Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > It's about time the world let Israel take care of some terrorists

It's about time the world let Israel take care of some terrorists (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 01:45 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
How is the US opressing the Saudi people?
1. Send money and keep good relations with the royal family.

2. Send military equipment to the royal family.

3. Haven't pushed for free elections.

etc etc etc.

You support a totalitarian regime so you can get cheap oil while forgetting the people living ubder that same regime.

Same with the support for Israel.

and the list goes on.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 01:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
1. Send money and keep good relations with the royal family.

2. Send military equipment to the royal family.

3. Haven't pushed for free elections.

etc etc etc.

Oh so it's about what you THINK we should do. No about what we HAVE done.

You support a totalitarian regime so you can get cheap oil while forgetting the people living ubder that same regime.

You mean that is of your opinion.

Same with the support for Israel.

and the list goes on.
So we are supporting Isreali gov to get free cheap oil too?

Wow Logic. And where did you say you get all your information from?

"middleeastpropagandaweekly.com' ?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 01:52 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Example, or are you just buying into terrorist rhetoric?
Your own words. Again, what you see as "influence" may be seen by those you're influencing as "oppression". Not everyone likes to be "influenced".

Originally posted by dcolton:
If the US didn't exert her influence in the ME, the region would be more unstable than it is now...
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 01:53 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow Logic. And where did you say you get all your information from?

"middleeastpropagandaweekly.com' ?


No obviously we support Israel so that we have some influence in the region... no wait, but we already oppress all the other Arab countries by supporting unpopular regimes. And um, we have military bases... So wait, um, but, Israel... influence... McDonald's... err
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 02:37 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Your own words. Again, what you see as "influence" may be seen by those you're influencing as "oppression". Not everyone likes to be "influenced".
I asked a pretty specific question. I asked for an example. Does this mean that you can't think of an example to justify your opinion?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 02:42 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
I asked a pretty specific question. I asked for an example. Does this mean that you can't think of an example to justify your opinion?
And my answer is your admission. You have admitted that the US exerts "influence" over the middle east. I've only said that some people in the middle east may perceive that "influence" as "oppression"
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 02:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Your own words. Again, what you see as "influence" may be seen by those you're influencing as "oppression". Not everyone likes to be "influenced".
They want our money, they want our goods, but they don't want our influence? Sorry but "tough sh*t".

As I've said countless times, "if you don't want us sticking our noses into your business don't; sell us things, buy our stuff, and above all never take a handout from us". How hard is that to understand?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 02:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And my answer is your admission.
Is this some sort of Canadian game you are playing? Give me an example of how the US oppresses ME nations.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 02:57 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Is this some sort of Canadian game you are playing? Give me an example of how the US oppresses ME nations.
Must be some Canadian game. We don't play those kind of silly games down here.

As for the Mideast, perhaps he means we are oppressing Egypt ? I mean we do give them craploads of dollars in aid each year.

Perhaps he means we are oppressing Kuwait or Suadi Arabia ? I mean we did sacrifice US lives inorder to save the butts of those two countries when a tyrannical madman decided to invade.

Perhaps he means we are oppressing Iraq ? I mean, we did dispose of their resident madman/dictator/rapist/regime from hell, and now the people are free to do what they wish, and they actually will have a future.

Those SOB's in the mideast who we are sacrificing US lives for and those we give money to should show some damn gratitude, instead of sending people over to blow up our buildings.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 03:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And my answer is your admission. You have admitted that the US exerts "influence" over the middle east. I've only said that some people in the middle east may perceive that "influence" as "oppression"
And the middle east doesn't exert influence over other countries? *cough*OPEC*cough*. Not to mention the middle east wasn't always muslim. How did it grab such a a strangle hold on the middle east? Peace? Don't make me laugh.

Can one of the palestinian supporters please explain why, with such an established history, the palestinians picked an egyptian born terrorist to lie about his heritage in order to be their leader? There must have been plenty of able candidates from right there in palestine.


You reap what you sow.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 03:40 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
And the middle east doesn't exert influence over other countries? *cough*OPEC*cough*.
The creation of OPEC was originally encouraged by the US to exert influence over the Soviet Union in an effort to strangle to Soviet ecomony while providing cheap oil to the US. Brilliant move on the part of the US and the largest contributer to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 03:42 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
They want our money, they want our goods, but they don't want our influence? Sorry but "tough sh*t".

As I've said countless times, "if you don't want us sticking our noses into your business don't; sell us things, buy our stuff, and above all never take a handout from us". How hard is that to understand?
I agree 100%. If they don't want US influence, they should stop selling oil to the US and buying US products. I'm not saying their arguments are justified.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 03:44 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Is this some sort of Canadian game you are playing? Give me an example of how the US oppresses ME nations.
YOU - have - already - said - that - the - US - influences - the - middle - east. I - am - only - saying - that - some - people - who - live - in - the - middle - east - might - perceive - that - influence - as - oppression.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 03:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The creation of OPEC was originally encouraged by the US to exert influence over the Soviet Union in an effort to strangle to Soviet ecomony while providing cheap oil to the US. Brilliant move on the part of the US and the largest contributer to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
LOL. A revisionist as well. I am sure the US encouraged OPEC, but there is much more to the story than your version. CHeck out the real history at opec.org
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 04:32 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
They want our money, they want our goods, but they don't want our influence? Sorry but "tough sh*t".

As I've said countless times, "if you don't want us sticking our noses into your business don't; sell us things, buy our stuff, and above all never take a handout from us". How hard is that to understand?

and there you have the perfect example of why the world hates us.....

1. you have the arrogance to assume what we have is what everybody wants
2. you have naivete to assume our influence is beneficial
3. you have gall to establish a quid pro quo: goods must equal interference (intentionally used instead of "influence") in how another sovereign nation wants to do their OWN business.

What you are describing is extortion, at best.
At worst, its imperialism or "global leadership".
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 04:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and there you have the perfect example of why the world hates us.....

1. you have the arrogance to assume what we have is what everybody wants
2. you have naivete to assume our influence is beneficial
3. you have gall to establish a quid pro quo: goods must equal interference (intentionally used instead of "influence") in how another sovereign nation wants to do their OWN business.

What you are describing is extortion, at best.
At worst, its imperialism or "global leadership".
1. Everybody doesn't want money/ aid? What if we just quit? What if we decided not to impose any influence on any nation?

2. I would say aid is quite beneficial...wouldn't you? Ever here of the term - win/win? Why would we provide aid and not expect cooperation or a degree of influence. I think it is pretty naive to think that providing aid in an effort to form friendships and alliances is something negative. Or would you rather see humans starve, suffer under brutal dictatorships or watch unstable regions go to war.

3. If the nation didn't need the goods, why would they accept it?

WHat he described is nOT extortion...it is relationship building/.
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 04:47 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and there you have the perfect example of why the world hates us.....

1. you have the arrogance to assume what we have is what everybody wants
2. you have naivete to assume our influence is beneficial
3. you have gall to establish a quid pro quo: goods must equal interference (intentionally used instead of "influence") in how another sovereign nation wants to do their OWN business.

What you are describing is extortion, at best.
At worst, its imperialism or "global leadership".
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 04:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and there you have the perfect example of why the world hates us.....

1. you have the arrogance to assume what we have is what everybody wants
Damn straight. A portion of the world is comprised of money grubbing beggars and lowlifes who want our money, while plotting to kill us at the same time.

And you're playing into the propaganda of the enemy with your "the whole world hates us" crap. Yeah, some in the world hates us, and some like us. We have all the important countries that matter on our side, the rest can go to hell. Much of the "hate" directed at us is coming from primitive, illiterate fools, living in places ruled by dictators anyhow. That's who hates us. Let those fools continue to hate. They are the ones who will have to continue and live their miserable, worthless lives.

Your crap is what makes people spit on Lance Armstrong. Your crap is what fuels the anti-USA sentiments around the globe, and you are nothing but a mouthpiece for the enemy, and the people who hate us.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 04:55 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
1. Everybody doesn't want money/ aid? What if we just quit? What if we decided not to impose any influence on any nation?

2. I would say aid is quite beneficial...wouldn't you? Ever here of the term - win/win? Why would we provide aid and not expect cooperation or a degree of influence. I think it is pretty naive to think that providing aid in an effort to form friendships and alliances is something negative. Or would you rather see humans starve, suffer under brutal dictatorships or watch unstable regions go to war.

3. If the nation didn't need the goods, why would they accept it?

WHat he described is nOT extortion...it is relationship building/.
sorry, I stand completely and forthrightly behind what I said. I stated the truth, you are only offering rationalizations to make yourself feel better.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 04:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sorry, I stand completely and forthrightly behind what I said. I stated the truth, you are only offering rationalizations to make yourself feel better.
You don't have to apologize, but I would like for you to explain how your views are facts while mine are rationalizations.

I am beginning to agree with Pachead. What is it like to be manipulated and exploited by our enemies?
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 05:00 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Damn straight. A portion of the world is comprised of money grubbing beggars and lowlifes who want our money, while plotting to kill us at the same time.

And you're playing into the propaganda of the enemy with your "the whole world hates us" crap. Yeah, some in the world hates us, and some like us. We have all the important countries that matter on our side, the rest can go to hell. Much of the "hate" directed at us is coming from primitive, illiterate fools, living in places ruled by dictators anyhow. That's who hates us. Let those fools continue to hate. They are the ones who will have to continue and live their miserable, worthless lives.

Your crap is what makes people spit on Lance Armstrong. Your crap is what fuels the anti-USA sentiments around the globe, and you are nothing but a mouthpiece for the enemy, and the people who hate us.
I strongly disagree...I'm ten times the american patriot you could ever hope to be.
you want to trade our birthright for oil. YOU"RE the traitor, sir. you should be ashamed.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and there you have the perfect example of why the world hates us.....

1. you have the arrogance to assume what we have is what everybody wants
2. you have naivete to assume our influence is beneficial
3. you have gall to establish a quid pro quo: goods must equal interference (intentionally used instead of "influence") in how another sovereign nation wants to do their OWN business.

What you are describing is extortion, at best.
At worst, its imperialism or "global leadership".
Yep. As I said though, "tough sh*t". It's their choice.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 05:03 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I strongly disagree...I'm ten times the american patriot you could ever hope to be.
you want to trade our birthright for oil. YOU"RE the traitor, sir. you should be ashamed.
This has to do with homicidal maniacs flying their planes into our buildings, not oil.

When we went and fought the fanatical Japanese and the deranged Nazi Germans in WW2, we did not do it for the Sushi or for the Weinerschintzels.

The enemy is going down, oil or no oil.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 05:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I strongly disagree...I'm ten times the american patriot you could ever hope to be.
Attacking someone's "patriotism"? I thought we weren't supposed to BE "patriots".

"I'm such a man, look how "American" I am".

That's just pathetic.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 05:08 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and there you have the perfect example of why the world hates us.....

"The World" does not hate us. Keep the Drama for your momma.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 05:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I stated the truth
No, you are stating your opinion.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 05:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I strongly disagree...I'm ten times the american patriot you could ever hope to be.
you want to trade our birthright for oil. YOU"RE the traitor, sir. you should be ashamed.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 08:52 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The creation of OPEC was originally encouraged by the US to exert influence over the Soviet Union in an effort to strangle to Soviet ecomony while providing cheap oil to the US. Brilliant move on the part of the US and the largest contributer to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And Arrafat? Why will no one answer that simple question?

You reap what you sow.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 09:07 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
This has to do with homicidal maniacs flying their planes into our buildings, not oil.

When we went and fought the fanatical Japanese and the deranged Nazi Germans in WW2, we did not do it for the Sushi or for the Weinerschintzels.

The enemy is going down, oil or no oil.
And that explains Saddam?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 09:13 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Your crap is what makes people spit on Lance Armstrong. Your crap is what fuels the anti-USA sentiments around the globe, and you are nothing but a mouthpiece for the enemy, and the people who hate us.
Yes, yes, it's the new Anti-Semitism� (moki).

Actually, Packy, it's crap like Lerkfish's which is responsible for what little respect America has left worldwide.

It's YOUR ilk's attitude that's getting people to strap bombs to themselves.

