OT: Anyone seen Farenheit 911 yet?

[rintincop]

Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/

 

Carlyle and United Defense. Isikoff writes, "The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group 'gained' from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore's movie: the firm's $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration."

 

This is completely misleading. The Crusader contract was canceled AFTER UNITED DEFENSE WENT PUBLIC, which is the entire point of the movie.

 

Here is what the film says: "September 11th guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just 6 weeks after 9-11 Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December made a one day profit of $237 million dollars."

 

This is exactly what happened, to wit:

 

"On a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks... On Sept. 26, [2001], the Army signed a $665-million modified contract with United Defense through April 2003 to complete the Crusader's development phase. In October, the company listed the Crusader, and the attacks themselves, as selling points for its stock offering. Mark Fineman, "Arms buildup is a boon to firm run by big guns," Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2002.

 

"Or its 1997 purchase of United Defense for $ 180 million. Four years later -- just before Rumsfeld canceled its Crusader howitzer program -- Carlyle took United Defense public and sold about half the stock for $ 588 million." Greg Schneider, "Connections and then some," The Washington Post, March 16, 2003

 

In "Crusader a Boon to Carlyle Group Even if Pentagon Scraps Project," Washington Post's Walter Pincus wrote (May 14, 2002):

 

Carlyle's financial success with United - and the success of others associated with the Crusader - shows how major Pentagon weapon systems can turn into cash cows. In turn, United's lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions show why they can be so difficult to kill, as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced he would try to do with the Crusader last week.

 

'Carlyle's aggressive approach ...is one reason why the Crusader lived this long,' said Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary in the Reagan Pentagon and now director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Even if Rumsfeld's decision stands, Korb said, United still will have received $ 2 billion from the Crusader program and will receive substantially more to close it down.

 

Still, in its annual report for 2001, United announced that it had been awarded a three-year, $ 697 million contract to complete full upgrading of 389 Bradley units and had added a $ 655 million contract modification to complete the Crusader's "definition and risk-reduction phase contract," which would be worth $ 1.7 billion through 2003. Together, the Crusader and Bradley programs contributed 41 percent of United sales in 2001, the report said.

 

With Crusader and the Bradley upgrade in hand, a decision was made to sell United stock to the public in late 2001. In preparation, United refinanced the roughly $ 180 million it owed on the original purchase loan, securing a new $ 600 million loan and $ 200 million in revolving credit.

 

...

 

After the debt restructuring came the stock offering. The United offering filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission included this boilerplate caveat to potential investors: 'The Carlyle group, our other stockholders and our executive officers will realize substantial benefits from the offering.'

 

When it took place, in December 2001, Carlyle sold 11 million shares of the 20 million offered at $ 19 a share, receiving a total of about $ 225 million. Even so, Carlyle still owns more than 47 percent of the outstanding United shares and controls United's board of directors.

 

Also in late 2001, according to SEC filings, Peay and Shalikashvili were paid 'performance' bonuses, though their separate employment contracts filed with the SEC state they only are to serve as directors and receive $ 25,000 annual retainers plus stock options and reimbursed expenses. Peay received $ 160,000, and Shalikashvili $ 102,586, according to a filing with the SEC.

 

A United spokesman said the generals did no lobbying and that their bonuses were similar to ones given company officers based on "the performance of the company." Neither retired general responded to requests for comment. Korb, who served as a vice president at Northrup, said he had never heard of company directors receiving bonuses based on the performance of the company.

[rintincop]

WHAT THE FILM SAYS:

Narration: Bush

[Alex D]

I saw it and thought it was great, but he really only touched on the power grab from the patriot act. I guess he could of made a whole movie about that so he just touched on it.

You know what, I actually cried at this movie and I don't cry at all. It wasn't from the horrible pictures of people being hurt and torn flesh from childrens arms. No, it was when this very religous mother in Iraq was screaming to god, with such despair, to avenge the death of her family. It was a very weird feeling, kind of like the passion of the christ film that had the jews crying out that " you are bring a curse to our people" when they were judging Jeus. I'm not religous, but am very spiritual (not christioan or jewish, more on the taoist side), and this brought chills thru my spine. It work it way up to my head and built to a high pressure and I found my self crying. I mean weeping for this poor women. Less so for the American mother, but still felt very bad. I can't really explain it really, maybe it was that the american mother had a choose and the iraq mother had none. Very Very bad feeling, that I have not felt in years. Thru this I feel that there is something very wrong going on, but I don't know and I think that is the problem. We don't really know want is going on. I just hope I don't wake up one day and find that we are like the german public of WWII and find that our government is doing something very evil. History does repeat itself, and the laws passed after 9/11 are very reflective of this past. I wish more WWII vets were still around, they could really shed some light on this matter. Maybe thats why this is happing know, who knows?

