Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

First, I never mentioned biological weapons, second, Iraq never used them, and third, once we realized the medical supplies we were sending were being used to make WMD's we stopped shipments.

Once the public realised, you mean. The government and military already knew this.

While it was naive of us to provide medical supplies of such a sensitive nature they had nothing to do with the chemical weapons Saddam actually used in combat.

They knew, therefore it was evil, not stupidity (for a change).

The WMD's Saddam actually used -- mostly mustard gas with some assorted nerve gasses thrown in -- didn't come from us.  Had he dropped an anthrax bomb things would be different, but he didn't.  Nice try.

Ah, but they were paid for by US money, and delivered by US allies (germany, france, italy).

And covered up by US goverment:

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."[21]  Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians. [...] when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.

So, although you're technically correct, you're wurming your way through a shithole where there's no exit.

And going from attacking the actual guilty people to attack the entire group those people belong to is something you yourself seem to condone. Therefore: Attacking a dutch cartoonist is justified, because he is a westerner, and all westerners are guilty for what a few have done, because they haven't stopped it.

Or even worse, in your case: condone it. Don't you get it? It's people like you that make people like them hate people like me. As much as a muslim should not support terrorists, I should not support totalitarian racists.

That's your reasoning they are using. You are exactly like those you oppose, yet you and them both think you're so different.

[Grimlocke]

I was actually kind of hoping they'd make it into the coalition, just to see it blow up a month later, like what happened to their spiritual predecessor, the LPF.

The LPFs leader was actualy killed as soon that party turned out to be the largest one. It didnt even get the chance to fail. (which in inevitably would have)

Also, "wurming your way through a shithole where there's no exit." Gotta remember that one haha.

And yeah had our Forumsdwarf been born in an Islamic country he would have been a supporter of terrorism for sure.

[Siquo]

No, the LPF (even with their glorious leader dead) were in the coalition as the second largest party of the country in 2002, but that came crashing down after just a few months. After that, in the re-elections just a few months later, they lost all remaining credibility, even with their own mentally challenged voters, and disappeared from the stage. Exit right.
Fortuyn did have something Wilders does not: Charisma. A bald flamboyant homosexual with two little fashionable dogs. I would have loved to see that as a prime minister, regardless of his politics 

So yeah, I was rather hoping for a repetition of that scenario. Coalition, fail, re-election, and we're good to go again.

[Muz]

Going back to the Geert Wilders topic, I'm kinda wondering how many Dutch people are anti-Islamist. I mean, you have guys like Theo van Gogh and the cartoon controversy guys, all from the Netherlands. The only way for an outsider to gain information about a foreign country is from the media. And the media likes to paint the Dutch as horrible genociding racists.

It's a little similar to the situation here where one radical Islamic terrorist and a group of fanatical male chauvinists makes a billion people look like backwards woman-beating suicide bombers. Geert Wilders isn't the only prominent anti-Islamist to come out of Netherlands; you have guys like Pim Fortuyn and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It seems to paint Dutch society similar to Nazi Germany - as a nation where people are quick to blame an immigrant religion and would probably even systematically kill them given the opportunity. You get these "dutch are racists" stereotypes all over the world now, and I'd sort of like to see what you guys have to say in defense to that.

[Siquo]

Exactly my point, he's making us look bad


Most of his voters come from places where there's relatively few muslims (the countryside, not from the large cities). Funny that, because if they were really a problem, it would be the other way around.

The other reasons to vote for him is because he's a populist (Less subsidy for leftist hobbies like art! More police on the streets! Less taxes for everyone! Everyone who says less taxes and spending more is impossible is left-church scum trying to demonise us!), he is the current "anti-vote" for the current government (If you're against them, vote for me!) and takes popular stances (less work and more money for the working man! But more jobs!), he even has his own Joe the Plumber. He's also a master at playing the media and refuses to hold any serious debate. So not all of his voters agree with the anti-muslim stance, by far.



Definitions of Wilderspeak:
- Left Church: Everything left-wing, and everything and everyone who opposes him and his ideas.
- To Demonise: Can only be applied to him and his ideas. It means that people are bad-mouthing him for the sole purpose of smudging his name. Disagreeing with him is demonising him. Really.

[Forumsdwarf]

While it was naive of us to provide medical supplies of such a sensitive nature they had nothing to do with the chemical weapons Saddam actually used in combat.

They knew, therefore it was evil, not stupidity (for a change).

A conspiracy theory?  We knew they were using our medical supplies to make weapons and that's why we let them have the medical supplies ... until we cut them off?  Give me a break.  If we'd wanted to help Saddam make biological weapons we would've done it.  Instead we sent medical supplies, found out Saddam was misusing them, cut off the supply, and now face terrorism for doing the right thing.
And people wonder why we need a War on Terror ...

The WMD's Saddam actually used -- mostly mustard gas with some assorted nerve gasses thrown in -- didn't come from us.  Had he dropped an anthrax bomb things would be different, but he didn't.  Nice try.

Ah, but they were paid for by US money, and delivered by US allies (germany, france, italy).

Singapore and Brazil were the biggest suppliers ... ahh, but that doesn't fit your narrative.  As excuses for terrorism go, though, it's pretty close to the kinds of things Osama comes up with.

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time ... the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments ...

That we provided some intel was never at issue.  The issue was where Saddam got his chemical weapons, and it wasn't from us.  Feel free to accuse us of something completely different and somehow try to use that to "prove" your farcical allegations.  I'd hate for you to break with precedent.

So, although you're technically correct, you're wurming your way through a shithole where there's no exit.

If I'm technically correct, that leaves you ignorant and incorrect.  Nice spin, though.  You're doing the best you can with a losing argument.

And going from attacking the actual guilty people to attack the entire group those people belong to is something you yourself seem to condone.

And you still don't understand: what I'm attacking, and you can include yourself and the other apologists along with the mainstream Muslims, are the excuses you constantly make for terrorism -- on fabricated evidence, as it turns out.  So, you make up lies then justify terrorist attacks in the name of those lies and it is that for which I offer unapologetic condemnation.

That's your reasoning they are using. You are exactly like those you oppose, yet you and them both think you're so different.

You don't even understand my reasoning.  You're embarrassing yourself.
I have never claimed that mainstream Muslims were terrorists -- I have claimed, and provided real evidence of same, that they give excuses and justifications for terrorism and claim to be the "real victims" whenever a terrorist attack takes place.  These excuses and justifications encourage further terrorist attacks by the radical element.
Despite repeated explanation you still don't have a clue.  Maybe this time?

[Phmcw]

Forumsdwarf, try to get something right for a change : mainstream muslims doesn't support terrorism, and think it give them a bad name, the same way that mainstream catholic doesn't support creationnism and find it give them a bad name. I bet you never lived among muslims, and that everything you learned about them come from Fox news.

The usa gave weapon to both Iran and Iraq in an obvious attempt to create a war. It worked. You are partially reasponsable of what happend. And by partially, I mean mostly. Of course so is françe, Brazil (though I suppose it was supported by the US, and china, who was probably after money, just as usual).

Everybody in Iraq hate US, for what they have done in the first gulf war, and for what they are doing in the current gulf war. And you cannot continue to fight, not because of the public opinnion, but because US ran out of money.

[Siquo]

I have claimed, and provided real evidence of same, that they give excuses and justifications for terrorism and claim to be the "real victims" whenever a terrorist attack takes place.  These excuses and justifications encourage further terrorist attacks by the radical element.
Despite repeated explanation you still don't have a clue.  Maybe this time?

... Ok, out of curiosity, why do you think terrorist acts are committed in the first place?

[Virex]

Fireworks are cool?


As far as I know, most terrorist attacks are made because it will make a difference. It's after all the best way to get your cause known

[Siquo]

Not at all the best way, but it might be the only available option left. No, I am curious as to what Forumsdwarf has to say about it.

[Forumsdwarf]

Actually Virex pretty much nailed it.  Muslim extremists believe that terrorism gets results, and that's why they do it / justify it / dance in the streets celebrating it.

What Muslims seem to want is to turn this:


into this:



(That's a Winnie the Pooh book in Saudi Arabia with Piglet censored.  They got Piglet censored in Britain, too.  We Americans wouldn't capitulate to Muslim censorship no matter how many planes they try to hijack, but in other places the cowering Dhimmis dutifully obey.)

What I didn't realize until this thread is that rank-and-file Muslims justify their antagonism to our basic freedoms by making up crimes we Americans didn't commit, blaming us for things like Saddam's chemical weapons.  I always knew their belligerence was enabled by their self-identification as victims, but I never knew the extent to which they would carry the delusion until now -- assuming you speak for mainstream Muslims accurately.
We can't reason with people like that.  Whatever we do they will always come up with new excuses to hate us, even if they have to invent them out of whole cloth.  All I have to say at this point is that we're going to need a lot more drones.  We're going to be fighting this war for a long time.

Someone asked if I had any Muslim friends.  Nope.  I have some friends from the Middle East who are former Muslims who can't stand their former religion.  They can't ever return to their countries of origin or they might be murdered for apostasy.  But here in the States along with freedom of speech we have freedom of religion, too, so they'll be fine -- just as long as America remains what Osama would call the "Strong Horse".

[Leafsnail]

Forumsdwarf - just out of interest, what in the hell are you talking about?  Piglet is censored over here... what??  And they're trying to stop us buying war bonds?

I am... seriously confused.

[Siquo]

Actually Virex pretty much nailed it.  Muslim extremists believe that terrorism gets results, and that's why they do it / justify it / dance in the streets celebrating it.

What Muslims seem to want is to turn this:

What I didn't realize until this thread is that rank-and-file Muslims justify their antagonism to our basic freedoms by making up crimes we Americans didn't commit, blaming us for things like Saddam's chemical weapons.  I always knew their belligerence was enabled by their self-identification as victims, but I never knew the extent to which they would carry the delusion until now -- assuming you speak for mainstream Muslims accurately.
We can't reason with people like that.  Whatever we do they will always come up with new excuses to hate us, even if they have to invent them out of whole cloth.  All I have to say at this point is that we're going to need a lot more drones.  We're going to be fighting this war for a long time.

But, didn't america start this war because they were identifying themselves as the victims? I still fail to see the difference. I see two kids fighting, each yelling "no, HE started it!". What makes the american's cause better than that of Osama? Why are they more victims than any muslim, especially the ones who don't support terrorism? Why are americans who were not killed in 9/11 victims? And what about these guys and their families? You think Saddam would've gotten to that body count all by himself?

"Antagonism against our basic freedoms"... You really think people will cross half the world and blow themselves up just because you guys like free speech?!? Would you? Probably not.
But would you travel halfway around the world and blow yourself up to protect/avenge your family, country, and the ones you love? You might. So that is exactly what they think they are doing. Protecting/avenging their loved ones, in any way possible. How can you not respect that, if you would do the same if the tables were turned?

And what prevents you from seeing that this whole "war on terror" is a clusterf*ck that has only created more terrorists, as is the untermensch approach by people like Wilders?

And my last one: Who still thinks the USA is the "land of the free"? Death sentences, strict anti-immigration laws, police abuse, general abuse of power, high crime rates, CENSORSHIP of evolution theory and art, and that's without counting all the post 9/11 laws, and the shit that bush-protestors got just for dissenting. And then there's the whole "you can be put in jail and tortured without due process" stuff.

If I really had to choose on where to live, I'd have a hard time choosing between Iran and the USA. They're not that dissimilar.



Just thought of that movie, "Independence day", the one with the aliens. Two guys go up in a plane, and genocide an entire alien race. If that isn't terrorism I don't know what is. Lesson learned: Terrorism is a viable tactic against much stronger opponents. The extremists just watched too many american movies

[Muz]

What I didn't realize until this thread is that rank-and-file Muslims justify their antagonism to our basic freedoms by making up crimes we Americans didn't commit

OK, this one really gets me annoyed whenever these debates pop up. Let's see... America's been meddling in Middle Eastern freedom for decades. It wasn't obvious enough with the early meddling in Israel and the Gulf War early on, fine. But now, you have tanks rolling in the Middle East, gunships, drones, nukular weapons, cruise missiles, precision stealth bombers, you name it. They attacked the republic of Iraq for literally no reason and that part should be obvious to everyone. They've killed thousands of innocents, with some of the crazier fanatical soldiers wishing they had killed more or just nuked the whole place.

The USA has done some very nasty human rights violations ever since the Cold War. You can't simply claim that they never committed any crimes. People don't hate America for no reason. People don't kill themselves for no reason. Americans love to put all sorts of excuses on people being affected by religious brainwashing. But human behavior shows one thing: When someone is cornered and doomed, he'll die to save his friends. Any man would jump on a grenade to save his friends if he had to.

Americans claim that the Japanese kamikaze pilots were all affected by Shinto beliefs. They claim that the Muslim suicide bombers were affected by Islamic beliefs. There's a close similarity to 9/11 and the kamikaze attacks. Try and look at it from their point of view. The reality is that they were both cornered rats. Both strongly fear American invasion... tales of American soldiers raping their wives and shooting their children. Americans have shown to be extremely ruthless in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Abu Ghraib, and Gaza.

And the Americans justify murder because of fear of some cartoon getting censored. A single shock artist getting killed somewhere is justification for a whole race getting attacked. Who are the terrorists now?

I'm not condoning terrorism or labeling all Americans as genociders, but the one main reason it's become so strong is because you're fighting fire with fire. It's not even "terrorism" in the previous sense, it's closer "guerrilla warfare". 9/11 was part of a war between America/Israel and Arabs and not between Free Speech and Islam. Nobody is going to kill over Free Speech. People will criticize and condemn it.. but if you don't have the right to criticize Free Speech in the first place, then you never had any Free Speech at all.

[Forumsdwarf]

Forumsdwarf - just out of interest, what in the hell are you talking about?  Piglet is censored over here... what??  And they're trying to stop us buying war bonds?

I am... seriously confused.

Hee hee, I sometimes forget the non-American audience isn't entirely familiar with American culture.

Norman Rockwell was a famous painter during the WWII era.  The painting I posted, "Freedom of Speech", is from his "Four Freedoms" collection intended to remind Americans of the values for which we were fighting -- and motivate them to buy war bonds.  The importance of "Freedom of Speech" isn't the bonds but the speech.

Piglet is banned in certain British government offices.  Link:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article102182.ece

We're not going to let that happen here.  Matt Stone and Trey Parker were censored by Comedy Central, but that is a private company.  Our government has so far not capitulated.  Furthermore it would be political suicide for any leader who suggested it.

The fact that mainstream Muslims give the provably bogus "biological weapons in Iraq" excuse to attack us is all I need to understand the "cycle of violence".  They're attacking us for "crimes" they invented out of whole cloth -- but the "root cause" is obvious: we allow people like Salman Rushdie to live, to speak, and we protect people like him from people like them.

Author Salman Rushdie, who back before any of the so-called "crimes" and "human rights violations" we allegedly committed after the Cold War was threatened with death for criticizing Muhammad in a book he wrote called The Satanic Verses.

Looking at that provocation from the Muslim perspective, a critical facility for understanding the conflict I do agree, we dared to defy their Fatwah, and for that their God demands we must be punished.

So be it -- both of us have our values we're willing to fight for and they're mutually exclusive.  Enough are willing to kill and die for their cause that we must be.  Drones, missiles, troops, alliances to nations with compatible values, whatever it takes, freedom of speech is worth it.  The lives of millions are not worth the banning of a single book, not worth the life of a single cartoonist, not worth censoring a single frame of South Park.

But there is hope: the Strong Horse Theory predicts that if we fight hard enough long enough Muslim society will reform and adopt our ways.  On the other hand, should that theory prove to be in error an aggressive policy eventually solves the problem anyway by eliminating all those who are causing it.

Heads we win, tails they lose.  Until then, "Billions for defense, but not a penny for censorship," if I might update a time-honored ideal.  They can choose peace now or suffer peace later, but they can't have Salman Rushdie.