Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It sounds like you're arguing for a world Government, UM. Do you honestly believe that invading countries and forcing a form of government on them has anything to do with freedom? Do you believe that the countries we are "freeing" with our invasions appreciate largely American owned companies building pipelines through their countries (Afghanistan) or American companies profiting off of their oil supplies (halliburton)? Tell me, do you think we should invade China? They are not a democratic nation. When are we going to invade England? How about Vatican City?

A world government? No. Where did you get that?

You obviously need to read the thread you are posting in if you are asking me if we should invade China. We have covered that several times. Make sure you read what I have already written in this thread before you decide to argue with me again. (That goes for others too.) I said that some countries would not be worth invading because of the fallout that would result. China is one of them. An invasion of China could pretty easily lead to the end of life on Earth.

England is a true democracy. As a result, it is one of the greatest countries in the world. Vatican City is not a country. It is a voluntary living quarters.

Do countries appreciate big businesses in them? They do when they get prosperous off them. Backward ass poor countries that are fresh out of dictatorship could use a great deal of that.

What do you think the world community should do with majorly oppressed dictatorships? What should be done about the situation in Sudan?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

The transcript is widely published; the truth of it is actually occurring is not in question as far as I know. It wasn't denied; it was just spun later that she totally screwed up.

No, it is very much in question. I showed you that with the link. What the Hussein regime reported cannot be trusted. I am surprised you don't agree with that. Here is another link.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Who knows? Some people think it was a sting operation; Saddam was set up to invade Kuwait just so we could get rid of him, since we were done with him. You refuse to admit this, but at one time, Saddam was looked at very favorably; he modernized his society, got rid of Islamic law, freed women, got people educated, etc. I don't know if the whole time he was doing horrible things to his enemies, probably so--but that was not the image of him shown to us. Why did they want to get rid of him? You can think of reasons (and probably not that Washington suddenly realized he was evil; they work with lots of evil people wiht no problem)--like maybe he was doing too good; maybe those countries are better kept ignorant and primitive and not in control of their own resources; the better for our corps to get what they want from them. Maybe we are paying the price for that now.

It was not that he was merely evil. It was that he became a huge threat. His government and his legacy became a huge threat. It's not like we could just ignore that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yes--but they are always such goofs like that. I'm just absent minded; I didn't even try to hide it. If someone really wanted to hide something, I don't think it would be too hard. Oh yea, a friend of mine's wife went to somewhere in Central America, and bought like this doll thing, but when you pull the doll's head off, a big machete is hidden in the body, and she got on the plane with it. That was before the really strict screening I think. I'm just saying that they don't do what they should, that's why I think the terrorists must be really ineffective.

If that happened to everybody, I would agree. But the fact that it happens once in a while is not proof. We have caught a lot of terrorists in the act of trying junk at airports. We and England have stopped some major plots at airports. I also think there actually is a lot of profiling going on, though they want to make it look like there is not.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, I don't think they should have started the war, but it was not good to encourage those people to rebel, then just let them get gassed. If they hadn't started the war, it might not have happened. Does that seem like such an incompatible thing to think?

No, but it is beside the point. I was illustrating the fact that the Hussein regime was a WMD terrorist organization. The gas attack on the Kurds was determined to be an act of "genocide" by Human Rights Watch. It was the largest scale gas attack on a civilian population in history. The majority of the people who were gassed were women and children. It was an unnecessary act of WMD terrorism.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, being deluded could explain your thinking, so my insult makes more sense. So there.

Only a booty-head would think that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

We are creating a never-ending supply.

I disagree, but your point does not refute the fact that we are attracting and killing terrorists.

A few weeks ago, there were zero U.S. military casualties in Iraq. Think about that. Our casualties are now lower than they have been since the war started. A lot of the areas of Iraq are now safe to live in. The terrorists are being reduced in number. That was the idea.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, I think it is very easy to find out about the conditions of the Palestinians. If you want to be ignorant on the subject, be that way, but it would be very easily remedied. I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know if they give them welfare or not, just that they are not allowed to travel, etc. Of course I know if they let them go where they want, they start blowing themselves up in crowded places, so that's not good either. I think Israel is part of the problem too tho; and they are not a free secular society, that's what I'm saying.

I was asking you about the points you made, and it turns out you were ignorant on your own points. If Palestinians are not allowed to work, then they are either getting welfare or some other charity or hunting for their food. Are they not allowed to visit their relatives in Palestine? Let me know when you figure out what you were saying.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

The world is sick of us. They may not be sick of our aid, but they are sick of our wars. I say eliminate both, unless there is a place that is actually trying to help itself to become an actual secular free society and just needs help doing it. Of course we may not have that here forever; we may have to help ourselves.

There are too many innocent people in the world who need our help for us to abandon the world.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

How long a time limit do you expect for some progress to be made in Iraq? You do read the news about what is going on over there, right? When do we get to say we told you so? Or do you expect this to take several lifetimes, so you can always just say "we're making progress"?

It is already being made, as I illustrated. They have a democratic government that is getting closer and closer to the ability to be independent, they vote in higher percentages than we do, they have turned against the insurgents in large numbers, they have lots of safe regions of the country, and all of that is in a position to grow and grow. As far as the "I told you so" thing, the people who have been rabidly against this war are NEVER going to face the progress Iraq is going to keep making. Even if Iraq ended up being the richest nation in the world per capita with the lowest murder rate in the world and has the best education system of all time, the haters will still be saying, "The war was bullshit! Screw Bush! He lied about WMD's even though that intelligence came from five other goverments and the U.N. plus the previous administration, CIA, and Senate! The people of Iraq don't want to be free! They want to be oppressed! Screw Bush! I hate Bush!" That mentality is going to live on for the rest of the time our generation is alive... NO MATTER WHAT.

My guess is that we will be able to see very, very astounding differences in Iraq in the next fifteen to twenty years. The children of the people living there now are going to have a very different perspective on life and make major changes, and the grandchildren are going to turn Iraq into a Hell of a good country.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Remember "Mission Accomplished!"?

The overthrowing of the Hussein regime was a mission that was accomplished.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Yes, the invasion into Afghanistan was planned before 911 happened, for the pipeline. That gave them a completely legitimate reason to go in there then.

So, did the convenient excuse of the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history just happen to happen and the government harboring the perpetrators just happened to be the terrorist government running Afghanistan? Or do you claim 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy?