100 protesters burn American flag outside U.S. embassy in London

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

BTW Tubub, if you would like to continue this discussion, may I suggest we continue it here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/66473-more-effective-weapon-defeat-al-qaeda.html
so that we do not continue to derail this thread.

Thank you!

Tubub · Sep 16, 2011

Catawba said:
Not at all. The military was well aware that we destroyed Iraq's military threat during the Persian Gulf war. And we enforced the sanctions against Iraq for the period between the Persian Gulf War and our invasion thereby preventing them from rebuilding their military capacity.

Since you blatantly ignored my quote from the Rand report detailing the failings of the sanctions, I'll repost it for you

Iraq late 1990s report by Rand said:
Allied and international support proved far less consistent than U.S. domestic support and posed a major challenge for U.S. policy. Although U.S. allies in Europe and other major powers initially strongly supported attempts to coerce Iraq, over time France, Russia, and China became increasingly critical of U.S. policy in the region and sought to end or curtail sanctions and inspections. Regional allies often did not support U.S. strikes on Iraq or sought to limit their extent to avoid criticism at home. Lack of consistent regional or allied support undermined the credibility of U.S. threats, encourage Saddam to defy U.S. ultimatums, and restricted U.S. military options.

Catawba said:
How so?

Rand never suggests Iraq was about oil. Rand never suggests that military action when fighting terrorists is completely unnecessary. Rand agrees strong military action was needed in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. Many of the claims you make and correlate to the 2008 Rand Report are filled with inconsistencies or false. Again, it is very clear that you don't reference the Rand because you respect its constant validity but that you reference one report for political expediency

The fact you ignored quotes I had from various Rand reports furthers that point

Catawba said:
I never claimed that either.

You might has well have. The strategy you laid out is equatable in its realism to controlled demolition in WTC. A bunch of guys lurking in the shadows killing all the terrorists. I just really don't buy it would've played out as rosily as you postulate

Catawba said:
I would agree it was an asinine endeavor, but nonetheless it is what was recommended in the report by Cheney's Task Force entitlped Strategic Energy Challenges For the 21st Century prior to the attack on the US by the Saudi Terrorists on 9/11

I never said it was an asinine endeavor, I said your statement was asinine. One cherry picked statement from Cheney talking about oil doesn't prove the war was motivated by it. Players in Washington would never have accepted it, namely Rice and Powell. And where did oil prices go after Iraq? Up.

It is nonsense

Catawba said:
He didn't join al Qaeda until late 2004.

wow, what? I'm hoping you are just mistaken and didn't purposely misquote wikipedia. Zarqawi had been a terrorist stretching all the way back to the Soviet-Afghan War days.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upon his release from prison in 1999, Zarqawi was involved in an attempt to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman, where many Israeli and American tourists lodged. He fled Jordan and traveled to Peshawar, Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. In Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a militant training camp near Herat, near the Iranian border. The training camp specialized in poisons and explosives. Zarqawi met with Saif al-Adel and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and explained he intended to set up his own training camp in Herat for Jordanian militants.

Jordanian and European intelligence agencies discovered that Zarqawi formed the group Jund al-Sham in 1999 with $200,000 of start up money from Osama bin Laden.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-06/world/us.zarqawi_1_al-zarqawi-qaeda-coalition-forces?_s=PM:WORLD said:
Al-Zarqawi, an associate of Osama bin Laden, had been named by the Bush administration as an al Qaeda member who fled to Iraq from Afghanistan in May 2002 for medical treatment and then stayed to organize terror plots. He came to Iraq with about two dozen al Qaeda terrorists, according to the administration.

Catawba said:
Abu Nidal was active in Iraq when Reagan had Iraq removed from the Terrorist Nations listing. He died a year before we invaded Iraq.

Saddam harbored and supported foreign terrorists.

Catawba said:
Also most of the suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudis.

What does this prove other than Iraq became a war against terrorists from around the Middle East and not just local insurgents? Doesn't that promote the war?

Catawba said:
Added to the half million Iraqis that died due to the sanctions we pushed for and enforced.

