Get Your War On. Year 4

[shereads]

http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/28759/2002136164216791711_rs.jpg

 

[shereads]

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/29906/2002149549052093927_rs.jpg

 

[shereads]

http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/26254/2004965433654238158_rs.jpg

 

[shereads]

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/26986/2003931049448765682_rs.jpg

 

[shereads]

http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/27630/2003992755747496990_rs.jpg

 

[shereads]

http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/28288/2002888218755563575_rs.jpg

 

[Carnevil9]

Okay, I'm confused. You seem to take it as axiomatic that Saddam Hussein's regime was not directly involved in financing, planning, or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. How do you know this?

 

[shereads]

http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/29254/2002822180222794743_rs.jpg

 

[shereads]

Okay, I'm confused. You seem to take it as axiomatic that Saddam Hussein's regime was not directly involved in financing, planning, or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. How do you know this?

The same way everyone else knows. I pay attention. Nobody - not even Dick Cheney - still clings to that particular delusion. Even General Petreus admitted that "Al Queda in Iraq' did not exist until after the U.S. invasion.

Also, the Easter Bunny isn't a bunny; it's a ferret.

 

[shereads]

http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/26753/2002894483602423071_rs.jpg

 

[Carnevil9]

The same way everyone else knows. I pay attention. Nobody - not even Dick Cheney - still clings to that particular delusion. Even General Petreus admitted that "Al Queda in Iraq' did not exist until after the U.S. invasion.

Also, the Easter Bunny isn't a bunny; it's a ferret.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I say the jury is still out. Except for rabid mouth-foaming GWB-haters, of course, who are exempt from logic.

 

[shereads]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I say the jury is still out.

Your jury will always be out. Be grateful.

 

[Carnevil9]

Thank you. Still waiting for your evidence.

 

[haldir]

Carnevil9 - what evidence do you have that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in planning and financing the 9/11 attacks? Perhaps the same sort of evidence that told us that his regime had massive stockpiles of WMD just waiting to be unleashed on an unsuspecting world (tho how it could be unsuspecting given that sooo many governments just knew for sure that he had them is a mystery to me)?

Just some other points to make. It is clear that 9/11 was planned and executed by Al-Quieda, probably at the time in it's complex of training camps and bases on the Pakistan/ Afghansitan border. The Taliban encouraged these camps because Al-Quieda activists were (and are) useful to them in furthering their aims - a sort of twisted fundamentalist, islamist (NOT islamic) love-in.

The principal source of financing for Al-Quieda has always been Saudi Arabia. Not neccessarily the "government" but certainly certain well-connected, wealthy and powerful people. There is not enough time or space to go into the history but Taliban/Al-Quieda extremism has it's roots in the extremist, anti-intellectual wahhabist tradition that originates in - you guessed it - Saudi Arabia.

Now - please bear with me for a little longer - Saddam Hussein's Iraq was fiercely and brutally secular. Religious extremism was immediately crushed. Hussein didn't want anyone else having any influence in Iraq except himself. The sort of extremism displayed by the likes of the Taliban or Al-Quieda was anathema to him (he really was not in any way interested in the west - except for what he could get out of them) and there was never any evidence for their existence pre-Gulf War II. In fact intelligence summaries so far accessible to us poor saps in the public domain suggest that the opposite was true - that such groups were actively expelled and destroyed within Iraq. they have only gained a foothold there now because of the power vacuum created by the destruction of Hussein's regime without any thought given to what was going to replace it. Here's a radical and unpleasant thought - perhaps the War On Terror would have been more effectively prosecuted had the Western powers supported Hussein's Iraq and turned it's thoughts to reqime change and the introduction of real democracy in Saudi Arabia. Mmmmmmm - I wonder.

Oh - and once again I have to ask. Since when does questioning the motives/sense/ actual outcome of political actions or lampooning politicians equate to hatred?

Keep up the good work Shereads.

 

[flavortang]

I love the fact that our main reason for staying in Iraq now is a bi-product of going there in the first place.

And I always wondered about that "We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." talking point. Isn't Al Qaida smart enough to attack us HERE, in America, since our military is mostly in Iraq? And if the terrorists and "evil doers" are going to basically fight our military wherever they go, why go so far away?

Why not just send our military to Mexico? Or Canada? And fight them there. Hell, just send them to Hawaii. It's a helluva lot closer. By that rationale of "fighting them THERE", wherever there is. They pass it off like our military are terrorist magnets when the whole fear factor of Al Qaida is that they want to destroy our way of life, which, presumably, would be an objective more effectively accomplished by coming to the mainland and just causing overall mischief. Who the hell would be here to stop them? The ASPCA maybe? Security guards?

 

[McKenna]

...snip...They pass it off like our military are terrorist magnets when the whole fear factor of Al Qaida is that they want to destroy our way of life, which, presumably, would be an objective more effectively accomplished by coming to the mainland and just causing overall mischief. Who the hell would be here to stop them? The ASPCA maybe? Security guards?

All the right-wing, gun-toting Republicans.

So long as they aren't visiting a bathroom stall in Minneapolis, that is.

 

[rgraham666]

Carnevil, should do your homework.

Al-Qaeda, and other Islamists, are sworn enemies of secular states and the leaders of them. It doesn't matter if said leader is George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein. If any Islamist who got close enough to negootiate with any agent of any secular state, the Islamist would kill them instead. The Islamist beleives it's their holy duty.

And the amount of Islamist terrorist activity in the West is peanuts compared to the amount in the Arab world. Their first act was to seize the Holy Mosque in Mecca. Hundreds died. There was the attempted rebellion of The Arab Brotherhood in Syria. And there was the assassination of Anwar Sadat.

"If you know yourself and you know others you shall win all your battles…" as Sun Tzu wrote.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

We should invade everyone! All the countries who can't prove they weren't involved are clearly guilty, including the USA!

Where was I on 9/11/01? Was I really at the dentist? Can I not prove I wasn't? I'm not so sure....

--Zoot

 

[shereads]

Carnevil, should do your homework.

Al-Qaeda, and other Islamists, are sworn enemies of secular states and the leaders of them. It doesn't matter if said leader is George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein. If any Islamist who got close enough to negootiate with any agent of any secular state, the Islamist would kill them instead. The Islamist beleives it's their holy duty.

Ah, Rob. It's sweet that you want to help one of the hold-outs find his way. But it can't be done.

Think of the Truth as a canal, and public discourse as the dredging project that keeps the water flowing freely. Asking Carnevil to consider evidence he's been ignoring for four years is like attempting to move sand with a flour sifter. It's not impossible, but neither is it worth your time.

Before I realized it was futile to reason with the Faithful, I made some flash cards. You're welcome to use them:

Saddam = secular gov't

Bin Laden = hates secular gov't

Saddam = enemy of Iran

Bin Laden = approves of Iran

Invasion of Iraq = bad for Saddam

Bad for Saddam = good for Iran

Laughing his ass off when U.S. deposed Saddam = Bin Laden

 

[flavortang]

All the right-wing, gun-toting Republicans.

So long as they aren't visiting a bathroom stall in Minneapolis, that is.

I think it's because they think people are stupid and all that they have to say are completely agreeable terms like "Support Our Troops" and people will fall in line. EVERYONE can agree that you have to support the troops, but the troops have no say in policy. What they're really saying is "Support Our Policies and Don't Ask Questions".

If I don't agree with a policy, I'm definitely not just falling in fucking line and playing ball. They better explain and haves heaps of evidence why they're sending thousands of our people to fight and die. Now they're starting with this Iran shit... They're so predictable.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I really don't want to pile on here.... but then you follow up this witticism with..

Still waiting for your evidence

WTF????? I suddenly feel like I am in The Exorcist.. but the head spinning is getting me dizzy... Wait let me sit down for a minute... Okay...

You are asking for evidence to prove there was no evidence to prove Sadam's alleged involvement in 9/11? Did I get that right?

Ahh Hah! Well that it's then! That there is NO evidence to prove there was no evidence to Sadam's alleged involvement in 9/11.... and given that Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.... Then that clearly IS evidence that there was no evidence to prove there is no evidence to prove Sadam's involvement in 9/11.

Sadam was not involved in 9/11... get it? He was too busy killing Kurds and Shias and playing "find the WMD" shell game with the UN inspectors. It is one of life's little ironies that we created, nurtured and motivated a huge Al Qaeda force in Iraq because of our presence there, thus creating a de facto rationale for our involvement.

Kind of reminiscent of the last lose-lose quagmire we found ourselves in... There were no organized N.V.A troops in the South until we were there fighting the indigenous V.C.. This, in turn, gave us the rationale for being there to defeat the invaders from the North! But then.. I have no evidence to prove there is no evidence that N.V.A. was not in the South prior to our arrival.

Damn.

KC.

 

[shereads]

Dr M makes a good point.

We've been assuming that a lot of countries had nothing to do with 9/11, without demanding hard evidence.

What about Peru?

Shining Path is chock-a-block with terrorists. Shining Path could have helped plan 9/11. Yet Peru never said a thing!

Their silence says it all. The bastards!

And China. Where was China on 9/11?

And what about Neil Bush?

 

[keeblercrumb]

Dr M makes a good point.

We've been assuming that a lot of countries had nothing to do with 9/11, without demanding hard evidence.

What about Peru?

Shining Path is chock-a-block with terrorists. Shining Path could have helped plan 9/11. Yet Peru never said a thing!

Their silence says it all. The bastards!

And China. Where was China on 9/11?

Have you ever seen Peru and China in the same room at the same time? Maybe China is Peru! Of course... I have no evidence of that.. but you have to wonder.....

KC

 

[shereads]

Have you ever seen Peru and China in the same room at the same time? Maybe China is Peru! Of course... I have no evidence of that.. but you have to wonder.....

KC

Peru has been suspiciously quiet on the subject of China's poison dog food and toxic Barbies.

 

[shereads]

Since when does questioning the motives/sense/ actual outcome of political actions or lampooning politicians equate to hatred?

Since Election Day 2004.

Sorry. I can't help it.

I appreciate your supportive words, H, but there's no denying that I hate Bush apologists. I mean, I really hate them. Bush-Cheney and their dangerously ignorant defenders have made me understand what Hunter S. Thompson felt when he titled his Nixon book, "Fear and Loathing."

Britney Spears could not have been a more inept president. Wink Martindale would have responded more intelligently to 9/11. My dog would have had a more coherent foreign policy, or none at all, which would have been better in the long run - and my dog is senile. Electing Bush-Cheney once was ridiculous; twice was inexcusable. The world will suffer a long, long time for the inability of their faithful followers to admit an error.

I hate them.