posted on May 11, 2004 10:13:27 PM
What's the matter Kraft, are you finding it a little more difficult to sympathize with the terrorists? Every adult on the planet should be required to see those images.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on May 11, 2004 10:51:33 PM
You're unbelievable. Posting a link to a site that shows a person getting their head cut off without warning is irresponsible. What a jerk.
posted on May 12, 2004 06:07:21 AM
shame on you, fool.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on May 12, 2004 07:11:14 AM
I agree with Kraft. Totally tactless and discourteous to those of us who chose never to see those photos. You just put the "right" down another rung of the ladder in my book. Good job.
posted on May 12, 2004 07:38:08 AM
Where was the outrage when hibbertst directly posted a gruesome photo? Not a link - the actual photo with no warning?
kraft dinner - "What other kinds of pictures would you prefer to see from a war? The U.S. didn't have any problems showing us the Hussein brothers. Why is this picture different?"
Where is the outrage when skylite directly posts photos - not links and without warnings - of dead babies in coffins, among other things?
I think the photos are absolutely horrible, sickening, disgusting, and incredibly painful to look at. But they show exactly what these terrorists are capable of. Very sad, but very true.
spelling edit
__________________________________
"The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work." - Richard Bach
[ edited by wgm on May 12, 2004 07:38 AM ]
Who said anything about censorship? The same thing goes for skylight and everyone else posting graphic photos or links to them. The OP should warn that they are graphic. I avoided seeing these photos for a reason. Rationalize the OPs actions all you want. That's what the right does best. He was still in the wrong for not warning the other posters. Just as skylight is wrong when he does it.
Edited to add: And just whose fault do you think it is that bin Ladden's merry group of terrorists have made their way into Iraq? Do you really believe they were so prevelent before we invaded?
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on May 12, 2004 08:23 AM ]
posted on May 12, 2004 08:36:03 AMWho said anything about censorship?
I did. I mentioned how CBS and Dan Rather was MORE than happy to show the pics of what our troops did....but they wouldn't allow the pictures of what was done to this American.
The same thing goes for skylight and everyone else posting graphic photos or links to them. The OP should warn that they are graphic.
Asking for/requesting how we'd like to see things done, imo, presents no problem. Demanding and calling names when it's been okay for skylite to do...and NO ONE objected to his/her doing the same thing is called hypocrisy.
[i]I avoided seeing these photos for a reason[/i[.
Did you avoid seeing the other pictures too? Did you share the same outrage then?
And just whose fault do you think it is that bin Ladden's merry group of terrorists have made their way into Iraq?
I don't know....do you think President Bush provided their air-fare for their trip to Iraq? Or do you think that while the left has denied any connection between the Iraq governement and the Arabs - other Muslim extremists....that they do support each other when it comes to their hatred of Americans/Westerners?
Do you really believe they were so prevelent before we invaded? I believe all terrorists groups in the ME have one common goal and would be willing to 'come' together against Jews, infidels and Westerners....yes.
posted on May 12, 2004 08:49:44 AMWe need to fight these savages to the death
Are you refering to the people who beheaded Berg or our prison guards who raped and murdered prisoners and the administration that permitted it to happen ?
At some point there will be pictures and testimony of innocent Iraqi civilians murdered by "coalition" forces. There is already an actual court case proceeding in the UK over this. Will you be calling for the death penalty for our troops ? Will you demand the death penalty for any of our troops that are found guilty of murdering prisoners ?
This whole ball of wax in Iraq is devolving into a childish yet lethal game of revenge.
And it is all because we have a liar in the White House that needlessly took us into Iraq.
posted on May 12, 2004 08:51:31 AM
My feelings on the images is that if you're going to be on the internet you are also responsible for clicking links and if you are even the slightest bit inquisitive you're going to find something that you don't wish to read or view if you click long enough. Before I changed the way I handled spam I used to get porno pics in my e-mail and they were disgusting too.
might just outrage enough people to make them support our war against these terrorists. And that's NOT their on their agenda.....
Who are you talking about, Linda? People on this board or the imaginary people in your head again? Who on this board has ever said that the US shouldn't go after the terrorists? Name some names, Linda as I'd love to know who they are.
Saddam did not want terrorists in Iraq and did his best to keep them out. Once again (how many times do I have to say this) Bush invaded with no plan of attack and for a year terrorists have been coming into Iraq. Do you really think the good citizens of Iraq want them in their country or that they asked for them to come in? You still have 9/11 and Iraq and terrorists all mixed up, Linda even though it's been proven there was no connection to 9/11 and Iraq.
Now please, if you would be so kind..... name the people on this board who you say don't want the US to fight the terrorists.
posted on May 12, 2004 09:03:35 AM
kiara - Who are you talking about, Linda?
I think my post was QUITE clear who I was referring to....read the whole post.....and maybe you'll be able to comprehend it this time....but then again...maybe not. You're so busy with your sarcasm and worrying about the 'voices in MY head'.
posted on May 12, 2004 09:10:47 AM
Saddam did not want terrorists in Iraq and did his best to keep them out
Yeah that is why he paid the families of suicide terrorist US$25000 each. That kept them at arms length, while still being able to say 'oh do you see terrorist in my country?' That was one of the best things he did to keep them out??? need the links?
Is the pictures of the kid who was beheaded? No, no no, no one can see dead Americans, just show dead Iraqis or Iraqi prisoners with underweat on there head, and show how the US tortures them.
__________________________________ In cyberspace, you can't hear a liberal scream.
posted on May 12, 2004 09:33:41 AM
I'm sorry if you thought I was being sarcastic, Linda. I really wasn't but I guess it's how you read it.
And I'm sincerely sorry if I misinterpreted your message.
might just outrage enough people to make them support our war against these terrorists. And that's NOT their on their agenda.....
I'm still not sure of whose agenda you mean. CBS? I truly don't know of anyone that doesn't want the world to go after the terrorists (except for the terrorists themselves).
I think the objection is that Bush supposedly went into Iraq to liberate the people from Saddam and that he was looking for WOMD but instead he created huge problems and more networks of terrorists which makes it more unsafe than ever before.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:09:50 AMYeah that is why he paid the families of suicide terrorist US$25000 each. That kept them at arms length, while still being able to say 'oh do you see terrorist in my country?' That was one of the best things he did to keep them out??? need the links?
Saddam and Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda. The $25K you're refering to was for the families of the Palestinians killed in violent acts against Israel. Unless you wish to argue that we are going after any NGO that commits a violent act against any government, then Saddam's support for the Palestinians is no reason to invade. It would also mean that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia long before Iraq-- Saudi Arabia DID support Al Qaeda and nearly all the 9-11 terrorits were from Saudi Arabia.
We are finding out the hard way exactly why Saddam Hussein was so brutal towards his own people-- It is the only way to keep a lid on all the violent Islamic factions in Iraq.
Oklahoma Republican Imhofe as much as admitted it when he rationalized the torture of prisoners as OK because they weren't in there for traffic violations.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:12:17 AM
kiara - Your apology is void of any sincerity at all - it's worthless and shallow - because you continue to repeatedly say it over and over and then deny that's what you meant. how funny.....
posted on May 12, 2004 10:17:21 AM
skylite does it all the time and I don't see anything written about that. This is one reason skylite is on ignore.
What I don't do on this board it click a link because you never know what is there. I thought when I saw it it must be someting that shouldn't be posted so I just bypassed it and read the thread. It didn't take long to figure it out.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:34:46 AM
Linda (and I'm talking in my usual quiet "being nice" voice) I haven't denied anything that I've ever said here and you should know that by now. I only deny what you and twelvepole say I've said when it is untrue. Go back and read "Fast Food, Iraqi Style" if you want your memory refreshed as to how I have to constantly defend myself even when my words are there for all to read.
I was sincere when I apologized for misinterpreting what you said up above as I don't want to constantly battle with you.
You started your post with 'The objections here are like the typical CBS'
So........ I truly didn't know if the 'agenda' you were referring to was the people here on this board or the agenda of CBS so I apologized for misunderstanding and asked that you make it clear for me.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:36:42 AM
Saddam and Terrorism
"But the premise is facile. The principle that drove Iraq and al Qaeda together is one of the oldest in international-relations theory — the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The motive for their alliance was a common hatred for the United States and Israel.
Ideology seldom determines wartime-alliance structures, and for both Saddam and Osama the 1990s were wartime. The Iraq/al Qaeda combination is as reasonable as the temporary strategic alliance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, or Syrian and American troops fighting side by side during Operation Desert Storm. (Note that it is hard to distinguish Syria from Iraq ideologically, and Baathist solidarity was certainly not a motivating factor in the relationship between the two countries.)
Moreover, despite their personal dislike for each other, Saddam Hussein was the only state leader openly to praise bin Laden's attacks on the U.S. (if not bin Laden himself).
Saddam Hussein showed no reluctance to support terrorism per se during his career. The fact that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists and had a close working relationship with the PLO was well known, and something he admitted.
The Iraqi regime maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were instructed in methods of taking over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives (interesting thought that).
Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and other members of his international terror organization (ANO) in Baghdad. Abu Nidal died under suspicious circumstances in Baghdad in August 2002, an apparent multiple gunshot suicide. Abd-al-Rahman Isa, ANO's second in command based in Amman, Jordan, was kidnapped September 11, 2002, and has not been heard from since.
Coalition forces did recently apprehend ANO member Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am
Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. He was hiding out in Baghdad. Another bomb maker, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was also a Baghdad resident. He was one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who had fled there after being detained briefly by the FBI. Recent document finds in Tikrit show that Iraq supplied Yasin with both money and sanctuary. The 1993 WTC attack was masterminded by Yasin's associate Ramzi Yousef, who received financial support from al Qaeda through Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key 9/11 planner.
There is also the case of Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam's secret police who was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief.
Abu Zubayr was apprehended in May, 2002, while putting together a plot to mount suicide attacks on U.S. ships passing through the straits of Gibraltar. He has allegedly since stated that Iraq trained and supplied chemical weapons to al Qaeda. In the fall of 2001 al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan took refuge in northern Iraq until they were driven out by Coalition forces, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an al Qaeda terrorist active in Europe and North Africa, fled from Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has reportedly been sent back to Iraq to coordinate al Qaeda activities there.
Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group. Hamsiraji Sali, an Abu Sayyaf leader on the U.S. most-wanted terrorist list, stated that his gang received about one million pesos (around $20,000) each year from Iraq, for chemicals to make bombs. The link was substantiated immediately after a bombing in Zamboanga City in October 2002 (in which three people were killed including an American Green Beret), when Abu Sayyaf leaders called up the deputy secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Husham Hussain. Six days later, the cell phone used to call Hussain was employed as the timer on a bomb set to go off near the Philippine military's Southern Command headquarters.
Fortunately, the bomb failed to detonate, and the phone yielded various contact numbers, including Hussain's and Sali's. This evidence, coupled with other intelligence the Philippine government would not release, led to Hussain's expulsion in February 2003. In March, ten Iraqi nationals, some with direct links to al Qaeda, were rounded up in the Philippines and deported as undesirable aliens. In addition, two more consulate officials were expelled for spying.
The most intriguing potential link is reflected in documents found by Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter in Baghdad in April, 2003. The documents detail direct links between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime dating back at least to 1998, and mention Osama bin Laden by name. The find supports an October 2001 report by William Safire that noted, among other things, a 1998 meeting in Baghdad between al Qaeda #2 Ayman al Zawahiri and Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan. Other reports have alleged bin Laden himself traveled to Iraq around that time, or at least planned to. Former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, now in custody, allegedly met with bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:38:04 AM
There's a BIG difference in these pictures and Skylite's pictures. Seeing death is a part of war but seeing a person being put to death by being beheaded is on the same level as a snuff film. You guys are hopeless if you can't see the difference.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:46:53 AM
I didn't watch it. When I made the other thread, I didn't even give a link
But Helen did
here:
The video that I watched was linked in someone's comment on another site...Metafilter. It showed the head being cut off and afterwards held up for the camera.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:55:08 AMBut the premise is facile. The principle that drove Iraq and al Qaeda together is one of the oldest in international-relations theory — the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The motive for their alliance was a common hatred for the United States and Israel.
You can not wage war based on an abstract implied "friendship".
Guilt by an abstract implied association is not a tennet of international relations.
It is however becomming a necessary part of Bush policy, due to his lies.
Just look at the positions of Bush on Iraq.
We must invade due to WOMDs, which was a lie.
We must invade due to Saddam's torture of his people, which argument can no longer be used.
We must invade to make Iraq a democracy which few people believe is even remotely possible.
Now - We must invade due to the possibility that Iraq may have an abstract implied "friendship" with Al Qaeda.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:55:15 AM
common on KD the only difference is that skylite posted so that when I clicked the thread the pictures were there. eauctionguy made a clickable link so that if I didn't want to see something I didn't click. Again we are getting into a situation where she said he said and nobody wins that game because of the terrible things posters say. Now don't take that wrong...but in my mind there is no difference in pictures the only difference is I didn't have to see eauctionguys because I had to click a link Skylites were right there when I opened the thread....
posted on May 12, 2004 10:56:00 AM
Near, Helen said "the video is too horrible to watch", so she linked to a site without pictures but had the full story. To start a new thread on the same subject with a link to these pictures, without any kind of warning, is irresponsible at best, making me think EAG knew exactly what he was doing (jerk).
posted on May 12, 2004 11:08:25 AMYou can not wage war based on an abstract implied "friendship".
No friendship....common hatred.....
and in addition to the above mentioned connections there's always the FACT that the clinton administration and the UN ALL believed he had womd. And being right on the tail of 9-11...this president was correct not to take any chances and then be accused of not preventing the threat that the world and the last three administrations KNEW was there with saddam in power.
posted on May 12, 2004 11:12:04 AM
No but pictures of the dead were posted here.
Terriorists always are associated with death.
These threads are the same but with different titles. KD and Helen agree with each other, Reamond all he talks about is Bush lies. There is no really good debate just ramblings. When someone tries to start a decent thread something happens and it goes south fast. What I would like to read is why I should vote for Kerry. Why I should vote for Bush. Not why you think, facts would be nice. It might be more interesting to read.
