President Bush's Address to the Nation

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

i knew you were going to say that.
i've never said i completely believe everything bush has ever said. but for the record i was talking about bin laden, and did he ever say what his plans were on what to do with the people on the planes?
and before you call me a bush lover i never voted for him

The thing is, I don't think bin Laden particularly wanted the death of those on the planes - including the Saudis - but they all served a critical purpose so those lives were needed.

However, I said he never wanted the loss of life that occured on 9/11. This is mainly relating to those who died in the Twin Towers. Although, the man was aware that the death of civilians would make his strike all the more potent.

 

[Jokerman]

All bitch Laden was doing with that meaningless remark was trying to twist the non-issue of Bush finishing his reading to children before actively doing nothing, in order to put the responsibility for the lives on Bush. How did he leave 50,000 in the buildings? I suppose the mayor and police and firemen were just standing around waiting for Bush to give the word before they starting evacuating. Not. Which is why 3,000 and not 50,000 died.

You have so twisted your mind from being against Bush, that you almost want to make bin Laden a humanitarian. Pathetic example of avoidance and denial, really.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

All bitch Laden was doing with that meaningless remark was trying to twist the non-issue of Bush finishing his reading to children before actively doing nothing, in order to put the responsibility for the lives on Bush. How did he leave 50,000 in the buildings? I suppose the mayor and police and firemen were just standing around waiting for Bush to give the word before they starting evacuating. Not. Which is why 3,000 and not 50,000 died.

You have so twisted your mind from being against Bush, that you almost want to make bin Laden a humanitarian. Pathetic example of avoidance and denial, really.

I have never claimed bin Laden was a humanitarian or even near one.

 

[Jokerman]

I have never claimed bin Laden was a humanitarian or even near one.

Well, you should have. He's a pretty nice guy once u get to know him.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Well, you should have. He's a pretty nice guy once u get to know him.

hehe, poor show.

 

[XIAN]

The principal difference is this; America and it's allies value human life, Saddam, Bin Laden et al do not. Thus America keeps it's prisoners in camps where the Red Cross can evaluate their treatment and there is consistent checks on their welfare and safety, while people like Saddam or Bin Laden, gas and torture civilians and captives alike or bomb embassy's and fly planes into skyscrapers. If either even bothered to keep prisoners they would hardly stand up to even an elementary level of international scrutiny, as their past record proves.

"And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers. But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon..."


I don't think he wanted people to die, he just really wanted the towers destroyed. That's why they hit them early in the morning. A lot of people never even went into work yet. The people in the planes were necessary I guess. I think he even claimed that they got a spot in heaven, the hijackers and the hostages both.

America doesn't value human life, it values money. Read Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" and look at the amount of people our government kills.

And if Hussein was such a bad guy, why didn't his people overthrow him? Why weren't there insurgents before the war (the current insurgents don't support him)?\

Peace.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

And if Hussein was such a bad guy, why didn't his people overthrow him? Why weren't there insurgents before the war (the current insurgents don't support him)?\

They were too terrified of him. To be fair, part of the blame for this lies at America's doorstep :thumb:

 

[PuffnScruff]

All bitch Laden was doing with that meaningless remark was trying to twist the non-issue of Bush finishing his reading to children before actively doing nothing, in order to put the responsibility for the lives on Bush. How did he leave 50,000 in the buildings? I suppose the mayor and police and firemen were just standing around waiting for Bush to give the word before they starting evacuating. Not. Which is why 3,000 and not 50,000 died.

You have so twisted your mind from being against Bush, that you almost want to make bin Laden a humanitarian. Pathetic example of avoidance and denial, really.

:thumb:

 

[PuffnScruff]

They were too terrified of him. To be fair, part of the blame for this lies at America's doorstep :thumb:

how? america didnt put a gun to saddams head and say "hey,you better drop bombs on your own people and make your sons kill whom ever they feel like when ever they feel like it"

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

how? america didnt put a gun to saddams head and say "hey,you better drop bombs on your own people and make your sons kill whom ever they feel like when ever they feel like it"

Nah, America just called for Iraqi civilians to rise up against Hussein indicating that they would give aerial support.

The Iraqis did everything that was asked of them, only to be betrayed by the Americans who simply never showed up.

In retaliation Hussein used chemical weapons on Iraqis. This killed some, injured others, caused babies to be deformed & destroyed the land which these Iraqis relied on to survive.

After this, you can see why the Iraqis were more than apprehensive about trying to kick start another uprising.

Edit: Btw, this was in the Gulf War '91, I think.

 

[PuffnScruff]

if i am correct you are thinking about the kurds. but this was before the gulf war i think. i dont think it was ever promised, it was more speculated at and the kurds were under the impression that the american govt would come and help them but it was never promised.

 

[Zero Cool]

"And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers. But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon..."

This is known as "attempted justification". "Justification" which falls down at elementary examination.

I don't think he wanted people to die, he just really wanted the towers destroyed. That's why they hit them early in the morning. A lot of people never even went into work yet. The people in the planes were necessary I guess. I think he even claimed that they got a spot in heaven, the hijackers and the hostages both.

Bin Laden wanted as many people to die as possible. If he didn't he wouldn't have ordered planes flew into the largest skyscraper in one of the world's largest cities around the time most people were going to work. He wanted shock value, he got it. Bin Laden is a murderer, simple as that.

America doesn't value human life, it values money. Read Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" and look at the amount of people our government kills.

Chomsky is a left-wing radical who has served as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, imagined a post-WWII conspiracy between Nazis and the US State Department, and conjured up the idea of millions of deaths resulting from America's military campaign against the Taliban, hardly an objective source vis-a-vis America's faults.

And if Hussein was such a bad guy, why didn't his people overthrow him? Why weren't there insurgents before the war (the current insurgents don't support him)?\

Peace.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator who ruled through fear and violence. Whenever anyone objected to his rule they were disposed of a la Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. Would you have risen up against such odds? I think not.

 

[Zero Cool]

War has not been declared by the Americans. Case closed.

It's all a part of the war on terror

Evidence?

Any primary media outlet, the Red Cross, the United Nations, the U.S. government etc.

Westerners who are in Iraq for their own benefit bear huge guilt, yes.

For their own benefit? I don't know of any abductee who was solely there for their "own benefit". They are there principally to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq, the terrorists realize this and in order to destabilize the rebuiliding process attempt to kidnap and murder as many westerners as possible. Your attempt to justify their criminal behaviour is quite sad, really.

Attacks on Westerners in the Middle East is far different from "further attacks on the West". From a geographical standpoint, there is no indication they are going to do so.

If the insurgents were to be sucessful, Iraq would become a totally destabilized region ruled mostly by warlords and terrorists. Like Afghanistan was, it would soon become the centre of Bin Laden's terror network and the implications of that coming about are all too clear.

But not the Geneva convention?

This has already been explained. If the army you are apart of subscribes to the Geneva convention then all prisoners from that army are entitled to be covered under it, if not they're not.

Evidence?

Again look to the testemants of any primary media outlet, the Red Cross, the United Nations, the U.S. government etc.

Hussein maybe, but bin Laden is still an ambiguous figure & one who claims he never wanted the loss of human life than occured on 9/11.

Don't make me laugh.

 

[Jokerman]

if i am correct you are thinking about the kurds. but this was before the gulf war i think. i dont think it was ever promised, it was more speculated at and the kurds were under the impression that the american govt would come and help them but it was never promised.

After Iraq's defeat in Kuwait, Shias in Southern Iraq launched an uprising against the Baghdad regime. Following the Shias' lead, the Kurds in the North also revolted. Within two weeks, 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces were free of government control. However, once it was clear that the U.S. would not support the rebellion that they had encouraged, Saddam's forces crushed the revolt throughout Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled into the mountains. In response to humanitarian pleas, U.S. troops moved into Northern Iraq in "Operation Provide Comfort". No-fly zones were established over Kurdistan.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Nah, America just called for Iraqi civilians to rise up against Hussein indicating that they would give aerial support.

The Iraqis did everything that was asked of them, only to be betrayed by the Americans who simply never showed up.

In retaliation Hussein used chemical weapons on Iraqis. This killed some, injured others, caused babies to be deformed & destroyed the land which these Iraqis relied on to survive.

After this, you can see why the Iraqis were more than apprehensive about trying to kick start another uprising.

Edit: Btw, this was in the Gulf War '91, I think.

If we would have followed through in the first Gulf War, we wouldn't have to go through any of this. My grandfather who actually worked in Washington for awhile predicted all this chaos back when the UN was searching for weapons in Iraq and cited that as one of the reasons.

Ironic. Bush Sr. didn't bomb enough and Bush Jr. bombs too much.

 

[XIAN]

This is known as "attempted justification". "Justification" which falls down at elementary examination.

How so? "Attempted Justification"? Of course it is! He attempting to justify it by saying that he did it becuz of our agression and Israel's agression, which is true.

Bin Laden wanted as many people to die as possible. If he didn't he wouldn't have ordered planes flew into the largest skyscraper in one of the world's largest cities around the time most people were going to work. He wanted shock value, he got it. Bin Laden is a murderer, simple as that.

He would've done it in the middle of the day. If most people were going to work, why would he do it then? Wouldn't it make sense to do it when people were actually settled in their offices? Civilians were not the target, the towers were. If civilians were the target, he would've flown into MSG or something.
Why do you consider him a murderer? Our government has killed far more people. How many Iraqis have been killed? How many Afghans? Do you not understand that Palastine is suffering? Do you not get it that he would never attack us if we did nothing wrong?
Imagine if, during the slave trade in the US, a military group from Africa came to free the slaves. They had to destroy New York, one of the most busy slave ports, to cut off the source for many slave owners. They killed many members of the families of slave traders and slave owners. The deaths were a trajedy but slavery was a bigger one. Now, this never happened, but if it did, would you call the Africans murderers or liberators? Would you fail to understand their reasons for doing this?
I don't think 9/11 was justified, but I understand why they did it. I am not going to call bin Laden a murderer. This man is not selfish and he is no monster. He believes in Islam and morals and caring for the oppressed. He's a multi multi millionare who gave everything to others and went to live in mountains to try to free his people from oppression. He is as unselfish as they come. Israel is holding a whole region of people hostage. They are not being fair, and they are not showing compassion. He does not envy us or despise our freedom. He just wants his people to be able to live fairly and free.

Chomsky is a left-wing radical who has served as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, imagined a post-WWII conspiracy between Nazis and the US State Department, and conjured up the idea of millions of deaths resulting from America's military campaign against the Taliban, hardly an objective source vis-a-vis America's faults.

Read a book. Everything is footnoted and documented. He's been at MIT for like 50 years...It's all true. Our government is the world's military superpower, and they abuse that power to tighten their grip.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator who ruled through fear and violence. Whenever anyone objected to his rule they were disposed of a la Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. Would you have risen up against such odds? I think not.

This may be but it was not the job of poor young Americans to stop him.

Peace.

 

[XIAN]

It's all a part of the war on terror

For their own benefit? I don't know of any abductee who was solely there for their "own benefit". They are there principally to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq, the terrorists realize this and in order to destabilize the rebuiliding process attempt to kidnap and murder as many westerners as possible. Your attempt to justify their criminal behaviour is quite sad, really.


Don't make me laugh.

You know that contarctors there for money. It's not like they're all of a sudden like "let's go and volunteer in Iraq!" And if the goal is to kidnap as many as possible, there'd be a lot more gone, believe me.

"Terrorist" means to terrorize or instill fear. The only terrorists I can think of people who make money off our human attraction to fear. (cbs, nbc, abc, cnn, msnbc, and who could ever forget, fox news-hurl)

When the American Revolutionaries like George Washington and James Monroe were fighting the British, the British media called them terrorists too. So how are your "insurgents" any different? We are someplace we don't belong, and they want us out. We are attempting to jack their oil, and they want us out. We are walking around in their neighborhoods with huge fucking guns, and they want us out. If someone came around my house like that, I'd kidnap them too.


And it's too late; you've made me laugh over and over and over again. Go suck a flag. Or a Bush.

Peace.

 

[Zero Cool]

How so? "Attempted Justification"? Of course it is! He attempting to justify it by saying that he did it becuz of our agression and Israel's agression, which is true.

No, it's not. Killing innocent civilians in never justified, Bin Laden understands this. If he had to kill 290 million he would. He's a fanatical terrorist who will kill any and all to achieve his twisted goals, simple as that.

He would've done it in the middle of the day. If most people were going to work, why would he do it then? Wouldn't it make sense to do it when people were actually settled in their offices? Civilians were not the target, the towers were. If civilians were the target, he would've flown into MSG or something.
Why do you consider him a murderer? Our government has killed far more people. How many Iraqis have been killed? How many Afghans? Do you not understand that Palastine is suffering? Do you not get it that he would never attack us if we did nothing wrong?
Imagine if, during the slave trade in the US, a military group from Africa came to free the slaves. They had to destroy New York, one of the most busy slave ports, to cut off the source for many slave owners. They killed many members of the families of slave traders and slave owners. The deaths were a trajedy but slavery was a bigger one. Now, this never happened, but if it did, would you call the Africans murderers or liberators? Would you fail to understand their reasons for doing this?

Your attempt to equate slavery with U.S./Israeli behaviour in the Middle East is beyond asinine. Bin Laden attacked America because he is a fanatical Muslim who believes that by ridding all Western influence from the Middle East, Muslim's can somehow be "free". Another reason is that America is Israel's principal backer and main military aid. Israel has every right to exist and this is something fanatics like Bin Laden cannot accept. He wants a world where fanaticism is law and kangaroo courts are the name of the game.

Bin Laden attacked the Twin Towers between 8-9 AM, the time when the city is filling up and people are crowding the streets. If he didn't really want to hurt civilians (which is as idiotic as it sounds) he would have either not attacked the towers at all or done it during the night to save lives. By doing it when he did, he maximized exposure and killed as many people as possible. The Twin Towers were in the middle of the World's capital, do you honestly think Bin Laden didn't really want to kill people? Come off it.

He believes in Islam and morals and caring for the oppressed. He's a multi multi millionare who gave everything to others and went to live in mountains to try to free his people from oppression. He is as unselfish as they come. Israel is holding a whole region of people hostage. They are not being fair, and they are not showing compassion. He does not envy us or despise our freedom. He just wants his people to be able to live fairly and free.

If you honestly believe this tripe someone or something has obviously brainwashed you beyond all normal comprehension. Bin Laden is "as unselfish as they come"?, Israel is "holding a whole region of people hostage"? You're an idiot.

Read a book. Everything is footnoted and documented. He's been at MIT for like 50 years...It's all true. Our government is the world's military superpower, and they abuse that power to tighten their grip.

I've read many books on this subject. Noam Chomsky is a left-wing fantasist who believes in such tales as U.S.-Nazi co-operation after the Second World War and defended killers like the Khmer Rouge, I wouldn't trust his analysis of the conflict if my life depended on it.

This may be but it was not the job of poor young Americans to stop him.

Peace.

Poor young Americans? What innane rubbish you are espousing. The United States took out Saddam Hussein because he was a strategic threat and Iraq is situated right in the middle of terrorist infested territory, with the resulting democratization hopefully having a knock on effect. If we took your attitude then perhaps the U.S. should never have fought Hitler, who cares right he was only terrorizing all of Eastern Europe.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

It's all a part of the war on terror

Which is not a war in the traditional sense.

Any primary media outlet, the Red Cross, the United Nations, the U.S. government etc.

Show me.

For their own benefit? I don't know of any abductee who was solely there for their "own benefit". They are there principally to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq, the terrorists realize this and in order to destabilize the rebuiliding process attempt to kidnap and murder as many westerners as possible. Your attempt to justify their criminal behaviour is quite sad, really.

"to aid the reconstruction".....which of course was lining their pockets. And you can get to fuck with that last bit. I'm not trying to justify their actions, their justification is plain to see, I need not make the effort.

If the insurgents were to be sucessful, Iraq would become a totally destabilized region ruled mostly by warlords and terrorists. Like Afghanistan was, it would soon become the centre of Bin Laden's terror network and the implications of that coming about are all too clear.

Bullshit. bin Laden's "terror network" seeks a Middle East free from Westerners. Whether it would be ruled by "warlords" is besides the point, bin Laden has no fucking interest in pillaging the West. Why? Because he hates it! And because he hates it he doesn't even want to go there.

This has already been explained. If the army you are apart of subscribes to the Geneva convention then all prisoners from that army are entitled to be covered under it, if not they're not.

Show me were this is stated officially.

Again look to the testemants of any primary media outlet, the Red Cross, the United Nations, the U.S. government etc.

Show me.

Don't make me laugh.

You laugh at the loss of life on 9/11, shame on you!

 

[Jokerman]

Everything is footnoted and documented. He's been at MIT for like 50 years...It's all true.

Noam Chomsky is at MIT because he's a brilliant linguist who has made important contributions to the field, not for his political work. His objectivity ends with the field of linguistics. Being all foot-noted doesn't mean that much in the area of subjective opinion. Anyone can pick and choose the quotes they use to push their points and footnote it all. That doesn't stop them from omitting important facts and misrepresenting things. Like most propagandists, he doesn't let facts get in the way of his theories. When he's challenged on previous statements that he got wrong, he responds by misrepresenting his own positions.

His political thinking is skewed because his premises are skewed.