Remembering 911

[Addendum]

And if this website didn't have a 9-11 thread, it'd be major ****ing earth shattering news

 

[knowsbleed]

It is. I feel no need to mourn anymore. What's so confusing?

Oh...you're not confusing. Just ignorant.

 

[The Kid]

Thank you. Did you see any of this from the Bronx or is that too far away??

Yeah way too far to see anything, though I did give it a shot. Instead we just sat around watching it all on a fuzzy tv station.

It's amazing, all the bull **** egos, teasing, and childishness that usually goes on at school was completely nonexistent that day. People in highschool actually seemed like human beings.

 

[Kritish]

Well, it's been proven that Iraq did not have WMD's, which was the major reason for the war. The group "al Qaeda in Iraq" did not exist until after U.S. forces entered Iraq.

Amen, we never had any business in Iraq in the first place. There were no chemical weapons in Iraq and I don't give a rat's ass what he did to the Kurds.

Religious fundamentalism wasn't a big problem in a Saddam controlled Iraq because Saddam kept everyone's asses in check. Something the the most powerful military on earth hasn't been able to do as of yet.

We hung the only person who could control that pathetic excuse for a country and now we're surprised that there's people worse than him trying to fill the power gap.

 

[Superhobo]

Oh...you're not confusing. Just ignorant.

Be...cause I don't feel I need to mourn any more? Because I, personally, don't need or want to? How is that ignorant?

 

[SuperMonkey]

So no attempt at diplomacy or any un-violent methods?

That's a bit heartbreaking actually.

That people would just prefer to take a human life rather than find a less pig-headed approach...

Based on that logic...how are we any better than them?

CFE

Do you really think people like bin Laden who sent men to their deaths in a 767 would listen to diplomacy?

I would post some more stuff but I would just be ridiculed for not going along with popular opinion.

 

[knowsbleed]

Be...cause I don't feel I need to mourn any more? Because I, personally, don't need or want to? How is that ignorant?

Did I say mourn? There is a difference between mourning and remembrance...if you don't know the difference, use the internet and look it up.

If, on the anniversary of the most devastating event to happen on US soil since Pearl Harbor, Americans taking a day to remember and do what they will with their thoughts is too much of a distraction from surfing the internet, playing xbox, eating junk food...then I'm sorry to bother you. Please continue on with your happy little life.

 

[Jerry!]

I don't personally mourn this day, I remember it, more because of how badly we ****ed up since then more than anything else though sadly.

 

[Kelly]

So no attempt at diplomacy or any un-violent methods?

That's a bit heartbreaking actually.

That people would just prefer to take a human life rather than find a less pig-headed approach...

Based on that logic...how are we any better than them?

CFE

What type of diplomacy would you use with a group of people that

1. Believe that all who do not believe, turn and follow Muhammad are infidels.
2. All infidels must die.
3. Believe the world should be under Islamic rule.

Do not get me wrong, I believe this is a "very small" fringe group of Muslims who believe this way....but it is the group that sent 2 planes into the WTC, 1 plane into the Pentagon, and was about to send another plane into the Capital bldg. It is also the group that commits suicide bombs, etc.

Now, IF, we were talking about an official State, then yes diplomacy should always be the first position to take. But, exactly what State would we be having diplomatic talks with? Who would their negotiator be? What would you put on the table of this negotiation?


If you are talking about State's that finance these groups, give these groups safe harbor, etc.....then MAYBE, diplomacy will help in keeping them from financint and giving them a safe haven. But that will not stop these groups.



"One man's terrorist, is another man's hero." This will not change with diplomacy.

 

[SuperMonkey]

Amen, we never had any business in Iraq in the first place. There were no chemical weapons in Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#Iran-Iraq_War

And I quote:

During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish separatists.

and I don't give a rat's ass what he did to the Kurds.

Yet if one of the Hype's conservatives said something like that, he would be branded as a hate-monger.

Religious fundamentalism wasn't a big problem in a Saddam controlled Iraq

Yeah, he never enforced Shariaah law or anything.

because Saddam kept everyone's asses in check.
Something the the most powerful military on earth hasn't been able to do as of yet.

You mean he kept the free-thinker's asses in check.

We hung the only person who could control that pathetic excuse for a country and now we're surprised that there's people worse than him trying to fill the power gap.

HE MURDERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, YOU ****-TARD! AND WE DIDN'T HANG HIM, THE IRAQI PEOPLE DID!

 

[Addendum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#Iran-Iraq_War

And I quote:

During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish separatists.



Yet if one of the Hype's conservatives said something like that, he would be branded as a hate-monger.

Yeah, he never enforced Shariaah law or anything.

You mean he kept the free-thinker's asses in check.




HE MURDERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, YOU ****-TARD! AND WE DIDN'T HANG HIM, THE IRAQI PEOPLE DID!

The Iran-Iraq war was in the 80s, and Iraq was an ally of the U.S.

The last time Saddam used WMDs was in 1991. Anything after that?

 

[Superhobo]

Did I say mourn? There is a difference between mourning and remembrance...if you don't know the difference, use the internet and look it up.

If, on the anniversary of the most devastating event to happen on US soil since Pearl Harbor, Americans taking a day to remember and do what they will with their thoughts is too much of a distraction from surfing the internet, playing xbox, eating junk food...then I'm sorry to bother you. Please continue on with your happy little life.

Haha, you ludicrously stuck up ass. My life's far from happy. I'm no emo, but it's far from happy. Just because I think its needless to have an entire day dedicated to something that, WHILE IT WAS A HORRIBLE EVENT, we should have moved on socially well over two years ago.

I said its propaganda. It is propaganda. It damn well is, and there is no way to doubt that. Look how its affected you. You can mourn, sure. That's normal, and your right. But its gotten you so that you have to be offended at opposing view points. Healthy healthy.

 

[Kelly]

^^^Chill with the namecalling, figure out another way to make your point.

 

[CFE]

What type of diplomacy would you use with a group of people that

1. Believe that all who do not believe, turn and follow Muhammad are infidels.
2. All infidels must die.
3. Believe the world should be under Islamic rule.

Do not get me wrong, I believe this is a "very small" fringe group of Muslims who believe this way....but it is the group that sent 2 planes into the WTC, 1 plane into the Pentagon, and was about to send another plane into the Capital bldg. It is also the group that commits suicide bombs, etc.

Now, IF, we were talking about an official State, then yes diplomacy should always be the first position to take. But, exactly what State would we be having diplomatic talks with? Who would their negotiator be? What would you put on the table of this negotiation?


If you are talking about State's that finance these groups, give these groups safe harbor, etc.....then MAYBE, diplomacy will help in keeping them from financint and giving them a safe haven. But that will not stop these groups.



"One man's terrorist, is another man's hero." This will not change with diplomacy.

Yeah...

Just more confirmation that this world is spinning out of control...

Maybe someday though...hopefully...you never know. But god willing something is done before we implode...

CFE

 

[Kelly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#Iran-Iraq_War

And I quote:

During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish separatists.



Yet if one of the Hype's conservatives said something like that, he would be branded as a hate-monger.

Yeah, he never enforced Shariaah law or anything.

You mean he kept the free-thinker's asses in check.




HE MURDERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, YOU ****-TARD! AND WE DIDN'T HANG HIM, THE IRAQI PEOPLE DID!

I suggest you chill with the namecalling...

 

[SuperMonkey]

The Iran-Iraq war was in the 80s, and Iraq was an ally of the U.S.

The last time Saddam used WMDs was in 1991. Anything after that?

We had every reason to think he did have something. He had built and used them in the past, we had people from inside the Iraqi government saying he had them and he kicked the nuke inspectors out on their ass, what else were we supposed to think?

 

[Superhobo]

^^^Chill with the namecalling, figure out another way to make your point.

I called him one three letter name, at the top of the post. My emotions are high even when they're not triggered by the media. Sorry.

 

[Superhobo]

We had every reason to think he did have something. He had built and used them in the past, we had people from inside the Iraqi government saying he had them and he kicked the nuke inspectors out on their ass, what else were we supposed to think?

Are you still clinging to the thought that Iraq had WMDs?


Really?




Really?

 

[Kritish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#Iran-Iraq_War

And I quote:

During the war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish separatists.

Yet if one of the Hype's conservatives said something like that, he would be branded as a hate-monger.

Yeah, he never enforced Shariaah law or anything.

You mean he kept the free-thinker's asses in check.

HE MURDERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, YOU ****-TARD! AND WE DIDN'T HANG HIM, THE IRAQI PEOPLE DID!

Yet if one of the Hype's conservatives said something like that, he would be branded as a hate-monger.

Hate-monger would suggest that I hate Kurds, I'm just smart enough to know that it's not America's job to be the god damn world police.

Yeah, he never enforced Shariaah law or anything.

Saddam wasn't Muslim, if you watched something about Saddam other than Fox news you'd learn that he'd dress and act differently around different ethnic groups to appeal to them.

You mean he kept the free-thinker's asses in check.

Free-thinkers? Is that what you call all those nut jobs that want to establish a religious monarchy?

HE MURDERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, YOU ****-TARD! AND WE DIDN'T HANG HIM, THE IRAQI PEOPLE DID!

You know who captured Saddam? Us.

 

[SuperMonkey]

Did I say that?

-- FunBob

 

[Kelly]

Hate-monger would suggest that I hate Kurds, I'm just smart enough to know that it's not America's job to be the god damn world police.



Saddam wasn't Muslim, if you watched something about Saddam other than Fox news you'd learn that he'd dress and act differently around different ethnic groups to appeal to them.



Free-thinkers? Is that what you call all those nut jobs that want to establish a religious monarchy?



You know who captured Saddam? Us.

He suddenly became very Muslim during the Persian Gulf war when he needed the backing of other Muslim nations. He was seen in many news clips praying in mosques with other Muslims. Which had never been seen before that time.

 

[Kritish]

Are you still clinging to the thought that Iraq had WMDs?
Really?
Really?

Well I'm sure there was a can of bug spray in one of those Iraqi bases. If it can kill wind scorpions I'm sure it can kill a Kurd.

 

[knowsbleed]

Haha, you ludicrously stuck up ass. My life's far from happy. I'm no emo, but it's far from happy. Just because I think its needless to have an entire day dedicated to something that, WHILE IT WAS A HORRIBLE EVENT, we should have moved on socially well over two years ago.

I said its propaganda. It is propaganda. It damn well is, and there is no way to doubt that. Look how its affected you. You can mourn, sure. That's normal, and your right. But its gotten you so that you have to be offended at opposing view points. Healthy healthy.

Yes, your coke theft story is far more powerful a subject. Let's dwell on that.

I'm not offended by you and your indifference. You are probably too young to be affected by anything outside of your scope of sight...that's why I called you ignorant.

 

[Kelly]

I called him one three letter name, at the top of the post. My emotions are high even when they're not triggered by the media. Sorry.

And that is why you have this warning, rather than an infraction.

 

[Addendum]

We had every reason to think he did have something. He had built and used them in the past, we had people from inside the Iraqi government saying he had them and he kicked the nuke inspectors out on their ass, what else were we supposed to think?

On February 24 2001, during then Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt, Powell answered a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...


Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Senator Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

When we came into office on the 20th of January, the whole sanctions regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of regime because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than enough money; they just weren't spending it in the proper way. And we were getting the blame for it. So reconfiguring the sanctions, I think, helps us and continues to contain the Iraqi regime.

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice responds:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat.

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.