can iraq cut it as a democracy

mr_angry

Hahaha. So I'm a liar because I have a different opinion to you? If you can categorically disprove (and I don't mean say "Its all lies / propaganda / never happened", I mean disprove) these reports, I will be most happy to accept that. But you haven't. Frankly, I don't believe all the left wing anti-USA hype on these forums, but neither do I believe all the US propaganda George Bush would love to have me believe. Do you believe everything he says? Your previous post suggests you wouldn't.

Here's my point of view: I don't know what to believe. But I'm not going to accept your point of view, simply because you (and GWB) say so. Local and foreign media have shown me enough to make me believe that nobody in this conflict is whiter than white, and the excuse that "Saddam was worse" isn't good enough to justify the horrible injustices going on in the world today. I think my major problem is that I feel America has come down to Saddam's level (a figure of speech there - not exactly Saddam's level, but lower than what I would consider acceptable). Do you really think I am wrong in this belief?

How was Ireland freed from opression? We freed ourselves. How was America freed from opression? They freed themselves. How were the Russians, and the Eastern Europeans, an example you are so fond of, freed from opression? They freed themselves. How were the Vietnameese freed from opression? They weren't. America randomly blowing up stuff there didn't help at all. Are the Afghani people outside the US controlled areas free from opression? You yourself have said no. So, I'm sure you can understand that I would much rather see the Iraqi people freeing Iraq, and running their country (and their industries) themselves. Perhaps that will happen, and Iraq will be an unrivaled success. However, seeing as there is no precedent, I reserve the right to be a little sceptical. Am I wrong to do this? If Iraq becomes an unrivaled failure, will you reserve the right to be sceptical next time?

monument

Originally posted by chill
All people's want to be free.

Maybe, but why democracy? I would go for a free and good one person ruled state who shared my views then a bad democracy state where people are homeless, going hungry, ruled by fear, etc...

My point been, could you please point out a "free" democracy state.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
How was Ireland freed from opression? We freed ourselves. How was America freed from opression? They freed themselves. How were the Russians, and the Eastern Europeans, an example you are so fond of, freed from opression?

...and lastly, how was Europe and the far east freed from oppression in 1944/5 ? What was that ? I didn't hear you !

They freed themselves. How were the Vietnameese freed from opression? They weren't. America randomly blowing up stuff there didn't help at all.

Quite a bizarre inclusion as it wasn't a mission of liberation but of megalomaniacal act of military geopolitics. But don't let that upset a good rant...

Are the Afghani people outside the US controlled areas free from oppression? You yourself have said no.

Correct. But I know they are better off than before, and if the EU and other rich Western Countries stepped forward to do something instead of standing back as usual, then those people would be a LOT better off now.

So, I'm sure you can understand that I would much rather see the Iraqi people freeing Iraq, and running their country (and their industries) themselves.

Me too. BUt I don't let my preferences stop me supporting a next best option. There was no way the Iraqi people were going to free themslves because they faced not only a highly sophisticated and brutal regime, but one that was hyper rich and supported in it's oppression by the rest of the Islamic ruling cabal. This cabal has been the key instrument in maintaining the oppression fo the Islamic people for centuries. It is fanciful and in my view indifferent to stand by and expect them to do it themselves. NOT that I am in any way claiming this was the motive behind the US action btw. Somehting they share with most of the Western World.

But hang on ! perhaps we should apply your principles to crime at home ? Should we sideline the police and wait for victims of crimes to go and catch the criminals themslves, wait for banks to reclaim moneys stolen in bank raids, let kidnapped people free themsleves perhaps ? hey it might take a few decades but what the hell.
An interesting view of the morality of justice, morality and of helping our fellow man.

Perhaps that will happen, and Iraq will be an unrivaled success. However, seeing as there is no precedent, I reserve the right to be a little sceptical. Am I wrong to do this? If Iraq becomes an unrivaled failure, will you reserve the right to be sceptical next time?

Scepticism is not something that people in a bind care about, only those on the sidelines who have the luxury of knowing they are safe irrespective of the outcome.
Am I sceptical of some of the motives behind Bush's actions ? Of course. Do I care much ? Nope. I care about the actions and the outcome. Am I sceptical about America's financial involvement in the rebuilding ? Somewhat. But do I care much ? Nope. I care about the outcome and the results of the rebuilding. The problems can be dealt with later, OR earlier if the EU and others got involved now !
Do I agree with Bush on a single thing other than this subject ? I actually don't think there is a single thing I agree with him about. Is it because I actually think like him ? I don't think so, but I agree with the resulting actions.


.

chill

Originally posted by monument
Maybe, but why democracy?

Because that is how the people decide their freedom, how they wish to live and run their affairs.

I would go for a free and good one person ruled state who shared my views then a bad democracy state where people are homeless, going hungry, ruled by fear, etc...

So you're happy as long as your views are those of the dictator. An interesting thought.

My point been, could you please point out a "free" democracy state.

Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, USA, Canada, Japan, etc etc etc etc etc etc......

dathi1

...and lastly, how was Europe and the far east freed from oppression in 1944/5 ? What was that ? I didn't hear you !

after a lot of dilly dallying...Japan hit perl harbour...then the yanks came in.

Correct. But I know they are better off than before, and if the EU and other rich Western Countries stepped forward to do something instead of standing back as usual, then those people would be a LOT better off now.

They're in the exact same position as they were before...just diffrent masters. Women are still wearing tents and opium production is at an all time high.

Me too. BUt I don't let my preferences stop me supporting a next best option.

Rumsfeild and Bush...youve got to be kidding.:D

Do I agree with Bush on a single thing other than this subject ? I actually don't think there is a single thing I agree with him about. Is it because I actually think like him ? I don't think so, but I agree with the resulting actions.

A 3 way semi dictatorship now looks like the outcome...the biggest shock and awe was that there was no welcome liberation WW2 style. The exit strategy will facilitate the move away from "western style democracy" sooner than you think.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by chill
Fact is they marched and protested and lobbied to have Saddam left in power

Who did this and when?

Difference being that they never claimed to be acting out of the holier than thou motives.

I think you'll find they have. "War on terror" anyone?

Thankfuly only a fraction of these innocent lives were caused by the Allies and they pale in to insignificance compared with the numbers murdered by Saddam.

Just because "Saddam was worse" doesn't mean the Americans have a right to go about slaughtering innocent civilians.
Try reading the non-American accounts of that attempted bank raid on Sunday over there.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by chill
There was no way the Iraqi people were going to free themslves because they faced not only a highly sophisticated and brutal regime, but one that was hyper rich and supported in it's oppression by the rest of the Islamic ruling cabal. This cabal has been the key instrument in maintaining the oppression fo the Islamic people for centuries.

Iraq was not an Islamic state under Saddam Hussein. Why do you keep implying that Islam is somehow responsible for what went on in that country?

mr_angry

Am I sceptical of some of the motives behind Bush's actions ? Of course. Do I care much ? Nope. I care about the actions and the outcome. Am I sceptical about America's financial involvement in the rebuilding ? Somewhat. But do I care much ? Nope. I care about the outcome and the results of the rebuilding. The problems can be dealt with later

You see, this is exactly my problem. You don't care about motive.

Who do you care about? Oh yes, the poor and opressed people of the world.

You left out a bit - the poor and opressed people of the world, who happen to reside in countries which previous American administrations f*cked up, after installing or supporting "better" governments.

Your entire attitude is - "its alright, let's just wait for it to turn into a big friendly society". That isn't going to happen. Do you know why? Because Bush doesn't care. The people of Iraq see that.

As weird as this might sound, the world might be a much better place if you were in charge - at least your motives would be honourable. Motive is all important. How can America create an honourable and good society when the man in charge is not honourable himself?

chill

Originally posted by dathi1
after a lot of dilly dallying...Japan hit perl harbour...then the yanks came in.

