after WWIII we will know we reacted wrong after 9/11. We even hunted the wrong ones. The HQ of the ppl that made 9/11 come true is in langley. War on terrorism has to start there.

Sure Terrorism is a treath, we have to fight terrorism, but not the way we do it. War on Terrorism created more terrorist than UBL ever dreamed of.

I know nobody on this site will agree with me :)
But the future will show us. Bu$h made me a pesimist. :shocked:

SmoleALot, you are damn right no one will agree with you - what do you mean after WWII? How else should someone react to terrorism? Should they all just sit by and “smoke a lot”?

Smokealot, I agree with you and this is my suggestion since you realise the reality…..

Energy is neither created, nor destroyed. BUT it can be wasted…..Save it for the better….I hope you got that…:)

Shanti - not to butt in, but he said WWIII

Shanti, when Cheney said that Iraq was “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”, I don’t think that’s a hint. that’s a straight-up accusation, isn’t it? I don’t get the hint part there. He’s saying that the 9/11 terrorists’ geographic base is Iraq. it reads quite plainly to me.

I think everyone knew that the masses of this country were being misled to believe that Iraq had a connection with 9/11. Even if he had made a small hint, and not a specific statement like this one, that would have been enough for most people. They used the masses’ anger and need for revenge for 9/11, to get the masses to OK the war with Iraq. I don’t see anything wrong with it, but it is quite true.

Thanks for the correction, v - I am sorry I missed that. My point still rests - what should the US have done about Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack? They did exactly what was required as far as I am concerned.

P@L, I am sure you would then agree that India should NOT go after the terrorists in Kashmir, because killing them like that can only create more terrorists, right? Why not end the “cycle of violence” and hand Kashmir over to Pakistan?

One hint doesn’t a case make, Raj - nowhere in Powell’s speeches to the UN or Bush’s speeches to the American people (you can find the transcripts on http://www.us.gov) do they say even a throwaway sentence like Saddam caused 9/11 - not a single time. I do agree they tried to hint vaguely, precisely so the public would try to read between lines, but to their credit, they never came out and said it.

Iraq has links with Al Qaeda - ummm, how does that mean Saddam is involved with 9/11 again?

Are you sure you want to follow this line of reasoning? Aristotle would turn in his grave if you don’t make the connection — he calls it syllogism.

nowhere in Powell’s speeches to the UN…

Sorry ;-) you know the word he used? “Sinister nexus”. I can’t remember where I read it. Most probabaly in Time. But in one his speeches before the UN he used that term to signify the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

Dilip - having links with AlQaeda and helping train them still doesn’t mean Saddam directly caused 9/11. Saddam trained some AlQaeda members - some AlQaeda members were responsible for 9/11 - this doesn’t mean Saddam was responsible for 9/11…think about it. If Saddam trained all AlQaeda members, your point would be true - not when it is just some of them.

Dilip - there a reference to the sinister nexus for ya :)

Just a few quotes:
A week later, in his presentation to the Security Council, Powell described “the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder.”



from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/10/iraq/printable557822.shtml

Uh oh Shanti, now you are stretching it like a rubber band. Let me see. Hitler trained some people in the German army to be part of his Third Reich and to spread Nazism. Some members of the Army were responsible for the holocaust - this doesn’t mean Hitler was responsible for the holocaust… think about it. If Hitler directly trained all members of his army your point would be true — not when its just some of them. Ergo Hitler did not directly cause the holocaust.

Really…

sigh… I should learn to use that preview option more often. let me try again…

Uh oh Shanti, now you are stretching it like a rubber band. Let me see. Hitler trained some people in the German army to be part of his Third Reich and to spread Nazism. Some members of the Army were responsible for the holocaust - this doesn’t mean Hitler was responsible for the holocaust… think about it. If Hitler directly trained all members of his army your point would be true — not when its just some of them. Ergo Hitler did not directly cause the holocaust

Really…

“I do agree they tried to hint vaguely, precisely so the public would try to read between lines, but to their credit, they never came out and said it.”

To their credit? To their credit? They might have misled the public, but since they didn’t directly say it, they’re ok? All they need to do is drop these hints, and people like FOX news will jump all over it, and convince the majority of the country that Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9/11.

Why are you so intent on defending them? Most americans are quite uninformed, and being given this hint is good enough for them. The media of the whole world has stated this, and quite correctly I might add. What makes them blameless in your mind?

Dilip, absolutely wrong, dear boy! You cannot use Hitler as an analogy because, get this - Hitler “organized” and “controlled” the Nazis, while Saddam is only a benefactor of the AlQaeda and Bin Laden was the “mastermind” behind it. See the difference? Saddam is like Japan, who aided and abetted the enemy, while not being directly involved with some of the atrocities.

Raj, “credit” doesn’t mean I am applauding anything they said - it just means they were careful enough not to explicitly endorse the idea while “asking” and “hoping” that people would read between the lines. Where did I say they were blameless? I said media has always twisted the story and is still twisting the story - I never said that the administration did a great job of anything or even tried to defend them.

Let people bash the administration with the truth - like failing to secure the WMD sites immediately - like failing to make a credible “humanitarian” case for the war instead of trying to talk vague stuff - like failing to be upfront about the situation in Iraq right now and like failing to manage the PR aspect of the war right. Call them out on any such things and I will agree with you. Call them out on the stupidity of the Patriot Act and I will agree with you - if you expect me to rabidly attack anything American or act so partisan that every.single.word.must.be.attacked, you are looking at the wrong person.

What did the media of the whole world state? that Americans are uninformed? How informed are the world’s public - no more or no less, I would think. Stop making this personal.

Hitler “organized” and “controlled” the Nazis, while Saddam is only a benefactor of the AlQaeda and Bin Laden was the “mastermind” behind it

I will get nitpicky here. Heinrich Himmler “organized” and “controlled” the Nazis, while Hitler was only a benefactor and Himmler and the rest of the second lieutenants were the “mastermind” behind it.

Really again….. have you read the history of Hitler? do you know what confounded the historians till date? Till today there is not a shred of documentary evidence to personally tie him to the mass murders committed on Jews during his time and I mean the fact there is nothing, absolutely nothing, on paper to prove that he ordered such catastrophes be undertaken.

You are taking this a little too personally so chill ma’am. Lets talk about your errrm Pilates maybe? ;-) Regardless I am sorry to say, Raj has a perfectly valid point. The thing I am not sure is why you are taking so much pain to defend this minor point — yes they misled the public with vaguely dropped hints when they are in a position to influence public opinion. so what? its called spin-doctoring — in the world of politics thats nothing new.

If one cannot argue on the facts, semantics makes the perfect stand by.

Niraj
I believe thats a false dichotomy. Semantics themselves are open to interpretation and as such cannot tilt an argument one way or the other. Facts on the other hand are indisputable, provable and verifiable.
In any case facts are on the table here. Powell in his speech before UN in Feb 2003 clearly made a case linking al-Qaeda with Iraq. What Shanti seems to be arguing is Iraq = 9/11, Osama loves Iraq, Osama loves 9/11 but since Iraq = Osama and hence Saddam != 9/11.

Q.E.D

Noam Chomsky
Media Controll

read it, very intresting.

but, dont get me, wrong, i dont want to “protect” UBL. But the reaction was wrong. The USA did the same like the terrorists, they also killed inocent ppl.
Bombing another country is wrong. You will hitt innocent ppl, and those innocent ppl , are ppl like you and me, they are kids, they are mams, they are dads, maybe even grandparents, just like you and me. And you will also hit those ppl , not only terrorists will die, also innocents, and propably more innocent than guilty ppl.

Wht do you think? those innocent who lost theyr loved in the afghanistan war, the dads that lost theyr kids to US clusterbombs, what will they think what will they feel?
they gonna feel just like you feeled on 9/11.
Some will be very angry, some will even be more angry and some will even want to take revenge, and they will be easy recruits for UBL.
I hope you understand what i want to say, my english is very bad. so i only can use simple words, to express my self.

