Please stop the "we support democracy" stuff

[RAKIdaRHINO]

70% of iraqis wouldn't ask why we invaded but rather why we took so long.

Sure, but you know perfectly well what i meant.

Here are a few facts for you about Iraq.

Why are you treating me like i dont know anything about Iraq?
After all, i unlike most americans can actually point it out and learned things about the world in school :/

Let me tell you some facts,
USA supported Saddam
USA provided Saddam with weapons
USA did nothing when Saddam used his weapons on the kurds
USA did nothing when Saddam oppressed the iraqi people
USA kept supporting Saddam.

Lets now look at today
USA has created more casualties in Iraq than Saddam
More civilians get killed now than under Saddam.
Iraq is less stable now than under Saddam
There are currently almost 5 million Iraqi refugees,
vast majority have fled as a result of the iraqi invasion in 2003
Iraqis are not returning to Iraq, on the contrary people are still fleeing as we speak
USA wanted to fund american contractors using profits from iraqi oil, luckily enough their efforts seems to have failed to some degree. Iraqi oil belongs to Iraq.
USA disastrous mistakes including banning everyone in any way connected to the baath party along with the disbanding of the iraqi military has led to tons of weapons ending up in the wrong hand and a country without any real structure.
Where as the majority of the people surely want to be free from Saddam a vast majority is opposing the american occupation.
A majority of the iraqi population thinks Iraq would be safer if USA left.
A majority of the iraqi population supports a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces
Want me to continue?

--

Dont get me wrong, im not saying that nothing good will come out of this whole thing. I certainly hope that Iraq can become an independent stabilized country and that the refugees can once again return home. The iraqi people is happy that Saddam is gone and are hopeful for the future, but they want to make their own future, not have you dictate it for them.

And as i said, no luckily enough iraqi constitution prevented you from using their oil to pay off american contractors, that doesnt mean you didnt try though. If the iraqi war was about liberating the people, why didnt you act when Saddam attacked the kurds? Why did you supply Iraq with weapons? Why did you support Saddams war against Iran that led to over a million casualties? To me the answer is simple, as long as he played ball you had no problem supporting him. You didnt care what weapons he used or what he did to the people of Iraq as long as you got what you wanted. Same thing has happened over and over all around the world through out your violent history.

Does the war lack benefits for the Iraqi people? Of course not. But you didnt go there to find WMDs and you didnt go there to liberate the people of Iraq. Iraq posed no threat to the American people and Saddam wasnt linked to Al-Qaeda. Was removing Saddam a good thing? Sure, but thats hardly all you did and you hardly removed him as a favour to the iraqi people. No one outside of America buys that bull****, and thats the hard solid truth.

[METALLICA]

"Terrorism is a symptom, not the disease itself. The best way to fight terrorism (god that word is so overused by now) is to cut supply line of new terrorists. Terrorism cannot only be seen as evil and fanatic, you also have to understand what pushes someone as far as killing oneself for his cause. Im not saying you shouldnt fight terror, but your war on terror hasnt made you safer, on the contrary it only aids those you claim to fight."

fyi, the terrorist effort existed long before the u.s. wrote its declaration of independence

the terrorists of today aren't just terrorists by nature, they are terrorists by birth, by religion, by geographic and sociological influence. there is no cutting of supply lines unless you wish to kill every last muslim, most of which don't even relate to the interpretation that breeds terrorists acts.

and in reply to what is safe or not, we ARE safer, in case you haven't noticed, the u.s. security measures have been drastically raised to a much higher standard, and as a result, there have been no more mass killings on u.s. soil. i doubt there ever will be again.

and our strategy was never to destroy the enemy, it was to bring the fight to them, so that they would expend their resources and panic themselves into exposure (ie: saddam)

the interpretation of islam that leads to terrorist acts will never be eliminated, therefore, the fight will never end. it isn't a matter of supply lines, it's the simple fact that there has been a holy war in the middle east/east europe/western asia for over a thousand years, ever since muhammad saw that judaism and christianity were working for the people of the west, ever since he adapted it to his own people and proclaimed himself a prophet, as a result giving all 3 religions the same location of origin, thus commencing an age-long quarrel for ownership over said land.

the reason that muslim terrorists hate the u.s. is because the u.s. created israel, and gave a foothold to their enemy that was otherwise long-lost

nothing will take that hate away, and there will always be a supply line of hate as long as there are religious beliefs

[RAKIdaRHINO]

fyi, the terrorist effort existed long before the u.s. wrote its declaration of independence

indeed, they werent really called terrorists back then though, at least not to the same extent. In fact terror as we knew it pre 9/11 is far from what terror was made after that day. Not because terrorist activity has increased, but because its part of the propaganda machinery - Its the #1 card that states play out nowadays to legitimize their actions.. russia, china, indonesia, sri lanka, spain, marocco, america, israel doesnt really matter..

the terrorists of today aren't just terrorists by nature, they are terrorists by birth, by religion, by geographic and sociological influence.

No one is born a terrorist. Terrorism has nothing to do with religion. Terrorism has nothing to do with nationality. Freedom fighter or terrorist is all in the eye of the beholder, just like ones liberator is the other guys rebel. What is terrorism, who defines terrorism, what separates terrorism from other hostile activities? Every religion has its fanatics, every political movement has its extremists, that doesnt make everyone a fanatic extremist. By your logic we need to kill all christians because some people kill in the name of Christ. Cutting supply lines has nothing to do with killing anyone, it has something to do with granting them a life worth living. Terrorist groups just like all extremist groups feed of the same people. It doesnt really matter if its nazis, suicide bombers or fascists pricks. No one is born a nazi and no one is born a terrorist. We create terrorism by actively upholding great injustices around the world. Will making the world a better place remove all extremists? No, but its a step in the right direction.

and in reply to what is safe or not, we ARE safer, in case you haven't noticed, the u.s. security measures have been drastically raised to a much higher standard, and as a result, there have been no more mass killings on u.s. soil. i doubt there ever will be again.

If that argument actually had any logic i would refute it. Since it doesnt theres no need to. Safety is an illusion, control is virtually non-existant. The illusion of safety just as the illusion of a threat serves its obvious purpose though.

Anyways, i fail to see what your security measures has to do with the invasion of iraq and afghanistan. Wouldnt you by your logics, of lack of it, have been safer if you spent all that money on even more security measures and cutbacks of liberty? :)

and our strategy was never to destroy the enemy, it was to bring the fight to them, so that they would expend their resources and panic themselves into exposure (ie: saddam)

Que? Panic Saddam into exposure? Expend their resources? a) Saddam wasnt a terrorist b) Terrorist groups are just as well funded, if not more so, today than they were pre 9/11 c) America is the one wasting money. Like Usama said himself, for every dollar he spends you spend a million. d) if youre not going to destroy the enemy, are you planning on warring all over the world until the end of days? After all, there are terrorists in pretty much every nation in the world. e) Why arent you in saudi arabia, lebanon, egypt, the emirates? Thats where the 9/11 hijackers came from. You cant bring the fight to the terrorist by invading a nation because terror is nationless.

the interpretation of islam that leads to terrorist acts will never be eliminated, therefore, the fight will never end.

What leads people to make this interpretation? Happiness or despair? The interpretation of Christianity that leads to terrorist acts will by the same logics never be eliminated either, therefore you must fight Christianity too! In fact im quite sure that there are plenty of people in America that if they could would perform terrorist acts towards arabs if they could. Does that mean you need to invade your own country aswell, or is terror only terror when it strikes you? If the fight never ends, why did you have to declare war on it? Wouldnt war already have been declared?

it's the simple fact that there has been a holy war in the middle east/east europe/western asia for over a thousand years, ever since muhammad saw that judaism and christianity were working for the people of the west, ever since he adapted it to his own people and proclaimed himself a prophet, as a result giving all 3 religions the same location of origin, thus commencing an age-long quarrel for ownership over said land.

Talk about oversimplifying the situation. If religion was the cause of terrorism how come there are atheist terrorists? If Mohammed had jack **** to do with it, how come there are terrorists all over the world that never heard a single one of his words. Religion has very little to do with conflicts of today, they are at best used as tools to justify ones cause. Muslims like Christians are not allowed to kill, yet they both do. Because they are christians or muslims? Hardly, but rather because theyre not. Its somewhat sad that a people that claims to be Christian still supports acts that goes against everything that Christianity stands for. Ive seen plenty of Americans screaming for their own holy war, but when they do its all dandy because they have the right God. Geez, gimme a break.

the reason that muslim terrorists hate the u.s. is because the u.s. created israel, and gave a foothold to their enemy that was otherwise long-lost

US didnt create Israel, UK did. Learn your history my young padawan. The conflict hardly started with that though, it by far pre-dates the existence of your beloved country USA.

nothing will take that hate away, and there will always be a supply line of hate as long as there are religious beliefs

No one is born a hater. Hate breeds hate. Religion has nothing to do with it. People who have food on the table, water to drink and control of his life does not kill his neighbour. Conflicts are as easily prevented as they are started. History has shown time after time how neighbours over night can go from being the best of friends to hating each other. Going back to mutual understanding however takes time and dedication to the cause. Making the life worse of the every day man however does nothing to prevent terrorism, it fuels it.

[freemehul]

No one is born a terrorist. Terrorism has nothing to do with religion. Terrorism has nothing to do with nationality. Freedom fighter or terrorist is all in the eye of the beholder, just like ones liberator is the other guys rebel. What is terrorism, who defines terrorism, what separates terrorism from other hostile activities?

gosh you are naive

I'd say take a good look at the pictures of the terrorists on board of those planes at 9/11. Particularly take a good look at their eyes. Notice any resemblance between them?

Terrorism is a symptom, not the disease itself.

ever so true

[MorbidAngel]

Most ppl fail to see that US policy towards other countries won't change no matter which president is on the throne..

And terrorism thing is bs

[RAKIdaRHINO]

Naive? More like educated and not a racist ignorant piece of ****.

Take a look at the german terrorists like brigitte mohnhaupt, what colors are her eyes?
Take a look at the irish terrorists in various fractions of IRA? what colors are their eyes?

[METALLICA]

you misinterpreted 90% of what i wrote

i don't feel like wasting any more time explaining my point of view, as it wouldn't change anything

good effort though, at least you're passionate about something

[Swirvin' Birds]

gosh you are naive

I'd say take a good look at the pictures of the terrorists on board of those planes at 9/11. Particularly take a good look at their eyes. Notice any resemblance between them?

Yea, most were Saudi Arabian. No Iraqis there. Again showing ignorance... a obvious racist pos.

Heres a photo of a Muslim for you.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-118678

America, where people are free of religious persecution... yea, right.

[METALLICA]

freedom has an exception for the extent of rationality

if terrorists that attack the u.s. are muslim, but not all muslims are terrorists, then obviously, it isnt a safe conclusion that all muslims are a threat

it is, however, a safe conclusion that muslims are more likely to be a threat to national security than other people

stereotypes aren't always irrational, but when they are rational, and the extreme of the stereotype happens to be terrorist behavior, you can bet on racial profiling and the overstepping of the freedoms and rights of one, for the sake of potentially many

[AFKain]

Not all terrorists that attack the US are muslims. And the ones that are (well not really since those acts are against islam) are very few. There are 1-2 billion muslims in the world, saying that muslims are terrorists is a lie.

Take the Oklahoma bombing for example, the terrorist responsible for that was an Irish-American, does that mean that Irish-Americans are more likely than others to commit acts of terrorism?

American soldiers have committed rapes, torture and various other crimes, is the US military an evil organization? Is every US soldier a potential rapist, a threat to women everywhere?

[RAKIdaRHINO]

it is, however, a safe conclusion that muslims are more likely to be a threat to national security than other people

No it is not, because muslim terrorists arent the only threat to America. The safe conclusion is that fundamentalists and extremists are a larger threat to national security than normal people. Islam isnt a threat to America, Muslims arent a threat to America, Fundamentalists/Extremists/Psychos are.

And even if you were right and muslims would pose a larger threat to your national security youre acting way out of proportion. Roughly 25% of the worlds population are Muslims, how many of those ~1.5 billion people are terrorists? Extremists are found pretty much everywhere regardless of religion and theyre pretty evenly spread around the different religions and world views. Treating 1.5billion people like potential terrorists to make you "safer" is retarded.

Ofc they are AFKain, makes perfect sense.
Irish people are more likely to be terrorists, just look at IRA. Omg, all irish people needs to be kept in check and wear crosses on their clothes.. hmm, what more did Hitler do that America can do too? =)

[Someone]

ever since he adapted it to his own people and proclaimed himself a prophet, as a result giving all 3 religions the same location of origin, thus commencing an age-long quarrel for ownership over said land.

Unless im falsely informed, Islam were the first ones to actually allow other religions in Jerusalem while they ruled. As opposed to the Christians/Jews/whatever.

[METALLICA]

"Treating 1.5billion people like potential terrorists to make you "safer" is retarded."

and yet we're doing it, and it's working

"Unless im falsely informed, Islam were the first ones to actually allow other religions in Jerusalem while they ruled. As opposed to the Christians/Jews/whatever."

you are falsely informed. first of all, islam didn't even exist until 500 A.D. second, islamic literature is the most blatant in saying that infidels (non-believers) are not to be befriended or assisted in any way, and are to be converted by any means possible. if that cannot be done, then they are to be killed (read up on some history if you don't believe it).

the misinterpretation is made when people take it into their own hands to judge a person or people of being hopelessly non-believers, and then they carry out an execution or holy war. the actual interpretation is that those who live and die without coming to serve allah will die a thousand deaths.

they have to live and die in ignorance, not be killed by ignorant muslims. big difference.

[AFKain]

and yet we're doing it, and it's working

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That there hasn't been a second WTC doesn't mean that your mistreatment of muslims is doing any good. In order to back that claim up you need to show that racial prejudice of 1.5 billion people is making you safer, not just state that it does. And if you should manage to do that (which I highly doubt) you need to show that that racism is proportional to this alleged increased safety.

[freemehul]

don't make things bigger than they are

remember Turkey

it proofs both of you wrong


that doesn't mean though that closing down Gaza, isn't working, as despite how wrong it is, it is working