Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

I've actually never dreamed about politics before, even though I read about it and think about it a lot.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I've actually never dreamed about politics before, even though I read about it and think about it a lot.

That's good! Wouldn't make for pleasant dreams!

The real reason why terrorism exists
People that saw this instantly went insane and started suicide bombing people just to escape the void of senselessness it left in their minds... YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

well that is the one reason,

I think the other reason is because of fucking white people, fuck I hate white people. the more dead the better!

HERE is a video of a guy getting a perfect score playing a taiko drum to the song in the previous link.

Needless to say, he went out and bombed a coffee shop full of school children after he got the perfect score.

I split the video in parts for your own safety...HERE is part two to the original song...again you have been warned

Because Islam is one of the strongest relegions. If the Germans had been Muslims Hitler would have won WW2... or so he said. Nevertheless muslims are so obedient to their relegion it is unique. You wouldn't get christians flying planes into towers if we were in their place.

What bush will leave us:

- Extraordinary amount of debt to be payed off courtesy of the tax payers
- More enemies
- Fucked up reputation (we were #1, now the rest of the world pretty much hates us)
- Memories of staged terrorism

Hilary is a supporter of Bush and his vote to go to war with Iran, DO NOT VOTE FOR HER, I REPEAT DO NOT...VOTE...FOR...HER.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, I'm not getting in this argument again, but it's common knowledge that Iraq didn't have any WMD. Everybody knows it. Whether they made a mistake, lied, whatever you want to blame it on. You are the only person in the world still insisting that they were there. Your arguments are incredibly feeble. Buried a mile under ground? Whisked out of the country, while Saddam hid in a root cellar? Come on, get real!

I know I'm going to regret this.

Moonbeam, I am going to say to you what I have said to you many times lately. Read what I actually wrote!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am talking about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I think they were probably shipped to Syria or some other country, but for all we know they might be a mile under the desert in Iraq.

Did you catch it that time? I am not sure what the deal really is with those WMD's. You are not either. I am not ready to drop everything and assume they never existed just because of what the major bandwagon of the decade says. It is not "common knowledge" that the WMD's never existed. It is just a common assumption.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The gist of what I was pointing out was that the administration did not trust either the CIA or the UN. The administration believed Colin Powell's 2001 assessment of Iraq's capabilities was based on faulty or incomplete information, and that the UN inspectors were incapable of doing their job. The CIA obviously had not released intelligence that showed its conclusions were wrong at the time, so where did the administration get the idea that the intelligence was wrong?

Here's another example:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5024408

The CIA does not report all of its sources, and we did have CIA reports that the Hussein regime had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapns. We also got the information from the Senate, the Clinton Administration, and five other governments.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

That's all quite true. Saddam specifically gave some money to the PLO a few times, and the PLO is a terrorist organization. They were never a global terrorist organization with any intent at expanding their activities beyond Israel, but yes, they were terrorists. Saddam did violate the ceasefire, and Iraq was repeatedly bombed because of it, not to mention burdened by economic sanctions. Over the years, these punishments were thought to be sufficient.

The Hussein regime also supported Hamas and Hezballah and provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel and even used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds. They were a terrorist government, and they were our enemy. I know you see the seriousness in that. After 12 years of noncompliance with the ceasefire, it was time to bring about the stated consequence, plus the Bush Doctrine had been formed as a response to 9/11.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

However, the war was presented as an immediate necessity, not an action that would finally end an ongoing stream of injustices. It was sold as a strategically defensive war, not a humanitarian war. The administration argued forcefully that Iraq had nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, and was going to use them to attack American interests, that Saddam was personally in league with Al Qaeda(without clarification of the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda, if you believe the CIA).

For those reasons, the discussion of the intelligence leading up to the war inevitably must center around the administration's assertions that Iraq was an imminent threat, and not around Saddam's prior infringements of international law. Arguing that Saddam just had it coming to him completely alters the official rationale for war.

The war was about a long list of things, including what turned out to be intelligence we got from many sources and have not been able to verify.

Hussein and Al Qaeda representatives did have meetings, and members of Al Qaeda were harbored in Iraq. Zarqawi is one example. In the big picture of things, that is a very serious situation.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The US had 600,000 soldiers in Vietnam. After a decade of fighting, with no end in sight, with so many soldiers in so small a country, it was apparent that the stated goal was impossible to achieve. Yes, the US could have won if it had used nuclear weapons, but millions more innocents would have died in Vietnam and in neighboring countries. Yes, the US could have remained in Vietnam, but the cost of lives and money would likely have caused the Cold War to last much longer than it did, perhaps forever.(It's hard to win an arms race when your arms, and soldiers, are being destroyed). Russia was not even aiding the Vietcong, and yet the US was defeated.

Yes, any power could win with nuclear weapons or by staying 'as long as it takes,' but these scenarios assume that nuclear weapons would not destroy the entire purpose of the war and that staying indefinitely is a logistical possibility and would not also destroy the purpose of the war.

I was not saying we should have used nuclear weapons. I was just saying we could have. We were dealing with a defeatable enemy, but the Cold War itself was a bigger concern, and we won that. Our overall strategy worked.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

What does Saddam gain by the embarrassment of the US? You described it as 'glee.' Did it not occur to you that there could be a different purpose for WMD's, like self-defense against an enemy many times more powerful? Do you think harming US credibility was much more harmful than killing US soldiers?

The logic you are using is flawed for this reason: it acknowledges that the Iraq war gravely harmed US credibility, then pins the blame for that loss of credibility on Saddam, who had nothing to gain from that loss of credibility, instead of those who claimed, without evidence, that he had an active nuclear weapons program. Perhaps Saddam buried some bombs, but could he bury an entire nuclear weapons program? Not likely.

Strangely enough, Saddam did not admit to having WMD's or point out where they were hidden even after being captured. If your theory is correct, that information was tantamount to a serious threat to national security, and should have been extracted from him by the CIA. Maybe Saddam didn't even know he had WMD's...

Saddam knew he could not win. In knowing that, he decided to go out with revenge. Killing a few thousand more soldiers would not have given him the same amount of satisfaction.

I am not sure what all the CIA did to try to get the WMD information out of Hussein. What ever it was, he apparently stuck to his claim that they never existed.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

You said a major search was undertaken. Are you now saying that such a search was never undertaken? In any case, why would Syria bury them if the only way to search in Syria was to invade? Is whatever group that has the WMD's now just as great a threat as Saddam was? Since there's no available information regarding the whereabouts of the alleged weapons, couldn't they be in the hands of any of Saddam's allies? If so, shouldn't the US military immediately leave Iraq to invade those allies and eliminate them? After that, if the WMD's are not found, shouldn't the allies of those allies be pursued? What if the WMD's made it onto the black market?

No, I never said a major search was not undertaken. I said that there are limits to how far the search can go. At this point, we have no idea where the WMD's are. It would be absurd to invade every country in the Middle East with a crew of men with shovels so that we can dig up the entire Middle East.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If your theory is correct, wouldn't you agree that the war destroyed one dangerous enemy and created dozens of others, whose threats to world security are just as grave?

No, I don't agree that we created new enemy governments. The new enemy individuals and organizations that have popped up and have not yet been killed or captured by us do not have the extreme aid of the Hussein regime, the government of Afghanistan, the government of Lybbia, the government of no telling where else, or an Iranian nuclear weapons program, thanks to our activities of recent years.