Powell's case on Iraq... Definite Ownage against the Iraqi's

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, I don't need to go find proof, I have it in another form.  Both at this forum and at the other ones I post at, people agree with me, including people at this forum who you don't rip their posts apart.  I've even seen you either ignore or commend a post that in essance says the same exact thing as a post of mine that you do say is poorly argued.  It has been seen clearly that I not my arguments is the cause for what you do Bucc.

Lets look at the Peacekeeper thing.  The Peacekeepers and war were seperate things.  I was assuming that Iraq under the threat of war would let the peacekeepers in without having a fight.  You were making an assumption seemingly about what I meant.  Nothing you have posted shows why my opinion about the peacekeepers and extra inspectors isn't a logical next step.  You may not agree but that doesn't make it lack logic.

Just because you have a more pessimistic view of how Saddam would react doesn't mean that my thinking he would accept the peacekeepers without a fight is less of a reasonable claim.  Do you see what I'm saying?  You aren't using factual reasons in saying my points aren't logical, you are using your opinion and treating it as superior.

You want a better example of insulting my point without giving any argument.  How about that 'This is too stupid to even be replied to' or similar comment to my Iraq can have WMD because the US does.  Yes, I wasn't serious with the point and was just presenting a example argument, but certainly it still shows your propensity for brushing my comments off without any true proving their weakness.

This gets to the base of the problem.  I have numerous people saying my arguments are weak but giving very questionable reasoning as to why they are weak.  Add to that having an equal number of people having similar points that aren't called weak and it is clear to me that it is those reading my points, and not my points themself in which the problem lies.

[tasty]

Not to belittle it, but the terrorist fanatics are going to attack us no matter what.  The only thing we can do is possibly scare them, we are not going to win them over to our side.  As for the nations of the middle east, it's not like they could actualy go to war with us (to state the obvious, they don't have a navy, and they need our money too much to stop shipping oil).  

I don't agree with this. Its true that there are some that will always be against the US, but I think that if the US is taking proactive steps to prove that they aren't biased against Moslems and that they do not control a unipolar political system (or that they aren't trying to keep it unipolar, because obviously systems with a balance of power work better) that negative sentiment against the US will decrease. These people have beliefs that are extremely aberrant from ours, but they aren't stupid. If they don't perceive that the US is fighting a war against Islam, then they will have no reason to fight a war against us. I don't think that whatever military action we take will scare them. In the unlikely event that our military might works effectively against terrorists, I think that they will be both proud to have died for their country/religion and I think that they will be further convinced that the US is evil and must be attacked. So I don't think we can "win them over" but I do think we can really take a lot of vitriol out of their arguments and thus cause the number of their followers to greatly decrease.

I think that we go about our world strategy all wrong... to think that we can't change world opinion of us is too cynical and I think it creates unnecessary stress on our country with all the military needed to sustain such a position in the world.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I don't need to go find proof, I have it in another form.  Both at this forum and at the other ones I post at, people agree with me, including people at this forum who you don't rip their posts apart.  I've even seen you either ignore or commend a post that in essance says the same exact thing as a post of mine that you do say is poorly argued.  It has been seen clearly that I not my arguments is the cause for what you do Bucc.

Not so clear to me.  Or, it seems, to some others here.  Guess it isn't so clear.  And I don't see many people agreeing with you.  The only ones I've ever seen are the ones that, gosh, don't like me.  

As for poorly argued, yes, it is true.  I do think you argue poorly.  Not good at all.  A quick example, you started off in a thread saying that "Bucc ridicules and insults anyone that doesn't agree with him", when I point out people that I don't agree with, but get along with fine, you claim you said "he mocks and insults the posts of those he calls dumbasses"  (thats a paraphrase, but I can find the quote if you like).  Well, you see, you make these outlandish statements that can't be true (absolutes seldom can be) and you think you argue well?  

You got it right in the last.  Yes, I mock the people I consider dumbasses.  And why not?  Who should I mock if not the people I consider dumbasses?

Lets look at the Peacekeeper thing.  The Peacekeepers and war were seperate things.  

No, I made no assumptions, I just didn't make your assumption for you.  I read what you write, not what you think.  You mentioned force, war and peacekeepers all in one sentence the first time around.  Look at the quote.  I'm not a mind reader, and am not trying to be.  The meaning was unclear and I said as much.

Nothing you have posted shows why my opinion about the peacekeepers and extra inspectors isn't a logical next step.  You may not agree but that doesn't make it lack logic.

Way to read Bondo.  I agreed that it was a good idea.  Way to fucking read.  And you wonder why I mock you?

Just because you have a more pessimistic view of how Saddam would react doesn't mean that my thinking he would accept the peacekeepers without a fight is less of a reasonable claim.  Do you see what I'm saying?  You aren't using factual reasons in saying my points aren't logical, you are using your opinion and treating it as superior.

Do you see what I'm saying?  I said it was a good idea but I don't "THINK" that Saddam would do it without the threat of war.  And you can't have the threat of war if you aren't considering war.  Can you?  If the US said "no, we will not be looking at possible military action to uphold the accords.", do you think that would convey a threat of war?  Do me a favor and actually consider the position I've made there.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You want a better example of insulting my point without giving any argument.  How about that 'This is too stupid to even be replied to' or similar comment to my Iraq can have WMD because the US does.  Yes, I wasn't serious with the point and was just presenting a example argument, but certainly it still shows your propensity for brushing my comments off without any true proving their weakness.

Ok, now, read that again, and I'm going to quote myself here:

Here is one reason Saddam shouldn't be stopped if he has or is trying to get biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons...we have them.

Too stupid to warrent a real reply.  Besides the fact that he's proven to use them ruthlessly and has signed agreements saying he wont have them.

Golly gee Wally, is that there a couple quick and dirty pesky little arguments after that mock there?  Well by golly gee, it is.  I guess that even though I mocked you, I still bothered to bring up an argument.  So much for another Bondo example.  Funny how they fade so in the light.

This gets to the base of the problem.  I have numerous people saying my arguments are weak but giving very questionable reasoning as to why they are weak.  Add to that having an equal number of people having similar points that aren't called weak and it is clear to me that it is those reading my points, and not my points themself in which the problem lies.

Bondo, read more carefully.  Your points are weak because your arguments are weak.  Just like in the example above, you argument was weak because you tried using a gawd aweful example.  I may not have used a strong argument after the mock, but it was an argument where you say none existed (and you omitted it, which makes you look all the more wrong).  

Look at your defense of Zaitsev.  You praised the paper, I tore it apart, you defened it weakly, I tore it apart, you continue to defend it, now by lowering the standards.  That's what's weak.  My opinion of that is you were praising him because he is on your side.  Then you defended him because it was me pointing out the errors.  And you continue to hang on only becaues your pride wont let you just say that while you agree with him in spirit, it wasn't really a good paper.  So instead, you say that letters to the editor are held at a lower standard.  Weak.

[Info-Man]

Bondo, how will Peace Keepers disarm Saddam? How would saddams 3rd largest ground army (well at least during Gulf war, not sure about now) respond to 1,000 peace keeper. I would think Saddam would take advantage of this. He would probably do what Abe said. Attack the U.N Peace Keepers with overwhelming forces and use them as a shield of some sort. If I am missing something, or not getting your point on how the U.N keepers would disarm Saddam, fill me in.

I have numerous people saying my arguments are weak but giving very questionable reasoning as to why they are weak.?

Saying that we have them too, is a very weak arguement. I don't understand how you dont get that.

Here is a retarded example, but I hope you get the idea i am getting at.

Now lets say there is a bully and he has just beaten up a smaller kid. Now during the fight, a teacher interferes with the fight and throws the kid in his room untill he proves he can behave. Now lets say time goes by, and we have news of this kid planning to get a knife and use it against the teacher. Now we tell the kid to give up his weapon or else face a spanking. Now you argue this by saying "well who cares, the teacher has knives too, so he isnt a threat." Now true, the teacher has knives at home, but she doesn't bring them to school or plan to use them on any other people, unlike the bully who has showed violence in the past and would likely use them, if he was given an open shot.

[Info-man]

Crap, Internet Explorer Crashed on me. So i basically lost what ever i added to that previous post i made. =/ Oh, well...

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The biggest problem with your analogy Info-man is it is too easy on the bully.  

If the bully were Iraq, he'd already knived half a dozen people before the teacher got involved.  The bully would have also agreed to destroy his knife and never get a new one to be allowed to come back to class.  The bully would then complain that he wasn't being allowed a fair education because he wasn't allowed back, eventhough he hadn't brought in the broken knife yet.  

I could go on and on, but why.  You get it Info-man.  

The only thing you've overlooked (and me as well) is Bondo just deflected the argument away from any good, logical, ect reason there could be, by dragging us through this muck.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, lets think of it this way...you seem to think I'm stubborn in not seeing the weakness of my posts.  Maybe you all are stubborn in not seeing your vast errors.

I don't make a habit of trying to spot any minor flaws in an argument and go for the jugular and try to be anal about every single thing.  In the setting of a forum debate there is no need for that.  I just take what their view is, ignore the problems, and reply to the general point with my own take.  Why can't you just accept people's views as their views and then state your own.  I don't see why you have such an obsession on taking other people's posts and ripping them apart (which is not to say there is something actually wrong with them).

This showed itself in the Zait letter in particular.  I took the general essance of the letter and commended him on the thought, but you on the other hand took any error in number or percieved error in reasoning and used it as "proof" that he was a moron.

For christ's sake, I keep trying to point this out to you Bucc but you never listen.  You have a big problem with how you act.  You show great disrespect for many people.  Even if we were as stupid as you claim (although none of us are), you want to know what someone who makes fun of special ed kids is?  A completely vile human being.  You claim we are dumbasses and thus you should mock us...here is an idea, how about you don't mock and you just try to make arguments without tarnishing your points with insults.

You say I'm bringing a good thread down by bringing you through the mud...well, I try to seperate my debate about the topic and my criticising your poor actions on the forum to avoid the problem I state in the last sentance of the paragraph above.  Bucc, you just fail to understand how horrible a human being you come off as on the forum.

[Cossack]

Well I am not going to get into the Bucc-Bondo love fest. Info man I like your metephor for these actions.

I guess my official standing on the war would be for it if there were tangible proof. So far those containers are not enough, and those phone calls are circumstancial. I see no "hard proof" No labs, no chem warheads.

I am glad that U2 flights are being conducted, seeing if they can proove what the US claims.

I went to the Clinton speech today and found his speech to be compelling and extreamly well thought out. You dont get any slicker than "slick willie." He is anti-war until there is tangible proof. What I liked about Clinton's foreign policy is that on the whole, it respected the sovreignity and sovreign rights of other countries much more than George II's reign. Clinton is also correct when pointing out the domestic atrocities of George Shrub II.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Well, lets think of it this way...you seem to think I'm stubborn in not seeing the weakness of my posts.  Maybe you all are stubborn in not seeing your vast errors.

LMAO, yeah, that's about what I expected.  our VAST ERRORS.  Remember those words.  LMAO

I don't make a habit of trying to spot any minor flaws in an argument and go for the jugular and try to be anal about every single thing.  In the setting of a forum debate there is no need for that.  I just take what their view is, ignore the problems, and reply to the general point with my own take.  

Really?  Like about Abe's use of paragraphs?  LOL, nice try, but no basket.  You refused to read his because they weren't easy to read.  you've refused to read mine in the past because you said they were too long.  That doesn't seem like ignoring the problems to me?

Fucking hypocrite.

Why can't you just accept people's views as their views and then state your own.  I don't see why you have such an obsession on taking other people's posts and ripping them apart (which is not to say there is something actually wrong with them).

It's not an obsession, and you don't have to see it, do you?  You just ignore it and take the point, don't you?  Oh, guess not.

This showed itself in the Zait letter in particular.? I took the general essance of the letter and commended him on the thought, but you on the other hand took any error in number or percieved error in reasoning and used it as "proof" that he was a moron.
 

I took an error in a number?  Really?  Did I?  I think that was you that talked about a minor little error in a number.  I didn't.  I ripped him for completely being wrong (or blatently lieing) about NATO, He based half his argument on our allies thinking we were wrong, and the other half on money.  Well, that is an awefully shitty foundation for an argument on his case, and I sure as hell didn't see any thought behind it on his part that was worth commending.  It may as well have been a political TV commercial, for all the depth it had.  I went on to keep pointing out these flaws, these VAST ERRORS, not little minor numbers errors.  Even you gave ground on them, because they couldn't be defended.  So don't try to make it look like something it wasn't here.  All anyone needs do is flip back two pages.

For christ's sake, I keep trying to point this out to you Bucc but you never listen.? You have a big problem with how you act.? You show great disrespect for many people.? Even if we were as stupid as you claim (although none of us are), you want to know what someone who makes fun of special ed kids is?? A completely vile human being.? You claim we are dumbasses and thus you should mock us...

Big difference between a dumbass and a person with, say , DS.  Someone with a "handicap" like that doesn't fall into the "dumbass" category.  That's reserved for people like you.  

You can point out that you don't like how I act as much as you want.  I'm not going to change my ways for the sake of a hypocrite, such as yourself.  I'm quite honest to myself about my lack of patience for the termanilly stupid, as I like to think of you.  Sure I could have more patience with you, but why should I?  You've done nothing to deserve anything but my contempt.  So why should I do anything for you?

You say again that I'm disrespectful to "many people".  How many is many?  How many haven't deserved that lack of respect?  You?  No, you've more then earned it.  Zaitsev, nope, gave him chances, but he has just proven to be a sock puppet.  Bander?  how can I show respect to someone that biggoted against Americans?  I just don't respect stupid biggots.  I tried talking to him, but he doesn't seem to be able to communicate well with anyone that doesn't share his opinions.  Who have I missed??

[|MP|Buccaneer]

here is an idea, how about you don't mock and you just try to make arguments without tarnishing your points with insults.

Should I go back and quote some of your insults to me?  No, that would be too easy and not deep enough.  I know, I could go back and quote your very first sentence to Abe, something about getting his lips off my ass and calling him an aasshole.  Yeah, that's it.  

How about you practice it before you preach it?  If there is anything I respect less then a biggot, it's a hypocrite.  And Bondo, you are so there.

Tasty wrote me a nice PM about taking it easy on Zaitsev, telling me that I was a bit to harsh, even if I was mostly correct (in a nutshell).  While I responded to tasty with my thoughts, I didn't mock him at all.  Why?  Why can he make that point and you can't?  Because he's not a hypocrite about it.  He doesn't go around insulting peple, then tell me not to.  So, I respect his opinion even if I don't share it.

You say I'm bringing a good thread down by bringing you through the mud...well, I try to seperate my debate about the topic and my criticising your poor actions on the forum to avoid the problem I state in the last sentance of the paragraph above.? Bucc, you just fail to understand how horrible a human being you come off as on the forum.

Yeah Bondo, because I don't go after people, I go after arguments.  You go after me.  I'll tear apart your arguments.  I'll show you, like here, exactly how you are wrong (or like in the peacekeeper comments, or a dozen others), but you just turn it into a You and Me thing.  You don't say what's wrong with my comments about something, you call me names for being too harsh in them.  Get over yourself.  Your opinion of me is less then important.  Hell, it's actually a source of humor, because most of the time you try to make me look bad, you do a better job on yourself.  

So you may think I come off as a horrible human being, but if you think you are a good human being, that just makes me feel all the better.  

[*DAMN Mauti]

I ignore the Bondo - Bucc love story and answer to Info-Man, Assassin and abe. I'll try to answer as short as possible:

Most Americans who hate the French hate the French because they are stuck up assholes. We save their asses from Hitler, pour billions of dollars into their country...

Assassin you disqualify yourself from this debate. Quoting the New York Time and other newspapers that only try to raise hate. That isn't objective journalism. Our press wrote very well that it is very interesting that the US media starts to pick on France and not Germany because France never acted different, they always behaved very tactical, but Germany, and that's the point, behaves differently than usual. Interesting isn't it.

Abe and Info-Man about the NATO: unfortunaly we talked about two different NATO issues. About the Turkey I agree that it would be against the alliance agreements(whatever they are exactly) but before the issue with Turkey started Bush already claimed that if Germany, France and Belgium are against a war they break the alliance. I was refering to this issue and for this issue my points are VALID: An alliance should decide things together, not one country dictating.

Info-Man:I know that Abe has basicly covered your points which I am about to say.

I don't think so. About the gas grenades Abe is right - weapons from all over the world were sold not only the US but Iraq still got the money from the US and that was the main point of my statement.  Also what's about to kill Sadaam? You don't have to bomb thousands of civilians to kill Sadaam.

Abe populartiy doesn't only mean that he is liked it also means that he is well known. I was refering that Sadaam enjoys his media coverage. The whole USA knows his name.

And I still believe Sadaam is a 60years old dictator. Of course he is still dangerous and he was very cruel in the past but currently he is only dangerous inside Iraq. Why should he risk any attack? - Have you seen his palaces, have you seen how the rich in Bagdad live? - He is very clever and wouldn't risk to lose that.

As stated earlier, if you read it, Saddam will use WMD if given any opportunity. The other threat which concerns us as well, is the link between terrorist. Now this could be false or this could be true. More leaning toward true. As Saddam has seen and applauded the 9/11 attacks.

Many guys applauded to the 11/9 attacks and they aren't all terrorists. This doesn't proof anything.  "Saddam will use WMD if given any opportunity." The last Gulf war is over 10years ago. He didn't do anything against the US in these 10years and suddenly after the 11/9, 1 1/2 year ago, he developed WMD and will attack the US. Lol sorry my reasonable mind says this doesn't make any sense.

All eyes and ears are looking towards Iraq. - Sadaam wouldn't do anything unreasonable because that would be his end and he knows that. As a consequence Iraq isn't more dangerous than North Korea! Let the U2 spy airplanes do their work and let's wait. Where is the problem to wait a bit!? Why do you have to start a war before you have any real proofs?

As for the terror alerts, they are not meant to scare you, they are meant to make you more aware

IMO the only purpose of these warning are to raise fear. Think: take a map of the US and now see how large the USA are. Well do you really think if the CIA and others have information about terror attacks it is necessary to warn the whole USA!? Come on, if they only have the information that there will be an attack against the USA I am rofl. If they have information at all, they have some detailed information and can prepare locally. [sarcasm]Btw did you know I'll attack the USA soon so let's give alert allover in the USA![/sarcasm] - That's what Bush doing.

You are right my comparison with Hitler is maybe a little bit too harsh but the new anti terror laws raise fear and hate against foreigners. Reminds me at the second world war where America brought most Japanese in ghettos because they could be spys. Bush starts to do the same so someone, preferably the intelligent population of the USA, has to stop him and with him this unobjective, full of hate, journalsim.

To sum up: I AM AGAINST A WAR AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE WATERTIGHT PROOFS. Use your reasonable mind and brain and don't let the US news coverage manipulate you. Buy non US newspapers and compare to see the picture as a whole.

Regards,

Mauti
ps.: I don't have to proof that Iraq has no WMDs - The USA has to proof that they DO. - That's something you all seem to forget.

[Mr.Mellow]

I agree with pretty much everything Mauti has said. The reason why Iraq and North Korea aren't a threat is because if they use weapons of mass destruction against us, they know we'll obliterate them with our own nuclear weapons. This is called Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the same reason the U.S.S.R. didn't nuke the U.S. during the cold war, and vice-versa. Although, if we nuked North Korea or Iraq, they wouldn't have the capacity to completely wipe us out. Iraq can't even hit us from where they are, and North Korea can only hit our west coast. It would be suicidal of them to do it. Well, now your response will be "But Saddam and Kim Jong II are crazy! They'll do anything!". They might be crazy, but I doubt they'd be able to convince their generals and scientists to kill everyone in their country just so they can nuke California. Now, if anyone has an intelligent arguement against this that doesn't involve cussing at me, I'd like to hear it.

[kami]

I couldn't agree more with you Mauti, that's what I've been trying to say all along  

[abe]

gotta go to class so ill be brief, but i want to respond to some your points mauti.

first off, if you think the NY times is spreading pro-bush propaganda, you are wrong. it was quite liberal, almost leftist sometimes. just take a look at the op-ed page of the NY times. in europe many newspapers cater to a specific crowd so i think the euro newspapers are rather biased in general as well. im basing this on french and german newspaper- i dont know what the deal is in austria.

on the NATO issue, i don't think the US is dictating shit. there are other NATO membes than the US would have a hard time dictating if the vote is 18-1 against them. on the turkey issue its 16-3 in the US' favor. if the US and 15 of its allies vote on somthing then this is not the US dictating. i know you were refering to support for the war and i was talking about help for turkey. the point im tryng to make is that for france and germany its not about turkey, but about standing in opposition to the US. since the US hasnt requested (officially) any helpe from NATO, yet, being pains about turkey is about all they can do to voicee their oppositon. the problem is that they are killing NATO's credibility.....

mauti, our goal is not to bomb civilians, but to remove saddam from office. if we can do the latter without to much "collateral damage". but allowing him to hide behind his population is a different story....

Many guys applauded to the 11/9 attacks and they aren't all terrorists

i guess not, but they are assholes for sympathizing with terrorists. besides, if you applaud the attacks, you are imlying that it is ok to kill americans in terrorist attacks and that you are capable of doing it yourself....thats my opinion. and that was what this whole "either with or against us" statement bush made after 9-11 meant. that if you fail to condemn the terrorist attack or even applauding, you are siding with terrorists and thats no good.

shite i gotta go, laterz

[|MP|Buccaneer]

To sum up: I AM AGAINST A WAR AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE WATERTIGHT PROOFS. Use your reasonable mind and brain and don't let the US news coverage manipulate you. Buy non US newspapers and compare to see the picture as a whole.

Regards,

Mauti
ps.: I don't have to proof that Iraq has no WMDs - The USA has to proof that they DO. - That's something you all seem to forget.

Mauti, I've said it a few times, and you keep ignoring me.  I read non us papers, all the time.  I have formed my own opinions.  Thanks.  But you have it wrong.  Iraq does have to prove it.  They agreed to that at the end of the Gulf War.  We are still waiting for them to prove they destroyed the WMD's they admitted to having back then.  

So I'm not the one forgetting, you are.  You are fogetting that they have to hold up thier end of the bargin.  You are forgetting what happened in the past when things like this were ignored.

[*DAMN Bander]

Abe: Nobody is interested in, if the NY time is "left" or "right". answer to mautis arguments but dont talk bla blah again.

And something else: Nobody symphatises with terrorists. but sometimes when u look closer, why something really happened, u develope some sympathy with people leaving in poor and surpressed countries. the poor thing is: we "The "free world" only notice that when it already became a threat to us.

Bushaneer: Bah. So we have to attack RIGHT NOW! Yeah lets have a "Blitzkrieg" on Irak - instead of waiting a littlebit longer. Sounds a little blood thirsty to me.

Mauti: u spoke directly out of my heart dude!

Bander

[Info-Man]

Iraq can't even hit us from where they are, and North Korea can only hit our west coast. It would be suicidal of them to do it.

Oh, ONLY OUR WEST COAST?! PSH WHO CARES?!?! (sarcasm) Listen, I live in west coast. I am about 20 miles from L.A, which is a prime target. Now if a nuke is launched, I would perish. But remember. It's only the west coast. There is still plenty of the U.S left. (sarcasm)

They might be crazy, but I doubt they'd be able to convince their generals and scientists to kill everyone in their country just so they can nuke California. Now, if anyone has an intelligent arguement against this that doesn't involve cussing at me, I'd like to hear it

Okay, lets put our selves in N. Korea's position.

You see that the U.S is going to win either way. Besides the fact they would surely have all of their NATO's allies behind us, which would extremely raise our power in the case of War with N.Korea. Now remember the Asian haritage, Dying for your country is the highest honor you can bestow.

Now if War broke out, and they sensed defeat, which would you do? (remember you are of asian heritage and dying is an honor)

1) Surrender and disgrace your name and country.

or

2) Go down taking as many of them as possible (nuke)


Well, if I were in their position during a war, and I sensed defeat, I would choose  2. I would take as many of the enemy as possible and die with honor.


Mauti, you quoted something of mine, and left out one of my critical points in that saying. " Sure it will make some or most people scared, but it is MEANT to create awareness."

So when quoting me, please don't take things out of context.

Abe and Info-Man about the NATO: unfortunaly we talked about two different NATO issues. About the Turkey I agree that it would be against the alliance agreements

If I am not mistaken, wasn't I stating that because of France using its Veto power to reject protection to its ally, Turkey, weak? Well that seems like the same topic. But before you were stating that, France, using its veto power to refuse protection to an ally, wasn't weak, but firm. Am i mistaken? Sorry, I can't get a quote from that, but i will when i respond straight after this, when i can actually go back that far.

Nobody symphatises with terrorists. but sometimes when u look closer, why something really happened, u develope some sympathy with people leaving in poor and surpressed countries. the poor thing is: we "The "free world" only notice that when it already became a threat to us.

So you are saying that it is okay to murder people if you are poor and helpless?So lets say I am a poor guy out in Afghanistan. I could go out and murder a ton of people and you would sympathize for me?  Interesting...

Bondo, just because your arguements are weak, doesn't mean you have to get all anal and just start getting all pissed off at people for pointing them out. Hell, Bucc. has stated weak parts in my arguement and I don't get all pissed. I actually like when someone points out my weaknesses, then I can improve on them. So don't turn a debate into a name calling war.

[Info-man]

Here it is.

Well I don't find France's, Germany's or Belgium's behaviour weak, it would be weak if they would change their opinion after? a warning word from the US

I know that refers to the war and protection to Turkey.

[abe]

Bander,

the USSR saw the RAF (rote armee fraktion) and various other leftist terrorist groups in europe as leading a legitimate struggle against oppression and tyranny, as they saw it. were THEY right?? i think that if you are looking for a justification behind terrorism, you are being a sucker, because it is rarely about real issues and more about power and personal ambition. do you really think bin laden gives two shits about any arab or muslim other than himself?

Quoting the New York Time and other newspapers that only try to raise hate. That isn't objective journalism.

Nobody is interested in, if the NY time is "left" or "right". answer to mautis arguments but dont talk bla blah again.

i did answer mautis arguements and this is not "blah blah" as you seem to think. mauti, in one broad stroke, characterized the NY times and every other US newspaper as propaganda and only trying to raise hate. i just felt that i had to nuance that statement stlightly by pointing out that the NY times doesnt fit this convenient stereotype of the american press. im sorry if you consider this to be blah blah, but to me this seems relevant to the question.