Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

jonny72 · 09-09-2007 11:30pm

Mick86 wrote:

No I don't believe in appeasement. It's just the way things work at the moment. I'm sure if Iran could be bought off in some way the US would go down that road but the Iranians appear to want a showdown so they'll probably get it.

The Iranians are standing up to the Americans, their leader is a right wing nut, I can't stand the guy, he constantly deflects onto the international stage (much like Bush) just to draw away attention from his own dreadful domestic policies, but that does not mean the whole country has to bend over and kiss ass. They are standing up to A LOT of provocation from the West (namely America, Israel, UK, etc).

You appear to support the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

So you were firmly against India getting nuclear weapons I take it.

All that tough talk is just so much wind. The North Koreans can't eat their nukes. They depend on the US to feed them most of the time as I said.

I suggest you read up on North Korea.

Realistically the NKs cannot use their nukes either since it would invite their own destruction and they aren't that crazy.

And somehow..

The Iranians on the other hand might be that crazy.

Is that the crux of your argument right there? based on what? your own 'gut instinct' or something?

God botherers frequently are. Muslim fanatics have been known to kill themselves taking out the infidels so who says that the Iranian Mullahs wouldn't do it on a grand scale.

And..

Islamophobia is based ..snip.. On that basis why should we trust any Muslim, anywhere.

I'll let those quotes speak for themselves.

Mick86 · 09-09-2007 11:30pm

Liam Byrne wrote:

I can't believe the double-standards here. While I'm not in favour of ANYONE having nuclear - or even any other - weapons (in an ideal world), why is there an objection to Iran or Korea or wherever having them, and no objection to Bush having them ?

What double standards? It would be great if we could uninvent nuclear weapons but we can't. Anybody with nukes is not going to disarm so objecting to them having nuclear weapons is a pointless exercise.
Next best thing is to try and limit the number of countries with them.

Liam Byrne wrote:

As pointed out above, most of the countries that have them haven't started a war, with the one obvious exception being America.

It was actually the 9/11 terrorists that started the war.

Liam Byrne wrote:

What is it that drives people to have the opinion that "if America does it, it's OK", while still viewing anyone else that has similar, even less deadly or aggressive tendencies as the "one-size-fits-all" label of "terrorists" ?

America is a nation. It's leaders are mandated democratically by it's people to go to war. People who plant bombs on trains are terrorists they don't bother looking for a mandate.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Ah yes, another double-standard.....if anyone is anti-Islam, then it's justified based on the actions of a minority, but if anyone even opens their mouth to question Bush's administration, they're somehow anti-American or pro-"terrorist" :rolleyes:?

I don't believe I mentioned anti-American or pro terrorist at all. If you want to slag off America feel free. I couldn't care less. I don't have much time for Americans anyway. I have less time for terrorists though and while a tiny minority of Muslims might be terrorists it's a sad fact that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And while it could not be suggested that Bush "planned" the invasion of Iraq (it looks like there was no planning or preparation), how does that invasion and the subsequent deaths of innocents differ from anything that the "Islamist terrorists" [sic*] might do in Germany ?

So it's OK to bomb the Germans then?

Mick86 · 09-09-2007 11:32pm

jonny72 wrote:

The I'll let those quotes speak for themselves.

You should. Your own opinions don't hold much water.

rickybutcher · 10-09-2007 2:47am

Logos wrote:

Well the evidence does seem to support this as these guys have been involved with taking hostages, supporting Hezbullah and stoking sectarian conflict in Iraq.

The US and it's proxy Israel currently holds tens of thousands of hostages, supports and carries out terrorism on a massive scale and is THE cause of sectarian conflict in Iraq. It has pitted Sunni V Shia. It has targetted the Sunni community itself, in a series of mass punishment exercises, and has killed tens of thousands of civilians. As for the Hezbollah, they are currently the only thing standing between the Lebanese and another massive Israeli terror attack on that country and a (yet another) possible land grab. I don't agree with or believe in anything Hezbollah believe in, except their right to defend themselves against invasion and attack. Hezbollah, to the best of my knowledge, holds 2 hostages.

I suppose the difference now is that Iran actually does have a chance at becoming a nuclear (weapon) power and I think anybody with perspective should be very worried about that prospect. Frankly we depend on the US to sort out their (and by extension our) interests globally.

I don't fear Iran. Iran is entitled to defend itself. It's security and borders are under very serious threat of attack right now. The threat has been explicitly stated by the US.

I think the bottom line is that the RG is a terror group intent on spreading revolutionary Islam through violence....enough said.

And George Bush spreads "democracy" through gentle persuasion or using the greatest military power in history?

rickybutcher · 10-09-2007 2:52am

Mick86 wrote:

I believe they fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s. Yes, I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

It was a war of self defence.

Manic Moran · 10-09-2007 4:18am

It has pitted Sunni V Shia.

Eh? To what end? Who said "I've got a great idea. Let's set these two at each other in such a way that we'll have to keep scores of thousands of troops in the country at stupid expense (and stretching our military while we're at it) in order to attempt to maintain even the vestiges of order"?

NTM

eoin5 · 10-09-2007 10:18am

The worse things get in Iraq the better it is for private companys to make a lot of money at the expense of the Iraqi people, the US soldiers and the US taxpayers. That said I'm not sure how much they need to pitt Sunni vs Shia, theyve done that themselves pretty well.

Liam Byrne · 10-09-2007 10:33am

Mick86 wrote:

It was actually the 9/11 terrorists that started the war.

Remind me again how there's a link between 9/11 and Iraq ? The 9/11 terrorists did not start the Iraq war.

Mick86 wrote:

If you want to slag off America feel free

No thanks; I'm not anti-American.

America is a nation. It's leaders are mandated democratically by it's people to go to war. People who plant bombs on trains are terrorists they don't bother looking for a mandate.

Bush needed to lie through his teeth to the whole world in order to get his "mandate", which means that he, also, does not have a mandate for his war.

while a tiny minority of Muslims might be terrorists it's a sad fact that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims.

Any chance of a reference to back up that "sad fact [sic]", bearing in mind that (a) we had our own shower of terrorists around for quite a while (b) available populations might skew the figures and (c) the definition of "terrorist" appears to be far too fluid nowadays

So it's OK to bomb the Germans then?

That's not what I said....I suggested that it's about as "OK" as bombing the Iraqis, and since I - personally - don't agree with that, then I definitely don't agree with bombing the Germans either.

But if anyone thinks it's OK for the U.S. to bomb the crap out of Iraq, then IMHO they have double-standards if they don't think it's OK to bomb Germany.....

And may I say that your stance on nuclear weapons is very defeatist and elitist; let anyone who has them, keep them, and let's stop anyone else from having them. Would you think the same way if only Korea or wherever had them, and "we" - the amazing and always-right West (and even us "neutral but guilty-by-association" countries) - didn't ?

If they're bad, get rid of them.

The amount of good that could be done with war budgets is crazy, particularly since no-one seems to bother to invent anything unless its primary use is war with a secondary commercial spin-off later.....even the internet started out as a military tool.....

jonny72 · 10-09-2007 12:32pm

Manic Moran wrote:

Eh? To what end? Who said "I've got a great idea. Let's set these two at each other in such a way that we'll have to keep scores of thousands of troops in the country at stupid expense (and stretching our military while we're at it) in order to attempt to maintain even the vestiges of order"?

NTM

It HAS pitted Sunni v Shia. It was one of the bloody reasons they didn't continue onto Baghdad in the first Gulf War. The US administration were warned by ex-diplomats, thinktanks, even within their own ranks that there was a high possibility all this would happen.

stevedublin · 10-09-2007 12:47pm

Mick86 wrote:

You should. Your own opinions don't hold much water.

Hey, hes on the same side as you! I'm all confused!!!

Mick86 · 10-09-2007 2:51pm

Liam Byrne wrote:

Remind me again how there's a link between 9/11 and Iraq ? The 9/11 terrorists did not start the Iraq war......

Of course they did. Are you suggesting that without 9/11 the US would have invaded Iraq?

Liam Byrne wrote:

Bush needed to lie through his teeth to the whole world in order to get his "mandate", which means that he, also, does not have a mandate for his war.......

Wow. A politician that lies, what a novelty. Bush was elected President, hence his mandate.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Any chance of a reference to back up that "sad fact [sic]", .......

No.

Liam Byrne wrote:

the definition of "terrorist" appears to be far too fluid nowadays.......

In in the minds of those who are soft on terrorists.

Liam Byrne wrote:

That's not what I said....I suggested that it's about as "OK" as bombing the Iraqis, and since I - personally - don't agree with that, then I definitely don't agree with bombing the Germans either. .......

What you said was that since the Iraqis are getting bombed then the Germans have it coming.

Liam Byrne wrote:

But if anyone thinks it's OK for the U.S. to bomb the crap out of Iraq, then IMHO they have double-standards if they don't think it's OK to bomb Germany.......

I myself would have thought that bombing the US in revenge would be the way to go. After all the Germans didn't even support the invasion of Iraq.

Liam Byrne wrote:

And may I say that your stance on nuclear weapons is very defeatist and elitist; let anyone who has them, keep them, and let's stop anyone else from having them. .....

I would call it realistic. And I think it better than your apparent attitude that because the US has Nukes Iran is entitled to them also.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Would you think the same way if only Korea or wherever had them, and "we" - the amazing and always-right West (and even us "neutral but guilty-by-association" countries) - didn't ?.....

Liam Byrne wrote:

If they're bad, get rid of them.

Idealistic and naive.

Liam Byrne wrote:

The amount of good that could be done with war budgets is crazy, particularly since no-one seems to bother to invent anything unless its primary use is war with a secondary commercial spin-off later.....even the internet started out as a military tool.....

Shocking.

stevedublin wrote:

Hey, hes on the same side as you! I'm all confused!!!

No he's not.

rickybutcher wrote:

It was a war of self defence.

Irrelevant. The Iranians fought the war didn't they?

edanto · 10-09-2007 3:15pm

Mick, you're quite the hard man, you seem to have at least some military experience and maybe that makes you think that you can 'see through all the bullsh1t' and see the real reasons for things.

Or maybe you're just selected/trained/conditioned to accept what people in uniforms say without thinking.

Mick86 wrote:

It was actually the 9/11 terrorists that started the war.

Mick86 wrote:

Why does everyone seem to think that history began on Sept 11th 2001?

Maybe, oh just maybe, everyone thinks that history began on Sept 11th because it was from that date the Bush administration declared war on a new enemy, a conveniently undefeatable enemy, a new kind of hidden and shapeless enemy - a concept.

Yes, the stuff of nightmares - a war on words if you will. The notion that 'terror' can somehow be defeated in a theatre of war is patently ridiculous. If the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares is to be believed, then one of the founding thinkers of Al Quaeda became angry and bitter after being subjected to US-sanctioned torture. Violence begets violence. But who knows why 9/11 happened. What were they trying to achieve? Was that question ever asked, let alone answered, in the US media?

I don't support the people that carried out 9/11. I am pro-American. But I disagree with their policy of waging war to secure oil. The current, and many past, administrations are complete hypocrites. They speak of peace and yet Israel is their biggest recipient of Foreign Aid, most of which has to be spent on American weapons - hardly contributing to stability in the region. A few weeks ago, they announced a plan to spend something like $60bn on giving weapons to their friends in the Middle East.

These moves don't create peace and neither does posturing against Iran by declaring some group or other terrorists. As far as I can see, the US economy relies to a crazy extent (spending half of the entire world total spend on weapons) on the badly named Defense (Attack) Industry. Hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars are spent on it and frankly, without enough wars, the country might even be in more serious economic trouble. Sadly, today in the US, war is good for business.

So, if there aren't enough terror groups, rogue states or other people to fear and hate then a lot of very big businesses in America will start to make less profits that they are expecting, which of course will damage their share prices, which could well effect the stock markets that all of our pensions are invested in.

For the sake of your pension, encourage the Republican war-mongering!

- other references - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159
and something to listen to as you read this thread - Fischerspooner - We Need a War http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898182965788

EDIT - link for The Power of Nightmares -
This is a slow enough documentary, full of talking points
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177

eoin5 · 10-09-2007 3:23pm

Mick you say that the 911 terrorists are responsible for the Iraq war? If so, how responsible? Please be clear on this as its a very important issue.

As for the definition of terrorism I think the handiest one to use is the US one:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

It roughly describes their foreign policies.

Liam Byrne · 10-09-2007 4:27pm

Mike

1) You again claim that the 9/11 terrorists started the war on Iraq, but offer no proof, asking whether I think the war would have started without 9/11.....
that's not quite the same as saying that the terrorists started it, because you're asking whether the U.S. would have started it without the supposed provocation of September 11th.....I say "supposed", because as far as I can remember, Sept 11th was carried out by Al-Quaida - odd to go looking for revenge on the wrong people, unless you were likely to go on the rampage anyway, don't you think ?

Personally, I cannot claim to have a definitive answer as to why the U.S. invaded Iraq - it'd be difficult, considering they didn't have one either. But since you have repeated your view that the terrorists started the war on Sept 11th, I will give you a second opportunity to back up your statement.....like eoin5 above, I view your claim as far too important a claim to simply gloss over, dismiss or otherwise discount.

There are even theories that the U.S. Administration perpetrated 9/11 themselves, in order to have an excuse to start the war, and while I personally think those might be an X-file too far, the fact is that no-one knows, and since the U.S. haven't bothered going after the guy they blamed, we will probably never know.

If you can't / don't back it up, though, I respectfully suggest that you retract the statement.

2) If Bush had an actual mandate and legitimate reason for war, then he would have had no reason to lie. Bush gained a mandate for war, post-election, because he scared the crap out of the Americans with the "Homeland Security" crap and got them to agree to the worst and most intrusive anti-privacy policies ever invented....now that most Americans have seen through the lies, most of them are anti-war.

What you said was that since the Iraqis are getting bombed then the Germans have it coming.

Jeez, I'd hate to have you as a newspaper reporter, because I'd be misquoted like crazy! I not only didn't say what you suggested, I actually phrased it as a question, the exact quote being:

Liam Byrne wrote:

how does that invasion and the subsequent deaths of innocents differ from anything that the "Islamist terrorists" [sic*] might do in Germany ?

Anyone blinkeredly in favour of the war might jump to the conclusion that that quote is a suggestion in favour of tit-for-tat, but what I was hoping to do is to prompt someone into thinking that BOTH are wrong. I'm well used to being misquoted in people's efforts to paint anti-war people as naieve or pro-retaliatory-violence, so don't worry about getting that wrong.

I myself would have thought that bombing the US in revenge would be the way to go. After all the Germans didn't even support the invasion of Iraq.

Strange anomoly here, so bear with me; when you were suggesting that it was the terrorists that started 9/11, you reckoned the U.S.'s retaliation against the wrong target was understandable, to the point where you viewed the original 9/11 attack as the reason for the war.....so why change that train of thought when it's the other way, Mike ?

I think it better than your apparent attitude that because the US has Nukes Iran is entitled to them also.

My idealism suggests that no-one should have them, that's true. But in the event that that ain't gonna be the case, I'd prefer a few opposing countries to have them in order to stop one powerful warmongering one invading another or interfering.....apparently these things work as deterrents on some level.

So yeah, you're fairly right - it's not my #1 preference, but it is my #2.

I also noticed that you've refused to back up your supposed "fact" that most terrorists are from Muslim backgrounds.....can I ask why that is, since it's so generalised and blinkered as to be derogatory ?

If you can back it up, quoting references, then fair enough; but otherwise it's and insulting and unsubstantiated comment which is derogratory.

rickybutcher · 10-09-2007 6:37pm

Manic Moran wrote:

Eh? To what end? Who said "I've got a great idea. Let's set these two at each other in such a way that we'll have to keep scores of thousands of troops in the country at stupid expense (and stretching our military while we're at it) in order to attempt to maintain even the vestiges of order"?

NTM

I can give you a very simple reply, it's just a phrase you might be familiar with, "divide and conquer". In the case of Iraq, it was partially deliberate and partially due to the savage ignorance of practically every individual in the US military and civilian administration.

rickybutcher · 10-09-2007 6:41pm

eoin5 wrote:

The worse things get in Iraq the better it is for private companys to make a lot of money at the expense of the Iraqi people, the US soldiers and the US taxpayers. That said I'm not sure how much they need to pitt Sunni vs Shia, theyve done that themselves pretty well.

I think my post on the "Iraq casuality rate dropping" thread explains it.

Generally Iraqis recognise the great tragedy that has been inflicted on their country, by zealots, bigots, religious extremists and fundamentalists....and they also recognise the part sectarian Shia and Sunni militant groups play in it too!

jonny72 · 10-09-2007 7:20pm

Mick86 wrote:

In in the minds of those who are soft on terrorists.

In your lifetime you are going to see the US go 'soft' on terrorists and actually engage in dialog with them. It has been the only way that has worked so far.. unless you care to prove otherwise? try to remember that this is the 21st century, you can't just jackboot your way into countries and slaughter thousands of innocent people just to get a few bad apples.

Right wing thinking is always the same.. problem with drugs? declare war on it.. 36 years later, problem is worse than ever.

Mick86 · 10-09-2007 7:31pm

edanto wrote:

Mick, you're quite the hard man, you seem to have at least some military experience and maybe that makes you think that you can 'see through all the bullsh1t' and see the real reasons for things.

Or maybe you're just selected/trained/conditioned to accept what people in uniforms say without thinking.

If I were sensitive I might think that you were calling me a mindless thug.

edanto wrote:

Maybe, oh just maybe, everyone thinks that history began on Sept 11th because it was from that date the Bush administration declared war on a new enemy, a conveniently undefeatable enemy, a new kind of hidden and shapeless enemy - a concept.

Like waging war on concepts such as Nazism, fascism, communism, republicanism or any ism you care to mention.

edanto wrote:

But I disagree with their policy of waging war to secure oil.

I have bad news for you. Your livelihood depends on the stuff and it's security.

edanto wrote:

The current, and many past, administrations are complete hypocrites. They speak of peace and yet Israel is their biggest recipient of Foreign Aid, most of which has to be spent on American weapons - hardly contributing to stability in the region.

Why does everybody have a problem with the US arming Israel while everybody else gets their weapons from Russia and nobody complains.

edanto wrote:

These moves don't create peace and neither does posturing against Iran by declaring some group or other terrorists.

So far, that's the only sensible thing you've posted. The idea of course is not to create peace, a state which has never existed in all human history, but to limit Iran's ability to threaten the US and it's allies.

By the way, does Iranian posturing against Israel and the US go some way to creating peace?

edanto wrote:

As far as I can see, the US economy relies to a crazy extent (spending half of the entire world total spend on weapons)

That's not entirely accurate. The US appears to spend just under half the world's total on defence not weapons. Defence spending, while it includes buying guns and tanks, also includes stuff like computers, toilet paper, cutlery, food, blankets, uniforms and so on. Oddly enough the Dept of Energy pays for the nukes.

edanto wrote:

Sadly, today in the US, war is good for business.

I disagree, to paraphrase Simon Schama "The first casualty of war is truth, the second is profit."

edanto wrote:

So, if there aren't enough terror groups, rogue states or other people to fear and hate then a lot of very big businesses in America will start to make less profits that they are expecting, which of course will damage their share prices, which could well effect the stock markets that all of our pensions are invested in.

For the sake of your pension, encourage the Republican war-mongering!