I think jcadam once put it oh so succinctly:
Posted by jcadam in 2002:
You are just upset because we have global interests and we want to protect them. The Europeans had their time in the sun (1500s - 1900). It's our turn to run the show now, so just bend over and take it.
And you wonder why American "influence" might somewhere be perceived as "oppression"?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 09:19 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
And Arrafat? Why will no one answer that simple question?
"And Arrafat" is not a question. What is your question regarding Arrafat?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 09:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
And that explains Saddam?
Terrorists flew planes into American buildings. Saddam supported terrorists. It doesn't matter that the terrorists Saddam supported weren't associated with the ones that flew planes into American buildings. It doesn't even matter that resources were diverted from finding the terrorists who attacked America (they will be found in late October). And, even if it DOES matter, well, those terrorists had training camps in Iraq, and even though Saddam wasn't actually supporting them, he let them be there and that's just as bad (though it doesn't matter that those same terrorists had, and probably still have, training camps in America).

And, if ALL of that doesn't matter, Saddam was a BAD man (though it doesn't matter that there are MANY bad men in the world ... Gadhafi, for example. But, of course, he's an ally ... though it doesn't matter that Saddam was once an ally too ...)
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 09:43 PM
 
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Actually, Packy, it's crap like Lerkfish's which is responsible for what little respect America has left worldwide.

You mean from the leftys.

American has TONS of respect. Time to break out of your narrow world Spheric.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 09:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Terrorists flew planes into American buildings. Saddam supported terrorists. It doesn't matter that the terrorists Saddam supported weren't associated with the ones that flew planes into American buildings.

I know I said I would just point and laugh the next time someone makes a comment like this., but I just have to comment because I respect Wisk a bit more than that.

Wisk, where did Bush say that this was just a war on the 9/11 terrorists?

AGAIN.

This is a war on TERRORISM. And those who SUPPORT THEM. Not just the 9/11 terrorists.

It wouldn't be so aggravating Wisk if I hadn't known you've been told this over and over again before.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 09:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
"And Arrafat" is not a question. What is your question regarding Arrafat?
You're right. Because I posed the question twice in this thread and at least once in another thread before. But for the sake of finally (hopefully) getting an answer, here it is again.

Originally posted by deomacius:Can one of the palestinian supporters please explain why, with such an established history, the palestinians picked an egyptian born terrorist to lie about his heritage in order to be their leader? There must have been plenty of able candidates from right there in palestine.

You reap what you sow.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 10:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know I said I would just point and laugh the next time someone makes a comment like this., but I just have to comment because I respect Wisk a bit more than that.


Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wisk, where did Bush say that this was just a war on the 9/11 terrorists?
I'm well aware that Bush never said that this was just a war on the 9/11 terrorists. Though, increasingly I'm becoming convinced that was done for the sole purpose of diverting American anger over 9/11 from Al Qaeda to Saddam.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 10:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I'm well aware that Bush never said that this was just a war on the 9/11 terrorists.

Not only did he NOT say it was just a war in the 9/11 terrorists. He claimed it was on ALL terrorists.

Though, increasingly I'm becoming convinced that was done for the sole purpose of diverting American anger over 9/11 from Al Qaeda to Saddam.
Well that is your opinion.

But that doesn't explain why you keep bringing up the question as to why we attacked Iraq when they had nothing to do with 9/11.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 10:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not only did he NOT say it was just a war in the 9/11 terrorists. He claimed it was on ALL terrorists.
I think many of us thought he would at least attempt to get rid of the 9/11 terrorists first (though, I understand that Saddam was an easier target and the election was coming up soon so Bush needed a major success in the War on Terror)

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But that doesn't explain why you keep bringing up the question as to why we attacked Iraq when they had nothing to do with 9/11.
Because, I think Bush should have dealt with al Qaeda before moving on to Saddam. Saddam was obviously the less immediate threat. There were so many failed attempts by the Bush admin to connect Saddam with al Qaeda that I cannot help but think Bush had reasons other than terrorism for invading Iraq and just used terrorism as an excuse; why all of the al Qaeda and WMD crap when they knew the evidence on both was sketchy at best? Why not just go straight to the Palestinian terrorist connections right from the start? It's all of the different excuses for invasion that make the whole thing taste so bad.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 10:42 PM
 
***Sigh***

Still waiting.

You reap what you sow.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 10:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think many of us thought he would at least attempt to get rid of the 9/11 terrorists first (though, I understand that Saddam was an easier target and the election was coming up soon so Bush needed a major success in the War on Terror)

100% silly. You assumed.

Because, I think Bush should have dealt with al Qaeda before moving on to Saddam. Saddam was obviously the less immediate threat. There were so many failed attempts by the Bush admin to connect Saddam with al Qaeda that I cannot help but think Bush had reasons other than terrorism for invading Iraq and just used terrorism as an excuse; why all of the al Qaeda and WMD crap when they knew the evidence on both was sketchy at best? Why not just go straight to the Palestinian terrorist connections right from the start? It's all of the different excuses for invasion that make the whole thing taste so bad.
Wis even the 9/11 commission said that there was NO DOUBT Iraq had connections with the al-qaeda. But I am sure you know better.

That STILL doesn't explain why you acted as if Bush said it was only a 9/11 war.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 10:58 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
Can one of the palestinian supporters please explain why, with such an established history, the palestinians picked an egyptian born terrorist to lie about his heritage in order to be their leader?
No. Though I don't really consider myself a Palestinian supporter (though I know others do)
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 11:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
No. Though I don't really consider myself a Palestinian supporter (though I know others do)
Thanks for the honest answer. Now don't you find that kind of strange? I mean with all the palestinians that are said to have been there, they couldn't have picked ONE from among themselves to lead?

You reap what you sow.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 11:03 PM
 
Heck the Palestinians themselves are actually Jordanians. There whole cause is based on dishonesty.
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 11:25 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
***Sigh***

Still waiting.
I"m not a palestinian supporter, but since you're impatient, I'll offer my take, which is on men of power in general, not arafat specifically (though some might argue whatever power arafat had at one time has evaporated)

Rarely are men who come to power qualified or ethically suited for the job. Mainly, it takes ambition or circumstance (being in the right place at the right time), the ability to capitalize on opportunities or develop an impression of cachet. The ability to convince a large enough group of people that he acts in their interests instead of his own (even if this is not true), or the sheer will to make enough sacrifice/hostility/strategic investment to garner his interests and secure them for a time.

In the case of palestinians, there are more qualified people than I to answer that, but my impression is that anytime you oppress or restrict any group that is relatively powerless, they will seek leaders that appear to give them strength or direction, even if it is a failed direction. I"m not saying the palestinian cause is just or unjust, I'm only saying that when you stress a group over a long period of time, give them less rights and priveleges, or less land, whatever, you will see them pinning their hopes on leaders that have either the apparent strength, temerity or savvy to work towards releasing that pressure.

In that vein, you have Martin Luther King, Crazy Horse, Nelson Mandela, Stalin, Ghandi, etc.

You'll notice that list does not portray moral or ethical equals, but rather displays how leaders are drawn or chosen for various reasons to become standard bearers for those in an oppressed group.

As an aside, I think you might be assuming that someone who criticizes Sharon lauds Arafat, but that is not necessarily so. I find that they both have done their part to exacerbate the situation rather than resolve it. For that reason, regardless of their side, they are equally dangerous at various times (I say various times because it seems arafat is largely disenfranchised at the moment, but Sharon is in full power).

I"m really not sure what you imply by saying that palestinians should have chosen one of their own, and that by not doing so it invalidates their cause.
I could similarly ask why republicans are so fond of Scharzenegger. He's not american-born, yet is the governor of California. Does that mean there were no other qualified californians to run the state, or does that mean circumstances rolled the dice a certain way, and he and his backers capitalized on that roll?
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 11:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heck the Palestinians themselves are actually Jordanians. There whole cause is based on dishonesty.
Heck the Americans themselves are actually displaced europeans. Their whole cause is based on dishonesty.

now...does that make any sense? of course not.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 11:33 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
Can one of the palestinian supporters please explain why, with such an established history, the palestinians picked an egyptian born terrorist to lie about his heritage in order to be their leader? There must have been plenty of able candidates from right there in palestine.
I'm not sure he was ever really picked, didn't he found the PLO himself in the 60s? I always seem to forget the details of his circumstances...
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 11:47 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Heck the Americans themselves are actually displaced europeans. Their whole cause is based on dishonesty.

now...does that make any sense? of course not.
No because we aren't denying that fact.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2004, 11:53 PM
 
Originally posted by itai195:
I'm not sure he was ever really picked, didn't he found the PLO himself in the 60s? I always seem to forget the details of his circumstances...
Yes, he founded the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1964, 3 years before they were "occupied", or needed to be liberated. Go figure.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2004, 07:42 AM
 
itai, dcolton, macnstein, pachead and deomacius,
you have demonstrated so much confusion in this thread, that I can't take time to explain everything you (subconsciously?!) want clarification on for everyone of you individually, as most it is overlapping each other. So, if you allow I will try to do it all at once, eventhough if you have made the effort to read my last big post in this thread you would have found the answers you seek (subconsciously):

You have multiple times asked, how the US oppresses the arabic world, and why the arabs let it happen if they don't want thaz oppression, why they sell their ressources to the US, etc:

It's theoretically really easy. The US took over the control over the arabic colonies from Europe, to be exact from Britain and France, because they had destroyed their military and financial power in two devastating worldwars. They were both economically and military too weak to keep the control.

Britain already knew that after worldwar1, and developed a new strategy to keep the control of the arabic countries for the purpose of ressource-flow from there to Europe: They educated a small elite in every colony that they wanted to give over the direct control, while Britain controls that elite.

That would have made it possible to reduce the occupation and troops used for that considerably, while they would just man a few militarybases in every colony. That trained and educated elite should control and excersise the daily work of governing the colonies while economy- and military- and foreign policies (aka strategies) get decided by Britain. The decisions then would have to be executed by the local governors, even if they are against the interest of the own people.

In order to make sure that the local governors do what they should do, they are financed with (at that time immense) sums, and basically made rich beyond recognition. In addition to that buying of willing souls, they are equipped with enough military strength to keep the masspopulations in cheque. Off course money flows from the local governors to the police-state underneath it, with all its bureaucracy, administration, like police, judges, directors, etc.. That's why that whole system is so corrupt, it's not based on right, democracy or nationalism, it's just based on money, power and connections.

That local governors and the dictatorial police-state keep the country stable, which means they squash the beginning of any rebellions, demonstrations or opposition-like political activity from the beginning, at least they try it with harsh means, like emprisonments, torturings, and executions.

For what purpose this whole system was thought up? Off course, so that the markets of those neo-colonies stay open to western products, while the ressources flow out of the country to the west, price doesn't matter, what matters is the quantity. What that means is off course that the domestic markets and industries can't develop satisfactorily.

That means that these countries stay poor and underdeveloped indefinetly,as no dynamics can spark.

The brilliant aspect in that regard, is that should an installed local governor get a bad conscious, and start acting against the set out economic policies, and try to keep more of the ressources of the country for the development of the own industry, the Brits could always cut the financiation of that local governor and instead offer money and power to another local governor, while the former governor gets toppled through a military coup of the army, that is highly dependent on the money and weapons of the west.

That system britain wanted to install in order to replace the much more costly direct colonialism. But worldwar2 came inbetween, and after it even the much less expensive model was not financable by Britain, so the US stepped in, overtook and executed the model Britain had thought up.

Israel in that regard plays the role of the independent military- and spy-base, from which the US can spy upon the local governors, and for the improbable case that all arabic countries topple their dictatorial regimes, and massive military-intervention would be necessary to restore the old system.

So, to claim, that when the arabs don't want US-influence, they should just stop the selling of oil to the US is pretty naive and ignorant.

Taliesin
     
version
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Bless you
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2004, 08:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Not only did he NOT say it was just a war in the 9/11 terrorists. He claimed it was on ALL terrorists.
[/B]
Really? So when do we get to see US troops in N. Ireland? How about Spain, to combat ETA? Or how about the reality of Sudan in which Christian militias have been using terrorism against the Muslim Government? What exactly is your definition of terrorism? Or maybe Bush's war on terror is a blank cheque, and a cover story to wage war on any peoples he deems to be a threat to US interests.

It all makes for a very hypocritical foreign policy, IMO.
A Jew with a view.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,