Iraqie war

What pretence de we have to go to war?

I validate the war in one main way. Sadamn created a safe haven for Al Quidia. That’s the only reason we’d invade any other country.

Imagine we had to fight a war where all the gangs in the inner cities joined together and coresponded over the internet through fake IP addresses.
That’s the war in Iraq.

By the way they did find WMDs that were too old to work.

If their intentions of invading Iraq were to make it a democratic example for the rest of the middle east, then the intentions were good. Regardless of their initial reasons, it was a failure. We simply stirred the hornets nest.

And it’s not a war on terrorism, let’s just come out and say it, it’s a war on Islam, specifically fundamentalist Islam.

Bull… Sirred the hornets nest compared to ignorring the problem. How can we allow a safe haven for al quidia? How

we have to make a stand.

I wasn’t implying we ignore the problem, just stating the obvious: we’re losing the war.

It’s not isolated to Al Queda, the problem is the religious belief itself, which is to kill infidels.

I really don’t want to be rude but …

Totally incorrect. There was no Al Quidia in Iraq before the invasion.
Saddam hated them. Same goes for Iran.

You must be kidding!
Iraq was one of the most ‘advanced’ country of the region before the sanctions.

Wow! What about the most fundamentalist Islam country of Saudi Arabia?

What are you making that stand for? Please don’t say democracy!

Who’s religious belief are you talking about? W’s?
Didn’t he say that he is doing God’s work in Iraq?
That he had a vision that instructed him?

Get real!

Wake the drunks of the oil party so they can see their head stuck in the toilet!
And then but only then: [size=150]Flush![/size]

Terrorism/WMD. Both of which were lies.

Nope, the main reason (completely overlooked by most critics) was to test out the public response to the so-called Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive preventative military action.

In that respect, the Iraq war was a total success.

How so?

Well, they found some bits and pieces of evidence that suggested the possibility of the existence of WMD in Iraq sometime in the past. Not the vast arsenal we were told was pointing at Western Europe, ready to fire within 45 minutes.

It has very little to do with religious belief. Of course, to a militant atheist, everything is to do with religious belief. For non-believers, they sure as hell spend a lot of time talking about religion. It’s like someone who isn’t into football spending 50% of their time complaining about Liverpool FC supporters…

So when sadamn paid off the families of suicide bombers as a part of religious freedom it was purely for isrealie suicide bombings??? What did sadamn do with the billions he stole from food for oil. I’m sure there was no paper trail. Then the Iraqie war happened and all of the al quida moved in suddenly??? Why wouldn’t they have just been sciently happy. They had a good thing there.

No Iraq wasn’t advanced,… didn’t sadamn get tried for crimes against humanity (a UN offence) And was sentenced to be hung???

Fundemental islam is about peace. And I’d site Christian philosophy in that you will be judged as you have judged others. In this a violent approach to getting your means will allow God to sanction violence back. Hows that for fundemental beliefs.

I’m making a stand for the 80% of Iraqies who didn’t want sadamn in power. The more I debate the more I realize democratic debaters are ill informed. It must be some kind of selective judgement. But now because how sadamn would terrorize people who spoke up against his polocies. There is the abused wife syndrom going on in iraq, where the people are timmid and too afraid to make a stand.

This isn’t about oil. It’s just that oil is their only resource. It’s about the extreamists who lived there.

No, sadamn supported suicide bombers. And sadamn used terrorist values to maintain people from sugjesting he wasn’t God. In fact many reports came out in how sadamn was mentally ill.

That may be a vauge side effect,… but I highly boubt it was main cause and effect. This responce makes you to have extreamist view points with paranoia problems. You are paranoid about hidden agendas. And are extreamly bias in the facts you remember.

Simple. The gangs would take every cheap shot they could. and one of the main ways to root them up would be going house to house. Then they’d brag about it any way they could to smugly rub it in your face.

Religious beliefs can be summed up as moral values. In this way most all religions (except satanic and voodoo) are exactly the same. Some of the side effects of means to the end is different though. Yet the morals of those who invent their own morals are merely a relationship of convienance. Religion holds you up to a higher standard.

They did find that sadamn deserves to be hung. What kind of man would allow him to be in power??? Clinton.

Well, he made statements saying that he supported the use of suicide bombers in the Israel-Palestine ‘war’. As I understand it, he had no direct links to militant Islam.

Perhaps so, most dictators are. If we’re talking about terrorist values then the British used them in Iraq. Ever hear about the two British soldiers caught dressed up as Arabs shooting at Iraqi forces? They were busted out of jail by British Special Forces in another act manifesting terrorist values.

This was clear from the moment that the US and UK tried to persuade the UN of their case.

Ooooh, I’m a paranoid extremist…

Ad hominem. Do it again and I report you to the moderators. My character and personality are not up for discussion.

Where’s the relevance of the ‘fake IP addresses’ analogy?

They can be summed up like that, but it’s wrong to do so. Religious beliefs aren’t just moral values, they usually have strong cosmological and metaphysical elements too, not to mention the literary mythology necessary for any religion to succeed.

Remember Iran Contra? Clinton isn’t the main reason for Saddam being a nutcase.

As to Saddam being hung - I don’t see how a public display of violence will do anything except encourage more people to be violent in trying to achieve their aims.

I think that’s a priceless little tell… or is there a reason to be teasing Saddam about his name?

On the Suicide bombers: even if it could be proven that Saddam did pay suicide bombers, that alone doesn’t even begin to justify a war against an entire nation, which inevitably the people to suffer most. So, try again in finding a justification with any merit.

