain say that they're in no way responsible for some of the more recent India-based attacks? Can you also say that China's friendly extension will change Pakistan's attitudes towards India?

Musharraf has made statements, since Pakistan attained nuclear status and had its brief stand-off with India (which arguably continues to this day), that he will no longer support those terrorist attacks, but I think you have to be more skeptical of the face value of words.

I said what China is trying to accomplish, not what it has done. Oh course it is too early to tell how successful China will be. Again, I'm just mention there are different ways of fighting terrorism.

I don't buy the whole "either you are with us or you are with the terrorist" that Bush said. Just because other countries are against the ways Bush is dealing with terrorism, doesn't mean those countries are with the terrorist. Pres. Bush anger many countries by saying that. Again, I'm just pointing out there are other ways of dealing with terrorism.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I said what China is trying to accomplish, not what it has done. Oh course it is too early to tell how successful China will be. Again, I'm just mention there are different ways of fighting terrorism.

You said: "China's way is to create an environment where terrorism doesn't thrive." Arguably, that is what the U.S. was trying to accomplish, too.

I don't buy the whole "either you are with us or you are with the terrorist" that Bush said. Just because other countries are against the ways Bush is dealing with terrorism, doesn't mean those countries are with the terrorist. Pres. Bush anger many countries by saying that. Again, I'm just pointing out there are other ways of dealing with terrorism.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, there are markedly different levels of terror here. Bush's response was to one kind; China's to another. Different parties are involved in each instance; different parties with different histories.

You're oversimplifying things here in almost every regard.

[thunderous_funker]

Depends on your definition of "terrorism"

[hyteckit]

Well, Iraq is on the verge of a civil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/...q_060222213536

[f1000]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Well, Iraq is on the verge of a civil war.

And much of the killing will be done with Sino-Soviet weapons,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sa...Iraq_1973-1990

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Well, Iraq is on the verge of a civil war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/...q_060222213536

Stop derailing the thread

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by f1000

And much of the killing will be done with Sino-Soviet weapons,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sa...Iraq_1973-1990

What does that show? China and US gave arms to Iraq.

So you are saying US is responsible for 9-11 because US funding Bin-Laden in the past?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Stop derailing the thread

How is that derailing? Not only has the Bush Admin created new insurgents and terrorist in Iraq, it has cause the eruption of a civil war.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Bush did publicly stumble around the topic and connect the actual terrorist attack on American soil as at least part of the reasoning behind invading Iraq.

Bush said Iraq was partially invaded because of the war on terrorists which had to do with 9/11

Being that this war was a war on terrorism in general against the US, and not just the 9/11 folks, what he said was true.

The left yet again spun it.

The Left were the ones that pointed out this discrepancy in order to discredit the administration.

No, they took what he said, added their own little projection and spun it. Just like what happens here.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Um... I didn't say "more", I said "many new".

there are "many new" terrorists popping up daily even BEFORE Iraq.

He guys since Iraq, I've had more farts.

Even though I've farted many times before Iraq, I am blaming it for my farting.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You mean, asside from the Bush Administration being quoted as indicating they were? Then when confronted, didn't do anything to deter the idea that was propogating? Yes, this was a huge left spin. That's why after the speach that you claim he didn't say Iraq was responsible, over 70% of Americans believed Iraq was responsible.

It also didn't help that the Bush Administration would constantly name Iraq as "al Qaueda's allies" when referring to 9/11.

You're right, it's all left spin. I don't understand how people could possibly come to the conclusion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 from anything the Bush Administration said.

Wow more spin.

"That's why after the speach that you claim he didn't say Iraq was responsible, over 70% of Americans believed Iraq was responsible."

Of course you are drawing a direct correlation to the two. I am betting before the speech you'd have gotten the same response.

And come on, 70% of the American's weren't even polled.

Thanks for proving my point.

You took a projection, and attempting to turn it factual. Good job.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The Bush Administration made the Terrorist <> Iraq connection.

Not just terrorist, the claim was an Al-Qaeda <> Iraq connection.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The left spun that into "BUSH THINGS SADDAM WAS IN CHARGE OF 9-11!11"

I recall the spin being more in the vein of "Bush is trying to deceive you".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by subego

Not just terrorist, the claim was an Al-Qaeda <> Iraq connection.

Right, there was proof that certain terrorists organizations were training their "troops" in Iraq.

Of course people claimed Saddam "Knew nothing about it"

I recall the spin being more in the vein of "Bush is trying to deceive you".

More baseless accusations. Bush isn't my fav president. Far from it.

But no one done any "deceiving"

The left saw the SAME information he did, and came to the SAME conclusion.

I guess the WHOLE GOVERNMENT right and left "deceived me" in that case.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

So you are saying US is responsible for 9-11 because US funding Bin-Laden in the past?

Allegations that the U.S. provided funding for bin Laden proved inaccurate

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What does that show? China and US gave arms to Iraq.

