We're not anti-US, we're just reporting the news...

[camsmith]

I caught Suskind being interviewed on the Today show the other night. He speculated that the attack was called off because Zawahiri wanted something grander - an attack that would "trump" 9/11.

Richard Clarke expresses doubt about the accuracy of the report altogether.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2092561

It is said if this attack was carried out it may have been bigger than the 9/11 attack. But i see what you mean, apparently in the book it says Bush was thinking the same thing and worried about how big the follow-up attack would be etc..

I wonder about the accuracy of many statements made when a new book is coming out.

ahha - hadn't caught that one....thanks

No probs, like i said above... bit hard to know how accurate it is.

 

[CoggaRules]

Yeah, having to go over and over stuff really stalls a thread. Sorry if it sounded a bit harsh.



Nonsense. Just because he claims to be on the side of "good" doesnt mean anything.

Generalisations like that are meaningless, and only served up to pander to the less intelligent portions of our societies.

An atrocity is an atrocity, no matter which side does it.

Torture, on either side, is reprehensible. Trying to state that because one side claims it is "good", that their torture of people is somehow worse or deserves more scrutiny is silly. Torture is torture.

you sound like Ziegfried but that another story.
But here is something to ponder, you suggest that "Generalisations like that are meaningless, and only served up to pander to the less intelligent portions of our societies.". Now what kind of society do we live in? a democracy, who elects the people that produce such generalisations? the majority of that kind of society, who re-elects those who make such Generalisations, with absolute majorities, the absolute majority of that kind of society.
I would go as far as to say, fear can affect people's intelligence, dont you?
Since, those who make those Generalisations, to pander to the less intelligent portions of our societies, lied to go to war, and then an even greater majority believed them after they were lied to.

 

[otaku]

you sound like Ziegfried but that another story.

what?

But here is something to ponder, you suggest that "Generalisations like that are meaningless, and only served up to pander to the less intelligent portions of our societies.".

Yes, thats right.

Now what kind of society do we live in? a democracy, who elects the people that produce such generalisations? the majority of that kind of society, who re-elects those who make such Generalisations, with absolute majorities, the absolute majority of that kind of society.[/quyote]

Jesus Cogga - speak english. Are you saying the stupid people elect the leaders?

Then yes, I agree with you.

I would go as far as to say, fear can affect people's intelligence, dont you?
Since, those who make those Generalisations, to pander to the less intelligent portions of our societies, lied to go to war, and then an even greater majority believed them after they were lied to.

And how does this impact on what I said??

 

[sherb]

Nonsense. Just because he claims to be on the side of "good" doesnt mean anything.

I disagree. By saying that you are on the side of "good" as opposed to the side of "evil", in my view you are clearly saying you have a considerably higher - or better - level of conduct, values and standards.

Generalisations like that are meaningless, and only served up to pander to the less intelligent portions of our societies.

Agreed, things are never that black and white. But the President of the US said it, and that is one of many reasons why I find he and his politics to be so divisive.

An atrocity is an atrocity, no matter which side does it.

Torture, on either side, is reprehensible. Trying to state that because one side claims it is "good", that their torture of people is somehow worse or deserves more scrutiny is silly. Torture is torture.

Of course torture and atrocities are beyond defending. But we expect better from coalition soldiers, while that cannot necessarily be said for some of those they oppose. (Note I am talking about our expectations here, not whether the acts of one side are better or worse).
So if coalition soldiers commit atrocities, it seems perfectly reasonable to scrutinize them more heavily than those committed by some of the insurgents.

 

[just maybe]

Sure...

Plenty of threads on "illegal interrogation" techniques by the US, a witness who said US soldiers beat Zarqawi to death, nasty songs, and Rumsfeld making stupid comments.

Yet not a single thread on the discovery of two US soldiers brutally tortured and killed.

The U.S. military said June 20 that two bodies recovered in the Iraqi village of Jarf as-Sakhr are believed to be those of soldiers from the Army's 101st Airborne Division who were captured four days earlier during an insurgent attack against a checkpoint. An Iraqi military official said the bodies showed signs of torture and that the soldiers died in "a barbaric way."
Stratfor
The bodies were also booby-trapped.

How does that compare to "U.S. special operations forces fed some Iraqi detainees only bread and water for up to 17 days, used unapproved interrogation practices such as sleep deprivation and loud music and stripped at least one prisoner, according to a Pentagon report on incidents dating to 2003 and 2004" which people complain so vociferously about.

We are aware that many Iraqi insurgents are brutal and inhuman. No one disputes that. Criticism is accepted by all sides.

However, people like you and your ilk dispute any criticism of the US.

THAT is why there is a focus on the US. Get a grip and don't try and compare chalk and cheese.

 

[Chief]

Sure...

Plenty of threads on "illegal interrogation" techniques by the US, a witness who said US soldiers beat Zarqawi to death, nasty songs, and Rumsfeld making stupid comments.

Yet not a single thread on the discovery of two US soldiers brutally tortured and killed.

The Muslim fanatics hold themselves up as moral and righteous, a position that is rightly rejected by all and honestly part of the reason the war has support from some people.

The US-led occupation force also holds themselves up as moral and righteous, bringing peace and democracy. Whenever this position is criticised (using proof of civilian deaths, torture and abuse) the same people leap to their defence.

This posts deserves the rolleyes you gave it, but they're in the wrong place.

 

[TheBloods]

So is it the contention now that all insurgents fighting against the US are fanatic lunatics?

 

[just maybe]

So is it the contention now that all insurgents fighting against the US are fanatic lunatics?

Nope. But ones who do things like you mentioned are. No one disputes that.

 

[TheBloods]

Nope. But ones who do things like you mentioned are. No one disputes that.

How do you know? Insurgents can carry out despicable acts without needing to be fanatic lunatics.

 

[just maybe]

How do you know? Insurgents can carry out despicable acts without needing to be fanatic lunatics.

Well why don't you post about it if the borderline bothers you. I look forward to your posts, but suspect you'll find little disagreement with your outrage.

Be the change you want to see in the board, don't just make a thread bitching about it.

 

[TheBloods]

The Muslim fanatics hold themselves up as moral and righteous, a position that is rightly rejected by all and honestly part of the reason the war has support from some people.

The US-led occupation force also holds themselves up as moral and righteous, bringing peace and democracy. Whenever this position is criticised (using proof of civilian deaths, torture and abuse) the same people leap to their defence.

This posts deserves the rolleyes you gave it, but they're in the wrong place.

The same people who complain about 'butchery' of the US didn't start plenty of threads of the 'butchery' of Saddam. They say that we all agreed he was a butcher yet you didn't seem to mind that he was there and killing Iraqis. So it seems that it's only bad to kill Iraqis when the US are doing it.

The same people call for the US to leave Iraq now and leave the Iraqis to themselves. That would leave the place open to civil war and barbaric acts by these fanatic insurgents. So again it seems that this seems to be preferred to the US killing Iraqis.

There aren't too many threads started by people talking up the great job by the US. So why the need to start so many threads criticising the US?

 

[Chief]

So is it the contention now that all insurgents fighting against the US are fanatic lunatics?

I don't know them all personally, which is why I said "The Muslim fanatics".

You can argue that or respond to the point that the US tries to take the moral high ground and uses equivocation and weasle words when they are shown to engage in practices like torture, even to the point of trying to get the legal definition of torture changed.

 

[Chief]

The same people who complain about 'butchery' of the US didn't start plenty of threads of the 'butchery' of Saddam. They say that we all agreed he was a butcher yet you didn't seem to mind that he was there and killing Iraqis. So it seems that it's only bad to kill Iraqis when the US are doing it.

This "yer either with us or against us, let's roll, YEEE HAW!" line is just crap. Honestly don't even know why I am replying to it.

 

[TheBloods]

It's not about "being with us or against us". In fact that's exactly what I said I don't endorse - the extreme slavish acceptance of one side or the other.

However, it is worth noting that the anti-US comments come across as gleeful attacks on the US rather than worrying about the plight of victims. The focus of many of these threads is on ways in which the US has been a disgrace, failing to fulfil their mantra of the great nation, rather than any great sorrow for their victims.

If this is what it is then this is what it is - however, it seems that the same people espousing this view hide this blatant anti-US stance and instead pretend they have the interests of the Iraqis et al at heart.

This is not really the focus of their attentions, despite their protestations to the contrary, as evidenced by the lack of compassion when the US are not involved, hence my comment above.

 

[just maybe]

Well why don't you post about it if the borderline bothers you. I look forward to your posts, but suspect you'll find little disagreement with your outrage.

Be the change you want to see in the board, don't just make a thread bitching about it.

NMW?

Well?

By the way: give up on the "you posted about *a certain subject*, but there are many different cases *of a certain subject* by OTHER parties, why aren't you posting about them as well? Stereotyper, hypocrite, blah blah blah".

Seriously, find something new to work with. That arguing style is so hackneyed and clichéd it's not funny. It's the final resort of those who can't come up with anything better.

 

[sydney eagle]

The U S is supposed to be a civilized nation, "leader of the free world", morally upright etc Just because terrorists that are opposed to the U S in Iraq torture THEIR captives does not give the U S the right to throw away the rule book and do the same. Sure it is bad when terrorists do this sort of thing, but it is also one of the things that defines them as terrorists. Similarly following the law and the rules that govern conflict is one of the things that defines a civilized nation. The U S needs to capture these people and put them on trial (preferably before an international tribunal) to show that the terrorists can't get away with their actions, but that they will still be treated in accordance with international law !

 

[Geronimo]

The U S needs to capture these people and put them on trial (preferably before an international tribunal) to show that the terrorists can't get away with their actions, but that they will still be treated in accordance with international law !

Which US?
The US is divided on such matters, and this current administration is less likely than previous to follow the international way of sorting out such matters - why bother when you have John Wayne to fight your battles?

 

[Geronimo]

I don't know them all personally, which is why I said "The Muslim fanatics".

Then why bother with the muslim tag? fanatic would do just as well

 

[camsmith]

I think you will find they are Muslims, Geronimo.

 

[just maybe]

I think you will find they are Muslims, Geronimo.

The majority of Muslims would say they're acting nothing like Muslims.

 

[medusala]

Seriously, find something new to work with.

An interesting thought.

 

[just maybe]

An interesting thought.

You'd do well to consider it.

 

[KissStephanie]

I even got a mention in a couple of posts. Good to see.

Why was it good to see? I thought that you would be used to being mentioned as uninformed by now.

We saw evidence of this when it was found that AQ called off an attack on New York subways most likely because of Iraq.)

Speaking of being uninformed. This attack was not called off. According to reports, an al-Qaeda turncoat informed the CIA of the planned attack, and the details were then discovered on the hard drive of a Bahraini jihadist named Bassam Bokhowa.

 

[otaku]

I disagree. By saying that you are on the side of "good" as opposed to the side of "evil", in my view you are clearly saying you have a considerably higher - or better - level of conduct, values and standards.

The side of good doesnt mean that yuo are any better than the side of evil. It is, as I have stated, a simplistic definition of "us" v "them".

Agreed, things are never that black and white. But the President of the US said it, and that is one of many reasons why I find he and his politics to be so divisive.

I dont disagree with you at all there. Most confrontaional politics are divisive.

Of course torture and atrocities are beyond defending. But we expect better from coalition soldiers, while that cannot necessarily be said for some of those they oppose. (Note I am talking about our expectations here, not whether the acts of one side are better or worse).
So if coalition soldiers commit atrocities, it seems perfectly reasonable to scrutinize them more heavily than those committed by some of the insurgents.

It sounds like you are saying that because we expect murder and torture frm fanatics, it is somehow less "wrong" (in our eyes) for them to do it??

If so, I disagree totally.

 

[camsmith]

Why was it good to see? I thought that you would be used to being mentioned as uninformed by now.

Speaking of being uninformed. This attack was not called off. According to reports, an al-Qaeda turncoat informed the CIA of the planned attack, and the details were then discovered on the hard drive of a Bahraini jihadist named Bassam Bokhowa.

Good to see people are reading what im saying

According to reports, eh?

Well what i said was according to reports... who's wrong?

And yes someone in AQ informed the CIA. Good to see this was happening, but not the poor bloke probably wont be around too much longer thanks to it becoming public.