I really would like to solve this question once and for all. I am trying to re-educate myself on the terror issue, but nobody can, or I suspect will... refute my original determinations. I especially ask Lefty's to add points either Pro or Con to this debate.I'll be quite honest up front. I don't expect that any unliberals (my new term for leftys) will dare to post in this thread. They have always been wrong on this issue and god knows their 'religion' prohibits them from ever changing an attitude or point of view!
Lefties are incapable of even contemplating change. That is why the world hates the US. It is the driving force of change in the modern world. Simple truth and an even more simple observation.
Lets do our own thinking here. I don't want this to turn into a 'My URL Trumps Your URL' thing. That is extremely boring and the entire purpose of having a forum is to THINK our own thoughts, not parrot the thoughts of others.
We need to know what 'Terror' is and what can be concidered an act of 'terror'. Everyone has a dictionary, or should have one. If not... shame on you. So to terrorize is to 'to fill with terror or anxiety' or ' to coerce by threat or violence'.
There follows my list of why Saddam is a terrorist.
Saddam Filmed the meeting on July 22, 1979 wherein he had an 'informant' name the name of every person present at the founding meeting of his regime. Over 200 people. As each name was read, Saddam asked the informant 'Is this a traitor?' If the 'informant' replied yes, then that person was hustled away by the goon squad. I leave it to the reader to at least go find out how many of these people were called out. After all the traitors had been led away, Saddam rewarded the survivors by telling them that they were rewarded. These surviving members of the party were to comprise the firing squad the next morning. Did this meeting serve 'to fill with terror or anxiety' those members both dead and alive? This is evidence number 1.
Evidence number two is the estimated 200,000 to 300,000 people who died in Iraqi prisons from 1970 to 2003. I wondor how many were 'filled with terror or anxiety' Not to mention the families and friends and indeed, the entire populace who know of these events. Saddam deliberately let people out of these death cells to spread the word. That MIGHT be using intimidation.
Evidence number three is the war with Iran that killed millions. Any effort there ' to coerce by threat or violence'.
Evidence number four is the war with Kuwait that killed hundreds of thousands. Any effort here ' to coerce by threat or violence'.
Evidence number five is the 25,000 dollars paid to Palistinians if they would blow themselves up in supporting terror. Direct participation in terror? Or a benevelent act of charity?
Evidence number six was the use of nerve gas built entirely by his regime, on his own citizens. Any effort there ' to coerce by threat or violence'. Or just to make people very... very dead?
iamatiger says that Saddam is still not a terrorist because he only killed people born within his borders. Except the two wars against his neighbors, which we are not supposed to notice, I guess. To butcher a fellow citizen is quite ok, I guess. Come on Math Guys! Show some logic here and tell me why Saddam IS NOT A TERRORIST. EVERY ONE OF YOU OPPOSE HIS REMOVAL. I really do suspect that all that logic breaks down and you all revert to what 'mommy' taught you instead of thinking it through. I really don't think math guys can use logic when dealing with language. It is yet to be shown.
The vast majority of people in the world think that the fact that Saddam murdered his way into power makes him 'legitimate'. Why? By virtue of what... 'Magic' power does absolute 'coersion by threat or violence' make for a legitimate government?
SVW makes another thread that will only be answered by the haters and biggots. I am temped to make the list here and now, but you all know who they are.
Mike
this whole 'Leftie' things baffles me - people are people are people are people and just because I think a certain way does not mean I adhere to what every 'leftie' in the world thinks.
about the terrorist issue - I have no problem with labeling sadaam a terrorist but by your own logic - a terrorist being a person who causes terror - George dubya can be considered a terrorist as well. Every Muslem nation in the world are afraid that they'll be next on his list. Here in Israel - we're afraid he might sanction us economically. The extent of the US's power in this world is the real cause for terror and not the small groups that rise in opposition to it.
-Leftie McLeft
Originally posted by Asher123Almost anything that requires thought baffles lefties. So? Have you ever known a "Lefty" who admitted that he was wrong? Or changed his mind on an issue? I have not.
this whole 'Leftie' things baffles me - people are people are people are people and just because I think a certain way does not mean I adhere to what every 'leftie' in the world thinks.
about the terrorist issue - I have no problem with labeling sadaam a terrorist but by your own logic - a terrorist being a person who causes terror - George dubya can ...[text shortened]... al cause for terror and not the small groups that rise in opposition to it.
-Leftie McLeft
Hater number one is on the record.
Notice... he offered nothing to the debate? No points either pro or con. "Change the Subject" is the only method non-logical people can employ. "Was Saddam A Terrorist"... not is SVW one or "Lefty McLeft" one or "George Bush" one. I need to know about "Saddam". That is the starting point to understanding why so many support him.
Originally posted by Asher123You must have missed it above. The reason the US is hated so badly is because Lefties hate change and the US is the driving force for change in the world. If you don't believe me, study Islam. Read "In The Shade Of The Q' ran" by Q'Tub. Then read al-Zawahiri's rambling essay WHERIN HE SIGHTS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY FROM Q'Tub in explaining why he founded the Jihad and had Saddat murdered by his fledgling Islamic Jihad.
The extent of the US's power in this world is the real cause for terror and not the small groups that rise in opposition to it.
-Leftie McLeft[/b]
You would think that someone from Israel would know this...
"Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, met with Jimmy Carter, Presidentof the United States of America, at Camp David from September 5 to September 17, 1978, and have agreed on the following framework for peace in the Middle East. They invite other parties to the Arab-Israel conflict to adhere to it."
All but Carter are dead from Terrorists.
these people?!
you're statrting to frighten me a little bit. You might not have noticed but I agreed with you on the saddam being a terrorist issue. I was just pointing out that your argument was a semantic one and not the issue. About the pros and cons:
Catching sadaam was important no doubt. But killing thousands of civillians and justifying it by saying: "if we don't kill them they'll kill us" or "we're doing this for their good, we're trying to free them" I'm sorry but that's just wrong. The only reason the US ever deployed troops was to protect their own interests - I'm not saying that this is wrong, but claiming any other motive is a blatant lie.
now some facts for your satisfaction:
it was the US that formed the United nations and in doing so made sure they had a veto in the security counsil and in the general assembly.
The US is the most powerful millitary nation in thew world - no other country has a millitary budget that's even close to half of the US's
The US is the country that has started and participated in most wars in the past century
If these aren't enough reasons for terror (and by that I mean people living outside of the US) I dont know what you want anymore.
About the not changing of opinion - I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong - I don't however get abrasive and inclusive like you have in the past few posts, and I haven't seen a single sign of leniency from you as of yet
Originally posted by Asher123I already recognized you as a hater. Your lack of contribution is so noted. Thanks. And I trust you. "If"... and it's a big if... you are EVER wrong, i'm sure you will be the first to let us know. Thanks.
these people?!
you're statrting to frighten me a little bit. You might not have noticed but I agreed with you on the saddam being a terrorist issue. I was just pointing out that your argument was a semantic one and not the issue. About t ...[text shortened]... , and I haven't seen a single sign of leniency from you as of yet
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI have studies Islam to a great extent and 'Jihad' is an extremist group withinn Islam. You cannot blame a religion for the extremism it spawns because every religion spawns extremists.
You must have missed it above. The reason the US is hated so badly is because Lefties hate change and the US is the driving force for change in the world. If you don't believe me, study Islam. Read "In The Shade Of The Q' rahn" by Q'Tub. Then read al-Zawahiri's rambling essay explaining why he had Saddat murdered by his fledgling Islamic Jihad.
...[text shortened]... ies to the Arab-Israel conflict to adhere to it."
All but Carter are dead from Terrorists.
The crusades killed more people than Islamic terror did
the spanish inquizition as well.
Israel has a stable relationship with Jordan as well - check your facts
Originally posted by Asher123The Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded by Yamen al-Zawahiri. He is co-number one with Bin Laden in Al Queda. Duh!?
I have studies Islam to a great extent and 'Jihad' is an extremist group withinn Islam. You cannot blame a religion for the extremism it spawns because every religion spawns extremists.
The crusades killed more people than Islamic te ...[text shortened]... l has a stable relationship with Jordan as well - check your facts
Originally posted by Asher123My facts? I don't own any. Facts exist outside of any person or group. They are truths such as the ones listed in the opening statement above that I am waiting for you to acknowledge or refute. Please try to concentrate and stay on subject. Thanks.
I have studies Islam to a great extent and 'Jihad' is an extremist group withinn Islam. You cannot blame a religion for the extremism it spawns because every religion spawns extremists.
The crusades killed more people than Islamic te ...[text shortened]... l has a stable relationship with Jordan as well - check your facts
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhat's it like being so clever? Must be nice to be able to swat away anyone's arguments with your amazing intellect!
I know. Dealing with children can be a challenge.
By any right thinking man's standards Saddam is obviously a murdering psychopatic bastard who wrought physical and psychological terror on his people ( and others). So I agree thhat he is a terrorist by your definition.
However I'm puzzled by your statement that - "The vast majority of people in the world think that the fact that Saddam murdered his way into power makes him 'legitimate'." Do you say this in all seriousness? How many people do you think hold this view in Britain. I would hazzard a wild guess that it is very close to zero. The fact that many people opposed the war here does not mean that they are 'pro Saddam'. Anybody who believes this is making a 'schoolboy error'. (Thinking like a child rather than an adult).
I'm interested in your view on the following. Do you think that we should attack every leader in the world who terrorises their own population? I'd be all for it. However we'd have to be careful not to target those regimes that we helped to create, in order to protect our own interests.
Originally posted by ianpickeringIt is quite nice. Being all-mighty clever. As to the amazing intellect. Not much truth there, but I can at least evaluate english sentences for their absurdities and contractictions. That is not something that lefties can do.
What's it like being so clever? Must be nice to be able to swat away anyone's arguments with your amazing intellect!
By any right thinking man's standards Saddam is obviously a murdering psychopatic bastard who wrought physical a ...[text shortened]... hat we helped to create, in order to protect our own interests.
Thank you. You are the first lefty to admit that Saddam is a terrorist. Now we can begin the real discussions. I admire your guts.
My reasoning as to the "vast majority" is that is is a "done deal". Ninety percent of Brittains (and all of Europe) opposed the war to depose Saddam. True or False? If you don't depose him, he is still there. Not?
You ask me if I am serious yet evade a direct contribution to answering the conundrum. Was he a terrorist? What is a war on "Terror"?
Eventually, we will either have to "terrorize" every leader of nations that supports terror into "not" supporting it or kill those who do. That is pretty obvious. Q'doffy Duck got the message in Lybia. A schoolboy error would be not not recognize that this is dangerous, and try to duck home by the alley. Sound familiar?
A really good question on our the western world, chiefly the US in creating the current mess. See my post on "Change". The short answer is that "Boy have we ever screwed the Pooch!" and "How do we get over this and get civilization moving again?"
Supporting the establishment of Israel was a mistake. They should have been given Wyoming instead. And I'm from there. And I wasn't alive at the time... and nobody asked me! 😵
Supporting the Jihad against USSR was not a mistake. The USSR would still be in power had they been bolstered by the wealth brought on by the oil pipeline to the sea that brought about their invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.
Supporting Saddam against Homeini was neutral. Both butchers.
You get the point. Should we oppose evil killers? Should we not? Are we guilty? Sure. Are the Islamic nuts "Guilty" sure. So? Are we missing the point? Sure.
The point is that if you oppose the removal of Saddam you are supporting him.
I know that is painful, but refute it with logic. Can you?
Thanks for having the guts to post at all. That is quite impressive.
Exactly what constitutes terrorism is a topic being pursued in the 'terrorism in two parts' thread, and probably elsewhere as well. in the titp threat I expressed the view that terrorism is carried out by people who do not wear uniform - that is, they cannot be readily distinguished from non-combatants, and who are not in the armed forces of any state. And of course, they promote their various causes via violent means. A head of state, legitimate or not, represents that state overtly, and so is not a terrorist. Saddam is clearly not a terrorist by this definition, which i think is a useful one. Yes, he is a murdering psychopathic bastard, as someone as pointed out; no, his regime was never legitimate; yes, he may have sponsored terrorism; yes, he may have directed the development of various WMDs (before GW1, at any rate). But he is not a terrorist. If he sent people to blow up, say, US assets using the same techniques as terrorism, it should be regarded as an act of war by Iraq, not an act of terrorism.
I think the next guy the US takes out should be Arafat - he is closer to terrorism than Saddam ever was.
And I hope they get bin Laden in Pakistan. That would make my whole year.