London tubes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I would like to make it absolutely clear that connections existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11 directly, indirectly, or not at all has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he actively supported terrorism-especially against the west, and that alone made him a superb target.

---

And what "connection" would that be?

---

Iraq was giving aid and comfort to terrorist. Zarqawi is Jordanian and was injured on the battlefield and went to Iraq to receive medical treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

And what "connection" would that be?

---

Iraq was giving aid and comfort to terrorist. Zarqawi is Jordanian and was injured on the battlefield and went to Iraq to receive medical treatment.

---

The Al Queda in Iraq were in the kurdish areas... the parts of Iraq not controlled by Hussain, but by your "allies".

Hussain was not a religious ruler, however supported the Palestinians in order to help control his own country. He didnt actually give a fuck about them, but it appeased his people.. you know the ones now in charge. ;)

Al Queda was never big in Iraq, or supported... until the Coalition went in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I would like to make it absolutely clear that connections existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11 directly, indirectly, or not at all has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he actively supported terrorism-especially against the west, and that alone made him a superb target.

---

And what "connection" would that be?

---

Palestinians.. see my post above.

He appeased the people now in charge of Iraq, to keep 'em quiet ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I would like to make absolutely clear that Iraq and saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

---

I would like to make it absolutely clear that connections existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and whether or not Saddam was involved in 9/11 directly, indirectly, or not at all has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he actively supported terrorism-especially against the west, and that alone made him a superb target.

---

Bullshit. I gave you too much credit.

You have wool outside your skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

And what "connection" would that be?

---

Iraq was giving aid and comfort to terrorist. Zarqawi is Jordanian and was injured on the battlefield and went to Iraq to receive medical treatment.

---

Well in that case what about the fact that the USA trained Osama? what about all the funds that were raised for the IRA in the US? what about Jerry Adams being invited to the US?

By "Iraq" do you mean some people in Iraq or the Iraqi government?

BTW my question was about Al qaeda connections

They cannot prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Donald Rumsfeld has lost the receipts.:cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

To be fair....

There are no amount of concessions that can be given to these people that will satisfy them.

Their creed now is to destroy America. Plain and simple.

To also believe that their tactics will end there is ridiculous.

To believe this is just because of Iraq is also ridiculous.

What was 9/11 for?
If there was no 9/11, does one think that was the end of it?
Or because the Iraqi war simply exists, then that is the reason for all terrorist attacks?

Regardless of what Bush says, I do not believe there was an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq. I believe they are drawn there (and gained recruits there) due to us simply being there.

It's like some person that you always dreamed about fucking up but lived far, far away and then he visits your neighbor one day.

---

is that why london is getting bombed? :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The U.S. foregoes support of Israel, which allows for the destruction of Israel and those pesky Israelis;

---

You see, right there is where your scenario falls apart, right at the beginning.

How about "The U.S. foregoes it's incessant vetoes of U.N. resolutions, thereby giving the U.N. the ability to act. Israel is forced to deal with its Palestinian neighbours in a humanitarian manner, thereby defusing much of the hatred in the M.E."

The U.S. government is always complaining that the U.N. is toothless, yet when it tries to act the very same government vetoes its actions.

I can see no valid reason why any single permanent member of the security council should be able to veto the decisions of the others. Even if all the permanent members voted together, they barely represent a third of the world's population. The reason the permanent members won't permit it is because the security council may just start making resolutions against its permanent members, i.e. the very same reasons why the U.S. won't acknowledge the I.C.C.

As long as self-interest is allowed to take priority over the needs of humanity these problems will continue to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Unfortunatly your wrong.

Trying to force YOUR beliefs or political systems onto another culture is wrong and is bound to cause trouble. You just have to look throughout history for examples.

I fail to see how the US policy of making the world safer from Terrorists by creating 3 times as many of them is in any ones interests.

What is it that Al Queda wanted J2?

They didnt want the US to change, they wanted the US out of THEIR culture.

They dont give a fuck what you do with your life, as long as you let them lead their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J2K4

The fundamentalists beliefs are as I've described

---

I agree, Christian, Jewish and Muslim.. all off them.

The Fanatical Christian Right (which is huge in the USA) scares me just as much as the Fanatical Fundamentalist Muslims do.

