• Coming soon...Bored of Studies trial exams
    Watch this space!
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page

Yvonne Ridley (1 Viewer)

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Sydney University Muslim Students Association Presents

Yvonne Ridley:

Media Lies and Manipulation:
Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

16th March 1-2pm
Carslaw Lecture Theatre 159

Q&A will proceeed the lecture from 2-3pm
Carslaw Lecture Theatre 375

All Welcome..

http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/spearman/location_map.html
email for contact sumsa@sumsa.org.

----------------------------------------------------------

Yvonne Ridley is an award-winning journalist of international standing who made the headlines in September 2001 when she was arrested by the Taliban and held for 10 days. Her journalistic career began in her native north of England in 1976 where she rose through the ranks to become editor. In 1996 she began working in London for the Daily Mirror and later moved to The Sunday Times, The Observer and the Sunday Express as well as other Fleet Street titles. Ridley also expanded into television and radio and presented TV documentaries and reports from Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. She has also interviewed Yasir Arafat and Tariq Aziz in their private offices.

Ridley now works as a senior editor in Qatar for the controversial broadcaster Al-Jazeera and recently helped launched the station's English website which regularly receives several million hits a week. Never far from controversy for her anti-war and humanitarian stance, Ridley was back in the headlines again recently when she embraced Islam. She says her unlikely journey began in the cell of an Afghan prison and one of her most popular talks is called from Captive to Convert - a story which appeals to all faiths and cultures. A promoter of women's rights and equality, she now spends much of her spare time talking about women in Islam and says the women's liberation movement actually started in the pages of the Quran more than 1400 years ago.
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I'd advice Bush to take out life insurance before going into a room full of Muslims.
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Depends which room...I doubt there would be any problem in a lecture theatre of the university of Sydney, but if he walked into full of Iraqi Muslims in Baghdad, perhaps the life insurance wouldnt be such a bad idea...
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
How can we judge the reliability of Yvonne Ridley's claims? Most people who are determined to make a statement on the Iraqi/Afganistan occupations, it's political implecations and social-political consequentials tend to be moderately to heavily biased towards one side, either the Bush administration, or the Hussein regime.
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
I guess youd have to decide for yourself then. If you think everyone's biased to a degree, then I guess the only reasonable option would be to hear as many points of view as possible and make your own mind as to the 'truth'...

Of course, when analysing bias, you also need to think of why someone would be biased...as an example, someone like Bush telling his side of the story would have 100 more reasons to be biased than someone like Yvonne Ridley...
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Well you can't judge that for sure, unless you totally understand and comprehend Yvonne Ridley's background, political ideologies, values etc.

Just judging from your posts so far, I would be correct to say that you are an anti-war supporter?
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Anti-war supporter? Umm..not in any official way..Ive no official (or unofficial) links with the anti-war movement. I am nevertheless anti- the so called 'war on terror' (on a personal level)
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
So you disagree with the War on Terror?

What would you have done in the president's position instead, after 9/11? (Not trying to be patronising, just curious of your subjective opinions)
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
What he should of done after 9/11?

I think analysing 9/11 itself comes first. Or are we assuming that what the media and the US admin told us with regards 9/11 is the truth? Though I cant fully explain who was responsible, why they did it and so on, I do hold that the story the mainstream media told us (that a very rich bloke sitting in a cave in afghanistan, operating a worldwide 'terror' network, carried out the most sophisticated terror act in hisotry, on the superpower of the time) has too many holes (apart from the outline in the parenthesis) to be believable.

And at the risk of being labelled a conspiracy theorist, I also hold that the attack could not have happened without some form of internal collution.

Thus, wat the presidnet should have done after 9/11 can only be answered after we decide who was responsible for 9/11.

ASSUMING that it was Bin Laden and that the US administration's version of events was true, the so called 'war on terror' is still not the appropriate response. If its the terror we want eliminated, then you cant use terror to achieve it. The right response would be to analyse the root-causes of terrorism and attack them (something the US would never do, since theyd appear heavily in any such roots).

Of course, in all the above we're assuming the Mr Bush is a fair dinkum bloke who acts in good faith and in the best interets of his ppl (and humanity at large). An unfounded assumption in my opinion. End of the day, he's a right-wing capitalist, whose chief objective is profits, maintanience of power and the like. The 'war on terror' has is not aimed at ridding the world of terror, its driven to secure and maintain US hegemony over as much of the world as possible, to strenthen their hold as a superpower (via various means, e.g. puppet regimes in the middle east, economic enslavement (21st century colonialism) of the third world etc).

And just in case your wondering, Im not a socialist or communist or whatever they call themselves nowadays...
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
So are you doubting that it was Bin Laden, and it's affliate organizations responsible for the attack? Because even if the US did fabricate such claims, the irrefutable gauntlet is that Bin Laden's Al Qaida even breem publically of the attacks, and has been heard to boast of the success of 'their operations'. I'm sorry, but if you still even doubt the most fundamental origins of the political argument, that is, Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, then my opinion is that you would be indeed, unreasonably biased against the US.

I don't understand how the overall media portrayal is unbelievable. The US, is in no way invincible. Their military is suseptable in many forms, such as the primative shoulder-launched grenades. Their superior technology and power can be exploited by an innovation, in which technology is irrelevant. Their tanks and robust mechanized infantry divisions still suffer heavy risks going into towns and cities. They are at risk from satellite warfare. The US military relies on information, and a cyber attack which could disrupt their orbitary communications systems would end all. That's one reason why the administration was so worried about China's space progress. And this occurred on 9/11, when a jet crashed into the buildings. Yes, America is a superpower, but it's far from untouchable. The attack was ingenious.

I don't understand your 'they countered terror with terror' analogy. Afghanistan was effectively liberated from the hardline muslim regime of the Taliban. Civilian casualties? Sure, but you wouldn't expect less from a full scale invasion. Iraq? The president lied, of course he lied. But the reason why that didn't deter my overall opinion, was because it was pretty obvious from the beginning.
The UN would obviously just continue to be a stumbling block, and after these few years even I started to feel the inefficiency of the organization. It's even in threat now from the European Union. Hence the WMD claim was a hatched backdoor around the resolution, and gave the president the sufficient pretext he desperately needed to resume his invasion plans.
Bush had many reasons to get rid of Saddam. His long-term potential for terrorist attacks, it's regime.. all of this was a long term bomb for the US, if they didn't do anything. Now of course, this same analogy applies to North Korea, but the US doesn't have the bureaucratic and military resources to extend the war on them by any means, so it's strategy was to employ pre-emption upon which ever nations it could take out, which was part of the president's 'evil' list.

Now the invasion of Iraq; I can't understand how the overall situation could be bad, especially from a democratic point of view. The despotic regime was expelled, the potential threats from the regime negated. The post-war transition would of gone very well, if it wasn't for Donald Rumsfeld's rather poor planning. Sure, the invasion was tactically and strategically sound, but the eggheads at the Pentagon obviously forgot about post-war.

The point is, I think the US is targetting terrorism, in it's best efforts. Or more realistically, it's most viable options. The roots of terrorism? They obviously understand it to some extent (i.e Middle Eastern policies etc.), but fundamental policies shouldn't be required to change, just to adapt to the terrorists' ideologies. That would be unfair, on any country. The terrorists did a terrible thing on 911, and a way to neutralize the threat, apart from shifting fundamental international policies (which isn't feasible), would be to forcibly remove them.

And no, I don't think you're a socialist or a communist, but perhaps a hardline muslim maybe?
 
Last edited:

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
So are you doubting that it was Bin Laden, and it's affliate organizations responsible for the attack?
No, I dont doubt that. I doubt the US admins version of events but that doesnt mean that Bin Laden is free of all blame nor that he took no part.

Because even if the US did fabricate such claims, the irrefutable gauntlet is that Bin Laden's Al Qaida even breem publically of the attacks, and has been heard to boast of the success of 'their operations'.
Who breems publically? How hard do you think it is to fabricate (with the state of the art technology we have nowadays watch Wag the Dog and youll know what I mean) the tapes that seem to be released at every juncture that suits the US govt. Tapes in which the speech is hardly decipherable and can easily be translated to suit anyone needs. Tapes whose content seems of no benefit whatsoever to Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden. I mean, now that you admit that the US fabricate intelligence to go to War in Iraq, why wouldnt they fabricate other stuff that goes to help them in achieving their ends? Also, if you want to go by Bin Ladens words, I recall one video were he denied any involvement but apparently praised those who did it.

Perhaps I should state, more explicity, the holes I alluded to, in the official; version of events:

1. The attack on the 9/11 apparently took yrs of planning and was carried with great precision. Yet the perpetrators left a quran and a flying manual (brilliant combination) near the area. Was that part of the planning? Or is this just a nice way to put the blame on Islamic extremists?
2. The perpetrators are supposedly Islamic extremists/fundamentalists who were putting the lives on the line, waging on a jihad against the US, yet the night before some of them were in night clubs drinking alcohol and having a great time. I mean how dumb do they think we are. Moderate Muslims dont even drink let along visit such clubs and these are meant to be extremists???
3. Four planes changed course around the same time. Plane flights are always on radar. No action was taken. Even after one crashed into the WTC. Why? I mean you have four diff flights changing course, practically doing 360 turns.
4. The third plane hit the pentagon, so were told. We have many photos of the aftermath, yet no sight of any plane, no broken bits, whole or parts. Looks much more like a missile hit. Apart fomr this, this is meant to be the pentagon, the US militarys main headquarters. Sure there not superhuman and mistakes can happen, but to suggest that a jumbo can crash into the pentagon and not be picked up until after it hits is highly fanciful.
5. None of the names of the said perpetrators were found on the flight passenger lists of the flights that crashed!

And so on

Its hard to believe, to say the least.

The US, is in no way invincible. Their military is suseptable in many forms, such as the primative shoulder-launched grenades. Their superior technology and power can be exploited by an innovation, in which technology is irrelevant.
If the perpetrators were the Russians or the British or any developed society the innovation argument might carry some weight. But you say that a guy living in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan can innovate to outsmart the US

I don't understand your 'they countered terror with terror' analogy.
How do you define terror? If throwing massive cluster bombs on areas near which civilians live isnt terror, then wat is? Just cause you call it a war doesnt make a diff. If Bin Laden had come out and said that he didnt mean to kill civilians, but that collateral damage is inevitable, would 9/11 then be justifiable?

Bush had many reasons to get rid of Saddam. His long-term potential for terrorist attacks
What attacks? His been in this situation since the first gulf war, he hasnt done any attacks? And since he hasnt got any WMD, wat was he meant to attack with?

Now of course, this same analogy applies to North Korea, but the US doesn't have the bureaucratic and military resources to extend the war on them by any means, so it's strategy was to employ pre-emption upon which ever nations it could take out, which was part of the president's 'evil' list.
Or perhaps its the fact that North Korea doesnt have the oil reserves that Iraq has nor anywhere near economic and political advantages that putting a puppet govt in Iraq returns.

The roots of terrorism? They obviously understand it to some extent (i.e Middle Eastern policies etc.), but fundamental policies shouldn't be required to change, just to adapt to the terrorists' ideologies.
Of course not, but if the policies are unfair to begin with, then they should be changed. And what ideologies do you talk about? Is it too much to ask for US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, or for the sanctions on Iraq (at the time), which resulted in hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqis dying, most of whom were infants, to be lifted. They had no effect whatsoever on Saddam. They simply killed off innocent Iraqis. Is that not terrorism? Albeit more sophisticated then flying planes into buildings. Is not what Israel does in Palestine terrorism? Yet the US wont say anything, and continues to aid them with billions annually.

And what does Mr Bush mean when he labels the terrorists as freedom haters. He makes it seem as if their killing ppl coz they hate freedom?? Killing innocent ppl is wrong, no matter what anyones cause is. But that doesnt mean you try and muddle up their causes.

And no, I don't think you're a socialist or a communist, but perhaps a hardline muslim maybe?
hardline muslim??
 

felix_js

lost
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Messages
341
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Originally posted by Ozz^E
4. The third plane hit the pentagon, so were told. We have many photos of the aftermath, yet no sight of any plane, no broken bits, whole or parts. Looks much more like a missile hit. Apart fomr this, this is meant to be the pentagon, the US militarys main headquarters. Sure there not superhuman and mistakes can happen, but to suggest that a jumbo can crash into the pentagon and not be picked up until after it hits is highly fanciful
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

anyway i pretty much agree with you ozzee, bush didn't finish off the job in afghanistan and went hunting for saddam, meanwhile letting bin laden, mullah omar and the gang disappear.
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
No, I dont doubt that. I doubt the US admins version of events but that doesnt mean that Bin Laden is free of all blame nor that he took no part.
But that is contradictory, via "ASSUMING that it was Bin Laden". If there was no doubt, then that line was irrelevant and should of been un-necessary.

"Who breems publically? How hard do you think it is to fabricate (with the state of the art technology we have nowadays watch Wag the Dog and youll know what I mean) the tapes that seem to be released at every juncture that suits the US govt. Tapes in which the speech is hardly decipherable and can easily be translated to suit anyone needs. Tapes whose content seems of no benefit whatsoever to Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden. I mean, now that you admit that the US fabricate intelligence to go to War in Iraq, why wouldnt they fabricate other stuff that goes to help them in achieving their ends? Also, if you want to go by Bin Ladens words, I recall one video were he denied any involvement but apparently praised those who did it."
Many of the hijackers who were later investigated were resulted to be of Al-Qaida descent or affliation. The attack and it's pre-sequent planning was in co-ordination with Al-Qaida. Looking contented and chuckling at times, Osama bin Laden boasted about the attacks in one of the videos released a week or so after the attacks. The tape showed bin Laden indicating that he had advance knowledge of the suicide attacks and that he was involved with it's co-ordination. He said the collapse of the World Trade Center towers surpassed his "optimistic" expectation of the damage the jets would cause. He also says that the 19 hijackers on the four jetliners commandeered Sept. 11 were told of a "martyrdom operation" but that they didn't know what their mission was until the last minute. Their actions, he maintains, brought new followers to Islam worldwide.
"This event made people think (about true Islam), which benefited Islam greatly," he said.

Now hypothetically, let's assume that he didn't co-ordinate or had any involvement with the attacks, yet he highly endorsed the unwarranted killing of those thousands of people. Does he not deserve to be ousted?

1. The attack on the 9/11 apparently took yrs of planning and was carried with great precision. Yet the perpetrators left a quran and a flying manual (brilliant combination) near the area. Was that part of the planning? Or is this just a nice way to put the blame on Islamic extremists?
This 'evidence' is counterproductive for you. Al-Qaida in many circumstances wants to be recognised for their effort, just like many other terror organizations, like Hamas. Similarly, the Quran and other Arabic books of interest were left in relatively obvious locations after the Spain train bombings.
So as for your quote, I don't understand why you are discussing this.

2. The perpetrators are supposedly Islamic extremists/fundamentalists who were putting the lives on the line, waging on a jihad against the US, yet the night before some of them were in night clubs drinking alcohol and having a great time. I mean how dumb do they think we are. Moderate Muslims dont even drink let along visit such clubs and these are meant to be extremists???
How do you know that they were drinking prior to the attacks? Secondly, many Muslims have claimed that the legitimacy of their scope of their religion is a fabrication, as 'true' Muslims don't massacre in such manner. A splinter faction of Islam perhaps? I don't know.

3. Four planes changed course around the same time. Plane flights are always on radar. No action was taken. Even after one crashed into the WTC. Why? I mean you have four diff flights changing course, practically doing 360 turns.
So what were they to do? Automate the imaginary self destruct button for the Boeings, or perhaps scramble some jets in less than an hour for an event so unconventional that the US were completely unprepared for? A Boeing against a building has never conventionally happened before. You can't expect the military to have policies regarding what to do in a flash situation for something like this. Like I said before, the attack was ingenious, and the US sank like ducks that day. After the first plane hit, the original assessment was an accident. Reasonable really, who would of thought that there were people willing to fly jets into grand buildings?

4. The third plane hit the pentagon, so were told. We have many photos of the aftermath, yet no sight of any plane, no broken bits, whole or parts. Looks much more like a missile hit. Apart fomr this, this is meant to be the pentagon, the US militarys main headquarters. Sure there not superhuman and mistakes can happen, but to suggest that a jumbo can crash into the pentagon and not be picked up until after it hits is highly fanciful.
Here comes the conspiracy theories. I guess you're a fan of the 'fake moon landings' ones too? So am I, actually.
Assuming it was a missile hit, are you speculating that the US generated a missile attack on it's own building?

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numer.../erreurs_en.htm
Hmm ironic how the site is French affliated.

5. None of the names of the said perpetrators were found on the flight passenger lists of the flights that crashed!
That is a widely known fact, with many variable explanations. Ever heard of a fake passport?

Since you are such a believer in the integrity of the US's tendencies to deceive and fabricate, would it make sense then for the US to claim openly that they were not on the flight lists, if it was their goal to convince the international community of their plight for war-pretext? Of course not.

Its hard to believe, to say the least.
Depends on how biased you are really.

If the perpetrators were the Russians or the British or any developed society the innovation argument might carry some weight. But you say that a guy living in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan can innovate to outsmart the US
It doesn't take overwhelming brain power to conceive an unconventional innovation, considering the innovation in these attacks embodied no new innovation in terms of technological or scientific elements.

They used jets to fly into buildings. It's obviously something the US would never expect, and it doesn't take an academic to 'invent' something like this, as it's not technologically oriented.

Also, it would be less credible if the idea was driven up by the Russians or the British, because the ideologies of hardline Muslims parallels the scope of immoral massacre strategies present in these kinds of disastrous attacks. That's why it's the most credible for people like these to come up with these ideas, and not individuals or organizations of more Western nations.

What attacks? His been in this situation since the first gulf war, he hasnt done any attacks? And since he hasnt got any WMD, wat was he meant to attack with?
Emphasis on the keywords 'long-term' and 'potential'. A fundamental political rule is to take out your adversaries before they become too powerful and hence unfeasible to attack. Like China. If the US could foresee the political and power projection of this rising superpower fifty years ago, I'm sure they would of done something about it. For Saddams case, you have a leader hell bent on the hatred of US, it's ideologies and it's interests. You have a leader who is willing to openly use chemical weapons in warfare, and you have a regime which is strikingly similar to conventional despotism. It's not the surprise of the century that the US decided to attack it.

Of course not, but if the policies are unfair to begin with, then they should be changed. And what ideologies do you talk about? Is it too much to ask for US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, or for the sanctions on Iraq (at the time), which resulted in hundred of thousands of innocent Iraqis dying, most of whom were infants, to be lifted. They had no effect whatsoever on Saddam. They simply killed off innocent Iraqis. Is that not terrorism? Albeit more sophisticated then flying planes into buildings. Is not what Israel does in Palestine terrorism? Yet the US wont say anything, and continues to aid them with billions annually.
Why should they have to leave Saudi Arabia? What possible ghastly ramifications does some troops have upon those hardline militants? It's not like they were going to invade the country.
Sanctions? Those sanctions were passed within a body of international communities, hence it would be unfair for you to slightly hint the blame at the US as the sole instigator. What else would you have the United Nations to do in the form of punishment? Just ignore them? Or you could oust the regime, which is what the US did, thank God. Saddam's regime in originality is barbaric against it's civilians, and infact many resolutions which induced such deaths were caused by Saddam's hardline policies in the first place.
Now we're here arguing about how 'unjust' the US was at crushing this regime, yet it was a similar situation when Iraq invaded Iran. And used chemical weapons on her troops. And Iraq's reasons for invasion were hardly up to par with the US's. Dejavu.

The sanctions against Iraq are not terroristic as what Saddam's regime is to her people.

Oh great, I had a feeling you'd be an Israel hater. Somehow getting suicide bombers to blow up bus full of people seem just a tad more terroristic.. maybe?

Killing innocent ppl is wrong, no matter what anyones cause is. But that doesnt mean you try and muddle up their causes.
Well killing several thousand people in such an explicit fashion really just outlined your point quite fantastically.

hardline muslim??
Yeah. They're the closest types of people I come across who argue in such an anti-US fashion. Note that I'm not unreasonably biased against the Iraqis/Arabs/Islam. If something is irrefutably factual such as Bush's apparent lying, then I'm not going to go into things like conspiracy theories.

Also I didn't know why you mentioned the regimes of socialism and communism. I actually like communism, in it's perfect however-unattainable utopic form.
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Originally posted by JKDDragon
But that is contradictory, via "ASSUMING that it was Bin Laden". If there was no doubt, then that line was irrelevant and should of been un-necessary.
By 'assuming it was Bin laden' i was referring to the offical version of events. That doesnt mean Bin laden could not have still been involved.

This 'evidence' is counterproductive for you. Al-Qaida in many circumstances wants to be recognised for their effort, just like many other terror organizations, like Hamas. Similarly, the Quran and other Arabic books of interest were left in relatively obvious locations after the Spain train bombings.
So as for your quote, I don't understand why you are discussing this.
Rigghttt. Cant they just leave a paper saying "We, Al-Qaeda, are responsible"..?? And if they want to make it obvious that it was them, we did Bin Laden deny involvment?? I mean he can just come out and say "i did it", much easier then going to the trouble of leaving books in 'obvious locations'

How do you know that they were drinking prior to the attacks?
It was on the news. Its part of the official version.

Secondly, many Muslims have claimed that the legitimacy of their scope of their religion is a fabrication, as 'true' Muslims don't massacre in such manner. A splinter faction of Islam perhaps? I don't know.
mate whatever faction you wanna label them, extremists/fundamental are literal followers of texts, they go to extremes to follow the religion, they do become extra liberal. Drinking and clubbing and Islamic extrmeists simply dont go together.

Here comes the conspiracy theories. I guess you're a fan of the 'fake moon landings' ones too? So am I, actually.
Assuming it was a missile hit, are you speculating that the US generated a missile attack on it's own building?
Ill leave the speculating to you.

Hmm ironic how the site is French affliated.
Does that make it invalid somehow? How about you try answering some of those questions, instead of freeing urslef by labelling anyone who questions offical 'facts' a conspriacy theorist. Forget who wrote it, its in english, read it and try and prove it wrong.

That is a widely known fact, with many variable explanations. Ever heard of a fake passport?
ohhhh, I see, so they can fabricate, but the US admin cant? thats pretty impartial of you.

Emphasis on the keywords 'long-term' and 'potential'. A fundamental political rule is to take out your adversaries before they become too powerful and hence unfeasible to attack.
Is it also a fundamental politcal rule to arm ppl up to thier teeth with all soughts of chemical and biological weapons and support them to achieve your ends but when they lose favour with you, you label them 'tyrants' and want them ousted??

Why should they have to leave Saudi Arabia? What possible ghastly ramifications does some troops have upon those hardline militants? It's not like they were going to invade the country.
Its a sovereign country. Foreign troops have no right to be there.

Sanctions? Those sanctions were passed within a body of international communities, hence it would be unfair for you to slightly hint the blame at the US as the sole instigator. What else would you have the United Nations to do in the form of punishment? Just ignore them?
So you put in place sanctions that achieve no ends other then kill off civilians?? And it nice of you to blame the UN for everything, either their 'impotent' coz they wont agree with the US or then when they agree and something coz wrong, its thier fault.

The sanctions against Iraq are not terroristic as what Saddam's regime is to her people.
Thats irrelevant, no one denys that.

Oh great, I had a feeling you'd be an Israel hater. Somehow getting suicide bombers to blow up bus full of people seem just a tad more terroristic.. maybe?
And I had a feeling that youd be a Islam hater. And no I dont think such actions ppl who have been subjected and forced to live in ghettos (after being expelled by an illegal military occupation) their whole lives with no future in anything ahead are worse then the organised state ssponsoered terrorsim that Israel carries out on civilians. Though the target of the suicide bombers is quite simply, wrong.

Why doenst your 'freedom loving' US do anything about Israel's blatant refusal to comply with UN resolutions. In the 10 yr period in which the Iraq didnt comply with 16 UN resolutions, Israel did tehe same to 72!...no bias there, huh? Oh no wait, the UN's at fault here.

Note that I'm not unreasonably biased against the Iraqis/Arabs/Islam. If something is irrefutably factual such as Bush's apparent lying, then I'm not going to go into things like conspiracy theories.
whatever mate, agreeing to obvious things like Bush's lying aout the WMD doesnt mean your not biased. Bias becomes apparent when grey ares arise, in which you tend towards the US in every case.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top