Sept. 11 Families Outraged by Bush Campaign Ad

Lear

Originally posted by Hobbes

Lear : Can you name a few?[/b]

Hobbes : Sure. You have read up on that on the site of your choice. Notice how some of the people who are linked to the shares are ex-CIA. Notice how it is never mentioned in the US as news anymore.
[/B]

Excuse me, but all your "sources" are vanity sites. Anything by a recognizeable news source, as opposed to the tinfoil hat speculations on vanity sites? BTW, most those sites are flagrant IHATEBUSH rantfests -- just check the homepages.

I guess that you consider France, Germany and Russia "the whole world",

No, I am talking about pretty much the whole world was willing to help the US, which started to vanish with his famous "You are with us or against us" speech.

Really? I traveled extensively throughout the Pacific Rim and Northern Europe and didn't see or hear criticism (except from the crackpot left) about the US attack on the Taliban. Further, a quick review of REAL NEWS SITES reveals that there was consent at the UN for kicking the bejesus out of the Taliban. HEY, among the supporters of the Afghani invasion include: The UK, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, The Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Bahrain, Jordan, Japan, Romania, Pakistan, Uzebekistan and, of course, a butt-loat of Afghanis. (http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan)

So who objected? North Korea? Sorry, dude, but your statements don't stand up to even mild scruitiny.

Unfortunately, too many people see what the US did as bad and grieve for the Taliban. Some people just prefer oppressive mass murders in power, and the morons that think that the US "just had 9-11 coming" are pure trash.

As of yesterday, I suspect that the Spanish people will become less tolerant of terrorist and murderous tyrants. Perhaps the Spanish will launch a little unilateral raid into Syria, if necessary, to capture a few of the pukes who murdered hundreds of their countrymen. Perhaps there will be some Irish who will say that the Spanish "had it coming" while the French make grandious statements against unilateral military action (but only for non-French military actions).

I don't know, but God keep the Spanish and I pray that they do what's best for them regardless of what the French, Germans and Russians think.


[/B][/QUOTE]
Btw I have much higher regard for Guilani then I do for Bush. [/B][/QUOTE]

Whatever. Historically, he's had near record approval in the US. For some reason some people cannot stand the fact that Bush actually did something about a sleazy bunch of mass murderers. The US should NEVER put its defense in the hands of the UN or make it subject to the whims of France or Russia.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Lear
Unfortunately, too many people see what the US did as bad and grieve for the Taliban. Some people just prefer oppressive mass murders in power, and the morons that think that the US "just had 9-11 coming" are pure trash.

No one grieves for the Taliban. I think it is more that people are very uneasy by the fact that the US has started two wars in the last 3 years. 2 wars to deal with the mess previous administrations made in the first place. 2 wars with no clear long term plan for either Afganistan or Iraq, which have plunged both regions into long term unstableness.

It is all very well to think that the Bush administration is fighting the good fight. But I always think it is kinda like stopping the spread of AIDS by killing everyone who has it.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear

I guess that you consider France, Germany and Russia "the whole world", but I suspect most people do not.

As well as almost the entire population of the UK, Spain and many of the countries that did "support" the war. Otherwise most of the countries in the UN also expressed their opposition to the war.

Demand that bin Laden be turned over to the US? We did that.

And the Taliban did the most horrible act (which incidentally is the normal procedure when considering extradition by another country) of actually asking for some evidence before doing so.
What was the child president's response? Bombs?
How civilized!

now, gee, we didn't get every al Qaeda operative yet, and while some people are obviously willing to condemn the US for letting OBL and others slip through while simultaneously condemning the US for actually doing something, others are willing to actually do something about the problem while the naysayers complain.

It's not that "you" did something, it's that you did something very stupid, killed alot of people and very likely increased the likelyhood of more terrorist attacks...meanwhile "your" objective remains elusive. All the while claiming to be the great defenders of civilization (and afterwards locked up 600 people for a couple of years of which, at least, 5 were completely innocent.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
I'll abstain from calling you a liar, but I watched the whole thing and didn't see one political commercial. I even did a search on a few of the left-wing sites and no one mentions any political commercials that were allowed.

Can you cite an example of a political commercial?

What about the add about marijuana? But I guess there isn't any huge political debate on the issue of marijuana?

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
What about the add about marijuana? But I guess there isn't any huge political debate on the issue of marijuana?

The fact that you would try to make such a lame stretch just proves my point. Last I heard neither the Republicans or Democrats were FOR marijuana use. :rolleyes: Condemning casual marijuana use by adolescents is about as non-partisan an issue one can find in the US.

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
As well as almost the entire population of the UK, Spain and many of the countries that did "support" the war. Otherwise most of the countries in the UN also expressed their opposition to the war.

Get a grip. The UK, Spain and "many others" actively supported the war. Just because the anti-American contingents manage to scrape up a few thousand unemployed derilicts to protest doesn't mean "almost the entire population" objected to the US kicking the Taliban's butt.

Lear

Originally posted by bonkey
That would apparently be unRepublican

jc

*Yawn*

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
The fact that you would try to make such a lame stretch just proves my point. Last I heard neither the Republicans or Democrats were FOR marijuana use. :rolleyes: Condemning casual marijuana use by adolescents is about as non-partisan an issue one can find in the US.

The Democrats and Republicans supported the war on Iraq to...does that mean that all Americans agreed with that...ummmm politically?
Nevermind that there are Republicans, Democrats and many other political persuasions that are for legalizing or at least decriminalizing the use of it.
K then ask yourself what government agency sponsored that add and then ask yourself how uncontroversial their policies are.

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek

It's not that "you" did something, it's that you did something very stupid, killed alot of people and very likely increased the likelyhood of more terrorist attacks...meanwhile "your" objective remains elusive. All the while claiming to be the great defenders of civilization (and afterwards locked up 600 people for a couple of years of which, at least, 5 were completely innocent.

Oh, please, "we" did nothing about bin Laden and al Qaeda for almost 8 years previous (think about the first WTC attack in 1993). They bombed our embassies, attacked our ships and still we did nothing. Apparently, doing nothing got us more terrorist attacks.

You Irish are obviously content to suck up to terrorists on the off-chance they won't hurt you any longer, but historically that tact doesn't work. Since 9-11, the majority of al Qaeda has been captured or killed and their terrorists camps shut down. The remaining ones are keeping their heads low as we pick them off a few at a time.

And regarding locking up 5 innocent people for a couple of years -- BIG DEAL. War is not a perfect art and the day you can figure out how to target only the guilty people in a foolproof manner, your objection is inane.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Get a grip. The UK, Spain and "many others" actively supported the war.

I assumed you were talking about Iraq was because as I remember France, Germany nor Russia opposed action in Afghanistan.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Oh, please, "we" did nothing about bin Laden and al Qaeda for almost 8 years previous (think about the first WTC attack in 1993). They bombed our embassies, attacked our ships and still we did nothing. Apparently, doing nothing got us more terrorist attacks.

I do remember a another wreckless attack on abandoned camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, another "war on terror" and susequent legislation in aid of that.
What possibly got more terrorist attacks was continued military aid to Israel, sanctions that decimated people in Iraq as well as 12 years of almost weekly bombing.
But no I guess it was actually that they "hate our freedom" like Bush said....one Bin Laden has actually stated and the other he hasn't. I'll leave ya to figure it out.

You Irish are obviously content to suck up to terrorists on the off-chance they won't hurt you any longer, but historically that tact doesn't work.

I'm not Irish and I would suggest that you should probably listen a bit because they know a hell of alot more about it.

Since 9-11, the majority of al Qaeda has been captured or killed and their terrorists camps shut down.

What comfort that is considering yesterdays bombing (as you suppose they carried it out). Nevermind that every trial (US or not) against collaborators in 911 haven't been convicted because of the US withholding evidence.
Also consider that reports in Afghanistan are that the Taliban are regaining strength and able to carry out attacks against American forces there. The same forces that can't secure most of the country.

The remaining ones are keeping their heads low as we pick them off a few at a time.

...and more heads spring up to do things like yesterday in Madrid.

And regarding locking up 5 innocent people for a couple of years -- BIG DEAL. War is not a perfect art and the day you can figure out how to target only the guilty people in a foolproof manner, your objection is inane.

Carrying out attacks to acheive a political end, persecuting the innocent, igoring the rule of law...sounds like something we've heard before.

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
I assumed you were talking about Iraq was because as I remember France, Germany nor Russia opposed action in Afghanistan.

Admittedly, I did jumble the two issue, and while I do apologize for any misunderstanding I do wish to explain it from this perspective: The war on Iraq has been repeatedly called a "Unilateral" action bespite the fact that the majority of Western nations either participated or endorsed US action.

Apparently, the definition of "unilateral" has morphed from the US acting alone to the US along with 37 other countries but without the permission of France, Germany or Russia. This is highly strange given France doesn't bother asking for UN permission to invade an African nation -- and who in God's name at the UN approved the occupation of Haiti? Is Haiti a unilateral action and, if not, then explain it to me -- Please.

Anyway, that being said, the US attack on the Taliban was pretty much supported by the international community -- the exceptions being North Korea, China and a few others.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Admittedly, I did jumble the two issue, and while I do apologize for any misunderstanding I do wish to explain it from this perspective:

No problem.

The war on Iraq has been repeatedly called a "Unilateral" action bespite the fact that the majority of Western nations either participated or endorsed US action.

While nations did offer support, most of it was a hand up and not involvement. The only troops in Iraq that were involved in combat were American, British and Australian. The latter being very minimal. The rest were for mostly logistical support and also minimal at that.
The majority of British and Spanish people did not support the war. I'd hardly call 1 million in London and 2 million in Spain "unemployed derilicts".
Secondly the other nations that said "yea we don't have a problem with it" were either bribed (Azerbijan, a very democratic government at that) or threatened (South Africa).
I remember Bush stated 40 countries "supported" the war. Some on the list even expressed surprise that they were included and then asked to be taken off.
Even if you count those countries that leaves 146 that didn't.

Apparently, the definition of "unilateral" has morphed from the US acting alone to the US along with 37 other countries but without the permission of France, Germany or Russia.

