TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- PM John Howard b*t*h-slaps the press regarding Iraq

PM John Howard b*t*h-slaps the press regarding Iraq

Smack-down!

quote:

JOHN HOWARD [K. J. Lopez] This quickie transcript was just sent to me by someone who described it as "a direct, devastating bitch-slap to the nonsense that the U.S., Britain and Australia brought this on themselves from any other leader": PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here. Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq. And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq. Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder. PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

>>Source<<

Nice to see a leader who tells it like it is when it comes to this disgusting notion of rationalising the actions of some seriously sick human beings. I don't give a shit if you are American, Iraqi or Pakistani, if you set out to deliberately murder innocent people, then you are scum of the earth, but even more puzzling are the one's that offer up reasonings or should I say would like to think they know the reasons for such behavior on the part of these individuals. If someone can truly get into the mind of a "terrorist" then good luck figuring them out.

It always gripes me when Afghanistan is lumped with Iraq on either side of the coin, I fully supported Afghanistan because it was clear that Al-Qaeda was based there, running camps, training future terrorists and all within the protection of a nation in turmoil, guided by the Taleban, enough said. As Howard stated "Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?" The sad reality is there are those who will continue to justify, welcome, explain and rationalise such abhorent behavior. Thank goodness I don't have to share a society with such people, an innocent life is an innocent life, stand up for it or fuck off.

I consider myself a very worldly person but this is the lowest point of feelings that I have ever had of Muslim culture, one which I have always looked at with respect and fascination as someone who studied history and enjoy learning about others. An entire group of people cannot be blamed for the actions of few, but is enough being done to remove such elements from continuing to promote such ideas of death. Truly sad. While I feel the U.S. had no business in Iraq from what we know I can never feel the London events are acceptable behaviour.

I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

The first thing you are taught in history is to never assume cause and effect as being part of historical events. No one can say that the Iraq war isn't encouraging terrorism it seems obvious on the surface, what is being said is do not associate that as the rhyme and reason for such behaviours by terrorists or whatever name may suit your fancy. To do so would lead to a circle of claims and counter claims. I could go on and say in the 80's there were hijackings of airliners all over the Mid East region supported by the likes of Libya at that time. All of this however would be irrespective of the fact that there are all kinds of forms of terrorism for numerous reasons, Iraq is no exception.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

nah they have no link whatsoever. And accepting that link would make Howard somewhat responsible, and we cant have that.

They were just ppl who hated our freedom!lol

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan The first thing you are taught in history is to never assume cause and effect as being part of historical events. No one can say that the Iraq war isn't encouraging terrorism it seems obvious on the surface, what is being said is do not associate that as the rhyme and reason for such behaviours by terrorists or whatever name may suit your fancy. To do so would lead to a circle of claims and counter claims. I could go on and say in the 80's there were hijackings of airliners all over the Mid East region supported by the likes of Libya at that time. All of this however would be irrespective of the fact that there are all kinds of forms of terrorism for numerous reasons, Iraq is no exception.

Not sure I quite follow those last couple of sentences?

Anyway...

The Islamists attacked America on 9/11 because of US foreign policy towards the Middle East

Spain was attacked cos it was in Iraq, as was the UK

Why has al-Qaida et al chosen to attck these countries but not France or Germany or Canada? They are all part of the West and therefore, according to Blair and Howard should be as much as a target as the UK or Spain (and lets not forget the fact that last week an Islamist group warned Italy and Japan that they would be next because of their involvement in Iraq!

The Bali bombing is different because it does not fit into the pattern above, in fact it does seem to fit into the pattern Howard and Blair talk about. However, the Bali bombing was an attack not against Australia but against Westernism in an Islamic country and lets not forget the ideology of Islamism as layed down by Qutb - it is to keep Westernism out of the Islamic world. That makes the Bali bombing the most obvious attack of them all, cos that attack was an attack against their highest ideological priority.

No terrorists launch attacks just for the hell of it, none ever. Every single terrorist attack is done for a reason and the target too is chosen for a reason. The aim of the Islamists is to keep Westernism out of the Middle East (and the Islamic world) not to "destroy our way of life" or just because they hate us and our values - that is why 9/11 happened (they thought it might convince America to get out of Saudi Arabia and resolve the ME Peace Process), thats why Spain was attacked (to get them out of Iraq - out of the Islamic world), ditto for the UK, and Bali is the most obvious one...and that is why France has not been attacked or Germany or Canada, because they are not in Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley No terrorists launch attacks just for the hell of it, none ever. Every single terrorist attack is done for a reason and the target too is chosen for a reason. The aim of the Islamists is to keep Westernism out of the Middle East (and the Islamic world) not to "destroy our way of life" or just because they hate us and our values - that is why 9/11 happened (they thought it might convince America to get out of Saudi Arabia and resolve the ME Peace Process), thats why Spain was attacked (to get them out of Iraq - out of the Islamic world), ditto for the UK, and Bali is the most obvious one...and that is why France has not been attacked or Germany or Canada, because they are not in Iraq

Well first of all your idea that it is to keep Westernism out of the Islamic world represents exactly what I mentioned a few days back, that you cannot reason with such people. That statement in itself is one to me that represents deep intolerance of others who are not deeply Islamic, after all what consitutes Westernism in the minds of these individuals. Maybe I should go out and bomb a few mosques because I don't want Islamic influences where I live, that really accomplishes something, right? Like I said one big circle of rationalizations and assumed reasons for the actions of such people.

Secondly last time I checked Germany was involved in the Afghanistan campaign as well as Canada and the terrorists have made it clear that Afghanistan is part of their grievances, so what does that mean. It appears to me that some view these people as vanguards defending the Muslim World from the "evil" Western governments, imagine a Muslim world led by such people, intolerant of other peoples, oppressive and guided by nothing but religious teachings about who's God is better. I hope I never see such a day when the Taleban would become the norm of the Middle East, it would make now look a whole lot milder.

you people making excuses for an airbase in Rhyad, or sanctions on Iraq or whatever irrational defence for irrational behavior such as jihad suffer from what is called "BATTERED WIFE SYNDROME".

quote:

Originally posted by bubble i think's he's lost sight already. if i was muslim, i might be offended at a possible slight toward islam. for the sake of australians, i hope he's right.

Don't misconstrue the quote to make it fit your own arguement.
Howard doesn't mention Muslims or Islam so don't assume it.
He clearly states, "[P}erverted ideology of people and their murder."
Where do we see "Muslim" or "Islam" in that statement? In fact, the whole dialogue doesn't mention either word once...

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan It always gripes me when Afghanistan is lumped with Iraq on either side of the coin, I fully supported Afghanistan because it was clear that Al-Qaeda was based there, running camps, training future terrorists and all within the protection of a nation in turmoil, guided by the Taleban, enough said. As Howard stated "Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?"

This is exactly the point though: why is Howard lumping the Iraq invasion in with the Afghan invasion and his own military commitment to East Timor? The Afghan invasion was necessary because it was patently clear that the Taliban government was supporting and harbouring the terrorist group responsible for the September 11th attacks. There was a clear aim here, that if acheieved would most likely make Western society safer, in spite of the threats of retribution for it. The Australian presence in East Timor was different again. It was a small peace-keeping force sent in to stop the Indonesians from kicking the shit of the Timorese people and nothing more. This operation was in no way connected to the war on terrorism (indeed it preceded it by a couple of years) and wasn't in any way related to the rationale for invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Why is Howard conflating all these military operations together as though lending support to one or two of these operations logically necessitates the support of all three?

quote:

The first thing you are taught in history is to never assume cause and effect as being part of historical events. No one can say that the Iraq war isn't encouraging terrorism it seems obvious on the surface

That's fair enough, but look at the facts. The most major terrorist attacks since the Iraq invasion (Spain, Turkey, England etc.) have all been directed against nations that were involved in the Iraq war. After the attacks, those responsible mentioned the nation's support for the Iraq war forming a major part of the reason why they were targetted.

Am I saying that this in anyway justifies the attacks, or that the ideologies of these terrorist groups are in any way coherent, logical or justifiable? Of course not. Nonetheless, when you look at these facts and judge the impact that the Iraq war might have had on extremist groups in the form of a simple dichotemy (all other things being equal, would these groups be more or less likely to target a nation involved in the invasion of an Arabic state?) it becomes patently clear that the blind refusal of leaders such as Howard and Blair to accept that the Iraq war has made us more - not less - susceptible to terrorist attacks is completely misguided. I'm not blaming these two directly for what happened in London, but there is no question that following Bush into a war whose basis, ultimately, was part of a geopolitical strategy far removed from the illdefined aims of the "war on terror", has made their nations a more attractive target for those who see themselves as being at war with Western culture.

I mean, there's every chance that London would have been targetted by terrorist groups even if Britain hadn't involved itself in the Iraq war (as Howard said, Western countries were, afterall, targetted before the Iraq invasion as well) but you'd have a hard time convincing me that Britain would have been as or more likely to have been hit by terrorists had it invested the billions of pounds spent on the Iraq war in the strengthening security and intelligence organisations, both domestic and international, instead. Fact is, the methodology of the men at war with the "terrorists" is as fracured, misguided and nonsensical as those of the terrorists themselves. This "war" ceased being an exercise in the prevention of terrorist attacks a long time ago and it's currently little more than a bawdy, simple-minded moral crusade against an ideology they have no intention of understanding and even less intention of stamping out. Until they realise that their current tactics have only worsened the situation and increased the number of attacks being committed by extremist Muslim organisations across the world, then the didactic, post hoc justifications they deliver from behind the podiums about the moral authority they hold in this "war" will continue to ring hollow. In spite of Mr Howard's protestations and complete inability to admit fault or responsibility for anything, his commitment to the Iraq war has made his own nation and the world at large much less safe.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think it's laughable that anyone thinks the war in Iraq isn't encouraging terrorism against the countries taking part in the operation!

People are just thick.

I don't really see much difference between the popular 'american' black and white philosophy and that of the attackers. Both sides disregard their opponents with childish terms like "evil", and both sides are responsible for causing the inflation of a conflict that has taken too many civilian lives, and will continue to take on more. The true source of the problem is neither american occupation in the middle east, nor the so called 'disturbed ideologies' of the suicide bombers, but the simple-mindedness and disorted world-view of people on both sides. All the time I hear people saying 9-11 was an attack on the innocent civilian population, but really, how many of those victims were really innocent? Democracy is about electing your leaders, not electing someone to take hits for you, and with every ballot you cast comes a certain responsibility. Everyone in those towers who would have supported actions amplifying this conflict were at least in part responsible for their own deaths, just like the hijackers are in part responsible for civilian victims of american bombings in the middle east.

Solution? err... nuke the world?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian All the time I hear people saying 9-11 was an attack on the innocent civilian population, but really, how many of those victims were really innocent? Democracy is about electing your leaders, not electing someone to take hits for you, and with every ballot you cast comes a certain responsibility. Everyone in those towers who would have supported actions amplifying this conflict were at least in part responsible for their own deaths, just like the hijackers are in part responsible for civilian victims of american bombings in the middle east.

Your appalling indifference to the destruction of human life is matched only by your appalling indifference to the schematics of coherent logical argumentation. Nice one buddy.

My argument is logical in nature. Saying all those people were completely innocent is an emotional basis, and is irrational. How about instead of calling me names you find an intelligent way to refute?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian My argument is logical in nature.

Yeah, I was really with you there until you implied that those who died in the WTC attacks had it coming...

quote:

Saying all those people were completely innocent is an emotional basis, and is irrational.

And what crimes, exactly, were they guilty of that may have justified the manner in which they were killed?

quote:

How about instead of calling me names you find an intelligent way to refute?

I didn't call you any names.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And what crimes, exactly, were they guilty of that may have justified the manner in which they were killed?

I think you misunderstood my original post. I didn't say they deserved what they got, I said they walked into it themselves.

If a man is driving at three times the speed limit under bad weather conditions, then loses control of his car, slams into a tree and dies. Who's fault is it? The weather, the tree, or his own? His crashing into the tree is the direct cause of his death, and he crashed into it because he couldn't see it soon enough, but none of that ever would've happened if he had been driving responsibly. That doesn't mean he deserved to die, but had he been wiser, he could have avoided it completely. What about the passenger in his car? Well, he wasn't driving, so how is he responsible?

Now apply that to the 9-11 situation. America is a multicultural democracy with many differing opinions. In those towers, there were people who's actions and opinions are directly or indirectly a cause of the conflict. Maybe they're reservists, maybe they're important CEOs with hands in the right places, or heck, maybe they just voted republican in the last election. Those people are the drivers. In that tower, there were also pacifists, intellectuals, and people who simply had nothing to do with any of this. They're the passengers.

So the drivers were victims of their own stupidity, while the passengers were victims of the drivers' stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by ProDiGaL They were just ppl who hated our freedom!lol

Insert the word democracy somewhere in there too.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian I think you misunderstood my original post. I didn't say they deserved what they got, I said they walked into it themselves. If a man is driving at three times the speed limit under bad weather conditions, then loses control of his car, slams into a tree and dies. Who's fault is it? The weather, the tree, or his own? His crashing into the tree is the direct cause of his death, and he crashed into it because he couldn't see it soon enough, but none of that ever would've happened if he had been driving responsibly. That doesn't mean he deserved to die, but had he been wiser, he could have avoided it completely. What about the passenger in his car? Well, he wasn't driving, so how is he responsible? Now apply that to the 9-11 situation. America is a multicultural democracy with many differing opinions. In those towers, there were people who's actions and opinions are directly or indirectly a cause of the conflict. Maybe they're reservists, maybe they're important CEOs with hands in the right places, or heck, maybe they just voted republican in the last election. Those people are the drivers. In that tower, there were also pacifists, intellectuals, and people who simply had nothing to do with any of this. They're the passengers. So the drivers were victims of their own stupidity, while the passengers were victims of the drivers' stupidity.

Might I ask what exactly are you talking about, you throw around general statements about how this is because of that, it seems to me like you just hate the general American society and what you feel it stands for in today's world more than you can bring yourself to denigrate the attackers. You claim the victims walked into it themselves, yet you maintain there are those who have nothing to do with the conflict but were hapless victims. In none of this however do I see a point to qualify your statement except your attempts to blame the victims for their own deaths, there is no misunderstanding of your post.

Another thing to note is the volume of vitriol that is spewed in these Mosques by imams in the Muslim World and some societies into which they have migrated, such as London, about kill this and kill that, death to one and death to the other. Imagine such text being preached in Western churches about lets go murder Muslims and down with the Muslim world and destroy them. No one ever makes comments about such behaviors. So go figure that one.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan it seems to me like you just hate the general American society

I live amongst it, so why would I hate it? No, I hate ignorance, and I hate to see people get stuck in a conflict they don't have anything to do with.

quote:

You claim the victims walked into it themselves, yet you maintain there are those who have nothing to do with the conflict but were hapless victims. In none of this however do I see a point to qualify your statement except your attempts to blame the victims for their own deaths, there is no misunderstanding of your post.

You've pretty much summed it. What's your point here?

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Another thing to note is the volume of vitriol that is spewed in these Mosques by imams in the Muslim World and some societies into which they have migrated, such as London, about kill this and kill that, death to one and death to the other. Imagine such text being preached in Western churches about lets go murder Muslims and down with the Muslim world and destroy them. No one ever makes comments about such behaviors. So go figure that one.

That's purely a matter of situation. Like I said earlier, the mentalities are the same. Humans are humans wherever they're from. If you could have switched around the americans I reffered to with the terrorists, you'd have the exact same situation - american christians commiting suicide bombings against muslims. But as is, americans won't resort to terrorism, not because they're all high and mighty, but because they're fairly wealthy, they live in comfort, and they have the world's most powerful army with them - so why would they need to? Give Al Quaeda a powerful army and trillions of dollars, and I guarantee you they'll never resort to the same tactics again.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian I live amongst it, so why would I hate it? No, I hate ignorance, and I hate to see people get stuck in a conflict they don't have anything to do with.

But yet they seemingly pretty much had it coming, according to you?

quote:

You've pretty much summed it. What's your point here?

I think his point is that you cannot be both a victim AND a culprit, at least you have failed to make a coherent argument for such.

What it appears you are attempting to accomplish here is to overgeneralize the actions of a given government onto its people. If this is indeed your argument, to a very very very slight extent I'm willing to agree with you. In essence we are all responsible for our government's actions as they are the body and voice of the people. But you know as well as I that any given government in history has NEVER been an actual voice of the people, and does not truly represent the public fully, sometimes little at all. That's an idealistic fantasy by any stretch of the imagination.

So you are overstepping a bit here to say that one of my wife's relatives who died that day had it coming, whether he be a "driver" or a "passenger" in this situation. In essence you are essentially stating that no one is innocent under any given circumstances, and that we are all responsible. Again I do agree, but only slightly.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think his point is that you cannot be both a victim AND a culprit, at least you have failed to make a coherent argument for such.

I didn't say everyone who was killed was responsible - only certain people. And I pretty much explained that in the clearest terms.

quote:

What it appears you are attempting to accomplish here is to overgeneralize the actions of a given government onto its people. If this is indeed your argument, to a very very very slight extent I'm willing to agree with you. In essence we are all responsible for our government's actions as they are the body and voice of the people. But you know as well as I that any given government in history has NEVER been an actual voice of the people, and does not truly represent the public fully, sometimes little at all. That's an idealistic fantasy by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed. And this is where democracy fails. But you have to remember that, although people don't have direct control over the government, they still had a choice - and yes, the democrats might have done some pretty bad things as well, but if the general populace was wiser, at least one political party would have to adapt and take that stance. So yes, it is a gross generalization, but nevertheless, the values of the administration are shared by a large percentage of the people who voted it in, whom represent about 50% of the american population.

quote:

So you are overstepping a bit here to say that one of my wife's relatives who died that day had it coming, whether he be a "driver" or a "passenger" in this situation.

Attempting to make an emotional statement here won't achieve much. As you've probably noticed I like to view things with cold logic and objectivity.

I'm not certain here but I get the impression a couple of you seem to think I'm saying those people deserve it - or that I would side with the terrorists. But I'm really not. Believe me, if I could have stopped 9-11, I would have without question. What I'm doing here is keeping a neutral perspective and analysing the causes. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed, but I am very angered to see so many people - consciousely or otherwise - fuel this conflict that has caused too many deaths already.

quote:

In essence you are essentially stating that no one is innocent under any given circumstances, and that we are all responsible. Again I do agree, but only slightly.

I'm stating that you're innocent as long as you disagree with the actions that have led to the events in question. If you do agree with them, then you're part of the cause itself, because in a democracy, the blood is on the hands of whoever elected the government - not on the hands of the government itself. The government's job is merely to represent the people who voted for it.

Protestors can whine about Bush all they want - but it's republicans they should be angered at, because without them, GWB would just be the governor of some little redneck state down south.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian I didn't say everyone who was killed was responsible - only certain people. And I pretty much explained that in the clearest terms.

So only the Republicans and corporate big whigs were responsible?

Got it, thanks.

quote:

Agreed. And this is where democracy fails. But you have to remember that, although people don't have direct control over the government, they still had a choice - and yes, the democrats might have done some pretty bad things as well, but if the general populace was wiser, at least one political party would have to adapt and take that stance. So yes, it is a gross generalization, but nevertheless, the values of the administration are shared by a large percentage of the people who voted it in, whom represent about 50% of the american population.

Ehh, again I think you're using too big of a paint brush here. While true a little over 50% of the voting public voted for Bush, that does not necessarily equate to over 50% of the American public identifying with his so-called "values" (and I do use that term loosely). That merely means only 50% or more simply got off their asses to vote for the guy. And if you haven't examined things recently, his poll numbers have been taking a nose dive lately as well.

And this does not also account for a given percentage of individuals who merely vote for Bush or a given candidate for the perception of shared values, rather than one who actually shares them. Furthermore, you also must consider those who are either knowingly or unknowingly ignorant of certain negative qualities of their candidate. I tend to find the large majority of voters falling into this category. Not to excuse their ignorance, mind you, but it still falls short of demonstrating a sharing of values between the voter and politician.

quote:

Attempting to make an emotional statement here won't achieve much. As you've probably noticed I like to view things with cold logic and objectivity.

And I must say, you're so gosh darn cute when you're so logically cold! Very becoming!

But serioiusly, keep in mind that you are referring to an incident that in some 6 degrees of separation, pretty much touches everyone in the U.S. and much of the globe on a personal level. You're welcome to talk on an objective level to your heart's content, but please don't expect others to do the same.

Moreover, I think you'll find that I will tend to agree with your views more often than not (i.e. not a very big fan of this current Administration). Nevertheless, 9/11 is and always will be a personal issue with me, a "looney, tree-huggin, hippie liberal". Not that I don't discuss things with "cold logic and objectivity" - I do this quite often on a myriad of topics (do a thread search on Creationism, for example). But honestly, topics aren't all that fun without a little emotion, humor, sarcasm, etc. Don't be afraid to show it from time to time.

quote:

I'm not certain here but I get the impression a couple of you seem to think I'm saying those people deserve it - or that I would side with the terrorists. But I'm really not. Believe me, if I could have stopped 9-11, I would have without question. What I'm doing here is keeping a neutral perspective and analysing the causes. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed, but I am very angered to see so many people - consciousely or otherwise - fuel this conflict that has caused too many deaths already.

While I tend to agree with your sentiments on cause-effect here, I think you are also giving terrorists a little too much of a free pass here. Perhaps if you're willing to throw in the idea that these guys are wee bit fucking looney, and that despite our actions that might provoke their anger, ramming three jets into 3 of our buildings is not quite the proper answer for their anger-management difficulties.

quote:

I'm stating that you're innocent as long as you disagree with the actions that have led to the events in question. If you do agree with them, then you're part of the cause itself, because in a democracy, the blood is on the hands of whoever elected the government - not on the hands of the government itself. The government's job is merely to represent the people who voted for it.

Again I wonder - despite our shortcomings on handling the situation leading up to 9/11 (which admittedly was shared by both Democratic and Republican Administrations), by stating that in essence we merely deserved what we got you are implying that the behavior of the terrorists was acceptible.

I sincerely hope you clarify your position on this.

quote:

Protestors can whine about Bush all they want - but it's republicans they should be angered at, because without them, GWB would just be the governor of some little redneck state down south.

Couldn't agree more, and I'm plenty angered at this turd.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ehh, again I think you're using too big of a paint brush here. While true a little over 50% of the voting public voted for Bush, that does not necessarily equate to over 50% of the American public identifying with his so-called "values" (and I do use that term loosely). That merely means only 50% or more simply got off their asses to vote for the guy. And if you haven't examined things recently, his poll numbers have been taking a nose dive lately as well.

That's true, but if 50% of the people who voted supported bush, we could assume that more or less 50% of the people who didn't vote would have supported him as well. In any case, the administration must be careful to base their policies on all of the american public, not just the ones who vote, because those people who don't could easily get pissed off and motivated to vote against them.

The administration's poll numbers dropping means they'll have to slightly alter their policies to increase those numbers. This is what I'm talking about.

quote:

And this does not also account for a given percentage of individuals who merely vote for Bush or a given candidate for the perception of shared values, rather than one who actually shares them. Furthermore, you also must consider those who are either knowingly or unknowingly ignorant of certain negative qualities of their candidate. I tend to find the large majority of voters falling into this category. Not to excuse their ignorance, mind you, but it still falls short of demonstrating a sharing of values between the voter and politician.

That makes them victims of their own ignorance. It's not purely a question of values.

quote:

But serioiusly, keep in mind that you are referring to an incident that in some 6 degrees of separation, pretty much touches everyone in the U.S. and much of the globe on a personal level. You're welcome to talk on an objective level to your heart's content, but please don't expect others to do the same.

That's why I feel that I should look at this from a neutral standpoint - because no one else is.

quote:

But honestly, topics aren't all that fun without a little emotion, humor, sarcasm, etc. Don't be afraid to show it from time to time.

I understand that, but what I meant is that emotions have no place as arguments.

quote:

While I tend to agree with your sentiments on cause-effect here, I think you are also giving terrorists a little too much of a free pass here. Perhaps if you're willing to throw in the idea that these guys are wee bit fucking looney, and that despite our actions that might provoke their anger, ramming three jets into 3 of our buildings is not quite the proper answer for their anger-management difficulties.

Well I thought that little bit was obvious to everyone already.

Of course they're looney, but you've got people like that everywhere. What I'm saying is that there's a reason they took planes and slammed them into this particular building - they didn't just do it for fun. Like I mentioned earlier, it's all a matter of situation. There's alot of people in the US who would be stupid and fanatic enough to highjack planes and crash them into buildings full of civilians, but you don't see them doing anything, because they live in the richest country and have the world's biggest army with them - why would they?

Allow me to put it this way: The terrorists are like hungry great whites. If you don't go swimming there with a surfboard that makes you look like a sea turtle, they'll leave you alone.

quote:

you are implying that the behavior of the terrorists was acceptible.

Not at all. What they did wasn't acceptable to the slightest. What I'm saying is that americans are playing with fire, and that's not acceptable either.

i would certainly agree with most when saying that the operations post 9/11 in the middle east have made those countries are more attractive target for terrorism.

however, 1 important fact needs to be pointed out. its coming up to 4 years since 9/11. the US has attacked 2 nations in that time, yet there is still to be another attack on US soil. the US' policy in the middle east may have indeed made the world unsafer, but its certainly made it more difficult for terrorists to operate effectively. the recent attacks in the UK are small-time imo, and nothing compared to many of the terror attempts around the world before the invasions of iraq & afghanistan.

the terror networks are more fractured & less organised, even if their will is 200% stronger.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.