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by AfroRouge The article makes good points,

 

 

most of the substance of that article seems to focus on the fact that the Clinton people had their hands in the same cookie jar, so it all must be fair and square. Weird concept.

[the_resonator]

Originally posted by Green Red Brown Sure, but the money went to a business the Carlyle owned that was *sold* before Bush I became an investor. This was explained in both the links I posted. More of Moore's fuzzy math.

 

first, let me say i am not a moore fan.

 

however, as regards the carlyle group-

you're completely misinformed, or misunderstanding how it is structured.

GB Sr is actually an investor/employee/member, as are a number of other public figures. Carlyle's whole business model is based on employing influential government/former government figures, from all over the world, to ensure that business contracts and deals the group makes as investments--result in significant returns.

 

So, for example, they might buy a gold mine in south america, and send a group member/investor/employee who has influence with the governing body in the area down to make sure that there is a minimum of interference and that tax, regulation, export, labor, etc.. terms are favorable so that the desired profit margin is reached.

 

Carlyle started it and still runs it. In one of my first jobs when i moved to DC not too long ago, we did some contracting and publishing for them, and i can tell you for a fact that they had GB sr listed among their assets and that the group was being run by the same person who founded it.

 

 

it is of little difference to me what you do with this information, but you are either suffering from being misinformed/misled, not grasping the structure of the "group", or just plain wrong.

[jchas]

* If you want a fact-based documentary, then Spinal Tap
is just the thing for you. I still believe they're real.

* Mike Moore is the left-handed Rush Limbaugh. The truth
lies somewhere in the middle.

* The 'facts' used by anyone with a political agenda are
polarized by which hand they are thrown out - either the
left or the right.

* The war in Iraq, as terrible as it may be, is the best way
that our administration had to undermine the REAL war
on terrorism. There has been, over the last few years, an
upsurge of Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist acts. It is NOT
a political war, it much more serious. In a political war there
comes a time when one side or the other comes to terms
with the destruction imposed on them or that they are imposing
and will negotiate a way of peace to end it. The REAl war that
we are fighting, that the whole world is fighting, is a religious
war. What makes it so much more dangerous is that the
Islamic fanatics truly believe that they are fighting for their
God (who may in fact be Satan himself) and will stop at nothing,
will not negotiate, will not decide on peace at any cost. This
is not a George W. or Michael Moore based fact - it comes
straight from the horses mouth - DEATH TO THE INFIDELS.
The scary part is that nearly everybody, in their eyes, is an
infidel, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Athiests, Pacifists, Tree-
huggers, even Muslims content on living in peace and harmony
with the rest of the world. By infusing our presence in the heart
of the mid-east, and to (hopefully) bring stability and peace
to that region, Bush hopes to thwart further escalation in the
terrorists factions. If it works in Iraq it may spread to Iran,
Libya, Pakistan etc. Will it work? The world can only hope
for we are all at risk of the great-Jihad. At least he has the
forsight and the balls to do something. We have learned from
past administrations that Summit-meetings, smiles and hand
shakes, tons of money etc. have done nothing to appease the
Islamic right from their desire to take over the world for their
cause.

[Boom]

Originally posted by jchas * The war in Iraq, as terrible as it may be, is the best way that our administration had to undermine the REAL war on terrorism.

 

 

Yeah but what ties did Iraq have to terrorism? I mean most of the Sep. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. This whole thing started in Afghanistan chasing AlQueda and Bin Laden. What ties did they have to Iraq? Why arent we going to war with Iran, after all they actually are building nuclear weapons and so is North Korea. How do you conclude that the Iraq war is the "best way to undermine the REAL war on terrorism"? I think theyre doing just the opposite. There's far more terrorists there today than there was one year ago. What do you think the children that were injured or orphaned by Bush's war will be when they grow up? You are mistaken if you think this war is about fighting terror and liberating the Iraq people.

[Mike51]

\Mike Moore is the left-handed Rush Limbaugh. The truth
lies somewhere in the middle.\

That's incorrect.

[pink floyd cramer]

(reprinted from Pink Floyd Cramer's guide to politically correct wars.)

290,000 missing under Saddam's reign. But who cares? Thats just what he had to do to keep the Brown People under control and who are we to judge- he would not have been able to stay in power as a touch-feely kind of dude. It is the US' fault that that happened, because we originally put him in power. In so doing, we forfeited the right to do anything about the genocide. To do so is hypocrisy.

If a previous administration makes a mistake or turns a blind eye to mass murder, it nullifies the right of a future administration to correct the mistakes made (esp. if it is of the same political party as the first administration.)

And we also should never take military action against any country with oil, because it might look the reason for going to war. We should only go to war with countries that have no strategic value or natural resources. (Kosovo was the perfect war).

BTW the contract to rebuild Iraq should have gone to Ben and Jerry's. Give the Brown People some good Iraqi Road ice cream and they will settle down.

[duva]

I find your (jchas) comments to be somwhat misinformed. Specifically:

What makes it so much more dangerous is that the Islamic fanatics truly believe that they are fighting for their God

There have been many wars in which people truly believed they were fighting for "their" God. Even in WW II, the SS had "Gott mit uns" (literally translated, "God with us") inscribed on their unifrorms. There havealso many many more overly relgious wars throughout history, such as the hundred years war in Europe. From my understanding of history, what really makes people "dangerous" is when you invade their land. This is why the U.S. lost in Vietnam and is having a hard time in Iraq, the Soviets lost in Afghanistan, Napoleon and Hitler lost in Russia, and so on.

(who may in fact be Satan himself)

I find this comment to be ridiculous. I would like to point out that this falls into the long tradition of (literally) demonizing those whose religious beliefs differ from one's own.

The scary part is that nearly everybody, in their eyes, is an infidel, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Athiests, Pacifists, Tree-huggers, even Muslims content on living in peace and harmony with the rest of the world.

According to traditional Islam, Jews and Christians are not "infidels." Islam is basically an extension of Christianity in the same way the Christianity is an extension of Judaism. All three religions recognize Abraham as an initial founder. The Koran recognizes followers of both religions (Christianity and Judaism) as "people of the book."

As far as the film itself is concerned, I agree that it is biased, one sided, and (for a liberal like me, at least) thorughly enjoyable

[ae5]

people keep saying it's one sided and just his opinion and yada yada yada, when the entire collective rest of the media is completely one sided and just a few people (in control of the media, also from huge corporations)'s opinion, this movie only begins to balance this out by showing all the facts you pretty much won't get anywhere else in mainstream media. you can find these facts on the web, and some more outlandish ones, but most people have the attitude that if it isn't on cnn or fox news, it isn't true. which is how they control you, since these major media outlets are controlled by a VERY few ultra conservative right wing rich people.

yet i don't hear people bitch anywhere near as much about fox news and cnn as they do about moore.

your masters have trained you well.

like puppets to the voting booth (and when they doesn't work, hell, systematicly discount the areas in swing states that voted for your oponent and have buddies in the supreme court appoint you president even though you lost by a half a million votes).

[jchas]

QUOTE]Originally posted by duva

There have been many wars in which people truly believed they were fighting for "their" God. Even in WW II, the SS had "Gott mit uns" (literally translated, "God with us") inscribed on their unifrorms. There havealso many many more overly relgious wars throughout history, such as the hundred years war in Europe. From my understanding of history, what really makes people "dangerous" is when you invade their land. This is why the U.S. lost in Vietnam and is having a hard time in Iraq, the Soviets lost in Afghanistan, Napoleon and Hitler lost in Russia, and so on.

Any warrior would ask their God to be with them during battle
despiten the reasons for that battle. The difference is that
radical Islamisism views their fight FOR their God as well as
for their eternity. There can be no peacefull solution, only the
destruction of those against Allah. The reason the U.S lost
in Vietnam and is not having an easy time in Iraq is that they
are not there to WIN the war. They could have wiped out the entire nation and all those living there but try to use some
constraint regarding civilians. That is the difficult part for our
servicemen, asking them to shoot only the bad guys and not
to simply shoot at will.
And why Iraq? Two reasons. 1) It's central location to all of the
countries that support the Islamic radical terrorists, hoping that
by it's central location it will make networking more difficult. And
2) Taking out Saddam and his regime of thugs could very well
bring peace and prosperity (over time) to a country of people
that have not had that in a long time. Killing two birds with one
stone so-to-speak.


(who may in fact be Satan himself)
I find this comment to be ridiculous. I would like to point out that this falls into the long tradition of (literally) demonizing those whose religious beliefs differ from one's own.

I simply meant that a belief that asks that you 'take out' anyone
that does not believe as you do is NOT a part of any loving God
religion. That's not to say that it hasn't happened throughout
history with other religions - simply that it is against the true
teachings of every God-head religion that i'm aware of.


