USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[freddie]

Originally Posted by spyretto

No, I think they're a lot more sophisticated than that but in essence they're enemies of the west - I'm not convinced they wouldn't go against neutral western states - and I'm yet to be convinced they aren't common criminals fighting behind a religious pretext. [/size]

That's exactly what I think they are. I think we've become used to bitch over americans so much that we forget that the extremists rebeling in Iraq and Afganistans aren't freedom figthers fighting against foreign occupation, nor are they martyrs giving their lives for Allah. They're a bunch of vicious, careless people who decided to take as much from the situation at hand as they can. They have NOTHNG to do with common people of Iraq, who may oppose american occupation even, but they have no claims for power. The faundamentalists DO. Don't make any mistake here. They want chaos and destruction. They want fear. Nobody should feel safe. Those are the perfect conditions under which they operate. And the only means of them ever getting to power. By wester forces retreating cause of the fear of terror. And when they'd get to power they wouldn't be any better then Sadam was.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that american presence in the region is perfect. Nor do I feel the invasion was absolutely neccesary (nor was the ultimative motive the spread of democracy like likey say, but that's another story). But STILL... having fundamentalists come to power NOW is not a bad alternative. It's not an alternative at all. That'd make all the lives of people that have died till now in vain. I'm just sick and tired of some people saying it's RIGHT for extremist groups to rebel by kiddnapping and decapitating foreign businessmen and reporters on camera. NOTHING can justify that.

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

I'm not saying that american presence in the region is perfect. Nor do I feel the invasion was absolutely neccesary (nor was the ultimative motive the spread of democracy like likey say, but that's another story). But STILL... having fundamentalists come to power NOW is not a bad alternative. It's not an alternative at all.

There are no good solutions left, the occupation of Iraq is causing death and destruction, but the withdrawal of the occupation forces would cause the same thing.

The invasion of Iraq has started a war that should have never been started, a war between Christians and Muslims, but it's too late now. This war is going to be fought, because the US wants it and because Muslim fundamentalists want it.

Originally, i think the US thought it could do with Iraq what it did with Germany and Japan after WWII, but that reasoning was *so* flawed. Germany was a democracy before Hitler's dictatorship, so it was easy to restore a democratic regime over there. Japan was not a democracy of course, but Japanese are one single people with an undisputed monarch, it was quite easy to reorganize a new state around the emperor.
There's no such thing in Iraq, there's no such thing in most Arab countries for that matter, they are still organized around dozens of tribal chiefs. Thinking that you could just invade those countries and install democracy everywhere was *so* naive and deluded.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Though a lot of high and middle ranking AQ folks were captured or killed.

Point noted, as I said.



[quote]I think we are talking aobut same video. He doesn't claim responsibility directlly but talks about things only organisers could know.[/quote

We're playing with words. Yes, Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 and if you don't want to admit it don't.

[quote]Compare the numbers, will you? US contributes some 90% of troops.When countries like Azerbaijan contribute 20 troops they are not contributing anything menigfull. they are there because US pays for them and US can then claim more ocuntries are contributing troops.[/quote

Actually I'm surprised a country like Azerbaijan contrivuted that much.

Yes, it does. They want foreigners out.

They want foreigners out. Are we talking about the terrorist organization? They want foreigners out to reinstate the regime of their choice ( eg Taliban ). It's similar to what the US want to do with Iraq, reinstate a democratic ( ie harmless to their interests ) regime that would do business with them, be an ally etc. The terrorists want a fascist Islamic state that would enable them to act for their own goals. If we're to believe them, their struggle will be until the end of the world - or until they succeed in converting the whole world to Islam, destroy those who are "infidels" or die in the process. Every suicide bomber who becomes a martyr goes to paradise, the more infidels you kill the better seat you get next to Allah.
I somehow prefer the earthly - corrupt or not - American cause.

Apparently they were taken by mistake. It seems kidnapers didn't know who they captured until later. After that they couldn't let them go so they made some impossible demands. Ever wondered why they are still alive? Other hostages were kileld fairly quickly but these are alive for more than a month. Think about it.....

They're still doing it, they captured a Brit/Iraqui humanitarian worker who happens to be a woman. Or is it not the same? The French should have been released already. You know what all that is? It's bullshit. That's what the average Iraqui citizen would think if they were allowed to think freely.

Or maybe they are jkust p/o at foreigners occupying their countries. Ever thought of that?
And it's so easy to dismiss them as criminals, terrorists and such. That way you don't have to recognise that they might have legitimate complaints.

I think this is actually what they pretend to be in order to get people on their side. That they're fighting for the Palestinian cause is also bullshit. The fact that they're not bothered by the loss of Iraqui civilian life proves just the opposite. If we claim the Americans don't care about "collateral damage", the terrorists would rather use it for their own purposes.

Didn't you claim they are just criminals couple of sentances ago? So now they are religious fundies, eh?

I said I'm not convinced their motives are not those of common criminals. Unless you think those acts are according to the law of Islam, and their motives are religious, which is highly debatable.

And how many of them are foreigners? What percentage?

Go there and count them. Osama and Al-Zarqawi are not Iraqui, that's for sure.

Of course they are fighting. Their countries are occupied, aren't they? Or they don't have right to resist occupation?

You remind me of those Arabs who after 9/11 stormed the phone radio shows to claim that the terrorists were right for what they did. You claim it's occupation, where in fact, the Americans claim it's liberation. I haven't made up my mind what it is exactly. The country was not invaded to be occupied. And it seems that the cause of the Iraquis for resistance is left to foreign-led terrorists. Interesting concept , innit?

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by freddie

That's exactly what I think they are. I think we've become used to bitch over americans so much that we forget that the extremists rebeling in Iraq and Afganistans aren't freedom figthers fighting against foreign occupation, nor are they martyrs giving their lives for Allah. They're a bunch of vicious, careless people who decided to take as much from the situation at hand as they can. They have NOTHNG to do with common people of Iraq, who may oppose american occupation even, but they have no claims for power. The faundamentalists DO. Don't make any mistake here. They want chaos and destruction. They want fear. Nobody should feel safe. Those are the perfect conditions under which they operate. And the only means of them ever getting to power. By wester forces retreating cause of the fear of terror. And when they'd get to power they wouldn't be any better then Sadam was.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that american presence in the region is perfect. Nor do I feel the invasion was absolutely neccesary (nor was the ultimative motive the spread of democracy like likey say, but that's another story). But STILL... having fundamentalists come to power NOW is not a bad alternative. It's not an alternative at all. That'd make all the lives of people that have died till now in vain. I'm just sick and tired of some people saying it's RIGHT for extremist groups to rebel by kiddnapping and decapitating foreign businessmen and reporters on camera. NOTHING can justify that.

Absolutely. Bitching over America is perfectly ok, getting so deluded that one can't see the full picture is another matter. The Americans decided to go to Iraq, whether it was absolutely necessary or not is debatable, but now that they're there they should finish the job. Bush goes so far as to say that "If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy.If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose."
No matter how much I dislike the guy, he's not the Antichrist and will not the lead the world into WWIII. And I doubt the US policy on Iraq will change much should Kerry come into power.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by freddie

They have NOTHNG to do with common people of Iraq, who may oppose american occupation even, but they have no claims for power. The faundamentalists DO.

Then why aren't Iraqi people turning agaisnt them? Why aren't they informing US troops where they are hiding, where they hid weapons, where they planted bombs? Maybe because they agree with what insurgents are doing?

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Then why aren't Iraqi people turning agaisnt them? Why aren't they informing US troops where they are hiding, where they hid weapons, where they planted bombs? Maybe because they agree with what insurgents are doing?

I think they're torn between two different camps, they see the American forces as occupying forces and they're brainwashed to this purpose as well. But there's a great distinction between the Al Qaeda and Tawhid and Jihad terrorism and the Iraqui resistance, which is legitimate. The Al Sadr section will hopefully come into reconciliation and consequently be allowed to be part of the political process. Al Queda and their associates will not stop unless they're obliterated.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

We're playing with words. Yes, Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 and if you don't want to admit it don't.

No. I said he didn't directly claim responsibility. I said there is a video in which he indirectly claims responsibility. Claiming responsibility was never Al Qaida MO. Not for first WTC attack, not for Cole, not for embassies.

For the record, I'm sure AQ is behind them.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Actually I'm surprised a country like Azerbaijan contrivuted that much.

So we agree US is contributing most of troops?

Originally Posted by spyretto

They want foreigners out. Are we talking about the terrorist organization? They want foreigners out to reinstate the regime of their choice ( eg Taliban ).

Complete BS. How many groups have actually announced their goals beyond "Yankees out"?

And isn't installing regime of your choice one of things democracy is about?

Originally Posted by spyretto

It's similar to what the US want to do with Iraq, reinstate a democratic ( ie harmless to their interests ) regime that would do business with them, be an ally etc.

Basically puppet regime that will do US bidding. We saw what happens when groups that don't bow low to west are democratically elected. Results are ignored and pro-western dictatorship is installed.

Originally Posted by spyretto

The terrorists want an Islamic fundamentalist state that would enable them to act for their own goals.

BS. Who wants that? Which group said they want this?

Originally Posted by spyretto

If we're to believe them, their struggle will be until the end of the world - or until they succeed in converting the whole world to Islam, destroy those who are "infidels" or die in the process. Every suicide bomber who becomes a martyr goes to paradise, the more infidels you kill the better seat you get next to Allah.
I somehow prefer the earthly - corrupt or not - American cause.

BS. AQ might have that goal. Most of Iraqi insurgents want US out of Iraq and don't care much what happens outside of Iraq.

Originally Posted by spyretto

They're still doing it, they captured a Brit/Iraqui humanitarian worker who happens to be a woman. Or is it not the same? The French should have been released already.

Looking at how other kidnapings enede they should be dead by now. But they aren't. Doesn't that seems a bit odd (not that I'm complaining)?

Originally Posted by spyretto

You know what all that is? It's bullshit. That's what the average Iraqui citizen would think if they were allowed to think freely.

And if they are agaisnt what insurgents are doing why aren't they turning agaisnt them? Remember what Mao said about guerillas and fishes.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I think this is actually what they pretend to be in order to get people on their side. That they're fighting for the Palestinian cause is also bullshit.

Which group siad they are fighting for Palestinian cause in IRaq?

Originally Posted by spyretto

The fact that they're not bothered by the loss of Iraqui civilian life proves just the opposite. If we claim the Americans don't care about "collateral damage", the terrorists would rather use it for their own purposes.

From what I see not that many civilians are killed by them. They mostly target US troops (or occupiers) and Iraqi police (or occupation puppets-depending on your POV)

Originally Posted by spyretto

I said I'm not convinced their motives are not those of common criminals. Unless you think those acts are according to the law of Islam, and their motives are religious, which is highly debatable.

No need to drag religion in this. Most insurgents aren't religious fundies but natinalists (so to speak).

Originally Posted by spyretto

Go there and count them. Osama and Al-Zarqawi are not Iraqui, that's for sure.

OBL is not in Iraq. So that's 1 out of soem 20.000. WOW!!!!

Originally Posted by spyretto

You remind me of those Arabs who after 9/11 stormed the phone radio shows to claim that the terrorists were right for what they did. You claim it's occupation, where in fact, the Americans claim it's liberation.

Germans claimed they were invading Poland after Poles attacked them. UK and France saw it differentlly.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I haven't made up my mind what it is exactly. The country was not invaded to be occupied. And it seems that the cause of the Iraquis for resistance is left to foreign-led terrorists. Interesting concept , innit?

If country was not invaded to be occupied why wasn't there exist schedule announced?

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

I think they're torn between two different camps, they see the American forces as occupying forces and they're brainwashed to this purpose as well.

Brainwashed by who? Us controls media, schools... everything.

Originally Posted by spyretto

But there's a great distinction between the Al Qaeda and Tawhid and Jihad terrorism and the Iraqui resistance, which is legitimate. The Al Sadr section will hopefully come into reconciliation and consequently be allowed to be part of the political process. Al Queda and their associates will not stop unless they're obliterated.

Yes there is. In your past post you didn't make that distinction.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Brainwashed by who? Us controls media, schools... everything

I'm talking about the "freedom fighters" not the common people. You wouldn't expect common civilians to take up arms and fight against Al Queda, would you?

Like i've said several times, there is indeed a war going on between the West and Muslim fundamentalists, but opening a front line right in the center of the Middle East was such a strategic mistake, and we have Bush to blame for that. The war against Muslim fundamentalists should have been led like the Cold War was led: infiltration of enemy networks, targeted assassinations, special forces striking precise locations, etc.
Instead we have that giant mess that is Iraq, a mess that is going to spread to other countries. I don't trust Kerry more than Bush in that area though, i don't think Kerry has a good comprehension of international matters either.

Maybe, but they've cleared up the terrain for the crackdown of international terrorist and they've moved the fight over there, rather than in Europe or New York.. They also got rid of a vile dictator who had lost his way a long time ago, had gone against his own people and was willing to go against anyone who might have been an obstacle to his self interests and he should have been taken down in 1991.The analogy between the Cold War and the War on Terrorism is not the best, the terrorist network are much more difficult to be identified, because they're not regimes. The US need more allies in the Arab world, otherwise it'll be impossible to crack terrorism down. If Iran and Syria regimes harbour terrorism and Al Queda, they ought to be dealt with as well. That is not the case with Saudi Arabia though.

And not to forget: WMD might have been the excuse but the fact of the matter is that Saddam refused to comply fully with the UN demands. If he did he would have remained in power for awhile and the switch of the country towards democracy would have taken place without any intevention.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of Bush's war but we can't backdown now...before there's some kind of breakthrough.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

I'm talking about the "freedom fighters" not the common people. You wouldn't expect common civilians to take up arms and fight against Al Queda, would you?

Why not? They are picking up arms agaisnt strongest military in the world which is occupying their country.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Why not? They are picking up arms agaisnt strongest military in the world which is occupying their country.

Are they?

Even if they do, they're soon to stop.

Observers said last week the surrendering of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, mortars and machine guns was a sign an agreement between al-Sadr and the Iraqi government was being implemented as announced.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Are they?

Even if they do, they're soon to stop.

Don't count on it. Insurgency is growing.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

No. I said he didn't directly claim responsibility. I said there is a video in which he indirectly claims responsibility. Claiming responsibility was never Al Qaida MO. Not for first WTC attack, not for Cole, not for embassies.

For the record, I'm sure AQ is behind them.

oh do you? Then what's the point of discussing that?

So we agree US is contributing most of troops?

As the greatest military power in the world, we agree. Each contribute what they can.

Complete BS. How many groups have actually announced their goals beyond "Yankees out"?

And isn't installing regime of your choice one of things democracy is about?

oh yeah, I guess they want Yankees out and then they'll retire and become farmers.

Basically puppet regime that will do US bidding. We saw what happens when groups that don't bow low to west are democratically elected. Results are ignored and pro-western dictatorship is installed.

That is relative. For you any regime not hostile to the US might be considered a "puppet regime".

BS. Who wants that? Which group said they want this?

What do they want then? Enlighten me, coz all you do at the moment is reacting to my comments without providing a clear stance.

BS. AQ might have that goal. Most of Iraqi insurgents want US out of Iraq and don't care much what happens outside of Iraq.

How do you know?

And if they are agaisnt what insurgents are doing why aren't they turning agaisnt them? Remember what Mao said about guerillas and fishes.

cause the insurgents are Muslims, as simple as that.

Which group siad they are fighting for Palestinian cause in IRaq?

al Qaeda claims that all the time. In fact it's the ideological backbone of their organization.

From what I see not that many civilians are killed by them. They mostly target US troops (or occupiers) and Iraqi police (or occupation puppets-depending on your POV)

40+ Iraqui civilians were killed today, as a result of a suicide bombing that claimed 16 Iraqui police.

No need to drag religion in this. Most insurgents aren't religious fundies but natinalists (so to speak).

Really? In that case we agree. Why do they claim they are Jihad fighters against the infidels?

If country was not invaded to be occupied why wasn't there exist schedule announced?

I believe it was. I believe it has to do with the hand over of power to the elected Iraqui government as a result of democratic elections , and the gradual removal of US forces relative to security issues. They didn't say "we're annexing Iraq under US rule, did they?" What kind of occupation is that then?

Isurgency is growing? Perhaps it's your wishful thinking, I hope it's not true. So are you going to Iraq to make a difference?

[spyretto]

AQ might have that goal. Most of Iraqi insurgents want US out of Iraq and don't care much what happens outside of Iraq.

Tawhid and Jihad made an announcement of pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda, as you very well know. They're the number one enemy in Iraq right now. Who are the others? You're talking in general terms but never become specific.

[haku]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Do you honestly beleive Aq would terminate operation that was planned for several years just because democrat would be in White House?

Maybe not, but when you have dormant operatives in a country, you can choose to activate them at the most convenient moment. The attack on the WTC is the biggest terrorist attack ever made, it's not like any other attacks made before. It was being prepared long before Bush came into power but i don't think the date of the attack was set from the beginning. I think (only my opinion) that Al Qaeda decided to attack once Bush was in power because Al Qaeda knew this guy would retaliate without thinking what he was doing. Exactly what Al Qaeda wanted.

Originally Posted by spyretto

No matter how much I dislike the guy, he's not the Antichrist

Well, no. he's the Christ's warrior, lol. Bush may not be as bad as Muslim fundamentalists, but he is a Christian fundamentalist, and the daily tortures of prisoners in the Guantanamo camp shows that he doesn't shy away from totalitarian methods.

Originally Posted by spyretto

will not the lead the world into WWIII.

Actually, Bush's military advisors consider that WWIII has already been fought and won. It was the war against the Soviet Union and communism.

Those advisors are calling the war against terrorism WWIV. They have convinced Bush (and the US military) that this war has to be led now on a global scale.
At some point in the future, this war will spread from Marocco to Indonesia, so this is a World War, it's just the first stage of it.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

oh yeah, I guess they want Yankees out and then they'll retire and become farmers.

And why do you care what they do after US is out? Isn't that whole point of sovereignity? Freedom of choice?

Originally Posted by spyretto

That is relative. For you any regime not hostile to the US might be considered a "puppet regime".

And for you any regime not doing what Us wants is hostile.

Originally Posted by spyretto

What do they want then? Enlighten me, coz all you do at the moment is reacting to my comments without providing a clear stance.

I told you. "Yankees out." Beyond that they don't have goals.

Originally Posted by spyretto

How do you know?

Statements by insurgents.

Originally Posted by spyretto

cause the insurgents are Muslims, as simple as that.

So you are now saying insurgents have support of population?

Originally Posted by spyretto

al Qaeda claims that all the time. In fact it's the ideological backbone of their organization.

WRONG!!!!! Main Aq beef with US was US presence in Saudi Arabia. Palestine became issue much later.

Originally Posted by spyretto

40+ Iraqui civilians were killed today, as a result of a suicide bombing that claimed 16 Iraqui police.

40 were wounded , not killed. And it remains to be seen if they were civilians or police.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Really? In that case we agree. Why do they claim they are Jihad fighters against the infidels?

Because smaller jihad is defence of your home from invasion.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I believe it was. I believe it has to do with the hand over of power to the elected Iraqui government as a result of democratic elections , and the gradual removal of US forces relative to security issues. They didn't say "we're annexing Iraq under US rule, did they?" What kind of occupation is that then?

No, everything was open ended. After elections, after situation clears.... And there were never palns for compelte withdrawal. there was to be US presence in several bases.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Isurgency is growing? Perhaps it's your wishful thinking, I hope it's not true. So are you going to Iraq to make a difference?

One more person fighting occupiers woun't make a difference.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Tawhid and Jihad made an announcement of pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda, as you very well know. They're the number one enemy in Iraq right now. Who are the others? You're talking in general terms but never become specific.

Who are others? Sadrists (Mehdi army) for one. And others who aren't as organised. In case you didn't notice US isn't facing united opposition like they did in Vietnam. It's a lot of different groups with different agendas and little if any cooperation.

[coolasfcuk]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Give me one example where I posted someone else's opinion and claimed it as mine?

ha science 101 .... that statement which i quoted in my previous post here... is one big reciting of a cnn article ... but who cares anyways, RIGHT?

Instead of criticising me, why don't you post your opinion!

Why cant you take criticism? Criticism is a good thing ..... and you want my opinion?
Ok... its been said by people already... its a bunch of horse shit! I myself also cannot watch those debates - id rather go watch some theatre/movie - at least even the worst actor does a better job. And as Kerry might be just annoying by politicians default... Bush is just .... disgusting - I cant stand looking at the guy - let alone trying to hear what he says... i get in a rage and start yelling at the TV ...

Of course it matters who its going to be... but the fact of the matter is - both are BAD. it just happens that Bush is the worst case in the world!

Besides... do you realize that those people .... those debates you watch...are 2 marionettes in front of your eyes. do you think the one that wins would be the ONLY one in charge of USA? absolutelly NOT.. and i just find it hard to understand how are people supposed to vote for a single person when they (the chosen one) can pick whoever he wants for his/hers office after they have been elected

and we can go one and on...

see... its not as easy as night and day...or as you put it... not a direct quote but something in the lines of: Bush is dumb and Kerry present himself as a politician....

thats why I hate politics... so I give it a rest lol ... I cant vote right now in america anyway... so i will just watch

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

One more person fighting occupiers woun't make a difference.

I think it would. One suicide bomber can claim another dozen with him. Preferably "enemy traitors" but it could be collateral damage as well. If you can't live in peace, better die in war. It makes a lot more sense than voting.

[Kate]

Offtop:
luxxi, I think you should drop the attitude and debate calmly like spyretto and I did yesterday. He and I share different views, but when he expressed his opinions, I didn't feel offended. But your wording just crushed the atmosphere, I'm sorry to say. Please try to be careful with the words and phrases and tones you use. This is a political thread, and even though I know it's hard to stay out of fights here, I don't want it to turn ugly.