# The Shoe Bomber - Judge's Comments



## karpovage (22 Jul 2004)

This came from an e-mail I received from a U.S. Army Captain of a Stryker Brigade.


Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it? 

Did you know his trial is over? 
Did you know he was sentenced? 
Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV/Radio? 
Didn't think so. 
Everyone should hear what the judge had to say. 
Ruling by Judge William Young U.S.   District Court. 

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. 

His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I ought not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country." 

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below, a stinging condemnation of Reid in particular and terrorists in general. 

January 30, 2003 United States vs.   Reid.   Judge Young: Mr.   Richard C. 
Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.   On counts 
1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.   On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. 

That's 80 years.   On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed.   The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.   The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.   The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment. 

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it.   But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.   This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes.   It is a fair and just sentence.   It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.   We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr.   Reid.   We are Americans We have been through the fire before.   There is all too much war talk here.   And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.   Here in this court, where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals.   As human beings, we reach out for justice. 

You are not an enemy combatant.   You are a terrorist.   You are not a soldier in any war.   You are a terrorist.   To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature.   Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.   And we do not negotiate with terrorists.   We do not treat with terrorists.   We do not sign documents with terrorists.   We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. 

So war talk is way out of line in this court.   You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior.   I know warriors.   You are a terrorist.   A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were, and he said you're no big deal. 

You're no big deal. 

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific.   What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? 

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say.   And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing.   And I have an answer for you.   It may not satisfy you.   But as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know. It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious.   You hate our freedom.   Our individual freedom.   Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.   Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom.   They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea.   It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom.   So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.   It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges. 


We are about it.   Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.   Make no mistake though.   It is yet true that we will bare any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.   Look around this courtroom.   Mark it well.   The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.   Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten.   But this, however, will long endure Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice,not war, individual justice is in fact being done.   The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice. 

See that flag, Mr.   Reid?   That's the flag of the United States of America.   That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten.   That flag stands for freedom.   You know it always will. 

Mr.   Custody Officer.   Stand him down.

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets?   We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject.   Pass this around.   Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say.   Powerful words that strike home.


----------



## Fruss (22 Jul 2004)

I just have 1 word to say!!

WOW!!!   

that's awesome!!!  This judge really gave him all!!!  Life + 80 years + 5 years of supervised release  :blotto: and all his speech is very interresting..  That's the king of judge we would need here!!  :-\


----------



## K. Ash (22 Jul 2004)

Hats off to the judge!

I wonder how many people in the courtroom got a little misty eyed listening to that?


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Jul 2004)

Umm... yeah, OK Caesar. Thanks for the pep talk   :


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2004)

Oh no,      not another live wire. WRT Ceaser's comment - Time to move on?     :rage: Get over it? What planet are you from? Dont go mixing politics with the cold blooded murder of almost 3000 people, who not only consisted of Americans, but Canadians, Australians, and Britons as well as many others from many places too. I reckon if it happened in your town to your citizens, maybe you'd think different.

907 Canadians killed on the morning of 19 Aug 42, and we have not forgotton that!

Have some respect.

As for the judge    , we need more like him.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Guardian (23 Jul 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> The US has experienced only a tiny fraction of terrorism when compared to other countries (ie-Israel, Lebanon, UK, Germany, Spain, Indonesia, etc). Get over it, and yourself, and re-evaluate your Foreign Policy......that's what the source of the attacks are anyway.



Is it?

What part of their foreign policy do you mean? Let's take a look:

- spending millions supporting Muslim Afghans in their fight against the Soviets;
- Going to war (with UN authorization) to liberate a Muslim country (Kuwait) from its homicidal neighbor, suffering thousands of casualties in the process;
- Launching air strikes to protect Bosnian Muslims from their Christian neighbors, laying their pilots' lives and their own credibility on the line;
- Nearly going to war with another Christian nation (Serbia) to protect Kosovar Muslims from genocide;
- Mounting a humanitarian operation in the most lawless place on earth (Somalia) in order to prevent starvation among its (Muslim) inhabitants (they may have pulled the plug after Mogadishu, but they went in with the best of intentions)
- Freeing several million Afghans from the Taliban (who, incidentally, killed their fair share of Muslims who didn't meet their exalted standards)
- providing oil-rich Muslim nations with their largest and most important market

I'm not absolving the Americans of their mistakes - they've made plenty. They've created and propped up dictators, and so forth. But looking at their foreign policy, you quickly see that Americans have been quite good to the world's Muslims.

Blaming their foreign policy is simplistic, and is really a "blame the rape victim" type of argument. No foreign policy mistake or error could ever justify 9/11. Bin Laden hit the WTC not because of grievances against US foreign policy, but because he feels Allah will reward him for such actions. There's no reason or logic behind it - it's blind hatred. Think why Hitler wasted thousands of troops and untold amounts of badly-needed money and materiel on concentration camps - not a "reasoned, logical" action, done in response to injustice and other "root causes."  Just pure, simple, blind hatred - and no amount of policy re-adjustment will change that. Ask Chamberlain if appeasement worked.

What would you have the Yanks do? Pull everything back and go back to the pre-WWI isolationist days? 

After all, World War Two was SO much more fun before Dec 7, 1941. Party poopers.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2004)

So Caeser, what about the ongoing muslim attacks against christians in The Philippines Thailand, throughout Indonesia and other places in this region alone which go on, on a daily basis? The wanton distruction of churches, the murder of priests, and the local people, not forgetting the murder of soldiers, and the robbery of weapons from armouries, etc. I live in the region, and this is 'local news'. Do you blame US policy for this too. What about the Kuta Beach bombings back in 2002, where more people were killed than the recent Spanish bombings?

You should discuss your views with people in my neighbourhood who lost SIX of their daughters   :rage: , when they were vapourised along with another 83 Australians who were only guilty of having a beer with friends, and wearing western clothing, and enjoying western music.   :rage: What about the families who were totally lost along with another local Sydney football team   :rage:, plus not forgetting the local Hindu population of Bali, who also lost people   :rage: , plus the economomic damage which is still ongoing too. Islamic fundimentalism is alot deeper than US foreign policy. You have alot to learn about real world reality as there is more to life than discussing US policies over warm beers and bongs in 'in depth' leftist snivel libertarian university pub discussions.

You better re-assess your military career, as sooner or later you may end up in a war you dont agree with.

Just imagine if in a post 1945 world, if the USA had done nothing, then you'd be saying 'where are the Americans. Things would be much more different than we ever could imagine.

All though this world does have its problems, its a bloody alot better now then it would be without the USA.

Time to move on? Time to get over it? Maybe take a moment to say just remember the fear in the un-accompanied children who were on those flights on 11 Sep. I cannot even phathom the fear they must have felt, nor the loss their families feel today.

After over 28yrs service in two separate armies, I have come to the same conclusion that my Uncles did after Passchendaele, and later after D-Day, that all war is insane, but sometimes its the only option.

With your age and over 7 yrs experience in the green skin, I would expect more from you than anti Americanism dribble.

If ya wanna have a go at me, PM me.


----------



## dutchie (23 Jul 2004)

Wesley - we seem to be arguing the same point: The wave of Islamic Terrorism has affected/killed people worldwide-Aussies & locals in Bali, Spaniards, etc. 

As well, I am making the point that the War on Terror has taken a back seat (for the US only) to the war in Iraq, and that is wrong. The war on terror has continued, and is being prosecuted more vehemently by the terrorists than the Americans. Don't confuse the War on Terror w/ the War in Iraq. The only impact the War in Iraq has had on the War on Terror is to create more terrorists. 

I want to make this clear - I support, wholeheartedly, the War on Terror, but I do not support the War in Iraq. 

Having said that, the US (and Britain, Australia, etc) cannot pull out now. Just as you can't crash a house party, sh*t on the floor, and then say "Oops, sorry. I shouldn't have done that.....see ya." I don't know what the solution is, as it's quite a mess right now. My only thought on a solution would be to do as much stabilization as possible, hand over control to the Iraqis (the UN would probably mess it up more if they had there hands on it), repair the infrastructure (I know, they're trying to), and pull pin. A US presence (and to a much lesser extent the UK/Aussie's) is counter-productive to peace and stability in Iraq. 

The US, and the rest of the world, should focus on Terrorism, not despotic regimes. The War on Terror goes way beyond 9/11, just as WW2 went beyond the invasion of Poland/Pearl Harbour. It is time to look past 9/11, and see the new battleground. I believe that REAL terror-sponsoring states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Palestinian territories, etc) are the real battleground. However, invasions of these nations would result in failure, as did the invasion of Iraq, unless the UN/International community supported it (a la Afghanistan). Given the choice between a US-led democratic reform, and an Islamic Fundamentalist regime, these nations would choose the latter. 

I don't have a solution, Wes, but diversion away from the real threat is certainly not it, and focussing on 9/11, instead of the killings both you and I have mentioned, is only hindering the healing process and the prevention of further atrocities.


----------



## Guardian (23 Jul 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> The US, and the rest of the world, should focus on Terrorism, not despotic regimes.



The two are linked, Caeser.

Although no one has found a clear link between 9/11 and Saddam, no reasonable person could deny that Saddam sponsored and aided terrorists. The Mukhabarat (Saddam's int service) had proven contacts with Al-Qaeda. Saddam bankrolled Palestinian suicide bombers, and paid their families stipends. The Americans found the guy who led the Achille Lauro hijacking hiding in Baghdad.

Look through history - terrorists, more often than not, have state backers. Like you said, many in the Saudi royal family bankroll Al-Qaeda. During the Cold War, the Soviets and other Communist regimes supported the IRA, the Red Brigades, the Japanese Red Army, the PFLP and the PLO, and, in our own back yard, the FLQ. Notice how many of these outfits have dropped off the radar screen since the collapse of the Berlin wall - losing their foreign support badly hurt them. The US is looking, as we speak, at possible Iranian complicity in the 9/11 hijackers' entry into the States - they may not have been involved in the plan, but they knowingly let Al-Qaeda members slip through Iran knowing they were bound for the US. 

We can fight the groups themselves all we want, but until the world community at large internalizes the idea that state sponsorship of terror is possibly a fatal proposition, terrorism is going to be a strong and vibrant part of our future. 



			
				Caeser said:
			
		

> However, invasions of these nations would result in failure, as did the invasion of Iraq, unless the UN/International community supported it (a la Afghanistan).



Don't go calling the invasion of Iraq a failure yet - it hasn't played out. And as nice as international support sounds, Afghanistan can't be considered a success yet, either - ISAF and Karzai control only a small part of the country, while the rest is dominated by feudal warlords.

The Americans have divided their focus, I agree. But it's not all their fault. The European nations together have more men under arms than does the US, and yet their contributions are generally tiny. When mighty Canada is the largest non-US contributor to ISAF, NATO's most difficult and important mission, the alliance has major problems. If other nations would step up to the plate in places like Afghanistan - and nations like our own would recognize that a larger military investment in today's times is critical to winning this war - the war on terror would be much easier.


----------



## K. Ash (23 Jul 2004)

Caeser,

Your saying that its high time that Americans and I guess the world get over the whole 9/11. How can they? How can we? Every single day, one way or another we are reminded of it. Its changed little ol me and I live in Newfoundland...not exactly a major center. So you imagine how people in the states are reminded of that day everyday. 

I don't think we should ever allow ourselves to fully 'move on'. Personally I believe that every person who values living free should hold that day close to them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jul 2004)

Saying "people should just get over 9/11" is like telling people they should get over the (holocaust/slavery/a child dying in a drinking and driving accident etc..).  It's not something to "get over".   Caesar i think i know what point your trying to make but you gotta use more tact.  Phrasing your thread like you did is going to automatically get a negitive response. You either worded it wrong or your looking for an argument.

When i hear someone get worked up about the 9/11 attack and how we have to wage this war on terrorisim (and they can't phathom why everyone else isn't in a frenzie)  i say  right, welcome to the real world. Terrorisim has been plaguing many countries for years, it's just finally hit home on a large scale. It's horrible what happened but your not the first country to get attacked so don't get too upset over a country that doesn't jump into this war on terrorisim with both feet. Especially if they've already been fighting it in one way or another for years.

How exactly can we fix the situation in Iraq? Every day people are getting more and more pissed off at the americans there, one can assume for every terrorist killed another pops up, maybe two.  
If the US stays there their going to face an enemy thats getting larger and larger.
If the US leaves then the anti-american forces will sit there and undo everything the US has tried to do, attacking police and iraq army.
These idiots are going to litterally blow themselves back into the stone age, they are screwed if we leave and screwed if we stay.


----------



## dutchie (23 Jul 2004)

Ghost - you posted after I wrote this post. But to respond to what you said - yes, I may have worded "Get over it'" wrong... "Move on" is another way I have put it. Maybe I should have stuck with that. In regards to the rest of your post - you're bang-on. 

Guardian - yes, despotic regimes and terrorists are linked. What I meant was that instead of toppling Saddam, we should concentrate on the more active regimes (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc). But NOT invading them. If I felt that invasion of these countries would stop the terrorists, I would be all for it. But it won't. We can't be everywhere at once. We invade Iraq, and granted there were terrorist links to Saddam, and the rest of the Islamic world rises up against the "infidels", or whatever the catch-phrase is this week. Iraq was no-where near the biggest threat as far as terrorism goes, and that's why I don't consider it as part of the War on Terror. I do not support appeasement either - as an earlier post suggested - but rather a two pronged approach:

1-Real action, both military and diplomatic, against states that sponsor terrorism. Although time is of the essence, diplomacy should come first. Only then will action be sustainable and supported by the Intl community.

2-A re-evaluation of Foreign Policy of western States. Most nations in the West have an admirable record of relations with the middle east. The US is not in that category, and like it or not, is the source of a lot of discontent. It's not the Bin Laden's that will be swayed to not commit terrorist acts, it's the 'Joe Citizen' that can won't be driven to Hamas, Al-Qaida, Islamic Jihad, etc. The western nations cannot fight a war against an enemy we can't identify, who is virtually indistinguishable from everyone else (ie-Vietnam), and whose numbers multiply worldwide with every day of occupation.

Re:Iraq war as a failure. Indeed the Iraq war might succeed. But it likely won't. We can't predict the future, but it's certainly looking unlikely that a stable, democratic, 'pro-west' government is in Iraq's future anytime soon. Although possible, it is far more likely that an Islamic Fundamentalist (a la Iran/Taliban) regime will result.

Re:Moving on- just as I had to move on after the death of a loved one, the west, and in particular the US, must move on from their loss. You cannot expect to conquer Terrorism when you cannot look past the first rifle shot of the war. 

Soldier on, the battle continues.  :warstory:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Jul 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> Ghost - you posted after I wrote this post. But to respond to what you said - yes, I may have worded "Get over it'" wrong... "Move on" is another way I have put it. Maybe I should have stuck with that. In regards to the rest of your post - you're bang-on.
> 
> Guardian - yes, despotic regimes and terrorists are linked. What I meant was that instead of toppling Saddam, we should concentrate on the more active regimes (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc). But NOT invading them. If I felt that invasion of these countries would stop the terrorists, I would be all for it. But it won't. We can't be everywhere at once. We invade Iraq, and granted there were terrorist links to Saddam, and the rest of the Islamic world rises up against the "infidels", or whatever the catch-phrase is this week. Iraq was no-where near the biggest threat as far as terrorism goes, and that's why I don't consider it as part of the War on Terror. I do not support appeasement either - as an earlier post suggested - but rather a two pronged approach:
> 
> ...



Caesar, when I read your first response, I just about dropped my coffee....

"Get over it"??? - That took a combination of unbelievable stupidity and outright gall.

The above quoted response is a little more enlightening, but still appears to be very naive.

How is it exactly you think you can sway the Mullahs of Iran to stop supporting terrorist efforts?
How about stopping them from building nuclear weapons?
How about forcing the Saudi's to revise their education system?

More to the point, what would you be willing to give up or provide them with in order to
have them comply?

To be candid I'm simply baffled by your post.

Do you not think the US has already explored ALL of these options?  

I'll look forward to your list of creative diplomatic solutions and specifically your incentives
for getting them onboard with the War on Terror which currently they are the paying
for....




Matthew.   ???


----------



## Scott (23 Jul 2004)

Caesar, I am sorry but I can not move on. I am a firefighter and watched, as we all did, as THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE of my brothers were lost doing what they love, helping others, they lost their lives because they like to help, I will never be able to move on from the fact that the men responsible knew that it was likely to happen that way. Pre meditated murder of civilians and the people who come to help them. I am not only concerned about the FDNY Pers, please don't take that as my meaning.

Respect always and never forget.

I wish this Judge would run for office.

Just thoughts

Cheers


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2004)

Caeser: 

About Iraq, the whole region is inbread with islamic extremism (an intense hatred not only for the USA but the west, including YOU and I), and many of these groups are supported by these regimes. We are up against an enemy who values death as much as we value life, and are willing to die for their cause. We will simply accomodate them. I got no problems with that. Better on their shores than ours, but our time will come.

I fully support the war against extreme islam where ever it takes us. Iraq was the 2nd to answer, and I am sure it has put the fear of allah into other areas in the region too.

As for the WMD, time will tell, but I believe there is more here than we know. It was just a matter of time before Iraq either directly or indirectly would assist in a nasty act towards the west. Saddam was a cancer, and has since ben removed. Who's next?

So Caseser    you would favour an fundimental islamic state in Iraq over democarcy? So that means you condone sharia law, and the treatment of women, etc, plus that area is a mecca for terrs too. You really have me confused   :-\, and I am beginning to wonder if you are just wanting an audience mustering up a 'flame' from heck. 

Personally, I'd rather have a US puppet in there anyday.

There has been nothing but terror from within in Iraq for a long time, and it will take time for the people of Iraq to adjust.

Sadly we seem to only hear the bad things in Iraq, and not the good. There is plenty of good there too. Remember that.

 :rage:


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Jul 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> I wish this Judge would run for office.



Shyte! I wish this judge would move down under, and give our justice system a swift kick up the arse!

 ;D - Wes


----------



## Scott (23 Jul 2004)

Wes, I am sure you have some old throwbacks down under as well!!


----------



## dutchie (23 Jul 2004)

I do not expect those with extreme views already to be swayed by anything but a bullet. My efforts would be to those who do not hold such extreme views. I cannot believe that, with the exception of a good portion of Iraqis, that the entire Arab/Islamic world is against the West/US. Despite outwards appearances on TV, these are by-and-large not stupid people. 

Re: stopping Iran from building Nukes/Saudi educational system - I don't have a foolproof plan'. I have ideas, but they are just that-ideas.....so here goes-INTERNATIONAL pressure is necessary. The US acting alone, or with one or two allies, will not suffice. Iran & Saudi Arabia, for instance have exports, and imports, and if the majority of their trading partners (including west-friendly Arab nations like Jordan and now Libya) apply economic pressure, they would be forced to either   Although terrorists probably wouldn't respond to western economic pressure, the states sponsoring them might. 

Re:what i would give up/provide them: give them a reason to comply (trade in non-arms, no military action, etc.).   this is why the world has diplomats, and why people like Bush are better Presidents than they are diplomats.

Re:...which currently they are paying for' - that's my point. The real sources of Terrorism are not paying a friggin thing. Where is Osama? How much oil has the Saudi royal family sold this year? 

Diplomacy first, then military action. You lose credibility when you act alone without Intl support. Call me wrong if you will, but the VASTmajority of world leaders, even when you exclude the middle-east, do not support the US-led action in the middle-east, and the main reason is lack of diplomatic efforts prior to action. Not to mention the fact the Intel has been proven to be at best faulty, and at worst pre-fabricated to justify invasion.



Wesley - just saw your post - no I do not support sharia law. I would prefer a US-friendly democracy in every nation, not just Iraq. If you read my post, it clearly stated that the result most likely is an islamic state. I didn't saw that's what I wanted, but it's what I think will result. Re:WMD - your more gullible than I thought if you still believe the WMD thing. The senate committee has said there was no evidence, we haven't seen it, not one friggin nuke or one arty shell with gas in it. Nothing. You'd think they would have shown the world when they found it. But they haven't. They didn't exist. Period. It was used as an excuse to invade. 
The Arab world doesn't have the fear of Allah, more and more of them think they have the SUPPORT of Allah in their war against the West. The US and the rest of the West is less safe from terrorism than it was before the Iraq war - that war has produced, not eliminated terrorists worldwide. I hope, like you, that those acts do not reach our shores. 

Finally, as far as Saddam is concerned, the man is a monster. Full stop.


----------



## Slim (23 Jul 2004)

Caeser

I'll "get over" 9/11 when those who were responsible for that horrible action and terrorism in general are no longer a threat.

When they can no longer come to where I live, burn the Canadian flag in the streets. (as they did in Scarborough during 9/11)

When they can no longer mutilate women, cut the heads off innocent people, rape 12 year old girls and disguise it as justice and make all followers of a different church either pay a tax or be killed.

When they can no longer hold the entire population of a nation, that only wants to be free, as hostages. 

Thats when I'll get over it...And not a moment before!

Slim


----------



## Gunnerlove (25 Jul 2004)

I liked the whole list of good that the US has done for Muslims around the world.


-like dumping billions of dollars in weapons in Afghanistan then supporting the talibans rise to power before walking away from the whole mess. Until 9/11 gave them a good reason to appoint a new government and build a pipline through Afghanistan
-the arms embargo which prevented the Muslims from arming themselves in the Balkans.
-invading Somalia to keep oil production going for Shell
-giving Saddam the nodd to invade Kuwait then beating the shit out of his army when the press made it look wrong. Oh and until a new line was drawn in the sand by the Brits and Yanks, Kuwait was part of Iraq.
-giving Saddam a chemical weapons program so he could gas the Kurds and Iranians and thus secure two of his borders
-And my last point did you know that George W Bush's(Busch) grand father was convicted and imprisoned for trading with the enemy (Nazis) during WW2. Thanks for the help guys keep it coming. :skull:

Oh yeah great record 
Why do people hate America? 
I notice Chilea and Palestine were left off the list and they are great examples of US foreign policy.

Take the blinders off it is not groundless hatred


----------



## Slim (25 Jul 2004)

You know...When I read about all the things you've put there in your comments I realize that there are actually people out there who blame the west for all of the problems in the world and want our race to fail.

I think that the sad part of that is that you, and the people who put all of that in your head, have no actual first hand knowledge of the subjects you're discussing...You just trot out the silly things that someone else, maybe a university prof or coffee house friend, have vehemently declared in a self important wrath of indignation.

The truth is that what ever the west has or hasn't done, doesn't give the right to blow up buildings or people to anyone.

Now from my time in the service I know, as in "have first hand knowledge of" know for a fact, that at least half of what you have written there is nonesense. You and yours have convinced yourselves that we are somehow responsible to the rest of the world for the many "crimes of humanity" that have been committed around the world. You really believe that the U.S. and its allies go around screwing other countries for oil and whatnot.

"like dumping billions of dollars in weapons in Afghanistan then supporting the talibans rise to power before walking away from the whole mess. Until 9/11 gave them a good reason to appoint a new government and build a pipline through Afghanistan"
They didn't seem to mind when the Russians were killing them by the thousands, did they...?

"-the arms embargo which prevented the Muslims from arming themselves in the Balkans."
I suppose it makes no difference that everyone else was under it as well?

"invading Somalia to keep oil production going for Shell"
No oil has come from Somalia for a very long time...Way before the country broke into civil war.

"giving Saddam the nod to invade Kuwait then beating the shit out of his army when the press made it look wrong. Oh and until a new line was drawn in the sand by the Brits and Yanks, Kuwait was part of Iraq."
-That is pure fabrication and a load of BS...Sorry.

-"giving Saddam a chemical weapons program so he could gas the Kurds and Iranians and thus secure two of his borders"
The CIA had officers with the Kurds( public info-CIA Officer Robert Baer as a matter of fact) when they were gassed by Iraq...and before...and after. Somehow I doubt the U.S. would want its own soldiers to go through something like that.

"And my last point did you know that George W Bush's(Busch) grand father was convicted and imprisoned for trading with the enemy (Nazis) during WW2. Thanks for the help guys keep it coming."

This last statement, oddly enough, is probably somewhat true...but not limited to the Bush family alone. Just before the second world war the United States and Germany were very close economically...there were a great many ties that were probably not broken as thoroughly as they should have been. My question is what does it have to with the rest of it? 

I think you're heart's in the right place but this blind hatred is yours as well...unless you see things from both sides.

Think about where your info comes from...

Then think for yourself!

Slim

P.S You may wish to fill out your profile a bit more so we all know who we're speaking to...


----------



## karpovage (25 Jul 2004)

CA members, sorry for not chiming in earlier but I've been out of town for four days. Scott1nsh, I was a volunteer firefighter just across the pond in Rochester, NY at the time of 9/11 and share your intensity for the feelings I felt that day in regards to our brothers/sisters who went into to perform their heroic duties. i've read the replies to the judges comments and basically am in the same boat with the majority here so no sense in rehashing comments aimed at Caesar. At this time I cannot move on or simply wipe away what happened or forget about it. I'm still trying to understand the intense hatred that the extreme elements in the Islamic religion has against my country. From what I've read the reason for the attack on 9/11 goes back to the war that Al Queda declared on the U.S. in 1998. And the reason for the declaration of war was that the United States had infidel foreign troops on Saudi Arabian holy soil. - there because we led the world, ie UN, in defense of another Muslim nation from being invaded by another aggressive Muslim nation. So, go figure. Now, quite obviously this declaration is a religious war in the eyes of the Isamofascists. The attack on 9-11 was a tactic in this war just as kidnappings and beheadings are a tactic but I want to dig down deeper as to the root causes and it really comes down to governance in my opinion. Governance based on electing your leaders, ie forms of democracy or governance based on tyranny, force, suppression, no free will to think for yourself - especially in regards to the deity that you might choose to worship. Western countries allow you to find things out for yourself as far as you, the indiviudal, chooses to take it. The U.S. was born on freedom of religion - choosing your own God. Tyranny, facism, religious rule does not allow that freedom of thought and expression. Al Queda doctrine says you either choose Allah or you choose death as an infidel. So, that's where I am at this point.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jul 2004)

> Call me wrong if you will, but the VASTmajority of world leaders, even when you exclude the middle-east, do not support the US-led action in the middle-east, and the main reason is lack of diplomatic efforts prior to action.



OK, I'll call you wrong.

The VAST majority of world leaders agreed that Saddam was a problem and believed he had weapons of mass destruction, an active aquisition and development programme, a demonstrated inclination to use them and a hate on for not just the US in general but the Bush family in particular.  That included all those countries that supplied him the gear as well as the United Nations.

The only thing being debated was had he stopped the programmes and got rid of the weapons.  He declined to offer proof.

The VAST majority of world leaders agreed that "Something Should Be Done".  They agreed that some 12 to 14 times.  They just couldn't agree on what.

The VAST majority of world leaders were engaged in diplomatic negotiations as to WHAT should be done.

The negotiations had gone on for some 12 years while Iraqi's died as a result of sanctions supported by the VAST majority of world leaders.


At the end of the day the American's decided that given 9/11 "Something MUST be done".  At least 40 to 50 of the world's leaders agreed with them and aquiesced.  Only a very small number were willing, or able, to come forward with troops in the open to assist the main effort.   But the VAST majority of the OECD and the EU (including those new members who "missed an opportunity to shut up" in the memorable diplomatic language of "Hizzonor Chirac" supported the effort.  France, Germany, Belgium and Canada were decidedly in the MINORITY).

Of the rest of the world's leaders?  A substantial number include democrats such as Gaddafi and Mugabe and the rulers of Burma.  All potential targets of the same type of action - hardly likely now or ever to buy into the notion of the Chretien doctrine of "A responsibility to protect" - which by the way, in its execution is indistinguishable from Bush's pre-emptive action.  Target country gets invaded by well meaning outsiders bent on stabilizing the world so that their citizens will live safe and prosperous lives.

Many other leaders, such as India's, could not reasonably be expected to take a position on an Islamic invasion.  They have got 1200 years of history of confrontations with Islam (Those confrontations allowed the British to dominate the country for 200 years - another story).  Since 1947 and up until today they have been dealing with religious violence that has seen hundreds of thousands killed in riots, border wars and just plain old bigotted thuggery.  Couple that with a shooting war with a nuclear armed Islamic opponent which housed the people taking credit for 9/11 - no way it was going to get involved.   Many other countries with Islam-Berber, Islam-Black, Islam-Hindu, Islam-Chinese, Islam-Phillipino  conflicts were in much the same boat.  Those countries - the best thing they could do was just keep the lid on their domestic situation and maintain order.

So the VAST majority of world leaders ends up subdivided into 4 categories - A large minority that supported the effort publicly - A large minority that saw itself as potential targets for follow-on actions (hardly judges lacking in self-interest) - A large minority that find themselves on the cusp already and battling militant Islam (a 1200 year battle in some places) - and finally a small minority that out of cowardice or economic self-interest CHOSE not to act.   

Guess which group Canada falls into?


----------



## Gunnerlove (25 Jul 2004)

"...You just trot out the silly things that someone else, maybe a university prof or coffee house friend, have vehemently declared in a self important wrath of indignation."

I like that statement. 

If you are saying that no one deserves to live in a state of fear, then I agree with you totally. 

In my opinion I have made a mistake in that last post by saying "invading Somalia to keep oil production going for Shell"
That was wrong. Somalia has never been a big producer of oil although reserves have been discovered, and Shell had folded their tent at the beginning of the civil war. Conoco was there however and heavily involved in the extraction of natural gas. To be fair to the US if they had manged to stabilize Somalia it would have been a great humanitarian victory. In the land of politics though conflicts of interest (using the Cononco compound as the US embassy) must be avoided lest someone like me pick them up and run away with the wrong impression. 

The rest I will leave on the table. I suggest that anyone who thinks I am a bit of a crack pot look into the points I have brought up and decide for themselves.

Oh and I will stop using the term Yanks in my posts.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jul 2004)

Slim, regarding US-German cooperation.  Ford had branch plants in Germany for another example.  But this is nothing new.  On the very day of the invasion of Russia, trains were leaving the Soviet Union bound for Germany laden with raw materials and ores.  They were active trading partners, and in fact were allies up to the morning of 22 June 1941.  

The US doesn't have an unusual history of switching sides and making new alliances - all nations do it.


----------



## Slim (26 Jul 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The US doesn't have an unusual history of switching sides and making new alliances - all nations do it.



Yeah...I know Mike.

Thats what I was trying to get across to the others. In fact Joe Kennedy was greatly apposed to going into the war on the side of the allies and and campaigned vigorously against it.

Pearl Harbour seems to be the lynch pin that swayed public opinion to the side of the allies.

As a matter of fact the American population was so against going to war for England that Wild Bill Donovan had to set up the OSS without the knowledge of Congress, and it was some time before the rest of the government was informed.

http://www.campxhistoricalsociety.ca/history.htm

This link gives some of the history of the OSS and how it came into being despite the feelings in the US at the time. If anyone has further questions PM me and I'll see what I can do to find more info on the subject.

Slim


----------