You forgot China and the other 140 some odd ones.

-- and who in God's name at the UN approved the occupation of Haiti?

No one and it should be condemned. Iraq is a rare exception where at least one of the permanent 5 don't get their way.

Is Haiti a unilateral action and, if not, then explain it to me -- Please.

No it's America, France and Canada "improving" relations by aiding each other in ousting a democratically elected leader.

Anyway, that being said, the US attack on the Taliban was pretty much supported by the international community -- the exceptions being North Korea, China and a few others.

As far as the governments...yes it was supported by many countries. How it was carried out is a different matter and the broken promises in the aftermath. I personally thought it was a bad idea and accomplished next to nothing, especially considering the loss of life....but hey UNOCAL did get that pipeline they wanted.
I'm not here trying to say that Europe in general or specifically France, Germany or even Ireland always does the "right" thing...or even that America always does the wrong thing.

TomF

This follow-up on 9-11 and Irish lawyers and law firms really tugs at the heartstrings.

A lawyer for the charity created by the three firefighters in the iconic flag-raising photograph at Ground Zero has reaped more than $500,000 in legal fees while the charity has given just $73,000 to the needy, the [New York] Daily News has learned.

Despite taking in more than $1 million, the Bravest Fund has disbursed only $73,000, according to William Kelly, the charity's attorney.
...
From that, his law firm, McCarthy & Kelly, has deducted $553,000 - a legal bill split by the Bravest Fund and The Record's charity.

"It costs what it costs," Kelly said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/173737p-151375c.html

bonkey

Originally posted by Lear
Since 9-11, the majority of al Qaeda has been captured or killed and their terrorists camps shut down. The remaining ones are keeping their heads low as we pick them off a few at a time.

It always amazes me that supporters of the US Administration trot out propaganda like this, completely ignoring the fact that the administration they support has said that it lacks the ability to determine if it is creating more terrorists than it destroys (as pointed out in Rumsfeld's infamous internal memo amongst other places). It completely ignores the fact that since September 11, 2001, terrorist activity worldwide has statistically been on the increase as well (no links - something I've heard referenced several times on US news channels though).

All that really matters to the US is the simple mantra : "we will fight them abroad so that we do not have to fight them at home".

And regarding locking up 5 innocent people for a couple of years -- BIG DEAL. War is not a perfect art and the day you can figure out how to target only the guilty people in a foolproof manner, your objection is inane.

Far more than 5 people have been released from Gitmo - this 5 were just the latest releasees. By October 2003, over 80 people had been released.

Lets do a quick comparison - how many people sentenced to Gitmo have been found guilty? Whats that number? A bit louder please? None???? NONE????? You can't be serious? Surely you're joking. Surely after 2 years, they'd at least have managed to try one of them? No?????

So, we have somewhere around 100 released without charge after being held various periods of time. 0 tried, and consequently, 0 found guilty.

Whats completely inane to you, apparently is to suggest that these people be entitled to the Human Rights that their captors have ratified as being due to them in international treaties.

Only today, I got the following on that (unlinked) news feed I reference quite a bit. Its to do with the current UN Human Rights Comission meeting

"Mexico plans to seek the appointment of a U.N. expert to look into whether nations' anti-terrorism measures breach international human rights standards. But that is being opposed by the United States and its allies, who stress that their first duty is to protect their citizens"

So we're now at a point where the major powers in teh world are actually making a case to the UN to say Human Rights are not necessarily important at all times to all people.

Lest you disagree, let me just quote some of the preamble of the declaration that these nations have ratified. I'll highlight the more important bits too...

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

Unalienable? All members? Not according to the US et al today. So, clearly, they no longer agree that these things are the foundation of a free, just and peaceful world - unless thats not what they are trying to bring us.

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

Paraphrase - if you don't respect these rights, you will end up with rebellion against tyranny and oppression....which funnily enough is exactly the major justification of the terrorists....and which funnily enough is exactly what the US and its allies are saying they should not be bound to. What a great step forward....

And before we wrap this up, lets just have a quick glance at Article 2, shall we :

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status......

The rights of those 5 people...as well as teh 80+ before them who were released without charge, as well as every single member held inside the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are being trod upon by nations who are arguing that these people are not important enough to merit these Rights. Guilty, innocent - it doesn't matter. The so-called War on Terror is more important than one of the cornerstones that our free society should be built on.

<sarcasm>
It fills me with hope when I not only see these events happening, but when I see people literally queueing up to blindly support them as "good things" to oppose tyranny with.
</sarcasm>

jc

bonkey

Just to add a small correction to yesterdays post...

Today, another 26 inmates were released without charge from Gitmo. From

:

The U.S. military said yesterday that it released 23 Afghan and three Pakistani citizens from the U.S. Navy prison for terrorism suspects in Cuba, leaving about 610 still in detention.
...
The Pentagon says it has released a total of 119 prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and 12 others have been transferred for continued detention elsewhere.

So, 119 released, and 610 retained (of which 0 have tried, let alone convicted).....and Lear would have us believe that these numbers are no big deal, because we're only talking about 5 Britons???????

jc