Thread: ABC's John Miller Interviews Osama Bin Laden (1998)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Their history plus the fact that they became our enemy amounted to the threat. Whether we did everything we could for the Kurds is completely off point. The Hussein regime showed what kind of government they are and then turned on us. That was a big problem

Ya they did fall out of spot with Washington.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think they would have made friends with the Kurds as result of any persuasion from us.

I suppose that would be shooting to high but you guys could have still played some part in helping the situation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Sitting down and talking? They wouldn't even comply with weapons inspections. They violated our ceasefire for twelve years. Do you really think a conversation would have gotten that suicide bomb government's middle fingers out of our faces?

Your ceasefire? The Ceasefire was brokered cheafly by US officials but if im not mistaken it was a NATO ceasefire, the US officials who brokered it were on behalf of the wider NATO organazation because the whole thing was a NATO operation. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We had just been attacked. We obviously had an enemy that wanted to target large numbers of our civilians. The Hussein regime was a government that, based on the intelligence we had, could have given Al Qaeda or a similar terrorist organization WMD's for such terrorist attacks. Even if they couldn't right then, they could have at some point. We wanted to go ahead and get rid of that threat because it looked imminent and was definitely there. Plus there are lots of other reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

Attacked but not by Iraq.....Are you telling me Saddam was plotting to attack America? You say the enemy (Hussein) was trying to target your civilans. So you are saying effectively he was plotting to attack american soil? Hussein and Al Qaeda are not ones to ally with Islamists. The Hussein Dictatorship was Secular and at the time Al Qaeda was mostly wa'habi fundamntalists.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

People have to make announcements to be an imminent threat? Al Qaeda didn't make any announcements about what they were about to do.

Imminent threat as in they are about to Attack onother country and such an offense like the invasion of Kuwait is imminent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Things were much more serious than just that. It went beyond just having a good relationship. It was about support of the Soviet cause. That was dangerous stuff. I am not sure how it should have been handled, but we were fighting Soviet expansion, which is one of the two biggest threats the world has ever faced, and maybe sometimes the U.S. government went overboard in handling it. Hindsight is 20/20, and we had possibly the most serious situation ever to handle. Even if the overthrow was not the best possible move, it was still done with the intention of preserving the bigger picture of democracy. That ultimate goal was accomplished.

That is no excuse to destabilize a country. He had soviet ties thats not a big deal either, they shared a border and an a extensive coastline. Thats like asking canada not to have relations with the USA.

The british motivation for the Coup was the the Nationalization of the Gas and OIl fields. That was their reason. They enlisted the Americans siting alleged Soviet Ties. But if it was to protect democracy then surely you would have bolstered their democracy in any number of ways like you did with Israel. If any country should have been "sacrificed" then it should have been israel, by allowing its destruction you could have goten unfathonable support from the Arab and Muslim world, incuding Iran givign you guys even more influence to help their countries become democracies.

What i see with the Iran issue is just imperialism, It was a modern day act of Imperialism and your countries are suprised why Iran is so destrustful of the west.

Originally Posted by universal Mind

You are harping on that one situation way too much. There is a major U.S. Cold War rationale for the overthrow of Mosadeq. You assume it was propagana, and I don't. Like I said, the Cold War was one of the two most serious situations the human race has ever faced. I am sure the government went out of bounds a few times in that severely important struggle. It is inevitable in every war. Stopping the Soviet Union was not easy.

There were plenty of options on the table other then overthrow the guy. It was primarily about the nationalization of the Oil fields and Gas and the alleged soviet ties was just icing on the cake. UM im not sure you realise what Britain was up to at the time. Onother Imperialist action on behalf of Britain was the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis. The Egytpains nationalized the Suez Canal and Britian,France and Israel invaded Egypt because they nationalized it. Again onother imperial action, the right of the people of the country and self determination was pushed aside in favour of Business interests. the western reaction of the Suez Crisis was imperialism and the overthrow of Mosadeq in favour of a Dictator Tyrant was imperialism.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why do you keep talking about the overthrows of corrupt leaders during the Cold War? The Cold War was our ultimate act of preserving democracy. Taking a microscope and looking for Cold War moves where governments got worse treatment than they should have does not disprove our ultimate goal in the Cold War.

It came up during our discussion i guess. The Cold War was not about preserving democracy but was about countering Soviet Influence and Vice Versa it was just a competition for who would be the top dog not about Democracy. During the Cold War the West did very little to protect Democracy especially in the Muslim world. The French handling of Algeria for example, The Suez Crisis, The immigrant jews were given palestine instead of the long estabilished arab majority, The installation of a brutal dictator in Iran by the west, French Colonialism in IndoChina.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We did have credible sources. Very few people in the Hussein regime would have had knowledge of their location. It took major snooping from the intelligence agencies of six governments and the U.N. to get the information. The people who know where the WMD's are now are either dead or refuse to talk.

There would be Whistel blowers, Not possibly everyone could have died or refuse to talk,
At any rate there would have been documents, truck drivers who drove the materials, government workers who had knowledge of it. Remember alot of these people who would have allegedly have knolwedge of WMD's would go to the USA or the UK authorities and give what they know for a Bribe or atleast a Visa to a Western Country. Look read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2083760/ this puts it in better perspective then i possibly can.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

]It is a fact that six governments and officials at the U.N. reported the intelligence. The WMD's have not been found, the Hussein regime no longer exists, and Saddam Hussein is dead. Why would Bush need to talk about them now? Until he comes up with a plan to dig up the whole desert area of the Middle East and Northeast Africa, Bush has no reason to talk about WMD's.

Every now and then bush gives a speech where he says Saddam had to be stopped and the tryant overthrown to free the iraqi people but if there was ample evidence at all now of WMD's then he would say something about them and how he dis armed him from the WMD's. He is a politican if there was ample evidence of the WMD's or heaven forbid actual WMD's then he would have included in his speeches on why the iraq war was neccesary.

So you don't think the children deserve to die, but you do think it is okay for the Palestinians to deliberately target and kill them? Please tell me how that campaign is working out. Have all of these dead children resulted in a Muslim take over of Israel?

Its not about a muslim take over of palestine its about a palestinian take over of Palestine. I don't care what the Palestinians do to fight the usurpers, as long as they are fighting them thats A-OK with me. The usurpers brought it upon themselves and it was well known giving Palestine over to the immigrant jews could only be done by force. The American report in my other thread showed the Americans concluded it and i assume the british would have done research too. It was well known that disenfranchizing the Palestinian Muslims and Christians could only be done by force and today the struggle continues because of Western indifference towards arabs.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't say you are a white supremecist or think one race is superior to another. I used an analogy. I am saying you hate an entire group based on their ancestry and do not respect the individuality of the people in the group. You side with one group against another, based on ancestry, and talk as though what some people in one ancestral group do is the behavior of everybody in the group. That is what I am saying is KKK thinking.

The israelies are made up of immigrants or the children of immigrants like i have said many many tiems. Atleast 50% of the country only has a family history of 60 or so years in the region. They did not respect the Palestinians and they usurped their land, now is the time for revenge.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

All you are arguing is that too many Jews have group prejudice too. I agree. What you said does not justify hating individuals and wanting to take away their land because of their ancestral group.

The immigrants usupred the land from the Palestinians and now they will pay for it. An immigrant european in 1948 according to you has just as much right to Palestine as does a Palestine with a centuries old family history in the region?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You aren't going to calculate in the number of 1948 Israelis who are dead now?

I calculated the number for you to put in perspective for you the very little history these people have in the region and how they stole Palestine first by Force with Western made weapons and then by flooding the region with immigrants.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Fighting for Muslim rule cannot possibly under any circumstances be a fight for freedom. The two ideas contradict each other.

It's not about Muslim rule, i dont like the idea of a theocracy anymore then you do. I want PALESTINIAN rule, and secular rule. The Palestinians shouldn't be able to rule their own land because they are Muslims?


I have no problems with jews being in Palestine but when they forcibly take the land away frm the Majority by means of Arms and then flood the area with immigrants that indeed becomes a problem.