"The policies of my opponent [Kerry] are dangerous for world peace," [George W.] Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
1) 'Terrorism' as professed by Al-Queda didn't exist.
Your argument was that the world changed on 11th September 2001. You're seriously trying to argue that al-Qaeda didn't exist till then? Do you begin to understand why I'm saying you're American-centric? Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
Actually, what they've explicitly said they want is US troops out of Saudi Arabia - this was the original function of Al-Queda - though they're not averse to toppling secular Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein. So far Bush's actions have gone along very nicely with al-Qaeda's explicitly stated goals.
2. Agreed.
The attack on Afganistan was a bloodthirsty and largely pointless (in anti-terrorist terms) response to September 11. The section dealing with it in Fahrenheit 911 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/313252.html) is the weakest and least truthful part of his film.
3... Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs
Actually, the "liberation" of Iraq hasn't happened yet, and may never: it's currently being ruled by a puppet propped up by the US military - the parts that aren't fully insurgent.
As for the WMD, the consensus by most intelligence agencies prior to political tweaking of their reports appears to have been - No evidence for nuclear weapons: insufficient evidence for other WMD or any immediate threat justifying invasion. Scott Ritter was right all along.
4 - mostly nonsense. The evidence of the French being "in bed" with Saddam Hussein more than the Americans (Halliburton was dealing with Iraq all through the 1990s and the 2000s) is nil. The Oil for Food shocker was not that some money was being skimmed off as bribes, but that it was deliberately set up to provide less than the Iraqis needed. As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
...so you concede the point that claiming "9-11 changed everything" is American-centric nonsense? Thank you.
1) Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
...and has existed since 1990, so again - what's your obsession with "11/9/2001 changed everything"?
No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
...or so it's claimed. That al-Qaida training camps existed in Afghanistan is true: that the best way of getting them was to bomb Afghanistan is false: the claimed "terrorist infrastruture" had damn-all evidence, and still doesn't.
Iraq has been liberated from Saddam.
Iraq has been invaded, conquered, and occupied by the US military, plus a handful of others. Calling that "liberation" is as false as calling the handing-back of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti Royal Family "liberation".
No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them
And the UN inspection teams went in: their inspection was stopped by the US invasion: when American inspection teams were finally allowed to finish, it was established that there were virtually no WMD in IRaq, and certainly none justifying invasion. It is also established that neither Bush nor Blair possessed the kind of definite evidence of threatening WMD that would have justified immediate invasion.
As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
Was he? He's been far more right than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - and it begins to look like the US Occupation can't hold Baghdad.
9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
See? American-centric viewpoint, which, as I originally said, looks very absurd to people living outside the US.
1) Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
Yes. You funded (possibly still do?) the IRA for years. I'm going to make assumptions and say that perhaps you think it was okay to fund the IRA because they aren't Al-Queda's sort of terrorism?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:07 (UTC)Your argument was that the world changed on 11th September 2001. You're seriously trying to argue that al-Qaeda didn't exist till then? Do you begin to understand why I'm saying you're American-centric?
Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
Actually, what they've explicitly said they want is US troops out of Saudi Arabia - this was the original function of Al-Queda - though they're not averse to toppling secular Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein. So far Bush's actions have gone along very nicely with al-Qaeda's explicitly stated goals.
2. Agreed.
The attack on Afganistan was a bloodthirsty and largely pointless (in anti-terrorist terms) response to September 11. The section dealing with it in Fahrenheit 911 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/313252.html) is the weakest and least truthful part of his film.
3... Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs
Actually, the "liberation" of Iraq hasn't happened yet, and may never: it's currently being ruled by a puppet propped up by the US military - the parts that aren't fully insurgent.
As for the WMD, the consensus by most intelligence agencies prior to political tweaking of their reports appears to have been - No evidence for nuclear weapons: insufficient evidence for other WMD or any immediate threat justifying invasion. Scott Ritter was right all along.
4 - mostly nonsense. The evidence of the French being "in bed" with Saddam Hussein more than the Americans (Halliburton was dealing with Iraq all through the 1990s and the 2000s) is nil. The Oil for Food shocker was not that some money was being skimmed off as bribes, but that it was deliberately set up to provide less than the Iraqis needed.
As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
...so you concede the point that claiming "9-11 changed everything" is American-centric nonsense? Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:21 (UTC)2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 10:44 (UTC)...and has existed since 1990, so again - what's your obsession with "11/9/2001 changed everything"?
No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
...or so it's claimed. That al-Qaida training camps existed in Afghanistan is true: that the best way of getting them was to bomb Afghanistan is false: the claimed "terrorist infrastruture" had damn-all evidence, and still doesn't.
Iraq has been liberated from Saddam.
Iraq has been invaded, conquered, and occupied by the US military, plus a handful of others. Calling that "liberation" is as false as calling the handing-back of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti Royal Family "liberation".
No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them
And the UN inspection teams went in: their inspection was stopped by the US invasion: when American inspection teams were finally allowed to finish, it was established that there were virtually no WMD in IRaq, and certainly none justifying invasion. It is also established that neither Bush nor Blair possessed the kind of definite evidence of threatening WMD that would have justified immediate invasion.
As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
Was he? He's been far more right than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - and it begins to look like the US Occupation can't hold Baghdad.
9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
See? American-centric viewpoint, which, as I originally said, looks very absurd to people living outside the US.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 18:00 (UTC)Yes. You funded (possibly still do?) the IRA for years. I'm going to make assumptions and say that perhaps you think it was okay to fund the IRA because they aren't Al-Queda's sort of terrorism?