I think it’s strange to jump to calling any and all mention of what you’ve called a “hidden agenda” paranoid. Haven’t you a number of motivations for almost everything you do?

While I don’t think someoneatthedoor is exactly right in stating that Iraq was only about “test[ing] out the public response to the so-called Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive preventative military action.” I think that was certainly a result. I think it’s also silly to think that Iraq’s nearly unparraleled oil reserves are immaterial in America’s interest there.

Nobody’s saying Saddam wasn’t an oppressive tyrant. He was. The question that I think you’re glazing over, Phil27, is what gives America the right to impose war on the soverign nation of Iraq?

We here in the US, as a culture, have a number of high minded ideals about Democracy’s righteousness, and of course about the practically infallible lesson of it-works-for-us-so-it-must-be-good from capitalism. So we’ve got ourselves convinced (now with God at our backs thanks to his holiness, Bush) that we’re right in wanting to help the oppressed people of Iraq out of their squallor.

But is it our place? Sure, we’re the big kid on the block thanks to the shameful colonialization of the fertile north american continent, the zip-dandy good timing of the industrial revolution, and our new position of strength after the end of WWII. But just because we CAN, in theory, step in as the big brother to save the helpless peoples of Iraq from their despotic leader?

We’ve been killing, what, at least tens of thousands of people over there, bordering towards 100,000? Sure, some of them now fit our definition of Terrorist and you can claim they’re choosing to fight us. I think it’s clear we’ve done nothing but really worsen the situation there, and it’s at this point abundantly clear that we’re not planting a democracy in the former fertile crescent.

So what are we really doing there? Al Quaida? Maybe. Sept11 was horrible, but we shouldn’t have used it to instigate wars that mostly punish those uninvolved. That’s not what Jesus would have done, ya know? Turn the other cheek and all that.

He may have asked why though. How did we anger them so much? What did we do? Then we might ask ourselves if we were right in doing it. Then we might consider changing ourselves.[/i]

I will make stand for 99.99% of Iraqis who hate your guts even more!
I hope Bush gets tried for the same thing than Saddam.

You are simply twisting my sentences and translating them to nonsense.
Your statements have no merit or support.
Your stance is more then a year old even by Bushit propaganda standards.

If you don’t like logic and facts stay with religion!

On Al Qaeda…

If you haven’t, read Jason Burke’s Al Qaeda, it chronicles ‘Al Qaeda’ and tells the story that is often misunderstood/mistaken by the media.

Essentially, Al Qaeda was merely an umbrella term used by the media after 9/11 to describe the collective of terrorists active in the world that simply happen to be ‘Islamic fundamentalists’. By no means am I proposing it has no other etymology other than this, however I feel it necessary to point out the generalisation of the term in this topic, both by the media and the receptive general public. This should be considered before declaring ‘Sadamm hated Al Qaeda,’ or ‘they only came after we invaded’.

And finally, hello.

so your argument is “no iraq wasn’t advanced” (relative to the other nations around it) reason being he commited crimes against humanity?

and “democratic debators are ill informed”

quality work. you clearly made this topic without the intention of discussing thsi rationally.

how is overthrowing a stable though oppresive government making a stand against al quidia a small terrorist organization?

Nice try!
Typical Bushit propaganda. Generalizing and distorting.
Al Qaeda is the name of the organization of Bin Laden and nothing more.
If you want to refer to Islamic fundamentalists try “Islamic fundamentalists”.

But please, it is so much more, and yet not even so much.

You are mistaken into believing ‘Al Qaeda’ is a highly structured and hierarchical organisation with Bin Laden as the ‘Director’.

As I said…

If you would desire a further explanation, please, allow me…

I am sure you are aware that the definition of Al Queada as the terrorist organization funded and organized around Bin Laden is not my own.
That was the definition of your president and that was the excuse to invade Afghanistan.

I find it troubling that you are experiencing loss of memory at the same time when you are trying to tie Iraq to Al Queda.
It did work before use it again?
No, not in this case. It was tried before the Iraq war to link Bin Laden and Iraq.
Let me get back to my favorite quote:
Do you believe that not being caught on a lie is same than telling the truth?
and
Do you believe that repeating that lie is going to make it true?
and
Do you believe that people who call you a lier are untruthful?
Is K.K.K. Just another name for Angelico?

Am I mistaken to believe what about Al Queda?
I don’t even believe that it ever really existed in the form we were told.
I didn’t invent thousands of sleeping cells, you did.
I didn’t organize secret sting operations to prove them, you did.
I didn’t use the American ‘media’ to spread these lies, you did.

If you believe that the ‘general public’ is that stupid, you have another one coming.

To set up permenant military bases in the Middle East so we have easy access to oil. Osama is a CIA agent, 9/11 was staged by the American government. Watch this movie:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid … alex+jones

I think we have crossed wires somewhere raven. I couldn’t be certain how much of your last post was directed at me for starters.

In my first post, I was simply pointing out that Al Qaeda was being used quite loosely in the rest of the topic.

If I understand your post right, it seems as though you are coming from the same perspective as me.

That’s all I was getting at…

In truth, Terrorstorm doesn’t cover that much of the issue of military bases/Middle Eastern oil, by which I mean there are better resources on google video on this specific topic.

I’d recommend ‘The Truth and Lies of 9/11’ by Michael Ruppert:
video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … 9024486145
and Michel Chussodovsky’s ‘War and Globalisation’
video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 3439292490

Terrorstorm does, however, contain some interesting material concerning the history of false flag terrorism.