Yes... so you were wrong. Less than 1/3 died during the war than as a result of the sanctions

Catawba said:
What long term success? The new corrupt regime we helped set up there and continue to protect with the most powerful military on the planet will fall as soon as we remove our military. 3/4 of a million Iraqis dead are a few more eggs than I cared to break to make Iraq safe for big oils return there that our war enabled.

Nope, Iraq's military will keep going like South Korea's and West Germany's. Not gonna fall, and in 10 years when Iraq is still going you'll just concoct some other theory and pretend you never said it was going to fall

Honestly, it increasingly seems futile to bother debating these subjects with you. I debate to learn more, and change my ideas if they are wrong. Yet it is clear you discuss simply to push forth a pre-conceived political agenda that you tie with your ego, and no amount of overwhelming evidence could dissuade you

That's cool, go do what you want. But know that you're just as ignorant as the people who mislead us through Iraq, you just happen to be on the other side of the aisle

Don't worry, this is my last post for this discussion so we won't be derailing the thread anymore

Catawba · Sep 16, 2011

Tubub said:
Since you blatantly ignored my quote from the Rand report detailing the failings of the sanctions, I'll repost it for you

Rand never suggests Iraq was about oil. Rand never suggests that military action when fighting terrorists is completely unnecessary. Rand agrees strong military action was needed in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. Many of the claims you make and correlate to the 2008 Rand Report are filled with inconsistencies or false. Again, it is very clear that you don't reference the Rand because you respect its constant validity but that you reference one report for political expediency

The fact you ignored quotes I had from various Rand reports furthers that point

You might has well have. The strategy you laid out is equatable in its realism to controlled demolition in WTC. A bunch of guys lurking in the shadows killing all the terrorists. I just really don't buy it would've played out as rosily as you postulate

I never said it was an asinine endeavor, I said your statement was asinine. One cherry picked statement from Cheney talking about oil doesn't prove the war was motivated by it. Players in Washington would never have accepted it, namely Rice and Powell. And where did oil prices go after Iraq? Up.

It is nonsense

wow, what? I'm hoping you are just mistaken and didn't purposely misquote wikipedia. Zarqawi had been a terrorist stretching all the way back to the Soviet-Afghan War days.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saddam harbored and supported foreign terrorists.

What does this prove other than Iraq became a war against terrorists from around the Middle East and not just local insurgents? Doesn't that promote the war?

Yes... so you were wrong. Less than 1/3 died during the war than as a result of the sanctions

Nope, Iraq's military will keep going like South Korea's and West Germany's. Not gonna fall, and in 10 years when Iraq is still going you'll just concoct some other theory and pretend you never said it was going to fall

Honestly, it increasingly seems futile to bother debating these subjects with you. I debate to learn more, and change my ideas if they are wrong. Yet it is clear you discuss simply to push forth a pre-conceived political agenda that you tie with your ego, and no amount of overwhelming evidence could dissuade you

That's cool, go do what you want. But know that you're just as ignorant as the people who mislead us through Iraq, you just happen to be on the other side of the aisle

Don't worry, this is my last post for this discussion so we won't be derailing the thread anymore

I will respond to your post here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/66473-more-effective-weapon-defeat-al-qaeda.html

Tomorrow.

Ahlevah · Sep 16, 2011

Serenity said:
i did not lay responsibility for their deaths on Americas doorstop.

You wrote that the Bali deaths were "the direct result" of Australia's support of the "U.S. war on terror." I think that statement speaks for itself.

Serenity said:
maybe you should read all of the posts next time before you make reidiculous assumptions.

I read everything you wrote in the relevant posts, but, honestly, I'm having a difficult time reconciling some of it because you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, after I pointed out your lapse concerning East Timor, you backtracked on your assertion that Australia's participation in the "U.S. war on terror" was "purely" the reason it was targeted at Bali. And yet in the same post you wrote, "fact remains, Australians were targeted because of their fight against the Mujahideen and their role in the war in Afghanistan." Now, a relevant question becomes one of what is the chance Australia would have been targeted at Bali if it had not participated in the "U.S. war on terror"? I don't think terrorists play percentages, but it does become critical if the chance is 0%, because the Bali victims would likely still be alive today. Is that your assertion? Or would Australia still have been a target because it placed its "crusader army" on "sacred Muslim lands" in East Timor, thus giving Jamaah Islamiya a special bone to pick with the country? Personally, I don't think we'll ever know, but we should at least consider taking Imam Samudra, the mastermind of the Bali bombings who was defiant up until he was executed by a firing squad in 2008, at his word:

In a book entitled, Aku Melawan Teroris (“I am fighting for Terrorism”), Imam Samudra, the mastermind of the Bali operation, offers several justifications for choosing Bali as a target. His rationale is heavy in religious arguments and keeps in line with al-Qaeda’s global jihadi agenda. Imam Samudra argues that the main targets of the Bali bombing is the United States and its allies, namely England, France, Australia, Germany, Belgium, China, India, and Orthodox Russia. Samudra accuses these states of attacking and oppressing the Muslim umma. Indeed, Samudra invokes the Quran by referring to these “colonial powers” as the musyrikeen (“polytheists”). He considers these countries guilty for attacking “the helpless and the innocent, including children,” such as in Afghanistan in 2001. Samudra mentions that the Australians are targets “due to their efforts to separate East Timor from Indonesia.” In response to these provocations, Samudra contends, Muslims must wage retaliatory jihad against these countries and their citizens. He notes that every Muslim has a responsibility to take revenge for the deaths of thousands of Muslims by the “Crusaders, the Jews, and the Hindus,” and again invokes the Quran by stating:

“…And fight against those all together—just as they fight against you...”

http://las.reviewhudson.org/files/publications/AcharyaTheBaliBombings.pdf

Serenity · Sep 17, 2011

Ahlevah said:
Now, a relevant question becomes one of what is the chance Australia would have been targeted at Bali if it had not participated in the "U.S. war on terror"? I don't think terrorists play percentages, but it does become critical if the chance is 0%, because the Bali victims would likely still be alive today. Is that your assertion? Or would Australia still have been a target because it placed its "crusader army" on "sacred Muslim lands" in East Timor, thus giving Jamaah Islamiya a special bone to pick with the country?

already answered in post 95. this is the second time i have referred you to that post.

Serenity said:
the ADF deployed military personnel to Timor to help with East Timor's transition to independence from Indonesia in 1999. i assume that would have made many people unhappy and no doubt would be a contributing factor to why we were targeted.

Ahlevah said:
Personally, I don't think we'll ever know, but we should at least consider taking Imam Samudra, the mastermind of the Bali bombings who was defiant up until he was executed by a firing squad in 2008, at his word:

agreed. and we should at least consider taking Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11 at his word.

from the Australian Government Department of Foreign affairs and Trade website.

"On 12 November 2002, Bin Laden made a statement that gave more prominence to Australia than any other non-US Western country and reaffirmed Australia as a terrorist target: We warned Australia before not to join in [the war] in Afghanistan, and [against] its despicable effort to separate East Timor. It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali. ".

Ahlevah · Sep 17, 2011

Serenity said:
already answered in post 95. this is the second time i have referred you to that post.

Let me paraphrase your response: Many people were upset with Australia due to its involvement in East Timor and it was undoubtedly a contributing factor as to why it was attacked at Bali, but the fact remains it was attacked due to its involvement in the U.S. war on terror. I then asked you if you thought the country would have been attacked at Bali absent its involvement with the war, and I guess you're now saying you agree with me that we really don't know. Is that about the size of it?

Serenity said:
(W)e should at least consider taking Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11 at his word.

Al Qaeda is resourceful and opportunistic. It was under considerable pressure as a result of the invasion of Afghanistan, and it took advantage of its contacts with pan-Islamic movements such as Jamaah Islamiya in Indonesia and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines to strike back. It's obvious, however, that Jamaah Islamiya has a major beef with Australia because it put a big chink in the Islamist plan to establish a regional caliphate. Plus Australia is a Western-oriented nation that's anathema to Islamic fundamentalists who don't want Western influence in South Asia. That would be true whether or not Australia participated in the "U.S. war on terror."

100 protesters burn American flag outside U.S. embassy in London

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Tubub

Well-known member

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Ahlevah

Serenity

Stay Human

Ahlevah