Quote:
Originally posted by Iron_Ranger:
People certaintly will go a long way just to make it look like they US is doing something horribly wrong eh?
|
Kinda like how the US and lapdog Tony Blair are trying to make Iraq look horribly wrong... Wrong enough to ignore UN agreements and start a war, anyways.
Quote:
Did you expect the goverment to set up a home front for abortion bomber dierectly after Sept 11th? That wouldnt make to much sence now would it? When was the last time there was a domestic terrorist bombings? Last one I can think of was the pipe bomber that put all the bombs in the mail boxes. And they caught him. So your pretty much complaining about nothing.
The end of your post pretty much is my answer to your post, 'at this point'.
|
What I was trying to get at with my words is that I have serious doubts Iraq is really linked that closely to Al Quaida, despite the "proof" they've beaten out of prisoners. That they're trying to find ways to overthrow the Iraqi regime I can understand, but the constant attempts to get more support for an attack by linking it to the WTC disaster I cannot. The muslims in Iraq are far from fundamentalistic, not even close to Bin Laden's beliefs. They may agree with the anti-American sentiments - a legacy of the Gulf War - and may even support Al Quaida financially, but they don't care much for the fundamentalistic beliefs Al Quaida represents. That there are supposed to be Al Quaida training camps just outside of Bagdad, as some claim, doesn't really seems to make much sense; why Al Quaida supporters would travel to Iraq to follow training there instead of in Pakistan or Saudi-Arabia, where they most likely live, is beyond me, and I don't think Al Quaida will be able to find that many recruits among Iraqis. Saddam may be training *something* - which is completely understandable under the threat of war, even though it's against UN resolutions and therefore not allowed - but I don't think it's Al Quaida.
Whether it's really about oil, settling an old family mistake, a way to get more votes or a sincere attempt to rid a country of its dictator without any double meanings I do not know, but attacking Iraq 'in the name of those who perished during the terrorist attacks' or 'to protect the American people' is too simplified politician-rhetorics, more of an excuse for war than anything. The war against Iraq would have been planned either way, even if 911 never happened.
[ 09-28-2002, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]