---

So:

The world should hew to a secular viewpoint?

I'm not too sure that jibes with Islam, be it fundamentalist (Al Qaeda) or mainstream specie.

Apparently you do not differentiate between fundamentalist fanaticism and mainstream religious practice.

Yes I do, i have no problem with anyones Beliefs.. until they believe they are the ONLY true way. Are you denying that the Religious Right in the USA have a lot of influence over there?

If you are, i think theres a lot of people gonna laugh at that.

It seems to me that those whose fanatic rejection of all things religious are practicing that rejection rather...religiously.

I am religious. Just not YOUR Religion.

If you choose to then think im a heathen, then you are the one that is in rejection.

Guess what, most of the world DO NOT BELIEVE that Christ was the messiah. Hell, most dont believe such a person existed, however its I have no problem with you believing such.
Okay-let us paint a picture:

The U.S. foregoes support of Israel, which allows for the destruction of Israel and those pesky Israelis; the entire mideast rejoices, and are joined in their glee by Southeast Asia and Indonesia, as well as the United Nations.

I never mentioned Israel. Israel is a done deal. It exists and now has every right to exist. They wanted the US out of the Muslim Countries (eg Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) and to be EVEN HANDED in the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
Peace reigns throughout the region; however escapist immigration to Europe and it's environs continues, because mullahs, dictators, and warlords still hold power, and democracy is a dead issue.

Democracy is a dead issue, as long as you refuse to deal with Leaders that break the Law by their own Laws. You have a guy that gave a CIA operatives details to the press being protected by the President. You also have a person that has to account for $Billions that went missing being protected by the same person.

As long as your country shows such a respect of Law, you cannot even expect to be looked at as a "Good Example". At the moment, the USA is a laughing Stock in the world as far as Democracy and Law is concerned.
The U.S. ceases importing oil from the mideast, and, absent the Israeli "problem", is no longer a presence in the region; it's withdrawal is utter and complete.

Israel has backstabbed the USA more than anyone.. it actually does the USA credit to have such unwavering support for a country that blows up your ships and sells your secrets. However as said before.. the issue is treating both sides equally.. not abandoning Israel.
Immigration to the U.K. and continental Europe increases drastically; the U.S. has closed it's borders to all incoming Semitic peoples.

Good. Despite what the Conservatives try and say, we will have a problem with TOO FEW people here very soon. Its good to hear i'll still have a pension with all these extra workers arriving ;)
China and Russia take an increased interest in the region; an open field awaits!

China and Russia accept no immigrants from the region, and reinforce their border security, increasing tension between them.

Terrorism, if and when it occurs, takes place only in Europe, as neither the Chinese nor the Russians will abide it, and tensions must be released, correct?

Russia and China begin the process of deciding which of them will prevail in the imminent contest for control of mideast oil.






Sounds lovely; I can't wait to see the movie. :dry:

---

Thats almost an admission that its about US control of oil..

Careful J2, you'll be put on one of your governments "No Fly" lists...

I mean, it doesnt take much to get on these lists of potential US unfriendlies, as your own ex-diplomats are discovering.

And, as with many things in the USA these days, your not even Guilty until proven Innocent in these lists.

Even if you PROVE that it was an error.. your name remains on the lists.

Justice? Freedom?

Make me laugh some more ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The U.S. foregoes support of Israel, which allows for the destruction of Israel and those pesky Israelis;

---

You see, right there is where your scenario falls apart, right at the beginning.

How about "The U.S. foregoes it's incessant vetoes of U.N. resolutions, thereby giving the U.N. the ability to act. Israel is forced to deal with its Palestinian neighbours in a humanitarian manner, thereby defusing much of the hatred in the M.E."

The U.S. government is always complaining that the U.N. is toothless, yet when it tries to act the very same government vetoes its actions.

I can see no valid reason why any single permanent member of the security council should be able to veto the decisions of the others. Even if all the permanent members voted together, they barely represent a third of the world's population. The reason the permanent members won't permit it is because the security council may just start making resolutions against its permanent members, i.e. the very same reasons why the U.S. won't acknowledge the I.C.C.

As long as self-interest is allowed to take priority over the needs of humanity these problems will continue to exist.

---

OMFG...

I'm in agreement with a Tory :ohmy:

:shutup: