Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 131

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

  1. #121
    Global Moderator
    May the force be with you
    Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    My point is you either don't have a handle on the facts or you're being disingenuous when you say Australia was targeted "purely" due to its support of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. You seem to be laying sole responsibility for the deaths of Australians on America's doorstep, and I have to say that as an American I resent that. And if you're implying that lack of support for the invasion on Australia's part would have kept it out of Jemaah Islamiyah's crosshairs, you're delusional.
    i did not lay responsibility for their deaths on Americas doorstop. my comments were to Xfactor explaining why people outside of the US have been affected by 9/11 too, not just Americans. that is in no way laying responsibility on America. innocent people were targeted by terrorists on both sides of the world as a result of 9/11. that was my point. maybe you should read all of the posts next time before you make reidiculous assumptions.

    post 91

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    the ones responsible for the Bali Bombings were obviously the terrorists that organised and carried out the attacks against innocent people. people who were not combatants, people who were just having a holiday, minding their own business, going about their day to day activities just like the victims of 9/11.
    Why do we fall?
    So we can learn to pick ourselves up.

  2. #122
    Global Moderator
    May the force be with you
    Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    And if you're implying that lack of support for the invasion on Australia's part would have kept it out of Jemaah Islamiyah's crosshairs, you're delusional.
    post 95.


    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    the ADF deployed military personnel to Timor to help with East Timor's transition to independence from Indonesia in 1999i assume that would have made many people unhappy and no doubt would be a contributing factor to why we were targeted. the 2002 bombing remains the deadliest act of terrorism ever directed at Australians.

    fact remains, Australians were targeted because of their fight against the Mujahideen and their role in the war in Afghanistan. there is documented statements from those involved confirming this.

    not sure what point you are actually trying to make here. whether our support for the U.S. war on terrorism was 50% the reason, or 10% the reason or 99% the reason for the attacks, what difference does it make?
    feel free at anytime to answer my original question. what difference does the percentage make?
    Why do we fall?
    So we can learn to pick ourselves up.

  3. #123
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,727

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    i did not lay responsibility for their deaths on Americas doorstop. my comments were to Xfactor explaining why people outside of the US have been affected by 9/11 too, not just Americans. that is in no way laying responsibility on America. innocent people were targeted by terrorists on both sides of the world as a result of 9/11. that was my point. maybe you should read all of the posts next time before you make reidiculous assumptions.

    post 91
    In all fairness, the original post he was referring to did come off a bit like you were saying Australia would not have been the target of a terrorist bomb but for it's support of the US war on terror, much like how it's been suggested the US would be safe and secure but for our support of Israel (and, therefor it's Israel's fault).

  4. #124
    Global Moderator
    May the force be with you
    Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    In all fairness, the original post he was referring to did come off a bit like you were saying Australia would not have been the target of a terrorist bomb but for it's support of the US war on terror, much like how it's been suggested the US would be safe and secure but for our support of Israel (and, therefor it's Israel's fault).
    nonsense. my original post was in response to your insinuation that your 9/11 was different to my 9/11. i tried to explain that people outside the U.S. have been affected by 9/11 too. i in no way have been critical of the U.S. Government at all, in fact quite the opposite. wouldn't being critical of the U.S. Government mean i was critical of the Australian Government too which i am clearly not. i've already said i lost someone i cared very much about in the Bali bombings. i find it incredibly distasteful and completely disrespectful what you are insinuating here. i hold the Terrorists responsible not the Australians or the Americans. i can't believe i'm even having to clarify this. there is nothing in my posts that warrant this bull**** from you. i've already clarified that my use of words "purely" was incorrect in post 95 where i have said there were other contributing factors as well. 30 posts ago.

    as for Israel, they have nothing to do with this thread.

    from the Australian Givernment 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. Its government falsely claimed that they were not targeted.
    Why do we fall?
    So we can learn to pick ourselves up.

  5. #125
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    The Rand Corp recommended this in 2008 with Iraq and Afghanistan in hindsight, not in 2001 as America headed down the road. There is a key difference there worth noting;
    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.

    more importantly though, Rand is not suggesting what you are.
    How so?

    It claims that US efforts have been mislead, yes;
    Check

    It claims America's War on Terror strategy since 9/11 has failed, yes;
    Check

    but it doesn't claim the best route to victory would've been to send a few CIA agents in dark cloaks to parachute down and choke hold Osama, not ever and especially not from the beginning.
    I never claimed that either.

    That is an asinine statement that expresses political motivation instead of actual analysis
    I would agree it was an asinine endeavor, but nonetheless it is what was recommended in the report by Cheney's Task Force entitled Strategic Energy Challenges For the 21st Century prior to the attack on the US by the Saudi Terrorists on 9/11:

    "As the 21st century opens, the energy sector is in critical condition."

    "As it is, national solutions alone cannot work. Politicians still speak of U.S. energy independence, while the United States is importing more than half of its oil supplies and may soon for the first time become reliant on sources outside North America for substantial amounts of natural gas. More flexible environmental regulation and opening of more federal lands to drilling might slow but cannot stop this process. Dependence is so incredibly large, and growing so inexorably, that national autonomy is simply not a viable goal. In the global economy, it may not even be a desirable one."

    "For the most part, U.S. international oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets."

    "Several key producing countries in these important areas remain closed to investment." (my note - this references Iraq nationalizing its oil and kicking big oil out 35 years before) "A reopening of these areas to foreign investment could make a critical difference in providing surplus
    supplies to markets in the coming decade."


    "Over the past year, Iraq has effectively become a swing producer, turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so."

    "Under this scenario, the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention."

    "Providing adequate safeguards, both at home and abroad, against energy supply disruptions and against manipulation of markets by any party, state or private."
    Powered by Google Docs

    Then why was Al Zarqawi in Baghdad in 2002?
    He didn't join al Qaeda until late 2004.

    "Zarqawi opposed the presence of US and Western military forces in the Islamic world, as well as the West's support for and the existence of Israel. In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden"
    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Saddam Hussein harbored horrible terrorists like Abu Nidal, and personally gave $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He was not an enemy of terrorism
    Abu Nidal was active in Iraq when Reagan had Iraq removed from the Terrorist Nations listing. He died a year before we invaded Iraq.

    Also most of the suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudis.

    Source?
    'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis

    Iraqbodycount.org: Between 100,000 and 150,000 killed
    Added to the half million Iraqis that died due to the sanctions we pushed for and enforced.

    But most importantly, You're missing the point. If you constantly favor instant results over delayed ones, you will not see long-term success. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
    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.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #126
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    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!
    Last edited by Catawba; 09-16-11 at 04:17 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #127
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Iraq late 1990s report by Rand
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-06/world/us.zarqawi_1_al-zarqawi-qaeda-coalition-forces?_s=PM:WORLD
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    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
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  8. #128
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    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-te...-al-qaeda.html

    Tomorrow.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #129
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,925

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    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/pu...liBombings.pdf
    Нава́льный 2018

  10. #130
    Global Moderator
    May the force be with you
    Serenity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,920

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenity View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    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. ".
    Why do we fall?
    So we can learn to pick ourselves up.

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •