powerclown

Exactly. For decades. And its only getting worse.
How much longer do they have to go on dealing with it? Now maybe they'll decide to rise up, take a stand and put a stop to it.

Zeld2.0

Are you kidding? Its been years since they "rose up" to take a stand and apparently they're trying something else because that didn't work.

If anything, they're laughing at us because we think its something new and are taking our stand right now. They've had the same stuff for nations with histories far longer than ours, its like a joke to them now.

OpieCunningham

You mean like Israel has put a stop to it?

Israel has been aggressively fighting terrorism for YEARS. How successful have they been? And you want the U.S. to use the same tactics.

DJ Happy

I don't remember seeing any evidence that Saddam funded terrorists. I remember the CIA being desperate to try and prove it but the rest of the world not buying it. In fact, didn't Bin Laden supposedly approach Saddam to set up training camps in Iraq only for Saddam to ignore him?

Pre-emptive strikes may be a sound military principle in theory, but normally they are arranged when there is credible information that an attack is imminent, not when the supposed enemy is lounging by the pool, smoking an Havana and listening to Jazz FM. Otherwise what's to stop the US just bombing the crap out of the rest of the world "just in case"?

So far we've heard all the following "reasons" as to why the invasion of Iraq was necessary:

1. They had WMDs (no they didn't)
2. They violated UN resolutions (some of the US's allies have violated more, with the help and approval of the US)
3. They were run by an evil dictator (there are dictators just as evil as Saddam currently allowed to do whatever they want without even being so much as told off by the US)
4. They were going to attack the US (with what?)

The mere fact that we're being presented with more than the one originally used to justify the invasion shows to me that there are some people who were just desperate to have a war in the first place, regardless of reason or consequence. At best the "justifications" are hypocritical, at worst they are just lies.

powerclown

Some research on your part will show that Hussein paid money to the Palestinian familes of successful (ie., dead) suicide bombers as a form of twisted (no pun intended) compensation. Extremely successful. Understand that the IDF stops dozens of suicide attempts every week in protecting their citizens. They're in a fight for their lives. If they gave up for one day, the barbarian hordes would invade and suicide bomb them all to death. Yes, no more religious fanatics flying jets laden with jet fuel into crowded skyscrapers, please. They had their turn, now its our turn for a little while. The type of terrorism being referenced here is low-grade pinpricks compared to 9/11, and I would add the outrageous school massacre in Russia to the list now. Another example of how terrorism can alter the course of a country. This war against fundamentalist lunatics is no joke.

DJ Happy

But he didn't fund the bombers. The US, on the other hand, pays out hefty sums of cash to Israel every year so that they can continue their oppression of the Palestinians. If Saddam funds terrorism, then so does the US.

powerclown

I disagree. And this is splitting hairs even further, but...thats what we do here. Keep it real.

How would you characterize specific monetary compensation of the families of dead suicide terrorists? I wouldn't characterize it as 'oppression' at all. More on the order of Protection. The people practicing the real Oppression are Arafat & Co., as in oppressing and keeping their own people living in open sewers because they refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate country and therefore a partner in peace.

Saddam showed his support for destructive, nihilistic, hate-fueled terrorism, while the US shows its support for a free, democratic, productive Democracy.

DJ Happy

So the obliteration of entire Palestinian refugee camps was done for 'Protection' was it? Anyway, this thread is not to discuss the Israel/Palestine conflict, so I won't go into it any further here, although I am sorely tempted.

I don't regard paying the family members of dead suicide bombers as funding terrorism as it has nothing to do with the terrorist act. Being sympathetic to a plight and funding a terrorist act are two different things.

But even if it can be interpreted as funding terrorism, what was the threat posed to the US by Palestinians? Why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia, who have given more money to the Palestinians than Saddam? Or Egypt or Jordan or Syria? The hypocrisy behind this invasion just seems to grow by the minute.

hannukah harry

some people view it as funding terrorism because there may have been suicide bombers who wouldn't have done it if it hadn't been that they knew their family would essentially get a winning lotto pick from it. kind of like getting paid to do it if you will.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

DJ Happy

I think people who blow themselves up do it for something other than cash, especially considering Sharon's retaliation against the families of suicide bombers.

onetime2

Whatever their motivation, paying the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism. Do you disagree with that? If so then what would you call the payments? It certainly isn't discouraging it.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

DJ Happy

Paying the families may not be discouraging terrorism, but it certainly isn't encouraging it either. I don't think that offering money to the families of successful suicide bombers inspires someone to become a suicide bomber.

I can certainly see that the payments can be seen to be in support of the bombers, but I still don't consider it to be funding terrorism. But still, the question remains as to why the US would consider Palestinian suicide bombers to be a threat to their security.

What would I call the payments? Compensation to a people that have been backed so far into a corner that they can see no alternative other than killing themselves in the most public manner possible. That does not mean that I agree with it - I most certainly do not and think that the Palestinians are irrevocably harming their cause by continuing like this, but I can understand where they are coming from. They are being viciously butt-fucked by people who you'd expect would know better than most the injustice of ethnic oppression, and the rest of the world doesn't even care. The UN and the US cares more about Syrian troops being in Lebanon than they do about the plight of the Palestinians.

onetime2

Your sympathies for the plight of those using terrorism as a tool aside, terrorism being seen as a legitimate weapon in the arsenal for political change is a threat no matter where it's occurring.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

DJ Happy

A threat to who? To the US? How are Palestinian suicide bombers a threat to the US? How can Saddam's payments to their families be a justification for invading Iraq?

I do not have sympathy for terrorists. I have sympathy for Palestinians.

onetime2

The distinction is meaningless if you "can understand where they are coming from" in their use of terrorism.

Terrorism is a threat to all countries since its successful implementation will encourage its use in other areas. Its failure to sway the political process and achieve the end results of the terrorists discourages its spread.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

powerclown

I do as well. Unfortunatley, you and I combined have more sympathy for these ordinary folks than does their own corrupt leadership, whose only concern is remaining in power as long as possible.

This line of discussion btw is all Opie's fault!

DJ Happy

Understanding why the Palestinians are pissed off is a far cry from condoning suicide bombings. You seem far too eager to employ the "with us or against us" argument in my opinion.

onetime2

Deliberate targeting and murder of civilians is wrong. If believing that falls under your definition of "with us or against us" then I guess so. Do you not see terrorist attacks as a potential danger to all organized governments? If not then we are not likely to have any worthwhile conversation and we can end it now.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

DJ Happy

I see terrorist bombings as being a threat to all people, never mind organised governments. I still don't see Palestinian bombings in Israel as being a threat to the US and question how anyone can use that as the justification for the invasion of Iraq. If that really is the case, then why didn't the US invade Palestine?

Is this question ever going to be answered? Or is it unanswerable?

onetime2

Ok. you see terrorist bombings as a threat to all people. On that we agree. Now, do you believe that terrorist bombings are on the increase or decline? I'm of the opinion that they're on the increase. And the more they increase without a real cost (beyond the death of a follower or two) to those using the strategy the more likely others will use this tactic. Should this tactic actually succeed (the Spanish elections for example or the removal of certain troops from Iraq) the more it will be seen as a valid method to achieve goals.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

spacealligator

lots of individuals, governments, and organizations around the world possess all kinds of weapons that we do know and do not know about - so what? just because i have an AK and have shot other people with it before, doesn't mean i am gonna shoot you... it's all just paranoia and a misguided belief that perfect security can be achieved if we just eliminate all the threats beforehand... good luck!

Flyguy

Clinton lies about a piece of ass and gets impeached. Bush lies about a multibillion dollar war which now costs over 1000 American lives and yet he's (supposivedly) leading in the polls to be reelected.

That's fucked up.

pedro padilla

most of the "terrorist bombings" that have taken place on USA dirt were commited by born and bred white christian american fanatics. abortion clinics, unabomber, oklahoma, atlanta olympics... If Saddam had these WMD´s and the US had absolute proof it was the signed receipts from when we sold em. actually we fucking gave em to him. Damn, Osama learned all his dirty tricks from the CIA and recieved millions of bucks from America in his struggle against the evil commie forces. bad boy Noriega. trained and sponsored. Mobuku. Amin. Pinochet. Sharon.....
America installs em and when they don´t lay down, roll over and beg, America takes em out. They all knew they weren´t no weapons, but hell, worked didn´t it?
I think we all know where all the fuckin weapons are. It sure ain´t iraq.

powerclown

What that should tell you is that most Americans (if polls are to be believed)support rooting and going after religious fanatics who have an agenda of destruction against the US. As a reminder, there hasn't been 1 single terrorist attack on the US since they decided to take the fight to those religious freaks and the ones who sympathize with them and provide them with a rock to hide under.

Bodyhammer86

That was the dumbest post I've ever read. I don't think you touched on anything remotely intelligent there. Stop believing every two bit bullshit conspiracy theory that Michael Moore spouts and do your own goddamn research.

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

Zeld2.0

That's a bit shortsighted though, isn't it? The time between the first WTC bombing and Sept 11 was closer to ten years than 3 years. And those were very much certainly the ones on our soil.

You'd have to wait a while before proclaiming any sense of victory versus an opponent unpredictable and patient.

OpieCunningham

Are you certain that none of the U.S. dead in Iraq are due to terrorism instead of insurgents? What about the beheadings?

Also, remember - there was not one single foreign-instigated terrorist attack on U.S. soil between 1993 and 2001.

In fact, Al Qaeda has become FAR more active since 9/11 and since the Iraq war:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

powerclown

Zeld: Good points. They do have from now to eternity to hit again, but I would say that at the moment, the fundaMentalists have their hands too full doing the Devil's work in Iraq to even think of hitting the US again. I think US defense & intelligence services are going to go up a notch because of 9/11. The people who deal with this stuff are going to be much more alert to any red flags that pop up, as they did before 9/11.

O.P.P: The US can't protect the whole world at the same time, as much as they would want it to.

No attacks on America, though. From what I read, there is no shortage of threats, either.

OpieCunningham

We must live on different worlds. You on the one where the rest of world wants the U.S. to protect it and I on the one where the rest of the world doesn't support the U.S. concept of protection (preemption).

Is not beheading an American a terrorist act on America?

If you're going to state that "there hasn't been 1 single terrorist attack on the US since they decided to take the fight to those religious freaks" as to imply that we are safer since the U.S. invaded Iraq, you might want to consider the facts which state that there has been an attack (2 now, with today's news of another beheading) on America. Further, you're implying that the U.S. is safer because 1000+ Americans have died "taking the fight to them" in Iraq in the 3 years since 9/11 vs. the less than 1000+ Americans that died fighting terrorism between 1993 and 2001. I don't see how that equates - unless soldiers are expendable even while they have failed to produce any noticable gains against the terrorists.

shakran

OK, I looked. All of your sources are Americans, ignoring the rest of the world which, with the exception of Blair, did not believe the WMD's are there.

Most of your sources are old - many 6 years old. I don't care if Saddam had weapons 6 years ago. I care whether or not he had them when we invaded, because that is what our president told us, and that is what he used to justify the invasion.


Frankly the WMD argument was poor on three fronts. First off, there was and still is no evidence that he had them at the time of the invasion.

Second, there was no compelling argument that it mattered if he did have them - his best missile flew less than 200 miles. Was he going to row them over to the US and launch them from a boat in the Chesapeake?

Third, why Saddam? North Korea has a dictator that is considered the world over to be much worse than Saddam, and he has nukes. Why are we worried about some guy with (supposedly) a few rusty chemical weapons falling apart in the desert when we have North Korea which has nuclear warheads, and which shortly before we invaded successfully tested the rocket on which they would deliver the warheads.

These are questions to which the American people should have demanded answers BEFORE the war, much less during it.

powerclown

Obviously there have been attacks in Iraq.
I'm unaware of any attacks on the continental US. Maybe you know something I don't.
The defenses have been hardened, and I don't foresee a successful fundaMentalist terrorist attack here for a long, long, LONG time. Especially since the nest has been so rattled and the sentries are on full-alert.

Classy, sophisticated people, those head-sawing freaks, eh?

OpieCunningham

There are well documented holes in the methods used by Homeland Security. And though you may feel safer from an attack, and although there is evidence that in some instances you are safer from an attack, there is also evidence that you are still highly suseptible to attack.

I'm not going to argue with you about how you feel. I, for one, have never felt unsafe from attack - so I can't say that claiming our actions over the past 3 years has made us more safe means anything to me.

But to claim that 3 years of no attacks in the U.S. as an explanation for the war in Iraq is simply not a large enough sample. 1993 to 2001 - no attacks and no war.

powerclown

Well, Im sorry that the terrorists frighten you. They are pretty freaky, Ill admit.

Acknowledged Holes in Homeland Security, eh? They've been tested in an attack, have they? Maybe I do live on another planet....

As for me, I feel safe. I have no problems sleeping at night. As a matter of fact, I feel safer than ever. Kind of like flying in an airplane now on September 11. Did you know that flights this past 9/11 were booked solid because people thought that the odds of another 9/11 were so remote they went ahead with their plans?

You'd argue with a rainy day, I'd imagine.

OpieCunningham

Where did I say terrorists frighten me? I said exactly the opposite.

I'd argue with someone attempting to claim we are safer simply because they feel safer even though they offer no evidence that demonstrates it to be true.

There are rather significant holes in Homeland Security. You may have heard about the complete breakdown in the intelligence community and the lack of funding for rather suseptible areas of potential attack. Do a Google search and research things a bit before you try to pass off your feelings as evidence for the validity of a war.

shakran

Ahh. I get it now. You're one of those people who won't do anything about a potential danger until it bites you in the butt. I suppose you won't have your squishy brakes looked at until they fail entirely and you hit a tree?

The idea to provide security is to identify potential problems and solve them BEFORE someone gets killed because of them.

Your method is how 9/11 happened. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you allow knives on a plane, someone could use a knife to hijack it. So why wasn't that hole plugged BEFORE 9/11 happened?

I don't think anyone here is saying they're digging a hole and hiding in it until Homeland Security gets a rectal-cranial extraction. We're still living our lives - we just acknowledge that there is a certain danger in doing so, and that maybe it would be really neat if our government actually took steps to protect us rather than running around trying bullshit ineffective methods.

If it came in and told me it was sunny, hell yes I would!

powerclown

OP, I misread what you said about being how you felt about terrorism. My fault. Obviously there were failures of intelligence beforehand.One can only hope that the professionals will learn from past mistakes and fix what was broke. I still believe that going on the offensive in the case, at least temporarily, is the best defense. Just my opinion.

Shakran, I don't understand the first part of your post. Obviously there was a failure pre-911; defenses have been bolstered post-9/11. The 9/11 Commission concluded - and I completely agree with this characterization - that there was a "lack of imagination" in identifying - and thus preventing - 9/11. Who on earth could have imagined that suicidal maniacs would fly jets into skyscrapers?? It was a paradigm shift in what was thought possible.

shakran

Well to use the car analogy again, that's like saying "My brakes failed, so I fixed the horn. I think that solved the problem."

Sure they bolstered security. Unfortunately it isn't working. People are still getting weapons on planes. They're certainly getting weapons on busses.

I just flew out of my airport in a cessna. Didn't have to go through security. Who's to say I didn't load the plane with C4 and am about to fly it into another building? Who's to say I didn't load a fogger with some bio / chem spray and am about to fly over a city?

Sure, I didn't, but my point is that we are not secure. You can't take a gas tank that has 20 holes in it, put a piece of gum in one of the holes, and expect it not to leak.


How about Tom Clancy? He ended Debt of Honor with a suicidal maniac flying a jet into the Capitol.

How about the guy that designed the world trade center? It was built to withstand the impact of a 707.

Besides, we didn't have to imagine that scenario. We only had to imagine the scenario of maniacs hijacking an airplane. It's not like THAT never happened before, yet people were still bringing 3" knives on airplanes and it was totally legal. Are we saying that hijacking an airplane is OK as long as you don't fly it into a building? I bet the pax on the hijacked plane would take issue with that.

powerclown

shakran, something tells me that unless they put you personally in charge of national security, you're not going to be satisfied with any explanation. But try to be reasonable: of course anything is possible, at any time. Given the right amount of airflow at the right angles and velocities, it is possible for a cow to fly. Lets just say that I'm satisfied with the 9/11 Commission's findings on the matter. I don't blame the US government or intelligence community for 9/11. They had a lot more information to work with than you or I. I'm sure that such scenarios will from now on be considered when it comes to national security. Maybe its time to get back OT.

shakran

That's my point. This was an obvious scenario. Dozens of hijackings had happened before 9/11. Why the hell weren't we trying to stop them?

and me being in charge of it has nothing to do with the issue. That's just silly.

DJ Happy

So what does this have to do with invading Iraq?