I would like people to list the terrorists that Saddam supported please. With some actual proof and not hear say and stuff you heard.
I would like people to list the terrorists that Saddam supported please. With some actual proof and not hear say and stuff you heard.
There's substantial evidence that he had WMDs up untill 1998. After that, he may had them, or not. Does it REALLY matter? He had them, he intended to use them, that's grounds enough.It matters if the reason for invading Iraq was supposedly WMDs that we knew they didn't have,
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I ask again, does it REALLY matter? Despite what American might think, Al-Qaueda is not the only terroristic organization in the world, and there has been a lot of terroristic activity before the eleventh of Septmenber, 2001. Iraq had supported, funded and generally sponsored much of that activity.he had connections to 9/11 which they knew he didn't have.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PLO, Hizaballah (with suport from Syria and Iran as well, Hizballah is a major org.), and many others. And if you're into picante details, Iraq even gave money to many families of suicide bombers, 10,000 dollars each.I would like people to list the terrorists that Saddam supported please
Oh, and Talus - having those paintings in Saddam's palaces doesn't mean he had direct connection to the 911 events. It just means he supported and condoned them, along with the rest of the Islamic\Arab world.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Focus. Ok.Originally posted by Talus
You missed the whole point completely Emerald Aeris, I'll walk you through it. Goyabean said that Saddam did not support the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center. In response to that, I believe Saddam did support the attacks, so much as to have artwork of it displayed all over his palaces.
So you're trying to take an argument about one point and apply it to a whole different area. Try to focus.
Saddam did support the idea of destruction of the US(naturally, US screwed him over), hence the artwork. But he was not responsible for 9/11, Colin Powell has already admitted that there was no connection between Bin Laden and Saddam.
And if we focus even more, the idea of Saddam giving WMDs to Islamic fundamentalists is ridiculous. Money? Of course. WMDs? Never. Saddam was brutal but too smart to arm Bin Laden with weapons. Fundamentalists is the keyword. Saddam was not a fundamentalists, and thus he accurately realized that by arming them he could have those weapons pointed at him.
That's what I meant by support. My bad.
Interesting that when Saddam sponsors terrorism it's bad but when the US sponsors terrorism, it's justified. Arming Bin-Laden and fabricating the Afghan war in the 1980s: justified. Nicaragua: justified. Selling arms and highly subsidized food to Saddam: justified. Harboring terrorists who slaughtered innocents in Cuba: justified. Greneda:justified. 2 million dead in Indochina: justified.
All those 3rd world countries...does it REALLY matter?
Smile even though its breaking
Not all terrorist organizations are Islamic fundamentalists. Most aren't, actually. Not all fight out of religious conceptions, and those are the ones Saddam helped.And if we focus even more, the idea of Saddam giving WMDs to Islamic fundamentalists is ridiculous. Money? Of course. WMDs? Never. Saddam was brutal but too smart to arm Bin Laden with weapons. Fundamentalists is the keyword. Saddam was not a fundamentalists, and thus he accurately realized that by arming them he could have those weapons pointed at him.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
I so much like the dripping attitude in that post, Talus. Very nice. You missed my point. So what if he approves of the attacks? That's irrelevant. It's not grounds to arrest him, and certainly not grounds to bomb him, or any other country who supports them. Giving money to known terrorists would be grounds for an arrest, as aiding criminals is illegal. Approving of them, or having paintings of their attacks is not. Those also aren't proof of him actually supporting (funding, helping etc) anything at all. It's all speculation. There's a big difference between agreeing with what they did, and funding it. I believe goyabean & co meant that Saddam wasn't linked to the attacks, which he wasn't. Whether or not he approved of them isn't, and shouldn't be an issue.
If we attacked every country who gave money to terrorists we'd have taken over Saudi Arabia long before Iraq. For some reason we tend to turn a blind eye to the Saudi's support of terrorism, their tyrrany of their people, etc.
Agreed.If we attacked every country who gave money to terrorists we'd have taken over Saudi Arabia long before Iraq. For some reason we tend to turn a blind eye to the Saudi's support of terrorism, their tyrrany of their people, etc.
Besides, Saudia has tons more oil than Iraq!
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
A person who is right is not a bigot. A bigot is an intollerant person who is (often) wrong. If I insisted that 1 + 1 = 2 and wouldn't hear of any other argument would I be a bigot? I don't think so, and thus my 'quote' applies. I'm not saying all bigots are right (though I think that could be inferred).Originally posted by Talus
Explain yourself. A Bigot shows intolerance to those who differ.
Is SFC. Albuquerque a bigot for working with children in a sports facility in Kurdistan? How about Col. Ibraheim for working at the Al Thawra hospital? I guess Lt. Col. Wunderlich is a bigot for helping repair the city median in Baghdad.
I guess I never realized how blind most people are. Pureghetto, you know nothing about what's happening in Iraq. You think you have all the answers, to the point where you can throw words like Bigot around, but you're so wrong.
To elaborate I don't think people who support the war have enough reasons to be right, and hence are bigotted.
That's not really the definition of a Bigot.Originally posted by Moo Moo the Ner Cow
A bigot is an intollerant person who is (often) wrong.
I think your word choice is off, if someone said, 'I want war with Iraq so I can fight Arabs' that would be a Bigot.
The way you use the word bigot could better be replaced with, say, stubborn.
Calling someone a bigot can be considered an extremely offensive insult, so make sure you use it correctly.
Yeah, a lot of people assume a big is racially related, but that doesn't make it true. Bigots are generally intolerent. His use of the word was correct, however, since it deals with opinions, they aren't necessarily wrong either. People strongly against the war could also be called a bigot, in the same context. But this is mostly semantics anyway.
It seems to me that questioning your countries motives, or actions is seen as unpatriotic. At least, that's the vibe I get from a lot of Americans, especially with the phrase "true patriot" floating around.
well, those of us with brains in the US know that questioning your government is one of the main tenets of our country.
Bush killed patriotism. I'm not saying that there aren't any more patriots, but rather that the ideal of patriotism has been polluted and twisted to a 21st century Red Scare complete with an all new wave of McCarthyism. The Communists are replaced with terrorists and the and the new illegal party is Islam.
Knock yourselves down.
I don't think that's entirely true. Sure, there are some people who feel that way, but they are usually among the extreme. You have the right to question whatever you want. To me, an American patriot is someone who believes that all mankind is free and equal, and that said freedom comes at a cost.Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
It seems to me that questioning your countries motives, or actions is seen as unpatriotic. At least, that's the vibe I get from a lot of Americans, especially with the phrase "true patriot" floating around.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Bigot actually does sort of mean stubborn. It doesn't mean ignorant or whatever 'I want to kill some Arabs! Sign me up!' implies.
big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
A patriot isn't a bigot. Don't get me wrong. I just feel that a lot of people have become so patriotic that they won't hear the counterarguments regarding the war, s'all. I'm not trying to insult anybody, even if I was blunt way way back there *points up*
I support the war, but I know it's bad. I don't support the alternative of having Saddam and Al Queda roaming around planning how to mess with America and unsettle the world's relative safety. But that doesn't mean I won't become warmongering and bigotted.
And one more time the quote 'i'm not a bigot i'm just right' can (should) be understood as sarcastic/cynical/sardonic. I'm done here.
Uhm, a patriot is someone who supports their country. There's really no other definition. A lot of people take that as someone who defends it without considering whether their actions are right or wrong.Originally posted by DocFrance
I don't think that's entirely true. Sure, there are some people who feel that way, but they are usually among the extreme. You have the right to question whatever you want. To me, an American patriot is someone who believes that all mankind is free and equal, and that said freedom comes at a cost.
I believe whoever used bigotted in reference to pro-war people meant that they won't listen to the other side, ie, won't consider that maybe the war isn't right, or wasn't started for the right reasons.
Posting Permissions
