Protecting democracy is not a crime. Fighting against it is.
Have you read Bin Laden's letter yet? At least read to response to Q2.
Printable View
Have you read or watched anything I have posted during all this? I am basically done arguing with you but if you can at least say you watched and read everything I linked then I will read the letter in it's entirety, though I have told you I am well aware of Bin Laden's plans and also aware that he must be apprehended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...he_Middle_East
Ok, I understand where you're coming from but I don't completely agree. We were on sacred islam land or w/e so bin laden vdecides to kill thousands of american civillians. Proves he's cowardly and brainwashed + he runs and hides haha, way to do your "jihad" or w/e. Now there are millions of other brainwashed people over there that just go wit the trend to hate america, and kill any of us they see... That's fucked up and we needa stop it, bottom line.
While we are off topic... do some of you come on DV just to debate politics/philosophy??? I'm not saying it's a bad thing or anything of that matter, just wondering why you chose this forum for it and if you have interest in dreaming at all???
Let me re explain myself. I know he has more reasons for hating us than JUST our involvement in the middle east. I know that. There are tons of people that hate America for the same reasons he does. My point is that the reasons he attacked us is our foreign involvement. The attacks were primarily because of our influence and aggravation in the region. Otherwise I feel it would have been a contained hatred and their violent aggression would be directed towards their own governments, not overseas. They would not simply attack us because we are rich and free, and that is what the bush administration pushes and the main reasons, leaving out the real, stated reasons for the attack. Here is an excerpt from the latest tape.
"And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.
This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.
And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998."
Full transcript is here, mind posting your link again?
http://english.aljazeera.net/English...ArchiveId=7403
You should read this too, especially that of how the Iraqi people view the war in Iraq, as well as how Al Qeada views it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iraq_War#Iraqi
Saddamn Hussein oppressed that country so bad that mass starvation happened. The United States has to trade with a country for its people to eat? That is crazy. We weren't trading with Iraq, yet we didn't come even close to starving. Hussein oppressed his country and starved his people, just like he engaged in terrorist attacks against them with WMD's and put zillions of them in mass graves.
Bin Laden is also in a propaganda war with us. He wants to make it look like our foreign policy is a good excuse. The embargo excuse is really lame, and so is the excuse that we meddle in the Middle East (a.k.a. defend democracy). I could say that I blew up the Empire State building because you pissed me off with your comments on the internet, but that would be ridiculous. If you unregistered yourself here as a response, you would be showing defeat and inviting me to push even further. Bin Laden is ridiculous. I would love for him to explain how killing 3 thousand innocents is "defending his sanctuary". Our response was to democratize even more of his "sanctuary", so what the Hell is he talking about? In his letter, he goes into trememdous detail about what he hates about us. I think he leaves out a few things, like his jealousy of our success and his thirst for power. That is not somebody we are going to roll over for. It would be too much of an encouragement.
What is important now is the issue of what we should do now. Leaving the Middle East would be a huge encouragement for the Islamofascists. It is not the full scope of what they want, so it would only result in far more trouble.
So leaving the Middle East would not be enough to "respond to these conditions". Therefore, we will still have to "fight with the Islamic nation". If withdrawal somehow was a cure before 9/11, it clearly is not now.
So what evidence do you have supporting your claim that staying there is making us safer, when all evidence and history shows our occupation in the middle east is only leading to our demise, both financially and security wise.
There is no evidence to support your claim, it's all hypotheticals. I am not talking about lowering our security or giving up on keeping our country safe I am simply talking about the current operation. Don't just say "this would happen" Show me some substantial third party proof of what you claim. Because everything I have been trying to show you is showing how things like what we are doing currently are only leading to less peace, less democracy, less financial stability, more government here, more taxes, more war.
I can't go into the future and show you the end result. I don't have a time machine. Sorry. But I can tell you about how France and Poland caved into Hitler's demands before WWII and got their asses taken over. Are you sure you want to try that tactic? And you have not shown me anything except some claims by our propagandist terrorist enemy, and you are not explaining how you know the hatred he has over tons of factors other than our "meddling" which he says he hates us for had nothing to do with the hate that influenced the 9/11 attacks. All you have is his uncredible word, which involves his admission of other big time influences of his hatred. Kissing the shoe of a bully makes things much worse. It is not an option.
LOL that and the 9/11 commission report.
A few things I wanted to point out:
Al Qaeda has no standing army, and even if you count the few thousand bomb-building, gun-toting terrorists they do control, I can't imagine that they could "take over" any country larger than the state of Rhode Island. And, as I'm sure we all know, there has been no 9/11 repeat despite the fact that security has arguably decreased since then. Are terrorists really as powerful as they are made out to be? They seem to be pretty incompetent foes, unless you give them credit for our own failures.
Plus, meddling in the Middle East does legitimize the demands of terrorist groups that America cease meddling, regardless of whether that is their complaint or not. It helps them recruit members, even if their goal is not to see the end of American meddling. In addition to that, intelligence experts are agreed that the vast majority of terrorism is motivated by small factions with a local political agenda. Al Qaeda is the exception, and not the rule.
Who is marching to the orders of Al Qeada now?
