V for vendetta

[quote]

Lets
face it is America was to just go poof tomorrow, your country and the
rest of them would just die off slow painful deaths. America supports
the world. We are the Super Power. And you can just be mad as hell that
we are all you want.

anyone that's taken highschool econ will agree.. to an extent.

HAY GUYZ WLECOME TO CHINA!!11

Okay, I'll admit I was lying when I said bombing for nothing. I shoulda said oil.

seen our gas prices? we havent hit a major new source of oil in
years.. hence the push for drilling in alaska. if we made it a practice
of bombing for oil, i wouldnt have to pay $30+ to fill my camaro. get a
clue. (again, the oil fields in iraq belong to the iraqis... not us. we
WILLINGLY gave them up after invading.)

Remember also that despite Iraq being played up as the "great America hating evil" - IRAN!

as it looks to me, iran would have caused many many more casualties
without the immediate payoff. both iraq and iran threaten the USA and
their neighbors, but iraq was more immediate and more vulnerable. if we
marched into iran, there would have been a massive army with heavy
artillary waiting for us rather than a few republic guards with ak47's.
again, just speculation, but that's what i would have done. at the
time, saddam repeatedly made threats on the USA and praised the
terrorists that attacked us. (not to mention the WsMD, but maybe i
shouldn't bring that up again.. such an easy point to defeat.) take a
gander at the film "FahrenHYPE 9/11". Really puts things in perspective.

This isn't my point. I'm attacking the logic behind "making the world a safer place" by

a) starting a war, and poorly
supporting the invasion afterwards - in turn letting Iran exert more
sway over an already troubled region.<br style="color: orange;">
b) giving more "reasons" and fuel for
terrorists to exist. It's complicated to explain, but by invading Iraq
the world ISN'T a safer place, and the US has diminished it's capacity
as a superpower greatly. No-one wins, really.

There is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

how about some shameless copy and pasting? read em all.. don't stop once you find something to dispute.

• Abdul Rahman Yasin was

the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World
Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to
Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit,
Saddams hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and
monthly salary.

So
therefore he must actively have been seeking to plot against the US. I
wonder if General Pinochet was plotting a coup d'etat when he was in
the United Kingdom? Every government harbours characters of
questionable morals.

• Bin Laden met at least

eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a
secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials
from Saddams mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according
to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was
speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

The
same presentation which was later debunked as being nonsense eh? I
wonder how many times our chiefs met Saddam Hussein in the 80's? Didn't
Powell resign over all of this? Again, meetings may have been
undertaken but how is that a link between

a) Iraq being involved in 9/11<br style="color: orange;">
b) Iraq actively funding and aiding the al Qaeda network. You might have a credible argument if you talk about Syria.

• Sudanese intelligence

officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi
intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden
lived in Khartoum.

So
we're now splitting up the occasions bin Laden met with Iraq? If I
wrote this evidence I would surely have lumped this gem with the stuff
above. Since when did we all trust the Sudanese anyway? Surely the
native government has fish to fry over it's dislike of janjawid and
Arab firestarters in it's country. It's also worth noting a large
proportion of governments around the world will toe the line the for
the US because of economic pressure exerted on them.

• Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

According to Mr Powell. Evidence?

• An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddams men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

So
they've always been good friends. I thought that al Qaeda was liaising
actively with Iraqi intelligence in Khartoum, say, in 1994? That's not
the mid 90's, is it? Unless of course they were liasing over the issues
that the operative has raised here - ie trying to stop clashes between
Shia majority groups (such as the assasination attempt against Hussein)
and call peace. Doesn't smack of cooperation or good relationships to
me. And surely a confession is clouded in doubt anyway, as being the
words of others and/or gained under questionable interrogation methods.

• In 1999 the Guardian, a

British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in
Iraqs mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near
Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr.
Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the
Guardian reported.

Was the Guardian right? I've seen newspapers get things wrong before. It may have reported it, it doesn't make it true.

• In October 2000, another

Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the
Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Janes Foreign
Report, a respected international newsletter. Janes reported that
Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al
Zawahiri, now al Qaedas No. 2 man.

Now al Qaedas number 2 man. What was he when the communications were underway? This sentence would suggest that he wasn't al Qaeda.

• As recently as 2001,

Iraqs embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi
dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

Proof?
I can't accept this UN speech, when much of it has proved to be false.
I don't see why the US Government would knowingly indict Pakistan
(indirectly) as turning a blind eye to such activities, when they
needed them on side. Again this smacks of speculation.

• Spanish investigators

have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a
Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and
planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was
invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used
his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," Londons Independent reports.

Did he attend the party?

• An Iraqi defector to

Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts
of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Ladens fighters in camps
in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddams
Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training
facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi
intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives --
on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to
Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp
manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were
queuing for food. (The major) said to me: Youll have nothing to do with
these people. They are Osama bin Ladens group and the PKK and
Mojahedin-e Khalq."

I can't really dispute this much, but i'd hesitate to take the word of a defector who almost certainly has an agenda to follow.

• In 1998, Abbas

al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddams son Uday, defected to the West.
At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct
connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Quotes? Again, an agenda to push.

*The Sunday Times found a
Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr.
Zawahiris bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr.
Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present
at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

Claims
to have been. Again unsubstantiated, and hardly surprising that he
would meet with Hussein in a extremist pan Arab climate of anti
Americanism following the debunking of the Kuwait invasion.

• Following the defeat of

the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on
Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told
the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the
secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money
for al Qaedas global network.

So
they were in Baghdad, operating. By this logic you should go to war
with Britain, France, Spain, the USA, hell - just about every country
in the world. Terrorist cells of all kinds operate everywhere. Doesn't
necessarily mean that there is a link between that and state aided
terrorism.

• In 2001, an al Qaeda

member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was good," according to
intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

What does that mean, exactly?

• That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

That's the logical travel route considering Jordans ultra tight security.

• Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi

oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the
United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with
U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When
Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq.
Zarqawis Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of
Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he
received orders and funds from Zarqawis cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said.
His

can't believe you actually responded to every single instance. haha

if you find documented evidence of saddam harboring (and paying) a known al qaeda member questionable, then there isn't much that can be said to sway you.

See my other example. I find lots of things questionable in this world,
but never surprising. Nor do I see any of it as reasonable basis for
war - more like fabricated and stretched to justify usurping the UN,
and therefore belittling the UN and ideas of international cooperation.

My argument isn't overly concerned with tit for tat fact and quote
wars, I am expressing concern that people will not question their
Governments actions when they are based on half truths and lies.

What's so funny about responding to every instance? If I hadn't, I
would have conceded defeat, and if I had only replied to some, it would
be a case of "explain these ones then".

how about some shameless copy and pasting? read em all.. don't stop once you find something to dispute.

I found plenty to dispute, and was more shocked that you openly admit
copy and pasting those reasons in. Did you even read some of them?
Theyre as tenuous as tenuous can come.

as tenuous as they are, the fact that there are so many questionable instances where saddam's regime has crossed paths with al qaeda is enough in my book. if, let's say, france knowingly allowed this kind of activity.. they'd also be in some hot water. however, the majority of the region does NOT support al qaeda and thus will recognize them as terrorists if found. iraq and afghanistan are so attractive to them because they have al qaeda-friendly governments.

more than anything else, the inaction on saddam's part shows his stance with al qaeda. if the USA or UK knew of and how to find the al qaeda cells in their countries, they'd be wiped out promptly. saddam chose to - at the very least - allow al qaeda to operate freely under his government. that's not cool. and last i checked, that makes him an enemy of the USA and an ally of al qaeda.

Did you even read some of them? Theyre as tenuous as tenuous can come.

if im going to copy n paste someone else's compilation, i'm not going to pick and choose only the attractive ones. yes, i did read them all.. and yes many have little to no support within the article to back them up - but again, where there's smoke, there's fire. ..and these instances qualify as smoke in my book. (and let's not disregard the fire we found when we got there.)

we risked being wrong about al qaeda in iraq with this 'intelligence', but we were not wrong. those aren't just saddam loyalists killing our folks out there..

What's so funny about responding to every instance? If I hadn't, I would have conceded defeat, and if I had only replied to some, it would be a case of "explain these ones then".

good point, sorry for putting you in that position.. haha

saw it last saturday. I thought it was very good, though the pro-homosexuality propoganda was too much for me.

That aside, I didn't dwell on the terrorism idea much at all. I think it crossed my mind, but that's about it. In this kind of situation, it's pretty clear the government is one that needs ousting, so the idea that what he's doing is wrong never took grasp in my mind. And as for V's "terrorism".. he did all his crap at night, when no one was there. A key aspect of terrorism is civilian casualties and ways to maximize those numbers.

---

___My Site___ | www.leveldesign.nl

Gwil, your main arguments seem to be just "attack the source" to be able to disbeleive the evidence. If saddam gave you evidence that the USA was doing something bad, you'd jump at the chance to tell everyone about it and whine about how the US is such a horrible bunch of a-holes, but if Colin Powell tells you something, you disbeleive it. what's the deal. and the first rebuttal seemed like "well EVERYONE does that once in a while...."

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

It's perfectly reasonable to attack the source when half of those are
worded as speculative. As for the first rebuttal, i'm demonstrating
double standards and selective use of evidence.

If saddam gave you evidence that the USA was doing something bad, you'd
jump at the chance to tell everyone about it and whine about how the US
is such a horrible bunch of a-holes,

No I wouldn't? Don't make up silly arguments and jibes that hold little
or no relevance and in fact are self concocted hearsay. Point out to me
where I am saying "THE USA IS A HORRIBLE BUNCH OF A HOLES" anywhere in
this thread and i'll go with your sentiment. Otherwise that comment is
nonsense.

Edit: also, the "US saved every country in the world in some capacity". Oh please. You are joking, right?

And the US paid for the war, only the US? What about UN donations to
reconstruction, even from nations who disagreed with the war in the
first place. What about your partners in crime, the United Kingdom and
Australia? What about the massive amounts of national debt racking up
on world gold and markets to pay for the US presence there? What about
further rises in petrol prices (which we feel a lot more than the US,
thanks) as a result of destabilisation in the region?

yea, the and the middleeast is quite known for its stability.

.. :razz:

FatStrings said:
i remind you these are all facts

So, if you actually believe these things, what are you doing in your home? Is there no action for you to take?

WOW, had I known posting about a Movie, would of started such a Debate, I may have not done so.

This thread is getting really close to hate and hurting.. and not positive in any way. I apologize.

Gwil, my man, a region has to ahve stability in th first place to become destabilised.

And it seems that you are using any source to try to speak out against the US and thier actions. but you seem like you're defending all the bad guys here...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

So Gwil doesn't feel like he's all alone with this one, I'm going to have to throw my hat in and say that I agree with all his points.

I don't have anything to add, other than the fact that I think in some ways the United States right now is bringing terror on a wider scale to more of the world than the so-called terrorists we're chasing ever did. And therefore, I see our country's actions as blundering, destructive, and counter-productive.

Exactly - invading Iraq was done on false pretenses and the Governments of our nations knowingly mislead the public - not good.

I'm not siding with the bad guys Nickel, far from it - see how I define
Iran for that, but more I am attacking the reasons we went to war and
how we undertook the conflict itself.

It may seem like I rage against the US Government a lot, but i'm the
first to step in and question the European states, attack Russias
policies toward former satellite states, criticise the Muslim and Arab
nations for their failings in human rights and most of all highlight
the problems in Africa as having their roots in corruption.

Moreso the US seems to be under attack because as the "only
superpower", the results of its actions and policies are magnified a
thousand times over.

i concur

Well, okay. There are so many people around that are attacking the US (not physically) just to be in the opposition group and go against thier parents political party. It's hard to tell who's doing it for what reasons. Also, a big thing locally is to protest the war because you hear your parents doing it.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Oh definately Nickelplate. I run into (actually mostly on the net,
people I know from town) "peace for all, man!" types who protested (but
have no real opinions) and people who want the troops out without
realising how much more damage it would do.

I do think, unfortunately for the US people, the actions of the
Government have turned world opinion after being caught up in a general
wave of US opinions. I think Michael Moore and other reactionary "for
the sake of it" filmmakers have a lot to answer for in villifying the
US.

Particularly I dislike Brits who fight for everything anti oil, anti-US
anti capitalist, anti reality but will not have an opinion, feeling or
even knowledge relating to the domestic problems we suffer day to day.
I suppose that explains why I do wade into these discussions on
international affairs.. because most of our population doesn't have an
inch of clue about what's happening here.

Oh well :smile:

I think a lot of the people posing radical ideas don't live with thier parents or associate with them on a daily basis tbh Nickelplate. For one, I live in a flat away from both of my parents, who no doubt have different ideas completely.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

*quoting sir gwillam

(although I do hold concerns over imposing democracy on societies which aren't culturally shaped for such a drastic change).

this sir, is the absolute problem with this whole idea, this war, in the first place.....the crux, if you will

*again, by sir gwillam

Point out to me where I am saying "THE USA IS A HORRIBLE BUNCH OF A HOLES" anywhere in this thread and i'll go with your sentiment. Otherwise that comment is nonsense.

see below------

What about your partners in crime, the United Kingdom and Australia?

if ya would have put it in sarcasm, i'd have let it pass gwil.....you know i respect you sir, but little shots, built up over time, indicate the tenor of your feeling towards the usa sometimes much more than the words around them....sometimes. ive known ya awhile gwil, so i understand, weve had this converstaion before.... not so many others have that same priveledge.... :wink:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Myrk- said:
I think a lot of the people posing radical ideas don't live with thier parents or associate with them on a daily basis tbh Nickelplate. For one, I live in a flat away from both of my parents, who no doubt have different ideas completely.

Then you're just doing it to rail against your parents. :biggrin:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Well, okay. There are so many people around that are attacking
the US (not physically) just to be in the opposition group and go
against thier parents political party. It's hard to tell who's doing it
for what reasons. Also, a big thing locally is to protest the war
because you hear your parents doing it.

tbh for me i'm just an angry git anyway.

The war in Iraq in day to day life is just a passing anger of many. the internet just gives a place to rage :razz:

Yeah, you are pretty angry. I don't think ANYONE really likes the war and masturbates to it and all that. I tihnk some just see the good in with the bad, you know?

There's ALWAYS good in with the bad. :smile:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

that's the great sadness of it all!

sigh

But there's good in that great sadness, yeah?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

...we'd be in need of a pub and some lovely, health card-carrying hookers......SAY!! i may be on to something here..... ***contemplates the wisdom of dialing up dubyah, getting all the world leaders together......................nah... :heee:

Doc B

i happen to have fairly close political views to that of my parents,
but i am proud to say that i made them myself through research and
experience

by the way i still live with my parents

lol...dubyah

i have a friend who goes around makin fun of people who carry their
parents views that all Republicans are perfect, he's always like "i'm
down wit dubyah" and he's incredibly white so it's even funnier

Making fun of morality is great.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Judging from what ive seen on TV and other people who have watched, it sounds s**t. Just sounds like Matrix with a slight modification. Another boring American action s**t with bad acting and crap storyline. Id rather watch something decent like Tsotsi (A movie made here in south africa and got a Oskar)

---

Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!

Toast King, you should read through the thread because aside from the political derailment a few of us, including myself, thought it was worth a watch.

Turns outI was lied to and it's not rated R...

Going to see it soon...

just curious, but has anyone read the book?

i plan on reading it before i watch the movie

Did you read the first 30 posts in this thread!? Seriously, man.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

No, he can't read. :biggrin:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Just sounds like yet aother Ant-American activist to me.. Spouting off at the mouth once again at how bad us yanks are. blah blah.. what ever.

Who? Me? I dont mind american's :smile:
Sorry about my silly comment.

---

Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!

Finally watched. Absolutely awesome. Go see. Now.

sorry crono

that was about 12 pm last night and i was feeling lazy

won't happen again

Wanted to make a brief cameo to say I enjoyed the movie and that the schoolgirl lesbians were an unexpected bonus.

Cash Car Star said:
the schoolgirl lesbians were an unexpected bonus.

Thats it. I'm going!

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

Cash Car Star said:
...schoolgirl lesbians...

/me buys a ticket. lol

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

wow, noone's told me about that part, those bastards!

It had already been mentioned, it was the part belgarion didnt like :smile:

Actually, anyone who knows me at all knows that I hate pointless sex scenes and would rather have the directors leave it to the imagination like in old movies. But if there's gotta be a sex scene, PLZ don't let it be like the ones in "A history of Violence" lol

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Hopefully some of you noticed it's me and that I haven't posted in half a year or so.

Hey, sup CCS.

---

http://maze5.net

Hey mate, good to see you around these parts :smile: So, when are you due to go back into hiding? :razz:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

well ill be.....heya CCS.....long time ....figured ya got married and had a boatload of kids or something man....wewt!!......stick ariund, liven the place up a bit eh? :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

Ive seen it. Really good, but I could see it was by the people who made Matrix :wink:

---

Hahaha! Im using the INTERNET!

The dancing donkey kong returns! w00t!!

I wish you'd stay around, CCS

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Actually, anyone who knows me at all knows that I hate pointless
sex scenes and would rather have the directors leave it to the
imagination like in old movies. But if there's gotta be a sex scene,
PLZ don't let it be like the ones in "A history of Violence" lol

<span style="color: lightblue;">A sex scenes are never pointless! Go watch Heavy Metal and Heavy Metal 2000!

Oh and I did like the movie. Mister V did
very good job on keeping the conversation ingelligent. Was this first
published as a book or a comic? ...and yes I did read the first 30
posts or so... actually I did read all of the posts in this thread.
Sadly I must've been napping during that lesbian sex scene. Perhaps I
should go and see the movie again...

</span>

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires