What Do You KNOW About The Status of Post War Iraq or of the War on Terror? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MoonDog · 04-19-2005, 09:31 PM

Quote:

The Jolt, please provide examples of Saddam "financing terrorsts". "Probably" is not good enough to justify aggressive war, especially when you offer no durable evidence that the US was directly threatened.

I believe that it is an accepted fact that Saddam Hussein publically offered to pay the families of any Palestinian "martyr" who died in action against the Israelis. The families of said "martyr" would receive a cash payment of up to $25,000.

"Salaries for Suicide Bombers"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in505316.shtml

Apparently, Saddam may have paid up to $35 million to support terrorist acts in a roundabout way...
"Saddam's Connection to Palestinian Terrorism"
http://cbs11tv.com/localnews/topstor...322070624.html

"Iraq continues paying Palestinian suicide bombers families"
http://www.ikurd.info/news-20jun-p2.htm

Quote:

In a resolution passed last May, the European Parliament accused Iraq of "deliberately fuelling the Israeli-Palestinian crisis by encouraging the very worst acts of Palestinian terrorism through direct and publicly announced payments to the families of suicide bombers".
It insisted that the Iraqi government cease immediately its support and encouragement for the murderous policy of suicide bombing and instead promote policies that will contribute to a peaceful resolution of the Middle East situation.

"Saddam's Palestinian Bounty"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../13/wsad13.xml

MoonDog · 04-19-2005, 09:39 PM

Hey Manx, who is this Chris Bowers guy, and why should I care about what he thinks he knows about what I know about the Middle East, terrorism, etc etc etc? He is wrong about me, fortunately, but I fear that he is right about MANY others.

From his website, I find this quick bio: "I am political junkie who lives in Philadelphia. I have been a bank teller, a teacher, a union organizer, and I am now completely obsessed with blogs and changing politics through the netroots."

Sounds like his kung-fu is about as strong as mine.

MoonDog · 04-19-2005, 09:42 PM

Oh, and to Host - sorry about hijacking your thread.

host · 04-24-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

I believe that it is an accepted fact that Saddam Hussein publically offered to pay the families of any Palestinian "martyr" who died in action against the Israelis. The families of said "martyr" would receive a cash payment of up to $25,000.

"Salaries for Suicide Bombers"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in505316.shtml

Apparently, Saddam may have paid up to $35 million to support terrorist acts in a roundabout way...
"Saddam's Connection to Palestinian Terrorism"
http://cbs11tv.com/localnews/topstor...322070624.html

"Iraq continues paying Palestinian suicide bombers families"
http://www.ikurd.info/news-20jun-p2.htm

"Saddam's Palestinian Bounty"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../13/wsad13.xml

MoonDog, this was my question, concerning the justification for war:

Quote:

The Jolt, please provide examples of Saddam "financing terrorsts". "Probably" is not good enough to justify aggressive war, especially when you offer no durable evidence that the US was directly threatened.

Are you saying that the U.S. was directly threatened by Saddam offering a "Palestinian Bounty", to the point that a case could be made for invading Iraq because the bounty he paid to Palestinian suicide bombers in a longstanding territorial and political conflict in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories could legitimately described as a threat to U.S. national security that rose to a level that necessitated the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

<h3>I nominate the following as the best post on this thread, even though I found it on the "Why does America try to force democracy?" thread:</h3>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=149

samcol · 04-24-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

<h3>I nominate the following as the best post on this thread, even though I found it on the "Why does America try to force democracy?" thread:</h3>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=149

I agree, that really puts it in perspective.

MoonDog · 04-24-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Are you saying that the U.S. was directly threatened by Saddam offering a "Palestinian Bounty", to the point that a case could be made for invading Iraq because the bounty he paid to Palestinian suicide bombers in a longstanding territorial and political conflict in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories could legitimately described as a threat to U.S. national security that rose to a level that necessitated the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Nope. The support of Palestinian suicide bombers was, for me, just another point against Saddam Hussein. Not the sole justification.

EDIT - Oh, and supposedly he was using money from the Oil-for-Food Program for some of these payments. I don't know if that was verified in the recent audit of that program or not. If it was true, I view it as another strike against Mr. Hussein.

Willravel · 04-24-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Nope. The support of Palestinian suicide bombers was, for me, just another point against Saddam Hussein. Not the sole justification.

EDIT - Oh, and supposedly he was using money from the Oil-for-Food Program for some of these payments. I don't know if that was verified in the recent audit of that program or not. If it was true, I view it as another strike against Mr. Hussein.

There's that word 'supposedly' again. Strike one has nothing to do with America, and strike two isn't even verified.

MoonDog · 04-25-2005, 09:45 PM

Nothing to do with America?

I'm of the opinion that contributing to the continued destabilization of the region through terrorist acts warrants interest from the US on both the strategic and economic fronts. Especially when the target of those actions is an ally of of the United States. As distasteful as I find our relationship with Israel, they are our ally (the actual usefulness of that relationship is for another thread).

Regardless, I have posted in the past my reasons for supporting our invasion of Iraq. Paying a bounty to the Palestinians is, as I have already stated, merely an additional black mark against Saddam Hussein.

Willravel · 04-26-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Nothing to do with America?

I'm of the opinion that contributing to the continued destabilization of the region through terrorist acts warrants interest from the US on both the strategic and economic fronts. Especially when the target of those actions is an ally of of the United States. As distasteful as I find our relationship with Israel, they are our ally (the actual usefulness of that relationship is for another thread).

You do understand that the single most destabilizing factor in the Middle East is the West, right? It's not Palestinians. It's those who have decided to base their economic strength partially (or solely) on resources that don't belong to them. Palestinians are not bombing on American soil or targeting American citizens. The fact that they are attacking our allies is unfortunate, but it really doesn't involve us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Regardless, I have posted in the past my reasons for supporting our invasion of Iraq. Paying a bounty to the Palestinians is, as I have already stated, merely an additional black mark against Saddam Hussein.

You're call I suppose. Agree to disagree, respectfully.

MoonDog · 04-28-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You're call I suppose. Agree to disagree, respectfully.

Works for me. Bush's reasons were never mine anyway...they just accomplished something that I thought should've already happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You do understand that the single most destabilizing factor in the Middle East is the West, right? It's not Palestinians. It's those who have decided to base their economic strength partially (or solely) on resources that don't belong to them.

I can agree that meddling by the West has been/is/and will be a huge part of the destabilization of the Middle East. In fact, I wouldn't be averse to the US drastically reducing - or even eliminating - the military aid it gives to Israel.

Access to resources, however, has been a cause of human strife for longer as long as there has been a human race. Should the OPEC nations have refused to sell the economic powers of the West thier oil, and denied themselves the revenue? Should the Western economies have voluntarily scaled themselves back, simply because their energy demands outdistranced their domestic energy resources?

How the area was destabilized is not the pertinent issues here. In my mind, there is a real opportunity to work out an Israeil-Paletinian peace, even back then. And Saddam's offering of a bounty to families of suicide bombers seemed to me to be one of the wedges driven between the two sides to prevent peace.

host · 05-09-2005, 05:53 PM

Is the "news" that "number three" man in al Qaeda has been captured, true?

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...602568,00.html
May 08, 2005

Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of ‘mistaken identity’
Christina Lamb and Mohammad Shehzad Islamabad
THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as “a critical victory in the war on terror”. According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists’ third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as “among the flotsam and jetsam” of the organisation.

Al-Libbi’s arrest in Pakistan, announced last Wednesday, was described in the United States as “a major breakthrough” in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

<h3>Bush called him a “top general” and “a major facilitator and chief planner for the Al- Qaeda network”. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, said he was “a very important figure”. Yet the backslapping in Washington and Islamabad has astonished European terrorism experts, who point out that the Libyan was neither on the FBI’s most wanted list, nor on that of the State Department “rewards for justice” programme.</h3>

Another Libyan is on the FBI list — Anas al-Liby, who is wanted over the 1998 East African embassy bombings — and some believe the Americans may have initially confused the two. When The Sunday Times contacted a senior FBI counter-terrorism official for information about the importance of the detained man, he sent material on al-Liby, the wrong man.

“Al-Libbi is just a ‘middle-level’ leader,” said Jean-Charles Brisard, a French intelligence investigator and leading expert on terrorism finance. “Pakistan and US authorities have completely overestimated his role and importance. He was never more than a regional facilitator between Al-Qaeda and local Pakistani Islamic groups.”

According to Brisard, the arrested man lacks the global reach of Al-Qaeda leaders such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s number two, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, or Anas al-Liby.

Although British intelligence has evidence of telephone calls between al-Libbi and operatives in the UK, he is not believed to be Al-Qaeda’s commander of operations in Europe, as reported.

The only operations in which he is known to have been involved are two attempts to assassinate Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, in 2003. Last year he was named Pakistan’s most wanted man with a $350,000 (£185,000) price on his head.

No European or American intelligence expert contacted last week had heard of al-Libbi until a Pakistani intelligence report last year claimed he had taken over as head of operations after Khalid Shaikh Mohammad’s arrest. A former close associate of Bin Laden now living in London laughed: “What I remember of him is he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying.”

What is known is that al-Libbi moved from Libya to Pakistan in the mid-1980s before joining the jihad in Afghanistan. He married a Pakistani woman and is said to specialise in maps and diagrams. He is thought to have joined Bin Laden in Sudan with other Libyan nationals in about 1992 and to have become Al-Qaeda’s co-ordinator with home-grown Pakistani terrorist groups after 9/11.

Some believe al-Libbi’s significance has been cynically hyped by two countries that want to distract attention from their lack of progress in capturing Bin Laden, who has now been on the run for almost four years.

Even a senior FBI official admitted that al-Libbi’s “influence and position have been overstated”.........................

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155447,00.html
"This is somebody we watched a lot every single day — he is a very important figure for the Al Qaeda network," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday after congratulating the Pakistani government.

Quote:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00112.htm
Monday, 9 May 2005, 12:00 pm
Opinion: Sheila Samples
We Are Very Good Drivers...

According to The Times, "No European or American intelligence expert contacted last week had heard of al-Libbi until a Pakistani intelligence report last year claimed he had taken over as head of operations after Khalid Shaikh Mohammad's arrest. A former close associate of Osama Bin Laden now living in London laughed -- "What I remember of him is he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying."

But Bush and his minions, joined by their Pakistani counterparts, would not be denied their public victory dance, complete with back-slapping and high-fives. "A critical victory in the war on terror," Bush crowed, and added that the capture of this "major facilitator and chief planner" for Osama bin Laden "removes a dangerous enemy who is a direct threat to America and for those who love freedom."

Bush interrupted his attempts to destroy Social Security to laud Musharraf -- "I applaud the Pakistani government for their (sic) strong cooperation in the war on terror," he said, adding that the Pakistanis had acted on "solid intelligence" to bring him to justice and vowing that those fighting terrorism will "stay on the offensive until al-Qaida is defeated."

Although European terrorism experts pointed out that al-Libbi was nowhere to be found on the FBI's most wanted list nor on the State Department's "rewards for justice" list, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave an impressive "Benjamin Braddock" response, saying robotically that al-Libbi is "a very important figure." Braddock, if you remember, is the idiot/savant "Rain Man" character played by Dustin Hoffman who drove the car back and forth in the driveway, going nowhere, while repeating inanely, "I am a very good driver..."

As she congratulated Musharraf for his coup, Rice also revealed that al-Libbi "is somebody we watched a lot every single day -- he is a very important figure for the Al Qaeda network." Then, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan joined the fray, telling reporters at the White House, "Al-Libbi's capture is a great success in the global war on terrorism. He is one of al-Qaida's most senior operational planners and one of the terrorist organization's top leaders," McClellan said.

How does he know that? The only thing actually known about this Libyan national, other than he makes a mean cup of coffee and has mastered the art of running a copy machine, is that he was involved in two 2003 attempts to assassinate Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf.

Anybody see a pattern emerging here? Looks like somebody should be asking where the actual al-Qaeda center of operations is -- why the majority of terrorists Bush wants "dead or alive" apparently reside in Pakistan. Doesn't anybody wonder how, when the Bush administration gets stuck in the driveway furiously driving nowhere, Musharraf pulls another "Number Three" al-Qaeda leader out of his, um...hat?

American officials were given the opportunity to make a graceful exit when it was revealed al-Libbi was possibly being confused with fellow Libyan Abu al-Liby, a senior al-Qaeda commander who was indicted for his role in the August 1998 bombings of two US embassies in east Africa, and who is on the FBI's most wanted list. The Sunday Times reports when it contacted a senior FBI official for information about al-Libbi's importance, the official inexplicably sent material on al-Liby.

However, a US counterterrorism official, who understandably refused to be named, proclaimed the arrest of al-Libbi as the most important blow to al-Qaeda since the arrest of Mohammad more than two years ago, especially since al-Libbi had assumed Mohammad's leadership position and was busily planning attacks against the United States homeland.

It gets better. US officials explain craftily that the reason al-Libbi's name is not on the FBI list is because "we did not want him to know he was wanted."

So let me get this straight -- Here is a guy who is Number Three in the al-Qaeda network; a guy so important that he became head of operations when Khalid Shaikh Mohammad was captured; a guy known to be planning a myriad of 9-11 attacks on our homeland -- and we don't want him to know he's wanted? None of that matters, according to the official, whether it's Libbi or Liby, the important thing is that his capture is smoking the evildoers out. "Whether big fry or small fry," the official added lamely, "they're on the run, I can tell you that."

No, the important thing here is that Bush and his unnamed intelligence officials with the help of a complicit media are speaking only to the American people; they are buying time with the American people. When the proletariat begins to get restless -- begins to ask why Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are still on the loose -- or begins to writhe under the weight of lies, to feel the constraints of the loss of freedoms, they are thrown the red meat of another Abu-al-somebody and the danger of being exposed subsides for a time.

With the al-Libbi ploy falling flat on its face, few should be surprised that CNN and FOX are back out there, breathlessly announcing that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "top aide" has been captured in Bahgdad. FOX says his name is Ammar al-Zubaydi, also known as Abu Abbas, and he's responsible for recent suicide car bombings, as well as the devastating attack on Abu Ghraib prison in April. But, wait -- I thought the Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas was arrested in April 2003, and that bin Laden and his henchmen were responsible for .... oh, never mind.

So, just where are bin Laden and al-Zarqawi? I guess if we're ever going to snag these two, we're going to be forced to remove their names from the FBI "to do" list so they won't suspect they're wanted. We've come close to capturing bin Laden many times -- even visited him two months before 9-11 in a US hospital in Dubai where he received treatment for his ailing kidneys -- but like the persistent ghost of a man who's been dead for years, Osama always manages to slip noiselessly away.

Al-Zarqawi, a bogeyman of our own making, gets blamed for everything -- car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, beheadings -- and, apparently, he is just as wily as bin Laden. In a recent incident in which Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bragged they "almost got him," al-Zarqawi leapt from a speeding pickup truck and fled on foot. A one-legged man of sub-par intelligence outrunning a crack, highly trained special forces team. I'd pay to see that feat, wouldn't you?

Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi are ideological poles apart and, in real life, would have no reason to team up or to have anything at all to do with each other. But now, thanks to Bush, they are like two evil, mischievious undead spirits, they appear only to create havoc and, as Bush is wont to say, strike with sudden horror, and then -- Poof! -- they disappear into the atmosphere, leaving behind only laptop computers, tapes, detailed plans and charts outlining their next bit of bloody derring do.

Whether they like it or not, we're going to keep nabbing their "Number Three" men until we get it right and they are brought to justice. So, if you see a 7-foot-tall bearded man in a dress dragging around a dialysis machine, accompanied by a squat, fleet-footed guy with only one leg, tell 'em they can run and they can hide, but it won't do them any good -- because we're hot on their trail.

Yes, indeedy. And we are very good drivers...

host · 05-12-2005, 03:56 AM

Well here you go......they hate us for our freedom ! How many more young Americans will die before the U.S. inevitably cuts it's losses and pulls out of this isane and useless occupation?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051000221.html
'They Came Here to Die'
Insurgents Hiding Under House in Western Iraq Prove Fierce in Hours-Long Fight With Marines

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 11, 2005; Page A01

JARAMI, Iraq, May 10 -- Screaming "Allahu Akbar'' to the end, the foreign fighters lay on their backs in a narrow crawl space under a house and blasted their machine guns up through the concrete floor with bullets designed to penetrate tanks. They fired at U.S. Marines, driving back wave after wave as the Americans tried to retrieve a fallen comrade.

Through Sunday night and into Monday morning, the foreign fighters battled on, their screaming voices gradually fading to just one. In the end, it took five Marine assaults, grenades, a tank firing bunker-busting artillery rounds, 500-pound bombs unleashed by an F/A-18 attack plane and a point-blank attack by a rocket launcher to quell them.

The Marines got their fallen man, suffering one more dead and at least five wounded in the process. And according to survivors of the battle, the foreign fighters near the Syrian border proved to be everything their reputation had suggested: fierce, determined and lethal to the last.

"They came here to die," said Gunnery Sgt. Chuck Hurley, commander of the team from the 1st Platoon, Lima Company, of the Marines' 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment, that battled the insurgents in the one-story house in Ubaydi, about 15 miles east of the Syrian border.

"They were willing to stay in place and die with no hope," Hurley said Tuesday. "All they wanted was to take us with them.''

The "news" report constantly described the insurgents as "foreign fighters", but offered no confirmation that this was an accurate description:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1000221_2.html
The costly equipment, as well as body armor later recovered from the bodies of dead insurgents, suggested that the fighters were foreigners, the military said. Though the level of foreigners' involvement in the insurgency has been disputed for nearly two years, Muslim men have come to Iraq from neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and from as far away as Chechnya and Indonesia to fight the United States and its allies.

The May 10, 2005 Pentagon Briefing exposes the inaccuracies of the WAPO propaganda report's constant references to "foreign" fighters:

Quote:

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/...0510-2721.html
Presenter: Pentagon Spokesman Lawrence DiRita and Director of Operations, J-3, Lt. Gen. James T. Conway Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:37 p.m. EDT
Defense Department Regular Briefing

............................. Q Can I follow up on that? Can you say whether or not you've seen any evidence of some of these foreign fighters, as you've described them, crossing back over the border? And are the Syrians in any way involved in this or in any way cooperating?

GEN. CONWAY: I don't think I used the term foreign fighters. I don't think we know that yet. Certainly it's in proximity to the border. There is a major crossing site there, Husaybah, and again, there's smugglers' routes both north and south of that location. So it's not unrealistic to expect that there could be foreign fighters engaged.

At this point, we simply don't know if the there is movement across the border associated with this, because the preponderance of our forces are engaged in this fight..........................

..................... Q General, the uniforms that you mentioned, first could you describe them? Are these like old Iraqi military uniforms? Are they from somewhere else? And second, does the presence of a uniformed armed force on a battlefield give -- particularly the foreign fighters, give them extra legal rights, I mean are they -- if they're captured under the Geneva Conventions, than a typical foreign fighter receives?

GEN. CONWAY: Yeah, what I expressed to you was one line out of one report that talked about some insurgents wearing uniforms. And I think the answer to your second question is no, in that it is not an organized army per se, as a result of whatever -- ................

Thank God for an honest US General making statements to counter the repetitive WAPO propaganda. This is the newspaper that the right accuses of being a leading "liberal media" publication!

Willravel · 05-13-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

I can agree that meddling by the West has been/is/and will be a huge part of the destabilization of the Middle East. In fact, I wouldn't be averse to the US drastically reducing - or even eliminating - the military aid it gives to Israel.

We are in total agreement then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Access to resources, however, has been a cause of human strife for longer as long as there has been a human race. Should the OPEC nations have refused to sell the economic powers of the West thier oil, and denied themselves the revenue? Should the Western economies have voluntarily scaled themselves back, simply because their energy demands outdistranced their domestic energy resources?

Oil is a serious resource, of course. Our econemy and way of life is almost completly dependant on it. That, as far as I'm concerned, was our biggest mistake. Complete dependance on one import, espically one that comes from some of the most unstable places on the planet, was a dangerous and foolish gamble. We have known that oil was going to dry up since what, like the 60s? We've had plenty of time to find our way over to alternatives, but we have allowed the oil industry to not only continue but grow at a staggering rate. We should have started scaling back 40 years ago, and started not only studying alternatives, but actually testing them in the market. Now I realize that nuclear power has grown a great deal since the 60s, but what about automotive fuels? We have some hybrid cars, and there are like a hanmdful of alternative fuel vehicles going around, but I'd say a vast majority of people are still pumping unleaded into their SUVs. We have the farmland to create enough food AND biodiesel (something I would consider a nice alternative to oil, since it is renewable, cleaner burning, and we already have the technology to start implementing it) to support our country for hundreds of years. Unfortunatally, we are losing farmland and gaining wars for oil. Eventually we will have to make the switch anyway (oil will run out eventually, it's just how soon that is being argued over), so why not start as early as we can?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

How the area was destabilized is not the pertinent issues here. In my mind, there is a real opportunity to work out an Israeil-Paletinian peace, even back then. And Saddam's offering of a bounty to families of suicide bombers seemed to me to be one of the wedges driven between the two sides to prevent peace.

Don't we supply money and military support to Israel, who in turn commits attrocities against the Palestinian people? I'm not sure we'll agree on this one, but I'd like to say that their is Palestinian blood on our hands, just as their was Israeli blood on Sadams. If we are on equally bad footing moraly with Sadam, then I don't see the invasion as being justified.

aswo · 05-13-2005, 11:50 AM

Oil will never run out completely, the problem with oil is there is a point of max production a number that says that you will never ever be able to produce this much oil at one time again and there are people who we are now at that point where oil is going to be on a serious rise from here and there is no stopping it. Gasoline is only one part of the oil "problem" so blameing are dependence on car technology is to me sort of narrow minded. Change in the middle eas had to come at some point and i think i my mind president bush and tony blair had this on there agenda no matter and iraq just becme there best candidate

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-13-2005, 11:50 AM

There's a BIG difference between giving economic aid to an allied country, and giving money to suicide bombing terrorists.

Willravel · 05-13-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aswo

Oil will never run out completely, the problem with oil is there is a point of max production a number that says that you will never ever be able to produce this much oil at one time again and there are people who we are now at that point where oil is going to be on a serious rise from here and there is no stopping it.

Peak oil: oil production will soon reach a peak and then rapidly decline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aswo

Gasoline is only one part of the oil "problem" so blameing are dependence on car technology is to me sort of narrow minded.

It's one of many dependances. I never claimed it was the only one. Sheesh. I'm blaming everyone (myself include) for not having the basic foresight and common sense to prevent this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aswo

Change in the middle eas[t] had to come at some point and i think i[n] my mind president bush and tony blair had this on there agenda no matter and iraq just becme there best candidate

The Middle East would be the farthest thing from our minds if we could start to focus on alternative fuels as much as we are focusing on hording oil. That's my point.

Willravel · 05-13-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

There's a BIG difference between giving economic aid to an allied country, and giving money to suicide bombing terrorists.

There is no difference. We (the USA) knowingly fund a country continuing to brake the Fourth Geneva Convention. There are about 150 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every Palestinian living in occupied Palestine. The government of Israel has violated and still violates every single one of these rights. What do you call the breaking of international laws from the Geneva Convention of 1949? War crimes. As a matter of fact, the UN Human Rights Commission has very clearly said that Israel has commited and is continuing to commit war crimes against the Palestinian people.

I hope you don't support the willful killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and Israel's illegal paramilitary settlers. Our government clearly does. Sadam financially supported terror, and we financially support war crimes. There is no difference.

aswo · 05-14-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Peak oil: oil production will soon reach a peak and then rapidly decline.

It's one of many dependances. I never claimed it was the only one. Sheesh. I'm blaming everyone (myself include) for not having the basic foresight and common sense to prevent this.

The Middle East would be the farthest thing from our minds if we could start to focus on alternative fuels as much as we are focusing on hording oil. That's my point.

Thats where i disagree, while your right without oil the middle east strategically speaking becoes irrelevant the terrorism and western violence from the area will always keep attention on the area.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-14-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There is no difference. We (the USA) knowingly fund a country continuing to brake the Fourth Geneva Convention. There are about 150 substantive articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that protect the rights of every Palestinian living in occupied Palestine. The government of Israel has violated and still violates every single one of these rights. What do you call the breaking of international laws from the Geneva Convention of 1949? War crimes. As a matter of fact, the UN Human Rights Commission has very clearly said that Israel has commited and is continuing to commit war crimes against the Palestinian people.

I hope you don't support the willful killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and Israel's illegal paramilitary settlers. Our government clearly does. Sadam financially supported terror, and we financially support war crimes. There is no difference.

It's not that I'm down with the "willful killing" of palestinian citizens, it's truly unfortuante. I am however in favor of a sovereign nation doing it's duty of protecting it's citizens and it's country. THe Palestinians are not without blame in their plight, acts of terrorism do not bring legitimacy to their cause. I'm not familiar with the Geneva ccords you are citing, but if I remember Geneva accords were to protect military personal(sp); the status afforded under Geneva doesn't apply to citizens, they have protection under different treaties and accords. I could be wrong on that. On the flip the only way to deal with guerilla terrorist factions is strong arm tactics, and as it goes they seem to be working, attacks having seemingly halted in Israel. Hopefully that is a sign that Abbas is doing with that worthless fuck Arafat couldn't and wouldn't.

WillyPete · 05-16-2005, 10:01 AM

Thread hijack, but didn't the Isreal born Palestinians all pull out of Isreal during Syria's attacks?
The idea was that anyone left there would be wiped out. Literal Genocide.

But then it backfired and the Palestinians were sat on the other side of the river watching the Syrians limp home to lick their wounds and watch the defending team put down their roots in the West Bank that the attacks came from.

Manx · 05-16-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

On the flip the only way to deal with guerilla terrorist factions is strong arm tactics, and as it goes they seem to be working, attacks having seemingly halted in Israel. Hopefully that is a sign that Abbas is doing with that worthless fuck Arafat couldn't and wouldn't.

It's naive to think that strong arm tactics are what has caused the present ceasation of attacks against Israel. There has been a mutually agreed upon cease fire. As has been demonstrated time and again, strong arm tactics have led to increased attacks.

Pacifier · 05-17-2005, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I'm not familiar with the Geneva ccords you are citing, but if I remember Geneva accords were to protect military personal(sp); the status afforded under Geneva doesn't apply to citizens,

wrong.

* First Geneva Convention (1864): Treatment of battlefield casualties.
* Second Geneva Convention (1906): Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.
* Third Geneva Convention (1929): Treatment of prisoners of war.
* Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Treatment of civilians during wartime in enemy hands.

Israel violates, for example, Article 49. of the 4th Convention

Quote:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

WillyPete · 05-17-2005, 05:48 AM

Did Israel forcefully deport or transfer it's own population or offer incentives to settle in the occupied areas?
Big difference.

04-19-2005, 09:42 PM	#43 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	Oh, and to Host - sorry about hijacking your thread. Last edited by MoonDog; 04-19-2005 at 09:45 PM..

05-13-2005, 11:50 AM	#54 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	Oil will never run out completely, the problem with oil is there is a point of max production a number that says that you will never ever be able to produce this much oil at one time again and there are people who we are now at that point where oil is going to be on a serious rise from here and there is no stopping it. Gasoline is only one part of the oil "problem" so blameing are dependence on car technology is to me sort of narrow minded. Change in the middle eas had to come at some point and i think i my mind president bush and tony blair had this on there agenda no matter and iraq just becme there best candidate __________________ People who love people

05-13-2005, 11:50 AM	#55 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	There's a BIG difference between giving economic aid to an allied country, and giving money to suicide bombing terrorists. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-19-2005, 09:39 PM	#42 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	Hey Manx, who is this Chris Bowers guy, and why should I care about what he thinks he knows about what I know about the Middle East, terrorism, etc etc etc? He is wrong about me, fortunately, but I fear that he is right about MANY others. From his website, I find this quick bio: "I am political junkie who lives in Philadelphia. I have been a bank teller, a teacher, a union organizer, and I am now completely obsessed with blogs and changing politics through the netroots." Sounds like his kung-fu is about as strong as mine.

04-25-2005, 09:45 PM	#48 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	Nothing to do with America? I'm of the opinion that contributing to the continued destabilization of the region through terrorist acts warrants interest from the US on both the strategic and economic fronts. Especially when the target of those actions is an ally of of the United States. As distasteful as I find our relationship with Israel, they are our ally (the actual usefulness of that relationship is for another thread). Regardless, I have posted in the past my reasons for supporting our invasion of Iraq. Paying a bounty to the Palestinians is, as I have already stated, merely an additional black mark against Saddam Hussein.

05-16-2005, 10:01 AM	#60 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	Thread hijack, but didn't the Isreal born Palestinians all pull out of Isreal during Syria's attacks? The idea was that anyone left there would be wiped out. Literal Genocide. But then it backfired and the Palestinians were sat on the other side of the river watching the Syrians limp home to lick their wounds and watch the defending team put down their roots in the West Bank that the attacks came from.

05-17-2005, 05:48 AM	#63 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	Did Israel forcefully deport or transfer it's own population or offer incentives to settle in the occupied areas? Big difference.