According to traditional Islam, Jews and Christians are not "infidels." Islam is basically an extension of Christianity in the same way the Christianity is an extension of Judaism. All three religions recognize Abraham as an initial founder. The Koran recognizes followers of both religions (Christianity and Judaism) as "people of the book."

According to traditional Islam you would be correct, and according
to the original Koran we are all under the same God-head and
subject to the same rules and conditions. But to the extremist
Islamic radicals they will be held up, not just as martyrs, but as
prophets if they rid the world of those who do not adhere to
the teachings.

As far as the film itself is concerned, I agree that it is biased, one sided, and (for a liberal like me, at least) thorughly enjoyable


And as a conservative I find parts of it enjoyable as well - well
LAUGHABLE could be considered enjoyable I suppose. My biggest
arguement with Moore however (and this holds true with anyone
who spouts liberal OR conservative hatemail at the other guy) is
that America would be much better served if they would use that
pent-up energy at trying to come up with a better plan than to
take pot-shots from the bushes.

[Is.]

Originally posted by jchas * The war in Iraq, as terrible as it may be, is the best way that our administration had to undermine the REAL war on terrorism. There has been, over the last few years, an upsurge of Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist acts. It is NOT a political war, it much more serious. In a political war there comes a time when one side or the other comes to terms with the destruction imposed on them or that they are imposing and will negotiate a way of peace to end it. The REAl war that we are fighting, that the whole world is fighting, is a religious war. What makes it so much more dangerous is that the Islamic fanatics truly believe that they are fighting for their God (who may in fact be Satan himself) and will stop at nothing, will not negotiate, will not decide on peace at any cost. This is not a George W. or Michael Moore based fact - it comes straight from the horses mouth - DEATH TO THE INFIDELS. The scary part is that nearly everybody, in their eyes, is an infidel, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Athiests, Pacifists, Tree- huggers, even Muslims content on living in peace and harmony with the rest of the world. By infusing our presence in the heart of the mid-east, and to (hopefully) bring stability and peace to that region, Bush hopes to thwart further escalation in the terrorists factions. If it works in Iraq it may spread to Iran, Libya, Pakistan etc. Will it work? The world can only hope for we are all at risk of the great-Jihad. At least he has the forsight and the balls to do something. We have learned from past administrations that Summit-meetings, smiles and hand shakes, tons of money etc. have done nothing to appease the Islamic right from their desire to take over the world for their cause.

 

 

Even if one accepts what you say about islamic extremism as true (it's a narrow and glib interpretation of whats going on), Iraq was hardly the center of islamic extremism and terrorism. In fact, it was virtually devoid of terrorist activity before we invaded. Remember, there are no confirmed links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and now there is a known Al-Qaeda presence. We actually created more terrorism through the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure than we have destroyed by overthrowing Sadaam. That's not even to mention the fuel we have added to the extremist's fire with our highly unpopular (globally) actions.

 

Our nation's War On Terror is as unwinnable and preposterous as the War On Drugs that came before it. Terror is a weapon as old as war itself. It's effective, and it's cheap. Therefore, it will always be a popular choice for the underdog. You can't destroy terror as a weapon, because it's not a trangible thing. Essentially, terror is defined by the effect it causes. Can you imagine what would happen if a political official tried to rally support for a War On Surprise, or a War On Love?

[Alex D]

Originally posted by jchas [b* The war in Iraq, as terrible as it may be, is the best way that our administration had to undermine the REAL war on terrorism. There has been, over the last few years, an upsurge of Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist acts.

 

 

I think you confused iraq with Iran, as did Bush. Iraq was secular and held back the {censored}es, which are the ones who highjacked that religion when muhammad (sp?)died. He was to the last of the line, no blood lines, he was a man of god. So his son said that on muhammad death bed that he (muhammad) gave him the power to be the true leader. This may or may not be what is describe in the bible as the great theif of the word of god, which in turn is satan. But Iraq was holding these people back, and controlling them. now we have those trouble makers fighting us and wanting to create a state that we were supposed fighting against, a religous {censored}e state. Not the secular idea of what Iraq was. Plain and simple we should of rolled into Iran, they took our people, the we the direct funders of the group that held our people for years, they have a known nuclear program (know before the war in Iraq) and we have found illegal laser inrichment sites for uranium that it sole purpose is to produce weapon grade materail. So why didn't we go, little oil to be found.

 

We may be using iraq as the "gas station" for the coming war, very much like the grabing of nothern africa by germany in WWII to fight a world war. You need oil to run the war machine and we have it now, how we use this power is what is in question. Mainly because we have be shown to be abusing this power and these people, and others. Very bad idea and approach IMHO.

[Alex D]

According to traditional Islam, Jews and Christians are not "infidels." Islam is basically an extension of Christianity in the same way the Christianity is an extension of Judaism. All three religions recognize Abraham as an initial founder. The Koran recognizes followers of both religions (Christianity and Judaism) as "people of the book." As far as the film itself is concerned, I agree that it is biased, one sided, and (for a liberal like me, at least) thorughly enjoyable

you are talking sunnie, which are the peaceful and true followers of that religion (true to all the teaching of muhammad, christian, and juda).

where the {censored}es are the ones who reject this idea and claim something that was never to be included in that Faith.

There are 2 islamic people and the sunnie (sp?) are cool, but the {censored}es highjacked that religion and started the whole ottaman empire, which is tring to make a comback, which we are going to stop. Convert or die was ther motto, that is not islam, but a perverse idea that is corrupted by man quest for control and power plain and simple, Evil. We may or may not be be doing the same thing, but one thing is for sure the sunnie never took our people and never lived by the motto convert or die, that is a purely {censored}e idea and to me is the evil that is for told in many many books from all those religions.

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by Is. Our nation's War On Terror is as unwinnable and preposterous as the War On Drugs that came before it.

Amen brother! Remember Carter was set to de-criminalise pot before the hostage situation blew everything apart. Then Regan and Bush start a war on their own people, especially rude considering the CIA was supplying the crack to the inner city.
social control, and then Bush sr's, "assett forfieture" was, in my eyes, the shot heard round the fascist world, as for the first time you had the constitutions protections of due process stripped away and you had government awarding itself draconian powers.

Next will be a "war on content" where you will see new technology used to prosocute internet users for various crimes, i.e. copyright infringement and violations of obscenity laws.
Microsoft will force the world to a Prescott/Longhorn solution and DRM will soon be implemented in your genetic code.
I.E., you won't be able to percieve any perceptions you havent liscensed or paid for

[Yoozer]

The war in Iraq, as terrible as it may be, is the best way that our administration had to undermine the REAL war on terrorism.

That'd make sense if the people blowing themselves up would be Iraqi's. Attacking Iraq had as a result that the Islamic world as a whole felt threatened and has even more incentive to strike back.

There has been, over the last few years, an upsurge of Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist acts. It is NOT a political war, it much more serious. In a political war there comes a time when one side or the other comes to terms with the destruction imposed on them or that they are imposing and will negotiate a way of peace to end it.

According to the PNAC, that negotiation will be "We have more nukes than you. Cease resistance or be obliterated". In a political war, things are about money and getting the (uninformed) majority behind you so you can keep going.

The REAL war that we are fighting, that the whole world is fighting, is a religious war. What makes it so much more dangerous is that the Islamic fanatics truly believe that they are fighting for their God (who may in fact be Satan himself) and will stop at nothing, will not negotiate, will not decide on peace at any cost.

Biggest god wins? And why does this god feel the need to let his ant collection fight for him?

So what about Bush who heard his god talking to him that he should take down Saddam? I am afraid that you fell for exactly the same thing the fanatics fell for - it's our god we're doing this for, he's on our side, so we are right.

Also, please note how fanaticism has little to do with the original tenets of the religion. For every scary Qu'ran quote, there's a scary Bible quote. All you need is someone desperate or gullible enough to swallow it.

This is not a George W. or Michael Moore based fact - it comes straight from the horses mouth - DEATH TO THE INFIDELS.

Every Abrahamic religion has a track record which includes exactly that - from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the wars in Ireland. It's definately not an Islam-only thing. But that's what you get with a vengeful god who tolerates nobody besides him.

The scary part is that nearly everybody, in their eyes, is an infidel, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Pacifists, Tree-huggers, even Muslims content on living in peace and harmony with the rest of the world. By infusing our presence in the heart of the mid-east, and to (hopefully) bring stability and peace to that region, Bush hopes to thwart further escalation in the terrorists factions.

If he wants to thwart that, he should end the indoctrination that tells Western man is the devil. I've seen kids re-act the Nick Berg beheading - KIDS, for goodness sake. If they already get raised with the idea and that same Western man fulfills this promise by carpet-bombing, I don't find it strange.

If it works in Iraq it may spread to Iran, Libya, Pakistan etc. Will it work? The world can only hope for we are all at risk of the great-Jihad.

