Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

rmnunez · Nov 13, 2003, 11:03 pm

I disagree with the characterization of US financing of coups in Chile, drug erradication support in Colombia or Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan as "funding terrorism" (or words to that effect). The fact is that the definition of terrorist is an essential. I have a problem with applying the label "terrorist" to military activity of any sort because one of the salient features of terrorists is their civilian targetting (an average of 7 Iraqis per American killed in terrorist incidents) while if this is "salient" in the military its the exception (and actionable under international law).

Launching missiles at aspirin factories is branded as terrorist by the lefties, it sure must be pretty terrorizing to suddenly see the town's mainstay explode, but there was no intent to harm civilians. Those deaths were foreseeable you say? Sure were but in the military killing civilians is not actionable per se its killing them in disproportion to the military value gained. So civilians may be killed if they are around a military target. Ah, but are aspirin factories military targets? Well no, but did the military know that it was an aspirin factory?

What about those rival rebel groups in Colombia, the 'hippie-revolutionary' FARC and the 'ultra' AUC, is funding one but not the other a problem? If the US should not fund, shouldn't others also cease support (Chavez, for example)? The "Plan Colombia" essentially involves training and equipping the Colombian army in drug interdiction and erradication as well as efforts to carried out by American contractors directly (until training and equipping is done). The coca cultivation and processing takes place in areas controlled by rebel groups, is funding or equipping a neighboring rival group somehow dishonourable and forbidden? Doesn't it make sense to do it this way rather than the more 'Vietnamese' style?

But I don't see any of these as terrorist acts because terrorism has something more. It is violent and criminal conduct aimed at maximizing harm for political aims. Coups in Chile were aimed at installing a puppet (a political aim) but the level of involvement was minimal and we were in the midst of the Cold War, additionally there was plenty of evidence of other foreign involvement and the Americans could misconstrue again their Monroe Doctrine.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 13, 2003, 11:57 pm

Oh, fer chrissakes, man. Terrorism is a tactic, politically motivated or not. Terrorism is in comparison to murder, non-violent protest, and military action - which are all tactics; NOT ideology. And Americans funded terrorists in Chile, Colombia, and Afghanistan - for starters.

rmnunez · Nov 28, 2003, 08:04 am

Adams (who signs his notes “Che”):

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Like all terrorist groups, (AlQ’s) members are 9/10 from the poor and desperate. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You’re quite mistaken about this, the overwhelming majority of the terrorists in AlQ are from better than average socio-economic background. OBL is a millionaire, many live in European capitals. The proper ‘mullahs’ in AlQ are all well-endowed with generous saudi benefactors, they take flying lessons and shuttle between Germany, Madrid and Indonesia with ME stopovers, these aren’t impoverished desperadoes. If you look back at records of groups like the Red Brigades, Baedern Meinhoff and ETA you will see that they recruit usually from among the upper classes. Wasn’t Patricia Hearst a member of the American SLA? Were the Black Pathers are from the ghetto underclass?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the continued existence of any guerilla movement relies upon support among the people<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Don’t mistake a guerrilla movement with terrorism.

AK (with a clear example of double standards):

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If the Palestinians use terrorism in order to affect political change, it does not diminish in any way the fact that their plight is very real. Of course, if the Americans use terrorism in order to affect political change, it does not change the fact that we are the aggressors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I wonder why if Palestinians use terror to affect political change (what the Americans are claimed to be doing) shouldn’t they also be seen as agressors? Are you trying to say terrorism “to affect political change” is somehow legitimized when “their plight is real”? Does it depend on an adequate ‘cause’ (some sort of provocation)? Are the Palestinians not agressors despite resorting to terror because they were first ‘victims’ of the Israelis (and Americans)?

Then AlQ speaks for the pan-Arab world:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But Al Qaeda, for its rhetoric, still has those very political issues on its demands, and put together (we want the US out of the middle east) speaks a great deal on the pan-Arab nations' self-determination on the whole.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

AFP with a ridiculous note:

>Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, who created the music to "Zorba the Greek", has asked left-wing Israeli MP Roman Bronfman for a meeting in a bid to clarify remarks which earned him accusations of anti-Semitism.

