Not in my name

Sand

And before world attention was seriously diverted by a "war on terror" people were decrying Putin's actions in respect to Chechnya. Even the US was openly condemning his actions, but now Bush can't say a peep cause he's responsible for the same sh1t.

But the peace activists can - its what they have organised and grouped themselves to do after all, and yet they cant seem to summon up the same energy for Putin. Their stance isnt based on principles then. Hype maybe, but not principles.

You are also picking and choosing which protestor to pay attention to, and therefore which cherry picking logic, when there happen to be millions worldwide.

No Im not - I got a nice broad range of sources from human shields to the protest organisers to the protestors themselves.

Elected leaders are supposed to have a mandate from the people. Obviously they didn't have that mandate and any questions should have been explored. In America that's the reason congress is the only one that can declare war (technically).

Bush and Blair received their mandate by being elected in free and fair elections by the people of their respective nations - thats their mandate. Its the same mandate that all legitimate governments have. It is not superceded by poll findings which are not free and fair elections. If you want a government dictated to by polls then say so but youll be the first to start howling when polls brought to you by The Sun call for ritual flaying of paedophiles, or some other "uncivillised" yet subversivally popular viewpoints on say - illegal immigration are brought up.

Protestors, on the other hand have the luxury of not having to follow a mandate (or right) but only what they perceive to be wrong and making their voice heard.

Agreed - this is what highlights their hypocrisy over Putin. Putin has done as much, and much worse imo and yet protests against his visit are muted at best.

Actually in America, should the majority of people decide that the government is acting against their wishes we have a right to overthrow that said government. It's called being a citizen.

And is usually enacted in elections rather than storming the white house with armalites? And a majority of those polled, asked questions which can be framed subtly to give the appropriate response - rather than free and fair election or referendum......thats your justification for the armed revolt?

Interesting. Maybe those militia men had it right all along? They use the same logic.

The Chechnyan campaign is nowhere close to the "war on terror".

Uh - huh. It certainly hasnt made as many column inches despite going on since the mid 90s, with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded on all sides and entire cities levelled, civillians routinely tortured, raped, murdered and abused by both the Russians and the Chechen sepratists. Who knows, maybe when they crash a plane into the side of WTC 2 people will pay attention.

Not even close? Pffft.

mr_angry

I think this thread should be moved to Political Satire, once finished, for the outrageous polarisation of views, and complete denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
Don't you mean Kuwait? Or prehaps Israel?

Correct. Turkey, Kuwait and Israel.

How are they better off? Please elaborate how Palistine now is so much better off before the Iraq war?

Less money poured in to fuel suicide bombings that exploited the Palestinian poeple by escalating the conflict, destroying any chance of peace and increasing the deaths of young Palestinians. Of course such matters probably do not count when bigger issues like the chance to attack the US is considered.

Sure, just point out them out to us will you?

Yes, they're the thousands of people Saddam had in jail and rounded up every month that were tortured, raped and murdered and ended up part of the 600,000 bodies found in mass graves since the end of the war.

Well if you bothered to check up on the history of Afganistan you would of found that the Afgan people welcomed the Taliban into the country because the warlords where even worse then the taliban.

Just becasue they made a mistake doesn't mean they deserved to suffer to suit some politically correct anti US propaganda.

In fact the Northern Alliance (you know the ones the US treated as heros in the fight), make the Taliban look like angels.

A totally incorrect statement. Where is your evidenc of this ?

Yes those who live the controlled area by the US. For the rest of Afganistan it is business as usual, except maybe the increased drugs trade which was outlawed under the Taliban.

First;y it's not business as usual because the Taliban are gone. Is there repression of women still there ? yes of course. But one major reason is that so many countries in Europe and around the world won't make the slightest effort to help them and expect the US to do everything.

In summary you appear to be basing your fact on complete fiction. For starters the Taliban were not a terrorist organisation they just didn't want to hand over OBL to the US as they believed he wouldn't get a fair trial. After looking at Camp X-Ray you can well believe them.

The Taliban were a brutal terrorist organisation that supported and supplied and protected Al Quida. I hope as many of them as possible never ever get out of that Camp to murder more people. Of course I expect you'd like to have them back to your house because you feel that they won't murder nice Irish poeple, only nasty americans.

Secondly, the taliban up until a few months before 911 were in fact getting funding from the US and also entertaining a major US oil company (who even invited the taliban over to the US to see 'how the Americans do business').

Your facts are woefully wrong. The US were not funding the Taliban months before the war. Can you offer some evidence of this ?

There has never been any proof that AQ trained in Iraq (except one caught in UN controlled area). Proof otherwise, lets see AQ hatred for Saddam and visa versa and not to mention bushes speech after the war that "Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists".

There has been plenty of evidence that Al Quida trained in Iraq and their leaders met with Saddam many times over the years. You just refuse to accept any evidence that upsets your anti US view of the world.

A democracy put in place by the US which offers expensive contracts to US companies which the Iraqi people cannot cancel when they are finally allowed vote someone in.

Sounds good to me. Who had the contracts before the war ? Saddams family. Of course that doesn't bother you. And there have been no long term contracts awarded by the US that will stretch beyond the remit of legitimate democratic government in Iraq who will in fact be free to change or alter or cancel any contracts once they take power.
My guess if they won't. They know the truth of their liberation and will be very grateful to their liberators. They know from their own experience the contrast between Saddam and freedom.

Again what are you basing this on?

I notice you don't name any single media closed down.

I guess you missed the large number of deaths of foriegn reporters or others being falsely imprisoned or the US locking off areas from reporters.

The US have not murdered any foreign reporters. A couple have died after running around a war zone like dumbass idiots. The US hasn't falsely imprisoned any reporters.

Actually AJ is about the most uncensored non-watered down paper out there and to shut them up the US are claiming they are terrorists.

Al Jazeera is a pro Saddam, pro Iranian antidemocratic voice of the middle east dictators that want to prevent democracy spreading anywhere in the middle east. It promotes terrorism and the US can't shut them up, unfortunately. I hope they can use the Shuttle to blow their satellite out of space, personally.

What papers do you be reading? Try reading Salam Paxs journal ( http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/). He recorded such a raid on his parents house. One of the soliders was even in the process of stealing thier drinks.

An astonishing basis to make such accusations. What evidence have you that this peroson is in any way reliable or truthful ? none. But it seems you are that desparate to throw any accusations against the Amercians.
Stealing their drink ? Appalling !

The majority did not support the war in Iraq.

Simply not true. WHere is your evidence of this ?

Yet, there has been absolutly no evidence that was the case, or proof that he was in fact arming himself. You have proof? If so I recommend you tell Bush first.

There has been moountains of evidence of his arms build up. The UN believed it. They were also getting ready to build a missile system for North Korea. They took him out just in time it seems to me.

UN laws do not allow pre-emptive attacks as a means to self defense. Only the US is currently following that lead. If I am wrong please point out the exact law ok?

All members of the UN are entitled to act in self defence. And any country or Leader that has a brain cell left in his/her body that failed to act in self defence ought to be shot.

As for law broken? IANAL, however I would of thought attacking Iraq without the wish of the UN would be something along those lines.

They were entitled to in self defence.

Moreover in my view an international law that prevents anyone from liberating millions of people from a mass murderer is immoral and cannot be supported under any sense of justice.

What slaughter? Granted Saddam is not a nice person (understatement) but you make it sound like he was killing loads of people daily? Got a link for that?

600,000 bodies in mass graves. Does that qualify ? or maybe because they are only Iraqis that doesn't count ?

Seems the pro-US (or at least one) can only post bull****. Seriously, if you think otherwise please back up your points with facts. Thanks.

Seems like you are one that cannot back up a single accusation with a single fact.


.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
No Im not - I got a nice broad range of sources from human shields to the protest organisers to the protestors themselves.

You got various randoms plus two Stop the War Coalition pages, one of which was simply a photo plus merchandise, none of it with any relevance, the other one a pamphlet which said that protests showed that "Tony Blair did not speak in the name of the British people". At the time, this was correct - as the BBC chart I posted above shows, a clear majority of Britains (and every other country surveyed) were opposed to a military intervention in Iraq without fresh UN support - which is exactly what happened.

The trend since then is more ambiguous. Opposition to the war slid as soon as combat began, suggesting that British people, being a patriotic lot, wanted to support their troops once the war was under way. It has been going down ever since as the consequences become clearer, so that once again those who support the war are in a minority, though so are those who were against it. None of which makes the anti-war protestors wrong for continuing to protest.

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
Increasingly (to me), it is becoming clear that there are four main factions involved :

1) There are those who will support the US no matter what it does, and criticise anyone who doesn't do likewise as being anti-US, Saddam/terrorist/communist/evil-of-the-week supporting insensitive types.

2) There are those who will support the US no matter what it does, and accept that others have a right to criticise that, and that not all US critics fall into category 4.

3) There are those who criticise or applaud specific actions for specific reasons,

4) There are those who criticise the US no matter what it does.

Depressingly, I would expect most people to strive to be in group 3, but the opposite seems to be the case.

In order to be "principled" these days, it seems you have to take an absolutist* stance pro- or anti-.

I guess I'm not principled then....

On the evidecne of your posts it appears to me that not only are you a member of 4 but that you have the same kind of callous disregard of people in the middle east who long for freedom after centuries of brutal repression. It seems that this kind of attitude toward the people of the middle east is rampant among a certain element in western society that value every miniscule freedom in their own lives but treat with contempt and indifference the lack of any freedom in that part of the world and have the extraordinary view that the people of Islam have somehow chosen to be brutalised and oppressed because of their choice of religion.

Disparaging all actions by the US on the basis that the results are not pure and inadulerated freedom and democracy is evidecen of this prejudice in my view.

I take a pragmatic view of the world and value any improvement. I also applaud whoever brings that improvement for whatever reason. If I am attacked by a thug in the street I don't care if my saviour is acting out of the goodness of his heart or for the sake of getting on tv for his actions. I don't care because i am saved.

I am no supporter of the US administrations or of Bush himself or his party whome I loathe, but when the results of their actions bring a better life to people who have waited centuries while the West, including Europe and the US, has done nothing to help them then I applaud it. I don't care if it is not perfect or ideal. It is better than before. And it is indeed better than before whatever propaganda some people like to spread.

Are the US as guilty of what has gone before or NOT gone before ? Of course they are. But I am not so callously cold hearted to attack them or protest against them for doing something positive, however belated it is. I can applaud them now as strongly as I can criticise them for before.

Chill is effectively portraying the stance (whether he believes in it or not) that "good enough" is synonymous with "whatever the US does"

If this is how you see it then I accept this characterisation completely. Why ? because we find ourselves in a world where it seems that only America is willing to act !
Would I prefer if they acted differently ? Absolutely yes ! But there is no other ballgame in town.
If Europe took it's responsibility in hand and did not wash it's hands of any direct action against world wide terrorism and in the cause of freeing people from such brutal regimes then we would perhaps be able to have a say in how better we could do the job. And it could be done a LOT better imho.

But Europe's peope have chosen to turn their cheeks against the people around the world that suffer form such regimes. European people have chosen to stand back and watch while America, however flawed their actions or motives may be, are left as the only ones willing to act. That is the fact of the situation. The fact is that if European countries, and others as well, had joined with America in their actions after 11/9 then their influence in the course of those actions would have lead to a different style of outcome, I am certain of that. By chosing to abstain; to stand back, they (we) chose to abstain from influence and hence lack any moral basis for their criticism imho.

I am willing to criticise many actions of the US administration but when the widespread regurgitation of inaccurate and bogus allegations against them forms almost the sole basis for people's irrational support for the continuation of Saddam's regime then I believe such criticisms that I might have pale into insignificance compared with the extraordinary good being achieved for the 25 million Iraqis and the millions of Afghans, never mind the rest of the world that is threatened by the spread of the extreme Islamic terrorism that is the flip side / alter ego of the brutal regimes that have oppressed the people of Islam for centuries.

.

mr_angry

This is hilarious. Keep going Chili. I'm waiting for tomorrow's installments of "Vietnam never happened", and "America never trained or funded Osama Bin Laden". And I thought Geronimo was bad...

I'm printing this out and pinning this up on my wall when you're finished buddy!

monument

Originally posted by chill
On the evidecne of your posts it appears to me that not only are you a member of 4 but that you have the same kind of callous disregard of people in the middle east who long for freedom after centuries of brutal repression. It seems that this kind of attitude toward the people of the middle east is rampant among a certain element in western society that value every miniscule freedom in their own lives but treat with contempt and indifference the lack of any freedom in that part of the world and have the extraordinary view that the people of Islam have somehow chosen to be brutalised and oppressed because of their choice of religion.

You're in group one then?

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
Less money poured in to fuel suicide bombings*snip*

Like I said. Please tell me how this has improved things? Has things in Palistine suddenly gotten better or worse since Saddam has been removed? He wasn't an overall factor to begin with.

Yes, they're the thousands of people Saddam had in jail and rounded up every month that were tortured, raped and murdered and ended up part of the 600,000 bodies found in mass graves since the end of the war.

Well you were talking about people who were still alive, point them out. 600,000 bodies? Wow that is a lot? Got a link to back that figure up?

Just becasue they made a mistake doesn't mean they deserved to suffer to suit some politically correct anti US propaganda.

Wow your ability to miss the point amazes. They picked a repressive regime because it dealt with an even more repressive regime. How can removing one for the other be a good thing?

A totally incorrect statement. Where is your evidenc of this ?

Here is a history lesson for you.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1005.htm

First;y it's not business as usual because the Taliban are gone.

Like I said. In the US controlled capital it is fine in the rest of the country it is still the same Afganistan with repression of women, executions for things as trival as singing.

Is there repression of women still there ? yes of course. But one major reason is that so many countries in Europe and around the world won't make the slightest effort to help them and expect the US to do everything.

o_O Wow spinmaster. So it is EU fault? Was it the EU fault when the US were going to help out the taliban in return for an oil pipe?

But in case you keep thinking that here is another document...
http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/sum06_03/afghan.pdf
(In case you can't read the PDF)

THE LARGEST DONOR TO AFGHANISTAN
... By March 2003, the EU had disbursed a total of $760 million.

For 2002-2006 the EU has pledged $2 billion - close to half (44%) of total pledges made for that period at the January 2002 donor conference in Tokyo.

For 2003-4, the EU is responsible for 65% of pledges to the recurrent budget expenses of the Afghan government...

I'll let you go research how much the US donated. Seeing as you think it is more.

The Taliban were a brutal terrorist organisation that supported and supplied and protected Al Quida.

The Taliban was not a terrorist organisation. It was the represented govening body of Afganistan (although only certain countries reconised them. The US being one of them).

They did support AQ but then the US government didn't give a toss about that.

I hope as many of them as possible never ever get out of that Camp to murder more people.

Actually a lot of the people in the camp are innocent (that is even ignoring the innocent unless proven guilty). Of course some people seem to think that locking people away with no rights, no right to see what they are being accused of or a fair trial is somehow a fair thing.

Don't bother asking for links, I posted some in another thread. Your clever go look.

Your facts are woefully wrong. The US were not funding the Taliban months before the war. Can you offer some evidence of this ?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11629 (US gives the Taliban $43 million). Of course you can google for other takes on it.

Or prehaps how about UNOCAL (a US oil company) trying to put a pipeline through Afganistan with the Talibans help.
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

Talk about black humour, the president of Afganistan was in fact a UNOCAL employee who helped in writing a report that a pipeline couldn't be built until the current regime was changed. (link can be found on boards to the actual document, although the link I gave you mentions it)

There has been plenty of evidence that Al Quida trained in Iraq and their leaders met with Saddam many times over the years.

Ok.. So prove it. Please show me this proof. Come on. Bush himself said publically that Saddam had absolutly nothing to do with Al Quida, so please prove him wrong (you know he would want to know too).

And there have been no long term contracts awarded by the US that will stretch beyond the remit of legitimate democratic government in Iraq who will in fact be free to change or alter or cancel any contracts once they take power.

I am wondering at this stage if you are just trolling or totally blind to what is going on. About a month ago there was a large US convention of all the US companies that got the Iraqi government contracts. When asked the intrim government spokes person laughed and said the Iraqi people would not be allowed to change/cancel the contracts if they thought they were not fair.

The Iraqi people are p!ssed too as they have been locked out of making money fixing thier own country. Kind of shoots holes in the Iraqi people being happy about it.

Not to mention do some research on where the money is going and have a look at the connections between the companies that have been awarded contracts and the current US Regime (I'll give you a clue 'halliburton')

The US have not murdered any foreign reporters. A couple have died after running around a war zone like dumbass idiots. The US hasn't falsely imprisoned any reporters.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,926616,00.html

Of course that page is very out of date, there were for example two reporters recently released after being proved innocent.

Al Jazeera is a pro Saddam, pro Iranian antidemocratic voice of the middle east dictators that want to prevent democracy spreading anywhere in the middle east.

Look, I could understand if you were misinformed but your not even trying to bother to research anything.

AL Jazeera is about as an impartial voice you are going to get in the middle east. Really, try reading up on how they are funded and what they are allowed do.

I hope they can use the Shuttle to blow their satellite out of space, personally.

Yea that will work :rolleyes:

An astonishing basis to make such accusations. What evidence have you that this peroson is in any way reliable or truthful ?

It was a diary of a normal everyday Iraqi. He never meant for his Blog to be famous but the Iraq war helped do that. People got to see the story from the other side. But I guessed you dismissed it off hand, if you bothered to read he is probably one of the people who wanted Saddam removed. He also got a good job with a reputable UK paper for his blog and got to meet Jack Straw among others.

Stealing their drink ? Appalling !

Absolutly appalling or do you mean it is false? But then they changed thier tune when they found out who thier son was. So he was famous enough for them to know him.

Simply not true. WHere is your evidence of this ?

Pick a poll. The general report was that the majority would back a war in Iraq if it was backed by the UN. Not if he went it alone.

If everyone backed it, how many helped?

There has been moountains of evidence of his arms build up. The UN believed it. They were also getting ready to build a missile system for North Korea. They took him out just in time it seems to me.

Please point me to news stories, or a link to the report in question if you don't mind.

All members of the UN are entitled to act in self defence.

Certainly. However pre-emptive self defense is illegal.

Like I said, if you think otherwise please supply a link to where pre-emptive self defense is legal.

They were entitled to in self defence.

Again self defense of what. Please cite actual reports/news stories of where you are basing your facts on. Until you do I can only assume you are living in some kind of alternate universe.

600,000 bodies in mass graves. Does that qualify ? or maybe because they are only Iraqis that doesn't count ?

Again please cite your supposed facts with links.

Seems like you are one that cannot back up a single accusation with a single fact.

I just did. If I missed anything you need more information on please post. Now how about posting your links to back up your facts?

mr_angry

the US can't shut them up, unfortunately.

Oh dear. That might involve some violation of the good old "right to free speech" that the US Constitution is founded upon? How unfortunate, indeed. If only we could be selective when it suited us...

Hobbes

[update]
Intresting while looking for the story where Raeds parents get harrassed by US soliders I noticed Blogspot have deleted the page. However a closer inspection you can still get to the page with the following link...

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com//2003_08_01_dear_raed_archive.html
(notice the two // ) Just in case they delete it...

:: Friday, August 29, 2003 ::

Our house was searched by the Americans. That happened almost ten days ago. I wasn’t home, but my mother called the next day a bit freaked out.
They came at around 12 midnight they were apparently supposed to do a silent entrance and surprise the criminal Ba’athi cell that was in my parents house, unfortunately for them our front gate does a fair amount of rattling so my brother heard that and opened the door and saw a couple of soldiers climbing on our high black front gate. When the silent entrance tactic failed they resorted to shouty entrance mode. So they shouted at him telling him that he should get down on his knees, which he did. He actually was trying to help them open the door, but whatever. Seconds later around 25 soldiers are in the house my brother, father and mother are outside sitting on the ground and in their asshole-ish ways refused to answer any questions about what was happening. My father was asking them what they were looking so that he can help but as usual since you are an Iraqi addressing an American is no use since he doesn’t even acknowledge you as a human being standing in front of him. They (the Americans) have a medic with them and he seems to be the only sane person amongst them, my brother tells me they were kids all of them. Anyway so my brother and father start talking to the medic and he tells them what this is about. They have been “informed” that there are daily meetings the last five days, Sudanese people come into our house at 9am and stay till 3pm, we are a probable Ansar cell. My father is totally baffled, my brother gets it. These are not Sudanese men they are from Basra the “informer” is stupid enough to forget that there is a sizeable population in Basra who are of African origin. And it is not meetings these 2 (yes only two) guys have here, they are carpenters and they were repairing my mom’s kitchen. Way. To. Go. You have great informers.
While my family is waiting outside something strange happens, one of the soldiers comes out, empties his flask in the garden and start telling the medic to give him his, the medic shoos him away. They all think that the soldier is filling his flask with cold water from the cooler. Later it turns out that he emptied my father’s bottle of Johnny Walker’s into his flask and was probably trying to convince the medic to give him his to empty another bottle. Weird ****.
Aaaaanyway, they are looking thru my father’s papers by now and their genius translator comes to the commander of operation [Pax House Bust] and tells him he has found “suspicious documents”. They are passes to various conferences he has attended and bank cards for old closed accounts he used to have and most alarmingly for the person in charge was an invitation my father received a couple of days earlier to a meeting with General Abi Zaid to which he and others were flown to the Bakr Air Base north of Baghdad. Now the guy who was in charge starts trying to cover his ass and asks a lot of pointless questions, one of the more surreal ones was “so if one of your sons is writing for a foreign newspaper why are you still here?”. After this goes on for a while he gets the family out of the house again, closes the door and stays in there for 15 minutes. Comes out with the 20 galactic troopers and tells my father that he should inside check everything “I don’t want any complains filed later on”, my father just opens the front gate and tells him that if he wants to file a complaint he will thank you and bye-bye.

They came, freaked out my mother, pissed off my father, found nothing and left.
After refusing to get one my father finally conceded to get one of those cards that basically say you are a “collaborator”, and my mother will be spending a couple of weeks at her sister’s in Amman
:: salam 12:43 AM [+] ::
...

shotamoose

Originally posted by Hobbes
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11629 (US gives the Taliban $43 million). Of course you can google for other takes on it.

Hobbes, you might want to actually read that link ...

Hobbes

Originally posted by shotamoose
Hobbes, you might want to actually read that link ...

I did read it. A long time ago. I am well aware the money went (I posted this link before if I remember on another thread) ... but feck it he's not going to actually bother to research, I doubt even he will read it.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
Like I said. Please tell me how this has improved things? Has things in Palistine suddenly gotten better or worse since Saddam has been removed? He wasn't an overall factor to begin with.

Clearly your measure of improvement bears no relation to what's good for the Palestinian people, only your political sense of expediency.

Well you were talking about people who were still alive, point them out. 600,000 bodies? Wow that is a lot? Got a link to back that figure up?

Oh right,, what's next ? Are you going to deny the Nazi death camps ? Perhaps they were nasty US propaganda too ?

Here is a history lesson for you. LINK:

A totally bogus link. Not much of a history lesson there I'm afraid. And nothing to support any contention that the Northern Alliance was worse than the Taliban.

Like I said. In the US controlled capital it is fine in the rest of the country it is still the same Afganistan with repression of women, executions for things as trival as singing.

And this is who's fault exactly ? Maybe you blame this on America too ? How come the protestors didn't demand an end to this instead of a continuation of the Saddam regime ?

For 2002-2006 the EU has pledged $2 billion - close to half (44%) of total pledges made for that period at the January 2002 donor conference in Tokyo.
For 2003-4, the EU is responsible for 65% of pledges to the recurrent budget expenses of the Afghan government...

What kind of pathetic evidence is this ? What has money got to do with it ? What is the EU doing to change things on the ground ? Where is the money going ? The answer is NOTHING. ONly the US is willing to risk their soldier's lives. None of the EU countries is willing to do that to the degree that the US is doing. Throwing money at the problem is typical of the hand wringing attitude of so much of the EU.

They did support AQ but then the US government didn't give a toss about that.

The US didn't care ? What did the Eu do ? What did Ireland do ? What did the rest of the world do ? What did the sanctimonious protestors do ? Nothing.

Actually a lot of the people in the camp are innocent (that is even ignoring the innocent unless proven guilty).

What do you base that on ? What were they doing trying to kill American soldiers, training to be terrorists so that they could follow their leader in to terrorist actions in the west.

Don't bother asking for links, I posted some in another thread. Your clever go look.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11629 (US gives the Taliban $43 million). Of course you can google for other takes on it.

A very interesting link. Let's look at the contents of this link:
"the US gave $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation"

Then:
.."Would have been, that is, if it had really happened. It didn't."

And...
"The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands."

Isn't it inconvenient when the facts don't actually fit your paranoia ? And this is a key quality test for the power of your so called 'Links' evidence, that you place so much emphasis on.

Or prehaps how about UNOCAL (a US oil company) trying to put a pipeline through Afganistan with the Talibans help. LINK

And your point yete again is ?

Does your contribution really add up to a sad litany of nasty little stories about dodgy US dealing with bad regimes around the world ? conveniently ignoring the equally dodgy dealings by almost every other country in the world ?

I am wondering at this stage if you are just trolling or totally blind to what is going on.

Ha ! the usual refuge of the vaccuous.

About a month ago there was a large US convention of all the US companies that got the Iraqi government contracts. When asked the intrim government spokes person laughed and said the Iraqi people would not be allowed to change/cancel the contracts if they thought they were not fair.

There was no such officiel statement. There has been no such policy by the US and The whole idea is laughably preposterous...

The Iraqi people are p!ssed too as they have been locked out of making money fixing thier own country. Kind of shoots holes in the Iraqi people being happy about it.

Except that I made no such claim. So you are just creating straw arguments to suit yourself. I applaud the US for doing the work themselves. No Iraqi company is capable of doing the work reliably and without being invlved with Saddam's regime people. It would be a ghastly mistake to trust them to do so at this stage of the liberation process.

Not to mention do some research on where the money is going and have a look at the connections between the companies that have been awarded contracts and the current US Regime (I'll give you a clue 'halliburton')

Proving nothing relevant to the thread, except that Bush is an extreme right winger who lines his own and his buddies pockets. So what's new ?

Of course that page is very out of date, there were for example two reporters recently released after being proved innocent.

An excellent link where my point is proven correct. The US have not murdered any fjournalists nor falsely imprisoned any. The quality of your links is astonishing, one wonders if you ever even bother to read them before you post.

Look, I could understand if you were misinformed but your not even trying to bother to research anything.

Why would I bother ? you seem to find plenty of links that supporet my view totally.

AL Jazeera is about as an impartial voice you are going to get in the middle east. Really, try reading up on how they are funded and what they are allowed do.

Yo must be living in some kind of parallel universe... Al Jazeera is a pro Saddam, pro Iranian antidemocratic voice of the middle east dictators that want to prevent democracy spreading anywhere in the middle east.

It was a diary of a normal everyday Iraqi. He never meant for his Blog to be famous but the Iraq war helped do that. People got to see the story from the other side. But I guessed you dismissed it off hand, if you bothered to read he is probably one of the people who wanted Saddam removed. He also got a good job with a reputable UK paper for his blog and got to meet Jack Straw among others.

Ooooh ! then he MUST be legit. Smazing how you are willing to swallow even the most transparent information to support your view but call everything Blair and Bush generate as lies. What intellect.

Pick a poll. The general report was that the majority would back a war in Iraq if it was backed by the UN. Not if he went it alone.

I believe in democracy not the world of commercial opinion polls of a few thousand people paid for by biased people to come up with their answers. I was never asked. Did they consult the people of China ? of India ? Of Africa ? even of the middle east ?
or as usual do you support the idea that the people of these regions simply don't deserve the same rights as we have ?

Please point me to news stories, or a link to the report in question if you don't mind.

Do your own research. The BBC itself, anti war as you can get reported the discovery of the papers in computers in recent days. North Korea was franchising their long range missile to Saddam and Saddam had already paid 10million as a downpayment.

Certainly. However pre-emptive self defense is illegal.

Where does it say that ?

Like I said, if you think otherwise please supply a link to where pre-emptive self defense is legal.

Where does it say it is illegal ?

Again self defense of what. Please cite actual reports/news stories of where you are basing your facts on. Until you do I can only assume you are living in some kind of alternate universe.

The people in the twin towers weren't living in an alernate universe. They were killed by the terrorists that came from Afghanistan and helped by Saddam. Saddam was a danger to the US and the rest of the world.

Again please cite your supposed facts with links.

You mean the way you supplied your links ? If you say that 600,000 bodies have not been found in mass graves in Iraq then have the guts to say so.

I just did. If I missed anything you need more information on please post. Now how about posting your links to back up your facts?

How about you explaining how wonderful your wonderful 'Links' are while I quote the link you offered as 'Proof' of the US giving millions to the Taliban ?

"the US gave $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation"

.."Would have been, that is, if it had really happened. It didn't."

"The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands."

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Oh dear. That might involve some violation of the good old "right to free speech" that the US Constitution is founded upon? How unfortunate, indeed. If only we could be selective when it suited us...

We can all see how you deal with opinions that differ from you. It's quite clear what kind of regime you wodl support. Thankfully here on Boards we have free speech, even yours :ninja:


.

Hobbes

Chill I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a troller.

Your complete flip-flopping on issues and you complete inability to back anything up with proof and to totally ignore proof that has shown you are full of crap.

Post links to cite your proof or don't bother posting at all.

Here are some OF YOUR subjects you can try to prove with actual reports or news stories.

