Osama Bin Laden has done it again!

[Nate]

I rest my case. Sorry Al, but insulting those killed by Islamic terrorists by saying it's really Boooshs fault is just foul.

I'm pretty sure he was criticising the politics of fear (which is definately a Bush tactic) rather than claiming that Bush personally trained and contracted Osama. That said, the CIA certainly did train and supply the Taliban, not to mention the American and British governments inserting Saddam as dictator in Iraq.

[Patrick Vykkers]

The politics of fear, maybe, but valid fear. Islamic terrorism isn't a boogeyman that the real big evil neocons cooked up. It's a living, violent threat which threatens to destroy Western and Eastern civilization. It's not just major things, but relatively minor things. Like this;
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/article...0%20caricature
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...n_Britain&only
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...n_Somalia&only
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...d.35ce2b6.html
Before you say "Biased website! Biased website!" be aware that your own sources are almost certainly biased too. You can say that I am a "got my opinion from a website" fellow, but Havoc is even more. At least I go against the political flow here, which is, in the words of Mutual Friend;
"..the height of politics for your folks is that George [W.] Bush is stupid.."

[Al the Vykker]

I rest my case. Sorry Al, but insulting those killed by Islamic terrorists by saying it's really Boooshs fault is just foul.

People who can't see beyond their own irrational hatred of George W. Bush to see Osama=real threat=are just plain dumb.

I see you're a fan of Bill O'Reilly the way you just put words in my mouth and tried to make me out to be a a misguided or stupid conspiracy theorist. If you knew you're history, what I'm not talking about is anything to do with conspiracy theories blaming George Bush, etc. etc. etc.

We the United States government in this case, the CIA trained the Mujahadeen-Taliban and supplied them with weapons in the 1980's. Therefore, turning many Islamic factions radical and spawning the early Taliban-Al Queda to fight the Soviets and push them out of Afghanistan this included yes Osama Bin Laden. Further before that we supported Iraq and Saddam and before that our CIA was responsible for putting the current faction that is ruling in Iran. The correct term for what happened on 9/11 and other attacks is called by the CIA "Blow Back" meaning when we meddle overseas in other countries or regions, in this case the Middle East our security is compromised because we suffer retribution for what we are doing over there. Doesn't make what happened to us any better it is still awful what happened on 9/11 and unforgiveable.

So yeah I'm not insulting those killed by Islamic terrorists sir. I say we keep our noses out of trouble and make sure our house is in order before we try and destroy and rebuild new ones.

[Patrick Vykkers]

I see you're a fan of Bill O'Reilly the way you just put words in my mouth and tried to make me out to be a a misguided or stupid conspiracy theorist. If you knew you're history, what I'm not talking about is anything to do with conspiracy theories blaming George Bush, etc. etc. etc.

We the United States government in this case, the CIA trained the Mujahadeen-Taliban and supplied them with weapons in the 1980's. Therefore, turning many Islamic factions radical and spawning the early Taliban-Al Queda to fight the Soviets and push them out of Afghanistan this included yes Osama Bin Laden. Further before that we supported Iraq and Saddam and before that our CIA was responsible for putting the current faction that is ruling in Iran. The correct term for what happened on 9/11 and other attacks is called by the CIA "Blow Back" meaning when we meddle overseas in other countries or regions, in this case the Middle East our security is compromised because we suffer retribution for what we are doing over there. Doesn't make what happened to us any better it is still awful what happened on 9/11 and unforgiveable.

So yeah I'm not insulting those killed by Islamic terrorists sir. I say we keep our noses out of trouble and make sure our house is in order before we try and destroy and rebuild new ones.

It is true the CIA trained and financed the Muhajideen, Taliban and Iranian revolutionaries. However, they were radical in the first place. Saying 9/11 was blowback is absolutely ****ing despicable. It's like saying "But the Jews really were trying to ruin Germany's economy, so it's okay the Holocaust happened.".

9/11 was an attack by Islamic terrorists using political radicals as pawns in order to facilitate their desire to obey Allah's command to make the world Islamic. And I've never even watched Bill O'Reilly.

3000 people were murdered that day. And any equivilationist who starts screaming "But the West did worse!" is not worthy of sharing Earth's atmosphere with the families of those who died.

A similar thing happened with Beslan. Many Muslims and their apologists starting screeching "This is bad ,but Putin's troops killed kids too!". It's the standard Islamic and pro Islamic reaction to everything. It's a form of tu quo que and it's employed a lot these days. It also makes my blood boil, as while I have not lost family members to these attacks I feel incredibly angry towards those who try and humanize the human feces who committed these attacks.

