Are Muslims really trying to take over, or are some people just suffering from Islamaphobia? — Page 11

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

 Or millions of people around the world suffering because of your foreign policy and military invasions.

yeah, sure it is all the fault of the big bad US, and Saddam and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with it.   what bullshit.

What does Saddam has to do with South East Asia in 60' and 70', for example?

I didn't know you were talking about South East Asia in 60's and and 70's. 

I was talking in general.

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh and talking about Saddam... can you remind me why exactly did you invade Iraq?

He was an evil dictator that murdered many of his own people, certainly kept them oppressed, and we though he had wmds.   For all we know he did have wmds and disposed of them or sent them somewhere else before we could stop him.    I am not sure we should have gone into Iraq, what I do know is that Saddam was a bad guy and would have developed wmds and used them against the US, if he could have. 

Well decisions of your leaders caused unproportionally more deaths around the world than that of Saddam.

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction. And many other nations have them (including North Korea). Yet in the history, you remain the only nation who used nuclear weapons on other nation (on civilians to be precise).

Not exactly willy-nilly, and if you read any balanced view, our attack likely saved far more lives, especially American lives.  Other nations have sworn to use them far more liberally, while we with our much greater capacity, have demonstrated extreme restraint.  Saddam did not.  Or do you consider multiple chemical attacks on his own Kurdish citizens to be the actions of a responsible leader?

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Oh you thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So what if he did (he didn't anyway)? You have weapons of mass destruction.

some nations can be trusted with wmds,  Iraq under Saddam was not one of them. 

And you will be the judge of that?

You Americans are every bit as stupid and arrogant as people usually say you are. No offence.

Said someone who has demonstrably shown himself to be stupid and arrogant in this very conversation.  No offense (American spelling is better :P).

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

here is what I should have said yesterday:

the world trade center bombing in 1993

the embassy bombings

the USS Cole

911

what were we supposed to do?   how long were supposed to let this crap continue?  Who many Americans were we supposed to let die before we did something about it?   What would you have done about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?  just let them get away with it?  You've never answered that.

As for the the families and friends of those that died in the war in Afghanistan, perhaps they ought to be asking why the regimes there were harboring terrorists.    The people in charge of Afghanistan were not good people.   But maybe we should have tried harder to find a way to do what needed to be down with causing so many civilian deaths.

I could with ease do one of my parody misquotes replacing every terrorist event you listed with an outrage against Arabs and Muslims and swapping America and Afghanistan around.

It would be very cold comfort indeed to the families of the people who died in 9/11 to say to them, "Maybe you shouldn't have voted for that sort of leader".

Especially as some of those countries didn't have leaders or votes at the time.

Please do.  We're all in the mood for a jolly laugh.  And make sure you demonstrate that the actions are morally equivalent and represent the actions of our government and not just some rogue morons. 

Look, I understand that it's good to question and be skeptical and not just accept everything the government spoon feeds, but it seems like the most liberal folks think they have to take whatever is common sense and immediately assume the exact opposite is true, then seek weak evidence to support their theories.

George Bush and Tony Blair are war criminals and should be tried as such. Saddam should've been taken care of at the end of Gulf War when we had the chance to. The SAS had him in their sights, but the order came through to not shoot. Intriguing.

What makes someone a war criminal?

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

darth_ender said :

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

*cough*PRESCOTT BUSH!!*cough*

(sorry I always get a sore throat when that old chestnut falls from a nutbush over the pond).

So you agree with Warb that the Afghans and Iraqi civilians killed and injured and suffering from loss of infrastructure have only themselves to blame for being in the same country as people of interest?

And you don't see any point of similarity between Arab/Muslim terrorists killing civilians in Western cities?

Bingowings said:

So you agree with Warb that the Afghans and Iraqi civilians killed and injured and suffering from loss of infrastructure have only themselves to blame for being in the same country as people of interest?

And you don't see any point of similarity between Arab/Muslim terrorists killing civilians in Western cities?

It's funny that libs are so anti-racist, yet they still tend to lump into groups.  I never said Afghans or Iraqis have themselves to blame, and only those who fail to see individuals but rather a group as a whole would assume that's what is going on.  I said Al-qaeda in Iraq is to blame.  I could also point to other groups, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iranian Quds forces in Iraq, etc.  See, these are militant groups.  And they are comprised of violent and evil individuals.  I blame those individuals and the groups that espouse those evil beliefs.  They attack their fellow citizens.  They killed far more civilians than any Americans did; I don't think attributing 99% of all civilian deaths in those two wars to those evil groups would be very inaccurate.