G. Adams · Dec 3, 2003, 05:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,)
Adams (who signs his notes “Che”):

You’re quite mistaken about this, the overwhelming majority of the terrorists in AlQ are from better than average socio-economic background. OBL is a millionaire, many live in European capitals. The proper ‘mullahs’ in AlQ are all well-endowed with generous saudi benefactors, they take flying lessons and shuttle between Germany, Madrid and Indonesia with ME stopovers, these aren’t impoverished desperadoes. If you look back at records of groups like the Red Brigades, Baedern Meinhoff and ETA you will see that they recruit usually from among the upper classes. Wasn’t Patricia Hearst a member of the American SLA? Were the Black Pathers are from the ghetto underclass?

Don’t mistake a guerrilla movement with terrorism.

AK (with a clear example of double standards):

I wonder why if Palestinians use terror to affect political change (what the Americans are claimed to be doing) shouldn’t they also be seen as agressors? Are you trying to say terrorism “to affect political change” is somehow legitimized when “their plight is real”? Does it depend on an adequate ‘cause’ (some sort of provocation)? Are the Palestinians not agressors despite resorting to terror because they were first ‘victims’ of the Israelis (and Americans)?

Then AlQ speaks for the pan-Arab world:

AFP with a ridiculous note:

>Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, who created the music to "Zorba the Greek", has asked left-wing Israeli MP Roman Bronfman for a meeting in a bid to clarify remarks which earned him accusations of anti-Semitism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nope, I'll stand by my claim that the majority of Al Quida members are from the working class of the third world. Yes they had wealthy benefactors, most terrorist groups do. This is because wealthy people have a comfortable life and tend not to get off their asses for these causes, instead preferring to fund them, as it doesn't interfere with their life.

There are a number of 'post materialist' terrorists, but these tend to be terrorists from the first world, dissolussioned with the empty lives on offer to them. Although neither of us can prove our point, its not like we can survey Al Quida, I doubt very much that the 'overwhelming' majority come from better than average backgrounds. They usually have something to live for.

Terrorists ARE guerrillas, though not all guerrillas are terrorists. As we have said before, terrorism is a tool that can be utilised by anyone. And Al Quida is a guerrilla network, though it has adapted to an urban environment.

Scribbler1 · Jan 3, 2004, 04:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
Yes would'nt it be lovely, humanity finally grows up and gives everyone a big hug, sigh.. unfortunately G.Adams, much as I wish it would it will never happen, the human species is primed from instinct to fight, which is natural otherwise we would never have survived the prehistoric era.
We are still in the mind set of Booga and his club or flint headed spear, except now the weapons have become too dangerous.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

FA, I have to agree with your logic, but I also have to believe it will end SOMETIME (not in MY lifetime, I'm sure)or the cockroaches will take over. It is my sincere hope that logic will dawn on the leaders of the world someday and peace will be the thing considered to be in out best interest, but it ain't gonna happen. This is where I depart from the "Pacen in Terris" crowd. These days, when you turn the other cheek you get IT slapped too.
I used to tell my kid when he was in school never start a fight or ever throw the first punch, but if somebody hits him all bets are off. I like that philosophy and applauded the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. Too bad it got sidetracked.

Scribbler1 · Jan 3, 2004, 05:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,)
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) deployed by the US has produced a report on WMDs in Iraq, there is enough to keep all sides happy. For the critical left the report is damning as it unquestionably established Saddam had no WMDs. For the intervention’s supporters recovered evidence of butolin toxin (the single most poisonous substance known). The ISG also identified installations and facilities which had been used to produce other biological and chemical weapons and plans for a 1000 km range missile. But they didn’t find any ready-made missiles with banned warheads.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I haven't been able to read all the posts on this thread so I hope I'm not repeating anything. I sometimes wonder if Saddam Hussein EVER had the sheer bulk of what he was accused of having. Apparently, Iraq's army wasn't worth a damn and Saddam being a creep but not a fool, may have just inflated what he actually had to protect Iraq from its surrounding neighbors. I think an attack on 2 or 3 fronts would have taken Iraq's army out pretty quick, so logically it would make sense to make them all think you're tha baddest SOB around and it's really not worth your time to try to invade. Then here comes the UN with its demands that Hussein expose his weakness, so not wishing to blow his scam Saddam refuses any inspections, and then WE march in guided by either ulterior motives or more likely bad intel and ultimately find very little.
I remember during Gulf one seeing SCUD missiles (live on TV) actually falling apart in midair as they headed toward Israel. Apparently, the old SCUDs were modified for longer range and simply broke up. If that was Iraq's best show of force it didn't impress too many people.