[Havoc]

If you're saying 9/11 isn't a result of America's own arrogance then you're so bloody wrong. People don't fly planes into your buildings because they want to express their love for you you know?! These people hate America for whatever reason that may be, reasons I don't care about but which you can probably come up with if you think for a while.

As for any kind of concpiracy theory out there, I don't know. I don't know, you don't know, no-one on this forum knows what EXACTLY happened that day. And because I don't know I'm not one to shout "OMG I'M TOTALY SURE THAT HAPPENED!!1!!!111!" but there is one thing I do know and that is that the government's explaination of events was so full of stuff that didn't add up it has to at least make you wonder. There are to many coincidences surrounding 9/11, thats all.

[Patrick Vykkers]

I am very tempted to call you all sorts of names, but in the interests of civil debate I won't. The 9/11 conspiracy bullshit of Alex Jones and his masturbatory circle mates and Ron Paul droids has been debunked by Popular Mechanics, respected engineers, physicists, and, oh, the fact that SEVERAL THOUSAND PEOPLE SAW THE FRECKING TOWERS BEING CRASHED INTO BY TERRORISTS!

You sound just like Ward Churchhill. He called the 9/11 victims "Little Eichmanns"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_...sting_Chickens
9/11 was the fault of Islamic terrorists. It was not the fault of America, Bush, Blair, Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Team America, the Jews, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Darth Vader, Hitler, Brian Eno, Salad Fingers, Malaclypse the Younger or anyone else.

You are entitled to your religious and political views, though I do not share most of them. But insulting the victims of a tragedy with pathetic relativist bullshit means you get a "Racist Grave Desecrator" label from me.

[Nate]

No one is claiming that 9/11 is the act of anyone but terrorists. That doesn't mean that we can't have a thought about the terrorist's motives, horrible though they may be. Just because someone is a murderer, rapist, communist, New Zealander or terrorist doesn't mean they can't be right about something. America's foreign policy does leave a lot to be desired. Thankfully, American citizens are - on the whole - pleasant, welcoming people who are more than willing to profusely apologise for their government's actions.

[Patrick Vykkers]

I am not a New Zealander, FYI.

Explain to me what precisely is wrong about America's foreign policy. Havoc is claiming that it is America's fault that the terrorists attacked in the 1st place. To me, that's as ludicrous as saying that because America helped fund Great Britain against the Germans it's responsible for Pearl Harbour.

[Nate]

No, but meddling in a great many foreign countries is questionable at best, what with Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Probably my biggest problem of the last decade is that they invaded Iraq without giving the UN weapons inspectors enough time to do their jobs.

[Patrick Vykkers]

"Giving the UN enough time" is like trying to hold the Tour de France with a Downs Syndrome toddler.

Vietnam=communist oppresive dictatorship. Cuba=communist oppressive dictatorship. Afghanistan=Islamic oppressive dictatorship. Iraq=Oppressive dictatorship.

Why should democracy not be brought to the world? Why not beat communists at their own game with "white collar revolutions", where capitalist democracy shall be the one and only way, and through this the 3rd world shall flourish and merge with the 1st?

[Nate]

I have a strange vibe that you're being ironic but I'll bite anyway. Why not use warfare to bring a hacked-together version of democracy to third world countries?

For one thing, because the world couldn't survive if every nation was waging war on each other for such pointless reasons - it's a social contract just as much as how our society could not progress if murder or theft were acceptable and common.
Secondly, who are you to say that the US' view of the world is right and everyone else is wrong?
Thirdly, with the possible exception of Korea, it never works; even if America succeeds in kicking out their defined 'bad guys' we just end up having a bunch of broken nations with puppet leaders and a semblance of democracy.

[Patrick Vykkers]

I have a strange vibe that you're being ironic but I'll bite anyway. Why not use warfare to bring a hacked-together version of democracy to third world countries?

For one thing, because the world couldn't survive if every nation was waging war on each other for such pointless reasons - it's a social contract just as much as how our society could not progress if murder or theft were acceptable and common.
Secondly, who are you to say that the US' view of the world is right and everyone else is wrong?
Thirdly, with the possible exception of Korea, it never works; even if America succeeds in kicking out their defined 'bad guys' we just end up having a bunch of broken nations with puppet leaders and a semblance of democracy.

1;It worked (indirectly) in World War II
2;Who are you to say Britain's view of the world is right and all others are wrong? What right do you have to invade Germany for oil under the pretense of helping these damn Poles? You right wing fundamentalist absolutist intolerant judgemental JOO!
You remind me of this TV parody of Michael Moore. It had Moore narrating the battle of Normandy and preaching about;
"Who's to say their culture of gas chambers is any better or worse than our culture of no gas chambers?"
If you think Islamic "culture" of pedophilia, beheading, blaming rape victims for being raped, homophobia, racism, slavery and no freedom of speech or religion is equal to Western culture of child protection, human rights, women's rights, gay rights, the equality of all humans under the law and freedom, then I think you need to get your head checked.
3;Well, it's a start. Technology ought to remedy that problem over a century.

[Al the Vykker]

None of what I wrote was an excuse for Islamic radicalism or that the attacks were completely justified. You're merely demonizing me like you did before implying I don't love my country and that I seek to excuse things similar to the holocaust. Disgusting.

My final commentary on the matter clarified for you; I merely presented you facts and historical evidence supporting the fact that terrible things happen and sometimes there's more than oh they just hate Freedom, etc. or the cliche arguments that they are just pure evil. My point is the American people were the one's that suffer because of this, while people in the places of power in this government that should be doing what is right are just sitting on their asses and getting rich. Every decision has a consequence and by using the philosophy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend all the time over the last century, it's really bitten us in the ass.

I'd rather have us be isolationists and focus on protecting our citizen's individual rights. The problem with neo conservatives and most new age followers of this twisted form of conservatism that are zealots, is that they have forgotten that to question and have opposing views is still a right of the individual in this country. Worrying about our country and making sure the Constitution is obeyed is instead painted as disloyalty rather than what it really is, Patriotism. Look even Habeas Corpus is essentially dead after the bill that was past last year by congress, which was just tacked on as an afterthought. I can't stand hypocrisy and that's what's seething in our government right now. If we held true to our virtues and embodied pure democracy, rather than just pissing on the constitution and everything freedom stands for when it doesn't serve megalomanic will, then maybe the rest of the world would respect us again.

So what's your stance on China's government? They are still communist and oppressive to their people, yet you thought not to include them in this debate of those who "Oppose freedom."

[Patrick Vykkers]

I would include them in that category, and support the economic boycotting of the People's Republikkk of China. Military intervention may eventually be a useful option to liberate China from socialism.

Isolationism is a delusional, selfish policy. The "world" doesn't like the US because the sniveling, ungrateful little twits running the nations that hate the US don't remember that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers died in the fight against fascism and emperor worship. No matter what America does, the snivelling UN/EU toads and their dictator paymasters will always scream "Wrong! Wrong!".

I am not accusing you of being a snivelling toad, nor do I think you are a traitor. Concern for one's government is a noble endeavour, but please, look outside and focus on the bigger picture. Don't be a chickendove. Protest against Sharia law. Protest against the stoning of gays and women. Protest against the oppression of Tibet. Protest against the oppression of the Syrian, Cuban, Venezualan, Iranian, and all other oppressed peoples.

Isolationism will not work. No matter if we pull out and pay reparations, all that does is cut out some of the Islamic terrorists ammo. They will lose the support of many political radicals, but their own ire for the US will still continue. Osama bin Laden himself said that America must convert to Islam. That is what the Islamic terrorists want. Islam divides the world into Dar al Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al Harb (House of War). The only other house in the world is the house of truce, and truce is always temporary and worthless in Islam.

In fact, at the risk of getting whined at for picture posting, isolationism is basically this;


At the risk of developing a Chamberlain complex here, we cannot surrender. We cannot fail. We cannot stop until tyranny, oppression and injustice are destroyed worldwide. Consider this not the white man's burden, but the free man's burden. The civil war was fought partially to end slavery. This war shall be fought partially to end all slavery.

Call me a Wilsonian.

[Nate]

1;It worked (indirectly) in World War II

No, no it didn't. A war that lasted six years, killed millions of people and destroyed half of Europe does not count as 'working'.

2;Who are you to say Britain's view of the world is right and all others are wrong? What right do you have to invade Germany for oil under the pretense of helping these damn Poles? You right wing fundamentalist absolutist intolerant judgemental JOO!

Actually, in that metaphor, the US would most compare to the Germans; invading Poland without any particularly good reason.

human rights, women's rights, gay rights, the equality of all humans under the law and freedom...

I can't really see that the US is doing all that well at any of those under the current administration

3;Well, it's a start. Technology ought to remedy that problem over a century.

What the hell does that mean? We should just wait a century until the US has advanced enough military technology to stop the terrorists once and for all? Don't you think that the terrorists might adapt their modus operandi too?

[Patrick Vykkers]

1; And how do you explain the economic and demographic boom in the late 40s and the 50s?
2; Saddam was acting very suspiciously and not letting Blix and Co. snoop around. Not to mention that stockpiles of tactical level weapons like various gases and SCUDs have been found, not to mention the "Super Gun" project 10 years earlier.
3; The only folks the US is really oppressing in the 1st category is terrorists and suspected terrorists. Also, how does the US oppress women by allowing them to vote, run for office, and have the exact same rights as men? I agree gay rights are a little behind in America, but that's changing these days. On the 4th and 5th, regardless of the masturbatory fantasies of the tinfoil hat brigade, people aren't being shoved into black vans and marched into secret James Bond-esque camps to be tortured for Halliburton. Guantanamo has only had a few incidents related to journalists and mostly those have been resolved.
4;No, create the Democratic Empire and then wait for 100 years for everything to clear up. Nothing to do with waiting for terrorists. We should get them now.

[Nate]

1; And how do you explain the economic and demographic boom in the late 40s and the 50s?

People coming home from war and getting on with their lives?

2; Saddam was acting very suspiciously and not letting Blix and Co. snoop around. Not to mention that stockpiles of tactical level weapons like various gases and SCUDs have been found, not to mention the "Super Gun" project 10 years earlier.

He was cooperating towards the end. The Coalition didn't even give the weapon's inspectors time to analyse the 1000+ page documents Saddam published explaining what had happened to his weapons programs. Scuds and gases don't count as Saddam didn't deny he had them.

And thanks for providing me with a bug guffaw of laughter over the Super Gun - aside from the fact that the thing was never near completed, mentioning 10-year old technology (and I'll include the scuds and gases in that) is irrelevant to what was claimed as an ongoing weapons buildup.

3; The only folks the US is really oppressing in the 1st category is terrorists and suspected terrorists. Also, how does the US oppress women by allowing them to vote, run for office, and have the exact same rights as men? I agree gay rights are a little behind in America, but that's changing these days. On the 4th and 5th, regardless of the masturbatory fantasies of the tinfoil hat brigade, people aren't being shoved into black vans and marched into secret James Bond-esque camps to be tortured for Halliburton. Guantanamo has only had a few incidents related to journalists and mostly those have been resolved.

Women's rights is a debatable inclusion in that list but it's not hard to find people willing to argue that, while women are better off than they were 50 years ago, there's still plenty more to go, e.g. actual equal wages rather than just equal minimum wage, maternity rights, the number of female CEOs, etc. As for Human Rights, you'd have to be blind not to recognise the retraction of Habeus Corpus, the other goings on at Guantanamo, not to mention the CIA rendition programs as a breach of human rights.

4;No, create the Democratic Empire and then wait for 100 years for everything to clear up. Nothing to do with waiting for terrorists. We should get them now.

Huh?

[Mac Sirloin]

This is out of hand.

For gods sake, you two, have some juvenile integrity and just STOP.
We get it, Pat, you have inane beliefs in the US that simply aren't true, Human rights, gay rights, womans rights, the select few who acknowledge those are simply ignored by the sheer masses of stupid idiots that have small-prime directive minds and believe anything that the rich guy tosses to them.

And nate.
Set a goddamn example, if Pat emits his waves of unnecessary pro-invasion bollocks then just give him a custom rank lik- ah, I see.

No, seriously, guys, this topic was making fun of bin Laden, and you've turned it into a convoluted crapocalypse.
Shaddup.

[Patrick Vykkers]

People coming home from war and getting on with their lives?

He was cooperating towards the end. The Coalition didn't even give the weapon's inspectors time to analyse the 1000+ page documents Saddam published explaining what had happened to his weapons programs. Scuds and gases don't count as Saddam didn't deny he had them.

And thanks for providing me with a bug guffaw of laughter over the Super Gun - aside from the fact that the thing was never near completed, mentioning 10-year old technology (and I'll include the scuds and gases in that) is irrelevant to what was claimed as an ongoing weapons buildup.
Women's rights is a debatable inclusion in that list but it's not hard to find people willing to argue that, while women are better off than they were 50 years ago, there's still plenty more to go, e.g. actual equal wages rather than just equal minimum wage, maternity rights, the number of female CEOs, etc. As for Human Rights, you'd have to be blind not to recognise the retraction of Habeus Corpus, the other goings on at Guantanamo, not to mention the CIA rendition programs as a breach of human rights.
Huh?

Well, the UN admitted Saddam had WMDs; http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/arc...am_had_wmd.php
The New York Times said he had WMD capabilities;
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ities&only=yes
And several anti war groups said so;
http://againstcommies009.blogspot.co...idence-of.html

NOTE: These sources source from 3rd party sources, most of which are left wing, like the New York Times or BBC. So you can call the conduit biased, but not the source. You can yelll "selective!", but you can't deny the evidence IS there.

As for women's rights, the "equal wage" thing is both irrelevant (as you are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of results) and debunked; http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_det...?ArticleID=515 http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2005/0...y-myth-men.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/
http://bittersweet.ondragonswing.com..._gap_myth.html
http://ywcaboulder.org/get_involved/the_wage_gap.htm

Women can vote at the same age as men. They can have sex at the same age as men. They can run for the same offices as men. They can become CEOs. They can become doctors. They can become car mechanics. They can wear pants and show their midriffs.

I doubt that the CEOs running the corporations that supposedly discriminate against women truly hate women for their gender. I think it's just that they are part of an industry centered around bureaucracy and hard labour, both of which women often find irritating (much like men would normally find the cosmetics, fashion and childrearing industry irritating). Women have an enormous dominance in the education industry and social worker industry, and the most prominent Democrat candidate for president is a woman.

In Saudi Arabia, women are forced by the Islamic barbarians to wear burkhas or chadors. They are not afforded equal respect, equal rights, equal humanity both according to the government and Islam.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#34
I've provided it completely in context. Note the loving Islamic treatment of women?

As for the "Bewsh is rewning da cawnstitewshun and the CEEYIIAA is gunna take us away", well, I think we need to apply Jesus' phrase of looking at the beam in your own eye in reverse. Stop staring all day at the few splinters in the West's eye and focus on the forest in the non-Western one. Otherwise, we'd have people like you going (thanks to Jacob) "The Dresden bombing was immoral and illegal! We must seek understanding (TM) and Dialogue (TM)! There isn't an us or them! Naziism is an ideology of peace (TM) hijacked by a tiny minority (TM) of extremists!"

[Mac Sirloin]

Hey.







































Shut up.

[Nate]

Well, the UN admitted Saddam had WMDs; http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/arc...am_had_wmd.php
The New York Times said he had WMD capabilities;
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ities&only=yes
And several anti war groups said so;
http://againstcommies009.blogspot.co...idence-of.html

Source #1 is a far right website quoting a far right thinktank saying that Saddam had WMDs and that they'd been shipped out of the country. And if you read between the lines, they're blurring the distinctions between WMD and other weapons - how would a WMD have a UN inspection tag on it?

As for the other two; capability for building WMDs does not a WMD make. Operative sentence: "Some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications". Interesting how you didn't actually link to the NYTimes article, but instead to a blog that had selectively quoted it.

After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

EDIT: Even if Saddam did have WMDs, there was no justification for invading Iraq without the support of the Security Council.

You can BLAH BLAH all you like about Women's Rights but I had already stated that it was the borderline example in that list. And I suggest you take your own advice and stop believing that your worldview is the only legitimate one.

And just for a clarification: I don't hate the United States. I spent nine months there a few years back and have a bunch of friends that live there. What's more, I'm intending to go back to travel, study and maybe even work. But that doesn't mean that I'll sit back and forgive every mistake they make, just as I'll freely criticise the Australian government (for doing all of the above, among other things) and any other nation that's buggering up the world (i.e. all of them).

[Mac Sirloin]

Source #1 is a far right website quoting a far right thinktank saying that Saddam had WMDs and that they'd been shipped out of the country. And if you read between the lines, they're blurring the distinctions between WMD and other weapons - how would a WMD have a UN inspection tag on it?

As for the other two; capability for building WMDs does not a WMD make. Operative sentence: "Some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications". Interesting how you didn't actually link to the NYTimes article, but instead to a blog that had selectively quoted it.


EDIT: Even if Saddam did have WMDs, there was no justification for invading Iraq without the support of the Security Council.

You can BLAH BLAH all you like about Women's Rights but I had already stated that it was the borderline example in that list. And I suggest you take your own advice and stop believing that your worldview is the only legitimate one.

And just for a clarification: I don't hate the United States. I spent nine months there a few years back and have a bunch of friends that live there. What's more, I'm intending to go back to travel, study and maybe even work. But that doesn't mean that I'll sit back and forgive every mistake they make, just as I'll freely criticise the Australian government (for doing all of the above, among other things) and any other nation that's buggering up the world (i.e. all of them).

Canada can do no wrong, Afghanistan actually WANTS us there now.