The Military Fights to Defend our Freedom, or absurdist things the news tells me.

[LuisDantas]

If leaders believe their own propaganda, is it still propaganda?

Yes. Part of the responsibility of any leader is not letting oneself be fooled by propaganda, including one's own. A guide can not in good will choose to be blinded.

 

[Aquitaine]

If leaders believe their own propaganda, is it still propaganda?

I sincerely doubt the leaders believed the propaganda about Iraq. Hell even certain senior members of the Bush Administration have attempted to backtrack and alter what they had previously said.

I also remember Bush joking about there being no WMDs in Iraq at some correspondents dinner in 2004 IIRC, laughing away as all those people died.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

please dont divert my posts from what they were intended to, my posts addressed a specific argument, and they addressed it very well.

Who are you trying to convince?

if you want to argue about a different topic then please stay in context. the context of my debate with Revoltingest was what I found an inconsistency in claiming that the Israeli forces use terrorism in the Palestinian territories, while the coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan do not.

You quoted a British colonel who said that "during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare"

Pointing out that such a comment is ridiculous because there were over 700 civilian casualties, 25% of which were children is not being off-topic. (Most NGO's list the civilian casualties as being much higher.)

Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza for the entire year of 2009 killed 4 and injured 34 (numbers from Anmesty International). The overwhelming response by Israel and the number of civilians killed or injured (over 4,000) were injured makes the quote from your British colonel ludicrous.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Ever wondered that considering they're not spending the money on anything, that they're simply pocketing the cash for themselves? I remember when my Dad was in Iraq not too long ago, he said that Iraq is full of corruption and that the very first thing the Governor of Basra did when he took office, was to spend taxpayer money on Marble flooring for his residence - whilst the people of Basra have no permanent electricity.

So, are you are going to retract your claim that evil corporations were getting this money? And yes, the potential for corruption is there but that doesn't take away the fact that the government is getting this money. And if you think your Basra example proves anything then all governments are hopelessly corrupt because all governments have examples of this petty corruption.

What WMDs?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US reveals Iraq nuclear operation

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Troops 'foil Iraq nerve gas bid'

Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered - washingtonpost.com

FOXNews.com - Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq - U.S. & World

What ties to Terrorism?

60 Minutes: The Man Who Got Away - 60 Minutes - CBS News

CNN.com - U.S. captures mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking - Apr. 16, 2003

Terrorism - In the Spotlight: The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Abu Nidal 'found dead'

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Palestinians get Saddam funds

Both our countries have had a history of denying weaker countries the right to have Democracy. Iran, Chile, Vietnam, Nicaragua for example, and instead prefering to back oppressive Monarchs - the Iranian Shah, the Iraqi Monarch, the Saudi Arabian Monarch etc. As well as backing dictators and murderes like Suharto, Musharraf, even Saddam Hussein.

Do you think that all of a sudden the UK and particularily the USA now love Democracy, and that our military expansion is done because we just love Democracy? If so........ then what the Hell happened and when?!

This is not my argument at all. The reason that democracy needs to be brought to the Middle East is because it is in the national interest of the US. The status quo of propping up tyrants in the Middle East fostered the very environment that brought on 9/11. 9/11 and the realization that our policy of supporting undemocratic regimes in the Middle East had failed allowed the US to change its policy and support bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Of course a byproduct of attempting to bring democracy to the Middle East is it is the right thing to do, morally speaking.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US a Federal Republic and not a Democracy? I know for a fact that the UK is not a Democracy either - it's a sort of ugly hybrid between a semi-constitutional Monarchy and a representative Parliament, mixed in with some EU influence.

Yes, the US is a constitutional republic but why quibble over semantics?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

Both of those reasons have been thoroughly discredited. You're giving us reasons for the invasion that were never more than propaganda, Joe.

See my links in my post to Paul.

 

[Aquitaine]

Joe Stocks, I'll reply in full to your post at a later time, but for now I'd like to leave this video here in response to the articles you have posted (which I haven't read yet) about Saddam and the supposed WMDs.

Bear in mind this is comig from your own President(well at the time):

[youtube]f_A77N5WKWM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

 

[Badran]

Wow, this video really speaks volumes. "the best way to beat resentment, is through hope". And how is invading the country, ruining it even more than it supposedly was, killing thousands and thousands of civilians, and hanging Saddam, is supposed to bring hope?

I can't believe how some people can buy such arguments.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Nice job, post a video of Bush saying that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11 when I never made the argument that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

I think you are grasping at straws here because your absurd anti-Iraq war talking points got met with some actual evidence.

 

[kai]

You don't have to be Iraqi or Afghani to have this motive. As for them using this, you mean they are lying? Well why isn't this also applied to the other side? Unless you do believe that the US government was lying about their motives for wars, then forgive for misunderstanding.

Lastly, what would convince you that this is at least a prime motive for most of people who go radical? Some take it as a cause for their religion, some do it for revenge and so on. While of course not neglecting that the leaders like Bin Laden for example might have a bigger agenda than just that.



Of course.

sorry Badran i am still not sure what prime motive you are talking about, spell it out for me will you i can be a bit dense at times

 

[kai]

Huh? I don't believe I understand your question, do you mean if "they" start pointless unjust wars based on lies that they will create blowback? Of course.​

How about the pointless blowing up of civillians based on the lies such as the west is waging war on Islam?

Well, if history is any indicator that is exactly what will happen, we will fail. Afghanistan is...... well..... pretty much invincible to foreign invaders. The Soviet Union, with their hordes of Men and huge columns of Armour couldn't do it - what makes you think we can? "Hearts & Minds" well yeah I agree, but to be fair we're not exactly pursuing that strategy very well: the Karzai Administration is corrupt as Hell, and we're imposing a totally Alien (to them) way of life via a centralized and out-of-touch government on groups of people who're mostly Tribal-like and reclusive. Not only that, but every time one of our Airstrikes whacks a civilian target, all our efforts with "Hearts & Minds" shatters instantly. We are giving them security to enable them to take the first steps in what we take for granted ​

We're also giving up Afghanistan's resources to other countries, most noticably the Coppor deposits to the Chinese. Of course, we all know China is a beacon of Human and Workers Rights, and the deals will totally benefit the people of Afghanistan ​

We ae not giving up anything its up the the Afghhans who they sell their assets to, not us.

I apoligize, but debates like this easily get me angry, good God if one of my relatives or friends was a Soldier over there I'd probably go bezerk. There are people dying, and not only that but it's our fault! That's why I get wound-up so easily about the situation. Of course, I'm not getting angry at you personally.​

I know that tell me do you get angry everytime civilians get shot or blown to pieces by insurgents?

Huh? Sorry I don't understand. However, yes I don't blame the Soldiers, I blame the people who actually make these crappy decisions: the people who won't suffer one bit of this war and the consequences: the Politicians and Industry leaders.​

As for the 7/7 bomber's motives, meh I honestly doubt it's got anything to do with Palestine and Chechnyia, the fact that they both happened after our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and not before, leads me to believe (well, guess - to be honest) that those two conflicts were the primary motives. For all I care, "but, but - Palestine!" is mostly an overused "excuse" that most extremists use anyways - they cry crocodile tears for them all the time, I doubt they really give a damn.

I beleive they have some kind of misguided idea that they are doing the will of Allah!​

Regardless, no I don't believe in cowering to Terrorists, I'm just saying that our reckless actions have simply added to the number of enemies we have, and considering we don't even need to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, it's all for nothing. Those ememies were always there jutst waiting in the wings for a catalyst. They are that way inclined i dont beleive a british born guy feels so strongly about afghans that he blows up a bus full of people over it. Its Bollocks all these excuses.​

I'm not saying that and you know it. It would have benefited all parties had we not invaded those two countries. In fact, it probably would've damaged the Terrorists more had we not invaded - since they'd loose support and would have had much less recruits to join the "cause". Whereas now they just say "Look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan" (then the usual "Palestine!!" Crocodile Tears added to the mix) and Ta-Da - they get new recruits.​

Thats not the only way to not get new recruits you can bow down and let them get new recruits by being hailed as victors and bully thier way into power and then have to deal with them later .

 

[dust1n]

Do we just allow gross human rights violations, genocide, rule by terror, etc?

We don't just allow it, historically speaking, we perfect it. As long as it is not our citizens.

 

[Badran]

sorry Badran i am still not sure what prime motive you are talking about, spell it out for me will you i can be a bit dense at times

Okay. I'm going to tell you what i think is the prime motive for those who become radical, blow themselves up, not the leaders. The leaders reasons would be a mixture between political goals and religious factors as well.

