support the Marine acused of murder

[mellowboy]

Sorry Heep. But hes goin around sayin that Muslims hate the Jews. I'm a muslim myself and im telling him its not true.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Sorry Heep. But hes goin around sayin that Muslims hate the Jews. I'm a muslim myself and im telling him its not true.

No worries, just remember that we all need to show respect to others, even if we don't receive it

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by zombiesarebad

They say that dissent is patriotic. Maybe it's true. It seems you are very loyal to Saddam's regime.
I'm not even going to discuss the fact that everyone believed there were weapons and all that, not just Bush. But come on. The insurgents are just innocent good people defending their country? Wrong! They're people who were loyal to Saddam or Bin Laden and trying to keep the Iraqis from being free. They are terrorists. I can't believe someone would think they are innocent good people.

Welcome to the political forums, feel free to draw on false logic and rewrite history if it pleases you ,but it will lessen your credibility.Try reading back through the archives,it will save us having to repeat ourselves yet again.

For the record,I believe that Bush is a worthless piece of shit.Only a fool ,however, would try to extrapolate from that that I am a supporter of any other terrorist leader.

You seem to have swallowed your poisonous leaders' lies quite happily.The ridiculous line about being 'either with us or against us' proves the totalitarian nature of his leadership.There are BILLIONS of us who see no merit in supporting either side of this conflict.There were many who saw from day one that the weapons propaganda was just a thin excuse for Bush to start a pre-decided invasion.If you are dull enough to believe that simply parroting the same old official lines over and over will somehow transform them into truths , you're in for a less than uncontested time in this forum.

[zombiesarebad]

Originally Posted by Heep

Of course you should have. What better way is there for us to determine what we really believe? Discussion here has certainly changed my mind before, and I feel I'm a better person because of it.No one, without significant hindsight, can answer that. Time will reveal what should have been done

The UN seemed, to me at least, to have had decent wraps on the situation - more than the US did anyways. Also, if that's what the "best intelligence" agency in the world came up with, should we be trusting them?So has the U.S.Not neighbouring in the U.S.'s case, but we've certainly seen their invasions...This I don't have enough information about, a link would be appreciated. Would the U.S. allow Iraq to fly over and perform unannounced inspections of their weapon stores? What are they supposed to think?

What I'm trying to say is that every one of us, American, Canadian, Iraqi, whatever, needs to objectively evaluate our own country's position before accusing another's.Again, I'm not knowledgable enough in these issues to comment - a link would be appreciated.You refuse? You can't, or you won't?

Also, what is freedom? Those people had the freedom to attempt a revolution. They had the freedom to accept what was happening, or fight back. Hell, Saddam even had the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted! If Saddam himself was demonstrative of freedom, is it such a good thing to have?Indeed I do know of it - the crewman that died was from my small town, and I personally know his family. I don't condone my country buying used equipment, and am upset that they did. I like my country, but I won't agree with everything it does.Two questions here. First, what are we mad at/about? Second, can you provide a link to the content of the 17th UN resolution? I tried searching for one but was unable to find it, and I don't know what it is.Because the U.S. has dictated they do so.Because they were happy to see him gone. Again, I don't like or condone Saddam, but I don't feel we have the right to say "we're better" and throw him into a cell.You're right, I am complaining, but I have a valid reason to be doing so. However, you're wrong saying I'm claiming I've brought peace to the world. I don't even believe it can ever happen. The money the Iraqis are getting from us is because of what was done - to provide aid to those devastated by the attacks. It's not like we're buying everyone a new Rolls-Royce.Please don't make personal attacks on any members - it's violating the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up. I can understand your frustration, but please be civil.

I agree, only time will tell who is right. However I do believe in principle that action is better than omission.

No, I don't believe the United States would allow Iraq to fly over it's territory... But the UN, who you claim has a good wrap on things, imposed this on them after they invaded Kuwait, not the US. And I'm not making accusations of your respective countries... it seems that the opposite is happening. There is nothing to accuse them of because they didn't do anything... that's what I believe their problem is. They are impotent. As far as the best intelligence agency in the world... not even the best is perfect. But all the evidence pointed in one direction, so I ask you again, what were we supposed to think?

And yes, I do believe that freedom is a gift that God granted to every human. That is my personal belief. People like Hussein take that freedom away. Now obviously we can't go to every country and depose every tyrant, but what should we do now? Apologize to Saddam and put him back in his palace? Maybe we should re-instate the UN oil for food program too so he can have some extra money to spruce up his rape rooms. Please read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0404182336.asp

If you have to ask what freedom is then no amount of explaining would make you understand. And yes, anyone can stage a revolution in any country, free or not, but the fact is they stood no chance without being crushed and decimated. Furthermore I will not comment on your insinuation that freedom may not be a good thing. If yours were taken I'm sure you would think otherwise. I can understand arguments that maybe the costs were not worth the results, but saying that freedom is worthless or even bad does not even require discussion.

What are you mad about? The war, maybe?

Anything you want to know about this resolution and all previous ones can be found at www.un.int , including all it's signors and contents.

Well as for the US dictating they be free to elect their own leader... we will soon find out how they feel about this reprihensible act of "forcing" people to have this freedom by seeing what the turnout of at the polls is. My guess is that they will come out to vote despite the death threats that they do not. But we'll see.

My point exactly, they were glad to see him gone. Who isn't? So why is it you're saying it was wrong to throw him in a cell for his crimes? Is it wrong for criminals to be arrested? If so, is it wrong for the people arresting them to say "I'm better than you and throw them in a cell"? (By the way, I don't think the words 'im better than you' were said).

Even though you don't believe that peace can be brought to the world (maybe it can't, who knows?) does this mean nobody should try? If peace is brought to the world, it certainly won't be thanks to countries such as yours.

As for the personal attacks (you may be right, I could possibly be an idiot) While I don't appreciate them, many of us Americans have developed some tough skin these days. I'll be fine.

I have been wondering if Islam is in fact a religion of peace as claimed by so many. I want to believe it is, and in fact I do believe it is. But how can they be seen as such when so many outspoken muslims defend the actions of Saddam and Osama? These are certainly not peaceful people. And the incidents in Nigeria (specifically the beauty pagent incident) and other such places do not help muslim PR. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if it's true that Islam has been hijacked by terrorist extremists, why don't they come out against these people? Of course, some have but it seems that most defend them instead. Just because they are of the same religion hardly seems like a good reason to defend them... in fact it seems like more of a reason to resent them. If christians had this ideal, most major countries in the world would have joined Hitler because he was a christian. Would this have been the right thing for them to do? And to further this problem, we keep coming across examples of widespread extremism. Such as when the New York Times interviewed muslim students of the Al Noor Islamic school in Brooklyn New York. Students stated things like "a muslim who becomes a suicide bomber goes to paradise for that action", "They're [blowing themselves up to kill civilian] for a good cause", and "I think we'd all do the same". This stuff disturbs me. If I did not personally know several muslims (one who believes that the suicide bombers, Saddam and Osama are wrong and recites the verse of the Koran which states that it is wrong to kill yourself and others, one who (somehow) believes that Bin Laden is good but killing is wrong, and one who believes terrorism is okay and killing is not wrong). Another survey in Great Britain found that less than 20% of Muslim college student would fight for England, yet more than half said they would fight for Osama Bin Laden.

And why would they even want to fight for someone who is killing them? Obviously Saddam paid no attention that muslims are supposed to fight for each other no matter what.


By the way, Here are just a few links about the link between Saddam and Terrorism and Al Quaeda/ Bin Laden.


http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ne...003-74294.html

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

http://tennessean.com/nation-world/a...nt_ID=34908297

sorry this is so long but I had a lot of questions to answer

[zombiesarebad]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Welcome to the political forums, feel free to draw on false logic and rewrite history if it pleases you ,but it will lessen your credibility.Try reading back through the archives,it will save us having to repeat ourselves yet again.

For the record,I believe that Bush is a worthless piece of shit.Only a fool ,however, would try to extrapolate from that that I am a supporter of any other terrorist leader.

You seem to have swallowed your poisonous leaders' lies quite happily.The ridiculous line about being 'either with us or against us' proves the totalitarian nature of his leadership.There are BILLIONS of us who see no merit in supporting either side of this conflict.There were many who saw from day one that the weapons propaganda was just a thin excuse for Bush to start a pre-decided invasion.If you are dull enough to believe that simply parroting the same old official lines over and over will somehow transform them into truths , you're in for a less than uncontested time in this forum.

I would be more worried about the credibility of conspiracy theorists such as yourself. You are free (lucky you!) to believe whatever you want about my opinions, president Bush, the war, whatever you want. But it does come across in your postings that you are on the side of terrorism, implying their innocence. And talk about ridiculous lines: Pre decided invasion? Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Or is it just another "official line" of the peacenik, like "Bush lies kids died!", or "no more blood for oil!

And personally I don't believe that I am "dull". But this is the second time that I have been insulted personally while trying to have a healthy debate. I refuse to reply in kind, however I would ask you to recall the agreement you made to enter this forum.

[Flatrater]

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>We know he was involved in training terrorists. We know that he had kicked out weapons inspectors in the past, <HR SIZE=1>

This I don't have enough information about, a link would be appreciated.

Heep
Search the UN web site you will find the info you need. The UN has a good record on Saddam kicking out the insoectors and hindering the inspectors.

Saddam has met with terrorists but we will never know the outcome or what was discussed.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>wouldn't allow flyovers or unannounced inspections. He wouldn't allow inspectors into certain places... what were we supposed to think? <HR SIZE=1>

Would the U.S. allow Iraq to fly over and perform unannounced inspections of their weapon stores? What are they supposed to think?

If the US invaded another country and then surrendered signing a pact to allow inspections and fly overs the US would have no right in refusing the request. Iraq surrendered to the UN and stated they would follow the UN resolutions.Yet time after time Saddam refused to obey the cease fire agreement signed by him.

Also, what is freedom? Those people had the freedom to attempt a revolution. They had the freedom to accept what was happening, or fight back. Hell, Saddam even had the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted! If Saddam himself was demonstrative of freedom, is it such a good thing to have?

You never lived anywhere but a free country. You don't know what it is to live oppressed. I know what oppressed feels like. They also had the freedom to get arrested, beat or killed for opening their mouths and speaking against Saddamn.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>If this is an invasion, why are they electing their own leader? <HR SIZE=1>

Because the U.S. has dictated they do so.

And how would you of handled this matter? Someone has to call the shots. The US is allowing the Iraq people to setup their own government. The US is allowing the people to elect their leaders.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by zombiesarebad



As for going against your brother... How can you believe that if someone is doing something wrong it is okay if they are your brother?


<HR SIZE=1>

Like i said. In OUR belief , we have to protect our country NO MATTER HOW BAD THE PERSON IS! Like i said before its like goin against your brother.

Mellow
If your brother told you to committwar crimes would you? If my brother wanted to break the law I would not break the law with him. I'm not going to sit in the same jail cell as he is. Wrong is wrong and there is no excuse for it.

As been mentioned so much in the past threads, there is no link between the actual attackers of 911 and Iraq. So we had no reason to go in there. So what if Sadam was a dictator, there are plenty of other dictators all over the world and yet nothing is done about them. Why, cause maybe they have something that Iraq does not have, actual weapons of mass destruction. Nothing/nobody stopped India, Pakistan, China, North Korea from getting access to A-Bombs. Why should we meddle in Iraqs affairs. Nobody asked us too. They weren't, are, or ever will be a threat to the US. Instead of putting our troops in harms way, spending billions of dollars and getting a hated reputation, we should be taking care of our own problems. Education, Immigration, Healthcare, etc etc. The only threat Iraq could at the time be able to do was strike Israel, no one else, and last I checked they (Israel) can take care of themselves quite nicely, Shoot even they have the A-Bomb.

TS
I would really like a link to something that says the US invaded Iraq because of 9-11. The US invaded Iraq because the UN set up sanctions on Iraq and Saddamn broke every sanction. Iraq was under the spotlight with the UN and all the broken resolutions and sanctions allowed the US to go in and take out Saddamn. If another country was breaking the sanctions set up I'm sutre the US would go in there also. But China, Korea have nothing for the US to claim in invading them. Bush named Iraq as part of the axis of evil, he set the stage for Iraq using the axis of evil.

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>The insurgents are just innocent good people defending their country? Wrong! They're people who were loyal to Saddam or Bin Laden and trying to keep the Iraqis from being free. They are terrorists. I can't believe someone would think they are innocent good people. <HR SIZE=1>

Would you defend your country if it were being taken over by people raving about how evil your government is? Guess what - you'd be one of the oh-so-evil insurgents. I dare you to go ask that 10 year old Iraqi found with gun in hand if he's trying to terrorize the world, or if he just wants his home back. Oh wait, you can't. Your country killed him.

Only reason for the 10 year old to be claimed as fighting for his country is because he is 10 years old. If he was 30 you wouldn't be saying the same thing. We don't know the 10 year olds story, he may of been forced to fight, he may of been defending his home we will never know whathis story was and anything else is a guess.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by zombiesarebad

...No, I don't believe the United States would allow Iraq to fly over it's territory... But the UN, who you claim has a good wrap on things, imposed this on them after they invaded Kuwait, not the US....

See this is an example of what I was talking about. Posting stuff that is not fact.

It was not the UN that imposed and enforced the no fly zones - it was the US, France and the UK. France later ceased imposing the no fly zones.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1175950.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...q/flyindex.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security.../1119nofly.htm

I could pull many other examples from your posts - however, since you are relatively new here, I'll refrain from doing so at this time.

As Taranaki said - Welcome to the Politics, Investments & Current Affairs forum.

[twospirits]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

TS
I would really like a link to something that says the US invaded Iraq because of 9-11. The US invaded Iraq because the UN set up sanctions on Iraq and Saddamn broke every sanction. Iraq was under the spotlight with the UN and all the broken resolutions and sanctions allowed the US to go in and take out Saddamn. If another country was breaking the sanctions set up I'm sutre the US would go in there also. But China, Korea have nothing for the US to claim in invading them. Bush named Iraq as part of the axis of evil, he set the stage for Iraq using the axis of evil.

I too would like a link stating the reasons for going into Iraq. Reasons that would not change over time, reasons that make sense. The US loves to criticize the UN, and even wants them out of NY., and yet we go in for the UN to fight their cause. Since when has the US been the UN Army. There have been countless other times that the UN has been having problems with other nations, sanctions placed etc ( like those in Africa ) and yet you do not see the US going in as an extension of the UN. If I am not mistaken Korea has broken the agreement it made with the UN in the past and yet we are not all over them like we are with Iraq. Could it be cause they would actually use their WMD on neighboring countries as retaliation, and possible start a real global war. Who knows, but the fact remains that the US had no business in Iraq.

And yes, its true that Bush named Iraq as one of the three Axis of Evils in his address to Congress and the nation, why, the reasons still elude me. The real attackers were from Saudi Arabia and their organization was hiding out in Afganistan. Iraq was not even in the picture. Bush used the UN problem as an excuse to go in and take care of a job that was not done before hand when his father stopped at Bagdad in the first encounter.

There are countless topics that are discussed in here, some great and thought provoking. Some even that have changed my view on things. But no matter what one tells me about this Iraq fiasco, it still does not add up. The countless lies by the administration to justify the invasion. The mismanagement of critical information that leads one to think that the worlds greatest Investigative force is anything but that. Its sad, makes us look bad and the worse is yet to come.

TS out

[Heep]

zombies: It seems we've reached the point I reach everytime with everyone I debate with, and congratulations, I think we did it in record time

That point is where neither of us can proceed any further to change the other's mind. We've laid down the facts, given our opinions, and finally, exposed our cores principle differences, and from here I will agree to disagree.

I feel that action, except in extreme cases, merely causes a reaction. When that action is unfavourable, it causes an unfavourable reaction. Thus, I see declarations of war as destroyers of peace, no matter what the goal/end result.

In my view, I don't, in fact, see myself as free. I'm limited from doing what I want in soooo many ways. I can't smoke a cigar even in a bar, I can't drive my car as fast as I feel like going, etc. etc. etc. I'm not violently oppressed as the Iraqis were, but I'm no more free. People like Saddam and Hitler- they are the truly free, and it's scary. So no, I don't see absolute freedom as being a good thing.

As far as country accusations, we both made them, and now that we've seen our principle differences, both are meaningless. You've accused Canada of sitting back and letting things happen. I see that as a good thing. I've accused the US of getting involved where I feel it has no right to, however I'm sure you'd care to disagree.

As for putting Saddam in a cell - I feel that's the most humane and just thing that can be done with him, now that he's been taken, and I applaud the US for that. I just don't feel that the US had any right to take him in the first place. Again, differing principles.

Basically, I just hope the US motives are really true. I hope the new Iraqi government works. I hope this was all worthwhile. I hope the US won't get ever-more cocky and/or policing. I just doubt that any of those are/will be the case.

Oh, and I still can't find the resolution 17...tried the UN search engine, browsed around; can't seem to find it. Oh well, not a huge deal. Thanks for the links though, BTW - I love to learn.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by twospirits

...But no matter what one tells me about this Iraq fiasco, it still does not add up...

It adds up alright - it's just that people are afraid to accept what it adds up to.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by zombiesarebad

I would be more worried about the credibility of conspiracy theorists such as yourself. You are free (lucky you!) to believe whatever you want about my opinions, president Bush, the war, whatever you want. But it does come across in your postings that you are on the side of terrorism, implying their innocence. And talk about ridiculous lines: Pre decided invasion? Do you have any sources to back up this claim? Or is it just another "official line" of the peacenik, like "Bush lies kids died!", or "no more blood for oil!

And personally I don't believe that I am "dull". But this is the second time that I have been insulted personally while trying to have a healthy debate. I refuse to reply in kind, however I would ask you to recall the agreement you made to enter this forum.

Is English by any chance your second language?I've made it crystal clear that I do not condone terrorism by Bush, Bin Laden or anyone else and yet you persist with this simplistic label that if I'm anti-Bush,I'm pro terrorist.Bush went into his first election with intent to invade Iraq if elected,if you'd like to go through the archives of this forum, the links have all been posted.
I'd like to know why you feel that you have been insulted, it has simply been pointed out to you that your labelling of myself as pro-terrorist is lame.
There has been no breach of the user guidelines, and if you intend to try and hide behind them every time someone gets the better of you in a debate, your tenure here will be short and humiliating.

Now,do you have anything to add to the debate, or did you simply chime in to question the right of the rest of us to hold an opinion that differs from yours?

[zombiesarebad]

Originally Posted by Heep

zombies: It seems we've reached the point I reach everytime with everyone I debate with, and congratulations, I think we did it in record time

That point is where neither of us can proceed any further to change the other's mind. We've laid down the facts, given our opinions, and finally, exposed our cores principle differences, and from here I will agree to disagree.

I feel that action, except in extreme cases, merely causes a reaction. When that action is unfavourable, it causes an unfavourable reaction. Thus, I see declarations of war as destroyers of peace, no matter what the goal/end result.

In my view, I don't, in fact, see myself as free. I'm limited from doing what I want in soooo many ways. I can't smoke a cigar even in a bar, I can't drive my car as fast as I feel like going, etc. etc. etc. I'm not violently oppressed as the Iraqis were, but I'm no more free. People like Saddam and Hitler- they are the truly free, and it's scary. So no, I don't see absolute freedom as being a good thing.

As far as country accusations, we both made them, and now that we've seen our principle differences, both are meaningless. You've accused Canada of sitting back and letting things happen. I see that as a good thing. I've accused the US of getting involved where I feel it has no right to, however I'm sure you'd care to disagree.

As for putting Saddam in a cell - I feel that's the most humane and just thing that can be done with him, now that he's been taken, and I applaud the US for that. I just don't feel that the US had any right to take him in the first place. Again, differing principles.

Basically, I just hope the US motives are really true. I hope the new Iraqi government works. I hope this was all worthwhile. I hope the US won't get ever-more cocky and/or policing. I just doubt that any of those are/will be the case.

Oh, and I still can't find the resolution 17...tried the UN search engine, browsed around; can't seem to find it. Oh well, not a huge deal. Thanks for the links though, BTW - I love to learn.

Right. Agreeing to disagree does seem best at this point. But here is my "closing argument", so to speak. In the 90's when 18 American soldiers were killed by muslim extremists, Osama Bin Laden said "we now see that the american soldier is a paper tiger... this encourages our cause" because we pulled out after this incident... I think it was in the Balkans? Not sure. But the quote stuck with me. The thinking of these people I believe is that to show weakness is to encourage their hatred and further their desire to kill.
I have good friends who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. They all just came home for Christmas leave and told me about all the good things they are doing there. They say that most Iraqis love them. They hand out snacks to kids and play soccer with them, chat with the locals... they really believe in what they are doing and it's possible that this has influenced my thinking on this subject.
While it seems to me that being able to smoke a cigar in a bar and drive fast are and being shot for speaking your mind are in separate realms, I do see your point on this. But without trying to extend a debate which is over, I would urge you to realize just how much you've got, especially while there are people in this area of the world who had nothing and while they still have little, they do at least now have hope.
Sorry if I'm seeming sappy but I do prefer to see the mass graves half empty rather than half full.
So I guess now we just sit back and see how it all goes down, huh?

[zombiesarebad]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Is English by any chance your second language?I've made it crystal clear that I do not condone terrorism by Bush, Bin Laden or anyone else and yet you persist with this simplistic label that if I'm anti-Bush,I'm pro terrorist.Bush went into his first election with intent to invade Iraq if elected,if you'd like to go through the archives of this forum, the links have all been posted.
I'd like to know why you feel that you have been insulted, it has simply been pointed out to you that your labelling of myself as pro-terrorist is lame.
There has been no breach of the user guidelines, and if you intend to try and hide behind them every time someone gets the better of you in a debate, your tenure here will be short and humiliating.

Now,do you have anything to add to the debate, or did you simply chime in to question the right of the rest of us to hold an opinion that differs from yours?

Is english by any chance your second language? In case you didn't realize it, "dull" in most quarters of the english speaking part of the world is the same as "dumb". And by no means did I say you are a terrorist, I said that you seem to be sympathetic to their cause, though. This is my opinion about how you come across in you previous postings. If you don't want to hear opinions you shouldn't be here.

You can claim victory in this debate if you want, but once again that's just your opinion. Just like it's my opinion that nobody won the debate because nobody was convinced of anything.

And for the record I NEVER claimed nobody had their right to an opinion. Freedom is what I'm all about.

My final advice to you is to cool it.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by zombiesarebad

My final advice to you is

Irrelevant.

I don't usual bother with advice from people who either can't comprehend plain English, or choose to ignore it.

I DO NOT CONDONE TERRORISM

If you cannot get your head around the concept that being anti-Bush is entirely different from being pro-terrorism, you're wasting your time posting in a debating forum.Simple logic and the ability to take in both angles of the debate are a bare minimum to avoid looking stupid.

[mellowboy]

Flatrater- The reason i said that they must DEFEND IRAQ against any invaders no matter how bad there leader is. Let me make it clearer to you. It is up to the IRAQIS to remove Saddam and not the world. According to the Qur'an one self has the right to defend or remove the leader who is very oppressive but do NOT go against him by teaming up with the outside enemies or non muslims.

Go to www.islam-online.net

Very useful info there if you care to learn.