<< Did you see all that dancing and celebrating in the streets?!?!?!? Did you see all those smiling faces and happy Iraqis?!?!!?? >>

There were isolated incidences which were small. Pulling down the Saddam statue was staged. I didn't see anything on the scale of what was claimed was going to happen when we went in as "liberators."

Aslo as Chomsky points out, the Iraqis are not as happy with us as you seem to believe. MOST think we are occupiers not liberators and MOST want us to leave.

"Turning to another poll where this question was asked recently. How do you regard the coalition forces? Are they an occupying force or a liberating force? By five to one, they were called - an occupying force. Should the coalition forces leave? By five to three, Iraqis wanted them to leave. That's a remarkable figure, because about 95% of the population also reports that the security situation is much worse than it was before the invasion. And the only thing that's keeping any kind of a lid on it is the occupying forces. But nevertheless, by a very substantial majority, they want them to leave." -Noam Chomsky


Nearly all the Iraqis hated Saddam. only a very very small amount of people actually chose to work with such a man. in that small group is US policy makers who made the decision to work with this man. When will these people be held accountable? Yes, I know Iraqis that dealt with him will be held accountable but what about the US policy makers that worked with this man?

<< It must really drive MR nuts that Egypt suggested that Israel and Egypt set up an economic trade zone for their mutual benefit as well. >>

The danger to our lives is that it will drive others nuts. Answer this: why should 35% of a population get away with imposing a discriminatory system against the wishes of 67% of the people? Can you answer that or not. Your assumption that Israel is wonderful is based on ignorance or stubbornness you can't tough the question because it exposes the fundamental injustice of Israel.

Message 1 of 2 Subject 6 of 50
Subject: Re: YES it was illegal (and Richard Perle has even admitted it now)
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 11:55 PM
From: MediaReform
MsgId: <20031130235555.03386.00066088@mbs-r11.aol.com>


<< Media:You just don't want to admit that the President lied to you about why America was attacked.


To me someone who wants a Taliban style Government in Afghanistan or any other country is an enemy of freedom. That simple. >>


Boy you are jumping through hoops trying to get your guy off the hook.
The fact is WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY "HATE FREEDOM" are you two years old? And what is your leap of "logic" between wanting a Taliban style of government and attacking the US? Are you pretending the motive is not objection to US polices or are you admitting it but trying to invent a sleazy excuse for why what bush said isn't a lie?

It really is sad that you are so intellectually dishonest that you would attempt such BS just so you can avoid the fact that Bush lied. And your "enemy of freedom" crap is too much. You are brainwashed. And you try desperately to twist things to conform to the official line. But of course people that wanted a Taliban style of Government in Afghanistan were "freedom fighters" when it suits the propaganda goal. So we had Reagan calling the same agenda a fight for freedom and claiming the Mujahideen were "freedom fighters", and you lap it all up because you obediently mouth the party line. what more do you need to see that you are brainwashed? you can pat yourself on the back all you want for making up excuses for your glorious leader but all you really are doing is making a fool out of yourself and hurting this country.

and you are wrong about the "they are nuts" theory. this has been discussed by experts and the terrorists were not "nuts". first of all we have had Americans willing to carry out a suicide mission so stop acting like it is so odd. second, if you want to lessen the likelihood that Americans are going to become targets then you remove the motivation of the people attacking the US. not doing so shows you are either a fool or you have some agenda.
you should look into Nat Turner and the history surrounding that. you can dance around all you want insisting that all of Nat Turners accomplices were "nuts" and that they attacked for no reason (which a newspaper at the time insisted! not much has changed has it?) the point is even if Nat Turner was saying things that were very religious and spoke of visions, the bottom line is that it was wrongs against the blacks that motivated the followers of Nat Turner to attack.
So it was the polices that really gave the motivation.
The same holds with those that carry out bin LAden's fatwa.
what I see is these guys focusing on the polices, I haven't even seen any terrorists statements fixating on setting up an Islamic State, what I have seen is them obsessed with the policies.

A German friend of Mohammed Atta quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."


The shoe bomber (Richard Reid) has said:"The reason for me sending you (a document he calls his "will") is so you can see that I didn't do this act out of ignorance nor did I just do it because I want to die, but rather because I see it as a duty upon me to help remove the oppressive American forces from the Muslim land and that this is the only way for us to do so as we do not have other means to fight them."

When Nat Turner and his followers attacked, it was about objection to unjust polices, it did not make the policy of slavery OK. If you really cared about lessening the chance that dozens of blacks would from black terrorists groups to kill whites then yes ENDING THE UNJUST POLICES WAS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. Is the Nat Turner analogy to complicated for you?

you for some reason feel an obligation to continue to put America in harm's way so that special interests can continue their unjust polices. Bush and others have lied to us, we are under no obligation to continue with these polices. George Tenet half quotes bin Laden in order to avoid mentioning the motive! He left this out (it was part of the same sentence he quoted from, he so wants to deceive the public that he chops up the bin Laden sentence he quotes from leaving this out: "... in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." are you frightened to admit that these people are intentionally deceiving the American people about why we were attacked?

WHAT THE HELL DOES IT TALE FOR YOU TO GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD THAT THEY ARE LYING TO US? WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO BE A MAN AND INSIST THAT THESE PEOPLE DON'T MAKE FOOLS OUT OF US!

<< I'm pro-life, yet I find people who kill in the name of stopping abortion to be just as crazy as Osama. >>
would reporting that some "Christian terrorists attacked freedom" be legit? no mention of abortion or the circumstances, just reporting that these Christian terrorists "hate freedom," you don't think that would be really dishonest and manipulative?