Quote:
The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.
hello fellow Americans :)
Barrack Obama reminds me of RFK who is one of my heroes. so if i was old enough i think i would vote for him. Ron Paul would make a good president also so he would be my second choice
Barack Obama. I think he is also a relatively sound choice, though I would question his political independence. Is he really strong enough to convince congress that his ideas deserve consideration, or can the Republican minority exert undue power over him, as it does over the congress today?
Both R. Paul and Barack Obama could have the same difficulties in pursuing their domestic and foreign policy objectives, perhaps being forced to compromise with a congress still mired in corruption.
Barack Obama is quite different from Ron Paul
The members of Al Qaeda. Those are people Americans and Brits are killing and capturing in large numbers. Why? Is that another repeating of your lie that I said Ron Paul is following Al Qaeda orders? If dishonesty is all you have left to work with, why are you even having this conversation?
We are not worried they will take over. They would never be able to take over even a city. We are worried they will commit large scale terrorist attacks.
Security has not been decreased. It has been increased to the point that the left calls the measures "fascist". Have you been to an airport lately?
It helps them recruit members, but defeat would give the potential recruits a level of confidence that they don't have now. They would be far less afraid of joining the terrorist groups. We cannot let that happen. Also, the people who have it in them to become terrorists, short of something as awe inspiring as our apparent defeat, are people we are trying to suck out of the woodwork and kill. It is working.
Why do people become terrorists? How can that motivation be removed?
Obviously, if those who become terrorists are simply evil, the motivation cannot be removed, and terrorism will continue until every one of them is killed and the source of evil people is destroyed as well. What is the source of these evil people?
Another motivation could be the localized political agenda, combined with a clear perception of horrendous injustice. Could such a person be dissuaded by the threat of force? Can a suicide bomber be discouraged by the threat of death? Will not killing that terrorist create new feelings of injustice amongst his friends and potentially spawn new terrorists? Won't such people lay down their arms once their goal has been reached?
There is a huge difference between the second terrorist and the first, isn't there? Does the same tactic work to destroy both types of terrorist?
That is where a lot of my support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes in. I think a factor that really makes the difference in whether a person becomes a terrorist is growing up under severe poverty and oppression. A person who is willing to die just to kill a bunch of innocent people and make Allah so happy that the sick murderer gets to bang a bunch of virgins is a factor that comes from trememdous hopelessness and despair. They hate life and have nothing to live for, so the idea of dying a "heroic" and "holy" death becomes very attractive to them. That is why I think the creation of true democracy will lead to widespread prosperity, positivity, and fun that will affect the masses and will eventually soak up the terrorism factor like a big sponge. That is one of the number one philosophies of the war on terror, and I think it makes sense. But also remember that we are not just trying to scare those who are already terrorists. We are there to kill them. And after they die, they don't reproduce. So we are killing the terrorists and preventing the conceptions of their potential future offspring while planting seeds that will grow into the end of the poverty and despair factor that breeds the terrorism tendency all over the region. Once Iraq and Afghanistan become independent democracies and later very successful and powerful democracies, I think they will start working on the rest of the Middle East. That is why I think what we are doing in the Middle East right now very well might turn out to be the beginning of the most important thing that has ever happened.
Their goal is to transform the entire world into an Islamofascist state. That will never happen, and even if it did, I think they would still be finding reasons to kill masses of innocents and themselves.
So far, I'm still leaning towards Ron Paul.
I honestly don't know, and neither does anyone else. All we can do is speculate and, as of now, I'm not convinced that staying there will do anything else than cause (or, rather, continue) a never-ending conflict.
Whereas many keep-sending-US-troop-over-there-ad-infinitum advocates are expectant of a likely "kill-em-all" victory, I don't find that idea very realistic. Were the rest of the world sold on that, as well, there would probably be many more troops from neighboring nations over there helping out, than there are now. I simply don't know that sending in infinite stream of US troops into the region, over the next few (countless) years, is an acceptable resolution for the type of invasion that probably never should have happened in the first place.
On the other side of the coin, my backing Ron Paul has less to do with his foreign policy (as he is not running for President of the Middle East, he is running for President of the United States), and more to do with the level of sincerity I feel from him, toward the well-being of these United States. I feel that, all across the board, we are being represented by Academy Award hopefuls that are doing/saying whatever they can to get the top spot. I see much less of a devotion to the values that I hold in high regard, in this country, with many of the other candidates than I do with Ron Paul.
I like Ron Paul's views, that I know of, aside from his foreign policy views. But I think that what we are doing in the Middle East right now is our most important issue. I also think that the future of the world will be much better if we stay long enough to allow Iraq and Afghanistan to be stable democracies. I really believe that if we left right now, we we would look like punks to the Middle East and would be in far more danger and would end up having to go right back to fight a much more difficult fight.
Bin Laden has said that his confidence in declaring war on us and pulling the 9/11 attacks came from our withdrawals from Vietnam and Somalia. That is exactly why he called us a "paper tiger". He excited a lot of recruits with that talk. I think that looking like we are wussing out of this big world stage event would add so much confidence to Islamofascism that the mess would only get much bigger, no matter where our military goes or does not go.
Are you even looking at the state of Iraq? We have more personnel from private corporations over there than army. Just read the latest headlines about blackwater. One of the biggest corporations contracted for "rebuilding Iraq" I Halliburton, whom Dick Cheney is the ex CEO, however he still gets paid by them.
Just look at this for crying out loud...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7012889.stm
and this, both just from today! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7015087.stm