- other references - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159
and something to listen to as you read this thread - Fischerspooner - We Need a War http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898182965788

EDIT - link for The Power of Nightmares -
This is a slow enough documentary, full of talking points
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177

I think you watch too much television.

eoin5 · 10-09-2007 7:46pm

Mick86 wrote:

I disagree, to paraphrase Simon Schama "The first casualty of war is truth, the second is profit."

Its a huge loss for both the Iraqs and the US but not everyone is loosing out. Have you heard of the Guns to Caviar index? It compares the sales of figher jets to the sale of private jets. Traditionally it worked like a balancing scales, when one goes up the other goes down, but since 2003 they have both risen. Its no proof but its a good indicator of how the money from war is being funnelled.

Manic Moran · 10-09-2007 8:21pm

Could also just be that the US economy is getting better on its own, despite the expenditure on the military. There was a serious economic hit in 2000-2001 before the 9/11 attacks, the attacks themselves caused a further blow. Even if there were no war, it would be reasonable to presume that the American economy would be recovering/improving over the 2002-2006 period.

NTM

edanto · 10-09-2007 8:50pm

Could be. Could be that the US economy just depends heavily on war. Do you have any numbers with you?

I may go look for some research that analyses the impact of war on the American economy, but I doubt I'll find any.

In the meantime, here's a long slideshow showing the US passing interest in war http://adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_and_memory/flash.html

Mick86 · 10-09-2007 8:56pm

Liam Byrne wrote:

1) You again claim that the 9/11 terrorists started the war on Iraq, .......

If you'll forgive the analogy with WW2, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. Less than a year later, the Americans invaded French-occupied Algeria in order to attack the Germans despite the fact that neither Germans, Algerians nor French directly attacked the US.

Iraq is a battle in a war not a war in itself. Battles have to be fought somewhere and from an American perspective it's better to be fighting terrorists in Baghdad than in New York. I don't know any more than you why the Americans selected Iraq for invasion. Quite possibly because it was an ongoing thorn in the side, was weakened from Gulf War 1 and subsequent embargos, had a bad lad in charge who nobody that mattered would object to being toppled and is situated conveniently next to Iran.

Liam Byrne wrote:

but offer no proof, .......

Proof? You need proof in a court of law, this is an internet discussion board where people with too much time on their hands come to spout weird opinions.

Liam Byrne wrote:

because as far as I can remember, Sept 11th was carried out by Al-Quaida - odd to go looking for revenge on the wrong people, unless you were likely to go on the rampage anyway, don't you think ?.......

So the US decided to strike at Al Queda, it's allies, potential allies and while they were at it they decided to tidy up a few loose ends like Saddam.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Personally, I cannot claim to have a definitive answer as to why the U.S. invaded Iraq?.......

Who does? Rumsfeld probably couldn't tell you.

Liam Byrne wrote:

like eoin5 above, I view your claim as far too important a claim to simply gloss over, dismiss or otherwise discount.

It's not important at all. It's irrelevant. Would you support/have supported an American invasion of Egypt or Saudi Arabia on the basis that their citizens carried out the attacks. No you would not. The 9/11 terrorists gave the US an opportunity and a reason to strike back at it's enemies. The fact that none of them was Iraqi or Afghan is a convenient stick for the "Anti American Invasion of Iraqists" to beat the US government with.

Liam Byrne wrote:

There are even theories that the U.S. Administration perpetrated 9/11 themselves, in order to have an excuse to start the war, and while I personally think those might be an X-file too far...

You don't sound too sure.

Liam Byrne wrote:

If you can't / don't back it up, though, I respectfully suggest that you retract the statement....

Hah. I've elaborated on my opinion above. If you don't agree with it feel free to ignore it.

Liam Byrne wrote:

If Bush had an actual mandate and legitimate reason for war, then he would have had no reason to lie.....

Maybe his intelligence was crap. The CIA missed the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the 9/11 attack itself. So why should they be blessed with infallibility on Iraqi WMDs.

Liam Byrne wrote:

now that most Americans have seen through the lies, most of them are anti-war.

Have you surveyed most Americans? I would suggest that anti-war Americans are motivated by disquiet at American casualties rather than a perception that Bush lied.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I not only didn't say what you suggested, I actually phrased it as a question, the exact quote being:....I'm well used to being misquoted in people's efforts to paint anti-war people as naieve or pro-retaliatory-violence, so don't worry about getting that wrong.

"I was quoted out of context." The oldest excuse in the book. I know what you meant just rattling your cage a little.

Liam Byrne wrote:

but what I was hoping to do is to prompt someone into thinking that BOTH are wrong. .

Is it wrong to bomb civilians? The obvious and simplistic answer is yes. The problem is that real life isn't obvious nor simplistic. Suppose that Osama Bin Laden is holding a device that will trigger a massive nuclear bomb that his people have smuggled into London. He is hiding out in a school full of children in Afghanistan and the USAF knows where he is and has a plane over the school armed with a guided missile. We must also suppose that the pilot can actually hit what he is aiming at which is not always the case in the USAF. So they kill Osama and 100 innocent children but save London and indeed the rest of Britain, Ireland and lots of Western Europe or they let Osama live and kill millions in Europe. Which right and which is wrong?

Liam Byrne wrote:

Strange anomoly here, so bear with me; when you were suggesting that it was the terrorists that started 9/11, you reckoned the U.S.'s retaliation against the wrong target was understandable, to the point where you viewed the original 9/11 attack as the reason for the war.....so why change that train of thought when it's the other way, Mike ?.

Easy. It's wrong when it's happening to your side and right when it's happening to the other side. Your reply will be that we're not on either side but you are wrong. We benefit from our relationship with the US, Britain and Germany so whether you like it or not, they are our side, the Iraqis, Iranians and Afghans aren't. To paraphrase Mary Harney we are closer to Boston than Baghdad.

Liam Byrne wrote:

My idealism suggests that no-one should have them, that's true. But in the event that that ain't gonna be the case, I'd prefer a few opposing countries to have them in order to stop one powerful warmongering one invading another or interfering.....apparently these things work as deterrents on some level.

Jaysus, a hint of reality. I agree with you up to a point. However I wouldn't put nukes in the hands of people more likely to use them than not.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I also noticed that you've refused to back up your supposed "fact" that most terrorists are from Muslim backgrounds.

Well let's consider the known terrorist attacks that have taken place since the year 2000; 9/11, London, Madrid, Glasgow, Berlin, countless car bombings in Baghdad. All by Islamic terrorists. Known Christian terrorist attacks Nil, known Hindu terrorist attacks Nil, known Buddhist terrorist attacks Nil. Conclusion most terrorists are Muslims.

Liam Byrne wrote:

can I ask why that is, since it's so generalised and blinkered as to be derogatory ?.

You want to call me a racist don't you?

Liam Byrne wrote:

If you can back it up, quoting references, then fair enough; but otherwise it's and insulting and unsubstantiated comment which is derogratory.

If I pulled a statistic out of the air you wouldn't accept it anyway. But if you can counter the statement with a reference of your own I'll consider it.

edanto · 10-09-2007 9:13pm

Surely someone from the Republican party can weigh in and try and defend Bush!?

Or should we link to this thread on some hardcore proNeoConservative forum and see if any of them can give us more arguments to shine a light of fact on?

Meanwhile, let me just type a bit of a response to Mick's post just after my last. Not that he addressed any of the facts I presented with more than opinion (perhaps you watch Fox and you're unaware of the distinction).

Like waging war on..

Yes, very much like that. So you take my point that the idea of a war on terror is unwinnable, then?

Peace can never be achieved by violence etc etc Just to add to your earlier point that the war today in Iraq is very different to 2003, it's mainly because in 2003 they had a chance of redeeming themselves if they had put their hands up and said - OK we were wrong about the WMD, hey lets just give several hundred billion to the UN to pay a peacekeeping force to fix the mess we just made. That chance has passed as their real motives have become obvious to even the most died in the wool military apologist.

I have bad news for you. Your livelihood depends on the stuff and it's security.
In fact, if you had watched the History of Oil you'd now know that our entire food chain depends critically on hydrocarbons. You will need to do some research instead of just making smart comments.

The US appears to spend....
Good luck finding the figures. But look, I'd be really grateful if you would try. Of course they buy bog roll. But so does every other army!! Do you think the US are the only army to include non-weapon spending in a gross figure?! My point stands.

And then your Schama quote about profit being a casualty of war. I'm saying it's out of date. Look at the figures. Seriously, man, try looking at some new information instead of just repeating things other people have said.

And you think I watch too much television!?! If ya knew me, you'd know that I don't have one, so bad guess.

But look you mentioned Israel. At this point, maybe we could ask a mod to shunt this whole section of the "Bush declares blah blah blah" thread off into a new one - something like "Autopsy of a drawn out rape-murder, the grand US debate snakes on into thousands of pages"

It is a good idea to limit Irans ability to threaten it's neighbours. But why not with negotiation instead of childish threats?

What is it about Israel anyway? Why can't the US focus on negotiating a way out of that crisis instead of deepening it. We will cut off your aid if you vote for someone that we don't like. Hamas and Fatah are accused of denying Israels' right to exist and slated for it while Israel has the same stance towards Palestine. And will not change it.

I've met plenty of Israelis, all normal people - but very much oblivious to many of the second hand stories I've heard from friends that have travelled there or things written in Adbusters. Palestinians are unbelievably poor, trapped in the largest prison in the world, choked by Israeli rules and military. A human crisis permitted by the biggest military power in the world.

They should sort that mess out - with the money the US gives Israel they could easily talk them into giving at least some of the arable land back to the Palestinians.

These are some of the points that moderate Iranians would make too - but they're not reported over here since it's more newsworthy to mistranslate Iranian presidents and splash the tabloid "DEATH TO AMERICA" headline!!

--

Mick, from your post directly above, it really seems that you're convinced that a military solution is the unique one to the problem of terrorism. Have you been able to find many examples in history of that approach working (compared to negotiation), since you were asked earlier? You're not answering a lot of the direct questions that are put to you and while I know that you're not a Bush crony or anything like that, I still am urged to convince you that there are other solutions that you aren't considering.

And a final comment on the subject of 'weird opinions' - you can have your opinions, I'm more interested in debating the factual points of a current world affair so that I can either adjust my own opinion to take account of new information or else convince readers of my point of view.

For me this isn't just a place to spend some free time, I find this interesting and relevant. If you're just killing time, why don't you do some research and try coming back with some facts or proof before posting. Think before typing and all that.

edanto · 11-09-2007 11:04am

Mick86 wrote:

If you'll forgive the analogy with WW2, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. Less than a year later, the Americans invaded French-occupied Algeria in order to attack the Germans despite the fact that neither Germans, Algerians nor French directly attacked the US.

And are you saying that the link between the Japanese (the attackers in your analogy) and invading Algeria to attack the Germans is as mysterious as the 'connnection' between Al Queda and Iraq?!!

That's ridiculous.

Mick86 wrote:

Iraq is a battle in a war not a war in itself. Battles have to be fought somewhere and from an American perspective it's better to be fighting terrorists in Baghdad than in New York. I don't know any more than you why the Americans selected Iraq for invasion. Quite possibly because it was an ongoing thorn in the side, was weakened from Gulf War 1 and subsequent embargos, had a bad lad in charge who nobody that mattered would object to being toppled and is situated conveniently next to Iran.

They don't seem like strong reasons for invading a country. Are you just ignoring the oil? Or the Euro trading that the Iraqis attempted?

Liam Byrne · 11-09-2007 11:13am

Mick86 wrote:

The 9/11 terrorists gave the US an opportunity and a reason to strike back at it's enemies.

A reason ? No. An excuse ? Yes.

Mick86 wrote:

The fact that none of them was Iraqi or Afghan is a convenient stick for the "Anti American Invasion of Iraqists" to beat the US government with.

At last - an actual fact. None of them was Irish either.....should Bush invade us ? We had some terrorists here until a few years ago.

Mick86 wrote:

Maybe his intelligence was crap. The CIA missed the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the 9/11 attack itself. So why should they be blessed with infallibility on Iraqi WMDs.

If they're taking action based on it, they should be sure of their facts; of course, your earlier comments re seeking revenge for unrelated events means that you've already acknowledged that it probably wasn't a failure of intelligence (in the CIA sense of the word) but either revenge or a lack of intelligence (in the common sense of the word).

Mick86 wrote:

"I was quoted out of context." The oldest excuse in the book.

Actually, I wasn't quoted at all, so I couldn't have been quoted out of context.....what I'd said was completely misrepresented, which is a different story altogether.

Mick86 wrote:

Suppose that Osama Bin Laden is holding a device that will trigger a massive nuclear bomb that his people have smuggled into London. He is hiding out in a school full of children in Afghanistan and the USAF knows where he is and has a plane over the school armed with a guided missile. We must also suppose that the pilot can actually hit what he is aiming at which is not always the case in the USAF. So they kill Osama and 100 innocent children but save London and indeed the rest of Britain, Ireland and lots of Western Europe or they let Osama live and kill millions in Europe. Which right and which is wrong?

Interesting use of figures there in order to support your argument......100 innocent children versus millions in Europe ? Come off it! How about comparing like with like, and use a figure of, say, 100,000 of each ? THEN which is wrong ?

Also (and I've said this before), Osama Bin Laden doesn't feature in the comparison....if the U.S. actually went after Osama following 9/11 then no-one could really argue.....but they didn't - they invaded a completely separate country and deposed a completely different leader. Six years on, the guy who masterminded the atrocity is still running around scot-free, but Saddam is dead - Yyyyayyyy! Let's celebrate :rolleyes:

Easy. It's wrong when it's happening to your side and right when it's happening to the other side. Your reply will be that we're not on either side but you are wrong.

Thank you for your prediction of what I would say, but you're wrong. I am all too well aware that we are - disgracefully and against our constitution - not neutral, but even allowing for that, I do not believe that something is "right" just because "we" do it. So your throwaway comment about it being "easy" is wrong. Maybe I have more ethics or morals than most, I don't know, but I'd equate it in a small way to cheating or being unsporting in a match - I'd prefer to lose than cheat, because that's the way things should be done.

I'm not so idealist that if scum ignore our rights then we still need to play by the rules......if someone plays dirty, then I'll respond according to their rules - they wrote them, after all! So playing dirty against Al-Quaida and Osama is fine by me......BUT I'll draw the line at killing innocents - that drags you down to the level of the scum. I had the same stance with the IRA - while they may have had some "cause" in the beginning, that cause evaporated the day that they murdered innocent people, and they lost my support immediately. If Bush killed those involved in 9/11, fair enough; indescriminatedly bombing Baghdad (unrelated to 9/11) meant he's no better than them.

To paraphrase Mary Harney we are closer to Boston than Baghdad.

Just as well she's not Minister for Education teaching Geography, then, because - factually - she's wrong.

Jaysus, a hint of reality. I agree with you up to a point. However I wouldn't put nukes in the hands of people more likely to use them than not.

How many countries have Iraq or Korea invaded, and how many countries has the U.S. invaded ? I rest my case.

Well let's consider the known terrorist attacks that have taken place since the year 2000; 9/11, London, Madrid, Glasgow, Berlin, countless car bombings in Baghdad. All by Islamic terrorists. Known Christian terrorist attacks Nil, known Hindu terrorist attacks Nil, known Buddhist terrorist attacks Nil. Conclusion most terrorists are Muslims.

Firstly, you're equating Islam and Muslims interchangeably, and secondly - if you listen to reasoned discussion and debate - you will know that true Islamists will say that they are against violence.....so who are you to judge whether the supposed "Muslim" terrorists are genuine Islamists or Muslims ? All of the IRA terrorists and murderers were Irish - did they represent the views of all Irish people ?

As for your observation "Known Christian terrorist attacks [since 2000] Nil", a 5-second search on the web throws up the following 2 results immediately:

On 3 August 2001 the Real IRA detonated a car bomb containing 45kg of explosives in Ealing Broadway, West London, England injuring seven people. Debris caused by the bomb spread more than 200m (219 yards).

March 2001: A car bomb explodes outside the BBC's London headquarters, wounding one man. Police blame the Real IRA, a republican splinter group opposed to the IRA's cease fire.

While I'd equally debate whether the word "Christian" applies to anyone who can do stuff like this, in the context of your discussion the above are "Christian" bombings.....so where does that leave your argument ?

Your timeline also conveniently excludes the 1998 Omagh atrocity, America's home-grown Timothy McVeigh in 1995.

It would take more in-depth facts, figures and analysis to determine whether your observation about "most terrorists are Muslim" is indeed true (technically, if 50.1% of terrorists were Muslim, you'd be right - scaremongering, but technically right), but since you've made the claim - clearly disproved above with a 5 second Google search - that Christian attacks were Nil I don't think you're that interested in looking at facts ?

You want to call me a racist don't you?

I'd much prefer to be in a position to call you an informed and reasonable individual, but since you claim to know my preferences so well I'll let you choose whatever cap fit best.

I do disagree with labelling people unnecessarily, or attempting to group them into a "convenient" pigeon-hole, since it imposes a "guilt-by-association-through-birth".....the common factor should be how people act, not who they are/where they're from. There are many thieves, rapists, child-abusers, scumbags - and terrorists - who are travellers, emigrants, settled, Muslim, Catholic, etc, but the only judgement should be based on the first set of words - their actions - rather than the second - their background, race or custom.

Take an example of a rapist who's supposedly "Catholic"; Catholic's (a) aren't supposed to have sex before marraige, and (b) aren't supposed to abuse others.....if they were truly "Catholic", they wouldn't be a rapist, now would they ?

If I pulled a statistic out of the air you wouldn't accept it anyway. But if you can counter the statement with a reference of your own I'll consider it.

Consider it countered.

banaman · 11-09-2007 10:54pm

Paste this into google:
"Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East"

Read the initial summary, especially the bit where they talk about "US and possibly UK armed forces INSIDE Iran" now?

We haven't declared war. So those forces are acting illegally, and are, using our own definitions, engaged in terrorist activities.

Yet again we have a pot and kettle situation. Bloody hypocrites. Just wait until there's another terrorist atrocity. It'll get blamed or linked to Iran and be classed as provocation.

We all know where it goes from there.

Are you still happy to facilitate this through Shannon?

eoin5 · 12-09-2007 12:52am

Mick86 wrote:

We benefit from our relationship with the US

Imo we lose more than we benefit from the US. Were turning into a big free trade zone/shopping mall thats destroying our native small businesses, our public services and space, and our culture, all because we are such "good friends" with the US. Were good friends because we have no other choice anymore. If Intel and Hewlet Packard left tomorrow because its cheaper to operate somewhere else Kildare would implode.

Weve been infected by Starbucks ffs

Mick86 · 13-09-2007 2:20pm

edanto wrote:

Not that he addressed any of the facts I presented with more than opinion

I countered your opinions with mine.

edanto wrote:

So you take my point that the idea of a war on terror is unwinnable, then?

I wasn't aware that you were making that point. You stated that nobody had made war on a concept before. I pointed out that they had. Since the concept of facism at least was decisively defeated in 1945, there exists a precedent for militarily defeating a concept.

edanto wrote:

Peace can never be achieved by violence etc etc

Actually it can. Once one side or the other has been defeated militarily they begin to negotiate.

edanto wrote:

hey lets just give several hundred billion to the UN to pay a peacekeeping force to fix the mess we just made.

Peacekeeping forces move in when the fighting is over. We haven't reached that stage yet.

edanto wrote:

In fact, if you had watched the History of Oil you'd now know that our entire food chain depends critically on hydrocarbons.

I'll take that as a yes then.

edanto wrote:

Do you think the US are the only army to include non-weapon spending in a gross figure?! My point stands.

No it doesn't. You took the US Defence expenditure figure and assumed it is all spent on wepaons. It isn't.

edanto wrote:

Look at the figures. Seriously, man, try looking at some new information instead of just repeating things other people have said.

Reproduce the figures. To say that the entire US economy is based on waging war is rubbish.

Incidentally you yourself are just repeating other peoples statements.

edanto wrote:

And you think I watch too much television!?! If ya knew me, you'd know that I don't have one, so bad guess..

Maybe you should buy one then.

edanto wrote:

But look you mentioned Israel. At this point, maybe we could ask a mod to shunt this whole section of the "Bush declares blah blah blah" thread off into a new one - something like "Autopsy of a drawn out rape-murder, the grand US debate snakes on into thousands of pages"..

I'm sure that must mean something but I haven't a clue what exactly.

edanto wrote:

It is a good idea to limit Irans ability to threaten it's neighbours. But why not with negotiation instead of childish threats?

The UN has been negotiating with Iran for months.

edanto wrote:

What is it about Israel anyway?

Israel is the US only dependable ally in the region.

edanto wrote:

Why can't the US focus on negotiating a way out of that crisis instead of deepening it.

Search me. Why can't Iran focus on negotiating a way out of that crisis instead of deepening it?

edanto wrote:

Hamas and Fatah are accused of denying Israels' right to exist and slated for it while Israel has the same stance towards Palestine. And will not change it.

Presumably when Hamas and Fatah come to their senses, Israel will change it's stance. Meanwhile why should they treat their enemies any better than their enemies treat them.

edanto wrote:

I've met plenty of Israelis, all normal people -

Me too. I found that they would kill you at the drop of a hat. Same with the Arabs.

edanto wrote:

Palestinians are unbelievably poor, trapped in the largest prison in the world, choked by Israeli rules and military. A human crisis permitted by the biggest military power in the world.

In a free and democratic Palestine the rich will get richer and the poor will stay poor.

edanto wrote:

They should sort that mess out - with the money the US gives Israel they could easily talk them into giving at least some of the arable land back to the Palestinians..

The Palestinians want all of the land back. The idea of trading land for peace has been tried and hasn't worked to date.

edanto wrote:

These are some of the points that moderate Iranians would make too - but they're not reported over here since it's more newsworthy to mistranslate Iranian presidents and splash the tabloid "DEATH TO AMERICA" headline!!..

I don't believe the mistranslation excuse for the Iranians more extreme statements. It smacks of the facts not suiting the anti-US agenda.

edanto wrote:

Have you been able to find many examples in history of that approach working (compared to negotiation), since you were asked earlier?

All negotiations follow military action. Indeed if it weren't for military action negotiations would not occur.

edanto wrote:

I'm more interested in debating the factual points of a current world affair so that I can either adjust my own opinion to take account of new information or else convince readers of my point of view.

I find that people will only take account of those facts that suit their opinions.

edanto wrote:

For me this isn't just a place to spend some free time, I find this interesting and relevant. If you're just killing time, why don't you do some research and try coming back with some facts or proof before posting. Think before typing and all that.

Perhaps you should adjust your patronising attitude. You do not have all the answers. You choose what facts suit you and trot out a load of old guff as if it were some wonderful new insight into the world's problems.

Mick86 · 13-09-2007 2:57pm

Liam Byrne wrote:

At last - an actual fact. None of them was Irish either.....should Bush invade us ? We had some terrorists here until a few years ago..

Why would he. Our terrorists weren't stupid enough to attack America. In fact our terrorits were funded by America.

Liam Byrne wrote:

If they're taking action based on it, they should be sure of their facts; of course, your earlier comments re seeking revenge for unrelated events means that you've already acknowledged that it probably wasn't a failure of intelligence (in the CIA sense of the word) but either revenge or a lack of intelligence (in the common sense of the word)...

Not necessarily. The CIA produced an Int report on Iraq and WMDs. Bush and co assessed who they would attack next and settled on Iraq based on the CIA assessment and the fact that Iraq was an old enemy. After the invasion it turns out that the CIA got it wrong again. How hard the CIA had to try to convince the Government, or how hard the government was to convince on WMDs is a matter of conjecture.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Interesting use of figures there in order to support your argument......100 innocent children versus millions in Europe ? Come off it! How about comparing like with like, and use a figure of, say, 100,000 of each ? THEN which is wrong ?

I thought you might duck that question.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Also (and I've said this before), Osama Bin Laden doesn't feature in the comparison....if the U.S. actually went after Osama following 9/11 then no-one could really argue.....but they didn't -?

Of course they did. They invaded Afghanistan and tried to kill or capture Bin Laden.

Liam Byrne wrote:

they invaded a completely separate country and deposed a completely different leader. Six years on, the guy who masterminded the atrocity is still running around scot-free, but Saddam is dead - Yyyyayyyy! Let's celebrate :rolleyes:

Saddam Hussein is not deserving of any sympathy.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I am all too well aware that we are - disgracefully and against our constitution - not neutral,

Bunreacht na hÉireann does not mention Neutrality.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I'm not so idealist that if scum ignore our rights then we still need to play by the rules......if someone plays dirty, then I'll respond according to their rules - they wrote them, after all! So playing dirty against Al-Quaida and Osama is fine by me......BUT I'll draw the line at killing innocents - that drags you down to the level of the scum. I had the same stance with the IRA - while they may have had some "cause" in the beginning, that cause evaporated the day that they murdered innocent people, and they lost my support immediately. If Bush killed those involved in 9/11, fair enough; indescriminatedly bombing Baghdad (unrelated to 9/11) meant he's no better than them.,

Is the air very thin up there on the moral high ground? There's no such thing as a clean war. When the US went after the Taliban and Bin Laden, they inevitably killed innocent people.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Just as well she's not Minister for Education teaching Geography, then, because - factually - she's wrong..,

I am sure you know that she wasn't speaking geographically and neither was I.

Liam Byrne wrote:

How many countries have Iraq or Korea invaded, and how many countries has the U.S. invaded ? I rest my case

Irrelevant.

Liam Byrne wrote:

you will know that true Islamists will say that they are against violence.....

Of course they are. They proved it in New York, Madrid, London and Glasgow. Oh wait that wasn't violence that was Jihad.

Liam Byrne wrote:

so who are you to judge whether the supposed "Muslim" terrorists are genuine Islamists or Muslims ?