What was that ? I don't think people heard you !
I think you meant to admit that the US and British invaded and liberated Europe, much of the Far East etc.
So the point about self liberation was ... ?

They're in the exact same position as they were before...just diffrent masters. Women are still wearing tents and opium production is at an all time high.

In many areas they are free not to wear tents and they are free to work, to go to school and to go to university. Is it widespread ? No. But at least they have a chance. Where would they be if the US had done exactly what the anti war protestors succeeded ? if you had got your way ? They would be back in the hands of the Taliban.

Rumsfeild and Bush...youve got to be kidding.:D

Your deep irrational prejudice against American personalities at the expense of the Iraqi people is palpable.

A 3 way semi dictatorship now looks like the outcome...

yes I can see how you would wish that to be the case. You would clearly love nothing more than to see Iraq sink back where you wished it had never been freed from. That would suit your screwed up world view perfectly.
Thankfully because of the US and the Allies the Iraqi people now have a chance at freedom. A chance they have been denied by 20 years of brutal oppression helped by the appeasement of the anti war movement.

the biggest shock and awe was that there was no welcome liberation WW2 style. The exit strategy will facilitate the move away from "western style democracy" sooner than you think.

There was indeed and still is an enormous wlecome in Iraq for the Allies. The welcome is expressed by 95% of the population but you chose not to hear it. You prefer to listed to the remnants of Saddam's regime and the extreme Islamic terrorists who talk the same language as you.
You clearly don't think the Iraqi people deserve to control their own lives, deserve to be free to run ntheir own country the way they wish to do. I do.




.

chill

Originally posted by Frank Grimes Chill:Fact is they marched and protested and lobbied to have Saddam left in power.
Who did this and when?

Are you saying you missed all those marches in Dublin and London etc ? Maybe you were sick that day ?

I think you'll find they have [acting out of the holier than thou motives]. "War on terror" anyone?

Exactly. They never claimed to be acting out of some holier than thou motives unlike the anti war appeasement movement.

Just because "Saddam was worse" doesn't mean the Americans have a right to go about slaughtering innocent civilians.
Try reading the non-American accounts of that attempted bank raid on Sunday over there.

Unlike you I don't put any stock on Al Jazeera type propaganda. Cleary you lap it up like a good sheep.


.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by chill
Are you saying you missed all those marches in Dublin and London etc ? Maybe you were sick that day ?

I don't remember anyone protesting to have Saddam left in power.

Exactly.

I'm not agreeing with you about that.

Unlike you I don't put any stock on Al Jazeera type propaganda. Cleary you lap it up like a good sheep.

I'm not a sheep, and I'm not basing it soley on Al Jazeera reports.
If you aren't a troll, which at this stage I'm beginning to think you are, you're the only sheep around here.
If you base all your opinions on the rantings of Bush/Blair et all then you should seriously get out a bit more.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
Are you saying you missed all those marches in Dublin and London etc ? Maybe you were sick that day ?

I think you will find that they were "anti war" marches. Maybe you had your "rose tinted glasses" on that day?

Unlike you I don't put any stock on Al Jazeera type propaganda. Cleary you lap it up like a good sheep.

Funny thing is that Al Jazerra has been accepted as the one "News Organisation" not to be subject to propaganda by both the Middle East and the West. I await with baited Breath your disproval of this point.

Originally posted by chill Sadly the Iraqis and Al Quida have indeed intentionally murdered their own people as easily as they take any human life.

When did Al-Queda murder thier own people? What links do you have to support this?

monument

Originally posted by chill
Because that is how the people decide their freedom, how they wish to live and run their affairs.

So you're happy as long as your views are those of the dictator. An interesting thought.

Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, USA, Canada, Japan, etc etc etc etc etc etc......

"Maybe, but why democracy? I would go for a free and good one person ruled state who shared my views then a bad democracy state where people are homeless, going hungry, ruled by fear, etc...

My point been, could you please point out a "free" democracy state."

The above is what I said, so your're telling me there are no people in Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, USA, Canada, and Japan, homeless, going hungry, ruled by fear, etc...


On some of the states you listed as "free"...

Ireland - funny, good joke!

England - name the "ruler" - not voted by the people.

Wales and Scotland - really? Another joke of yours?

Spain - parts of the state want their own state.

USA - cash can get you to the hill.

Canada - maybe your best example?

bonkey

Originally posted by mr_angry
Don't bother arguing lads - it ain't worth it. I'm starting a "Lets ignore chill" campaign. No arguing, quoting, or responding to him altogether.

You're entitled to do so, but please don't start campaigning against another poster in this forum.

Rightly, or wrongly, I would have to take that as attacking the poster, and not the post....and you know where we stand on that one here.

jc

chill

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I don't remember anyone protesting to have Saddam left in power.

Well I do. Thousands of people trying to stop the liberation fo the Iraqi poeple. Thousands of people trying to have him left in power. Thousands of people that didn't give a goddam about the victims of his regime. Thousands of poeple with no alternative action.

If you aren't a troll, which at this stage I'm beginning to think you are, you're the only sheep around here.
If you base all your opinions on the rantings of Bush/Blair et all then you should seriously get out a bit more.

Yeah yeah.... you accuse poeple of trolling because they don't buy the bull****. Can't you do better than that ?

.

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
I think you will find that they were "anti war" marches. Maybe you had your "rose tinted glasses" on that day?

Nope. I wateched as they tried to get Saddam left in power, tried to stop the liberation of the Iraqi people, tried to enable Saddam to murder and torture thousands more people every passing month. I hope they can sleep with their conscience.

Funny thing is that Al Jazerra has been accepted as the one "News Organisation" not to be subject to propaganda by both the Middle East and the West. I await with baited Breath your disproval of this point.

I don't see any of your wonderful linked evidence of this .... ?

When did Al-Queda murder thier own people? What links do you have to support this?

Twin Towers. Many bombings in Iraq. And many many more. If you don't know about these then no amount of your precious 'links' will enlighten you.

.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
Nope. I wateched as they tried to get Saddam left in power, tried to stop the liberation of the Iraqi people, tried to enable Saddam to murder and torture thousands more people every passing month. I hope they can sleep with their conscience.

I'm sorry. But you are wrong. The main agenda behind the protests was stop the war. A war "illegally" started by the US and their UK allies. A War based on lies. A war about oil.

I don't see any of your wonderful linked evidence of this .... ?

I will return to this point. I'm a little busy at the moment. .Al Jazeera Home Page Example 1 Example 2

Twin Towers. Many bombings in Iraq. And many many more. If you don't know about these then no amount of your precious 'links' will enlighten you.

By that analagy the UK and US are also guilty of "killing" their own people by sending them into war. Would Al-Queda view the suicide of their "martyrs" as murder? How is this murder of "their own people"? Oh. Hang on. This is judged by your blinkered western opinion. One which is flawed. Before you can crititise anothers standpoint, you must first understand it. Try looking at what you have said from the oppositions point of view. You may even learn something.

Try not too loose your temper either. This is a debate. Not a personal attack on you. Using references like "precious" links will only inflame the debate [Edit] Edited to include links [/Edit]

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by chill
Well I do. Thousands of people trying to stop the liberation fo the Iraqi poeple.

You are wrong.

Yeah yeah.... you accuse poeple of trolling because they don't buy the bull****. Can't you do better than that ?

Fair enough, I must be stupid. Here was me thinking the Iraqi people couldn't possibly want an illegal occupation in their country, to have their natural resources exploited by Western (read Amercian) corporations, to have to watch as their family/friends/neigbours etc. are slaughtered by the Americans.
But obviously your assesment of all this is correct because, well just because it is!

chill

I suspect this thread is running out of steam somewhat considering no one is discussing the original subject anymore, but one more time around the block

Originally posted by Hobart
I'm sorry. But you are wrong. The main agenda behind the protests was stop the war. A war "illegally" started by the US and their UK allies. A War based on lies. A war about oil.

