PRESIDENT BUSH should be tried for war crimes!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by MikeH
That reminds me, I should get the Audioslave album.

It works already

Not really. Israel is nothing more than a side issue for Al Qaeda.

and what is the main issue? uniting all the muslims against the evil west.

Well Dubya is just trying hard to make that one come true, like he is a secret member.

[Ming]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Ming... maybe not... but admittedly you have voted for Libs... man this forum is making you soft

Nahhh... I voted for some libs long before I started posting on Internet Forums

Sometimes we can change them (opinions) as well if we find the reasons why...

I don't think so...
I base my opinons on many things... but what's said on an internet forum isn't one of my primary or even secondary sources

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
and what is the main issue? uniting all the muslims against the evil west.

US troops on Saudi soil.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS
"What about this?"

It's a flawed analysis. The Arab public in general is fixated on Israel, but the 9/11 hijackers were not.

Have you ever read their stories? US policies have had precious little impact on them.

no I haven't read them, are they anywhere on-line?

By the way, did they leave journals with reasoning behind, as noone survived

[Jack the Bodiless]

I found this amusing:

"The war on Iraq never stopped," Morello told NME.COM. "The US have been bombing and maintaining no fly zones for the last ten years. Look at the UN figures - at least one million dead because of bombing and sanctions, half a million of them children.

There might be a case for arguing that sanctions have indirectly killed a lot of Iraquis ("indirectly" because Iraq can buy all the food that it needs). But bombing? After all the recent televised use of precision-guided munitions in recent conflicts, why do so many people apparently still assume that "bombing" means carpet-bombing cities, Dresden-style?

But this guy tosses it in with "sanctions" as a cause of mass death. What about the thousands of people who die in the US every year due to Spider-Man comics and handguns? Or the millions who are dying in Africa due to the Disney Channel and AIDS?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ming


Nahhh... I voted for some libs long before I started posting on Internet Forums

Heh... you are going soft that is for sure

Originally posted by Ming





I don't think so...
I base my opinons on many things... but what's said on an internet forum isn't one of my primary or even secondary sources

After spending all the time here? More than most of us junkies... don't tell me that you never find any useful information here... if that wasn't so this would be torture.

And when you find something useful.. that implies it makes you think, and you do base opinions

I presume the variety here must be more objective for its variety than straightforward Reuters/CNN stories, at least you get to hear the other side more often.

[DanS]

One Foot: The Washington Post had a good series about a year ago, but I can't find it now.

The majority of the hijackers were from "Yemeni" Saudi Arabia. The flash point was as Dinodoc describes.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I found this amusing:

There might be a case for arguing that sanctions have indirectly killed a lot of Iraquis ("indirectly" because Iraq can buy all the food that it needs). But bombing? After all the recent televised use of precision-guided munitions in recent conflicts, why do so many people apparently still assume that "bombing" means carpet-bombing cities, Dresden-style?

But this guy tosses it in with "sanctions" as a cause of mass death. What about the thousands of people who die in the US every year due to Spider-Man comics and handguns? Or the millions who are dying in Africa due to the Disney Channel and AIDS?

Here you go Jack

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/000719.htm

An Interview With Dennis Halliday, Ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General Heading The UN Humanitarian Mission In Iraq

Resolution 1302 is a continuation of the Oil-for-Food programme, which was not designed to resolve the crisis in Iraq. When it was assembled in 1996, it was designed to stop further deterioration. But the fact is that Oil-for-Food has sustained the humanitarian crisis. Mortality rates of children under five years of age still remain at 5,000 per month, plus an additional 2,000-3,000 people per month among adults, other children and teenagers. These people are dying because of bad water, inadequate diets, broken down hospital care and collapsed systems.

We have massive malnutrition in Iraq, despite the Oil-for-Food programme. There is a huge social collapse, families falling apart with children out of school taking to the streets. The electric power is 35 per cent of what it was in 1990. So the Oil-for-Food programme has totally failed to bring about the well being of the Iraqi people. Having said that, it has, however, provided something like 20 million tonnes of basic food. It does make a huge difference in keeping the Iraqi people alive -- but only barely alive

Not so funny... maybe not a million over 10 years but close.

[DanS]

All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily.

[Arrian]

Yep. But people will happily blame us instead, Dan. Saddam's a bad dictator, so he's expected to do bad things, and we, of course, ought to know that and somehow prevent it. Or maybe we should just cave in and go away and leave him be. Then he'll be nice to his people.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DanS
All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily.

Exactly.
And the same point could be made about North Korea.
Here's a plagued country what can't even byild a road to the DMZ, but they claim to have nukes.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think Tom Morello was speaking from emotion. I can't say I entirely blame him... When Bush was first elect, I was generally unimpressed and rather indifferent to him. I was of the opinion that as long as he didn't majorly screw up, all would be well. Within his first few weeks, those sentiments turned to distrust. Then they became outrage. Then loathing, and by this point I would like nothing better than to take 100,000 of my countrymen and make the administration regret supporting the 2nd Amendment.



(btw, since nobody seems to know, Rage Against the Machine was a Socialist group, so when he accuses the President of letting the economy sink its because he would rather have the a Socialist government running the economy)... I'm just explaining! I'm not Socialist in any way myself!! Don't shoot this messenger!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS
One Foot: The Washington Post had a good series about a year ago, but I can't find it now.

The majority of the hijackers were from "Yemeni" Saudi Arabia. The flash point was as Dinodoc describes.

Ok... what can I tell you, I would love to read it. I'll try and dig something up.

just someting I found on Frontline

What's the different conclusion?

That depends on understanding the problem. The problem is a phenomenon consisting of at least four ingredients. The first ingredient is the huge hatred of the United States because of its polices in Palestine, its policies in Iraq, its policies in the Arabian Peninsula.

The second element of this phenomenon is the hopeless leaders in our region, which are regarded by people as oppressors, as traitors, as [stooges] for the United States

Interview with and Saudi exile... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ews/fagih.html

So the statement above (The principal causes of terrorism are US economic and military domination, or perceived domination, in the Middle East ) from is not so inaccurate according to that Saudi exile.

... There's an important point here that this hate is not the natural hate people have to a prosperous superpower. It's not that sort of hate. It's very specific hate for the sake of policies in the Middle East, which people perceive or understand that those policies are very much directed against them in terms of their identity, being Arabs and Muslims.

They ask themselves why, for God's sake, America sacrificed its interests for the case of defending Israel. The interests of America are in oil in the Gulf and other areas. Why would America lose money and lose face and get continuous embarrassment for the sake of defending the aggressive, very, very bad policies of Israel, and keep declaring that nobody should touch the security of Israel, and stand in a way in which America with all its huge machine becomes a tool for Israel to manipulate?

If it has interests in the region and it hates Saddam Hussein, why does [America] not contain Saddam alone and leave the people alone? Let the people eat and drink. Why should America starve 20 million people and Madeleine Albright stand up and say it is the price? ...

edit: I guess that this gives the answer to the posts in between too... it is not only Saddams fault, why does [America] not contain Saddam alone and leave the people alone? Let the people eat and drink. Why should America starve 20 million people and Madeleine Albright stand up and say it is the price? ...
I would add, is a frontal attack the only way to get rid of Saddam After 10 years of the embargo?

[Guest]

All Saddam's fault. If he wanted his people fed, he could have done so easily.

Not entirely true. The UN 661 council, which has been responsible for the sanctions and humanitarian exceptions, has been an abject failure. It was undermanned, and couldn't approve contracts fast enough, or just bureaucratically inept.

In many cases, things like components and chemicals for water treatment, have been blocked by the veto power of the US and UK as 'dual-use' even when scientists declared this was clearly not the case.. Another instance was the case of $280 million worth of vaccines for diseases like hepatitis which were blocked because of the potential for culturing bioterror weapons-again biochemists stated this was flatly impossible. It wasn't until the Wash. Post and Reuters was ready to expose the matter that the US approved these contracts. The burden of blame for the decline in the health and welfare of the Iraqi people doesn't fall on Saddam.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


no I haven't read them, are they anywhere on-line?

By the way, did they leave journals with reasoning behind, as noone survived

Heres one I found today

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=234111&lang=e&dir=news