• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Catawba said:
You are absolutely correct Serenity, it is wrong for anyone to kill innocent civilians, no matter how it is justified or what flag is flown by the ones that do it. We in fact let a great opportunity pass us by after 9/11. At that time the whole world was with us condemning the horrible tragedy we suffered that day. We squandered that good will by invading and killing many more innocent civilians than we lost in two countries that never attacked the US, rather than enlisting the support of the world to condemn and seek out terrorists around the world. As the conservative Rand Corp determined in their report commissioned by the Pentagon, that resulted only in creating more terrorists and more hatred of America.

Bin Laden said we would be defeated not on the battlefield but financially by trying to fight futile wars, and we seem determined to prove him correct, IMO.

I admire you for defending innocent civilians everywhere.

What? Really?

World opinion and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.

What would all those other nations have us do, sit back and do nothing? Now, I was against invading Iraq, but I definitely supported the invasion of Afghanistan. There is nothing wrong in rooting out the problem, and if that takes invasion, so be it.

We are not a nation of appeasement, unlike European nations. When Madrid got hit, Spain pulled out of the coalition. When London hit, they just lay there and took it like a fat girl at a frat party. Hell, the millions of Pakistanis living in London and other areas of England are practically carving out law.

If America had given the diplomatic equivalent of "We're sorry, we'll leave you alone, please don't hurt us again...please?" to radical Islam, our own morale would have been crushed. I will tell you now - I give 100x more of a damn what America thinks about America than what every other nation on Earth combined thinks of America. If you don't like it, the collective world population can line up and kiss my ass. Princes don't appeal to paupers.
 
and wanting to nuke a whole country because of 9/11 and kill a bunch of innocent civillians makes the Enolas and Councilmans of the world no different than those bastard extremists who were behind 9/11. advocating the murder of any innocent civillians is revolting. surely that's not difficult even for you to understand.

Just remember this simple rule. It's not terrorism if you drop the bomb from a plane.
 
No, I didn't support him. There are a lot of evil f*cks in the world who I don't support. But it's not our responsibility to depose all of them.

Just the ones democrat presidents decide to depose. Them...hell yeah! Serbia...Lybia...oh...maybe its the 'bia' part that democrats find as just cause to engae in wars.
 
Just remember this simple rule. It's not terrorism if you drop the bomb from a plane.

The United States - technically - is the only group ever to conduct a terrorist attack using nuclear weapons.

But I think it was the right decision at the time, and resulted in less human deaths overall if we were to conduct a Japanese invasion.
 
Just remember this simple rule. It's not terrorism if you drop the bomb from a plane.

Blitzkreigs beg to differ.
 
Blitzkreigs beg to differ.

They can beg all they want. A person blowing themselves up in a market place, killing 4 injuring 10 others...terrorism. Dropping a bomb from a plane or launching a missile from a proper military platform killing 100's if not more....not terrorism.
 
They can beg all they want. A person blowing themselves up in a market place, killing 4 injuring 10 others...terrorism. Dropping a bomb from a plane or launching a missile from a proper military platform killing 100's if not more....not terrorism.

I don't agree with your reasoning. So if Al-Qaeda were to gain access to fighter jets, and attack a civilian US city out of the blue one day with missiles, this would not be considered a terrorist attack?

Or are you just being sarcastic and I'm not getting the joke?
 
I don't agree with your reasoning. So if Al-Qaeda were to gain access to fighter jets, and attack a civilian US city out of the blue one day with missiles, this would not be considered a terrorist attack?

Or are you just being sarcastic and I'm not getting the joke?

It was mostly sarcasm and cynicism. Essentially if one side kills civilians they call it terrorism; but if the other side does it it's retaliation or military operation or anything other than terrorism.
 
Look at the bright side - Nagasaki and Hiroshima were warned.

Abdullah didn't hand out pamphlets saying that he was going to suicide-bomb the Pizza Hut in 10 minutes, so you should get out if you want to live. The Enola Gay was a dirty little litterbug that day.
 
I took one look at his comment and had me a good chuckle over the delicious irony inherent in somebody offering such a childishly simple-minded comment that so perfectly illustrated the two dimensional thinking of which he was accusing others.

My funny seems to have been mistaken for an attack.... :O

But it's not like half the country went running for their guns literally after 9/11 and believes the president is a muslim. But we can leave it at that. :)
 
Last edited:
With a few exceptions during WW-II ours has been a Nation that goes out of it's way to to fair and civil and to try to limit civilian loses.

Like our involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, right?
 
It was mostly sarcasm and cynicism. Essentially if one side kills civilians they call it terrorism; but if the other side does it it's retaliation or military operation or anything other than terrorism.

Gotcha. I like to classify this as such:

If your intention for blowing up a structure or person is because that structure or person poses a direct threat to you (ie he is the only guy who can effectively lead your opposition's front, or the building contains all military intelligence of the opposition), then it is more classifiable (in my opinion) as a militaristic-type attack.

If your intention for blowing up a structure or person is not because that structure or person poses a direct threat to you, but more so that the person or structure represent a symbol of what you are trying to defeat, and your intention is to get an idea across rather than to simply destroy something that is of danger to you, than it is an act of terrorism.

Line gets fuzzy though, and I think often times attacks are combinations of both (ie attack a symbolic and direct threat type target).
 
Last edited:
you're always confused. my previous response was in reply to your trolling comment about my perspective being "recently manufactured". classy.

Seriously? You've called me any number of names and bashed me in every post, yet I'm the one making trolling comments? I guess I'll just have to aspire to be as classy as you've been. ;)
 
They can beg all they want. A person blowing themselves up in a market place, killing 4 injuring 10 others...terrorism. Dropping a bomb from a plane or launching a missile from a proper military platform killing 100's if not more....not terrorism.

You could call it a war crime, there's no need to stress it's not terrorism.
 
What? Really?

World opinion and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.

What would all those other nations have us do, sit back and do nothing? Now, I was against invading Iraq, but I definitely supported the invasion of Afghanistan. There is nothing wrong in rooting out the problem, and if that takes invasion, so be it.

We are not a nation of appeasement, unlike European nations. When Madrid got hit, Spain pulled out of the coalition. When London hit, they just lay there and took it like a fat girl at a frat party. Hell, the millions of Pakistanis living in London and other areas of England are practically carving out law.

If America had given the diplomatic equivalent of "We're sorry, we'll leave you alone, please don't hurt us again...please?" to radical Islam, our own morale would have been crushed. I will tell you now - I give 100x more of a damn what America thinks about America than what every other nation on Earth combined thinks of America. If you don't like it, the collective world population can line up and kiss my ass. Princes don't appeal to paupers.

Fortunately, John Prine wrote a song in response to your sentiments, so I don't have to waste my time responding to them:

 
Burning the USA flag in Europe??

I guess Obama's apologizing for the USA being a mean country and all that didn't do any good after all.
 
This is breaking news?

These news forums are about two things:

bland corp. news dogma and censorship.

That's the whole point behind sub-dividing all these topics,

Just because the NYT, LAT, WaHoPo, avoid things doesn't
our free speech zones should be cordoned off into sub topics

Its like the Community>User Map function. Its Moderator abuse!
 
This is breaking news?

These news forums are about two things:

bland corp. news dogma and censorship.

That's the whole point behind sub-dividing all these topics,

Just because the NYT, LAT, WaHoPo, avoid things doesn't
our free speech zones should be cordoned off into sub topics

Its like the Community>User Map function. Its Moderator abuse!

Like....WTF are you talking about? Subforums=censorship?
 
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?

You wrote:

(The deaths that resulted from the 2002 Bali bombings) were a direct result of my Countries (sic) support of the U.S. war on terror and the support we continue to offer as a result of 9/11. they were targeted purely because of that support....

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 reference the Rand report because it is the most in-depth analysis of the war on terror that I am aware of.
Fair




Catawba said:
The alternative would have been what the Rand Corp recommended, using an approach with the world's intelligence agencies and forces with as small of a military footprint as possible, thereby killing less innocent civilians.
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; more importantly though, Rand is not suggesting what you are. It claims that US efforts have been mislead, yes; It claims America's War on Terror strategy since 9/11 has failed, yes; 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.