According to that chart, China sold 26 times the dollar amount of arms that the U.S. sold. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact sold 151 times the dollar amount of arms that the U.S. sold.

The weapons that Saddam used to maintain power, to wage war against Iran, and to fight and kill coalition forces in GWI/II were primarily of Sino-Soviet origin. Consequently, the majority of small arms fueling the insurgency are also of Sino-Soviet origin.

China is complicit in much of the misery around the world through its mass export of cheap anti-personnel weapons, such as versions of the ubiquitous AK-47. If civil war sweeps through Iraq, the weapons that will be used to maim and kill many of the civilians will have been made in the PRC.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Bush said Iraq was partially invaded because of the war on terrorists which had to do with 9/11

Being that this war was a war on terrorism in general against the US, and not just the 9/11 folks, what he said was true.

And yet Bush never spoke out about this when the Left began grilling him.

There's spin from both sides here, Kevin. The administration's spin is indirect. It garnered support for the Iraqi war by appealing to the emotions stirred by 9-11 in the vague, three-loop chain you mention above, never plainly and directly linking them, but never plainly and directly acknowledging the lack of connection, either. There was no real link between 9-11 and Iraq except the all-encompassing "terror."

This same "terror" connection could have allowed Bush to rationalize a war with a number of other countries with no link to 9-11, as well.

It's all spin. Both sides are full of it.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The left yet again spun it. [...T]hey took what he said, added their own little projection and spun it. Just like what happens here.

The Left spun it one way; the administration let it spin another. At least admit

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

How is that derailing? Not only has the Bush Admin created new insurgents and terrorist in Iraq, it has cause the eruption of a civil war.

This thread is about CHINA and PAKISTAN, not the U.S. of A!!!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

This thread is about CHINA and PAKISTAN, not the U.S. of A!!!

No, the only one derailing the thread is f1000.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

And yet Bush never spoke out about this when the Left began grilling him.

So what you are saying is, Bush was ignoring the Left when they started projecting ideas into what he said. I would too.

There's spin from both sides here, Kevin. The administration's spin is indirect. It garnered support for the Iraqi war by appealing to the emotions stirred by 9-11 in the vague, three-loop chain you mention above, never plainly and directly linking them, but never plainly and directly acknowledging the lack of connection, either. There was no real link between 9-11 and Iraq except the all-encompassing "terror."

They didn't deny or admit because THEY DIDN'T KNOW EITHER WAY. They DID know Iraq was in the middle of terrorist haven.

This same "terror" connection could have allowed Bush to rationalize a war with a number of other countries with no link to 9-11, as well.

It's all spin. Both sides are full of it.

AGAIN THE WAR WAS NOT JUST ABOUT 9/11!!!

I don't know HOW MANY TIMES I and other people have to say that in here.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So what you are saying is, Bush was ignoring the Left when they started projecting ideas into what he said. I would too.

It wasn't so much ignoring as not directly answering the questions. The answer was merely the terror-based rationalization that you and I both agree links 9-11 and Iraq, albeit quite indirectly. When you don't give a straight answer, it's spin.

I'm not siding with the Left or Right or administration, and I'm sorry if you feel the need to. No side is free from spin here.

Originally Posted by Kevin

They didn't deny or admit because THEY DIDN'T KNOW EITHER WAY. They DID know Iraq was in the middle of terrorist haven.

Didn't Powell once approach the public with Iraq-al-Qaeda links that had already been discounted by the governmental investigators involved with the information?

Originally Posted by Kevin

AGAIN THE WAR WAS NOT JUST ABOUT 9/11!!!

I don't know HOW MANY TIMES I and other people have to say that in here.

I never said the war was "JUST ABOUT" 9-11. I'm saying that its emotional significance played a big role in the public's permissiveness of war in the first place. You cannot deny this. And, of course, this is—in a way—spin. 9-11's link to terrorism spun among Iraq's tendencies of terror.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

It wasn't so much ignoring as not directly answering the questions. The answer was merely the terror-based rationalization that you and I both agree links 9-11 and Iraq, albeit quite indirectly. When you don't give a straight answer, it's spin.

No it's not a spin. If someone was to ask me if there was a connection, I too wouldn't give a definite answer because we have no definite facts. It's called actually being honest. "we don't know" "could be"

I'm not siding with the Left or Right or administration, and I'm sorry if you feel the need to. No side is free from spin here.

I am not siding for either as well. I am just pointing out WHAT HAPPENED.

Didn't Powell once approach the public with Iraq-al-Qaeda links that had already been discounted by the governmental investigators involved with the information?

I believe that was the yellow cake info, and it wasn't really discounted so much as they couldn't find any info that directly connected it. Of course such a thing wouldn't be pinned on the local BB. "Iraq looking for yellow cake, call Saddam"

I never said the war was "JUST ABOUT" 9-11. I'm saying that its emotional significance played a big role in the public's permissiveness of war in the first place. You cannot deny this.

You DO realize when Bush was running for election the first time, he over and over again, made comments about how he was going to take care of Iraq. That something needed to be done. He made attempt to hide his agenda with Iraq. IT was going to happen regardless of 9/11. This is something that should have been done back in 1991 with the first Gulf war IMHO. It's the reason I didn't vote for his Daddy the second time around (I voted for Clinton because he talked a tough talk against Iraq, little did I know, it was all talk)

And, of course, this is—in a way—spin. 9-11's link to terrorism spun among Iraq's tendencies of terror.

There is no spin. Iraq had terrorist training camps.

[Fireball XL5]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

This thread is about CHINA and PAKISTAN

Excellent Club Meds by the way. 2 's up.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No it's not a spin. If someone was to ask me if there was a connection, I too wouldn't give a definite answer because we have no definite facts. It's called actually being honest. "we don't know" "could be"

I am not siding for either as well. I am just pointing out WHAT HAPPENED.

Please point out, early on in the war, when anyone in the administration was direct with the public about the connection by saying either of your quotations above. I don't think there was an instance. Instead, the vague veil of terror ensnared both Iraq and 9-11, and sometimes there was little to no divide in the discussion.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I believe that was the yellow cake info, and it wasn't really discounted so much as they couldn't find any info that directly connected it. Of course such a thing wouldn't be pinned on the local BB. "Iraq looking for yellow cake, call Saddam"

So they couldn't find anything that directly connected it, but Powell went public with those non-existent connections anyhow?

Originally Posted by Kevin

You DO realize when Bush was running for election the first time, he over and over again, made comments about how he was going to take care of Iraq. That something needed to be done. He made attempt to hide his agenda with Iraq. IT was going to happen regardless of 9/11. This is something that should have been done back in 1991 with the first Gulf war IMHO. It's the reason I didn't vote for his Daddy the second time around (I voted for Clinton because he talked a tough talk against Iraq, little did I know, it was all talk)

I never said to the contrary. But you must admit, the public was more supportive of the war in the first place, though, because of the appeal to 9-11 emotion. And the political conversation that uses terror to spin together both 9-11 and Iraq IS spin.

Originally Posted by Kevin

There is no spin. Iraq had terrorist training camps.

It seems you just have a different definition of spin; it seems to only be spin to you if it's directly and blatantly connecting things, not when connections are more subtly implied.

[thunderous_funker]

Wow, I'm so glad we have a thread that is going to finally decide once and for all whether or not the pre-war intelligence was knowingly false but presented anyway by a cynical leadership to manufacture consent for the war they wanted.

Its about time you guys settled this one. Why on earth didn't we have this debate before?

[realitycheck2k]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No it's not a spin. If someone was to ask me if there was a connection, I too wouldn't give a definite answer because we have no definite facts. It's called actually being honest. "we don't know" "could be"

the name of the connection is al-zakawi.

[realitycheck2k]

if you need more information, check out the 9/11 report on the following website.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/
http://www.almidfarah.fanspace.com/i..._terr_even.htm
http://www.meforum.org/article/80

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Please point out, early on in the war, when anyone in the administration was direct with the public about the connection by saying either of your quotations above. I don't think there was an instance. Instead, the vague veil of terror ensnared both Iraq and 9-11, and sometimes there was little to no divide in the discussion.

I was giving examples of what they did say. They did say they didn't know for sure either way. AND THEY DIDN'T

So they couldn't find anything that directly connected it, but Powell went public with those non-existent connections anyhow?

Actually they had intelligence that said it was happening, when they sent someone to check it out, they said they couldn't find any information about it.

Powell was just giving the information out that was given to him.

I never said to the contrary. But you must admit, the public was more supportive of the war in the first place, though, because of the appeal to 9-11 emotion. And the political conversation that uses terror to spin together both 9-11 and Iraq IS spin.

I am not so sure, I didn't think it had anything DIRECTLY to do with 9/11, and most of the people I know, knew Bush was going after Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

It seems you just have a different definition of spin; it seems to only be spin to you if it's directly and blatantly connecting things, not when connections are more subtly implied.

Your definition of implied must be different than mine.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was giving examples of what they did say. They did say they didn't know for sure either way. AND THEY DIDN'T

The shouting has been, throughout this thread, unnecessary. Make your points with content, not volume. If they really did say that, please provide examples; that was my request that remains to be fulfilled.

Actually they had intelligence that said it was happening, when they sent someone to check it out, they said they couldn't find any information about it.

Powell was just giving the information out that was given to him.

And it was marked unreliable-to-bad intelligence before Powell brought it to the public anyway. The fact that he was "just giving the information out that was given to him" won't win me over as a good way of handling things; I expect any administration to analyze the situation a bit more before bringing it before the public as evidence. A lawyer that brings bad evidence to the case will lose.

I am not so sure, I didn't think it had anything DIRECTLY to do with 9/11, and most of the people I know, knew Bush was going after Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

And still, my statement stands. You cannot say, truthfully, that 9-11 had no emotional consequence on the public's willingness to initially support war.

Your definition of implied must be different than mine.

Must be.