They can hide behind whatever sanctimonious middle class veil they like, but in effect they were trying to prolong Saddam's butchery pure and simple.

By that analagy the UK and US are also guilty of "killing" their own people by sending them into war. Would Al-Queda view the suicide of their "martyrs" as murder?

I don't know what you're talking about. These butchers murdered dozens if not hundreds of Muslims in the Twin Towers, and hundreds more in bombings across Iraq since.

How is this murder of "their own people"? Oh. Hang on. This is judged by your blinkered western opinion. One which is flawed. Before you can crititise anothers standpoint, you must first understand it. Try looking at what you have said from the oppositions point of view. You may even learn something.

The 'enemy' is an evil organisation that has no regard for human life, muslim or non muslim. You look at things from their point of view, I wouldn't waste my time. You can portray civilisation as flawed and the evil of Al Quida as enlightened, but the real flaw is in your sense of perspective.

Using references like "precious" links will only inflame the debate.

It was a response to the silly approach of suggesting that an opinion is not an opinion and an argument is not an argument without a 'precious' link. No inflamation intended.

.

chill

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
You are wrong.

You're entitled.

Here was me thinking the Iraqi people couldn't possibly want an illegal occupation in their country, to have their natural resources exploited by Western (read Amercian) corporations, to have to watch as their family/friends/neigbours etc. are slaughtered by the Americans.

There is no illegal exploitation of their resources. That stopped when Saddam was removed from stealing the resources for the benefit of his family and cronies. Those resources that are not being willfully destroyed by Al Quida and the remnants of Saddam's regime are being usd to rebuild Iraq from the destruction reaked upon it by 20 years of exploitation by Saddam.
The ordinary Iraqi people are happy about the temporary occupation by the Allies. There is no evidence to the contrary.
There has been no slaughter of friends/ neighbours/ family by either the US or the UK forces.
There WAS a slaughter of Iraqis by the forces of Saddam, the Fedayin and Al Quida. The only Iraqis killed by the US and UK were those forces who liberated 25 million people and stopped the daily mass murder and torture and rape by Saddam's forces.

But obviously your assesment of all this is correct because, well just because it is!

Hey, you clearly don't even bother to count the numbers of people slaughtered by Saddam's forces and Al Quida. You don't count them because you they don't fit your preformed view of the world. If you did count them then that would upset that view. You spend your time looking in one direction only and have no sense of balance and perspective on things. But then that's your prerogative.

.

Frank Grimes

Ok chill, I'm not even going to try to respond to anything you just posted.
You are either a troll or have no grip on reality whatsoever.
I'm glad you live in a world where the only bad guys are evil men like Saddam and Al Quaeda, if you ever manage to have those rose tinted lenses removed let us all know how the world looks then,

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
They can hide behind whatever sanctimonious middle class veil they like, but in effect they were trying to prolong Saddam's butchery pure and simple.

So now the protestors where hiding? Eh? And they were all middle class. And they were all pro-Saddam? Now you are begining to get into the realms of farce. And your already tenious argument now lacks any credability by your refusal to just admit you are incorrect in your observations on these anti-war marchers. Look. It's simple. I would imagine that 90%+ where anti Sadamm. However no right thinking democrat should idly stand by while GWB and Tony Blair invade a defenceless country for economic reasons, illegally, tell absoloute lies about why they are doing it, occupy the country they have turned into an absoloute mess and claim to be the moral victors. Is that so hard for you to understand?

I don't know what you're talking about. These butchers murdered dozens if not hundreds of Muslims in the Twin Towers, and hundreds more in bombings across Iraq since.

Do you not? Well let me spell it out for you. You stated that Al-Queda had killed many of it's people (Al Quida as you call them) In case you need reminding you said it in this post . Then you give an example of the deaths of tens if not hundreds of muslims in the twin towers as proof that Al-Queda have killed their own people. You also say that Al-Queda have killed "hundreds more" in bombings across Iraq. Now I will ask this question as simply as I can so that you may think about it and formulate a coherant response.

