Hiding? From who? From what? From that fatass?? Ha, ha, that's funny.
If I was actually trying to hide, do you really think I would be posting here under "AstroPax"?
-Astro
Printable View
no i'm not offend. i believe it is being used incorrectly to bring fear up as a further motivator. and no thats not the definition of fascism. those same quotes can be used to describe theocracies, dictatorships, and most repressive regimes.
"a belief that the group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits."
this sounds like the administrations approach to torture, wiretapping, Gitmo holding prisoners without due process and "military tribunals".
i made no assumptions about your take on Bush. just your use of Fascism.
please read: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm
-aaron
OK, thanks. I'll read your "News and Views for the Progressive Community".
In the meantime, you should read this:
http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
-Astro
actually i read huntington in a freshman undergrade polysci course.
but i appreciate the insight.
i refered you to that editorial not because i wanted you to take everything he says a truth but more that i want you to read the definition of Fascism brought to us by those who saw it first hand.
-aaron
Your bitterness is shortening your life...
Quote:
The simple facts are that not a single American or other westerner (no statement of value should be attached to that description) was killed by an Iraqi or Iraqi trained terrorist until we invaded Iraq and gave them a chance, or reason to do so
...and nobody flew airplanes into buildings until somebody flew airplanes into buildings. You can wait around for somebody to kill you before you react if you want to. But nobody ever won anything playing defense. You have to go on the offensive, if you wait until they attack you, there is a heavy price to pay.
No, that is not what the quotes said. They said that:Quote:
The three quotes I gave are quite clear.... there is and was no evidence of terrorist training camps in Iraq.
1. There was no evidence that there were non-Iraqis being trained at Salman Pak after 1991.
2. There was no credible evidence that Al-Quida training in Iraq.
3. There was post war information that terrorist training took place at Salman Pak, but due to second-hand information, it was difficult to tell wether the people being trained were Al-Quida or other foreign nationals, and, post war exploration yields no link to Al-Quida.
That is very different from saying that there were no terrorist training camps in Iraq.
In fact, that third quote indicates that there was terrorist training in Iraq, but no link to Al-Quida.
I'm tired, I'm going to bed.
OK, the credit at the bottom of the article explains everything, but thanks anyway:
"Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network"
-Astro
Many would argue that thousands upon thousands of terrorists were trained in the US, by the CIA, for all sorts of operations globally. (Contra's, sandonistas, Afghanis, Saudis, etc)
Should we destroy our own country because of that inconvienent fact as well?
Quote the whole passage. Taking it that out of context you might as well just rearrange the letters to spell what you want it to say
"There was information developed after OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedem) that indicated terrorists were trained at Salman Pak; there was an apparent surge of such reporting. As with past information, however, the reporting is vague and difficult to substantiate . As was the case with the prewar reporting, the postwar sources provided few details, and it is difficult to conclude from their second-hand accounts whether Iraq was training al-Qa'ida members, as opposed to other foreign nationals. Postwar exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there, and we have no information from detainees on this issue"
At the moment my bitterness is largely driven by the constant drivel that you post here - god bothering, global warming denial, Bush boosting and war chants. When confronted with substantiated evidence you squirm like a five year old kid that needs to take a leak.
As mentioned far earlier history will judge what is being done in Iraq very harshly. Hopefully people who clammered for it like you will recieve the disgust that they deserve from future generations.
rideit-
i might not say stuff like that on a public forum. with this administration, you could end up in an undisclosed location facing no charges, just imprisonment
-aaron
For reals?
You know, don't you, that "President Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded. He used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. All his actions, although vehemently denounced by the Copperheads, were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts."
So, do you think Lincoln was a Fascist?
-Astro
Offense means different things in different wars. As I recall we deployed the pershing II and were moving forward with SDI. Some would consider that an offensive move in the kind of war we were fighting. That being said, I would hardly equate the threat we face today with the Soviet Union.