As much as liberals may hate to admit it, it's the Muslim terrorists that are killing civilians, both in Western and Middle Eastern cities.

Stop calling me a Liberal like it's some sort of insult Big love.

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

Bingowings said:

Stop calling me a Liberal like it's some sort of insult Big love.

:)

I'm not using it like an insult.  I'm characterizing those on the far end of the spectrum.  But I genuinely do like your comeback.  I just think those on the far end tend to follow certain patterns of thought, and I'm trying to point out those perceived patterns.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said :

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

*cough*PRESCOTT BUSH!!*cough*

(sorry I always get a sore throat when that old chestnut falls from a nutbush over the pond).

Your added joke eludes my sense of humor, I'm afraid.  I don't see what he has to do with anything.  You may have to explain it.

And I'd still like to see how our actions compare to the USS Cole or 9/11.

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

So you agree with Warb that the Afghans and Iraqi civilians killed and injured and suffering from loss of infrastructure have only themselves to blame for being in the same country as people of interest?

that is not what I said, asshat.   I meant that their governments are to blame.

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

And you don't see any point of similarity between Arab/Muslim terrorists killing civilians in Western cities?

when we kill civilians, its usually by accident.   They deliberately target civilians. 

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

We're talking 20 years ago. There's only so much of the stuff. The fact remains if there was no oil in Iraq, beyond '91 Saddam would still be in power or the country would now be in the midst of an Arab spring uprising.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

 I think Bush was right that bin Laden wasn't the that important a target

tell that to the friends and family members of the 3000 people he murdered(not to mention the friends and family member of people that died in other attacks like on the USS Cole).

Though Warbs has been driven out like snakes from Ireland, I'll respond. Sorry, Warbler, but this is a really really weak point. As St. Patrick CP3S (sort of?) alludes to, national security is not about personal feelings.

this is not just about national security, it is about justice.  Justice dictates that when you murder 3000 people, you must pay.

Mrebo said:

Do you know how many Americans have lost love ones due to any number of world people we don't kill or even friendly with? I think it would be extremely pathetic to kill bin Laden to make families of the deceased somehow feel better. He was a legitimate target, but ultimately not that important. Killing him has not and will not end the military conflicts in the Middle East spawned by 9/11.

I don't know how you can say it not that important.  the man was responsible for the modern day version of the Pearl Harbor attack.

why does Bin Laden get such a pass from so many?

the man is responsible for multiple terrorist attacks including 911 and we are just supposed sit here and take it and not go after him.  That just doesn't seem right to me.

Mrebo said:

One the reasons 911 happened, was because of our weak response to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Cole attack, and the embassy bombings.   Call our response to 911 what you will, but it certainly wasn't weak.   

While we might have been able to head off 9/11 or kept al Qaeda busy away from the US, 9/11 didn't happen because we didn't react more strongly.

I said it was one of the reasons.

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said :

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

*cough*PRESCOTT BUSH!!*cough*

(sorry I always get a sore throat when that old chestnut falls from a nutbush over the pond).

Your added joke eludes my sense of humor, I'm afraid.  I don't see what he has to do with anything.  You may have to explain it.

And I'd still like to see how our actions compare to the USS Cole or 9/11.

Okeedookee...

We over here have to ever so often put up with one of you over there telling us how we owe our freedom to the good ole US of A.

Don't get me wrong every American serviceman (and some ladies) that helped the other Allies defeat the Axis powers deserves a peck on the cheek from me should I meet them in whatever hereafter actually exists, if any.

But Americans only joined the war after Europe had already been kicked to near death and many of your number (including the father and grandfather of two of your presidents) sold arms to the Germans to help him deliver that kicking. The real reason the UK isn't part of a greater Germania is Hitler was insane.

He tried to invade Russia during the winter and the Soviets were prepared to burn their own towns and villages to starve out the Nazis.

Russia saved Britain more than America ever did but you don't hear them going on about it do you?

As for the US government blowing up innocent Arabs.

Opps!

Doesn't it annoy you when Americans try pulling out that ol' chestnut. 

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

darth_ender said:

Hey, it's me. said:

They caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands due to their greed for oil. That's all Iraq was about ender, don't get confused. The oil fields were the first port of call when the invasion began, and were being sold off even before the whole country was taken (which didnt take long) 

Let's say that the US liberated France during WWII, but several Vichy supporters/Nazi sympathizers engaged in a protracted guerilla war, largely by dressing as civilians and attacking civilians.  Would FDR or Truman or Churchill have suddenly become war criminals because of the all the "unnecessary deaths"?  Or would the actual terrorists be guilty of anything?

I wish folks would not cite Michael Moore in their research.  Do some of your own research and come to a more balanced conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Oil

The US hardly benefited from Iraq's oil.  Russia and China sure did.  I find this insulting, because I think it would have been charitable of Iraq to actually try to repay the US for their liberation from Hussein, but nope.

Make no mistake, I think the Iraq invasion was a huge error in judgment.  I'm no longer a backer of it.  But I think those who try to vilify Bush are simpletons and ignoramuses who rely on far too little information and prefer to jump to hasty and unsupported conclusions to justify their hatred of him.

I'm not citing Michael Moore. I remember watching the news when the invasion began and distinctly remember the first thing that was done was securing the oil fields before they were set on fire by the Iraqis. The price of oil came down and 2 fingers were stuck up to OPEC. 

I don't recall that (I was on my mission at the time and missed a lot of news early in the war), but the reasoning more securing the fields is logical to me.  Would you want another ecological and financial disaster like that again?  And if such were truly the goal (which was clearly in our power to ensure), why are gas prices 200-250% higher now than when the war started?  And even if you recall a few little bits of information that supports your theory, I doubt you developed it on your own.  I'm confident you've had it supported by what you've viewed and read, and you haven't looked into much of anything that might contradict your theory.

We're talking 20 years ago. There's only so much of the stuff. The fact remains if there was no oil in Iraq, beyond '91 Saddam would still be in power or the country would now be in the midst of an Arab spring uprising.

I think you missed the point.  There is plenty of oil still in Iraq.  It's just that American companies do not have access to much of it, though we could have easily forcibly ensured that they would.  We gave them the freedom to spite their liberators and sell it to competitors.

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

if he is not really dead, how he hasn't announced that he is still alive?    Surely he would have loved to make fools of us by shooting "ha! ha! I am still alive! you didn't get me!"  yet there have been no videos of him after it was announced that he was dead.  

also they did DNA tests on him and confirmed it was him.

CP3S, I have never heard you question the story of his death, why are you doing so now?

If you remember, years ago I used to always argue that the man was probably already dead.

videos and threats that kept coming make me believe otherwise.   Just what do you think killed him?     

CP3S said:

And I've expressed my skepticism regarding his death here before. I don't really necessarily think there is a conspiracy or anything involved. I just feel that we can't really know for sure. No evidence has been provided other than the word of men who have been known to lie. Yes, THEY did a DNA test on him, who is they and can they be trusted? If they can be trusted, is the source of the DNA dependable? Or the source of the DNA it was being compared to trustworthy?

sure sounds like you think a conspiracy is going on, to me.

CP3S said:

Bottom line is, I don't really care. It isn't that big of a deal,

yeah, right, no big deal, only the head of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization that murdered Americans.  no big deal there.

CP3S said:

 

He didn't single handedly carry out 9/11, whether or not he actually masterminded it or not is even a bit of a question.

he was the head of Al Qaeda at the time right?  Al Qaeda did it, right?   Bin Laden admitted it, right?   

I'm not sure I agree with anyone in this thread anymore.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

The most lives would be saved if you let them surrender...

Did you read the link I provided earlier?

darth_ender said:

Or do you consider multiple chemical attacks on his own Kurdish citizens to be the actions of a responsible leader?

Do you remember what was happening to Native Americans throughout your country's history? That makes Saddam look like a good boy.

No it doesn't.  And I certainly won't apologize for that--that was a sad part of our imperfect history.  But the discussion was not who did what ever, but rather who owned and misused WMDs.  Don't change the subject without acknowledging the point.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

And our efforts in actuality have saved disproportionately far more lives.  Do you think the UK could have survived WWII without assistance?

The most lives would be saved if you let them surrender...

let me get this straight, you think we should have let you surrender to Hitler?   Just how did we stop you from surrendering?    I am pretty sure, at the time, the UK did not want to surrender.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Or do you consider multiple chemical attacks on his own Kurdish citizens to be the actions of a responsible leader?

Do you remember what was happening to Native Americans throughout your country's history? That makes Saddam look like a good boy.

yeah, over 100 years ago.  America has changed since then.   Do you wish me to go through all the bad stuff the UK has done 100 years ago or more?