9/11 Japanese main opposition party questions 9/11 in parliament

[fitzbew88]

Let me tell you something. I also "resist" American corporate fascism, dressed up as democracy, in my own country (not the UK). There are many people who think the same way.

And if you find any, you should resist it. And many people do agree.

Hmmm...of what country are you a citizen? I see you've edited your profile since I viewed it earlier, removing your location of "Wales". Interesting...

Are your buddies going to bomb us as well, because we dare to "resist"?

No, countries only [usually] bomb each other because it's in their national interest to do so and there is a high likelihood that war will be successful. And earlier, when I said the fighting broke out because they "resisted", I meant because Sadaam and his supporters resisted militarily --- ultimately, he chose to accept a shooting war that he could not win. He had many opportunities to avert it.

War is a last resort.

Or does it require our head of state to stand up to American demands, to wind up on your hit list?

No, as a matter of policy, we only bomb our enemies. Lots and lots of leaders stand up to "American demands", so far the majority have gone unbombed.

Sadaam was a *huge* problem. Even to his own people. Worse, he was giving safe haven to people who wanted to kill us/had killed us. At the time, it didn't look like there was any other choice. (Now, as I have already stipulated, hindsight has adjusted this perspective.) Many countries agreed, although it was by far(!) from unanimous.

Let's see. "Pre-emptive war" is the name of the game. You'll probably start with Iran, your neocon buddies have said so already. Then North Korea, for good measure. Now that you've warmed up, why not go straight for the biggie: China. And while you're at it, take out Russia (you never liked them anyway, didn't you?).

China and Russia are our allies in the war against Islamic terrorism.

The other countries are mostly just bluster.

And I like Russia and China.

Many folks in New Zealand (a country where I used to live) strongly disagree with American foreign policies. They also deserve to die, right? You'll do those in an afternoon. Finally: Europe. Isn't it true that many of those "terror cells" operate from Europe? Germany would be a prime suspect, and naturally: France. Damn those French fries.

Bomb them all. War in the name of peace. Killing in the name of life. Devil worship in the name of Jesus Christ.

I think you are just venting here.

I asked you about the depleted uranium shells. You could have said that you felt sorry about the damage that these will cause to yet unborn generations of Iraqis. You didn't. You justified their use "Because he resisted." Because one deranged maniac - former US asset Saddam Hussein - resisted American demands, tens of thousands of uninvolved civilians had to die or be poisoned, including future generations.

Well, you asked me: "Why did it require the use of depleted uranium shells, which poison the land for generations to come?" and I read it as: "Why did we start shooting?" Are you really asking me: "Why didn't the U.S. military use more eco-friendly weapons?" (I doubt such an animal exists.) I'm not sure that environmental issues ever come into play in such tactical decisions.

The purest answer is [probably] because it was the best weapon available for the tactical requirements.

 

[musictomyears]

I see you've edited your profile since I viewed it earlier, removing your location of "Wales".

I have visited, but never lived in Wales. I can't see any reference to Wales in my profile, and I haven't edited it since I joined this site. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Other than that, I have nothing more to say to you. You believe in killing people that never threatened you or your family, only because you are scared of them. I don't.

 

[fitzbew88]

I have visited, but never lived in Wales. I can't see any reference to Wales in my profile, and I haven't edited it since I joined this site. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ah, I see. I was looking at the wrong profile. Sorry about that.

Other than that, I have nothing more to say to you. You believe in killing people that never threatened you or your family, only because you are scared of them. I don't.

Well, that's just not true. But this is no longer about conspiracies, so perhaps we should move along.

 

[mike]

for goodness sakes, you cant pay people to commit suicide in the way we saw it unfold in 911, i can accept that one plane was shot down (public version being the passengers regained control and crashed it)
that makes sense, but there is no doubt in my mind a pack of nutjobs plotted and executed the attack for religious reasons, martyrdom is the only payment they could possibly receive.
as for a war for oil, it has to be done

there was a case in england a few years ago where taxi and truck drivers protesting at the then price of petrol blockaded the local refineries.

by day seven the pumps were dry, garbage was left uncollected in the streets, factories started laying off workers and a call was put through to Mr Blair from the supermarket chain owners saying shelfs would be empty of food and pharmaceuticals within a few more days.

sadam had already shown his intent by taking kuwait, (he then crucified its citizens in light poles as he was forced to leave)
at the time iran and saudi where sweating bricks they would be next.

if saddam had been left and allowed to gain control of the majority of the regions oil............. millions and millions and millions would have starved to death.

the reality of war is horrible, but the alternatives are often worse

western civilisation would have crumbled and very quickly at that if its oil had been cut off, this cannot be allowed to happen.

the awful truth is we are no longer hunter / gatherers, we are earner / spenders.

without supermarkets chaos would ensue. suggesting we should not control the WORLDS oil resources is the same as saying let western civilisation crumble and fail and if the oil gets cut off thats what will happen. within the month we'd all be in the cagal and deeply at that.

the london blitz, the firebombing of dresden ,hiroshima, none of these examples can be laid at Mr Bush's , Mr Blairs or Mr Howards feet.
and they make iraq look like a boy scout punch up in comparrison.

they say alls fair in love and war............ truth is nothing is fair in either case

"survival" (of the fittest) is the name of the game.

i myself am a enzedder by birth living in australia. and i support the strategic securing of the worlds oil resources, at any cost

no society is perfect, but the yanks are a postive in my book, shedding their own blood to put an end to slavery, putting our species on the moon and soon mars, i cant fault Mr bush for trying to maintain his peoples safety.

if saddam had gained control of the regions oil , millions and millions of us would have starved to death

 

[mike]

sorry for the double post, but one more issue needs thinking about

AQ Khan who built pakistans A bomb is quoted as saying he did it because "the US - christians" have the bomb, "the hindus - india" has the bomb "israel - jews" have the bomb its time islam has the bomb.

add that to the statement made by a radical muslim cleric that he would use the A bomb to kill every last man woman and child on the planet muslims included , and in doing so would be doing gods will.
his rationale ? that armagedon is justified because in the end the infidels would all be in hell, and his people would all be in heaven.
he sees this scenario as a win for his god.
thats the mindset that crashed those planes into the WTC