Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Has anyone noticed this new story.

sg.news.yahoo.com/040426/1/3js7i.html

Let's see, terrorists that were planning both an explosive and a chemical attack on Jordan, that came in from Syria. Isn't Syria where it was believed that chemicals were moved to before we invaded Iraq? And one of those terrorists was trained in Iraq, and another recruited by Iraq. All a coincidence?

Remember the 30 million paid to Palestinian suicide bombers families by Saddam?

Remember when the Al Quada members that were captured in Afghanistan said they were also trained in Iraq?

Or the "hijack" training center that was found in Iraq, with all the planes on the ground?

Still can't see a link between the twin towers, Iraq, terrorism, chemical weapons, hijacking, the war on Iraq, etc.?

How many more have to tell us they were trained in Iraq before we believe it?

Rodney

Iraq has been dealing with the #1 Terrorist in the world for some time now, Can you guess who? Here is a hint, They have a uncle, and their name is SAM!!

I am really hopeing that you are not an American sobek.

Your point of view is really troubling.....

...and I am not even in agreement with Rodney on this issue.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

So, you think the United States, a country that is taking much higher casualties in this war than it would have to, if it didn't care so much about collateral damage, is equal to terrorists that specifically target any innocent civilians---preferably women and children?

I also hope that you are not only not an American, but that you didn't learn such things in an American school. I know some of our schools are pretty bad, but I hope they aren't that bad!

Just so you know, an army attacking another army (or a terrorist group even) is not the same thing as terrorism. Nore is a country that is enforcing a peace treaty, or UN resolutions for that matter, terrorism. Terrorism is specifically attacking innocent civilians in order to try and terrorize a certain population.

Rodney

>>>So, you think the United States, a country that is taking much higher casualties in this war than it would have to,

"BECAUSE BUSH STARTED THIS UNNECESSARY WAR"

>>>if it didn't care so much about collateral damage, is equal to terrorists that specifically target any innocent civilians---preferably women and children?

About 13,000 Iraqis, including as many as 4,300 civilians, were killed during the major combat phase of the Iraq war, according to a US research group.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3223523.stm

>>>I also hope that you are not only not an American, but that you didn't learn such things in an American school. I know some of our schools are pretty bad, but I hope they aren't that bad!

Why because I disagree with you? What kinda American are you? What a weak comment. To bad every ones Momma And Daddy cant send them to a "Christan Private School" Some of us had to live in the REAL WORLD.. Mingle with common folk..

>>Just so you know, an army attacking another army (or a terrorist group even) is not the same thing as terrorism. Nor is a country that is enforcing a peace treaty, or UN resolutions for that matter, terrorism. Terrorism is specifically attacking innocent civilians in order to try and terrorize a certain population

Are you going to tell me America does not, or has not ever been involved in terrorist activities? That America does not or has not FINANCED other terrorist countries?

You need to look up the definition of terrorism.

You'll never hear the bad things America is involved in, if you get all your news form the likes of Rush..

Suggested reading Rodney: Noam Chomskys, Understanding Power.

About 13,000 Iraqis, including as many as 4,300 civilians, were killed during the major combat phase of the Iraq war, according to a US research group.

So, you think the largest most powerful country (your words) invaded a country of 25,000,000 people, and was only able to kill 13,000 Iraqis, because we were trying to kill civilians?

And if you weren't so disingenuous, it would be really funny. You are so concerned about these statistics, as if these lives are valuable to you, but you don't give a d*** about the 500,000 found in mass graves in Iraq. Or the fact that more than 30,000 a year were being killed by Saddam. (Estimates were 36,000 to 72,000 before the war, and the UN said that it turned out to be a lot worse than these estimates.) Why don't those lives matter to you? Why aren't you in total support of this war, since it has already saved far more lives than it has cost?

I also hope that you are not only not an American, but that you didn't learn such things in an American school. I know some of our schools are pretty bad, but I hope they aren't that bad!

Why because I disagree with you?

No, I don't mind when people disagree. I do mind when people can't reason better, and I hope our schools produce people with better reasoning ability.

To bad every ones Momma And Daddy cant send them to a "Christian Private School"

I agree with you on that one. They consistently outperform public schools, and while only spending about 2/3 as much as public schools do per student. The students are taught how to think and reason, instead of what to think. The students are much more intelligent and well read. We spend over 1/2 our state budget on schools that don't perform well. Imagine saving 1/3 of 50 billion dollars every year, and getting higher quality education at the same time. California could eliminate the budget problems we got into with our very liberal legislature, our last democrat Governor Davis, and our energy problems all in one swoop! Unfortunately, it is too bad everyone can't do this. I know atheists that send their kids to Christian or Catholic schools for this reason. Personally, I have never even been on the premises of a private school, that I am aware of. Maybe if I had gone to one, I wouldn't have been at the top of my class in math and the sciences, because of "better" competition.

Are you going to tell me America does not, or has not ever been involved in terrorist activities? That America does not or has not FINANCED other terrorist countries?

No, not at all. When there are two possible outcomes in a conflict, I think that America always tries for the "lesser of two evils". Would you prefer that the US let the greater evil prevail, just so we don't support the lesser? What kind of world would that be? But today, terrorism is much more dangerous than it used to be. Times change and we have to change with them.

(by the way, I haven't even heard Rush in about 4 years, except for his problems on the news. What ever happened to his hearing problems? Did they go away? It would be pretty hard to do a show without being able to hear the callers or himself. I am happy to hear he is still out there though. It's nice to hear both sides of an issue once in a while, instead of just the liberal media's viewpoint.)

Rodney

[Christian schools]consistently outperform public schools, and while only spending about 2/3 as much as public schools do per student.

Your clearly stating that christian school education is superior to public education. Did you factor in the fact that children sent to christian schools are typically from better off families?

The students are taught how to think and reason, instead of what to think. The students are much more intelligent and well read.

Christian students taught to reason instead of what to think. Hmmmm. You know, I kinda thought the christian schools taught faith over reason, at least when it comes to evolution, origins, etc. And the christian students are "much more intelligent"??? Have we considered maybe correcting your data for income levels, etc?

What data are you using to prove christian school students are more intelligent, better read, etc? Making stuff up again? Hear-say? A right wing radio talk show host who used to be a climatologist?

We spend over 1/2 our state budget on schools that don't perform well. Imagine saving 1/3 of 50 billion dollars every year, and getting higher quality education at the same time.

The simplicity of your "analysis" would be astounding if it weren't so frequently exhibited here. To credit christian schools with superior education without calculating the influence of family income, etc is absurd....but your no stranger to the absurd are you? How do you think the same schools would do when inundated with the special ed students, the ADD students, the poor and the crack kids? You think they would still get those numbers? What happened to your highly sophisticated analysis rodney? Missing some pretty basic fundamentals of research aren't we?

And let me ask - just where did you get those ideas? - I noticed you didn't credit any source. Your not making stuff up again are you rodney? You do too much of that here.

California could eliminate the budget problems we got into with our very liberal legislature, our last democrat Governor Davis, and our energy problems all in one swoop!

Your eneergy problems are the result of getting stuck by Bush's friends - or rather, Cheneys.

Personally, I have never even been on the premises of a private school, that I am aware of. Maybe if I had gone to one, I wouldn't have been at the top of my class in math and the sciences, because of "better" competition.

Top of your class? When, in 4th grade? And thanks for admitting you nothing of what you speak.

Your clearly stating that christian school education is superior to public education. Did you factor in the fact that children sent to christian schools are typically from better off families?

I have found the opposite to be true. Everyone I know that uses private schools, (whether Christian, Jewish, or Catholic) do so at great difficulty. It is the parents interest in schooling that is the driving factor in their success. These people drive older beat up cars and live in messy run down homes, while the families with all the nice cars and homes save money and send their kids to public school.

It is the importance that they place on education and the sacrifices that they are willing to take to make it happen, that makes the outcome so much better.

And there are a lot of other variables, like discipline in private schools, subject matter, etc. How many private schools have classes on tolerance, sex ed., and other politically correct subject matter, and how much time do they spend on this when they could be teaching the three R's?

There is the anti-competitiveness of public schools. (Can't leave anyone out, can we.) --Only sports are competitive now. I wonder why it is so hard for graduates to compete in the real world when they are taught this way.

Then there is the bureaucracy. How much money do public schools waste? Out here, only 40 cents on the dollar gets to the classroom. That's pretty sad. I bet private schools have a better proportion getting to the class.

Then there are the teachers unions that protect incompetent teachers that aren't at the private schools.

Most of the problems with public schools seem to be related to liberal values. (Unions, no teacher competency testing, huge government bureaucracies, different family values, anti-competition, etc.)

Rodney

Your political analysis seems as faulty as your statistical analysis! Below you tried to argue from a faulty premise - so obvioulsy your conclusions could not be accurate. You have the same problem here. Your assumption is that any evidence of terrorist connection with Iraq ties Iraq to 9/11 in some significant way. But here too, your wrong.

Saddam sent some cash to Palastine, but not much - our "allies" and personal family friends of the Bush's, the Saudi's sent more. Saddam was a secularist - he openly despised the religious convictions used by Osama.

If you look long enough you'll find connections with any group in the middle east. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Osama - is Rumsfeld part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? According to your logic he must be.

Osama's family has been business partners with George Bush Sr for many years. Osama's family gave George jr his big business break as his oil company faced bankruptcy - does this connection make the president part of the terrorist plot?

The USA trained Osama in Afgahnistan, maybe the US CIA is part of the attacks too, huh?

For those who are desperate to justify the wasting of our young people's lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on a useless war the info you mention will be very valuable. For those who want to try to understand the real reasons we went to war, your info is just a pointless distraction. The RNC has tried to make a big deal out of this stuff for months - but it all adds up to very little.

By the way, did you figure out where your "statistical" analysis went wrong yet? When you do, you'll understand better where your political analysis did too!

but did you even read the article? The terrorists that were captured and killed in Jordan were killed and captured on the April 20th!!!!!!!

How could the RNC have been spouting this for months, when it only happened 10 days ago? And it was Jordan that thwarted this attack, found the chemicals, explosives, and got the statements from the terrorists that said they were trained in Iraq, not the RNC. All this info. came from an Arab source within the past week or so.

As for Osama's family has been business partners with George Bush Sr for many years. Osama's family gave George jr his big business break as his oil company faced bankruptcy - does this connection make the president part of the terrorist plot?

While that is true, are you not aware that Osama's family disowned him long before 9/11 and that Saudi Arabia exiled him (also long before 9/11) because he was too radical for them? That is why he was living in Afghanistan in the first place, Saudi kicked him out of the country. I applaud his family for making a very difficult decision, and the Saudis as well, and I can't fault anyone for doing business with his family's business just because he turned out to be a bad seed.

The USA trained Osama in Afghanistan, maybe the US CIA is part of the attacks too, huh?

First of all, Osama was recruited and given aid(funding/weapons) to help fight the Soviet Union because of his successful fighting techniques and the danger that the Soviets posed back then. He was a known fighter long before the CIA entered the picture. The CIA didn't want him because he was so incredibly docile!

I'm sure you've seen the pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Osama - is Rumsfeld part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks? According to your logic he must be.

So now, in your attempt to bash both me and this administration, you will associate shaking hands with someone years ago, to be the same thing as training terrorists? That has nothing to do with my logic. What can I say but, "WOW, how did you come up with that one!".

Your assumption is that any evidence of terrorist connection with Iraq ties Iraq to 9/11 in some significant way.

No, not at all. I have no idea if Iraq is tied to 9/11. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I do know that terrorism is tied to 9/11. And Iraq is tied to terrorism. If you haven't noticed yet, this is a war on terrorism we are fighting, not a war on Iraq. Iraq is just one battle in that war. Bush has stated this many, many times, and I believe he is correct in trying to thwart terrorism. Terrorism has been proven to be a credible threat to the national security of this nation, and many other nations as well. PLEASE LOOK AT THE TITLE OF MY ORIGINAL POST, IT CLEARLY STATES THIS WAS MY POINT OF THIS POST--AN IRAQ* TERRORIST LINK, and NOT AN IRAQ*9/11 LINK.

By the way, did you figure out where your "statistical" analysis went wrong yet?

Nope, I haven't. All I have been able to prove so far, is that your original argument against it was fauty. Maybe you have a valid one? I am still waiting to hear from anyone why my analysis was bad. You haven't been able to figure it out yet, and no one has been able to meet your challenge after you failed to, so I don't think anyone will. But I am more than willing to hear from anyone, who understands statistics, and who can prove it/explain it why I am wrong.

Rodney

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has created many, many terrorists - both in Iraq and around the world. Before our unjust war with Iraq, there were very few connections between Iraq and terrorism. A few little things here and there - the RNC spent months desperately trying to make something out of nothing using their pawns, the right wing FOX news and the even more radically far right talk show morons like Limbaugh, Hannity, ad nauseum. But even with all that effort they couldn't get anyone to believe there was ever any connection between Iraq and terrorism - certainly nothing between Iraq and 9/11.

Because the administration started a war with no justification our long time allies wisely decided to stay out of it. This fact, and the fact that the administration sent in our troops before they were ready, before they were properly armed and defended, and because the administration was uninformed about the consequences of our actions in Iraq, stating that we would be greeted with "sweets and flowers" - because of all the poor thinking, the poor planning and the poor execution of this war we are creating more terrorists than we are destroying.

Therefore it is no surprise that terrorists are now coming out of Iraq.

Bush has made the biggest blunder in modern times - turning our global allies against us while whipping a manageable situation into a global conflagration
He has driven our country into unimaginable debt and turned us into a nation divided.

On top of it all he has probably done more damage to our environment than any man in history. Lets make sure he doesn't get re-elected!

...

Because the administration started a war with no justification

This statement is absurd. The entire UN voted unanimously to take serious actions (resolution 1441) if Iraq didn't comply with 1441. They didn't, and the UN decided to do nothing. 48 countries currently are in a coalition to enforce that resolution. l really don't see how "no justification" is accurate. And that isn't even mentioning the peace treaty violations, the many other UN resolution violations, shooting at our planes on a daily basis in violation of the peace treaty, multiple US presidental assasination attempts, etc. If all these actions aren't justification, then what possibly could be?

What you state as fact, clearly isn't. While you may not think that all these things are justification, that is your opinion, and not a very good opinion, ----in my opinion.

The difference is, I can recognize it as opinion, and you don't seem to be able to.

because of all the poor thinking, the poor planning and the poor execution of this war

Again, same argument. Opinion and not fact. It could be easily argued that the opposite it true, if you compare this war, to any war in history, it was an amazing success. Extremely fast, very low military casualties, the lowest civilian casualty rate, etc.

Bush has made the biggest blunder in modern times - turning our global allies against us while whipping a manageable situation into a global conflagration

Again, this is opinion and not fact. I believe that the terrorist threat was increasing continually, and technology continued to make it more dangerous. Better to confront it now than try to confront it later, when it would be more dangerous.
As for turning our allies against us, I don't see that either. They all voted for 1441, why didn't they enforce it? How is their turning their backs on a decision they made, blamed on Bush enforcing this decision? If they can't even follow through with their decision, it is their fault, not Bush's.

He has driven our country into unimaginable debt and turned us into a nation divided

Again, more opinion. While the debt is large, it surely isn't unimaginable. In fact, when put into perspective with the country's wealth and GNP, it has been considerably larger than it is now. And a large part of that problem is attributable to 9/11. Even if Bush didn't decided to enforce 1441, the economic damage from 9/11 would still be there. As for the nation divided, I wouldn't blame that on Bush either. The country elected him roughly 50/50 and today the support for him and this war is roughly 50/50. So how does 50/50 to 50/50 show a change?

On top of it all he has probably done more damage to our environment than any man in history

What has he done to damage the environment? I know of one huge improvement he has made, the healthy forest initiative (trough it hasn't really had time to make the improvement yet, since it will take many, many years to thin our forests, from at least a decade of neglect, and get them back to a healthy state so forest fires don't devistate them.

And just curious, who will you vote for? Nader? Surely not Kerry since he also supports this war and wants to send more troops to Iraq.

Rodney

Actually...You can say what you will about GNP. What is a greater concern is_not the measure of how much big corporations are making (statistics again).

To plain ol' folk like me it is that milk is now up almost $2.00 a gallon (here in Florida). Milk products are close behind. Gas has jumped about $0.50 and is still climbing....Jobs? Pretty scarce here....unless you want one that can't pay your bills...

We have had major local corporations fold. And Winn-Dixie (a major chain here)is closing over one hundred stores......

President Truman said it, "The buck stops here..." For the average person in my part of the country...we are definitly NOT better off than we were four years ago. Not in the real world we live in. And that points at the man at the helm....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The Bush administration won't accept responsibility for anything. They even tried to hide the returning caskets to conceal the reality of this pointless, misguided war. When asked at the last press conference what he did that he would do differently in retrospect he wouldn't even admit there were things. Pretty sad. I never imagined this great country would have ever be presided over by such a coward - and a stupid one at that.

People who support the irrational, ill-advised, counter-productive war with Iraq get pretty shrill when confronted with the opportunity to defend it. Thats understandable - I certainly wouldn't want to have to defend such a bloody, and expensive waste of our resources, and our kid's lives. I certainlt wouldn't want to try to explain it to a parent. Imagine knowing your child died for no reason other than an ignorant ego-maniac's stupidity?

Those who try to defend this bloody mess often claim we did it to enforce a UN Resolution. Imagine! The US going to war to enforce a UN resolution! Isn't it terrible that supporters of this pontless war are driven to such desperate measures in order to justify it? What a shame that they are so delusional. Many will die because of their delusion.

The UN weapons inspectors were all over Iraq. They had U2's, low flying spy planes, all the ground inspections they needed - and they found no weapons of mass destruction. Cheney was afraid they would go public with their well researched conclusion - that there were no WMDs, so he rushed to war. The poor kids who died because they didn't have the armor on their vehicles died because Cheney wouldnt wait. What was his rush? The Inspectors were proving that Iraq had no WMDs, but they couldn't except the truth. So kids died, hundreds of billions are spent. What a shame.

This war was waged for no good reason. It was waged too soon without proper preparations. As many as half the deaths are attributed to improperly equipped soldiers. But then, the war mongers never fought in a war - they dodged it. But they don't mind sending other's kids to their deaths.

This war isn't over. In fact, its just getting started. It will last a lifetime. It will be one of the most amazing facts in history that it could have all been avoided if it weren't for a small group of dumb, cowardly ego maniacs with a messianic vision.

Great post their pulatus. Hit the nail on the head!

...

similar is true for several other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

So do we have to expect war on Syria, Saudia Arabia and Lebanon (only to name a few) now?
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web

Don't forget Indonesia while your at it. That is the problem with Terrorists. We are fighting countries and they are fighting as individuals.....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I already wrote Indonesia but decided then to restrict to the Middle East. Also Pakistan could be mentioned.
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web