As for the people who get recruited, or affected and take a radical or extreme view, are mainly incited by the position they're in. That being a muslim, seeing fellow muslims being killed and having their countries invaded and tortured etc.... and not having anybody to stand up for them. There is no armies fighting back. And such countries also support other countries which do the same, also to muslims.

Which makes them motivated by:

1) Some for revenge.

2) Some for being in a desperate position and believing this to be the only available effective way they could fight back.

3) Some for the will to stand up for their fellow muslims and gain afterlife reward for that by sacrificing their lives for their cause (thats what they think of course, which is wrong).

4) Standing up for Islam in general, as in they view it as a battle between Islam and whatever, and that they must stand up for the sake of Islam.

In other words, their desperate position helps them in making this radical choice, which is caused and motivated due to other's actions towards them. Not saying they are excused, but mainly that most of them are only reacting, not taking the initiative for whatever dominating goal or because they just don't like your lifestyles.

That doesn't mean that those later reasons don't exist, but my point is they are not the main motive for most of them.

 

[Caladan]

Who are you trying to convince?

The debate was between me and Revoltingest.

You quoted a British colonel who said that "during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare"

Pointing out that such a comment is ridiculous because there were over 700 civilian casualties, 25% of which were children is not being off-topic. (Most NGO's list the civilian casualties as being much higher.)

Well then, here is the ridiculous analysis of Operation Cast Lead by Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, but really, what possible experience does he have to comment on the issue? he only commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, served with NATO and the UN, commanded forces in Bosnia, Macedonia, and Northern Ireland, served in the Gulf War, worked on international terrorism for the UK government joint intelligence committee

[youtube]NX6vyT8RzMo[/youtube]
YouTube - Goldstone Gaza Report: Col. Richard Kemp Testifies at U.N. Emergency Session

Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza for the entire year of 2009 killed 4 and injured 34 (numbers from Anmesty International). The overwhelming response by Israel and the number of civilians killed or injured (over 4,000) were injured makes the quote from your British colonel ludicrous.

and your point being what? as far as im concerned even if the rockets killed no one, they should be dealt with harshly.

furthermore during the year you are talking about (2009) as a DIRECT RESULT of Operation Cast Lead, the number of rockets launched at Israeli citizens dropped from more than a couple of thousands in 2008 to 566 during 2009, out of which the vast majority were launched at Israeli towns in Operation Cast Lead itself, which ended in 18 January, meaning that through out the rest of 2009 only 160 rockets have been fired on Israeli towns, faced with thousands of rockets been fired in the previous year, it seems that Operation Cast Lead has been amazingly successful.

 

[Kathryn]

The Iraqi LEADERSHIP would never let the Iraqi PEOPLE benefit from the oil industry. Look at Nigeria - do the people benefit from the oil industry there? What about Angola? What about Equitorial Guinea? There's plenty of oil in West Africa but the people never see the benefit - only a few uber wealthy and very corrupt government officials benefit. The rest of the population is in abject poverty. This can't be laid solely at the feet of Western society - these governments are totally corrupt and abusive of their populations.

By the way, who built and maintains the infrastructure of the oil industry in these countries? Hint - it's not the government or the citizens of those countries. Of course, their governments would love to see us simply walk away from the literally billions of dollars of infrastructure we've put into place in these facilities. But is that the answer?

You can say, "It's their oil" all you want - but though they are more than willing to sell it, they are unwilling or unable to actually GET it in order to sell it, without other countries facilitating that process.

 

[kai]

Okay. I'm going to tell you what i think is the prime motive for those who become radical, blow themselves up, not the leaders. The leaders reasons would be a mixture between political goals and religious factors as well.

As for the people who get recruited, or affected and take a radical or extreme view, are mainly incited by the position they're in. That being a muslim, seeing fellow muslims being killed and having their countries invaded and tortured etc.... and not having anybody to stand up for them. There is no armies fighting back. And such countries also support other countries which do the same, also to muslims.

Which makes them motivated by:

1) Some for revenge.

2) Some for being in a desperate position and believing this to be the only available effective way they could fight back.

3) Some for the will to stand up for their fellow muslims and gain afterlife reward for that by sacrificing their lives for their cause (thats what they think of course, which is wrong).

4) Standing up for Islam in general, as in they view it as a battle between Islam and whatever, and that they must stand up for the sake of Islam.

In other words, their desperate position helps them in making this radical choice, which is caused and motivated due to other's actions towards them. Not saying they are excused, but mainly that most of them are only reacting, not taking the initiative for whatever dominating goal or because they just don't like your lifestyles.

That doesn't mean that those later reasons don't exist, but my point is they are not the main motive for most of them.

so the prime motive is Islam or being a member of the ummah? I mean because they dont do it for anyone else in the world just the idea of Islamic brotherhood.

 

[kai]

The debate was between me and Revoltingest.


Well then, here is the ridiculous analysys of Operation Cast Lead by Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, but really, what possible experience does he have to comment on the issue? he only commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, served with NATO and the UN, commanded forces in Bosnia, Macedonia, and Northern Ireland, served in the Gulf War, worked on international terrorism for the UK government joint intelligence committee

[youtube]NX6vyT8RzMo[/youtube]
YouTube - Goldstone Gaza Report: Col. Richard Kemp Testifies at U.N. Emergency Session


and your point being what? as far as im concerned even if the rockets killed no one, they should be dealt with harshly.

furthermore during the year you are talking about (2009) as a DIRECT RESULT of Operation Cast Lead, the number of rockets launched at Israeli citizens dropped from more than a couple of thousands in 2008 to 566 during 2009, out of which the vast majority were launched at Israeli towns in Operation Cast Lead itself, which ended in 18 January, meaning that through out the rest of 2009 only 160 rockets have been fired on Israeli towns, faced with thousands of rockets been fired in the previous year, it seems that Operation Cast Lead has been amazingly successful.

I would just like to say that in my opinion anybody who has ever had anything to do with the military, would be hard presses to doubt the measures taken in operation cast lead that were obviously put in place to prevent civilian losses.

I am hard pressed to think of another Country whos armed forces when carrying out such an operation wouldnt have decimated the whole population.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

Well then, here is the ridiculous analysys of Operation Cast Lead by Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, but really, what possible experience does he have to comment on the issue? he only commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, served with NATO and the UN, commanded forces in Bosnia, Macedonia, and Northern Ireland, served in the Gulf War, worked on international terrorism for the UK government joint intelligence committee.

That's a very impressive resume, but if one's expert analysis doesn't coincide with reality what's the point? If Stephen Hawkings said the earth was flat he'd still be wrong.

it seems that Operation Cast Lead has been amazingly successful.

Yes, its amazing how people cooperate when you are willing to kill their wives and children. End justifies the means, eh?

Your source is wrong, despite his impressive credentials. The facts do not support his statement that during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare.

The casualty figures do not support such a ridiculous statement. It is obvious hyperbole. "than any other army in the history of warfare." Really? Is he sure? Can he get anyone at the UN or an NGO to agree with him? I certainly haven't found any organization outside of the Israeli government that would take such a position. In fact, Amnesty International wants Israel charged with war crimes for their conduct during the attack.

Credentials don't change reality.

 

[Caladan]

That's a very impressive resume, but if one's expert analysis doesn't coincide with reality what's the point? If Stephen Hawkings said the earth was flat he'd still be wrong.

The point is, that Hawkings would never say something like that BECAUSE he is an expert in his field.

Yes, its amazing how people cooperate when you are willing to kill their wives and children. End justifies the means, eh?

Your source is wrong, despite his impressive credentials. The facts do not support his statement that during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare.

The casualty figures do not support such a ridiculous statement. It is obvious hyperbole. "than any other army in the history of warfare." Really? Is he sure? Can he get anyone at the UN or an NGO to agree with him? I certainly haven't found any organization outside of the Israeli government that would take such a position. In fact, Amnesty International wants Israel charged with war crimes for their conduct during the attack.

Credentials don't change reality.

Have you ever been to Gaza?

 

[Badran]

so the prime motive is Islam or being a member of the ummah? I mean because they dont do it for anyone else in the world just the idea of Islamic brotherhood.

Being a muslim of course might give one priority to help other muslims. However, it does not make one go radical. It doesn't mean to target civilians and blow ourselves up, especially when that directly oppose our teachings.

The motive to go radical is the position they're in. The desperate position caused by the attacks and the lack of fighting back from anyone....... What the US done for example in Iraq is a motive for lots of people.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Also, as the links I've posted shows, Saddam had WMD's, but he didn't have the stockpiles that the global intelligence community thought he had. This is what I believe Bush is referring to.