How are the deaths of Muslims in the twin towers, the killing of hundreds more across Iraq evidence that Al-Queda, whose leader is from Quatar BTW and whose greatest supporters live in Saudi Arabia, have killed "their own people"? OK?

The 'enemy' is an evil organisation that has no regard for human life,

Rubbish. You have no idea what way they look at Human Life. No idea.

You look at things from their point of view, I wouldn't waste my time.

Now your are telling me what way I look at things! Priceless. I look at things from both points of view. It allows me to formulate a disspassionate point of view. Something you should try.

You can portray civilisation as flawed and the evil of Al Quida as enlightened, but the real flaw is in your sense of perspective.

Another beautiful and senseless quotation. A tip here. Don't try to put words into other posters mouths. I never portrayed AL "Quida" as enlightened. If I did please feel free to point it out.

It was a response to the silly approach of suggesting that an opinion is not an opinion and an argument is not an argument without a 'precious' link. No inflamation intended.

No it wasn't a suggestion. It was an in-direct reference to the Forum rules. I wasn't inflamed at all.

mr_angry

You look at things from their point of view, I wouldn't waste my time.

I can see why you might say this Chill, but I think the reasoning is slightly flawed. If you want to defeat these people, then you have to get inside their heads to an extent. You have to see their reasoning, and figure out a way to stop it.

When has a massive military offensive ever defeated a terrorist organisation? Certainly not in Ireland, not in Afghanistan, not in Indonesia, and not in Palestine. I want to see these people defeated, but I don't think the American policy of carpeting the place with bombs and troops has before, or will now, do any good. I can't categorically say that it wont work, but I would be surprised.

There is no illegal exploitation of their resources.

I agree with you on this - as far as I'm aware, the oil fields are the one industry being left exclusively in the hands of the Iraqis, and while some of the surrounding industries have been oligopolised by the Americans, its certanly better than under Saddam. However, as I've said before, being "better than Saddam" is not necessarily good enough. I think I need to do more research before commenting further.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
They can hide behind whatever sanctimonious middle class veil they like, but in effect they were trying to prolong Saddam's butchery pure and simple.

I'm wondering if you took the total deaths in Iraq since the most recent war, and compared it against any similar length of time under Saddam.....which would produce the higher body count?

See, this is the thing.....Yes, Saddam was a monster....but just how bad a monster was he? Would killing 50% of the Iraqi population have been justified in order to remove him. How about 25%? 10%? 5%?

Where and when do you draw the line, if "butchery" is all you count. Many/most of the soldiers the US faced during the invasion were co-erced into the armies...conscripts etc. At least...thats what we were told by the US Administration at the time to explain the lack of resistance, and from what they had discovered from the prisoners.

Sure, OK, I accept a war had to be fought once the US decided to go in, and to be fair, the military casualties were pretty much unavoidable....(but they were still lives lost, and you keep referring to the numbers of people being killed, so its surely relevant)

But did they also have to bomb Baghdad as much as they did? We've seen countless tragedies based on evidence which the US insisted was "reliable". Obviously the adminsitration have taken on the Microsoftian definition of "reliable".

The point is that up to this point we have probably seen an increase in death and killing in Iraq since the time of Saddam. Lets not also lose fact of the growing problems with violent crime and lawlessness...plenty more deaths coming there.

It will be a long time before Iraq is less filled with death and destruction as compared to when it was under Saddam. At that point, Chill, you will be perfectly correct in saying that the invasion was good because it put an end to the butchery. At present, however, thats simply not true....or if it is, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support it.

jc

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
So now the protestors where hiding? Eh? And they were all middle class. And they were all pro-Saddam ? Now you are begining to get into the realms of farce.

You're the one suffering from farcical dilusions.

And your already tenious argument now lacks any credability by your refusal to just admit you are incorrect in your observations on these anti-war marchers.

I know what they marched for and what the effective result of their demands would have been. Denying that fools no one.

Do you not? Well let me spell it out for you. You stated that Al-Queda had killed many of it's people (Al Quida as you call them) In case you need reminding you said it in this post .

Yes I did indeed. I said then and again now.

Then you give an example of the deaths of tens if not hundreds of muslims in the twin towers as proof that Al-Queda have killed their own people. You also say that Al-Queda have killed "hundreds more" in bombings across Iraq.

Yes they did.

Now I will ask this question as simply as I can so that you may think about it and formulate a coherant response.

Well for someone trying to keep it simple you sure are beating around the bush (... no pun intended..)

How are the deaths of Muslims in the twin towers, the killing of hundreds more across Iraq evidence that Al-Queda, whose leader is from Quatar BTW and whose greatest supporters live in Saudi Arabia, have killed "their own people"? OK?

Al Quida claim to be fighting against the Western non muslims in a holy war and yet they continue to kill fellow Muslims with not a care in the world. Is that simple enough ? Do I need to put in some kind of kindergarden language ?

Rubbish. You have no idea what way they look at Human Life. No idea.

Are you claiming that they have respect for human life ? On what grounds do you make that claim ? Can you offer one single piece of evidence ?

Now your are telling me what way I look at things! Priceless. I look at things from both points of view. It allows me to formulate a disspassionate point of view. Something you should try.

You only see what you want to see and clearly have a completely biased viewpoint of the world that is consistently sympathetic to the murderering terrorists and consistently anti American. It's clear to anyone reading your posts.

Another beautiful and senseless quotation. A tip here. Don't try to put words into other posters mouths. I never portrayed AL "Quida" as enlightened. If I did please feel free to point it out.

Your posts are so flawed in logic and rationality and are based on such an extreme bias that it's hard to know what you believe. You seem to be making it up most of the time.

No it wasn't a suggestion. It was an in-direct reference to the Forum rules. I wasn't inflamed at all.

Please quote the rule you refer to ... ?

.

monument

Originally posted by chill
Are you claiming that they have respect for human life ? On what grounds do you make that claim ? Can you offer one single piece of evidence ?

Something should not be proven, but disproven. To both sides it's war, people get killed in war. Would you say the US have respect for human life?

Originally posted by chill
You only see what you want to see and clearly have a completely biased viewpoint of the world that is consistently sympathetic to the murderering terrorists and consistently anti American. It's clear to anyone reading your posts.

He might be, but it's also clear you're sympathetic to the US for killing and other unjust actions.

Originally posted by chill
Your posts are so flawed in logic and rationality and are based on such an extreme bias that it's hard to know what you believe. You seem to be making it up most of the time.

Your posts are by far bias, and sympathetic to American actions.

I don't like, nor am I sympathetic to the actions and/or current views of Al-Queda or the US govermant. As most people with logic know, the US are only making their (and other peoples) problems worse.

Also, if you look at the US actions around the world post WW2 - to now, you would see that Al-Queda are only fighting back, while the US are foolishly turing more and more people to an anti American and in some cases anti westren way of thinking and in other cases acting. Which is really sad.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
You're the one suffering from farcical dilusions.

Chill. Why don't you calm down and stop with the personal insults. Shouting your point across will not make it right. Insulting me will not make it right.

I know what they marched for

Yes. You have said that you know. They marched to keep Saddam in power.

and what the effective result of their demands would have been.

And now you can predict the future. Very good.

Yes I did indeed. I said then and again now.

Yes they did.

And once again you are incorrrect.

Al Quida claim to be fighting against the Western non muslims in a holy war and yet they continue to kill fellow Muslims with not a care in the world.

You see. This is where your whole argument falls apart. I could claim to represent christianity. I could go around killing people discriminately. However I would not represent those people. The fact that I may/may not kill a christian does not mean that I have turned on my own people. Al Queda are terrorists. Pure and simple. TThey represent a certain type of Islamic Fundamentalism, which is anethema to the majority of musilms in this world. The fact that Muslims where killed in 9/11 and Iraq by the actions of Al-Queda is a tradegy. But you insult them by suggesrting that they were killed "by thier own people".

Is that simple enough ? Do I need to put in some kind of kindergarden language ?

It's simple allright. I have come to accept that from you.

Are you claiming that they have respect for human life ? On what grounds do you make that claim ? Can you offer one single piece of evidence ?

No. I am claiming that I know about as much about their mindset and ethos "on human life" as you do.

You only see what you want to see and clearly have a completely biased viewpoint of the world that is consistently sympathetic to the murderering terrorists and consistently anti American. It's clear to anyone reading your posts.

No. I just don't believe the hype.

Please quote the rule you refer to ... ?
.

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flamage. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage,

chill

Originally posted by monument

Also, if you look at the US actions around the world post WW2 - to now, you would see that Al-Queda are only fighting back....

And that takes the biscuit for the most apalling statement I have ever read on the subject here or anywhere else. Pitiful and sad.

chill

Originally posted by Hobart
Chill. Why don't you calm down and stop with the personal insults. Shouting your point across will not make it right. Insulting me will not make it right.

I'm am as calm as a 'chilled' cocktail.... and I have not made personal insults - refering to farcical dilusions was intended as a commentary on a viewpoint not the poster himself, and maybe you would consider being a little less partial with the admonishment...

You see. This is where your whole argument falls apart.

Only when you misrepresent it...as follows.....

.....But you insult them by suggesting that they were killed "by thier own people". It's simple allright. I have come to accept that from you.

All very fine stuff except I did not say that. I didn't state that the Muslims were killed by their own people. I stated that the terrorists were killing 'their own people'. A major difference, in that the terrorists are making the claim that they represent Islam, yet they think nothing of slaughtering 'fellow' muslims. That was my point, I thought I was keeping it as simple as you like it to be... Is it clearer now ?

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flamage. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage,

I don't recall any admonishment from moderators for the appalling 'factual' post regarding the 47 millions supposedly given by the US to the Taliban ? Or maybe that slipped through the cracks...
Since when do dubious newspaper reports qualify as factual support ? I write mostly about my opinion, it is the anti US brigade that generate piles of those dubious links not moi...

.

Hobart

Originally posted by chill
I'm am as calm as a 'chilled' cocktail.... and I have not made personal insults - refering to farcical dilusions was intended as a commentary on a viewpoint not the poster himself, and maybe you would consider being a little less partial with the admonishment...

Well maybe I just don't take kindly to being accused of suffering from delusions. You attacked me. Not the post. re-read what you posted

All very fine stuff except I did not say that. I didn't state that the Muslims were killed by their own people.

EH......

Sadly the Iraqis and Al Quida murdered their own people

and then

I stated that the terrorists were killing 'their own people'. A major difference, in that the terrorists are making the claim that they represent Islam, yet they think nothing of slaughtering 'fellow' muslims. That was my point, I thought I was keeping it as simple as you like it to be... Is it clearer now ?

I think you will also find that the Koran regards the sacrafice of any human life as sinful The fact that Al Queda killed muslims is actually beside the point. But you just go ahead and keep turning yourself into knots. It was boring. It's actually getting quite humorous now.

I don't recall any admonishment from moderators for the appalling 'factual' post regarding the 47 millions supposedly given by the US to the Taliban ? Or maybe that slipped through the cracks...

Will you for once in your posting stop avoiding the issue. You have been posting un-substanciated "facts" all over your potings. Avoided answering direct questions from a number of posters. Answered questions with questions. Just put up or ........

Since when do dubious newspaper reports qualify as factual support ?

Nobody has asked you for dubious newspaper reports. What are you talking about.

it is the anti US brigade that generate piles of those dubious links not moi...

Another nice unsubstantiated generalisation. Now I am convinced you are trolling. And the use of the "moi" kind of gives you away bubbs.

Actually. I was wrong earlier. This is boring.