Bono's Comments on Terrorism

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by Irvine511




while i totally agree, i think it's worth saying that confronting this threat doesn't mean that we must turn ourselves into a presidential protectorate where torture, detainment, and rendition are seen as necessary to protect ourselves.

for they are not. and they destroy whatever is indeed worth protecting.

And to me, this is why we have terrorists ready to kill us. I am not sure I agree with linking it to the poor as Bono has done. I am willing to entertain the thought that this is part of it. But I would find this at the very core of the issue. Good post.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


If they had done it in the gulf war....

It would have been a true multinational force, including countries from the region.

It should have been done then.

And I would bet with the true coalition, Iraq would look a lot different today.

it seems to me that the horror show that the last 4 years have been has precisely proved why nobody wanted to occupy Iraq, either in 1991 or in 2003.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


And to me, this is why we have terrorists ready to kill us. I am not sure I agree with linking it to the poor as Bono has done. I am willing to entertain the thought that this is part of it. But I would find this at the very core of the issue. Good post.

they want to kill us because we respect the rule of law, we respect the Geneva Convention, everyone is entitled to legal representaiton, we do not rendition, and we DO NOT TORUTRE.

or at least that's how it used to be.

the argument for the continued defense of "our way of life" seems to me to be less compelling with each passing year, as "our way of life" is continually flushed down the toilet of presidential privilege.

[Vincent Vega]

Bush even offered Blair to stay out of Iraq, as Blair now said in an interview.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by Irvine511




it seems to me that the horror show that the last 4 years have been has precisely proved why nobody wanted to occupy Iraq, either in 1991 or in 2003.

I again disagree....

If you look at the coalition of 1991....

I think it would have been different. It was a coalition supported by the UN, and by Middle Eastern States.

WOuld it have been perfect, no.....but it would have been better equipt to handle the situation we are in. It would have saved all of the years of unecessary sanctions.

I am not saying it would have been perfect. I am saying it would have been better done then, rather than now.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Dreadsox

I am not saying it would have been perfect. I am saying it would have been better done then, rather than now.

i think it would have been better, i agree, but i also think a successful occupation of Iraq is an impossibility under any circumstance. i would have prefered Bush the Elder rather than the tantrum-throwing poopy-pants Junior, but i don't think either would have had much different outcomes.

let's not forget, there were very, very good reasons why they did not invade in 1991.

[Dreadsox]

The 1992 Election? hehe

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Bush even offered Blair to stay out of Iraq, as Blair now said in an interview.

And it's actually the whole reason why Blair was 'in', because they knew the US were going to do it anyway, regardless of whoever else was in or whether the UN supported the idea, or even if the entire planet was against it. He thought that they were just going to do it because they could, everyone else be damned, and that this was wrong, not only in a global sense, but also just because of the irreparable damage it would do to the US. That is precisely why Blair and the UK were 110% supportive. 'Maximum public support = maximum private influence" was his mantra through it all. He thought he could steer them down the right path, and he very nearly did. Bush, to his credit, did see the logic behind Blair's argument and did work with that against the express wishes of Cheney and Rumsfeld (who everyone in the Blair camp thought were flat out crazy, and in the case of Rumsfeld, dangerously stupid). So they did go the UN route, with other countries tagged in, and then again when that all looked to be going pear shaped, in those final weeks, Blair thought he was done for and Bush gave him another out. Blair's office were actually preparing for his resignation or sacking at that time. They really thought it was coming any day. There was a real fear that at least a couple of European governments were going to fall over Iraq and Blair was pretty sure his was going to. 98% of the public against, at least 100 MP's in his own party against, several high ranking cabinet members against.

I really would recommend Alistair Campbell's Diary, published just recently. If you're not British you'll find about 80% of it very dry - UK domestic politics - but certainly from 9/11 on it becomes really interesting reading. Especially the back story to Iraq, when all we were getting publicly was the 110% support bit, and Blair being portrayed as a poodle to Bush. He really was working almost entirely just to steer the US away from virtual self-destruction, and he probably did in the end. Can you imagine where the US would be now had everything that has happened since the initial invasion still occurred, except it had been a truly unilateral US attack, and it had come in the face of truly universal worldwide opposition?

[bofors]

Originally posted by the iron horse
I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It’s real and grave.

This is total nonsense, 9/11 was an "inside job".

The public has been mislead to believe that some 19 arabs armed with razor blades carried the attack which lead to the destruction of World Trade Center.

This is a lie.

There are a number of documentaries which prove beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by bombs going off in the buildings.

A decent place to start is by watching "Loose Change" on Google Video.

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally posted by bofors

There are a number of documentaries which prove beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center was destroyed by bombs going off in the buildings.

The planes just created some minor communication problems for those on the floors they hit?

[bofors]

Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


The planes just created some minor communication problems for those on the floors they hit?

We know that the direct impact of the planes themselves did not cause the "collapse".

The official story is that fires weakened the steel in the twin towers and that somehow initiated "global collapse".

That is a provable lie, the details are here: ae911truth.org

[Irvine511]

it's funny how my best friend's (he's actually more like a brother) sister's best friend from high school, who was on the flight that hit the second tower, along with his wife and 3 year old daughter, totally thought that their flight had been hijacked by some Arabs with boxcutters when he called his father and mother and told him that he loved them and that, "at least it's going to be very quick."

http://www.petehansonandfamily.com/

i think the only people who think this was some sort of "inside job" are those without any sort of personal connection to the tragedy.

for the rest of us, it's both sad and somewhat offensive.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by Irvine511


it's funny how my best friend's (he's actually more like a brother) sister's best friend from high school, who was on the flight that hit the second tower, along with his wife and 3 year old daughter, totally thought that their flight had been hijacked by some Arabs with boxcutters when he called his father and mother and told him that he loved them and that, "at least it's going to be very quick."

http://www.petehansonandfamily.com/

i think the only people who think this was some sort of "inside job" are those without any sort of personal connection to the tragedy.

for the rest of us, it's both sad and somewhat offensive.

That is so sad, their daughter was the youngest victim. I remember reading about them all those years ago.

[bofors]

i think the only people who think this was some sort of "inside job" are those without any sort of personal connection to the tragedy.

That's not true, there are many 9/11 family members who understand that 9/11 was an "inside job" and several are speaking out about it.

For example, Robert McIlvaine, Gordon Haberman, Donna Marsh O'Connor and Patty Casazza recently out against the 9/11 lie at Hartford, Connecticut, detailed here: 911hartford.org

Moreover, four 9/11 windows: Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg (the "Jersey Girls") reject the official 9/11 story as detailed in the "9/11 Press for Truth" (on Google Video).

for the rest of us, it's both sad and somewhat offensive.

Isn't the real problem that you have not seriously considered the evidence which proves 9/11 was an act of treason committed by the US goverment?

[A_Wanderer]

No, the problem is that you want it to be true, an acceptable explanation for your worldview, you have a preconcieved notion that is validated by selective use of evidence, distortion and outright lie. The truthers are a brilliant example of an echo chamber.

The Popular Mechanics article on the collapse of the towers is a good bit of myth debunking.

[financeguy]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
a preconcieved notion that is validated by selective use of evidence, distortion and outright lie.

Bit like the rationale for war in Iraq, then.

[bofors]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No, the problem is that you want it to be true, an acceptable explanation for your worldview, you have a preconcieved notion that is validated by selective use of evidence, distortion and outright lie. The truthers are a brilliant example of an echo chamber.

Sorry, but I believed the official story about 9/11 for years, in fact until last January. I had never even heard about the so-called "conspiracy thoery". But once I saw the physical evidence of an "inside job", specifically the obvious demolition of WTC Building 7, I started connecting the dots and learned that 9/11 is a lie.

The Popular Mechanics article on the collapse of the towers is a good bit of myth debunking.

I have a doctoral level education in materials engineering from a top ranked university and Popular Mechanics is no authority on anything, it is just a small part of the media complicity in covering-up the truth of 9/11.

To see this, just consider that the three year, twenty million dollar study by the US National Insitutes of Standards & Technology (NIST) on the "collapses" of the World Trade Center buildings. The NIST report does not even try to explain why the twin towers completely "collapsed". Details here: 911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

[Moonlit_Angel]

LOL, financeguy.

Yeah, I'm not one to buy into the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, either. Feel free to believe what you wish, but despite the fact that I have many, many issues with our government, I just can't imagine they'd be that stupid and callous.

Irvine, what a tragic story . I'm sorry for those people's losses.

Angela

[U2DMfan]

Originally posted by bofors


That's not true, there are many 9/11 family members who understand that 9/11 was an "inside job" and several are speaking out about it.

For example, Robert McIlvaine, Gordon Haberman, Donna Marsh O'Connor and Patty Casazza recently out against the 9/11 lie at Hartford, Connecticut, detailed here: 911hartford.org

Moreover, four 9/11 windows: Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg (the "Jersey Girls") reject the official 9/11 story as detailed in the "9/11 Press for Truth" (on Google Video).



Isn't the real problem that you have not seriously considered the evidence which proves 9/11 was an act of treason committed by the US goverment?

Yes, the dolts in the White House, who couldn't even contain the secrecy of leaking names of covert CIA agents, use of torture, tapping domestic phone lines and politicizing the justice department, among many other things were somehow able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world and silence the hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands of people it would have taken to pull off such a stunt.

If there were no credible scientific debunking (as there clearly is) it would still be a load of garbage. Junk science, grainy images, a high school project pieced together by a couple of kids ignited this so-called scholar and engineer to find out about the 9/11 conspiracy months ago when it has been prevalent and mentioned everywhere on the internet, newspapers,magazines and cable news for the last 6 years.

You sir, are also trolling. New registree, using all 5 of your posts to spout 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe it's Rosie O'Donnell