Agendas

[Greenhat]

Russians (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/13/SPIES.TMP)

Germans (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32156)

Hmmmm..guess that fits within the UN resolutions, doesn't it?

[Man Of Kent]

Hush your mouth Mr Hat, you know we aren't allowed to discuss such things.

USA is bad mmmmkay?

Those who opposed them on Iraq are good. That those countries may have been supporting an oppressive regime in direct contravention of UNSC resolutions is irrelevant.

[Darth Fred]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
USA is bad mmmmkay?


Yes, they are. But then so is the UK, Iraq, France, Germany, Russia, etc through every country on the face of the Earth. International politics is about being as self interested as possible while still trying to claim the moral high ground. Governments are composed of politicians, and politicians will in general lie, cheat, steal, be hypocritical and resort to soundbite politics as long as they think it is their best interests to do so (their entire careers, presuming they don't get caught. Nothing is illegal if you don't get caught doing it).

Actually, most of these points could be levelled at governments based on the fact that they are composed of humans, who will, as a general rule, lie, cheat, steal, be hypocritical and distort facts to support their own personal biases on any issue (and everyone is biased one way or another). Pretty much everyone does, regardless of their position within the political spectrum.

[pnjsurferpoet]

Good post. I read and posted about the Russians. I didn't know about the Germans.

The reality, I feel is, Europe has become too socialist to be profitable for companies. So their economies are barely growing or failing. In many ways, America let's the companies get away with too much. So I don't know what the answer is. But the result of Europe's failing economies are these dirty deals with the worst of the worst in the world.

Greenhat, I wish you were in America to experience the pride right now. (I was always that way...but the country as a whole is really healed and soooo determined.)

[Greenhat]

Times Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,635-655090,00.html)

Documents (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/22/ndocs22.xml#1)

Add these to the links in the first post, and you might see why people feel justified in writing this (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20030421.shtml)

[pnjsurferpoet]

Greenhat America doesn't have to justify itself to anyone. Why? We have the world's best military and we're willing to fight for our freedom. I've had it with the appeasers who act like our allies and radical Muslims worldwide. To sit back and wait to be attacked by some death cult pervert isn't an option. The raw truth about some people on the site is exactly this. If there was another 911 type attack on the US, the jealous, anti-American crowd would say it was justified...even if our military was no where's near the Middle East. Our PC, It's all good, approach to people who hate and threaten us led to 911. Osama himself said basically to hit America hard and it will retreat.

The radical Muslim movement in the world must be attacked head on regardless of what anyone in the world thinks. Those who would be willing to join a tolerant, modern, democracy would be welcome. Those who won't need to be killed....without trials. Just kill them.

[Aladdin]

Only one little detail escapes you: since the Afghanistan campaign the US military has not been engaged in operations to safeguard your freedom or fight terrorism. This month the US military was engaged in a war prompted by geopolitical and economic interests. It had, however, nothing to do with the war on terror or with preserving your freedom.

Just thought I'd remind you ;)

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Only one little detail escapes you: since the Afghanistan campaign the US military has not been engaged in operations to safeguard your freedom or fight terrorism. This month the US military was engaged in a war prompted by geopolitical and economic interests. It had, however, nothing to do with the war on terror or with preserving your freedom.

Just thought I'd remind you ;)

Aladdin,

You have no idea. None whatsoever.

[Aladdin]

I'm happy to admit that the US is still engaged in anti-terrorism operations in various places... but please don't try to insinuate that the war on Iraq had anything to do with t.w.a.t because it didn't.

[Clandestine]

Pointless to ask greeny not to suggest that, given that he's sworn to adopt the company line without question. Might as well ask him to admit that Washington hasnt been covertly financing brutal regimes and insurgency movements around the world for the past half a century.

Complicit with the notion of "terrorist" in the Bush doctrine is any person or state who/which dares oppose the absolute will of Washington. Such is the underlying precept of the PR campaign with which theyve been numbing minds since just after 9/11.

It's all about Pax Americana Al, you should realise that by now.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
I'm happy to admit that the US is still engaged in anti-terrorism operations in various places... but please don't try to insinuate that the war on Iraq had anything to do with t.w.a.t because it didn't.

Really?

Let's see...

Shutting down terrorist training camps, and safe areas

Removing a significant source of terrorist supplies and funding

Removal of high-ranking and very well-known terrorists

You don't have a clue what it means to wage a war on terrorism, do you?

Actually, based on numerous posts from you, you don't have a clue what it means to wage war in any circumstances.

Clandestine,

Come now, tell us again about how the German objections... you were the one who was telling us all about how Schroeder was a man of principles, weren't you? Such principles that included providing material, intelligence and training aid to Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Pax America? Maybe more exact would be avoiding Pax Europa led by France, Germany and Russia.

[Aladdin]

Where? In Iraq? The last time I looked Saddam's regime, which had been the only containment against Kurdish terrorists, had been removed. If anything, the Iraqi floodgates for terrorists everywhere and Muslim extremists has just been opened.
Please give me a Euro for every terrorist camp and dodgy lab that will be in place a couple of weeks after coalition troops leave. Some war on terror…

You should really give it a rest. Even Bush and Blair have given up their pathetic claims of terrorist links after universal derision. At least with the WMDs claims there is a small chance the Allies were right...

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Hush your mouth Mr Hat, you know we aren't allowed to discuss such things.

USA is bad mmmmkay?

Those who opposed them on Iraq are good. That those countries may have been supporting an oppressive regime in direct contravention of UNSC resolutions is irrelevant. Who says we aren't allowed to discuss such things? I guess the UNSC will rap the knuckles of those found responsible for infringing UNSC rules. Or we could just take the American route and bomb their countries. Ironic, really, since that's what the Germans and the Russians wanted the US to do to Iraq, isn't it? Oh... no, it isn't. Still, it will be if people keep saying it enough.

p.s. sure I started the 'Mr. Hat' thing, but ha ha, anyway...

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
Greenhat America doesn't have to justify itself to anyone. Why? We have the world's best military and we're willing to fight for our freedom. I've had it with the appeasers who act like our allies and radical Muslims worldwide. To sit back and wait to be attacked by some death cult pervert isn't an option. The raw truth about some people on the site is exactly this. If there was another 911 type attack on the US, the jealous, anti-American crowd would say it was justified...even if our military was no where's near the Middle East. Our PC, It's all good, approach to people who hate and threaten us led to 911. Osama himself said basically to hit America hard and it will retreat.

The radical Muslim movement in the world must be attacked head on regardless of what anyone in the world thinks. Those who would be willing to join a tolerant, modern, democracy would be welcome. Those who won't need to be killed....without trials. Just kill them.

Your country sponsors the most brutal terrorist state on earth. 3bn dollars every year or roundabout goes to financing ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Hardly PC PNJ is it?

Why would a PC approach to foreign affairs led to hatred of you? Think about what you say before you say it.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Where? In Iraq?

Yes, in Iraq. Pay attention.

[Aladdin]

If you really think that

a) the war on Iraq has delivered a blow to terrorism in any way

b) there will be less terrorists operating in Iraq next year than there were before Saddam fell

you are might be in for a nasty surprise.

[pnjsurferpoet]

you are might be in for a nasty surprise.

The way things were with the no fly zones, a region was created where Al Qaeda could, and was, operating. Also at the time, Saddam hated the US so when a combatant from Afghanistan was treated at a Baghdad hospital and went up to that cell and then on to ricin...that should have told any thinking person in the UK when he was picked up that something has to be done about Iraq.

Then there's the moral issue. Would the world have allowed all of the torture is the Iraqis weren't Muslims? The whole UN compliance thing...even if Saddam had complied...there was nothing in that provision to oust Saddam.

The idea that the Shi'ite terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Sunni terrorists groups like Al Qaeda wouldn't get together was shot down in Africa this past fall when they did work together to bomb that hotel and attempt to shoot down the airliner.

A democratic, Muslim-led Iraq could help prevent the next generation of terrorists. And the extremists Muslim clerics in Iran are barely holding onto power. But I agree, weeding them out worldwide is the best way to fight Al Qaeda.

[TellMeWhoAreYou]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
Greenhat America doesn't have to justify itself to anyone. Why? We have the world's best military and we're willing to fight for our freedom. I've had it with the appeasers who act like our allies and radical Muslims worldwide. To sit back and wait to be attacked by some death cult pervert isn't an option. The raw truth about some people on the site is exactly this. If there was another 911 type attack on the US, the jealous, anti-American crowd would say it was justified...even if our military was no where's near the Middle East. Our PC, It's all good, approach to people who hate and threaten us led to 911. Osama himself said basically to hit America hard and it will retreat.

The radical Muslim movement in the world must be attacked head on regardless of what anyone in the world thinks. Those who would be willing to join a tolerant, modern, democracy would be welcome. Those who won't need to be killed....without trials. Just kill them.


"America doesn't have to justify itself to anyone. Why? We have the world's best military and we're willing to fight for our freedom."

In what way was your freedom threadent by Iraq?

This is excately why i demonstrated against the wat in Iraq, "America doesn't have to justify itself to anyone" what an attitude is that?

"Those who won't need to be killed....without trials. Just kill them."

Saying this in my way of thinking does not make you any better than "them"

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
If you really think that

a) the war on Iraq has delivered a blow to terrorism in any way

b) there will be less terrorists operating in Iraq next year than there were before Saddam fell

you are might be in for a nasty surprise.

You willing to make a bet?

[Aladdin]

Sure, let's make a bet. €50 okay?

My only concern is what to use as independent verification. Forgive me my saying so, but after the hilarious "Saddam has links with terrorism" claims by the US your government is not exactly a trusted source when it comes to terrorism checks.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Sure, let's make a bet. €50 okay?

My only concern is what to use as independent verification. Forgive me my saying so, but after the hilarious "Saddam has links with terrorism" claims by the US your government is not exactly a trusted source when it comes to terrorism checks.

How about "Janes"?

Of course, you have a problem. Saddam clearly does have links to terrorism. You just refuse to admit it.

Training sites have been found and that is a matter of public record.

Records have been located describing funding and that is a matter of public record.

And known and wanted terrorists have been captured, and found to have been working directly with Saddam to transfer funds and support to terrorist organizations. Also a matter of public record.

All 3 have been reported by the BBC, which is rather explicit about their insistence on their "impartiality".

But you won't accept those, so how about the leading independent intelligence agency in the world?

[Greenhat]

Links to Al Queda (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html)

Documents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml)

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by Greenhat
Training sites have been found and that is a matter of public record.
And again you conveniently forget to mention where the labs where, who was running them and under whose control the area was.

Records have been located describing funding and that is a matter of public record. Do you really want to discuss countries financing terrorist groups (or fighters as some would call them, eh ;) )? I wouldn't want you to get into trouble. But I'll level with you: I will accept Iraq has links with terrorism because of the funding it gives if you accept the United States of America has links with terrorism for similar funding.

And known and wanted terrorists have been captured, and found to have been working directly with Saddam to transfer funds and support to terrorist organizations. Also a matter of public record. I must concede that the US would never allow terrorists enter America and organise terrorism from there. But then Saddam never had the benefit of a CIA agency willing to travel abroad and give all needed support and training right on the terrorists' doorstep.

As for the links... well, if it ain't the world's most successful investigating newspaper, the Daily Telegraph! You have to wonder how they do it... first the papers 'proving' a Labour MP was on Saddam's payroll, and now the Holy Grail of America's argument is effortlessly found in a file cabinet. Boy, those guys know how to find stuff. How long before they come across papers proving Saddam Hussein is in fact Lord Lucan? The CIA should recruit them, really.

[pnjsurferpoet]

In what way was your freedom threadent by Iraq?

Read the London Times and Telegraph newspapers.

France passed information on the Iraq regarding plans to attack it.