Im not a friend of terrorists.
Im a friend to the innocent ppl, those who die, cause a terrorist was theyr neighbor.

Thats what the Cycle of voilence is in my eyes.

its not about the guilty ones, its about the innocent.

I am making a habit of duplicate posts today.

I put a lot of “!=” in my earlier post and somehow they got eaten up by the comments editor (since I sigh didnt use the preview option again). In any case it seems like a poor attempt to be flippant methinks. so lets forget that paragraph…

Please, SmokeALot - if you want to quote Noam Chomsky of all the people, I really don’t want to argue with you much, since you are too “far out” with me - I really don’t see any common ground between us here - if I were a conservative, I would ask you to probably read Ann Coulter for a response…

Dilip, it doesn’t matter whether it was Himmler or Hitler in charge of things, because they are both in the same country and Hitler was the guy ruling the country - if the current CIA did something, regardless of Bush’s complicity in it, he would still be responsible for it. Saddam is in Iraq and did NOT have very good ties with Bin Laden, who was the HIGHEST commander of AlQaeda and was in Afghanistan - there is no proof there was any direct dealing between the two - there is no proof absolutely Saddam is involved with 9/11. There is of course, proof that Saddam trained AlQaeda at atleast training camps dismantled in Iraq, one of them being in Salman Pak. Saddam did not have to be aware of 9/11 even if he did train some foot soldiers - see that? And no, I am not getting personal about anything - seriously, I would have to know you personally to get personal over anything ;)

As for Raj’s point, I am NOT defending anyone - what I pointed out in the article was as slimy as the administration’s double-talk - I don’t care for either. Does that settle it?

i didnt qutoe him.

i just wanted to say its an intresting book about how informed the USA is.

the text i wrote is from my mind, that are not chomsky’s words. that are my words.

I understand that - I really cannot take anyone on left seriously when they think Chomsky and Michael Moore are good, the same way I wouldn’t take anyone on the right seriously, if they admired Ann Coulter and Michael Savage.

So , im wrong about the innocent ppl? they are just colateral damage, things like that happen in war, thats live.

SmokeALot - if you have aim, please im me - vashaxwork - if you don’t - go to my site and leave me an email where i can contact you k?

thanks! :)

Yes, SmokeALot - people die in war - bad ones and innocent ones - that is life as you said it - so?

I was trying to help SmokeaLot to conserve his energy by suggesting him not to get into this mundane topic….Hence the statement…

To answer to your questions, I believe, looking at terrorism as an act by N number of individuals and considering the “only” solution to be eliminating this number N is a mistake simply because

1. You are only eliminating the symptom by doing so.
2. The value of N is unknown and in many ways increases if the root cause of infection is not identified and eliminated.

So, yes, if Indian gov. adopts a policy of mere elimination of numbers, they will fail….Also, a war or attack on Pakistan is not going to eliminate the root cause…..In majority of cases, it is the dissent among the masses that acts as the breeding ground for terrorism…The vulnerability in such a situation is very human in nature…You need to eliminate this…And in majority of the cases, this arises due to a policy of exploitation or apathy towards the masses concerned……So, smartness, in my opinion, is not in eliminating people, but eliminating the root cause and this could be done at a reasonable expense…..I believe, in the case of US, a mistake has been made and the consequences would be there for you and me to see in the future…..Again, this is my personal view and only the future would judge if this was wrong…..I don’t see any debate on this at least at this moment of time…

Disclaimer: I acknowledge no allegiance to the left,right,centre,republicans,conservatives,democrats, liberals,libertarians or any “ism” sects for my above statements……

He he … Right wing nut defending George Bush. This is funny !!! The most quotable quote

“Yes, SmokeALot - people die in war - bad ones and innocent ones - that is life as you said it - so?”

ROFLMAO. Are you a cannibal or something ?

Hi Anon, are you a troll or something?