do you really think that Iraqi people are happy now? there was no suicide bombings under saddam control, even he was a dictator.ATG wrote:
I signed up on the " bringing freedom to unhappy people " cause.Ottomania wrote:
seems so. whats the reason for you?ATG wrote:
Are you suggesting that the main reason America went there is for oil?
" we cannot let the oil money get into the hands of the radicals. "
As to the real motives, I don't know anymore.
iraqi petrol belongs to US for 30 years.imortal wrote:
I suppose that none of you ever gave a thought to it maybe not being about oil? Ok, didn't think so. To most of you, the US goverement is evil, and all you have to do is look for the REAL motivation behind whatever they do. The oil is supposed to be under the control of the Iraqi goverment. The sales and profits are to go to the Iraqi goverment. Why do the insurgents keep bombing the oil infrastructure? To keep the oil from flowing, to keep the goverment from getting its financial windfall, to prevent the goverment from having the funds to actually improve condidtions. Because if the conditions improved, the insurgents would have a harder time trying to take over the country.Ottomania wrote:
seems so. whats the reason for you?ATG wrote:
Are you suggesting that the main reason America went there is for oil?
" we cannot let the oil money get into the hands of the radicals. "
And if we (the US) were letting BIG OIL have the oil on the cheap (granted, their recorods are public access, so how would they explain the cheap oil? Oh yeah, cook the books and pocket the profit?), then wouldn't the price of our gas spike when the insurgents took out a oil pipeline instead of when OPEC alters their production? And wouldn't the BIG OIL companies who run GWB and the goverment were being hurt by the insurgents stopping oil production, wouldn't they do a LOT more about getting rid of them, and getting more controlable people into place? I thought BIG OIL was so powerful it ran our country?
The reason for this is that some European countries have many muslim citizens or border muslim countries. Before the Iraq war there were no acts of islamic terror in Europe whatsoever. So you could say that the US and those Europeans who supported their stupid counter-productive actions in Iraq are responsible for bringing terror to Europe. The fact that America hasn't been attacked proves my point that there never was much of a threat from 'islamic terror' to the US - nothing decent airport/border security couldn't fix anyway.Harmor wrote:
Yes, but why is Europe taking all the heat. I would have expected us to be attacked with the same virosity that the terrorists have attacked Europe.CameronPoe wrote:
Nice little mess the US have got themselves into, eh?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-11 05:56:32)
There was, however, several acts of terrorism in the US and its embassies and a warship BEFORE Iraq. So it would seem your point needs a little work, as far as assigning blame for terrorism. It is like you though to blame terrorism on everyone other than the terrorists with a radical islamic agenda to make the world Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason for this is that some European countries have many muslim citizens or border muslim countries. Before the Iraq war there were no acts of islamic terror in Europe whatsoever. So you could say that the US and those Europeans who supported their stupid counter-productive actions in Iraq are responsible for bringing terror to Europe. The fact that America hasn't been attacked proves my point that there never was much of a threat from 'islamic terror' to the US - nothing decent airport/border security couldn't fix anyway.Harmor wrote:
Yes, but why is Europe taking all the heat. I would have expected us to be attacked with the same virosity that the terrorists have attacked Europe.CameronPoe wrote:
Nice little mess the US have got themselves into, eh?
Nothing can take blame away from the extremists themselves but living here in Europe you can't blame us for seeing the US as being to a large degree responsible for bringing terror to our doorstep. Here is a fact lowing:lowing wrote:
There was, however, several acts of terrorism in the US and its embassies and a warship BEFORE Iraq. So it would seem your point needs a little work, as far as assigning blame for terrorism. It is like you though to blame terrorism on everyone other than the terrorists with a radical islamic agenda to make the world Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason for this is that some European countries have many muslim citizens or border muslim countries. Before the Iraq war there were no acts of islamic terror in Europe whatsoever. So you could say that the US and those Europeans who supported their stupid counter-productive actions in Iraq are responsible for bringing terror to Europe. The fact that America hasn't been attacked proves my point that there never was much of a threat from 'islamic terror' to the US - nothing decent airport/border security couldn't fix anyway.Harmor wrote:
Yes, but why is Europe taking all the heat. I would have expected us to be attacked with the same virosity that the terrorists have attacked Europe.
Before Iraq invasion: no Islamic extremist terror attacks in Europe.
After Iraq invasion: lots of Islamic extremist terror attacks in Europe.
Now the warship can be argued (i.e. why should warships be floating around in other nations waters anyway?) but the embassies were attacked by extremists, I believe Bin Laden was directly linked with the African bombings, and that is a direct act of aggression that warrants your annoyance as a US citizen.
I am still wondering how everyone thinks Iraq is the reason for terrorism. Islamic terrorism existed before Iraq and will exist after Iraq world wide.Braddock wrote:
Nothing can take blame away from the extremists themselves but living here in Europe you can't blame us for seeing the US as being to a large degree responsible for bringing terror to our doorstep. Here is a fact lowing:lowing wrote:
There was, however, several acts of terrorism in the US and its embassies and a warship BEFORE Iraq. So it would seem your point needs a little work, as far as assigning blame for terrorism. It is like you though to blame terrorism on everyone other than the terrorists with a radical islamic agenda to make the world Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason for this is that some European countries have many muslim citizens or border muslim countries. Before the Iraq war there were no acts of islamic terror in Europe whatsoever. So you could say that the US and those Europeans who supported their stupid counter-productive actions in Iraq are responsible for bringing terror to Europe. The fact that America hasn't been attacked proves my point that there never was much of a threat from 'islamic terror' to the US - nothing decent airport/border security couldn't fix anyway.
Before Iraq invasion: no Islamic extremist terror attacks in Europe.
After Iraq invasion: lots of Islamic extremist terror attacks in Europe.
Now the warship can be argued (i.e. why should warships be floating around in other nations waters anyway?) but the embassies were attacked by extremists, I believe Bin Laden was directly linked with the African bombings, and that is a direct act of aggression that warrants your annoyance as a US citizen.
I am also wondering how your statement of
"Before Iraq invasion: no Islamic extremist terror attacks in Europe.
After Iraq invasion: lots of Islamic extremist terror attacks in Europe.", is significant and when a statement is made about the lack of terrorism in the US after 911 it is consider to be bunk.
Do you honestly believe terrorism will end and we will all live happily ever after, if the coalition leaves Iraq? Personally I do not.
So... you consider the PKK to be a terrorist organization? In what sense?agwood wrote:
If in fact the 140,000+ troops that may be massed on the Northern Iraqi border ONLY go after the rebel factions of Pkk and KDP and other Kurdish Terrorist groups...
ƒ³
A) Why the fuck should American warships be allowed to maraud around the world at will during peacetime? If they had stayed in port back home the attack wouldn't have happened, eh? That's why that part of the world doesn't like the US! Because they have been interfering there, much like the UK, France and Russia for decades!!! Mind your own business and they will too.lowing wrote:
There was, however, several acts of terrorism in the US and its embassies and a warship BEFORE Iraq. So it would seem your point needs a little work, as far as assigning blame for terrorism. It is like you though to blame terrorism on everyone other than the terrorists with a radical islamic agenda to make the world Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason for this is that some European countries have many muslim citizens or border muslim countries. Before the Iraq war there were no acts of islamic terror in Europe whatsoever. So you could say that the US and those Europeans who supported their stupid counter-productive actions in Iraq are responsible for bringing terror to Europe. The fact that America hasn't been attacked proves my point that there never was much of a threat from 'islamic terror' to the US - nothing decent airport/border security couldn't fix anyway.Harmor wrote:
Yes, but why is Europe taking all the heat. I would have expected us to be attacked with the same virosity that the terrorists have attacked Europe.
B) Several acts of terrorism? One act of terrorism - the first WTC bombing. Hardly motion to war. An act of criminality is what that was. One act a decade on US soil constitutes enough of a pretext to bring more carnage to the US and the rest of the world than has been seen since Vietnam?
PS We've hardly had any attacks in Europe anyway. The only real ones bearing the brunt are the minority partner in the Iraq debacle - the UK - at the hands of actual British people.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-11 09:15:57)
US warships and the warships of any country will travel to other ports as part of strengthening relations with other countries. Do you think the Aircraft Carrier that recently arrived in Australia was there to interfere with the country?
Why was one in Yemeni territorial waters? Hardly best buddies with the US...M.O.A.B wrote:
US warships and the warships of any country will travel to other ports as part of strengthening relations with other countries. Do you think the Aircraft Carrier that recently arrived in Australia was there to interfere with the country?
That's the thing lowing - it will continue at the same rate as ever if the coaltion is in Iraq or whether it isn't in Iraq. Iraq makes no difference whatsoever (except perhaps worsen the situation).lowing wrote:
Do you honestly believe terrorism will end and we will all live happily ever after, if the coalition leaves Iraq? Personally I do not.
1. Cam, I do not know the facts about the USS Cole but I will assume that the ship was in port refueling with the permission of the Yemeni Govt.. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the Cole did not sneak into port and hold the ship yard at gun point until it was refueled. Or that the attack on her was in self defense.CameronPoe wrote:
A) Why the fuck should American warships be allowed to maraud around the world at will during peacetime? If they had stayed in port back home the attack wouldn't have happened, eh? That's why that part of the world doesn't like the US! Because they have been interfering there, much like the UK, France and Russia for decades!!! Mind your own business and they will too.lowing wrote:
There was, however, several acts of terrorism in the US and its embassies and a warship BEFORE Iraq. So it would seem your point needs a little work, as far as assigning blame for terrorism. It is like you though to blame terrorism on everyone other than the terrorists with a radical islamic agenda to make the world Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason for this is that some European countries have many muslim citizens or border muslim countries. Before the Iraq war there were no acts of islamic terror in Europe whatsoever. So you could say that the US and those Europeans who supported their stupid counter-productive actions in Iraq are responsible for bringing terror to Europe. The fact that America hasn't been attacked proves my point that there never was much of a threat from 'islamic terror' to the US - nothing decent airport/border security couldn't fix anyway.
B) Several acts of terrorism? One act of terrorism - the first WTC bombing. Hardly motion to war. An act of criminality is what that was. One act a decade on US soil constitutes enough of a pretext to bring more carnage to the US and the rest of the world than has been seen since Vietnam?
PS We've hardly had any attacks in Europe anyway. The only real ones bearing the brunt are the minority partner in the Iraq debacle - the UK - at the hands of actual British people.
2. Let us not also forget the 1988 destruction of Pan Am 103 over oops....Scotland. Or is Scotland not considered part of Europe. Also didn't Russia have a little event with a Chechen Islamic group back in 02 in a theater??
Cam, you know my postition on isolationism. I say bring it on, I am more than willing for the US to take all our toys and go home. Sorry to say, that would include all the handouts to the various world wide govts. We would not be a genie in a bottle for the EU or anyone else to conjure up whenever needed.
QFT!CameronPoe wrote:
A) Why the fuck should American warships be allowed to maraud around the world at will during peacetime? If they had stayed in port back home the attack wouldn't have happened, eh? That's why that part of the world doesn't like the US! Because they have been interfering there, much like the UK, France and Russia for decades!!! Mind your own business and they will too.lowing wrote:
There was, however, several acts of terrorism in the US and its embassies and a warship BEFORE Iraq. So it would seem your point needs a little work, as far as assigning blame for terrorism. It is like you though to blame terrorism on everyone other than the terrorists with a radical islamic agenda to make the world Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason for this is that some European countries have many muslim citizens or border muslim countries. Before the Iraq war there were no acts of islamic terror in Europe whatsoever. So you could say that the US and those Europeans who supported their stupid counter-productive actions in Iraq are responsible for bringing terror to Europe. The fact that America hasn't been attacked proves my point that there never was much of a threat from 'islamic terror' to the US - nothing decent airport/border security couldn't fix anyway.
B) Several acts of terrorism? One act of terrorism - the first WTC bombing. Hardly motion to war. An act of criminality is what that was. One act a decade on US soil constitutes enough of a pretext to bring more carnage to the US and the rest of the world than has been seen since Vietnam?
PS We've hardly had any attacks in Europe anyway. The only real ones bearing the brunt are the minority partner in the Iraq debacle - the UK - at the hands of actual British people.
It makes a difference to the people who must suffer the wrath when we leave.CameronPoe wrote:
That's the thing lowing - it will continue at the same rate as ever if the coaltion is in Iraq or whether it isn't in Iraq. Iraq makes no difference whatsoever (except perhaps worsen the situation).lowing wrote:
Do you honestly believe terrorism will end and we will all live happily ever after, if the coalition leaves Iraq? Personally I do not.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Then I do not understand why you hang your hat on the fact that we are in Iraq as the reason for terrorism in EU or anywhere else. It seems pretty logical to conclude , based on the fact that it existed before and will after Iraq, that this war would be taking place regardless of location.CameronPoe wrote:
That's the thing lowing - it will continue at the same rate as ever if the coaltion is in Iraq or whether it isn't in Iraq. Iraq makes no difference whatsoever (except perhaps worsen the situation).lowing wrote:
Do you honestly believe terrorism will end and we will all live happily ever after, if the coalition leaves Iraq? Personally I do not.
Turkeys goal is to end the terrorism(Pkk) on east of Turkey and on northern Iraq. I think Turkey will not take any oil from there...
The reason is because the Iraq war is the stated reason that the 7/7 and Madrid bombings occurred. Other than that we have had little/no terrorism to speak of. The only ones experiencing difficulties is the UK because of their continued stance on Iraq and sizeable British muslim community. If they hadn't supported the Iraq war then the UK would probably be largely terror-free. America was always the target - between oil dabbling and Israel supporting - but it's so far from the middle east that all it needs to do is to police itself a bit better, in particular its borders.lowing wrote:
Then I do not understand why you hang your hat on the fact that we are in Iraq as the reason for terrorism in EU or anywhere else. It seems pretty logical to conclude , based on the fact that it existed before and will after Iraq, that this war would be taking place regardless of location.CameronPoe wrote:
That's the thing lowing - it will continue at the same rate as ever if the coaltion is in Iraq or whether it isn't in Iraq. Iraq makes no difference whatsoever (except perhaps worsen the situation).lowing wrote:
Do you honestly believe terrorism will end and we will all live happily ever after, if the coalition leaves Iraq? Personally I do not.
Well, I think the terrorism worldwide goes to a greater purpose than getting us out of Iraq. I believe there is a movement based on "Stated reasons" that Islamic extremists want to destroy the western way of life and reinstitute Islamic Law as the the only law in the world.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason is because the Iraq war is the stated reason that the 7/7 and Madrid bombings occurred. Other than that we have had little/no terrorism to speak of. The only ones experiencing difficulties is the UK because of their continued stance on Iraq and sizeable British muslim community. If they hadn't supported the Iraq war then the UK would probably be largely terror-free. America was always the target - between oil dabbling and Israel supporting - but it's so far from the middle east that all it needs to do is to police itself a bit better, in particular its borders.lowing wrote:
Then I do not understand why you hang your hat on the fact that we are in Iraq as the reason for terrorism in EU or anywhere else. It seems pretty logical to conclude , based on the fact that it existed before and will after Iraq, that this war would be taking place regardless of location.CameronPoe wrote:
That's the thing lowing - it will continue at the same rate as ever if the coaltion is in Iraq or whether it isn't in Iraq. Iraq makes no difference whatsoever (except perhaps worsen the situation).
I also hardly believe they were there to invade or change their government either, like lowing said it was probably there for refuel with permission from the government. Also what about all the Al Qaeda attacks on Embassy's in Africa several years before 9/11, Al Qaeda's home turf is the Middle East, what where they doing in Africa attacking our ground seeing as Embassy's are classed as the ground of the country that owns them. Involvement in Africa is not involvement in the ME.CameronPoe wrote:
Why was one in Yemeni territorial waters? Hardly best buddies with the US...M.O.A.B wrote:
US warships and the warships of any country will travel to other ports as part of strengthening relations with other countries. Do you think the Aircraft Carrier that recently arrived in Australia was there to interfere with the country?
I agree with Lowing...Terrorists and extremists hang there hats on ANY excuse to attack another country. If it wasn't about Iraq, I am sure some terrorist would come up with the excuse for attack because of the ongoing "should they be allowed to wear burka" BS going on in Britain and other countries. There are terrorists and extremists killing and attacking people all over Indonesia, even beheading children, and it never is about the U.S being in Iraq. Indonesia is under attack because of the radical Islamic ideology of being an Islamic state at all costs...regardless of what the U.S. is doing. Those terrorists could care less about what is going on in Iraq. They have an ultimate goal as do all the Islamic terrorists and that is an Islamic world under Islamic rule and religion.lowing wrote:
Well, I think the terrorism worldwide goes to a greater purpose than getting us out of Iraq. I believe there is a movement based on "Stated reasons" that Islamic extremists want to destroy the western way of life and reinstitute Islamic Law as the the only law in the world.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason is because the Iraq war is the stated reason that the 7/7 and Madrid bombings occurred. Other than that we have had little/no terrorism to speak of. The only ones experiencing difficulties is the UK because of their continued stance on Iraq and sizeable British muslim community. If they hadn't supported the Iraq war then the UK would probably be largely terror-free. America was always the target - between oil dabbling and Israel supporting - but it's so far from the middle east that all it needs to do is to police itself a bit better, in particular its borders.lowing wrote:
Then I do not understand why you hang your hat on the fact that we are in Iraq as the reason for terrorism in EU or anywhere else. It seems pretty logical to conclude , based on the fact that it existed before and will after Iraq, that this war would be taking place regardless of location.
Let's look at Russia and Chechnya. When those attacks happen, there are not videos released condemning America in Iraq. No, Again, it is a group of Islamic extremists who would love to wipe out Russia and have Islamic State. It has NOTHING to do with America in Iraq. Its the typical tactic of extremists and it is happening everywhere regardless of what is happening in Iraq.
Let's look at Dar-fur....hmmmm, people are not being wiped out because the U.S. is in Iraq. Hell no, they are being wiped out for the same reasons it is happening in other countries such as in Indonesia. Its about again making a state for the radical Islamic movement. So honestly, quit blaming all terror on Iraq or stemming from Iraq. This is a world wide problem. This is tne next cold war and if countries don't get together and stem this movement, you and your wife will be forced to live that way of life or risk death for not obeying. This is an INTERNATIONAL problem and this movement has been going on LONG BEFORE Iraq and will go on long after Iraq. Terror didn't just happen over night because of Iraq...just look at history
So let's some this up. There is a large Islamic movement across the board in many countries regardless of what is happening in Iraq. Iraq is NOT the cause of this movement. It has been happening before Iraq and will continue to happen. Of course, there will be many terrorists using the excuse that we are in Iraq but the big picture has nothing to do with it. All you have to do is look around and see where it is happening on a daily basis all over the world. We all better wake up because it is much BIGGER than Iraq or oil or anything of that nature. This is a war of Ideology and its coming to your doorstep sooner or later whether you like it or not.
Understatement. This POS was arrested 27 times and never deported. Now he is being charged in the death of a 13 year old girl.CameronPoe wrote:
but it's so far from the middle east that all it needs to do is to police itself a bit better, in particular its borders.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And we are going to continue electing either a Democrat or a Republican for president.Kmarion wrote:
Understatement. This POS was arrested 27 times and never deported. Now he is being charged in the death of a 13 year old girl.CameronPoe wrote:
but it's so far from the middle east that all it needs to do is to police itself a bit better, in particular its borders.
What a bunch of stupid sheep we are.
We can agree that perhaps revolution is a bit extreme as a responce, but cannot we at least muster the honor to change our government enough that we escape the two party system?
If Clinton is elected it will have been Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton and then ?
How retarded is this?
Look at our nation.
Look at the world.
Demand change and end the two party system.
http://Unity08.com ATG .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Quote from Second in Command of Al Qaida from his most recent tape.
In a new audiotape Tuesday, al-Qaida second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri threatened Britain with more attacks, accusing London of defying the Islamic world by honoring novelist Salman Rushdie.
Hmmmm...sorry but I don't see anything about attacking Britain because it is in Iraq.
Basically, any excuse to attack another country..it doesn't matter at this point what is going on in Iraq. Read my post a few posts above. Its much bigger and it will not stop anytime soon.
In a new audiotape Tuesday, al-Qaida second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri threatened Britain with more attacks, accusing London of defying the Islamic world by honoring novelist Salman Rushdie.
Hmmmm...sorry but I don't see anything about attacking Britain because it is in Iraq.
Basically, any excuse to attack another country..it doesn't matter at this point what is going on in Iraq. Read my post a few posts above. Its much bigger and it will not stop anytime soon.
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2007-07-11 12:20:10)
The Iraq invasion has however provided AQ with a new base of operations to plan and direct attacks... on this level alone the Iraq invasion has been detrimental to the battle against terrorism. AQ did not have a foothold in Iraq during Saddam's reign. It has also added fuel to the 'us against them' fire and provided easily-led young Muslims with yet another validation (in their perception, not mine) for their extremism.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Quote from Second in Command of Al Qaida from his most recent tape.
In a new audiotape Tuesday, al-Qaida second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri threatened Britain with more attacks, accusing London of defying the Islamic world by honoring novelist Salman Rushdie.
Hmmmm...sorry but I don't see anything about attacking Britain because it is in Iraq.
Basically, and excuse to attack another country..it doesn't matter at this point what is going on in Iraq. Read my post a few posts above. Its much bigger and it will not stop anytime soon.
I notice that since Spain withdrew troops there has been no more attacks, also why have they not attacked us infidels here in Ireland? We're right beside Britain, have a growing Muslim population and would be a soft target.