How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for countering al'Qaida Rand Report said:
U.S. operations in al Anbar province provide a useful illustration of when military forces can be appropriate against terrorist groups. While politics and policing may be more effective in most cases, military force can be critical when facing a terrorist group involved in an insurgency. Such groups are often well equipped, well organized, and well motivated, and police acting alone would be quickly overpowered...
Policing and politics may be preferable against most terrorist groups. But military force may sometimes be more useful against large terrorist groups engaged in insurgencies. In Iraq, military force was helpful, at least temporarily, against AQI. But the U.S. military largely played a background role...
The current U.S. strategy against al Qa’ida centers on the use of mili- tary force. Military force was not, of course, the only instrument that the United States used against al Qa’ida. The U.S. Department of State engaged in a range of diplomatic counterterrorism initiatives, includ- ing through its Antiterrorism Assistance Program. The FBI and local police agencies historically tracked and arrested terrorists in the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security implemented numerous policies at ports of entry and critical infrastructure to secure the United States from terrorist attacks. The U.S. Department of Trea- sury targeted terrorist financial networks.....
Force was necessary in Afghanistan in 2001, for example, to target al Qa’ida’s base of operations. But U.S. military and intelligence forces acted primarily in support of the Northern Alliance, which conducted most of the ground fighting.36 In the majority of cases, the United States should avoid direct, large-scale military force in the Muslim world to target al Qa’ida

Catawba said:
And I would not have diverted most of our resources for a war on behalf of big oil in Iraq.
That is an asinine statement that expresses political motivation instead of actual analysis


Catawba said:
Before our invasion, we knew that we completely destroyed Iraq's capability to be a threat to the US or its neighbors in the Persian Gulf war followed by ten years of sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/opinion/recasting-the-iraq-sanctions.html?src=pm said:
A decade after the Persian Gulf war, most of the world has lost interest in isolating Iraq. Some nations are lured toward complacency by short memories of Mr. Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the prospect of profitable business deals with Baghdad. The change in attitude is shortsighted, but with permanent members of the Security Council like France, Russia and China anxious to abandon the embargo, the United States and Britain have no choice but to fashion a new approach.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/07/26/iraq7_25.a.tm/ said:
On the eve of the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, there's growing concern both in the U.S. and abroad that continued sanctions are not only causing terrible suffering among Saddam's luckless subjects, but have also failed miserably as a strategy to bring down his unlovely regime.

Despite nine years of sanctions, Saddam is doing pretty nicely, thank you. His grip on power is stronger than ever; he and his cohorts grow rich smuggling goods from Jordan to beat the economic embargo; and the sanctions policy of his worst enemies -- the U.S. and Britain -- are today the subject of greater Arab hostility than his own odious regime. Sanctions haven't exactly crippled Saddam, but they've put the Iraqi people through hell.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-03-16/news/9803160160_1_sanctions-policy-iraqi-compliance-sanctions-don-t-work said:
The long-term effect, in the view of United Nations humanitarian aid experts, is likely to be an entire generation of Iraqi children stunted in their physical and mental development. The long-term political effect, say critics of sanctions, might be generations of Iraqis embittered toward the U.S. and other nations that have subjected them to a cruel punishment for the crimes of their leader....."We've demonstrated the sanctions don't work, and the cost is appalling," said Rosemary Hollis, director of Middle East studies for the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London. "Sanctions have taken an enormous toll on people and have not done anything to unseat the regime. They ought to be lifted immediately.

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:
We also knew that Saddam and al Qaeda did not get along, and there were few in Iraq before our invasion.
Then why was Al Zarqawi in Baghdad in 2002?

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

Catawba said:
Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq were in fact Saudi, just as were those who attacked us on 9/11.
Source?


Catawba said:
If you compare the violent death rates before and after our wars, you will see they dramatically increased after our wars.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html?src=pm said:
As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraqbodycount.org: Between 100,000 and 150,000 killed

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
 
Last edited:
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

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.
 
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.


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?
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.


'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.
 
Back
Top Bottom