- Saddam kills 600,000 people. *
- Paslistinian way of live improves with the removal of Saddam.
- Europe did nothing to help Afganistan after the war. *
- Saddam was training Al Quida *
- Contracts in Iraq have not been awarded to mostly US companies who have ties to the US regime. *
- Saddam was setting up North Koreas missile program. *
- Show me where pre-emptive attacking in self defense is allowed under the UN. (Don't bother asking me to the prove the reverse, you said it was allowed it is up to you to prove it)

The only link you look like you read I intentionally put in to see if you were full of crap.

Now until you can back your accusations with actual factual information don't bother posting or trying to rebut what is posted. An opinion is not fact.

(update) Updated missile link to point out that the only proof is a newspaper report, no one else has heard of it.

mr_angry

Originally posted by chill
We can all see how you deal with opinions that differ from you. It's quite clear what kind of regime you wodl support. Thankfully here on Boards we have free speech, even yours :ninja:


.

In true style, Chill, you have totally embarrased yourself again. It was not me who attacked the right to free speech, it was YOU!

the US can't shut them up, unfortunately.

I fully respect the right to free speech - even yours. However, I fail to see how you have validated your arguments in any way! (Shouting at people is not validation, by the way). And exactly what kind of "regime" would I support? Why dont you santimonously shove it down my throat in public? It seems to be what you'd like to do.

I fully support the removal of Saddam and the Taliban. But not the way the US did it, and not by placing another bunch of killers in their place.

p.s. - I think you will also find that there are plenty of Italian soldiers getting shot to bits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and believe it or not, the IRISH army is also keeping the peace in Afghanistan. So don't accuse the EU of not doing anything. You are incorrect. The only difference is that we didn't blow up half a country trying to catch Saddam / Osama, and then fail.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by chill
The people in the twin towers weren't living in an alernate universe. They were killed by the terrorists that came from Afghanistan and helped by Saddam. Saddam was a danger to the US and the rest of the world.

Where is the proof that they were helped by Saddam?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
Where is the proof that they were helped by Saddam?

Actually as far I remember from all reports the hijackers were all of Saudi Arabian origin not Afganistan (but actual facts doesn't seem to stop Chill from arguing).

I'm sure chill won't reply with anything constructive to your request, however I do know from reading around that Saddam knew something was going to happen on that day as he put all his army on high alert shortly before it. Of course actually connecting him to it would be a stretch. Odds on he knew, along with a lot of people. Sept 11 was probably one of the best kept public secrets and it still amazes me that the US government can claim they had no idea an attack was coming.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Hobbes
Actually as far I remember from all reports the hijackers were all of Saudi Arabian origin not Afganistan (but actual facts doesn't seem to stop Chill from arguing).

15 were Saudis from what I have read. I'm not expecting much of an answer (if any) to the last post, I'm just wondering if he's seen any sort of evidence to support that.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
In true style, Chill, you have totally embarrased yourself again. It was not me who attacked the right to free speech, it was YOU!

Nope. Wrong again. It is you who should be embarrassed at the silliness of your post.

It was not me who attacked the right to free speech, it was YOU!
Chill :the US can't shut them up, unfortunately.

Isn't it amazing how sensitive you can be about such an innocuous comment yet you culdn't give a damn about Iraq and the Iraqi people when it comes to your irrational opposition to anything the US does ? Sad.

I fully respect the right to free speech - even yours. However, I fail to see how you have validated your arguments in any way! (Shouting at people is not validation, by the way).

I haven't shouted at anyone. Yet another unsubstatiated accusation - though nothing new.

And exactly what kind of "regime" would I support? Why dont you santimonously shove it down my throat in public? It seems to be what you'd like to do.

Another typical response from someone who clearly hasn't bothered to read my posts. I support freedom and democracy, you clearly oppose it.

I fully support the removal of Saddam and the Taliban. But not the way the US did it, and not by placing another bunch of killers in their place.

Yeah yeah, you 'support' things but you don't support anyone doing anything about it. The usual stuff.

p.s. - I think you will also find that there are plenty of Italian soldiers getting shot to bits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and believe it or not, the IRISH army is also keeping the peace in Afghanistan. So don't accuse the EU of not doing anything. You are incorrect. The only difference is that we didn't blow up half a country trying to catch Saddam / Osama, and then fail.

Another bit of flakiy reasoning. You 'support' getting rid of evil but you don't support anyone actually fighting to do it. You imply that it could all have been achieved by 'negotiation' no doubt...
The EU have and are doing SFA to help Afghanistan in comarison to the sacrifices of America. The Italians and Irish came in after all the serious fighting and dying was done and are taking none of the risks. So much for your ideas.

Hobbes

Chill until such time you back up your comments with actual facts try to STFU.

Links chill, links.

Btw...

The EU have and are doing SFA to help Afghanistan in comarison to the sacrifices of America.

You have said this three or four times now, despite the fact I have shown you a document that listed that the EU are doing more then the rest of the world in regards to getting Afganistan back on its feet.

Either that or your confusing Iraq with Afganistan.

Of course, you could be right but how about those links to prove it Chill?

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
Chill I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a troller.

Hardly a surprise coming from a card carrying member of the anti US apologists for Saddam's brutal regime. You cannot stand having the truth of your amoral attitude toward the people of Iraq and the middle east posted in your face.

Your denials of Saddam's evil regime reminds me of the holocaust denials - maybe you will tell us that you don't accept the mass graves. Maybe they all decided to be buried there in some kind of group ritual where they shot each other in the head or gassed themselves with WMD gas ? Nothing you say would surprise me any more.

Here are some OF YOUR subjects you can try to prove with actual reports or news stories.

- Saddam kills 600,000 people.

600,000
"There, now in Iraq, we discovered mass graves - more than 600,000 Iraqis are buried there. About 200,000 of them are Kurds- mainly, many of them were victims of the experiment of chemical and biological weapons."

600,000
"For example, Chemical Ali was leading a campaign called an Anfal campaign, which led to the arrests of 182,000 innocent women and children who have since disappeared, and now we are discovering their bodies in the mass graves in the south of Iraq in which there are more than 600,000 Iraqis in these mass graves."

And that is in addition to the more than a million Iraqi children murdered by Saddam by withholding medecine and money and health services during the UN sanctions period, medecine that he delivered copiously to his enormous army and his fellow tribespeople and family and supporters.

And of course the latest effort at denial is aimed at the recent discovery of cooperation between Iraq and North Korea:
Iraq-N.Korea

But this is hardly a surprise. Maybe we should award Saddam the Nobel Peace prize ?

Oh no ! I forgot... you probably 'support' the fact that Saddam is gone, now that he's gone. what galls you is that only the US had the balls to do it and you are left with picking over pathetic excuses for criticism of them. They actually killed people liberating 25 million people ! Pathetic.


.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes

Post links to cite your proof or don't bother posting at all.

What amazing hypocricy ! on the other hand, not a surprise coming from you.

You have the gall to call for 'proof' after posting a pathetic bunch of lies about the US giving 45 million to the Taliban ???

Remember this ?

Originally posted as proofby Hobbes:
"Don't bother asking for links, I posted some in another thread. Your clever go look.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11629 (US gives the Taliban $43 million). Of course you can google for other takes on it."

Some proof that the US gave 45 million to the Taliban !
Let's look again at the quote from the article that you conveniently avoided in your hypocritical accusation to me above:

Firstly:
"the US gave $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation"

Then:
.."Would have been, that is, if it had really happened. It didn't."

Followed by...
"The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands."

And you dare call for me to offer more of what you sanctimoniously call 'proof' ?



.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
On the evidecne of your posts it appears to me that not only are you a member of 4

You obviously don't read what I write very thorougly.

that you have the same kind of callous disregard of people in the middle east who long for freedom after centuries of brutal repression.

So by saying that the US should do a better job I am callously disregarding etc.etc.etc. ?????

Thats priceless because you go on to say :

Would I prefer if they acted differently ? Absolutely yes ! But there is no other ballgame in town.

So, we both want the US to do a better job.

However, you expect this to be accomplished by standing by, waving a US flag and going "great stuff lads.....keep it up.....what a fantastic job you're doing", whereas I am inclined to point out where it has gone wrong and say "that shouldn't have gone wrong".

So, for me actually voicing something that you implicitly accept as true (i.e. that the US could do a better job), not only am I staunchly anti-US in your eyes, but I'm an oppressor of the middle-east, and probably a terrorist supporter to boot.

Go figure.

I take a pragmatic view of the world and value any improvement.

Yes, but you don't actually seem to care about expressing the view that it could be done better, despite admitting that it could and that you would like it to be better.

You are also massively blinkered in your views of what constitutes improvement. The stuff that you are constantly deriding Hobbes for posting as being pure fiction is extensively documented. It has been discussed here in countless threads when it was more current.

I'm assuming you know this, because to form the opinion that I am purely anti-American in my posting, you must have read my posts over more than just one discussion, and therefore must have seen these threads.

And yet, despite all of this, your rebuttal amounts to posting up little better than "liar liar pants on fire, you American-hating scum". Any links offered get rubbished along similar lines....and yet I notice a complete lack of linkage on your part from credible media backing up anything you have said.

Like I said...go figure.

I am no supporter of the US administrations or of Bush himself or his party whome I loathe,

And yet you refuse to raise a single line of criticism against any of their actions, and brand anyone in the strongest language you'll get away with for simply saying "its not as good as it should be". Indeed, by raising such objections, we are helping to oppress people!!!!

but when the results of their actions bring a better life to people who have waited centuries while the West, including Europe and the US, has done nothing to help them then I applaud it.

But the point is that it hasn't brought them a better life. It may bring them a better life if and when this all gets done with, but thats unclear.

Not only that, but I notice that you still haven't explained why the Taliban bringing the people in Afghanistan a better life was unacceptable? Surely you're not going to say "because it wasn't good enough" after deriding me for so long for saying the same about the US???

Or would you rather just ignore history and the reasons why the Taliban came to power, what they achieved etc. etc. and simply continue to spew the party line of the hawks you prefess to loathe?

Are the US as guilty of what has gone before or NOT gone before ? Of course they are. But I am not so callously cold hearted to attack them or protest against them for doing something positive, however belated it is.

The point that most protestors are making is that there is no evidence that what they are doing is positive.

Name one situation where a nation was invaded, its leader forcefully removed, and an occupying force set in place to form a new government which was successful.

The most often-turned-to comparisons are Germany and Japan post WW2, but the Allied forces never invaded them...they reacted to invasions carried out by the Axis.

I can applaud them now as strongly as I can criticise them for before.

And I have often stated...which you would have known if you actually read much of what I wrote before judging my stance....that I will be the first to stand up and applaud the US if and when they succeed. So I guess we're pretty alike on that front too.

Unlike you, however, I tend to look at their past failures and ask myself what evidence is there that they have learned from their lessons and are thus more likely to get it right this time. The answer is "very little, if any". In fact, the evidence tends to point that the US is increasingly heading back down the road which led to many of these past failures, and is engaged in a policy which has always (unless you can provide me with that example) ultimately ended in abject failure.

But again...the difference between us would seem to be that I am willing to voice my concerns about this, while you will simply stand by and applaud them while silently wishing that they did a better job.

Lets just have that quote again to remind ourselves....

Would I prefer if they acted differently ? Absolutely yes ! But there is no other ballgame in town.

And there is another ballgame. Its called "a better America than the one we have today". And how do we achieve that? You seem to be advocating the "shut up and be grateful for what you get" approach, which is funny considering that you're constantly ranting on about how all of this is about getting people a better life.

I'm saying that the best way to get these people a better life is through a better America...by exercising the freedoms I have to try and ultimately encourage that to happen.

But I'm anti-American and therefore wrong.....because I dare to use the freedoms that they are supposedly fighting to give others, and using to say that I do not believe this is the right path for these people in the Middle East to get freedom.

And it could be done a LOT better imho.

But when we say that, we're anti-American. So are you also Anti-American?

The only difference seems to be that you read "this is not the right way" to mean "do nothing" when we post it, rather than meaning "something better could be done".

European people have chosen to stand back and watch while America, however flawed their actions or motives may be, are left as the only ones willing to act. That is the fact of the situation.

Yes, that is true. What it overlooks is the reasons why Europe is this way.

Perhaps they have learned that war is not the solution, never has been and never will be.

The fact is that if European countries, and others as well, had joined with America in their actions after 11/9 then their influence in the course of those actions would have lead to a different style of outcome, I am certain of that.

Oh thats just so much crap that you either haven't got a clue what you're on about or you are actually trolling.

From a military perspective, there is little - if anything - more which could have been achieved over what was achieved had Europe fully mobilised alongside the US.

Outside the military persepective, post September 11, there is little assistance Europe didn't give the US.

Or do by "post September 11" do you mean "when it came time to attack Iraq for dodgy reasons".

Hang on...I've a better idea...I'll use your style of responding :

"Thats simply not true. Evidence?"

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
But this is hardly a surprise. Maybe we should award Saddam the Nobel Peace prize ?

No, but maybe we should treat those who supplied him with the weapons for those trials as we will him and his cohorts for having used them, especially considering that supply of chemical-weapons technology continued after it was widely known that Saddam was using them.

You can apply this to the individuals from previous adminstrations if you wish (as you have said in an earlier post that you have no problem criticising the mistakes of the past), rather than to those who have inherited the mess if you like...

But seriously....do you not think that the US should be pointing at least some of those fingers at its own people and asking "How could you supply such a monster with such horriffic technology when you had knowledge of what he was actively using it for" ?????

what galls you is that only the US had the balls to do it and you are left with picking over pathetic excuses for criticism of them

No, what galls most objectors is that there is no evidence that getting rid of Saddam in the manner in which it was done has any chance of causing any long-term improvements and plenty of historical precedent to indicate that, in all likelihood, it will make things worse.

Even should the US prove correct (and now that they've started this, I dearly hope for the Iraqi people that this does happen, despite not believing it will), it still does not answer the criticism that they had no guarantee of success, nor the question of who gave them the right to act unilaterally.

Look at history...look at all of the big nations who were large enough to force their will on other nations for whatever reason. Ask yourself how much better they all made it, and where they are today. Ask yourself where the US long string of successes are. Then come back and tell me that I'm wrong to be concerned.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
600,000

Why is it you quote two sources which say the exact same thing? Does saying it twice make it more true? How about more sources? How is it that with google and news searching I could find no proof that 600,000 mass graves were found.

I found stories about 300,000. I also found stories of 500,000 killed by sanctions and 100,000 kurds killed (amazing how they all add up to 600,000). Another claiming 400,000 (as an excuse for having the patriot act). I have also seen various large figures of numbers of people killed in the Iran/Iraq war (which has mass graves).

However a search on google of "mass graves iraq" returned a few stories. For example how the US are changing the tune of Weapons of mass destruction to mass graves found.

Of course they fail to point out they knew about these graves all along.. to quote one of the stories you will find on that google link...

In 1991, after the Gulf War, the US had total control of the whole region, Saddam Hussein was effectively authorized to massacre the Shiites, and to put down the rebellion that could have overthrown him.

Today, Thomas Friedman is agonizing about the mass graves, but if you go back and read him in 1991, he knew about them...

You also fail to mention that the gassed Kurds, well the US supplied the gas to Saddam to do it and turned a blind eye when it suited them.

but back to your 600,000 the one thing all these news stories lack is "Source".

You see the reason I ask for links is, I can see the story and use that to find more information. So far your 600,000 mass grave is wrong. The closest I could find to an actual story was 240'ish mass graves with around 300,000 dead bodies total. Of course as was mentioned the US knew of these graves for years and in fact supported Saddam (with money and weapons) while he was happily filling those graves.

And that is in addition to the more than a million Iraqi children murdered by Saddam by withholding medecine and money and health services during the UN sanctions period,

Iraq had a food for oil program that members of the UN contributed to (USA too). Saddam claimed something like 500,000 killed by sanctions but that figure was grossly over inflated from what I have read from realiable sources (which are easily readable on the net).

The US also bought the most oil from Iraq and actually increased it's purchase of Iraqi oil around the time Bush was screaming for Saddams blood.

And of course the latest effort at denial is aimed at the recent discovery of cooperation between Iraq and North Korea:

If you bother to read the link I posted you will find that the whole source of the news story is one paper that doesn't quote a real source. No other paper has reported it or a source, or those that do all lead back to that paper.

And when the Syrian president goes "First I heard of it" when he is mentioned in the original story, as well as an "unnamed investigator" you have to call BS on the story.

Of course these kind of news stories are nothing new, I would recommend reading up on PSYOPS as it is a typical type of news story that they would release. (linking Syria and NK to Iraq, classic).

mr_angry

Bonkey - well said. I've been trying to get those exact words out for a couple of days now, but couldn't seem to.

Hobbes - I wouldn't bother with more confrontation on the issue. It'll only encourage more "You're all lying terrorist-lovers" responses. Its a pity people's mindsets are so polarised - the "You're either with us or against us" mentality. Best thing to do is just ignore it.

chill

Originally posted by Hobbes
Why is it you quote two sources which say the exact same thing? Does saying it twice make it more true? How about more sources? How is it that with google and news searching I could find no proof that 600,000 mass graves were found.

The answer is simple. You don't want to find it. You only want to report fictitious reports of US actions and US army deeds. You place no importance or value on the deaths of Iraqi people, only on attacking the US.

It is so transparent it is almost comical.

.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Hobbes - I wouldn't bother with more confrontation on the issue. It'll only encourage more "You're all lying terrorist-lovers" responses. Its a pity people's mindsets are so polarised - the "You're either with us or against us" mentality. Best thing to do is just ignore it.

Your narrow sense of community is touching.

Your vision of people who disagree with you as polarised tells more about your intolerence than anything else. You have your own view which I disagree with, it is a shame that your views are so blinkered and precious.

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
The answer is simple. You don't want to find it.

Chill I am not going to comment anymore but I will tell you this.

If you make a statement of fact it is up to you to back it up. Even if your source is incorrect you still need to back it up.

Something you are unable of doing. Feel free to reply though, but until you can back up with facts all I can take you for is someone who is crazy or an intentional spamtroll.