Now you are being silly. I notice that when a fact doesn't suit your prejudices you have a habit of spouting loads of quasi-intellectual waffle.

Liam Byrne wrote:

All of the IRA terrorists and murderers were Irish - did they represent the views of all Irish people ?

Actually some of them were British, most of them were citizens of the UK and they all claimed that they represented all Irish people. Pretty much the same way that Islamic terrorists claim they represent all Muslims.

Liam Byrne wrote:

As for your observation "Known Christian terrorist attacks [since 2000] Nil", a 5-second search on the web throws up the following 2 results immediately:

While I'd equally debate whether the word "Christian" applies to anyone who can do stuff like this, in the context of your discussion the above are "Christian" bombings.....so where does that leave your argument ?

OK you have me there. However Islamic terrorist acts are still more commonplace.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Your timeline also conveniently excludes the 1998 Omagh atrocity, America's home-grown Timothy McVeigh in 1995.

The context of this discussion is post 9/11 events. It seems fair enough to me to set 2000 as the cut off date. I could have set the date at 1960 and then the Irish would be the world's worst terrorists. That fact would not gel with current events though.

Liam Byrne wrote:

It would take more in-depth facts, figures and analysis to determine whether your observation about "most terrorists are Muslim" is indeed true (technically, if 50.1% of terrorists were Muslim, you'd be right - scaremongering, but technically right), but since you've made the claim - clearly disproved above with a 5 second Google search - that Christian attacks were Nil I don't think you're that interested in looking at facts ?.

But you don't have any such facts. Can you produce a table of statistics braeking down terrorists by religion? I can't

However I mentioned 5 known terrorist attacks by Muslims, you mentioned 2 by Christians. Thats a ratio of 2.5 to 1. Given that fact Muslim terrorists are in the majority.

Liam Byrne wrote:

I'd much prefer to be in a position to call you an informed and reasonable individual, but since you claim to know my preferences so well I'll let you choose whatever cap fit best.

Ah the fear of moderation.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Take an example of a rapist who's supposedly "Catholic"; Catholic's (a) aren't supposed to have sex before marraige, and (b) aren't supposed to abuse others.....if they were truly "Catholic", they wouldn't be a rapist, now would they ?.

Nevertheless most Irish rapists are Catholics.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Consider it countered.

Sorry you'll have to do better than you are doing so far.

Liam Byrne · 13-09-2007 5:35pm

Mick86 wrote:

I thought you might duck that question.

I didn't duck the question - I asked you for a more realistic set of figures so that the comparison would be more representative of an actual opinion rather than being based on pure maths.

Take the other example......on 9/11, 2,752 people died - complete innocents, R.I.P. To date, almost 72,000 (according to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ ) have died in Iraq - also complete innocents, R.I.P. Your argument was that, in order to save the most lives, we should be capable of sacrificing or foregoing the smaller number......so where does THAT leave the Iraq war (even assuming there was indeed a link between the two) ?

Mick86 wrote:

Saddam Hussein is not deserving of any sympathy.

Never said that he was.

Mick86 wrote:

There's no such thing as a clean war. When the U.S. went after the Taliban and Bin Laden, they inevitably killed innocent people.

Hmmm....inevitable: "sure to occur, happen, or come; unalterable" So basically you're saying that even if the U.S. went about it a different way, those exact same people would have died ? Or was it possibly only "inevitable" because of the way they chose to do it ?

Anyway, we're not even talking about deaths because of the U.S. going after Bin Laden; regrettable and - IMHO - avoidable as those were, Iraq and Saddam are unrelated to 9/11 and so ALL of the deaths in Iraq - almost 72,000 - were 100% avoidable (the polar opposite of inevitable).

Mick86 wrote:

Irrelevant.

Can't see how.....you implied that you'd prefer if nuclear weapons were in the hands of those least likely to use them; I merely pointed out that when it comes to acting impulsively, the U.S.'s track record shows that it's less trustworthy and more prone to taking inappropriate and misdirected action, therefore I'd prefer if someone other than them had nuclear weapons.

Mick86 wrote:

who are you to judge whether the supposed "Muslim" terrorists are genuine Islamists or Muslims ?

Now you are being silly......

Am I ? Keep reading....

Mick86 wrote:

Actually some of them were British, most of them were citizens of the UK and they all claimed that they represented all Irish people. Pretty much the same way that Islamic terrorists claim they represent all Muslims.

Right - now we have a quote from you that admits that not all of the "IRA Irish terrorists" were, well, Irish......with me so far ? So - taking your point - doesn't that open the possibility that not all "Muslim terrorists" are, well, Muslim ?

Mick86 wrote:

OK you have me there. However Islamic terrorist acts are still more commonplace.

Right - while the "you have me there" is a bit weak considering the supposed "facts" you were quoting, we have now changed from the initial point.....it's not the Muslim terrorists who are more common, it's their actions, right ? No argument here on that - at least on the high-profile recent ones.....but your extrapolation from that is a bit flawed, I'm afraid.....

Mick86 wrote:

However I mentioned 5 known terrorist attacks by Muslims, you mentioned 2 by Christians. Thats a ratio of 2.5 to 1. Given that fact Muslim terrorists are in the majority.

Sorry - no. How many terrorists does it take to change a lightbulb ? There may have been 10 Real IRA guys who carried out the 2 attacks....and there may have been 9 Muslim guys - assuming for a second that they were indeed Muslim - that carried out the 5 attacks.....if that's the case, it's same number of events, but who's in the majority ? Your attempt at extrapolation does not work.

Theirry Henry scores more goals than anyone else, does that mean that Arsenal have more players ? C'mon ref - us 11 can't play against their 20 men

Mick86 wrote:

Ah the fear of moderation.

Not in the slightest - I've mentioned enought that I don't like labelling people unnecessarily.

Mick86 wrote:

I could have set the date at 1960 and then the Irish would be the world's worst terrorists.

I know what you're saying, I just object to the way you are saying it - a group of 100-or-so psychos should not be sufficient to label or demonise the whole nation....even in 1960, "the Irish" weren't "the world's worst terrorists", the tiny minority of terrorists who were Irish were....and remember - as you correctly pointed out already - some of them were British! Imagine that......

Mick86 wrote:

Can you produce a table of statistics braeking down terrorists by religion? I can't

Precisely....so if you don't have that table to reference, why DID you state so assuredly that there were more Muslim terrorists than any other ?

Mick86 wrote:

Sorry you'll have to do better than you are doing so far.

Does that still apply, or should I post about this some more ?

Bush wants Irans Revolutionary Guards Declared Terrorists.

Comments