And Saddam's people met with Bin Laden back in 1998 to fight their common enemy: the US.

A man was tracked and picked up in London with Ricin which he got from the Al Qaeda group operating in Northern Iraq.

I'm not going to call people traitors on the site. But know one thing: after what was revealed this weekend in the London papers...I will view you as traitors from here on. Thank God for strong people like Bush and Blair. I will never forgive France.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
Read the London Times and Telegraph newspapers. Oh yes the articles. Sorry, I just posted a thought on them on the thread Globe started so I won't repeat it here. Have a look.

A man was tracked and picked up in London with Ricin which he got from the Al Qaeda group operating in Northern Iraq. And for $64,000 contestant, can you name the people/group who is in control of the labs and the area where they are found?

I'm not going to call people traitors on the site. But know one thing: after what was revealed this weekend in the London papers...I will view you as traitors from here on.

ROTFLMFAO for 20 minutes! Your best one yet pnj!

[pnjsurferpoet]

Why I can't vote for a long time anyways so who cares what I think. But adults that can vote believe the reports from the London papers and documents found by British, not American, troops.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
And again you conveniently forget to mention where the labs where, who was running them and under whose control the area was.

The training areas that were discovered were South of Baghdad, and run by members of the Iraqi military. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to the news and to posts. I didn't say labs, I said training areas.

The question isn't about US or UK links to terrorists, it is about Iraq's links to terrorists. Links you insisted didn't exist.

You're backpeddling, Aladdin. Busy trying to divert people from the issue.

[pnjsurferpoet]

can you name the people/group who is in control of the labs and the area where they are found?

The group linked to Al Qaeda. The same group that had tested ricin on a local man in a village and watched him die last summer. This link is undeniable. The smoke screen was the Saddam didn't control the nothern area where they operated. But now with the new revelations...we know he probably invited them in. The one guy knew to go to Baghdad for medical treatment straight from Afghanistan.

[Aladdin]

The Kurds pnj, the Kurds. Mortal enemies of Saddam and in total control of the area where the labs were.

Oh, some of the 911 terrorists took flying lessons in Florida. According to your logic, that would make the US a terrorist state...
If you think that is ridiculous, then so is suggesting Iraq had links with terrorism because one man went to the doctor in Baghdad.

[pnjsurferpoet]

It's not that what you're saying is wrong Aladdin. It's just that if you are wrong and we had let Saddam stay in power...the error would be a big one for the US. What came out in the US after 911 was that we were tracking the guys who killed themselves and the passengers on the planes, the FBI was worried about being accused of racial profiling, that the immigration laws were too lax, and as Bin Laden himself basically said: hit America hard and it wll back off. Lot's of errors were made during the last few decades.

So again, when papers are found that link Saddam with Al Qaeda....because they have a common enemy....not because they were friends...not to believe that and to be wrong is a chance America isn't willing to take right now. It's also why the new Iraq will be a Muslim democracy...rather than run by a Shi'ite majority as a religious state. We won't take the chance again.

[Globe]

Originally posted by Greenhat


You're backpeddling, Aladdin. Busy trying to divert people from the issue.

At least the efforts/attempts at obfuscation are a constant within the waffling... ;)

[Aladdin]

Actually not Thanatos. I'm simply asking if Greenhat considers his country a terrorist state. Because being guilty of pretty much the same things, if the US is still considered not to have links with terrorism then Iraq hasn't either.

[Greenhat]

Really, Aladdin?

Or just according to you?

[Aladdin]

We've been down this road many times, be Clandestine, myself or others, and you have consistently denied or ignored common-knowledge reports of the US military/intelligence giving support to terrorists and thugs throughout Central America and South America as well as in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Including a certain Mr. O bin Laden and his jolly good bunch of people.

[Greenhat]

You mean the reports that written by people who weren't there after talking to people who also weren't there?

As for Bin Laden, I really wish you would bother to do some in-depth research instead of continuing to spew the same tripe over and over again. :rolleyes:

It's "common knowledge" that American revolutionaries fought from behind trees. It's wrong, but it is common.

It's "common knowledge" that the American Civil War was fought over slavery. Although slavery was one of the issues, it isn't the only one. Once again, wrong but common.

It's "common knowledge" that the German Army was the most powerful army in the world in 1940. Once again wrong, but common.

"Common knowledge"?

How about actually learning something instead of relying on common stupidity.

[Aladdin]

Sorry, I forgot a man only becomes a terrorist when he attacks American targets.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Sorry, I forgot a man only becomes a terrorist when he attacks American targets.

Like Yassar Arafat and the Munich Olympics?

[Aladdin]

Eh?

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
So again, when papers are found that link Saddam with Al Qaeda....because they have a common enemy....not because they were friends...not to believe that and to be wrong is a chance America isn't willing to take right now. It's also why the new Iraq will be a Muslim democracy...rather than run by a Shi'ite majority as a religious state. We won't take the chance again.

I can believe that Saddam and Al Qaeda have ended up together facing their common enemies. But who forced them into this alliance?

They would have been mortal enemies before - Secular, Police State dictator/thug with dreams of opulence Vs Fanatical, Muslim Zealot, leader of underground suicide network that brands non-muslims as 'infidels'. Quite apart from the difference in approach to their goals there is a fundamental difference in Ideology.

If a belligerent, flailing for someone to blame and economically incompetent administration had not needed a distraction from the fact that the 'War on Terror' was not going too well then they might never have ended up together.:mad:

[Greenhat]

That's called "transference". Attempting to put your values and reasoning on someone from another culture. It doesn't work.

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by Greenhat
That's called "transference". Attempting to put your values and reasoning on someone from another culture. It doesn't work.

So whats assuming them all to be thoughtless bloodthirsty maniacs then?

[Greenhat]

Ever heard "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Find out where it comes from.

Then you might start bothering to learn something about Arab culture and about the motivations of terrorists and dictators. Might even learn something.

To start with, you can find a good book on Arab culture. Try the Culture Shock! series, hopefully they have one on Saudi Arabia or Jordan.

Second, read the Scotland Yard report on the motivations and psychological profiles of terrorists. If you prefer, the FBI also has a report, and so does Interpol.

Third, read about Saddam's idol, Josef Stalin.

Last, if you want to bother, find one of the psychological profiles of Saddam Hussein and read it.

[Globe]

Originally posted by Greenhat
Like Yassar Arafat and the Munich Olympics?

Originally posted by Aladdin
Eh?

Is the above a definitive green beanie surgical strike? :eek:

De-esophogated the target, so easily? :lol:

My compliments, Sir! :D

[Aladdin]

I think his lack of clarification responds to the fact that he knows that mentioning Yasser Arafat on this thread was little more than a knee-jerk reaction unrelated to the subject in hand.

I could have replied by mentioning a certain overweigh terrorist living not far from Arafat and involved in some dirty deeds in Lebanon some time ago, but decided not to as it was equally irrelevant to this thread.

Still living in a parallel universe Thanatos? :lol:

[Globe]

Are you still living in denial???

Oops... forgot... For you, Arafat is a HERO...

[Aladdin]

Never said that. There are some here who admit to wrongdoings on both sides, remember? :)

[Globe]

... AND...

Munich was a "heroic" moment in the jihad against the Zionist nations of Israel and the United States of America.

Originally posted by Aladdin
Never said that.

Specifically. However...

You have made your perspective ever so well known... ;)

[Aladdin]

Yes. I have made it very clear that the Palestinians have a right to exist and live in their own land as a free nation, and that the Israeli government has committed crimes (and so have the Palestinians). I have also wished that Israel returns the land it's occupying, dismantles its illegal settlements and recognises the right to exist to a fully independent Palestinian nation.

I guess that makes me a terrorist-supporting anti semite, right?

:rolleyes:

[pnjsurferpoet]

a fully independent Palestinian nation...First Prime Minister of Palestine was just approved...the Middle East plan can now go forward.:thumb:

[Greenhat]

What Americans were targeted at Munich, Aladdin?

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Yes. I have made it very clear that the Palestinians have a right to exist and live in their own land as a free nation, and that the Israeli government has committed crimes (and so have the Palestinians). I have also wished that Israel returns the land it's occupying, dismantles its illegal settlements and recognises the right to exist to a fully independent Palestinian nation.

I guess that makes me a terrorist-supporting anti semite, right?

:rolleyes:

I'd like a Palestinian-recognized Israel...

[pnjsurferpoet]

I'd like a Palestinian-recognized Israel...

They will have to do that in order to have a state.

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
I'd like a Palestinian-recognized Israel...

There will be. IF there is a viable Palestinian state. Study some maps f Israel/Palestine. The Israelis have the vast majority of fertile land, easy building land and high land. If the palestinians have any more prime land the Fanatical Zionists stck a settlement on it.

There must be two viable states for there to be peace.

[Globe]

Originally posted by Greenhat
What Americans were targeted at Munich, Aladdin?

Doubt that you will ever receive an answer to your incovenient question... ;)

[Aladdin]

Not inconvenient Thanatos. Irrelevant. I know the word also starts with 'I' but its meaning is rather different. Check it out in a dictionary. If you don't happen to own one, www.dictionary.com might be able to help.

Do you mean the attack on the Israeli athletes? No Americans were targetted there AFAIK. And the link with Osama bin Laden would be?

[Globe]

Going from here:
Originally posted by Greenhat
Like Yassar Arafat and the Munich Olympics?

to here:

Originally posted by Aladdin


Do you mean the attack on the Israeli athletes? No Americans were targetted there AFAIK. And the link with Osama bin Laden would be?

would simply be another example of your waffling obfuscation, correct?

Inconvenient is the intended word, because it is inconvenient to your nefarious agenda to pose a question to you, hold to the question, and not allow you to pervert it into something completely different. Which...

would make Greenhat's observation ever so apropos:

Originally posted by Greenhat


You're backpeddling, Aladdin. Busy trying to divert people from the issue.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Not inconvenient Thanatos. Irrelevant. I know the word also starts with 'I' but its meaning is rather different. Check it out in a dictionary. If you don't happen to own one, www.dictionary.com might be able to help.

Do you mean the attack on the Israeli athletes? No Americans were targetted there AFAIK. And the link with Osama bin Laden would be?

Why is it you think Osama Bin Laden is the only terrorist the US is interested in?

You are a very confused individual, aren't you? One minute you say its a good thing that the USA is continuing to fight terrorism, the next you say idiocy like "And the link with Osama bin Laden would be?" What makes you think there needs to be a link?

THE WAR ON TERROR - Not THE WAR ON OSAMA BIN LADEN

:rolleyes:

[Aladdin]

The only terrorists the US is normally interested in are those who who attack US interests.

Or can we expect US special troops to land in South Africa and arrest Nelson Mandela any time soon?

Thanatos, I worry about you. I really do.

[Greenhat]

Well then, I guess the assistance that the US gave Britain in dealing with terrorists during the '80s was a mistake. And the assistance given to the French, Germans and Dutch in developing counter-terrorism teams during the 70s and 80s was also a mistake.

Problem for you, Aladdin, is you don't know what you are talking about, but you keep muttering on.

Another Al Queda link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.terrorist.capture/index.html)

Sarin and Mustard Gas (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html)

[Aladdin]

And the problem for you is that you have still failed to explained what prompted you to drop the name of Yasser Arafat when we were discussing the CIA and US army providing support to terrorists and thugs in Central and South America and elsewhere.

Perhaps you would care to explain it now? Out with it. Very clearly and in full detail. Like if you had to explain it to your President.

Then again, judging by the link you just posted you seem to believe that if a man wanted for terrorism lives in a country, that makes that country guilty of terrorism, so what chance do we have of a logical discussion?

Well I'd be damned. I never realised that the UK, US, Spain, France, Germany, Greece and countless other nations were terrorist states.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
And the problem for you is that you have still failed to explained what prompted you to drop the name of Yasser Arafat when we were discussing the CIA and US army providing support to terrorists and thugs in Central and South America and elsewhere.

Perhaps you would care to explain it now? Out with it. Very clearly and in full detail. Like if you had to explain it to your President.

Then again, judging by the link you just posted you seem to believe that if a man wanted for terrorism lives in a country, that makes that country guilty of terrorism, so what chance do we have of a logical discussion?

Well I'd be damned. I never realised that the UK, US, Spain, France, Germany, Greece and countless other nations were terrorist states.

Maybe you should bother to go back and reread your own posts. You might figure it out (although I doubt it).

You really are a fool, aren't you? Did you bother to note the fact that information was provided to allow this person to be arrested by the Iraqis and they ignored it? Did you bother to notice that we are talking about a police state that emulated East Germany with the security apparatus copied from the Stasi?

Tell you what. Travel to Vietnam as a wanted criminal. See how long you can live without being picked up (I'll bet less than 15 minutes in a city, not over 2 days in the countryside). And Vietnam isn't nearly as pervasive in their security systems as Iraq was. He lived there, and the Iraqi gov't knew he was there. Not quite the same situation as the nations you mentioned above.

[Aladdin]

There is in fact no end of countries that will not arrest wanted criminals. Take Sharon: not only he's not arrested and sent to Belgium for trial but he's allowed to be the head of state in Israel. Britain itself allowed one of the most brutal murderers of the 20th century, General Pinochet, to be sent home instead of extraditing him to Spain.

Instead of name-dropping and diverting attention it's about time you faced that your country has probably been in liaison with more terrorists, thugs, butchers and other scum than any other country in recent history. You were saying yesterday that your position in the US army does not allow you to criticise your own government. Perhaps it's time now for a dignified silence on this issue, eh?

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Instead of name-dropping and diverting attention it's about time you faced that your country has probably been in liaison with more terrorists, thugs, butchers and other scum than any other country in recent history. You were saying yesterday that your position in the US army does not allow you to criticise your own government. Perhaps it's time now for a dignified silence on this issue, eh?

(In a tory MP in the Commons kind of way) Hear, Hear!

[Greenhat]

Sharon was tried. In Israel. Belgium has no right to try him.

You love to make accusations, but as usual, you don't bother to actually understand what it is you are talking about.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally posted by Greenhat
That's called "transference". Attempting to put your values and reasoning on someone from another culture. It doesn't work. So when are the 'coalition' going to pull out of Iraq?

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
So when are the 'coalition' going to pull out of Iraq?

Soon enough.

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by Greenhat
Sharon was tried. In Israel. Belgium has no right to try him.

You love to make accusations, but as usual, you don't bother to actually understand what it is you are talking about.

Stop defaming us for one moment and if you really don't think we understand then EXPLAIN.

Oh, and if it was the War crimes tribunal then they do have a right to try him if he committed war crimes. Are you saying that you support Dubya and Slobodans view that it is a pointless court?

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Simbelyne

Oh, and if it was the War crimes tribunal then they do have a right to try him if he committed war crimes. Are you saying that you support Dubya and Slobodans view that it is a pointless court?

Explain how a Belgium court has any right to try anyone except those who commit a crime in Belgium?

War Crime tribunals are set up by those involved in order to try those accused. Nuremberg is one example. The Japanese courts another.

THe ICC is not. And the ICC specifically claims to be only applicable for crimes that the accused is not tried for otherwise. Sharon has already been tried.

But Brits will soon see how smart agreeing to the ICC was. There is a case being prepared against the UK troops in Iraq for warcrimes. Silliness in extreme, but really, why be surprised?

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
So when are the 'coalition' going to pull out of Iraq?

The only place where similar action has been taken, was Germany 1945, and again after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In obth of those historical moments, Germany had to rebuild their nation. From scratch. With little or no Govt in place.

Perhaps, as South Africa did in the 90s, Iraq can learn from Germany.

Perhaps too, the "get the troops out" brigade can too.