War on Terror is Wrong - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2005, 06:46 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:13 PM
that is a whole different discussion



but it is VERY telling that the president and members of his Administration have often said there have been no terror attacks in U S since Sept. 11, 2001.

So much so, that you even repeated it
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:51 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 08:13 PM
I agree that it's a whole different discussion. Hence the "You know what I mean. "
__________________

__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:03 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
I agree that it's a whole different discussion. Hence the "You know what I mean. "


So you concede the administration mislead the country
when they used it to further their agenda, the Patriot Act and Homeland security.






Probably created by the same source
as the phony "yellow cake" documents

as it served the same purpose
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:07 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:13 PM
You must work in the Department of Conspiracy Theories.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:11 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:13 PM
you have no concern that the Anthrax killer that killed 5 Americans and made dozens of others permantly ill

is free?


Why is the Administration not outraged that someone faked "yellow cake" documents and ruined their credibility internationally?

Why is there no effort to find the forger?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:17 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 08:13 PM
I honestly don't know what you're getting at. Are you saying that the anthrax attacks were related to Al Queda and the the government denies it? Or that they were unrelated and the government tried to connect the two?

Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
okay, leaving the Iraq war aside...what political, economic, and diplomatic routes should we be taking that we aren't at the moment?
I thought I'd get our thread back on track.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 06:20 AM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 08:13 PM
i gave up trying to argue my side...it appears pointless.

good luck and god bless us all.
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:24 AM   #98
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Oh this is the worse argument, just like oh well there haven't been any attacks since 9/11. You can't prove this is a backing down for you have no clue as to what was planned pre war.

Now you're beginning to understand.

It has nothing to do with being sued, you stop it before they turn so desperate to turn themselves into bombs. Take a guess how large these terrorist groups were before the war...now how come out of several 1000 are only a handful strapping bombs or flying planes? The pro-war crowd has generalized that every member of a terrorist group is willing to strap a bomb to himself and the truth is that's completely false. Otherwise they would have just learned how to pull a chord and all done it at once all around the world. It's real easy to teach a poor impoverished and uneducated man that his religion requires him to be a martyr.




I'm sorry you mean there isn't any smuggness in the shoot em all crowd? Please.
I can turn around the same argument on you. How do you know the war on terror isn't working? You don't know there haven't been foiled missions; that Bin Laden is even alive for sure; and that the attacks are even Al Queda.

As to stopping it before they turn so desperate that they turn themsleves into bombs.

1) That's no frickin' excuse. I guess you can pity the poor terrorists if you want to; but I don't. Criminals are criminals and they're worse because they are subverting their own religion by making it an excuse for their political goals.

2) These countries aren't poor! Their governments are choosing to not help their own people. Well, giving these countries more money isn't doing anything but making the governments richer. We could take out the governments... But I don't think you'd like that solution.

3) Yeah, please. The Pro-defence crowd is at least agreeing on a solution. The anti war crowd just criticizes.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:26 AM   #99
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
that is a whole different discussion



but it is VERY telling that the president and members of his Administration have often said there have been no terror attacks in U S since Sept. 11, 2001.

So much so, that you even repeated it
You do know of course that the sources of the anthrax have been traced to domestic terrorism, right?
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:28 AM   #100
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en


i guess the lack of said necessities will in no way drive people toward reactionary ideology with the promise of something better? martyrdom, virgins, what have you.



you are twisting my words and arguing a point that i did not even make. i'm fully aware that bin laden is financially stable. you're correct, he did not attack the trade center for economic gain. i've never seen anyone argue that he did. he has a personal vendetta against the u.s. and i think this has probably been discussed numerous times here. the point that i think you missed, is that econ-political conditions allow people like bin laden to take advantage of the less fortunate with promises of martyrdom and virgins, like i mentioned before, in order to carry out their goals. ultimately it is the state of the society that must be dealt with if you're looking for extremist islamic fundamentalism to go away. i don't think bombs can fix that. well, unless you kill ever last one of them.



you can provide meaningful alternatives.
I'm not twisting your words. I'm saying your words are completely off base.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:37 AM   #101
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,651
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


I can turn around the same argument on you. How do you know the war on terror isn't working? You don't know there haven't been foiled missions; that Bin Laden is even alive for sure; and that the attacks are even Al Queda.

As to stopping it before they turn so desperate that they turn themsleves into bombs.
I know it's not working because it will NEVER end terrorism.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

1) That's no frickin' excuse. I guess you can pity the poor terrorists if you want to; but I don't. Criminals are criminals and they're worse because they are subverting their own religion by making it an excuse for their political goals.
Who said anything about pitying the terrorists, you're great at twisting arguments aren't you? I pity the children growing up in these circumstances.

Criminals are criminals? So I guess that criminals are born and that the majority just choose to live in poverty. What a fucking crock? Look at the facts, the majority of violent criminals were raised in poverty.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

2) These countries aren't poor! Their governments are choosing to not help their own people. Well, giving these countries more money isn't doing anything but making the governments richer. We could take out the governments... But I don't think you'd like that solution.
No you're right our friends Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorist came from isn't poor...funny how we didn't go after them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock

3) Yeah, please. The Pro-defence crowd is at least agreeing on a solution. The anti war crowd just criticizes.
Yeah come back in 5 years and tell me how this SOLUTION of yours is working...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:54 AM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Yeah, please. The Pro-defence crowd is at least agreeing on a solution. The anti war crowd just criticizes.
What exactly are you using the term "pro-defence" to describe? People who supported the war in Iraq -- wouldn't it be more logical to describe them as "pro-war" or even specifically "pro-Iraq war"? People who support defending America from terrorism -- that would include people who opposed the war as well as those who supported it.

If you're using the term to refer to people who supported the Iraq war then it's not true to say they agree on a solution. Supporters of the war had vastly different ideas about how the war should be carried out, they have vastly different ideas about how it should continue. Some supporters of the war are of the opinion that the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately, some argue the US should stay there in the long-term, some have changed their minds and now wish they'd never supported the war. In short, they are by no means agreed on a solution.

And of course those who oppose the war are going to criticise -- they disagreed with the decision. People criticise decisions with which they disagree, particularly when they're decisions as important as the decision to go to war. People who opposed the war did offer alternatives -- some argued that more time should be given to weapons inspectors before invading, some argued that more time should be spent working with the UN to find a solution, some argued no solution was necessary because Saddam did not have the weapons the US claimed he had. People offered plenty of alternative policies and yes, when the government ignored all of those alternatives, they criticised the government. Is that such a terrible thing?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 02:50 PM   #103
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




So you concede the administration mislead the country
when they used it to further their agenda.......

Probably created by the same source
as the phony "yellow cake" documents

as it served the same purpose



Quote:
Pentagon plans propaganda war

Donald Rumsfeld



Secretary Rumsfeld is checking the legality of proposals


By Tom Carver
Washington correspondent

The Pentagon is toying with the idea of black propaganda.

As part of George Bush's war on terrorism, the military is thinking of planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media.

A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian title of the Office of Strategic Influence.

It is well funded, is being run by a general and its aim is to influence public opinion abroad.

Black and white

It has been canvassing opinion within the Pentagon on what it should do.

The options range from the standard public relations stuff - doing more to explain the Pentagon's role - to more underhand tactics such as e-mailing journalists and community leaders abroad with information that undermines governments hostile to the United States.

These e-mails would come from a .com return address rather than .mil to hide the Pentagon's role.

The most controversial suggestion is the covert planting of disinformation in foreign media, a process known as black propaganda.

All this has sparked off a fierce debate within the Pentagon. The options range from "the blackest of black programmes to the whitest of white," one official told the New York Times.

Some generals are worried that even a suggestion of disinformation would undermine the Pentagon's credibility and America's attempts to portray herself as the beacon of liberty and democratic values.

Under review

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked a team of lawyers to check the proposals' legality.

The Pentagon is forbidden from spreading black propaganda in the American media, but there is nothing to stop an American newspaper picking up a story carried abroad.

The Pentagon is well versed in what it calls "psyops", dropping leaflets and using radio broadcasts to undermine enemy morale.

But these kind of activities have always been confined to the battlefield, such as Afghanistan.

Using covert tactics on media outlets of friendly countries is much more controversial.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 12:17 AM   #104
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I know it's not working because it will NEVER end terrorism.

Who said anything about pitying the terrorists, you're great at twisting arguments aren't you? I pity the children growing up in these circumstances.

Criminals are criminals? So I guess that criminals are born and that the majority just choose to live in poverty. What a fucking crock? Look at the facts, the majority of violent criminals were raised in poverty.

No you're right our friends Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorist came from isn't poor...funny how we didn't go after them.



Yeah come back in 5 years and tell me how this SOLUTION of yours is working...
You're right. You are living in a state of denial.

You say you know it's not working; how do you know?

You say you don't pity the terrorists you pity the children. Well I do too. But when the children grow up to become terrorists I stop pitying them.

The majority of violent criminals are born in poverty. Boo hoo. Here's something to chew on; the majority of people born in poverty DON'T become violent criminals.

Talk about twisting arguments!!!! I said these countries from which many terrorists come from are not poor countries. So then I ask how if they're not poor will sending more money their way help those in need? You respond back with we didn't go after Saudi Arabia. What does that have to do with it? Do you want to go after Saudi Arabia? So then, you do in fact support the war in Iraq, but you just feel it should be expanded to their neighbors as well? Interesting; but still not the point of the argument. Why don't you respond to how we're supposed to make these people not poor when their own governments already have the ability to make them not poor?

As to coming back in five years, well it's been four years and there's been no terrorist attacks on US soil, so I'd have to say it's working so far.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 12:24 AM   #105
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


What exactly are you using the term "pro-defence" to describe? People who supported the war in Iraq -- wouldn't it be more logical to describe them as "pro-war" or even specifically "pro-Iraq war"? People who support defending America from terrorism -- that would include people who opposed the war as well as those who supported it.

If you're using the term to refer to people who supported the Iraq war then it's not true to say they agree on a solution. Supporters of the war had vastly different ideas about how the war should be carried out, they have vastly different ideas about how it should continue. Some supporters of the war are of the opinion that the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately, some argue the US should stay there in the long-term, some have changed their minds and now wish they'd never supported the war. In short, they are by no means agreed on a solution.

And of course those who oppose the war are going to criticise -- they disagreed with the decision. People criticise decisions with which they disagree, particularly when they're decisions as important as the decision to go to war. People who opposed the war did offer alternatives -- some argued that more time should be given to weapons inspectors before invading, some argued that more time should be spent working with the UN to find a solution, some argued no solution was necessary because Saddam did not have the weapons the US claimed he had. People offered plenty of alternative policies and yes, when the government ignored all of those alternatives, they criticised the government. Is that such a terrible thing?
No, I don't think anyone in their right mind is pro war. I certainly don't want my neighbors kids getting killed in some other country. I most definately do not like the fact of innocent civillians in other countries getting killed. I'm definately no pro war.

If you think the war in Iraq isn't about defense you either arn't seeing the bigger picture, are naive, or are clouded by your own political beliefs. All you have to do is look at the map and see who Iraq's neighbors are to know the real reason why we are there.

As to your solutions... The UN has never been effective at most anything; weapons inspections were going on for over TEN YEARS, and your "alternatives" (Whatever those are) didn't seem to be working either. But that's neither here nor there; those policies didn't work and aren't being pursued. So either present other solutions or quit bitching about it!
__________________

__________________
Snowlock is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com