Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Of course. We WILL be attacked again, but so far, recent methods of deterring them have been far more effective than all of Bill Clinton's appeasement. For empirical evidence, Google "terrorist attacks" during the time of his presidency.
|
If we will be attacked again, then the argument that there have been no terror attacks on American soil since 9/11 is made disingenuously to prove that Bush is our successful protector. I also am aware of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, but the perpetrators of that attack were convicted and jailed. The score between Bush and Clinton for Al Queda attacks on American soil is 1:1. Also, Clinton's "appeasement" came in the form of cruise missiles. I will accept the argument that the missile attack was ineffective, but it hardly rates as appeasement or negotiation.
Quote:
|
By your definition then, we "interfered" in Germany and Japan around sixty years ago.
|
Non-sequitur and a false analogy. There is a difference between a declared war with nation-states and the invasion of a country without a
causus belli with the subsequent hijacking of resources. Our noble actions in WWII does not automatically exonerate our imperialistic endeavors after that war. If terrorists were upset about our direct actions against Germany and Japan in WWII, then I suppose the argument would be valid.
Quote:
|
You lost me with your first nine words, since they were incredibly lacking in perspective. The rest followed suit.
|
If you disagree with something, that is fine, but if you want links, then ask instead of insulting my perspective while providing no evidence of your own.
Quote:
US strikes raze Falluja hospital
A hospital has been razed to the ground in one of the heaviest US air raids in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
Witnesses said only the facade remained of the small Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the centre of the city. There are no reports on casualties.
A nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were damaged as US forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3988433.stm
Or was it the napalm-like weapons line that made you think I have no perspective?
Quote:
FALLUJAH NAPALMED
Nov 28 2004
US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor
US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.
News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.
And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.
Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"
Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.
Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.
A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.
America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.
|
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/t...name_page.html
Of course, the US denies using the weapons, but the Brits have caught them in the lie that the weapons were used at all.
Quote:
Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
US Lied to Britain Over Use of Napalm in Iraq War
by Colin Brown
American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.
Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.
Despite persistent rumors of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defense minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.
But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."
|
From the Independent, July 17th, 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061705E.shtml
(sorry to not have a primary source, but the original link is broken)
Quote:
|
I didn't say ALL countries. Naming instances such as these is a very broad and inaccurate generalization. And, to use your word, not true in a great many cases. Or are you saying that EVERY Latin American or sub-Saharan country with the problems you mentioned fits your description? If not, my point is proven, even if you don't care to recognize it.
|
I responded to your generalization that Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America do not have terrorists (which, admittedly I had to surmise from the colorful expression "people willing to kill anyone who doesn't say "Allah Ackbar"). A few of these countries do, as demonstrated with my example of the Al Queda presence in the Sudan as well as the terror tactics of the Death Squads in El Salvador. My examples were to disprove your generalizations, not a statement of generalization on my part. You are putting words into my mouth (strawman argument).
Also, if your point is proven, there is no need to say it. The evidence should stand for itself.
Quote:
|
Interesting that (a) the Palestine situation is considered resolved, and (b) you consider negotiation to have resolved those situations.
|
Negotiation allowed for peace to reign during the peace process, which eventually was derailed. This was caveated in my post (please re-read it), but you ignored it in favor of this strawman argument. Please limit yourself only to what I state, not what you wish me to state.
Quote:
|
I am highly suspicious that you refuse to accept a viewpoint other than your own. I believe there is empirical evidence regarding the paucity of deaths caused by Hitler after 1945, Abu Nidal after 2002, or most recently, Saddam.
|
The first part of this post is an accusation that I am dogmatic. How can this be said after I have only been here a few days? The second part of this is a non-sequitur. Just what do the muderous insticts of Hitler, Saddam, and Nidal have to do with any part of my argument that two examples beats no examples? Hitler and Saddam were evil dictators who ruled over nation-states and Nidal killed himself after a long illness. The first examples are hardly comparable to Islamic terrorists and the second wasn't killed by direct military action, plus terrorists are still killing for Nidal's values (Palestinian terrorists).
Quote:
|
I find your "proof" to be contradictory at best. I can also see that you will never accept a viewpoint other than your own. Again, the "attacking hospitals" argument was such an incredible distortion of the truth that further discussion is indeed pointless.
|
Your assertion that I am contradictory is based only on my example of Palestine/Israel, which was caveated to only include "during the peace process", and you ignored the caveat in favor of a strawman argument. The other two assertions (the IRA and Spain) were not challenged. There is no way you can confidently make the second assertion because I have not been here long enough for you to know whether I am dogmatic or not, and the last line has now been sourced. You can disagree with how I said it (deliberately attacked), but you cannot characterize it as an "incredible distortion" because we have bombed hospitals with weapons that normally target accurately enopugh to avoid a giant hospital. You provided no counter argument other than to dismiss my assertion completely and thereby dismiss me as a poster.
This is not acceptable behavior in a "mutually respectful" debate, in my opinion.