I realize that's an implausible theory, but not an impossible one.

castille · Jan 13, 2004, 09:39 am

Even if Saddam can't be found guilty of having WMD, he's still gotta pay for the millions of Iraqis he tortured/oppressed, and the hundreds of thousands he executed.

I believe Iraq has a greater ratio of people to execution rates than the US.

rmnunez · Jan 14, 2004, 04:41 am

Saddam surely did "inflate" his military capability claims and likely this was the natural response since he had attacked some of his neighbours who were potential agressors. It also seems quite clear he sought and did obtain technology to produce non-conventional weapons. When he acquired WMDs we also know he used them (on Kurds and Iranians at least). But beyond this there is scarce evidence of the inventories attributed to him at the outset of intervention.

I wouldn't conclude that absence of huge stockpiles means the US government concealed this rather than that they may have had faulty data (they thought he had huge arsenals). I suppose the lesson could be that when confronted on the matter of WMDs its best to admit any actual wrongdoing (there are international conventions -which don't apply to the US- that preclude possession of such weapons). Unfortunately, admitting you don't have WMDs means revealing to potential agressors a weakness that may have held them at bay.

rmnunez · Jan 30, 2004, 03:09 am

The latest on the Kay report has Saddam duped by his own scientists into believing they were able to do things still quite remote from their actual capabilities.

rmnunez · Feb 16, 2004, 12:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Scribbler: I used to tell my kid when he was in school never start a fight or ever throw the first punch, but if somebody hits him all bets are off. I like that philosophy and applauded the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. Too bad it got sidetracked.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I don’t think the effort got sidetracked, the hunt for OBL is still on (in fact some suggest his capture on the verge of elections in the US is in the offing). I do see how focusing on Saddam would seem an unnecessary distraction to some. From here it seems like the motives or justifications to oust Saddam come in all flavours; humanitarianism, oil greed, born-again crusade, breach of ceasefire, clash of cultures, vengance for an attempt on Bush Sr….

Fact is the American military machine is capable of handling 2 foreign deployments so they can hunt OBL in Aghanistan while ousting Saddam from Iraq. The question is whether they should.

Saddam did breach a ceasefire agreement and traditionally breach of ceasefire is followed by resumption of hostilities (suing for peace the only other alternative). He was subject to UN-mandated sanctions and continuously breached them (as much oil moved overland from Iran into Turkey as through the Oil for Food Programme).

Nukes are proscribed under valid and Iraqi-ratified IAEA treaties. Similar treaty obligations bar possession, development or any transaction in chemical and biological weapons too. Yes, its unfair that some countries (the UN Security Council ‘permanents’, India, Israel and Pakistan plus maybe North Korea) have gotten around the strictures, but that’s the situation. The UN (and certainly the US plus the other Council permanents) have determined WMD proliferation is to be strongly opposed and counteracted. Saddam’s progress and transgressions into the field of WMD are not in doubt (it is known he used chemical weapons before) just his progress.

Saddam was a ‘loose cannon’ he fought with the Iranians, repressed Kurds, had skirmishes with the Saudis and invaded Kuwait, all of this in an area vital to many western economies.

Additionally, the Shia connection with Iran clearly could facilitate some terrorist ties (though not with Saddam’s regime). Saddam did build terrorist “training facilities” and was known to fund “charities” to benefit deceased self-detonating terrorists relatives in Palestine, but apparently no direct ties to OBL or Al Qaeda.

I think any one of the risks Saddam posed merited armed intervention to oust him. Half compliance with a ceasefire, semi-genocide, pursuit of WMDs, inconclusive clashes with half his neighbors and enough oil money to flaunt any restrictions, taken together, deserve a firm forceful and definitive answer.

rmnunez · Feb 26, 2004, 07:00 am

Human rights conditions worsened last year in China, Cuba, Iran and Myanmar according to a keynote annual US government report released Wednesday which also cast an unfavourable spotlight on some Washington allies. The annual US State Department human rights report also criticised Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin's consolidation of power, and rebuked Haiti's President Jean Bertrand Aristide. The report also accused the UNCHR of delinquency in its mission, citing commission members China, Cuba, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe as having failed "to protect their own citizens' rights."

The US State Department's annual human rights report released Wednesday called for reinforcement of the presence of democratic countries on the UNCHR. "With Libya in the Chair and such countries as Zimbabwe, Cuba, Sudan, China and Syria, which fail to protect their own citizens' rights, as members, the 2003 session of the UNCHR fell short in several respects," said the report.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040226/1/3ibfd.html

rmnunez · Mar 1, 2004, 01:36 am

New constitution for Iraq is ready:

>Iraqi leaders reached agreement on a basic law governing the country's immediate future which was to be officially signed on Wednesday, two Iraqi officials told AFP. “We just broke up (the meeting). The Fundamental Law has been concluded. An agreement has been concluded, there is consensus on every single point," said Entifadh Qanbar, representative of Iraqi National Council head Ahmad Shalabi. Governing Council member Mahmoud Osman declared: "The discussions are finished and there is no longer any problem. It is a major achievement." He added that the text would be signed Wednesday after the end of the Shiite Muslim religious holiday of Ashura. The temporary constitution -- made up of about 60 articles -- will enshrine a bill of rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and civilian control of the military. It is also an important step in clearing the way for a June 30 transfer of sovereignty from the US-led coalition to an Iraqi interim authority.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040301/1/3iesc.html

rmnunez · Mar 2, 2004, 05:33 am

Good news for the ‘detainees’?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
>Seven Russian citizens who were being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have returned to Moscow, the Russian foreign ministry says. They are now reported to be in a pre-trial detention centre. They were handed over after lengthy talks between Washington and Moscow. The Russian prosecutor's office has said the detainees include residents of Russia's Muslim-majority republics of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, the city of Chelyabinsk in western Siberia, and the Caucasus region. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3523455.stm
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How many here think their civil or human rights and due process guarantees now stand a better chance of being fully safeguarded?

rmnunez · Jun 20, 2004, 06:58 pm

Allawi the hardline, no-nonense security hawk strains the leash in confronting forces of evil:

Iyad Allawi announced a dramatic overhaul of the country's defence structure, vowing to deploy all security forces, including the army, in the fight against insurgents. Allawi said a new command and control structure would streamline the country's defences to battle unrest which has killed more than 200 people since his interim government was unveiled on June 1 (its about 10 a day), also announcing the formation of an elite military unit and special forces to attack the insurgents.

Quote:

"Our capabilities will enable us to take necessary action against forces of evil and I have laid the foundation for creating a national directorate for internal security," Allawi told a news conference. The the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps would be renamed the Iraqi National Guard and would come under the command of the army. All security forces would be deployed in the war against the insurgents, he said, including large chunks of the army. Other security forces would also be mobilised, including border guards and the air force.

Allawi said he had drawn up the plan after consulting US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the British defence ministry's top civil servant Kevin Tebbit. The premier, whose Iraqi National Accord movement had close links with the US intelligence services, is a security hawk who announced immediately after his appointment that his top priority would be to halt insurgent attacks.

Allawi's cabinet has flirted with the idea of implementing some form of emergency law after June 30. Showcasing his no-nonsense approach, the hardline premier backed a US air raid Saturday on the restive city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, which US commanders said targeted a hideout of alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind Abu Mussab Zarqawi.

(women and children killed and maimed in the attacks)

Passing the buck on an international scale:

Quote:

Meanwhile, an official from the US-led coalition said former dictator Saddam Hussein would be transferred to Iraqi legal custody "very shortly" after the country becomes sovereign on June 30.

(3 days ago the ICRC advised the US Saddam must be charged or released)

My suggestion is that custody over Saddam be transfered to the Iraqis on July 4th (but then delay it another day -for the holidays) just to irritate the ICRC with their June 30 nonsense).

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040620/1/3l66e.html

rmnunez · Jun 22, 2004, 02:43 am

Carnegie prescription for nuke proliferation; “live with it”.

Quote:

The US should stop demanding Pakistan, India and Israel give up their nuclear weapons, a report said Monday. The dispute involving India, Pakistan and Israel is known in international non-proliferation circles as the three-state problem because all three are not recognized as nuclear states and yet have resisting efforts to disarm them. India and Pakistan tested their nuclear devices in May 1998 and since they had not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, technically they did not violate any international law. Israel has not yet tested its devices but is generally perceived as possessing nuclear weapons. The 95-page report presented at Washington's Carnegie Endowment suggested efforts to make India, Pakistan and Israel join the NPT as non-weapon states are unlikely to succeed. Instead, the US should lead a diplomatic initiative to persuade the three states to accepting the nonproliferation obligations already accepted by five recognized nuclear states, China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. In return for a pledge to prevent further proliferation, the three states should be offered "relief from unproductive, ritualistic hectoring or possible coercion to eliminate their nuclear arsenals before others do," the report said.

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtm...er=World%20News

Comrade · Jun 22, 2004, 02:55 am

WMDs aren't the point of the war, Saddam wasn't even the point of the war. A liberal society in the Middle East is the point of the war.

PatrickHenry · Jun 22, 2004, 03:41 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade,
WMDs aren't the point of the war, Saddam wasn't even the point of the war. A liberal society in the Middle East is the point of the war.

Is that a fact? Or your opinion?

PatrickHenry · Jun 22, 2004, 03:51 am

Seymour Hersh has a new article in the New Yorker on Israeli collaboration with the Kurds in Iraq, and how this threatens Turkey, Iran and Syria. http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040628fa_fact
In fact the partnership may threaten a regional conflagration, according to Hersh.

Quote:

“Kirkuk will be the Sarajevo of Iraq. If something happens there, it will be impossible to contain the crisis.”

Comrade · Jun 22, 2004, 06:57 am

Well, lets see, firstly, it was stated by Bush to be our goal, and our behavior supports this goal, so that makes it fact, roxdog's conspiracy theories and leftist propoganda aside.
Why else create an Iraqi democracy? Why else remove our troops from Saudi Arabia? Why else create permanant military bases in Iraq? Why else a million things?
Don't try to use words like opinion to margainalize.

PatrickHenry · Jun 22, 2004, 01:04 pm

Debate is about establishing facts and opinion. It was a question, relevant to the discussion. Are you instructing me on debate now? As to your questions which I assume you believe to be rhetorical, there are multiple answers and they are not the ones you assume.

Bush did not ask Congress for authorization to invade Iraq in order to "liberalize" the Middle East. True he made some misguided statements as to the difference a "peance, freance" Iraq would make.

Nov 13, 2003, 11:03 pm	#101 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	I disagree with the characterization of US financing of coups in Chile, drug erradication support in Colombia or Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan as "funding terrorism" (or words to that effect). The fact is that the definition of terrorist is an essential. I have a problem with applying the label "terrorist" to military activity of any sort because one of the salient features of terrorists is their civilian targetting (an average of 7 Iraqis per American killed in terrorist incidents) while if this is "salient" in the military its the exception (and actionable under international law). Launching missiles at aspirin factories is branded as terrorist by the lefties, it sure must be pretty terrorizing to suddenly see the town's mainstay explode, but there was no intent to harm civilians. Those deaths were foreseeable you say? Sure were but in the military killing civilians is not actionable per se its killing them in disproportion to the military value gained. So civilians may be killed if they are around a military target. Ah, but are aspirin factories military targets? Well no, but did the military know that it was an aspirin factory? What about those rival rebel groups in Colombia, the 'hippie-revolutionary' FARC and the 'ultra' AUC, is funding one but not the other a problem? If the US should not fund, shouldn't others also cease support (Chavez, for example)? The "Plan Colombia" essentially involves training and equipping the Colombian army in drug interdiction and erradication as well as efforts to carried out by American contractors directly (until training and equipping is done). The coca cultivation and processing takes place in areas controlled by rebel groups, is funding or equipping a neighboring rival group somehow dishonourable and forbidden? Doesn't it make sense to do it this way rather than the more 'Vietnamese' style? But I don't see any of these as terrorist acts because terrorism has something more. It is violent and criminal conduct aimed at maximizing harm for political aims. Coups in Chile were aimed at installing a puppet (a political aim) but the level of involvement was minimal and we were in the midst of the Cold War, additionally there was plenty of evidence of other foreign involvement and the Americans could misconstrue again their Monroe Doctrine. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Nov 13, 2003, 11:57 pm	#102 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Oh, fer chrissakes, man. Terrorism is a tactic, politically motivated or not. Terrorism is in comparison to murder, non-violent protest, and military action - which are all tactics; NOT ideology. And Americans funded terrorists in Chile, Colombia, and Afghanistan - for starters. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 28, 2003, 08:04 am	#103 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Adams (who signs his notes “Che”): </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Like all terrorist groups, (AlQ’s) members are 9/10 from the poor and desperate. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You’re quite mistaken about this, the overwhelming majority of the terrorists in AlQ are from better than average socio-economic background. OBL is a millionaire, many live in European capitals. The proper ‘mullahs’ in AlQ are all well-endowed with generous saudi benefactors, they take flying lessons and shuttle between Germany, Madrid and Indonesia with ME stopovers, these aren’t impoverished desperadoes. If you look back at records of groups like the Red Brigades, Baedern Meinhoff and ETA you will see that they recruit usually from among the upper classes. Wasn’t Patricia Hearst a member of the American SLA? Were the Black Pathers are from the ghetto underclass? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by the continued existence of any guerilla movement relies upon support among the people<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Don’t mistake a guerrilla movement with terrorism. AK (with a clear example of double standards): </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If the Palestinians use terrorism in order to affect political change, it does not diminish in any way the fact that their plight is very real. Of course, if the Americans use terrorism in order to affect political change, it does not change the fact that we are the aggressors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I wonder why if Palestinians use terror to affect political change (what the Americans are claimed to be doing) shouldn’t they also be seen as agressors? Are you trying to say terrorism “to affect political change” is somehow legitimized when “their plight is real”? Does it depend on an adequate ‘cause’ (some sort of provocation)? Are the Palestinians not agressors despite resorting to terror because they were first ‘victims’ of the Israelis (and Americans)? Then AlQ speaks for the pan-Arab world: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But Al Qaeda, for its rhetoric, still has those very political issues on its demands, and put together (we want the US out of the middle east) speaks a great deal on the pan-Arab nations' self-determination on the whole.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> AFP with a ridiculous note: >Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, who created the music to "Zorba the Greek", has asked left-wing Israeli MP Roman Bronfman for a meeting in a bid to clarify remarks which earned him accusations of anti-Semitism. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Dec 3, 2003, 05:54 am	#104 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,) Adams (who signs his notes “Che”): You’re quite mistaken about this, the overwhelming majority of the terrorists in AlQ are from better than average socio-economic background. OBL is a millionaire, many live in European capitals. The proper ‘mullahs’ in AlQ are all well-endowed with generous saudi benefactors, they take flying lessons and shuttle between Germany, Madrid and Indonesia with ME stopovers, these aren’t impoverished desperadoes. If you look back at records of groups like the Red Brigades, Baedern Meinhoff and ETA you will see that they recruit usually from among the upper classes. Wasn’t Patricia Hearst a member of the American SLA? Were the Black Pathers are from the ghetto underclass? Don’t mistake a guerrilla movement with terrorism. AK (with a clear example of double standards): I wonder why if Palestinians use terror to affect political change (what the Americans are claimed to be doing) shouldn’t they also be seen as agressors? Are you trying to say terrorism “to affect political change” is somehow legitimized when “their plight is real”? Does it depend on an adequate ‘cause’ (some sort of provocation)? Are the Palestinians not agressors despite resorting to terror because they were first ‘victims’ of the Israelis (and Americans)? Then AlQ speaks for the pan-Arab world: AFP with a ridiculous note: >Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, who created the music to "Zorba the Greek", has asked left-wing Israeli MP Roman Bronfman for a meeting in a bid to clarify remarks which earned him accusations of anti-Semitism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nope, I'll stand by my claim that the majority of Al Quida members are from the working class of the third world. Yes they had wealthy benefactors, most terrorist groups do. This is because wealthy people have a comfortable life and tend not to get off their asses for these causes, instead preferring to fund them, as it doesn't interfere with their life. There are a number of 'post materialist' terrorists, but these tend to be terrorists from the first world, dissolussioned with the empty lives on offer to them. Although neither of us can prove our point, its not like we can survey Al Quida, I doubt very much that the 'overwhelming' majority come from better than average backgrounds. They usually have something to live for. Terrorists ARE guerrillas, though not all guerrillas are terrorists. As we have said before, terrorism is a tool that can be utilised by anyone. And Al Quida is a guerrilla network, though it has adapted to an urban environment. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 3, 2004, 04:45 am	#105 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,846	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) Yes would'nt it be lovely, humanity finally grows up and gives everyone a big hug, sigh.. unfortunately G.Adams, much as I wish it would it will never happen, the human species is primed from instinct to fight, which is natural otherwise we would never have survived the prehistoric era. We are still in the mind set of Booga and his club or flint headed spear, except now the weapons have become too dangerous.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> FA, I have to agree with your logic, but I also have to believe it will end SOMETIME (not in MY lifetime, I'm sure)or the cockroaches will take over. It is my sincere hope that logic will dawn on the leaders of the world someday and peace will be the thing considered to be in out best interest, but it ain't gonna happen. This is where I depart from the "Pacen in Terris" crowd. These days, when you turn the other cheek you get IT slapped too. I used to tell my kid when he was in school never start a fight or ever throw the first punch, but if somebody hits him all bets are off. I like that philosophy and applauded the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. Too bad it got sidetracked. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jan 3, 2004, 05:07 am	#106 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,846	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,) The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) deployed by the US has produced a report on WMDs in Iraq, there is enough to keep all sides happy. For the critical left the report is damning as it unquestionably established Saddam had no WMDs. For the intervention’s supporters recovered evidence of butolin toxin (the single most poisonous substance known). The ISG also identified installations and facilities which had been used to produce other biological and chemical weapons and plans for a 1000 km range missile. But they didn’t find any ready-made missiles with banned warheads.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I haven't been able to read all the posts on this thread so I hope I'm not repeating anything. I sometimes wonder if Saddam Hussein EVER had the sheer bulk of what he was accused of having. Apparently, Iraq's army wasn't worth a damn and Saddam being a creep but not a fool, may have just inflated what he actually had to protect Iraq from its surrounding neighbors. I think an attack on 2 or 3 fronts would have taken Iraq's army out pretty quick, so logically it would make sense to make them all think you're tha baddest SOB around and it's really not worth your time to try to invade. Then here comes the UN with its demands that Hussein expose his weakness, so not wishing to blow his scam Saddam refuses any inspections, and then WE march in guided by either ulterior motives or more likely bad intel and ultimately find very little. I remember during Gulf one seeing SCUD missiles (live on TV) actually falling apart in midair as they headed toward Israel. Apparently, the old SCUDs were modified for longer range and simply broke up. If that was Iraq's best show of force it didn't impress too many people. I realize that's an implausible theory, but not an impossible one. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jan 13, 2004, 09:39 am	#107 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Even if Saddam can't be found guilty of having WMD, he's still gotta pay for the millions of Iraqis he tortured/oppressed, and the hundreds of thousands he executed. I believe Iraq has a greater ratio of people to execution rates than the US. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jan 14, 2004, 04:41 am	#108 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Saddam surely did "inflate" his military capability claims and likely this was the natural response since he had attacked some of his neighbours who were potential agressors. It also seems quite clear he sought and did obtain technology to produce non-conventional weapons. When he acquired WMDs we also know he used them (on Kurds and Iranians at least). But beyond this there is scarce evidence of the inventories attributed to him at the outset of intervention. I wouldn't conclude that absence of huge stockpiles means the US government concealed this rather than that they may have had faulty data (they thought he had huge arsenals). I suppose the lesson could be that when confronted on the matter of WMDs its best to admit any actual wrongdoing (there are international conventions -which don't apply to the US- that preclude possession of such weapons). Unfortunately, admitting you don't have WMDs means revealing to potential agressors a weakness that may have held them at bay. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Jan 30, 2004, 03:09 am	#109 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	The latest on the Kay report has Saddam duped by his own scientists into believing they were able to do things still quite remote from their actual capabilities. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 16, 2004, 12:39 am	#110 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Scribbler: I used to tell my kid when he was in school never start a fight or ever throw the first punch, but if somebody hits him all bets are off. I like that philosophy and applauded the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. Too bad it got sidetracked.