Bush Loses Advantage in War on Terrorism

[Olivier]

two threads of mine have been edited of late, apparently by a moderator




the titles that have been altered are
"the real cause of the death of Arafat"

as been changed to
"Politicizing the Yasser Arafat's cause of death; or, what we don't know can hurt you.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122881&postcount=70

I do not see what the added insinuation means... or what value added it brings




Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved

to

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved, Satan unavailable for comment
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122938&postcount=126
I had not into of putting any satanic reference in the discussion

Overall, the objective of this person is harassment.
Arbitrary harassment because he does not share my opinions. Why leave intact threads which are either pure provocation of plain false and modify titles respecting forum rule? Why choose to distord the name of the threads I started?

let's see one example on naming a thread :

France: we will use the UN-mandate to continue the occupation of the Ivory Coast => this is plain lie, no french declaration was made about "occupating ivory coast".

and guess what, the guy who created the thread has been promoted moderator ! Now he can toy with what I say in total impunity...

Now If you want to see delirant threads titles just browse the forum..



Now what should I do ?
- I have first protested to the forum owner (newsguy), who answered that moderators are fully allowed change thread titles. This practice is discretionary and completely arbitrary. Any moderator can change a thread name to what he wants. Just because he feels like it.

Ok, now what do I do ? I can either
=========================
solution #1 - accept that the thread I start have a title perverting what the idea I defend.

solution #2 - stop posting and conceide victory to the harasser. This will also overjoy all here that do not share my opinions.


Now although it is certainly not good to give in to harassment, I have choose solution #2. As I wrote to the forum owner "you might as well have the guts to ask me to leave politely and I certainly would not insist".
But the idea that someone can pull strings and make me say what I do not want to say, just because he finds it fun is completely disgusting to me.

I do not know for you, maybe some of you find it fantastic to read a forum like this, but for me this is more than just hindering freedom of expression, this is plain pervert.

So bye all !


Overall I hope I have contributed adding value to the forum and interest to the reader.
I tried to start threads worthy of real debate and to documents my posts as well as I could! I tried not to answer provocation by avoiding the most aggressive of hateful posters.

On the statistic side, I started no less than 113 threads and wrote 1250 posts, which means I easily dedicated two hundred hours to the forum.

these are some of the threads I am the most proud of , Bush is elected, what can we expect in the next years?
• Good news for the Saudis and the iranians: Crude prices hit 21 year high
• Fight against Global warming : Kyoto Protocol becomes international treaty.
• teaching democracy (it's a picture !)
• If America were Iraq, What Would It be Like?
• Another legend down the drain : Iraq's Disappearing Elections (this one is likely to make a comeback)
• a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims
• Israel Has Long Spied on U.S alleges Counterpunch (I think this thread title has been manipulated as well)
• Moore's anti-Bush film wins top Cannes award
• Arab-Israeli Retaliation Tragic, Unhelpful
• Europe must not define itself against America
• about the dangers of blurring the lines between humanitarians workers and armies
• French troops deployed on Sudan border
• Military Draft in the US?
• Reaction in France on Sharon calling french jews to "leave immediately
• Torture by US forces is Iraq is not just isolated incidents (that thread is probably the one with the longuest debate : 481 posts)
• How can the damage of the torture photos be repaired? (with now a variant with the shooting of an unarmed wounded insurged in a mosque)
• Are we de-Baathifying or re-Baathifying this week? (that one was not a success, by it was fun)
• Rebirth at Ground Zero (don’t start optimistics threads here : no success)
• Real politics starting inside iraq? (ditto)
• U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
• 9/11 panel says there was ‘‘no credible evidence’’ that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida
• Big demonstration in Paris today against anti-Semitism
• europe grows : Israelis rush on europeans passport
• hostilities ending in Falluja? (lucky I put an interrogation mark on that one.. that was started in june)
• France to expel Muslim cleric over abuse

And it makes me extremely sad to realize all these titles can be perverted anytime…



…. So I have decided, that I prefer to remove some of my posts than to have what I mean manipulated against my will, it’s a bit sad, but it seems reasonable to withdraw from a debate when the debate turns out to be a fake. And of course I do not approve of the hatred shown by the people who manipulate this forum to their ends.

[Olivier]

Gary Langer of ABC News writes: "While time ultimately will tell, at this point it's hard to see Iraq as anything but a net negative politically for the Bush administration. In addition to increasingly negative reaction to the level of casualties, and essentially split decisions on whether the war was worth fighting or improved U.S. security, other assessments have worsened as well.

"Seventy-six percent now say the war has damaged the United States' image in the rest of the world; that's 13 points more than last summer. Sixty-three percent say it's caused long-term harm to U.S. relations with countries that opposed the war, up 12 points. And just four in 10 say it's improved long-term stability in the Middle East, down eight points. (In a more positive assessment, 65 percent think the war has improved the lives of the Iraqi people.)"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/

[NewsGuy]

It's hard to believe that Kerry, who never fought terrorism in his life, is though of as being better on this topic than Bush.

Yes, it's true that Americans are divided on the benefit of going to war on Iraq, especially when the real centers of global terrorism like Iran and Syria are being left alone.

But when it comes down to the elections, Americans will vote along party lines.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
It's hard to believe that Kerry, who never fought terrorism in his life, is though of as being better on this topic than Bush. I guess you know my opinion on that: it's not a problem of being better. It's just that you cannot be worst than Bush

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Yes, it's true that Americans are divided on the benefit of going to war on Iraq the polarization of opinions in the US is stronger than ever, I read. Still for me the two big parties look a bit the same.

Where is the bush/kerry difference on Iraq?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Olivier
I guess you know my opinion on that: it's not a problem of being better. It's just that you cannot be worst than Bush

That's an over-simplification.

Considering the enormous magnitude of Muslim terrorism, and the extreme primitive nature of Iraqi society, Bush has been facing bigger challenges than he expected apparently.

I understand that many Europeans hate Bush because he demonstrated to the world that Europe is not as important as Europeans would like to be.

Plus, Bush is also a Conservative, whereas Europe is falling more and more to the radical Left.

But in the end, you should know that after coming out of a recession, Americans will vote based on the economy to a great extent.

Where is the bush/kerry difference on Iraq?

If Bush gets a UN resolution recognizing the new Iraqi government, in effect, there will be very little difference between the candidates.

[minusthejihad]

What happened Olivier, only 1 person left off your ignore list and no one else really gives a poo?

[minusthejihad]

Oh, woops, you can't put the admin on your ignore list. my bad.

If everyone is on your ignore list, aren't you just trolling at this point?

[Olivier]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
That's an over-simplification. mm what if I told you i'm really laughing reading you say that :) I do get sometimes the feeling you are "over-simplifying" the reality of europe.



Originally posted by NewsGuy
Considering the enormous magnitude of Muslim terrorism, and the extreme primitive nature of Iraqi society, Bush has been facing bigger challenges than he expected apparently. Ok now say it : "Bush has been a fool and I knew it". Anyone with ten grams of brain cells and basic knowledge of israel/palestine knew it.

the problem is probably you were taken by the "fight terrorism, support the troops" effects. But Bush is a damm nut. You got any idea what pictures of the war you're going to find in history manuals? Got any idea of the impact?



Originally posted by NewsGuy
I understand that many Europeans hate Bush because he demonstrated to the world that Europe is not as important as Europeans would like to be.sure but the true thing is not that europe "is not that important", the problem is that europe "is not that important to the US". I see a rift opening now and allow me to say you are a fool if you think it is any good.



Originally posted by NewsGuy
Plus, Bush is also a Conservative, whereas Europe is falling more and more to the radical Left.europe is not more left than before. But Bush is far more right that any american president before. Ultra-conservative, religiously illuminated.. whatever.

[Alfred]

Olivier; I would like to ask you a serious question.

It is Sept 11, 2001. 13 parasites from Saudia Arabia fly 4 airplanes into 1) La Defense 2) French government buildings, and whatever is the equivalent to the World Trade Center in France.

On top of that lets assume that Iran is supplying and training terrorists to kill French.

On top of that lets assume that Iraq hates you and tries to kill your President.

Let's assume that both Iran and Iraq, who tell the world that they are the sworn enemy of France, are building nukes.

Let's assume that both Iraq and Iran have thousands who are willing to die to kill anything French.

Now, be nice and just assume the above to be true.

What would France have done? Be honest.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
I guess you know my opinion on that: it's not a problem of being better. It's just that you cannot be worst than Bush
Read my lips: Chirac.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Alfred
Olivier; I would like to ask you a serious question.

It is Sept 11, 2001. 13 parasites from Saudia Arabia fly 4 airplanes into 1) La Defense 2) French government buildings, and whatever is the equivalent to the World Trade Center in France.

On top of that lets assume that Iran is supplying and training terrorists to kill French.

On top of that lets assume that Iraq hates you and tries to kill your President.

Let's assume that both Iran and Iraq, who tell the world that they are the sworn enemy of France, are building nukes.

Let's assume that both Iraq and Iran have thousands who are willing to die to kill anything French.

Now, be nice and just assume the above to be true.

What would France have done? Be honest.
Sell them arms and explosives.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Olivier
europe is not more left than before. But Bush is far more right that any american president before. Ultra-conservative, religiously illuminated.. whatever.

Reagan died just weeks ago and already, according to Olivier, he never existed! Reagan was far more conservative and religiously-oriented than Bush. Bush is NOT a conservative, not even close. At most he's slightly to the right of center, but only very slightly. If you want to see a real far-right US President, check out Thomas Jefferson... he would be considered the very edge of the most far-right fringe by today's standards.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Alfred
Olivier; I would like to ask you a serious question.

It is Sept 11, 2001. 13 parasites from Saudia Arabia fly 4 airplanes into 1) La Defense 2) French government buildings, and whatever is the equivalent to the World Trade Center in France. I 'd have gone mad and invaded great britain. :D

Nice game but most of your assumptions are false. And as for invading afghanistan, a country which WAS hosting/training terrorists I remind you the whole world was behind the US and that we (europe) and japan are now paying the bill for the rebuilding of the country.

Even if your assumption were good, invading iraq is simply not the way to fight terrorism. Anyone with basic knowledge of M/E knew it.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Bush is NOT a conservative, not even close. At most he's slightly to the right of center, but only very slightly.

:confused:
It all depends on the observer, I believe. No European would claim such a thing with a serious face. Thing is, left-wing/right-wing are no universal terms. Right-wing in Holland is left-wing in America. Bush is perceived as very right-wing in Europe. I share that opinion.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Reagan died just weeks ago and already, according to Olivier, he never existed! Reagan was far more conservative and religiously-oriented than Bush. Bush is NOT a conservative, not even close. At most he's slightly to the right of center, but only very slightly. If you want to see a real far-right US President, check out Thomas Jefferson... he would be considered the very edge of the most far-right fringe by today's standards.


That's an interesting point of view; huge on state's rights yet big on expansionism. He also carried on his administration virtually w/o Congress' support or knowledge and he often lost major battles in the Supreme Court against John Marshall and the Federalists.

Of course Thom was also an atheist, mysogynist, slaveholder who fathered children by his dead wife's half sister who was also his quadroon slave.

So on balance it's hard to pin down Thom. Consummate politician, pragmatist, inventor, genius, dyslexic, author, non religious advocate of unlimited religious freedom, deeply flawed, landed gentry aristocratic man of the people.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Consummate politician, pragmatist, inventor, genius, dyslexic, author, non religious advocate of unlimited religious freedom, deeply flawed, landed gentry aristocratic man of the people.
I can't find any of this on my two dollar bills! :confused:

[Mediocrates]

And it was too many words to put on the nickel.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
invading iraq is simply not the way to fight terrorism. Anyone with basic knowledge of M/E knew it.
Like - well - sortof - well - like - um - Europe? :confused:

Europe: A Helping Hand in the Fight Against Terrorism? (http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/2164/history/3,2360,655,1701,2164)

Following the Trail of the September 11 Terrorists, Islamist Terror Cells Were Uncovered Throughout Western Europe Having Taken Advantage of Lenient Immigration Laws and Lax Concerns Over Security

On July 10, 2003, an Algerian immigrant living in Leicester, England, was arrested for helping raise over 250,000 British pounds ($400,000) for terrorist activities. Farid Belaribi, 37, was arrested as a part of a major investigation into terrorist activity in Leicester. On June 2, 2003, Christian Ganczarski, a German citizen, was arrested at Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport. Officials believe he is a high-ranking member of al-Qaida known by the group's members as "Ibrahim the German." Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy told French Parliament, "(Intelligence) services know that he is a top leader of al-Qaida, in contact with Osama bin Laden himself, and has been in Afghanistan and Bosnia. This individual is a specialist in computers and in radio services."

Since the late 1990s, massive amounts of evidence has surfaced indicating that almost every country in Western Europe has at least one terrorist cell linked to al-Qaida. The cells all correspond with one another and send members to different countries to help with recruitment and logistic support. The investigation is wide in scope and has included the efforts of Italian, British, Belgian, German, French and Spanish police, as well as Europol, the European Union's intelligence-gathering agency focussed on international cross-border criminal networks. In each of these countries, investigators found a solid network of militant Islamists with connections not only to top leaders in the Middle East, but also to heads of cells in each European country. Police intelligence described the Tanzania attack on the American Embassy in 1998 as a four-pronged attack. There were four cells involved in the attack, each with separate and well-defined tasks. One cell supplied the arms, a second forged the necessary documents, a third helped transport people, and the last carried out the actual attack.

A Palestinian on trial for terrorism-related offenses in Germany told a Dusseldorf court in early July 2003 that al-Qaida terrorists are living in Germany. Shadi Mohammed Mustafa Abdalla, 26, said he knew of terrorists living in Duisburg, Cologne, Krefeld and Haan near Dusseldorf. The defendant told the court a the terrorist cell planned on attacking the Jewish Museum in Berlin, a disco frequented by Jews in Dusseldorf and a Jewish-run restaurant in a Dusseldorf suburb. Prosecutors say the defendant has become one of the state's principal witnesses in German trials of alleged Islamist terrorists. At his trial, Shadi recounted his training in Afghanistan and his days working as a bodyguard for bin Laden himself.

Italian police, suspecting that terrorists were linked to the Milan-based Islamic Cultural Center, received permission to wiretap the suspects' phones. They found out a startling amount of information and tips. In early 2000, police followed Sami Ben Khemais, a Tunisian man who had recently returned from the al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, to the Milan train station. It was from this point he embarked on a series of train trips all over Europe. He traveled through Switzerland and Germany to Brussels, Belgium. There Khemais met up with Tarek Maaroufi, an Islamic leader already under investigation in that country for his radical activities. It was at this stage Belgian police took over and followed the two men to Maaroufi's apartment. Between wiretaps on both men's phones, as well as inside their apartments, police were able to foil numerous plots to bomb government buildings in numerous countries. They were also able to find out names of other terrorists acting as peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. Currently, Maaroufi is wanted in Italy, but he remains free because of his Belgian citizenship, which prevents his extradition to Italy.

It was, in fact, in Madrid, Spain that the first chatter about the September 11 attacks was overheard. The leader of the Spanish al-Qaida cell was Abu Dahdah, and police had been listening to his phone conversations with other cell leaders and taping his in-person meetings. Just days before the September 11 attacks, Spanish police recorded an unidentified man telling Abu Dahdah, "I've prepared some things you are going to like ... I'm giving classes. We've entered the field of aviation, and we've cut the throat of the bird." The police did not know what to make of the conversation until it became apparent that the September 11 hijackers cut the throats of the airline pilots before crashing the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Germany appears to harbor a greater number of active terrorist cells than any other Western European country. Up until recently, Germany had been restricted by post-Nazi laws on the exchange of information, which even prohibited police from tapping a suspect's phone line. There were also hindrances on exchanges of information between domestic and foreign intelligence agencies. According to an article in the October 5, 2001 edition of The New York Times by Steve Erlanger, the abundance of terrorist cells in Germany is in part due to these antiquated laws.

European attitudes concerning terrorism have changed drastically since the early 1990s. In the past, Europe's focus has been mostly on domestic groups, whereas America's focus has been mostly international in nature. For instance, in the 1970s and 1980s, disagreement was the norm. Europe tended to pay off terror groups. In exchange for a promise from the terrorist not to attack within these countries' borders or target their citizens, European authorities sometimes ignored activities what would have normally prompted investigation. Because of this practice, extradition requests were often denied. Such was the case involving the 1977 arrest of Mohammed Daoud Audeh. Audeh was the mastermind behind the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. After French authorities arrested Audeh, both Israel and West Germany requested his extradition, but France instead set him free, to avoid possible attacks by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

In 1985, the four Palestinian Achille Lauro hijackers were flying to amnesty aboard an Egyptian commercial plane. U.S. Navy fighters forced the plane to land at NATO's Sigonella air base in Italy. However, to avoid possible terrorist retaliation, Italian government officials did not hand over the hijackers to the U.S. Instead, they arranged for the terrorist leader, Mohammed Abu Abbas, to escape to Yugoslavia.

Despite the touchy history between the U.S. and Europe concerning terrorist activity, the past few years have proven fruitful for European investigators and prosecutors against terrorist groups. In early May 2003, a report on the state of global terror praised Germany for its successful investigations of the roots of the 9/11 Hamburg terrorist cell. The report describes Germany as "an active and critically important participant in the global coalition against terrorism." In fact, it was a Hamburg court that convicted 29-year old Moroccan Mounir al Motassadeq in February 2002 of accessory to murder charges for the 9-11 attacks. It was the first major conviction of a 9/11-linked terrorist.

[Oh Jerusalem]

(continued)

There is one major impediment for the U.S., though, when it comes to prosecuting terrorists arrested in Europe. Because no European country has a death penalty law, the writ of the European human rights convention ensures that no European country can extradite anyone to a country that does use the death penalty. Even Britain has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into its law. That convention bans the death penalty and other "inhumane treatment," which includes extraditing a criminal to a country that uses the death penalty. "The European Union has an unchangeable point of view," Belgian Justice Minister Marc Verwilghen told the European parliament in December 2001. "Extradition is only possible with an unfailing guarantee that the person will not be condemned toÉdeath." Spanish officials have told U.S. authorities it will not extradite any of the 14 al-Qaida suspects it is holding unless they are tried in civilian (rather than military) courts. The idea of a military tribunal hits a personal chord with most Spaniards, because of the abundance of such courts during the long dictatorship of General Francisco Franco.

Is it possible that Europe's growing number of Muslim citizens and visitors have been influencing their governments' stance on such issues? There is no question that Islamic communities have been growing steadily in countries such as France and Italy, and as a result cultural norms and voting patterns have changed in recent years. In France, left and right wing administrations have been trying for decades to form an umbrella group for the nation's leading Muslim organizations. Just when the groups thought they had succeeded in doing so, elections were held in Muslim congregations for the 50 seats on the newly-formed Muslim national council. The moderate group of the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris (who was supposed to be the council's first leader) won merely two seats, whereas the most radical organization came in second place, with 14 seats. France has about 6 million Muslims, including about 1 million youth. French officials say that many of these young Muslims are vulnerable to recruitment by radicals.

It goes beyond politics, though. According to France's High Council for Integration (HCI), about 70,000 women, chiefly Muslim, are being subjected to forced marriages every year. In addition, 35,000 girls live under the threat of or undergo genital mutilation, reports the HCI. And German media reports that secret shari'a courts (Muslim religious courts) have been passing judgment independent of government courts in Italy. Italian doctors reported treating women who had been lashed, and there have been cases of men having had their hands crudely amputated for minor crimes.

The vast majority of Muslims living in Europe are peaceful, law-abiding citizens. However, it is impossible for European investigators to effectively crack down on terrorism and break up terrorist cells when their governments are overlooking the rapid rise of violent fundamentalist Islam within their own borders.

By Editorial Assistant Jess Altschul

[Mediocrates]

Compared to what? No one literally put a gun to the Spaniards heads and demanded they send a token force to Iraq therefore incurring the wrath of Bronze Age donkey lovers the world over. What exactly in terms of terrorism does Europe think it's been exposed to? Is Bali now part of the EU? Kashmir? Ingushetia? Jerusalem? the Philippines? Grozny?


They want to scream and complain how they've been imperiled by the Iraq war, against their will. They don't even believe terrorism exists if it doesn't happen to them, and it doesn't happen to them. So what are they complaining about?

[red crabtree]

Thomas Jefferson was NOT an atheist. That is a common misperception that is not true. He did not believe in organized Christianity feeling it was co-opted those latins who liked power more than anything else, but he believed in a God and felt that Jesus Christ was the best philosopher who ever lived, but that Christ was not a God nor the son of God. He wrote his own bible called the Jefferson Bible in which he removed all the miracles that Christ performed as well as sayings he believed did not fit with the overall tone of Jesus' sayings to get to the essence of it all. But to paint him as a atheist in incorrect.
He, like all humans, had flaws but he was an incredibly bright man who did nothing more or less in his private life that cannot be found in many others at the same age.
He was a great man and in todays world would likely have been a full Republican. Please do not forget that at the time of his Presidency this country was still very new and feeling it's way, a grand experiment that no one yet really knew how things would work best.

[Mediocrates]

No he was an atheist in much the same way Spinoza was. I guess people would call it spiritual deism.

[red crabtree]

An atheist does not believe in God, therefore Jefferson was not an atheist. He believed in a God, though had little use for an organized Christian religion, particularly despising John Calvin and those who deemed themselves Presbyterians and Baptists. He can reasonably be called a deist, but not an atheist.

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

[minusthejihad]

I'm about to start reading the Da Vinci Code. Anyone read it yet? Any valuable literary achievement or another conspiracy theory book? And will my Shikza girlfriend's parents be upset to hear I got her to read it? :)

[Donna]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
I'm about to start reading the Da Vinci Code. Anyone read it yet? Any valuable literary achievement or another conspiracy theory book? And will my Shikza girlfriend's parents be upset to hear I got her to read it? :)

That's the one I haven't read but I have read his other books: Digital Fortress, Deception Point, and Angels and Demons. I liked Angels and Demons best.

[I am David]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
I'm about to start reading the Da Vinci Code. Anyone read it yet? Any valuable literary achievement or another conspiracy theory book? And will my Shikza girlfriend's parents be upset to hear I got her to read it? :)

A great book, good mystery, even if you dont want to believe in some of the claims made throughout the book ;)

[red crabtree]

The Da Vinci Code is an outstanding book. I found it hard to put down as the mystery writing is so good. As far as the claims made, he has woven a very good story out of it, and it gives one something to think about. Those claims are from a book Holy Blood, Holy Grail which I bought so I could get a sense of the whole theory and found that while that book makes some very good points, it also reaches real far at times to make it's point. One must also believe that there is a great deal more to the Knight Templers and the Masons than history gives credit to. It is also worth knowing that the papers found by the Priest in France that supposedly supports the whole thing were lost in a fire. Actually 2 were and 2 others have been "lost". There is other things in the library in Paris that do still exist.
In any case the book is good, entertaining and makes one really give consideration to the premise.