Heck, Bush didn't need to plan 9-11. He was plenty good at planning is own Iraq disaster.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

That's just making them immune from Iraqi justice, not American justice. We're not going to try Saddam Hussein, we're going to let the Iraqis do it. They wouldn't want us to try their war criminals anymore than we'd want them to try ours.

---

Er, the reason Saddam is to be tried by Iraqis is because his crimes were against Iraqis. Just like the troops' crimes.

As if Bush et al haven't running empty trucks up and down Iraq for tax payer money.

---

Spankling I've gone from not understanding your point to not understanding the sequence of words that you are typing.

And he didn't commit any crimes against American POWs in the Persian Gulf War. Oh wait. Or at least not against Iranians. Oh my mistake.

In any event I don't see why it's an issue that we want to try our own soldiers.

Oh and isn't it too bad you can't bitch anymore about not having an exit strategy you can understand.

It's nice to the the U.N. willing to be man enough to work with Bush! ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

The more bungling I see in Iraq the more I see that Bush couldn't have pulled off 9/11.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Didn't you already say that, fuzzyman? Oops, I mean "Spankling"! ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

No he didn't mouth breather... oops. I mean "mak."

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

That's almost as funny as the time you said:

Thank you for confirming that I am getting your goat with the name-callings.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Makk, you can keep my goat, and I hope he butts you right in the balls.

I hope no one here seriously proposed that GWB and company planned 9-11. Bad as he is, I don't think he would attack his own country, or that the vast number of required conspirators would go along with it.

On another note, I keep hearing how the attacks on the WTC were "symbolic." I don't think there was much symbolic about them. Those attacks were meant to hurt us and cost us as a country, and they did. The other attacks that day were aimed at the Pentagon and probably the Capitol. So they were attacking the financial, military, and governmental headquarters of this country. Seems to me these targets were primarily of material value, and any symbolism involved would have been a distant second consideration.

A symbolic attack would be knocking over the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty.

Which goes to the larger point that this is a war over material concerns, not some clash of irreconcilable cultures or religions. We are doing things over there that a lot of people don't like, and Al Qaeda's aim is to hurt us enough to stop us doing those things. Sure, the rhetoric is cloaked in religious and ideological terms. They always are in war, with no exceptions that I can think of. And as always, the religion and ideology are just trappings.

When you're in a fight with someone, as we are with those Al Qaeda bastards, I think it's legitimate to ask what they want. Surely, some of what they want is likely to be reasonable, and some not. If you want to avoid escalation of the violence, you figure out which demands you can live with, and which ones you can't, and you capitulate to the demands that are reasonable and hold your ground on the ones that aren't. This is called negotiation. (I know, "we don't negotiate with terrorists." That's bullshit on several different levels.)

There may be those who won't be satisfied and will still come at you, because they're just murderous psychos. You kill those with a clear conscience, in self defense.

That's my view of it.

---
What others say about boorite!

Why do you think I kidnapped him? ;)

I think bunner did before he started shaving all his body hair and asking people to use his body as a slip n slide.

Yup, it's not too possible.

Al-Qaeda did see the WTC as a symbol of America, and they consistently returned to it as a target.

The WTC symbolized our financial success but I don't think it was our financial headquarters. I might call the stock exchange our financial headquarters. The towers were just big, spectacular targets.

Yes, the term "symbolic attack" seems to imply nothing is really hurt except the symbols.

I think it goes beyond "doing things they don't like". From the beginning Al-Qaeda's point was to destroy a secular super-power (the Soviet Union). I think it's as much about their egos as it is not liking us. What other criminals videotape as many confessions as they do?

You mean aside from destroying America? Would you like breakfast with that, sir?

So you want to give into the demands of Al-Qaeda, supposing that they will stop attacking us. You don't think that will just encourage them? They aren't idealistic fighters, boorite, they are power hungry people exploiting terror for politics, and if they score a victory and make the U.S. back down they will just be empowered.

Not only that, it will encourage terrorism as a means of negotiation. That's why "not negotiating with terrorists" isn't bullshit. You shouldn't validate terror as a means of public discourse. Your attitude is sickening. It's good to know you give the benefit of the doubt to the motives of Al-Qaeda. You're right, maybe they are all good-hearted people. Hey why don't you check out their attitudes about how women should be treated and check out their ideas about an ideal society. Your Al-Qaeda buddies sound real nice! I didn't know you were the kind of guy who liked to beat his wife, take away her property and voting rights, and make her cover her face. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Actually, we do negotiate with terrorists, and sometimes we even employ them, and we do commit acts of terror, and these are the reasons that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is bullshit.

I was just reading a GOP website on the subject of Al Qaeda's demands. GOP means Republican, if you're not up on politics. Anyway, not even on the Republican website is it claimed that Al Qaeda's demands include the destruction of America. The main things they want are for the US to stop invading countries over there, for the US military presence to excuse itself from the region, and for the UN to dissolve.

I don't think dissolving the UN is a reasonable demand, but I think it might be reasonable to restructure it so that the US is on a more equal footing with other sovereign member nations.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we did pull our military presence from the region. If Washington planners are correct, then the world would soon be crying to have us back again. If not, then good riddance to us, and let's spend more of our money at home.

Of course, Al Qaeda's demands are all couched in abhorrent terms, e.g., Washington is enslaved to the Jews, we apologize for blowing up innocent people but we are warning you and you are making it necessary, and so on. Their means as well as some of their ends are detestable and criminal in the highest sense. But let's face it-- so are ours.

So let's say we do get out of the global violence and hegemony business. Let's say we even help other nations to become developed as we are, using their own resources. What do you suppose would happen to all that hatred that Al Qaeda is mobilizing against us? I think it would dry up. Given economic development, I can't see people opting for theocracy or any other form of totalitarianism, not in the long run. And I certainly can't see them opting for the life of a suicide bomber.

In short, if we met the reasonable parts of Al Qaeda's demands-- which we should have done before there even was an Al Qaeda, just out of common decency-- then Al Qaeda would lose. Their reason for being would disappear. I'm pretty sure of that.

After all, how did we get where we are today? We should take a look at our relations with Iraq and Iran with that question in mind, if we want to avoid more of the same.

If we want to avoid more of the same. And I'm assuming we do, but I never know.

---
What others say about boorite!

I said it's our policy so that it doesn't encourage terrorism, and it still is the official policy.

al-Qaeda has said repeatedly it wants to destroy America. That isn't a demand, that's one of their objectives. Why neogiate with anyone who has that as an ultimate objective? That's like asking Israel to negotiate with organization that want them destroyed. What is the point?

But you said we should consider their demands, boorite. You don't get to pick and choose. Let's dissolve the UN so that the world will be safe from al-Qaeda once and for all.

But that wasn't one of their demands.

Seeing if regional stability falls apart would be "interesting"? You of course realize al-Qaeda wants us out of Afghanistan too. Should we leave? Also I'm sure they want us to stop hunting them down all together. Should we do that too?

Why are you trying to reason with people who says the Jews control Washington and that it's neccessary for them to kill innocents (to say nothing of their views about freedoms of religion and human rights for women).

Huh? Name one of our current military operations that isn't peace keeping. What world do you live in where America is the "global violence hegemony" and al-Qaeda is the keepers of justice and peace?

Was that one of al-Qaeda's demands too? How do we do this?

How do we foster this economic development? Give money to the Arab rulers and trust they will filter it down to the people? Maybe we should give everyone a flying car. I bet they'd love us if we did that.

al-Qaeda is not reasonable. And most the "demands" you list are things you have made up. Unless you are saying you have joined al-Qaeda now, and are speaking for your own al-Qaeda cell.

Except al-Qaeda didn't get it's start as America's enemy, it started fighting the Soviets. The end of the Soviets wasn't the end of the Jihad. Conceding to the demands of al-Qaeda will just encourage them, and justify acts of terror.

quote:

---

After all, how did we get where we are today?
We should take a look at our relations with Iraq and Iran with that question in mind, if we want to avoid more of the same.

---

Our current mission in Iraq is peacekeeping. Yeah, we're monsters.

All you are doing is taking the blame away from terrorists for their own actions. If I kidnap your children, and start murdering them one by one until you buy a more fuel-efficient car and stop taking vacations to Florida, just because you agree that one of my demands are valid doesn't justify my behavior.

It's times like this I wish we did have to declare a real war so we could round up the al-Qaeda sympathizers in the country. I'd like to pose in some pictures with you as my prisoner. ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

My goat is much hotter than that, and she aint lettin you touch.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Ah, once again Makk lets fly with the bullshit. I call Al Qaeda abhorrent criminals of the highest order, and he says I consider them the keepers of peace and justice. Then he says he would like to arrest me as an Al Qaeda sympathizer. The dishonesty never ends. It's all he has in his McCarthyite world where you are with the President or with the terrorists.

I didn't make up the Al Qaeda list of demands. It's been published everywhere and is familiar to anyone who is even slightly interested.

Yes, we do get to pick and choose what is reasonable and what isn't. That's called "negotiation."

And it really isn't Al Qaeda we want to negotiate with. It's the people they claim to represent. There are things in Al Qaeda's demands that the whole Islamic world wants, and I think it's reasonable to look at them. Capitulating on certain reasonable demands is our duty as a democratic people, and doing so will rob Al Qaeda of the hatred on which it feeds. Take away the hatred and Al Qaeda evaporates. Any remnants will be easier to hunt down and kill.

Sadly, as you may have noticed, Washington's current policies are so outrageous that they seem to have transformed Al Qaeda from a mere organization to a kind of ideological virus that is taking hold among populations that have no material connection to bin Laden. We have made lots and lots of Al Qaeda with this war. The world is now a more dangerous place for us, and we must reverse the situation for the sake of justice as well as our own security.

Yes, the US exerts a global hegemony using violence. If you hadn't noticed this, you really need to get out more.

When I mentioned our relations with Iraq and Iran, and how we got into this mess, I intended to encourage you to look at several decades of history, which might make sense of today's quagmire. I might just as well encourage you to flap your arms and fly. You are constitutionally incapable of taking an honest look at anything, especially when doing so requires effort.

---
What others say about boorite!

You're the one white-washing all of their demands. "What if we are nice to everyone like al-Qaeda obviously wants?"

I'm not being dishonest. I'd like to do that. But I said I'd like to abuse you after you were arrested, so get your facts straight.

---

I didn't make up the Al Qaeda list of demands. It's been published everywhere and is familiar to anyone who is even slightly interested.

---

So they demanded that the U.S. be on "parity" with other countries in the U.N.? They demanded that we exert our economic influence of the Arab world to better its people? Because that's what you said we should do to make them happy.

How could we even negotiate with al-Qaeda when we don't know where the leadership is? Do you want to release pleas to the public, begging al-Qaeda to stop, and list the demands we think are reasonable?

But they are the ones attacking us, and those are the demands you said meeting would ensure al-Qaeda would stop attacking us.

al-Qaeda just wants power, and it's exploiting its own people to do that. "Giving the people they claim to represent what we think they are claiming to want" isn't going to do anything, especially when they want to subjegate people under the pretense of Islamic law.

al-Qaeda existed before it was targetting America when it was fighting the Soviets. It didn't give up after it got done fighting the Soviets. Again, for a third time I ask, why would it give up now?

You don't think the United States publicily demonstrating that terror gets demands met won't encourage more independent acts of terror, or recruit more al-Qaeda? Do you honestly think America is responsible for all the ills of the downtrodden of the world? Do you honestly think we can fix all those ills?

You didn't answer my question. Show me some examples. Because as far as I know almost all of our current military actions are PEACEkeeping.

The call for jihad by al-Qaeda is a call for holy WAR.

I spent a long time in this thread talking about the Iran-Iraq war as a parallel to the Indian-Pakistan conflict. I understand the context, do you? You still haven't brought up your point, except that you are obviously oh so more knowledgable than me.

We're peacekeeping right now in Iraq. Are you saying we should pull out right away? I'm sure al-Qaeda would like that. I'm not being "dishonest" and "putting words in your mouth", I'm guessing at what the hell you mean because, for a second time, you haven't explained how the Iran-Iraq War relates to us giving in to all of al-Qaeda's demands.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Le Monde reluctantly admits Bush didn't lie about WMDs.

The article.

WMDs confirmed found in Iraq

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I fed the troll again. Forgive me, everyone. He's so cute sometimes.

---
What others say about boorite!

Is that your way of saying you don't have a point about the Iran-Iraq War that relates to you wishing the U.S. would concede to al-Qaeda's demands that you can articulate?

What about the point I have brought up several times, that the al-Qaeda organization didn't begin as an enemy of America relating to your assertion that they could be passified if only we gave into their demands? There is only evidence to suggest they would expand their ambitions, not reduce them.

al-Qaeda doesn't represent the average Muslim. Why do you think giving into demands you assume are good for Muslims (which are demands that are probably not even possible) would stop an organization that only claims to represent all Muslim interests?

Do you not have a response to the notion that giving in to terror demands would only enourage terrorism and greatly embolden al-Qaeda?

I don't see anything "trollish" about these perfectly reasonable questions. I do think you claiming that we should give in to al-Qaeda's demands is inflamatory, but I've treated it as seriously as I could. I think when I make a case that brings up some valid points, you just run away to your "makk is a troll" defense.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Same old story... wrong country.
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8fcda257-81a3-47da-8482-450b6cb347f2
http://mathaba.net/x.htm?http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=51070
http://mathaba.net/x.htm?http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=51034
http://www.iht.com/articles/521445.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/nkorea.libya/ <=== CNN mak.
http://www.truthnews.net/daily/2004050333.htm
http://www.wtvo.com/Global/story.asp?S=1888383

These are all about evidence that North Korea gave uranium to Libya when Moammar Gadhafi was trying to build nuclear warheads. Not Iraq. Iraq wasn't involved. It kind of kicks the stuffing out of lingering justifications for the war in the first place.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I didn't know anyone had made a serious case for saying that North Korea dealt nuclear material to Iraq. And Libya has capitulated and declared its WMDs, as a direct result of Saddam's capture.

And I know you don't read the articles you post, but do you even read the entire headlines, Spankling?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Can you read and not filter it through your own propoganda?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Makk, you're a troll. Everyone knows it. You're not here to talk seriously with us. You're here to get our goat, as you put it. That's what you brag about, whenever it happens. Your proudest achievement seems to be bunner's getting disgusted with you and storming off. You like to upset people, and you'll say any ridiculous thing to do it. You're here to disrupt the forum, period. That's a troll. You're a troll. Your remarks deserve no reply.

---
What others say about boorite!

He's JUST a button-pusher.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Pushed the hell out of mine right enough.

---
What others say about boorite!

It just says North Korea sold secrets to Lybia. Lybia has already declared its WMDs. In your post you suggest that now that we have a war in Iraq, all WMDs sold must have been sold to Iraq or the war was wrong. Did that sort through enough of the propaganda?

I just said I got Spankling's goat to try to goad him into actually answering a question. Go back and look through his posts where he just makes chicken noises and tell me those are informed responses.

You made a post saying we should give in to al-Qaeda's demands. That is pretty inflammatory, but I treated it as seriously as possible. More than three times I've posted these legitimate questions, which for some reason you brush off as "trolling":

You mention the Iraq-Iran War in the context of giving into al-Qaeda's demands. What is the relaitonship?

The al-Qaeda organization didn't begin as an enemy of America relating to your assertion that they could be passified if only we gave into their demands. There is only evidence to suggest they would expand their ambitions, not reduce them. Do you not think this makes the question of their demands a moot point?

al-Qaeda doesn't represent the average Muslim. Why do you think giving into demands you assume are good for Muslims (which are demands that are probably not even possible) would stop an organization that only claims to represent all Muslim interests?

Do you not have a response to the notion that giving in to terror demands would only enourage terrorism and greatly embolden al-Qaeda?

I don't see anything wrong with these questions. If you want to give up, fine, but don't be a baby.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Answer your own questions. You know enough.

---
What others say about boorite!