Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by PatMeebles at 2006-03-25 14:22:07

ShadowSD said:

I said many, not most.

(Low turnouts in Iran should be no surprise in any case, as the President and his branch of government cannot really do much at all without the approval of the Supreme Leader and his branch of government; in otherwords, the Ayatollahs/Mulas, who hold all the real power).

Ok

ShadowSD said:

PatMeebles said:

Interesting article. But Ahmadinejad still wants to wipe Isreal off the map. As to why the media doesn't report this, I don't know.

The media has reported nothing but that about Iran, which is the problem; the article I found is a diamond in the rough. It shows that challenging Zionism (a political philosophy which is a danger to America, Israel, and the entire free world in general, because it is a constant catalyst for and reinforcement of the jihadist terrorist threat) is a very different thing from Anti-Semitism, which is an ugly disgusting predujice that is sadly and unwittingly strengthened when exploited for political points by Zionists. The greatest irony of such exploitation is that many of the most influential Zionists in American policy are actually Christians who believe that scripture should guide policy (which is exactly what the jihadists believe, thus validating and reinforcing their viewpoint from the other side of the mirror).

If you (or anyone else reading this) doubt any of this, read the following article in (published in Haaretz Israel News, no less) and prepare to be amazed:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695227.html

That article doesn't give support of the study. You might want to look into the arguments for and against this paper a little more.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013517.php

That's the only link I can find right now with limited time (I'm getting picked up to play in Maine really soon)

ShadowSD said:

Sure, and that part is great. But we BEGAN with the barrel of a gun, invading a fascist state, overthrowing it's leader, and externally introducing the idea of democracy. That's what I take issue with, because of the tens of thousand of innocent civilians our army killed to achieve this. When we had a Revolutionary War, how many innocent civilians were killed? Although most minutemen were regular citizens and not soldiers, they CHOSE to fight for their freedom. That's the difference between an internal democratic revolution, and an attempt to facilitate democracy externally: the amount of innocent life lost before the process even has a chance of succeeding.

If we don't hold innocent civilians in the highest regard, we lose moral ground in condemning 9/11. And losing that moral ground is something NO American wants to accept.

That's one of the worst things about war. People have to die. But leaving Saddam in power would have killed much more innocent civilians. Over 75,000 would be dead according to UNICEF (I think it was that organization), where 25,000 civilians have died since the invasion, mostly from insurgent attacks directly on the population. So while I think it's a tragedy that so many people had to die, I have to take into account that the situation is better than the alternative.

ShadowSD said:

Only after the deaths of more innocent civilians than had ever been slaughtered by a democracy in documented history. If that is the best example for imposing democracy, I can already feel that moral ground slipping out from under us...

Given that the cities we bombed were strategic positions that were part of the war industry, and given the prosperity and advances in Japanese society, I'd say it was worth it.

ShadowSD said:

That's the problem with tangential reasoning, as I said, there's plenty to disagree with. (I could have thrown another tangent at you too: the fact that, in addition to Osama Bin Laden, 19 of the 20 9/11 hijackers were also Saudi Arabian; that sounds a lot more damning than any tangential reasoning suggested about a Hussein/Al Quaeda connection.)

I don't know if I brought this up, but Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the Saudis.

ShadowSD said:

So therefore, by this logic, if Al Qaeda had intentions of attacking Iraq, then no terrorist training in that country can be blamed on Saddam Hussein's government. The problem is, it is much less painless to come up with evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda hated what it perceived as Saddam Hussein's secular regime than it is to come up with evidence of collusion between the two.

It would be easier to imagine the logical aspects of this if it were taken for granted that both organizations followed their "beliefs" idealistically with no compromise. However, these two entities saw in each other a means to achieve the ultimate short-term goal: Bringing America to its knees. I'm begging you to check out the conservative blogs like powerlineblog.com, captainsquartersblog.com, and the weekly standard. These guys are keeping track of all the new documents that are being released, and so far those documents aren't boding well for the idea that Saddam and OBL could never work together.