The reason it won't spread like that is because they don't think like we think. I don't even think like you think . It's a whole worldview you have to change at once.

At least he has the forsight and the balls to do something.

He should've had those balls when the first plane hit the tower instead of doing nothing.

We have learned from past administrations that Summit-meetings, smiles and hand shakes, tons of money etc. have done nothing to appease the Islamic right from their desire to take over the world for their cause.

We've also learned from past administrations that they weren't shy of pumping money to these people to let 'm fight the evil godless Commies.

[jchas]

Originally posted by Yoozer That'd make sense if the people blowing themselves up would be Iraqi's. Attacking Iraq had as a result that the Islamic world as a whole felt threatened and has even more incentive to strike back. As I said, Iraq is a central location with which to combat future terrorism. 'If' the plan is succesfull, to liberate a country that has been repressed by their own government for so long, and if they can learn to live peacefully and prosperously in a civilized environment, there's a good chance that they will become a beacon to surrounding countries that their 'Is' a better way if they are willing to stand up to treacherous leaders like Saddam or Osama. Will it work? Only time will tell. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the PNAC, that negotiation will be "We have more nukes than you. Cease resistance or be obliterated". In a political war, things are about money and getting the (uninformed) majority behind you so you can keep going. The Cold War was the biggest war never fought. Though both sides had amassed more than enough nukes to obliterate the world they were never used. It was a political war. The 2 sides found a peaceable solution to their standoff. It was not about money nor religion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biggest god wins? And why does this god feel the need to let his ant collection fight for him? It is not God who is deciding to fight - it is a fairly small group of radicals who have ordained themselves to win the world for God. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what about Bush who heard his god talking to him that he should take down Saddam? I am afraid that you fell for exactly the same thing the fanatics fell for - it's our god we're doing this for, he's on our side, so we are right. Yet, with all the military force at his disposal Bush did not opt to destroy another people simply because they think differently than he does, report to a different God than he does, or to create a large parking lot for the Saudi's. He aimed for a repressive regime and accidently took out some of the innocent people who were surrounding them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, please note how fanaticism has little to do with the original tenets of the religion. For every scary Qu'ran quote, there's a scary Bible quote. All you need is someone desperate or gullible enough to swallow it. And there was a growing number who, after years of falsehoods and repression had become desperate enough and gullible enough to strike out against others in the name of a man-made 'post-script' of the original Qu'ran. Most followers of the religion beleive that it is mandated by God to live in peace with their neighbors and to spread the word when it is accepatable. This is the same precept held by all religions I am aware of. Unfortunately there are factions of many religions that think they have a better, quicker way to God's grace. And this time they were ammassing high end weaponry and weren't afraid to use it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Every Abrahamic religion has a track record which includes exactly that - from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the wars in Ireland. It's definately not an Islam-only thing. But that's what you get with a vengeful god who tolerates nobody besides him. Can't really argue the vengeful part, but THE rules state that HE shall do the thwarting the enemy part. And the fighting in Ireland, though touted as a religious war, is more of a Hattfield/McCoy war - which in the American venacular is similar to a family feud (though a very deadly one). You slap my cheek, I slap both of yours. I slap your cheeks, you punch me in the eye. You punch me in the eye, I punch both of yours. ANd so on and so on and so on. The Catholics and Protestants are divided by the lightest of gray lines. Almost indistinguishable. Yet a realtively small group of each claim that they are willing to kill because of it. It's not religious teaching that brought that on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If he wants to thwart that, he should end the indoctrination that tells Western man is the devil. I've seen kids re-act the Nick Berg beheading - KIDS, for goodness sake. If they already get raised with the idea and that same Western man fulfills this promise by carpet-bombing, I don't find it strange. Again, time will tell if they feel the same way after things cool down. If their country becomes prosperous, safe and peacefull (something that most of it wasn't before) they may someday see it as a necessary intervention. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason it won't spread like that is because they don't think like we think. I don't even think like you think . It's a whole worldview you have to change at once. Most of the mid-east has not changed their worldview in hundreds of years. It cannot change all at once. But it can change. The removal of their governments repression may help. The ending of a religion-run state definately would. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He should've had those balls when the first plane hit the tower instead of doing nothing. Bush tried in the air assaults of Afganistan. Unfortunatley it's impossible to take out those hiding and training in desert caves directly. It was then that he chose the indirect route. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We've also learned from past administrations that they weren't shy of pumping money to these people to let 'm fight the evil godless Commies.

Can't argue that (at least we agree on something). I wish all
countries of the world would quit financing and contributing
arms of all types. If for no other reason that the world changes
so frequently that who is with you today may be against you
tomorrow.

[duva]

Posted by Alex D. you are talking sunnie, which are the peaceful and true followers of that religion (true to all the teaching of muhammad, christian, and juda). where the {censored}es are the ones who reject this idea and claim something that was never to be included in that Faith. There are 2 islamic people and the sunnie (sp?) are cool, but the {censored}es highjacked that religion and started the whole ottaman empire, which is tring to make a comback, which we are going to stop. Convert or die was ther motto, that is not islam, but a perverse idea that is corrupted by man quest for control and power plain and simple, Evil. We may or may not be be doing the same thing, but one thing is for sure the sunnie never took our people and never lived by the motto convert or die, that is a purely {censored}e idea and to me is the evil that is for told in many many books from all those religions.

 

 

FIrst of all, 85% of moslems worldwide are Sunnis. So, what I said about mainstream Islam is a reasonable claim. Even among the Shiites, there many moderate and reasonable people.

 

Second, the implication that all Shiites believe in forced conversion to Islam is not correct. One example: Jews expelled from Europe at various points during the middle ages were given refuge by the Ottomans (and weren't forced to change their religion). From what I've read, the "convert or die" policy was generally used only against polytheistic or pagan religions.

 

In summary, I agree that many evil things have been done in the name of Islam, but I would point out the one could make a similar case against Christianity. What we need to do is avoid overreacting to the actions of a few terrorists and condeming an entire religion based on the actions of a few extremists. This will only lead to a wider conflict, which is exactly what the terrorists want.

[Styrerra]

Originally posted by jchas * If you want a fact-based documentary, then Spinal Tap is just the thing for you. I still believe they're real. * Mike Moore is the left-handed Rush Limbaugh. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. * The 'facts' used by anyone with a political agenda are polarized by which hand they are thrown out - either the left or the right. * The war in Iraq, as terrible as it may be, is the best way that our administration had to undermine the REAL war on terrorism. There has been, over the last few years, an upsurge of Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist acts. It is NOT a political war, it much more serious. In a political war there comes a time when one side or the other comes to terms with the destruction imposed on them or that they are imposing and will negotiate a way of peace to end it. The REAl war that we are fighting, that the whole world is fighting, is a religious war. What makes it so much more dangerous is that the Islamic fanatics truly believe that they are fighting for their God (who may in fact be Satan himself) and will stop at nothing, will not negotiate, will not decide on peace at any cost. This is not a George W. or Michael Moore based fact - it comes straight from the horses mouth - DEATH TO THE INFIDELS. The scary part is that nearly everybody, in their eyes, is an infidel, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Athiests, Pacifists, Tree- huggers, even Muslims content on living in peace and harmony with the rest of the world. By infusing our presence in the heart of the mid-east, and to (hopefully) bring stability and peace to that region, Bush hopes to thwart further escalation in the terrorists factions. If it works in Iraq it may spread to Iran, Libya, Pakistan etc. Will it work? The world can only hope for we are all at risk of the great-Jihad. At least he has the forsight and the balls to do something. We have learned from past administrations that Summit-meetings, smiles and hand shakes, tons of money etc. have done nothing to appease the Islamic right from their desire to take over the world for their cause. BAAAA-AAAA BAAA-AAA BAAA BAAAA BAAAA-AAAA

 

 

The sheep have spoken!

 

The real cause of terrorism; is when we bomb their countries, homes and eventual death of their children by malnutriction and societial decay.. They people we bomb now, will come back years or decades later.

 

The truth is, revenge is the cause of terrorism. Or at least, it is in my opinion.

[Styrerra]

There is a cause. It is not our fast cars, pop culture or strippers; it is loss of life.

[Styrerra]

Originally posted by jchas Bush tried in the air assaults of Afganistan. Unfortunatley it's impossible to take out those hiding and training in desert caves directly. It was then that he chose the indirect route.

 

 

He could have choose to extend the war. For 1 week even the anti-taliban were shelling him in 1 particular mountain. They could have focused on the mountain, but instead 1 anti-taliban tank with over 300 rounds of shells were all that was used.

 

The chance was there, they direction was not.

[mr.rob]

I saw Farenheit 911 the other day. I already knew most of what he had to say. I liked it. However, he does operate on some assumptions. Now, I share these assumptions. But if you were a head of state and you were attacked by terrorists, perhaps using propaganda to scare your people into buying your lies about Iraq so you could invade it wouldn't be a bad idea.

I mean, after you invade Iraq your less dependant on whatever happens in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. pretty much couldn't invade Saudi Arabia. I mean, {censored}, without Saudi Oil money the Bush clan would be a bunch of white trash non office holding mother{censored}ers. Also, if Saudi money suddenly left the country or went bad that'd really hurt the economy. Really, the Saudis have so much money invested in the U.S. that the royal family and the Bin ladens(aside from osama) must have lost a lot in the past few years as the stock markets plummeted. For them to attack U.S. financial centers would be like me attacking my piggy bank.

I don't see the Saudi connection to Bush's finances or U.S. finances being equivilant to some U.S. to Bin laden to Oasama Bin Laden conspiracy where corporations wanting to go into the middle east somehow propped up terrorists to attack the U.S. and Bush looked the other way The movie didn't insinuate such a connection. And, I'm not sure I'd infer such a connection. Certainly, if such a connected existed then Osama took things much further than originally intended.

However, I do think this is the reason why the U.S. is in iraq and not, say, Saudi Arabia is the financial ties between the U.S and Saudi's which go all the way to the whitehouse.
I also think invading Iraq has been a costly and bloody blunder.
Why not spend all this money on actually making america secure? Why not spend it on education and healthcare? Why not actually take care of Afghanistan first? I mean, it's as if that doesn't exist any longer. What a {censored}ing sham.
The attack, if its aftermath continues to be U.S. military action, will hurt the U.S. long term because we will spend too much on the military and not enough on other necessities.

[Yoozer]

OT on the OT : I haven't been in OJ for a LONG while, and I intend to keep it like that... man, it must be such a mess there right now (and I'm not even looking to check).

[scubyfan]

Originally posted by mr.rob I saw Farenheit 911 the other day. I already knew most of what he had to say. I liked it. However, he does operate on some assumptions. Now, I share these assumptions. But if you were a head of state and you were attacked by terrorists, perhaps using propaganda to scare your people into buying your lies about Iraq so you could invade it wouldn't be a bad idea. I mean, after you invade Iraq your less dependant on whatever happens in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. pretty much couldn't invade Saudi Arabia. I mean, {censored}, without Saudi Oil money the Bush clan would be a bunch of white trash non office holding mother{censored}ers. Also, if Saudi money suddenly left the country or went bad that'd really hurt the economy. Really, the Saudis have so much money invested in the U.S. that the royal family and the Bin ladens(aside from osama) must have lost a lot in the past few years as the stock markets plummeted. For them to attack U.S. financial centers would be like me attacking my piggy bank. I don't see the Saudi connection to Bush's finances or U.S. finances being equivilant to some U.S. to Bin laden to Oasama Bin Laden conspiracy where corporations wanting to go into the middle east somehow propped up terrorists to attack the U.S. and Bush looked the other way The movie didn't insinuate such a connection. And, I'm not sure I'd infer such a connection. Certainly, if such a connected existed then Osama took things much further than originally intended. However, I do think this is the reason why the U.S. is in iraq and not, say, Saudi Arabia is the financial ties between the U.S and Saudi's which go all the way to the whitehouse. I also think invading Iraq has been a costly and bloody blunder. Why not spend all this money on actually making america secure? Why not spend it on education and healthcare? Why not actually take care of Afghanistan first? I mean, it's as if that doesn't exist any longer. What a {censored}ing sham. The attack, if its aftermath continues to be U.S. military action, will hurt the U.S. long term because we will spend too much on the military and not enough on other necessities.

Well, of course they're not gonna bite the hand that feeds them! And of course they're not genuinely after countries who harbor terrorism or who violate human rights, because there are:

1) At least half a dozen countries which are a greater threat to the U.S. and their neighbors.
2) There are at least a few countries which violate human rights, including the practice of slavery, torture, and so forth.

I don't know how anyone can be as naive as those who believe that the premise to invade Iraq or Afghanistan was somehow necessary. The fact that we haven't seen a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 2001 doesn't mean squat. I mean, in 2000, we hadn't seen a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 1993 and 1994 - the first bombing of the WTC and the Oklahoma bombing; I may be off on the dates.

We need to focus on more serious things. For example, Iran. Or, how about Osama? Somehow no one likes to mention him anymore, because there is essentially no hope of capturing him. Oh yeah, and what about finding out who it was that sent those Anthrax letters? So many open cases, and yet they insist on making more enemies.

Sorry for the late night rant. It may not make much sense due to my sleepyness. That's my defense and I'm sticking to it.