| I've got that "New Computer" feeling. :o) [message #55981] |
Sun, 17 July 2005 16:35  |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
the USSR, leaving Afghanistan in ruins ever since.
The same can be said of Damascus, another beautiful Arab city. And let's
not forget the meddling in Iran.
Durring the hostage criss at the US embasy in '79, President Carter made
it clear that we were all supposed to forget the misdeads of the US,
labeling them as "ancient history", but also reminding us that dwelling
on Americas's faults only helped the enemy.
The idea here is classic, psychopathic thinking:: I may have robbed you
yesterday, but that doesn't give you the right to retaliate. If you
think this type of thinking is appropriot you should be on the FBI list
of people to watch.
> Perhaps, as Sen. Patty Murray intoned, we needed
>to match the good works of bin Laden to capture the hearts
>and minds of Muslim peoples.
>
>
Pointless rhetoric. Bin Laden may have not done any comunity service by
any US standard, but he has stated in his writtings that his purpose is
to free the Arab people from US oppression and tyranny. So, in this
regard, yes, maybe the US should capture the hearts and minds of the
Muslim people by leaving them the hell alone.
>The fable continues that the United States itself was united
>after the attack even during its preparations to retaliate in
>Afghanistan.
>
Correct, it is a fable. Not only was the US not united, but everyone
with a mind and some human compassion was against this Invasion.
Afghanistan didn't bomb the US. There's even a smattering of evidence
that the Israeli Mossad was involved.
Iraq had nothing to do with it.
> But then George Bush took his eye off the ball.
>He let bin Laden escape, and worst of all, unilaterally and
>preemptively, went into secular Iraq — an unnecessary war
>for oil, hegemony, Israel, or Halliburton, something in
>Ted Kennedy’s words “cooked up in Texas.”
>
>
All the smoking guns point to this conclusion.
>In any case, there was no connection between al Qaeda
>and Saddam, and thus terrorists only arrived in Iraq after
>we did.
>
>
Oops....apples and oranges. Bin Laden openly stated that he would not
deal with Saddam because he was heretical to Islam, having been in the
pocket of the US for so many years.
So it's only natural than in a post-Saddam Iraq Al Qaeda should do it's
part to rid the middle east of US invaders.
>That tale goes on. The Iraqi fiasco is now a hopeless quagmire.
>
>
Which it is.
>The terrorists are paying us back for it in places like London and Madrid.
>
>
Which they are.
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