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don’t think the effort got sidetracked, the hunt for OBL is still on (in fact some suggest his capture on the verge of elections in the US is in the offing). I do see how focusing on Saddam would seem an unnecessary distraction to some. From here it seems like the motives or justifications to oust Saddam come in all flavours; humanitarianism, oil greed, born-again crusade, breach of ceasefire, clash of cultures, vengance for an attempt on Bush Sr…. Fact is the American military machine is capable of handling 2 foreign deployments so they can hunt OBL in Aghanistan while ousting Saddam from Iraq. The question is whether they should. Saddam did breach a ceasefire agreement and traditionally breach of ceasefire is followed by resumption of hostilities (suing for peace the only other alternative). He was subject to UN-mandated sanctions and continuously breached them (as much oil moved overland from Iran into Turkey as through the Oil for Food Programme). Nukes are proscribed under valid and Iraqi-ratified IAEA treaties. Similar treaty obligations bar possession, development or any transaction in chemical and biological weapons too. Yes, its unfair that some countries (the UN Security Council ‘permanents’, India, Israel and Pakistan plus maybe North Korea) have gotten around the strictures, but that’s the situation. The UN (and certainly the US plus the other Council permanents) have determined WMD proliferation is to be strongly opposed and counteracted. Saddam’s progress and transgressions into the field of WMD are not in doubt (it is known he used chemical weapons before) just his progress. Saddam was a ‘loose cannon’ he fought with the Iranians, repressed Kurds, had skirmishes with the Saudis and invaded Kuwait, all of this in an area vital to many western economies. Additionally, the Shia connection with Iran clearly could facilitate some terrorist ties (though not with Saddam’s regime). Saddam did build terrorist “training facilities” and was known to fund “charities” to benefit deceased self-detonating terrorists relatives in Palestine, but apparently no direct ties to OBL or Al Qaeda. I think any one of the risks Saddam posed merited armed intervention to oust him. Half compliance with a ceasefire, semi-genocide, pursuit of WMDs, inconclusive clashes with half his neighbors and enough oil money to flaunt any restrictions, taken together, deserve a firm forceful and definitive answer. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 26, 2004, 07:00 am	#111 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Human rights conditions worsened last year in China, Cuba, Iran and Myanmar according to a keynote annual US government report released Wednesday which also cast an unfavourable spotlight on some Washington allies. The annual US State Department human rights report also criticised Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin's consolidation of power, and rebuked Haiti's President Jean Bertrand Aristide. The report also accused the UNCHR of delinquency in its mission, citing commission members China, Cuba, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe as having failed "to protect their own citizens' rights." The US State Department's annual human rights report released Wednesday called for reinforcement of the presence of democratic countries on the UNCHR. "With Libya in the Chair and such countries as Zimbabwe, Cuba, Sudan, China and Syria, which fail to protect their own citizens' rights, as members, the 2003 session of the UNCHR fell short in several respects," said the report. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040226/1/3ibfd.html Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 1, 2004, 01:36 am	#112 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	New constitution for Iraq is ready: >Iraqi leaders reached agreement on a basic law governing the country's immediate future which was to be officially signed on Wednesday, two Iraqi officials told AFP. “We just broke up (the meeting). The Fundamental Law has been concluded. An agreement has been concluded, there is consensus on every single point," said Entifadh Qanbar, representative of Iraqi National Council head Ahmad Shalabi. Governing Council member Mahmoud Osman declared: "The discussions are finished and there is no longer any problem. It is a major achievement." He added that the text would be signed Wednesday after the end of the Shiite Muslim religious holiday of Ashura. The temporary constitution -- made up of about 60 articles -- will enshrine a bill of rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and civilian control of the military. It is also an important step in clearing the way for a June 30 transfer of sovereignty from the US-led coalition to an Iraqi interim authority. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040301/1/3iesc.html Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 2, 2004, 05:33 am	#113 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Good news for the ‘detainees’? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by >Seven Russian citizens who were being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have returned to Moscow, the Russian foreign ministry says. They are now reported to be in a pre-trial detention centre. They were handed over after lengthy talks between Washington and Moscow. The Russian prosecutor's office has said the detainees include residents of Russia's Muslim-majority republics of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, the city of Chelyabinsk in western Siberia, and the Caucasus region. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3523455.stm <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How many here think their civil or human rights and due process guarantees now stand a better chance of being fully safeguarded? Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Jun 22, 2004, 02:55 am	#116 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	WMDs aren't the point of the war, Saddam wasn't even the point of the war. A liberal society in the Middle East is the point of the war. Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Jun 22, 2004, 06:57 am	#119 (permalink) (top)
Comrade Hot Lava Location: Texas Posts: 1,229	Well, lets see, firstly, it was stated by Bush to be our goal, and our behavior supports this goal, so that makes it fact, roxdog's conspiracy theories and leftist propoganda aside. Why else create an Iraqi democracy? Why else remove our troops from Saudi Arabia? Why else create permanant military bases in Iraq? Why else a million things? Don't try to use words like opinion to margainalize. Oh, it's really too bad, isn't it? -- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050121/480/watw10701210224 Hahaha, that's funny. Liberals are so silly!

Jun 22, 2004, 01:04 pm	#120 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,455	Debate is about establishing facts and opinion. It was a question, relevant to the discussion. Are you instructing me on debate now? As to your questions which I assume you believe to be rhetorical, there are multiple answers and they are not the ones you assume. Bush did not ask Congress for authorization to invade Iraq in order to "liberalize" the Middle East. True he made some misguided statements as to the difference a "peance, freance" Iraq would make. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams