Terrorism = America

Lennox · Post by **Lennox** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:38 am

After a long absence I am back with another controversial statement. While watching Fox News the other night, a statement was made about an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin being a "kook" because of his views on terrorism. To Bill O'Reilly, I'd like to ask is this man such a "kook" because he actually believes what he says or because you disagree? If you take a look at it, terrorism going back to the Ku Klux Klan is inherently American. Long before there were any suicide bombers or people flying planes into buildings, blacks were beaten, raped, and lynched BY AMERICANS. To paraphrase a statement made, America attacked itself on 9/11 (a topic I'm so sick of hearing about). Is this so far from the truth since America funded Bin Laden, trained Bin Laden, and essentially taught these terrorists to fly planes. I'm not one that's anti-American I'm just one that likes to truth contrary to popular media. Terrorism has existed for quite some time in America, it's just a matter of the targets.

In regards to the Ku Klux Klan, I'm currently watching a documentary on this organization that was supposedly started as a fraternity, a social group if you will. Over the years, its purpose changed on over to white power. Now, here is where things get weird, so many of these folks idolize Hitler, but very few Klansmen seen are the blonde haired, blue eyed individuals that Hitler sought to fill the world with. Furthermore, the Grand Dragon when interviewed said he hated Jews because they were "greedy", now if you want an entire country to yourself doesn't that make you just as greedy as those you are fighting against? Also, they say they "light" the cross in an effort to have the light of Jesus shine upon them but hold up....Jesus was a Jew wasn't he? Hmmmm..... It would seem that not all terrorists are intelligent.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:02 pm

Lennox wrote: After a long absence I am back with another controversial statement. While watching Fox News the other night, a statement was made about an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin being a "kook" because of his views on terrorism. To Bill O'Reilly, I'd like to ask is this man such a "kook" because he actually believes what he says or because you disagree? If you take a look at it, terrorism going back to the Ku Klux Klan is inherently American. Long before there were any suicide bombers or people flying planes into buildings, blacks were beaten, raped, and lynched BY AMERICANS. To paraphrase a statement made, America attacked itself on 9/11 (a topic I'm so sick of hearing about). Is this so far from the truth since America funded Bin Laden, trained Bin Laden, and essentially taught these terrorists to fly planes. I'm not one that's anti-American I'm just one that likes to truth contrary to popular media. Terrorism has existed for quite some time in America, it's just a matter of the targets.

In regards to the Ku Klux Klan, I'm currently watching a documentary on this organization that was supposedly started as a fraternity, a social group if you will. Over the years, its purpose changed on over to white power. Now, here is where things get weird, so many of these folks idolize Hitler, but very few Klansmen seen are the blonde haired, blue eyed individuals that Hitler sought to fill the world with. Furthermore, the Grand Dragon when interviewed said he hated Jews because they were "greedy", now if you want an entire country to yourself doesn't that make you just as greedy as those you are fighting against? Also, they say they "light" the cross in an effort to have the light of Jesus shine upon them but hold up....Jesus was a Jew wasn't he? Hmmmm..... It would seem that not all terrorists are intelligent.

Everyone knows Fox News has an agenda (to support the Bush Administration) so you should tune into CNN.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:04 pm

DesignerGal wrote: Everyone knows Fox News has an agenda (to support the Bush Administration) so you should tune into CNN.

you believe CNN does not have an agenda?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:05 pm

anastrophe wrote: you believe CNN does not have an agenda?

Im a democrat so most likely its a good agenda for me!:D

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:06 pm

flopstock wrote: I guess I'd like to hear the mans views before I agree or disagree, but that's just me...

The Wisconsin Professor is saying that Dick Cheney orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:08 pm

Lennox wrote: Furthermore, the Grand Dragon when interviewed said he hated Jews because they were "greedy", now if you want an entire country to yourself doesn't that make you just as greedy as those you are fighting against? Also, they say they "light" the cross in an effort to have the light of Jesus shine upon them but hold up....Jesus was a Jew wasn't he?

:wah:

:wah:

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:16 pm

Lennox wrote: After a long absence I am back with another controversial statement. While watching Fox News the other night, a statement was made about an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin being a "kook" because of his views on terrorism. To Bill O'Reilly,

first mistake. bill o'reilly is nothing more than a polemicist, and not a very good one at that.

I'd like to ask is this man such a "kook" because he actually believes what he says or because you disagree?
i can't speak for o'reilly, but clearly he believes the person is a kook because the professors opinion diverges so strongly from his own. people toss out the 'kook' epithet with great ease whenever someone says something that doesn't make sense within their view. he (o'reilly) is certainly entitled to his opinion, as is the professor, no?

If you take a look at it, terrorism going back to the Ku Klux Klan is inherently American.

that's a weird statement. are you saying that we invented terrorism? history suggests otherwise. spanish inquisition. vlad the impaler. there's ten thousand more examples out there.

Long before there were any suicide bombers or people flying planes into buildings, blacks were beaten, raped, and lynched BY AMERICANS.

and before that, the native americans. what's your point? so - do you revile spain, because of their participation in the spanish inquisition centuries ago? do you hold the spanish themselves responsible for the madrid bombing?

To paraphrase a statement made, America attacked itself on 9/11 (a topic I'm so sick of hearing about).

how heartwarming and sensitive of you. america was attacked by islamic fundamentalists. it's not that hard to understand.

Is this so far from the truth since America funded Bin Laden, trained Bin Laden, and essentially taught these terrorists to fly planes.
yes, it is far from the truth. bin laden is enormously wealthy all on his own, by the way. hundreds of millions in inherited wealth. the terrorists learned to fly the planes on their own, at flight schools here. by your notions of proximate cause, we should have tried the flight school trainers for sedition, because they were the *real* enablers of the terrorist attacks. of course, common sense notions of culpability tend to have a more rational view of where the blame lies.

I'm not one that's anti-American
you sure sound that way. you're essentially saying we deserved to be attacked, because we 'enabled' the terrorists. so, if i hand you a match, and you use it to burn down a building, i'm the one who is at fault?

I'm just one that likes to truth contrary to popular media.

there's so much wrong with that i don't know where to start. you're watching bill o'reilly and expecting truth where opinion is the rule of order. popular media isn't a source for truth any more than hollywood is - because, with that broad brush, hollywood is part of popular media. if you mean unbiased NEWS, then again - why are you watching an opinion show and expecting unbiased news??

Terrorism has existed for quite some time in America, it's just a matter of the targets.

so again, you're suggesting we deserved to be attacked?

In regards to the Ku Klux Klan, I'm currently watching a documentary on this organization that was supposedly started as a fraternity, a social group if you will. Over the years, its purpose changed on over to white power. Now, here is where things get weird, so many of these folks idolize Hitler, but very few Klansmen seen are the blonde haired, blue eyed individuals that Hitler sought to fill the world with. Furthermore, the Grand Dragon when interviewed said he hated Jews because they were "greedy", now if you want an entire country to yourself doesn't that make you just as greedy as those you are fighting against? Also, they say they "light" the cross in an effort to have the light of Jesus shine upon them but hold up....Jesus was a Jew wasn't he? Hmmmm..... It would seem that not all terrorists are intelligent.

you're expecting rational motivations from the criminally insane?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:17 pm

DesignerGal wrote: The Wisconsin Professor is saying that Dick Cheney orchestrated the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

i guess bill o'reilly and i agree on the matter, then.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:20 pm

anastrophe wrote:

you're expecting rational motivations from the criminally insane?

Thats a good one.:wah:

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:24 pm

anastrophe wrote: i guess bill o'reilly and i agree on the matter, then.

I actually heard the story about the Professor this morning on Sirius and I think it was one of the three CNN channels. The female news anchor was interviewing a senator or congressman from Wisconsin who is also an alumni of this college and he was angry at the Prof but also at the school for renewing his contract.

Apparently the Professor teaches Islamic studies but was not schooled in them himself. I think his degree was in classical music or something.

Anyway, the Official (Sen/Congressman) said he didnt know who he was mad at more. He went on to say that the Professor is teaching, to his students, tha Dick CHeney masterminded this whole thing. Its really strange.

Lennox · Post by **Lennox** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:32 pm

Anastrophe, I'm not Anti-American. I'm just not an individual that will follow blindly on the basis of the preserving democracy.

I am tired of hearing about 9/11 only because I'm an "evacuee" from Louisiana. Like I've said before there are "9/11 We will never forget." bumperstickers but it seems as though 8/29 has already been forgotten about.

America is not creator of terrorism, but with that being said it isn't most peaceful place on the face of the Earth either.

I know Bin Laden has money, but the fact remains that he is American trained.

No one deserves to be attacked but with that said, no one is above attack. America has bombed so many countries in its history but the second we get hit, it's the worst thing in the world.

It's not only The O'Reilly Factor that has it's own views and agenda. You'd be hard pressed to find any news organization that will show otherwise.

I would go through and try to dispute every other point that you've made but all of them are jermain. I really enjoy your dissection of my views and divulging of yours.

Good posting.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:37 pm

Perhaps we could consider the reasonable question of why no disciplinary investigations seem to have been held into the apparent inability of Norad to intercept any of the planes? I'm still baffled why nobody seems interested in having light shone on that period of the New Pearl Harbor events. It's just too easy not to ask, it would seem.

Did Norad never intercept any planes on previous occasions when they left their flightpaths? I thought they were famed for scrambling fighter escorts under such circumstances. I thought they had a track record of rapid interceptions.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:45 pm

No one deserves to be attacked but with that said, no one is above attack. America has bombed so many countries in its history but the second we get hit, it's the worst thing in the world.

Ummm. To my knowledge (and I was never a history major, so I could be wrong) the U.S. hasn't ever, intentionally, dropped a bomb on a primarily civilian target during "peace time" with the sole intent of doing as much collateral damage as possible.

Yes, yes, there was that atomic bomb that we dropped in Japan - but that was during a war. If memory serves, we were perfectly content to fight the Japanese at sea or in places were the Japanese had invaded.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:45 pm

spot wrote: Perhaps we could consider the reasonable question of why no disciplinary investigations seem to have been held into the apparent inability of Norad to intercept any of the planes? I'm still baffled why nobody seems interested in having light shone on that period of the New Pearl Harbor events. It's just too easy not to ask, it would seem.

Did Norad never intercept any planes on previous occasions when they left their flightpaths? I thought they were famed for scrambling fighter escorts under such circumstances. I thought they had a track record of rapid interceptions.

anything to avoid affixing blame on the suicidal islamofascists who were determined to murder innocent americans as part of their jihad, eh?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:48 pm

I'd reply here, but anastrophe has quite conveniently made every point I wanted to bring up. Thanks, Paul!!

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:52 pm

BabyRider wrote: I'd reply here, but anastrophe has quite conveniently made every point I wanted to bring up. Thanks, Paul!!

And most eloquently, I may add!

(there goes my word crush on Paul again) :-4

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:56 pm

One day I'll hear a yes instead of a no. I'm just testing the water.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:59 pm

Lennox wrote: I am tired of hearing about 9/11 only because I'm an "evacuee" from Louisiana. Like I've said before there are "9/11 We will never forget." bumperstickers but it seems as though 8/29 has already been forgotten about.

9/11 was an act of evil, perpetrated by people, against innocent people. hurricane katrina was a random act of nature, with no ill-intent towards people, so unless we want to shake our fist at the earth and yell "damn you", it's an entirely different matter.

I know Bin Laden has money, but the fact remains that he is American trained.

if i may quote from BR's sig, 'if guns cause crime, then matches cause arson'. yes, an argument can always be made that arming people 'round the world wily-nily is going to come back and bite you in the ass some day. politics is renowned for making strange bedfellows. that our arming and training of the taliban back in the 1980's, in order to fight by proxy our arch nemesis the evil bear of russia, would come back to haunt us twenty some years later, is not exactly something that could be anticipated - not when rational men presume in good faith that other men are rational. again, it appears in hindsight that it was foolhardy to align with the taliban in fighting a greater enemy at the time. it does not, however, mean that we were 'asking for it' or 'deserved it' or could have - should have - anticipated it.

No one deserves to be attacked but with that said, no one is above attack.

i disagree strongly. innocent people should never be a target for attack. real kooks - like ward churchill - assign blame directly to the innocent victims at the world trade center. that, in my opinion, is nothing more than a manifestation of evil, warped thinking.

America has bombed so many countries in its history but the second we get hit, it's the worst thing in the world.

as noted by lilacdragon, we do not have a record of intentionally terrorizing innocent people. we have, certainly, in times of war, and during times past. we did not provoke an attack on innocent civilians on our soil, period. any other point of view can only mean one believes 'we deserved it' or we 'asked for it'.

It's not only The O'Reilly Factor that has it's own views and agenda. You'd be hard pressed to find any news organization that will show otherwise.

one word: reuters.

I would go through and try to dispute every other point that you've made but all of them are jermain. I really enjoy your dissection of my views and divulging of yours.

Good posting.

thanks. i like a good donneybrook myself.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:04 pm

spot wrote: One day I'll hear a yes instead of a no. I'm just testing the water.

spot, you could always just come clean with your unvarnished opinion. you've stated previously that you're a Pacifist, with a capital 'P'. you believe that the bush-cheney-rice-rove-rumsfeld-wolfowitz cabal planned, and executed, the 9/11 attacks as part of the PNAC stated need for a 'new pearl harbor'. you believe that the beheading of nicholas berg was staged by cia or other 'dark cover' operatives to bolster public opinion after the abu ghraib scandal surfaced. so, i believe when i suggest that you'll do anything to point the finger anywhere but at the actual perpetrators, that i'm not off the mark.

here's one you can answer yes or no to for me:

do you share ward churchill's opinion that the innocent civilians slaughtered in the world trade center were culpable for their own deaths, as they were 'little eichmann's' working for evil american corporate capitalist hegemony?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:10 pm

(I'll bet folding money i've successfully pushed spot's buttons)

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:10 pm

LilacDragon wrote: Ummm. To my knowledge (and I was never a history major, so I could be wrong) the U.S. hasn't ever, intentionally, dropped a bomb on a primarily civilian target during "peace time" with the sole intent of doing as much collateral damage as possible.Out of interest, how does predicting the civilian casualties to be expected from destroying the Iraqi capacity to provide drinking water to their cities count, considering that the bombing then proceeded with that destruction? That killed tens of thousands of civilians at a lowest estimate, and the predictions were made - as far as I can see - during peacetime planning and before the damage was caused.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:11 pm

anastrophe wrote: do you share ward churchill's opinion that the innocent civilians slaughtered in the world trade center were culpable for their own deaths, as they were 'little eichmann's' working for evil american corporate capitalist hegemony?Absolutely not. They were entirely innocent victims of the events of that day. It sickens me that anyone could think otherwise.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:15 pm

spot wrote: Absolutely not. They were entirely innocent victims of the events of that day. It sickens me that anyone could think otherwise.

i'm genuinely pleased to hear that.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:20 pm

spot wrote: Out of interest, how does predicting the civilian casualties to be expected from destroying the Iraqi capacity to provide drinking water to their cities count, considering that the bombing then proceeded with that destruction? That killed tens of thousands of civilians at a lowest estimate, and the predictions were made - as far as I can see - during peacetime planning and before the damage was caused.

citation please? i'm not familiar with that.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:24 pm

spot wrote: Out of interest, how does predicting the civilian casualties to be expected from destroying the Iraqi capacity to provide drinking water to their cities count, considering that the bombing then proceeded with that destruction? That killed tens of thousands of civilians at a lowest estimate, and the predictions were made - as far as I can see - during peacetime planning and before the damage was caused.

I wasn't privy to any of the plannings of the invasion of Iraq - and let's not think that for a single skinny minute that I think that the overthrowing of the Iraqi government was a good thing - so I can honestly say I don't know what you are talking about.

It is my understanding - from people who have actually been to Iraq - that the insurgents have killed quite a few more Iraqi civilians then the American troops.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:29 pm

anastrophe wrote: citation please? i'm not familiar with that.Rather than paraphrase immediately, perhaps you'd like to check http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs ... pt_91.html

By all means ask me to summarize, I realize it's a foul layout.

LilacDragon wrote: It is my understanding - from people who have actually been to Iraq - that the insurgents have killed quite a few more Iraqi civilians then the American troops.Perhaps you've not heard that the US doesn't do bodycounts in Iraq, other than on its own nationals.

No, the insurgents aren't within a tenth of the deaths caused by the occupation.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:45 pm

spot wrote: Rather than paraphrase immediately, perhaps you'd like to check http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs ... pt_91.html

By all means ask me to summarize, I realize it's a foul layout.

Perhaps you've not heard that the US doesn't do bodycounts in Iraq, other than on its own nationals.

No, the insurgents aren't within a tenth of the deaths caused by the occupation.

Ok - I read your 15 year old paper that pointed out the problems with the Iraq water supply at the time of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. I am not sure how that correlates into the U.S. invasion of Iraq some 12/13 years later.

So, since the U.S. doesn't do Iraqi body counts, maybe you can educate me about who does and where those numbers can be found. I would love to see them.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:57 pm

spot wrote:

No, the insurgents aren't within a tenth of the deaths caused by the occupation.

that is a matter of debate, not conclusive fact, because accurate body counts of iraqi civilians do not exist. if an accurate count doesn't exist, you can't state with accuracy that the insurgent-caused deaths are (or are not, to be pedantic) within any given percentage.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:59 pm

LilacDragon wrote: Ok - I read your 15 year old paper that pointed out the problems with the Iraq water supply at the time of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. I am not sure how that correlates into the U.S. invasion of Iraq some 12/13 years later.I can only show you what's been declassified. If you know any more recent papers then do show them here. I don't. That "15 year old paper" describes about 60,000 additional deaths that year, most of those children, it's not insignificant.

LilacDragon wrote: So, since the U.S. doesn't do Iraqi body counts, maybe you can educate me about who does and where those numbers can be found. I would love to see them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invas ... Casualties is a centrist view, perhaps.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:01 pm

spot wrote: Rather than paraphrase immediately, perhaps you'd like to check http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs ... pt_91.html

By all means ask me to summarize, I realize it's a foul layout.

okay, that's pretty clearly a rather straightforward analysis of iraq's water treatment capabilities, which at that time were in near disarray primarily due to the UN sanctions at the time.

now, the citation that the US purposely bombed said water treatment facilities, please.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:02 pm

anastrophe wrote: that is a matter of debate, not conclusive fact, because accurate body counts of iraqi civilians do not exist. if an accurate count doesn't exist, you can't state with accuracy that the insurgent-caused deaths are (or are not, to be pedantic) within any given percentage.Of course I can't. US military control of the region and US awareness of public opinion stops me. It's a good reason to be annoyed with the US military, that.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:03 pm

spot wrote: I can only show you what's been declassified. If you know any more recent papers then do show them here. I don't. That "15 year old paper" describes about 60,000 additional deaths that year, most of those children, it's not insignificant.

there is no text of any kind in that paper describing deaths of any kind. did you cite the wrong page?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:05 pm

Beautiful example of circular logic, spot.

Spot, everyone knows that you don't like America's policies, its President, its ideology, and even most of its people. Can I ask you one thing?

Is there anything about America you do like?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:05 pm

spot wrote: Of course I can't. US military control of the region and US awareness of public opinion stops me. It's a good reason to be annoyed with the US military, that.

it has little to do with military control of information (which seems to be what you are suggesting). it has much to do with the explicit chaos that occurs when a war is engaged, and record-keeping becomes secondary to survival.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:10 pm

anastrophe wrote: there is no text of any kind in that paper describing deaths of any kind. did you cite the wrong page?No, I said it was a pre-war paper describing the consequences of what was planned.

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:12 pm

spot wrote: I can only show you what's been declassified. If you know any more recent papers then do show them here. I don't. That "15 year old paper" describes about 60,000 additional deaths that year, most of those children, it's not insignificant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invas ... Casualties is a centrist view, perhaps.

Well, I didn't read the whole website about the water thing, so I must have missed the 60,000 additional deaths THAT year. While it is not insignificant - it was caused by the government of IRAQ and not a U.S. invasion.

As for your numbers re: civilian deaths during the U.S. invasion of Iraq - YES, the number of civilians dead is much higher then the numbers of U.S. servicemembers. What I would like to know is how many of them were killed by Americans and how many were killed by insurgents.

Again - having talked to service members who have served there - I think you would be surprised by the low number that died as a direct result of U.S. troops and their activities as opposed to insurgents.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:13 pm

spot wrote: No, I said it was a pre-war paper describing the consequences of what was planned.

spot, you're not making sense. you wrote:

That "15 year old paper" describes about 60,000 additional deaths that year, most of those children, it's not insignificant.

nowhere in the cited paper does it describe anything of the sort. nor does it describe 'the consequences of what was planned'.

i still await the citation that water treatment facilities were specifically targetted.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:13 pm

I get a kick out of how Lennox drops this crap in here and sits back to watch.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:36 pm

spot wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invas ... Casualties is a centrist view, perhaps.

i will reiterate my opinion that wikipedia is a disastrously poor source on any matter that has any controversy about it. the atomic weight of rubidium - sure thing. george bush? global warming? iraqi civilian death counts? wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:57 pm

let me further add that the prewar intelligence paper is just that. pre-war intelligence. such information is not by any or all means a description of planned sites of future attack.

think about it. an invasion was being planned - this is the first gulf war, and it was all very, very public that we were building up troops at staging sites in saudi arabia and elsewhere, in advance. while one can certainly invade a country without any prewar intelligence, it's not terribly prudent. where are the reliable roads? where can potable water for the troops be gotten? if it they are going through large regions of barren desert (hint, iraq has much barren desert), then how are you going to get water to your troops? if you have to truck it in, along with fuel, then that means a lot of additional support troops and escorted convoys to retrieve it.

the paper is an analysis of what troops were likely to find there. and based on the information, there wasn't going to be a lot of potable water easily available.

the shortage of potable water was due to UN sanctions. not US embargoes specifically. and i still await citation that the paper in question was a report of which water treatment facilities were to be bombed, and that they were indeed bombed. it sounds to me like bombing most of those treatment facilities would have had little effect, since most, to put it colloquially, sucked already.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:35 pm

anastrophe wrote: i will reiterate my opinion that wikipedia is a disastrously poor source on any matter that has any controversy about it. the atomic weight of rubidium - sure thing. george bush? global warming? iraqi civilian death counts? wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.Where would you go instead? The US military don't do bodycounts. I think that's derilict of them, myself, and more to do with PR than with ethics.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs ... 2_90p.html is the post-war summary of increased disease outbreaks. I'm off to Heathrow in the morning so I may be rather slow picking things up. Would you like to do some of the work, for once?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:59 pm

spot wrote: Where would you go instead? The US military don't do bodycounts. I think that's derilict of them, myself, and more to do with PR than with ethics.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs ... 2_90p.html is the post-war summary of increased disease outbreaks. I'm off to Heathrow in the morning so I may be rather slow picking things up. Would you like to do some of the work, for once?

Ok. This link is for a study done in 1990!

If you want to talk about military ethics - then I suggest you don a uniform, put on an outdated flak vest and go ride around in a humvee for a while. And while you remember that every thing you do is judged against the Geneva Convention - the insurgents can pretty much do what they like.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:06 pm

spot wrote: Where would you go instead? The US military don't do bodycounts. I think that's derilict of them, myself, and more to do with PR than with ethics.

are you suggesting that the british military does body counts of the enemy? does any military do that as a matter of course?

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs ... 2_90p.html is the post-war summary of increased disease outbreaks. I'm off to Heathrow in the morning so I may be rather slow picking things up. Would you like to do some of the work, for once?

ahem. when *you* make claims without substantiation, it is *your* responsibility to do the research. if *i* should make unsubstantiated claims, by all means feel free to request that i report the research i should have provided in the first place.

you are still not making any sense. you cited a 1991 report regarding water treatment capabilities within iraq as a *prewar* assessment, and claimed that it referenced some 60,000 deaths from poor water quality, which it does not. now you're citing a report from eleven months *earlier* and suggesting it is the *postwar* report of increased disease outbreaks - which is true, but does not in any way support your contention that we purposely destroyed the water treatment capacity, as a means of causing civilian casualties, thus:

Out of interest, how does predicting the civilian casualties to be expected from destroying the Iraqi capacity to provide drinking water to their cities count, considering that the bombing then proceeded with that destruction? That killed tens of thousands of civilians at a lowest estimate, and the predictions were made - as far as I can see - during peacetime planning and before the damage was caused.

neither the first report you referenced, nor the second report, suggest anything even remotely perceivable as "predicting civilian casualties to be expected from destroying capacity to provide drinking water". not even in the slightest.

so, i'll ask again, since *you* suggested this offensive scenario - prove it. i really, really have no stomach for fraudulent claims that the US military purposely targetted civilians. surely you can find a non-fictional accounting of same.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:15 pm

now, moving away from fictional accounts, here are photographs from the well documented march 16, 1988 catastrophe at halabja, where saddam hussein ordered the gassing of kurdish CIVILIANS, killing some 5,000 immediately and up to 12,000 overall after those who were badly wounded by the chemicals later died.

http://www.kurdistanica.com/halabja/en/ ... Frame.html

anyone else have any other non-fiction stories of the murder of civilians? besides 9/11 obviously.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:07 am

spot wrote: Perhaps we could consider the reasonable question of why no disciplinary investigations seem to have been held into the apparent inability of Norad to intercept any of the planes? I'm still baffled why nobody seems interested in having light shone on that period of the New Pearl Harbor events. It's just too easy not to ask, it would seem.

Did Norad never intercept any planes on previous occasions when they left their flightpaths? I thought they were famed for scrambling fighter escorts under such circumstances. I thought they had a track record of rapid interceptions.

What would you expect them to do shoot down every plane that strayed?

What happened on 911 was beyond anything that hollywood could have dreamed up Had it been made as a fictional film prior to that no one would have bothered going to see a film with such a ridiiculous plot line. Cheney et al took advantage of the situation to pursue their own demented agenda but the idea they planned 911 it ludicrous. There are enough real conspiracies around without wasting time inventing them.

posted by spot

Where would you go instead? The US military don't do bodycounts. I think that's derilict of them, myself, and more to do with PR than with ethics.

Have a look at what the likes of colin powell has to say about body counts and why they didn't have such a practice in the 1st gulf war. It's the 21st century equivalent of cutting off the right ears of the dead to record how many got killed. It's barbaric and it's also highly doubtful of the likes of the british or any of the others involved would have tolerated the practice. Warfare is not a game where you count the dead to see who won.

posted by lennox

After a long absence I am back with another controversial statement. While watching Fox News the other night, a statement was made about an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin being a "kook" because of his views on terrorism. To Bill O'Reilly, I'd like to ask is this man such a "kook" because he actually believes what he says or because you disagree? If you take a look at it, terrorism going back to the Ku Klux Klan is inherently American. Long before there were any suicide bombers or people flying planes into buildings, blacks were beaten, raped, and lynched BY AMERICANS. To paraphrase a statement made, America attacked itself on 9/11 (a topic I'm so sick of hearing about). Is this so far from the truth since America funded Bin Laden, trained Bin Laden, and essentially taught these terrorists to fly planes. I'm not one that's anti-American I'm just one that likes to truth contrary to popular media. Terrorism has existed for quite some time in America, it's just a matter of the targets.

Fear has long been used as a method of control from time immemorial. Usually by the stronger against the weaker as a weapon of state.

What is different in the latter part of the 20th century is deliberate attacks by those with a point to make against innocent targets unconnected to the immediate conflict in order to draw attention to their cause and try and force a change in policy towards them.

In the middle east it started with the jews in palestine bombing hotels and other civilian targets. The first israeli cabinet consisted of active terrorists. Though an appreciation of the irony by either israeli or palestinian is probably unlikely.

The first palestinian attacks on outsiders were designed to draw attention to their plight

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/o ... 65,00.html

On July 22, 1968, three armed Palestinian terrorists hijacked an Israeli passenger airliner flying from Rome to Tel Aviv. The terrorists belonged to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), one of the groups that made up the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). The hijacking marked the advent, according to the director of the Rand Corporation's terrorism research unit in Washington, DC, of the modern era of international terrorism.

It is a bit annoying sometimes that since 911 many americans seem to think that terrorism is somehow a new and terrible phenomenon aimed solely at them because it is the first time they have been attacked.

http://www.cdiss.org/Documents/Uploaded ... 0-1979.pdf

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:09 am

gmc wrote: It is a bit annoying sometimes that since 911 many americans seem to think that terrorism is somehow a new and terrible phenomenon aimed solely at them because it is the first time they have been attacked.

Oh, hey....real sorry about that, but the first time you experience something like that, your reaction to it is bound to change. Human nature.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:01 am

gmc wrote:

It is a bit annoying sometimes that since 911 many americans seem to think that terrorism is somehow a new and terrible phenomenon aimed solely at them because it is the first time they have been attacked.

Hmm, I seem to recall something known as Pearl Harbor and World War II...........