Paul Johnson would be alive but for the actions of the Bush administration

[WilliamPitt]

Period. End of story.

[hlthe2b]

1. Damn hard to deny, isn't it?

Although I'm counting only seconds before someone tries*...


*(seems we are having lots of visitation today)

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. That's right.

I don't know how the bastards sleeps at night.

[Spazito]

3. Agree

*

[TheWizardOfMudd]

4. Yep

[Oddman]

5. That is the truth!

[lovedems]

6. Yep.

I am sure they will sleep like babies tonight. This is probably just a consequence of war as far as they are concerned. :shrug:

[Cleita]

7. No kidding. I place his death directly on Bush's head.

eom

[outinforce]

8. Paul Johnson Would Be Alive

but for the actions of a few hate-filled people in Saudi Arabia.

The ones who cut off Paul Johnson's head.

Period.

End of Story.

[WilliamPitt]

9. ...and Paul Johnson would have fasllen under their sword

at home?

[outinforce]

17. Paul Johnson, Last Time I Checked

went to Saudi Arabia as the result of a free choice he himself made.

No one compelled him or coreced him into going.

Tonight, I am going to the movies. A free choice I will make. No one is coercing or compelling me to go.

If I get killed tonight at the hands of thugs, who is guily of killing me? Am I, because I did not stay at home? Is Michael Moore, perhaps, because he made a movie that I want to see and a trailer that I will perhaps be able to see? Or is it the people who own the cinema? The city government for not eliminating crime?

I would argue that, if I get killed tonight, the people that are guilty of my murder are the people who actually kill me.

Same with Paul Johnson.

Period.

End of story.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Certainly no one suggests

that the guys with the sword are blameless. They are murderers.

BUT the fact remains that decisions and actions of the Bush crew led directly to this moment.

[outinforce]

20. Please Explain

What actions and decision of the Bush crew led -- directly -- to this moment.

[WilliamPitt]

30. Hm

Invasion of a Mideast nation on a bullshit pretext ---> Heightening tensions and unrest ---> 10,000 Muslim civilians killed in aforementioned invasion ---> explosion of rage ---> Killings like this.

[outinforce]

40. Well, Then, Let's Go Back

Bombings that kill 3,000 Americans and others on 9/11/01 -->Explosion of rage---->Invasion of a Mideast nation on a bullshit pretext ---> Heightening tensions and unrest ---> 10,000 Muslim civilians killed in aforementioned invasion ---> explosion of rage ---> Killings like this.

Is that "explosion of rage" thing.

Lots of Americans "exploded" with rage after 9/11/01.

The result?

an invasion of a midest nation.

A person or a nation may not be responsible for the conditions that cause them to become enraged.

But they are responsible for actions they take in response to their own rage.

If, as you suggest, the killings "like this" of Paul Johnson were the result of rage, then I think you must also be willing to say that the rage of any sort can justify (or excuse) any sort of excess.

Again, to point out what may happen to me tonight.

If, when I go to the movies tonight, I am killed by someone who has rage simmering within him against gay people (I happen to be gay), does the fact that that person's expression of his rage results in my murder lessen his culpability for my death?

I'm quite sure that the men who killed Matt Shepherd acted out of rage. They were, no doubt, quite enraged when they saw Matt, and perhaps even more enraged when theyu discovered that he was gay.

And it may indeed be that there was some "reason" for their rage.

But what would not have been reasonable, in my view, would be to go back beyond the rage of those who killed Matt Shepherd, and say that their rage was the rsult of soemthing else.

The guys who killed Matt Shepherd were the guys who killed Matt Shepherd.

They may have killed him because of "rage", but, if so, they acted wrong.

Same with the guys who killed Paul Johnson.

It does not matter that they had rage, or why they had rage.

THEY killed Paul Johnson.

No one else.

They are to blame.

No one else.

Period.

End of story.

[WilliamPitt]

47. Where on earth did I justify and excuse this beheading?

Nowhere.

[outinforce]

51. What, Then, Is Your Argument

Excuse me for suggesting that you justified or excused this beheading.

I'm afraid I have lost track of your argument.

I thought you were saying that only the Bush administration was responsible for the beheading of Mr. Johnson.

I thought that point of one of your posts to me was that Mr. Johnson would not have been in Riyadh if not for the Bush administration.

I thought that you most recent post was that Mr. Johnson's murderers were somehow less guilty because of their rage which had been induced by the actions of the Bush administration.

If that was not your point, I apologize.

But if that was not your point, I'm afraid I've lost track of your point entirely.

Perhaps you could re-state it for me?

[bpilgrim]

54. beat a hornets nest with a big stick

and let us know what happens

peace

[outinforce]

57. I'm Sorry

but your metaphor eludes me.

At least, I think it is a metaphor. Perhaps it is a simile. Is there an English teacher here somewhere?

If I beat a hornet's nest with a big stick, and I get stung as a result, then I see your point.

What did Mr. Johnson do to deserve his fate?

Did he formulate US foreign or military policy?

[bpilgrim]

63. scale it up

and imagine your little bro is playing behind the neighboring bush.

stop playing DUMB you get the picture perfectly... everyone feels bad for this senseless brutal death but don't ACT like you don't understand the circumstances we are ALL living through right now, this ain't fox news you know and we have been documenting whats been happening for 3 1/2 years now so maybe you just need a visit to the archives :shrug:

peace

[TXlib]

100. Will, Buddy!

I know you. I like you. I agree with you more often than not.

But the way you phrased the opening post lends credence to the belief of some that you were saying that the actions of the Bush administration somehow reduce the culpability of the criminals who wielded the sword.

Johnson had been in Saudi Arabia for the past 10 years; he hadn't been there solely as a result of Gulf War II. Terrorist attacks certainly are more frequent now, and in all likelihood are much the result of our meddling in Iraq. But, who is to say that the campaign of anti-US violence kicked off on 11 September 2001 wasn't merely the opening shot in a much bolder terrorist movement?

I agree that we did the wrong thing in invading Iraq. But anti-Us sentiment was high after Afghanistan, even though our initial actions there were justified, if ten years too late. I'm no Bush supporter, but it's not clear to me that the current wave of hatred would be much less if we didn't invade Iraq.

[Sufi Marmot]

55. Causality is not the same thing as guilt...

You guys are arguing about two different concepts which aren't necessarily mutually inclusive. Causing a crime to occur, by an action or inaction is not necessarily the same thing as being guilty of committing that crime.

Both of you are right within the limits of your arguments.

-SM

[shance]

98. Where do you justify pinning 9-11 and this beheading together?

Not only is there no link between Saddam and 9-11, other than a hyped up WMD type marketing campaign to keep a rumor flourishing.

I dont like the truth coming out any more than you do, and whatever that will fully entail.

However, to avoid an honest enquiry only postpones any consequences for us as AMERICANS, and makes it worse for all of us in the end.

All of us will suffer from our own denial and refusal to accept what could be the reality that will certainly face us at one point or another.

No one in history ever has or ever will escape the law of cause and effect.

I feel the only way for us to be a sane nation again is to go face to face with the truth. If we dont, we are destined to meet a fate like Germany or any other country where the citizens bury their heads in the sand.

Seems to me, individuals (like perhaps yourself,I dont know*) who hold tight and eagerly want to pin everything back to 9/11, are afraid of asking questions and are afraid of confronting the truth.

Do you honestly think its any easier for the rest of us?

Why would it be? How could it be?

Many, (perhaps like you,I dont know) would rather blame *those* people way over there, and use everything other than the facts as excuses and refusals to look at the truth of what WE HAVE CREATED, and why these things are happening to innocent kiddos and even older Americans sent (or voluntarily traveling) over there.

So, what benefits do you receive from maintaining this believe system that blames essentially everything on 9-11? Is it so America can maintain the self-righteous and superior position in your mind?

If so*, consider that visions only last so long before the truth comes and knocks that vision right on out of the ball park.

[bpilgrim]

43. don't forget the concentration camps and AUTHORZED TORTURE, RAPE, MURDER

even of CHILDREN :puke:

peace

[outinforce]

45. Yes.

It is very important to keep us all focusesd on hate.

And on hateful acts.

That tends to get everyone in a rage.

And hate-fueled rage leads to -----

you complete that thought.

[bpilgrim]

53. do you need the number to the wh or sometin

better get a grip

peace

[outinforce]

59. "Get a Grip"??

who was it who wrote this:

"do you need the number to the wh or sometin"

If I am reading that correctly, that would be you.

Grips, by the way, are on sale this week-end at Target and BJ's.

[bpilgrim]

68. if this death upsets you so much and you want to vent at those responsible

dial the wh.

getting all sanctimonious with us on DU is BS so save it.

please

peace

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

73. they ain't the only ones bub

some can only keep so many details in their head at 1 time, though.

and thats my cue to move on.

cya

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. I can't believe anyone would actually ask this question on DU.

[Shakespeare]

35. Considering who asked it, I can. n/t

[outinforce]

72. I Consider This To Be A Personal Attack

of the most vile sort.

The kind that does not make any contribution to the argument of the thread.

The kind that only attacks.

Shame on you.

[bpilgrim]

75. SHAME ON YOU

for DEFENDING the culpability of our RADICAL and CRIMMINAL administration.

violence begets violence - we are ALL responcible.

peace

[outinforce]

79. Defending?

What in the world are you talking about?

I am not defending the current administration at all.

Please, sir, do get a grip.

[bpilgrim]

83. KISS

the current missadministration bears some responsibility for the current mess we are in NO DOUBT.

you say they are NOT and putting up a weakass bs argument like the right always do and try to claim it all happened in a freakin vaccum :crazy:

that argument is NOT going to fly here.

cya

peace

[outinforce]

87. Well, Now, "bub"

This makes the second time in this thread that you have said "cya" to me.

"the current missadministration bears some responsibility for the current mess we are in NO DOUBT. you say they are NOT"

I do?

Where?

Please, good Sir, do get a grip.

(I know where they, along with clues, are on sale this week-end).

[Forkboy]

92. no doubt

:thumbsup:

[JohnLocke]

36. Uh... everything?

[outinforce]

44. I Asked For A Reason

I trust that my response -- in post #40 -- explains why I asked the question.

WHy else would you think I would ask this question???

[JohnLocke]

37. Excellent post, OIF.

[Misunderestimator]

42. Going to a movie vs. going to the middle east...

not a very good analogy... in any case, no one is arguing with you that those who murdered him are guilty of an atrocity... but that the Bush administration is responsible for fostering the rising hostility? No question. Period.

[outinforce]

49. Hostility

Is still no excuse for murder.

If you were to suggest that it is, then I could point out that the mere act of murdering Mr. Johnson in such a public way serves only to fostering rising hositility within the USA against Muslims or Arabs or people from the Middle East.

And if you wish to suggest that fostering rising hosility means that atrocious acts are somehow less than atrocious, then I'll just have to disagree.

[Misunderestimator]

52. WHO is EXCUSING murder?

Why do you want to argue and twist everything to your perspective of what you THINK people are saying? It's tiresome. :wtf:

[outinforce]

56. Who Was It Who Said

" but that the Bush administration is responsible for fostering the rising hostility? No question. Period."?

I think that would be you.

Of course, you may not have meant to say that responsibility for hostility means that there is then an excuse for the people who actually committed the murder, but that's how I took it.

[Misunderestimator]

58. And I will say it again, WITHOUT taking it out of context.

not a very good analogy... in any case, no one is arguing with you that those who murdered him are guilty of an atrocity... but that the Bush administration is responsible for fostering the rising hostility? No question. Period.


Do you see the bold part there.... did you even read it or are you just too enamoured with your own opinion?

[outinforce]

61. Let's Look at the Entire Statement

"no one is arguing with you that those who murdered him are guilty of an atrocity... but that the Bush administration is responsible for fostering the rising hostility?

An awfully big but there, if you ask me.

[Misunderestimator]

62. You can read that however you like...

And I agree that it IS a very big but. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is responsible for fostering the rising hostility!! Now I will leave you to argue with yourself. :hi:

[outinforce]

69. Just One More Question, Please.......

what does the Bush administration being responsible for fostering the rising hostitily have to do with the murder of Paul Johnson???

[Misunderestimator]

71. One more answer ...

It has everything to do with terrorists taking up arms and using any measures possible to strike back at our own brutality. And now I really am not going to respond to any more of your posts.

[outinforce]

78. Oh, Good!

I always do love it when someone tells me that s/he is not going to respond to any more of my posts.

It means I can say lots ot things (although always within the bounds of DU's rules on posting) without fear of being contradicted.

I asked: "what does the Bush administration being responsible for fostering the rising hostitily have to do with the murder of Paul Johnson???", and you said,

"It has everything to do with terrorists taking up arms and using any measures possible to strike back at our own brutality"

Which I take to mean that people are justified in taking up arms and using any measures -- including, presumably, the murder of non-combatants -- to strike back at brutality -- whenever someone "fosters rising hostility".

You know, I wasn't terribly hostile until I saw pictures of my countrymen jumping 110 stories to their deaths.

So, since people from the middle east fostered my rising hostility, can I go out and use any measure to strike back at that brutality?

I think you would say that I can.

But I'll guess I'll never really know.

And that makes me soooo sad.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. On a computer, your rationale is considered an endless loop

Which I take to mean that people are justified in taking up arms and using any measures -- including, presumably, the murder of non-combatants -- to strike back at brutality -- whenever someone "fosters rising hostility".

The fact that you conveniently TAKE it to mean that in order to bait people into a circular argument does NOT mean that that is what they are saying. The fact that we have now been waging a quite UNILATERAL war against muslims and making them a target for the actions of a few, means that ONE of the unintended consequences FOR US will be that our citizens will be TARGETS in nations where we have perpetrated this hostility...much the same way, Osama Bin Laden created unintended consequences towards innocent people when HE took HIS actions.

That's the problem with tyrants...they always seem to get it all over everyone but themselves. We have now killed at least ten times more non-combatants around the globe than that which we sustained on 9/11..of not more

You know, I wasn't terribly hostile until I saw pictures of my countrymen jumping 110 stories to their deaths.

If anything you just rebutted your own argument with that statement...that's the problem with circular reasoning...it's only valid inside the circle in which you are arguing.


So, since people from the middle east fostered my rising hostility, can I go out and use any measure to strike back at that brutality?

Uh..as an American whether you support this admin or not, you already have...so I think the question is quite moot...they did it with a machete...we just paid our taxes and whoomp there it was.

[Cleita]

12. Bush has been the catalyst for all of this.

I don't know why you always apologize for this mal-administration but I have my suspicions. If you have to vote for him, that is you right as a free American, but with all the evidence that has been piling up about the criminality of this gang, I don't know why anyone would vote for anyone of them anymore and still call themselves patriotic Americans.

[outinforce]

64. HOW DARE YOU???!!!!

How dare you even imply that I will vote for the thug in the White House???!!!!!

Simply because I suggest that the people who murdered Paul Johnson are the ones -- the ONLY ones -- that should be held responsible and guilty for his murder -- THAT makes you think that "I have to vote" for Bush????

Please.

Your post is absolutely beneath contempt.

[janx]

10. Coddling the Saudis. Yep.

Do you know what I just heard on the news? This administration KNOWS who the guy is--the one primarily responsible for this.

Knows his two names, where and when he was born, that he trained in Afghanistan, etc., etc.

And no action. NONE. The Saudis don't want it that way.

Excuse my language (I'm upset), but I'm beginning to think that every American in Saudiland should just fucking leave. Pick up and go. To heck with what happens to their economy.

[eridani]

101. Linky, linky?

We already know that Shrubbie coddles the Saudis. Let's have more documentation to nail his ass.

[never cry wolf]

11. Exactly!

How many acts of terrorism occurred in SA prior to Iraq? There is now a concerted effort.

As many predicted, this stirring of the hornets nest is not good for the surrounding ME nations, it has emboldened those who would rise up against tyrannical monarchs.

Is the Pandora's box that has been opened now unclosable? Could any policy change in a new administration now stop the beginings of this avalanche?

[kimchi]

13. True.

Hmmm...no beheadings before the invasion of Iraq. But of course, that is just coincidence to some.

[WilliamPitt]

15. Details, details

[agitpropagent9]

34. wrong

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/21/missing.reporter/

daniel pearl was murdered in early 2002, a full year before the invasion of iraq.

[supernova]

14. Very True

Our civilian casualty rate must be the highest since the Civil War. And even then I'm not so sure.

The whole thing sickens me. :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Agreed.

End of story. Except for the spin BushCorp will put on it to justify their empire building.

[Postman]

18. Yes and No.

Yes - in the way the Bush administration has recklessly shit on the Arabs in the Middle East

No - in that US foreign policy has changed only in "presentation"....admittedly, the Bush administration neo-cons are what Ray McGovern has termed "the crazies" and they have lived up to that moniker quite deservedly.

However, foreign policy has always been a "manifest destiny" of spreading capitalism wherever it isn't and roll back any perceived threat to it. In that manner the only thing different is that the mask has come off of US foreign policy to show its ugly face. Until the policy changes in the Middle East (i.e. unquestioned support of Israel coupled with the Palestinian land dispute) we will always be the enemy of extremist Arabs willing to kill perceived allies of a country that is oppressing their Arab brothers.

[grl2watch]

21. Mr Johnson was pawn in Saudi civil war

No one is calling the terrorist attacks in
Saudi Arabia a civil war, but that is essentially
what it is. The US is being used as a pawn by the
house of Saud, but, as we militarily intervened
in the Gulf region, we played into bin Laden's
hands and became his pawn as well. Any American
casualty must be viewed in this light.

Mr. Johnson was murdered so that his death would be
a propaganda tool for one faction of the war.

[supernova]

23. The days of the House of Saud

are numbered, methinks. They've kept the reigns held too tightly for too long. The reforms they have pushed through have been too little too late.

And by going into Iraq we've hurried along that process. Just watch that place go up in smoke in the next year or two.

[grl2watch]

29. As terrible as it sounds, I'm for the house of Saud

There was a wonderful piece on truthout.com called Iraq,1917,
about the Bristish 'liberation' of Iraq after WWI.

One of the points made by Gertrude Bell was that the handover of sovereignty could not work because there was no entity which could
assume that responsibility.

I am not an expert on Saudi Arabia, but I don't see any
other stabilizing influence other than the house of Saud.
Could we really countenance bin Laden supporters as the
legitimate state power?

BTW, I'm from Charlotte, now in exile.

[supernova]

67. Oh I don't know

I'm sure there are other people within the Kingdom who are quite capable. There are in every culture. Trouble is the Saud family haven't let any of them come up for air. They've treated any sort of dissent as a threat to their authority.

They are breading a generation of people who don't feel they have a proper outlet within the system to address grievances. By inserting ourselves into the middle east, we are in the middle of a struggle between the aggitators and those who want the status quo.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. But we will continue to cause trouble there if we stay.

[aquart]

22. Pretty sure he was a Republican, too.

Another vote gone, George.

[nini]

24. A lot of people would still be alive if it wasn't for the Admin.

soldiers,

Iraqi civilians,

World Trade Towers occupants.


Fucking bastards..

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:puke:

[proud patriot]

25. Bush is inept and this whole "Americans need to leave S.A."

Burns my britches .

He makes us look like fools and is not able to
understand strategy .

My heart goes out to the family and friends of Mr. Johnson.

bush must go , for the safety of Americans Everywhere.

[Q]

26. The natural evolution...

...of a president who behaves as if he is above the law. Violence begets violence. Revenge brings retribution. Unjust war breeds more terrorists. Unpunished torture brings beheadings.

- America needs to understand that the illegal 'shock and awe' invasion and occupation of Iraq started a whole new cycle of violence. It WON'T STOP until we get rid of Bush* and his gang of PNACers.

[mzmolly]

27. B B B B But were safer with Saddam gone!

:eyes:

I AGREE WITH YOU 100%!

[genius]

28. Agreed

[molly]

31. Absolutely!

are we going to see this on the news? :shrug:

[Jabbery]

33. You are correct, sir. Ding ding ding ding.

What'll he get Johnny?

[guajira]

38. B* Could Have Pursued 9-11 Perpetrators W/O "war" in Iraq

I've always believed 9-11 was a criminal act and needed an appropriate response. But pResident B* The Bully needed wars to show the world how mean and tough he is - and now the world is paying the price for his bull-shit dumbass decisions!!!!

Are we better off without Saddam?? Absolutely not, we had him contained and could have kept him that way until we found a way to get rid of him without killing 800+ Americans and thousands of Iraqis!!

But then B* couldn't show the world what a macho POS he is!!!!

[RummyTheDummy]

39. I'll go one step further Will

The fact the Bush family has treated Sauidi Arabia with kid gloves forever hasn't helped the problem much either. That kind of treatment has basically led to the Kingdom's lacksidasical efforts to combat extremist groups within their own borders. The Saudi's do nothing and we allow them to do nothing because they're cozy with BushCo. Lest we not forget 14 of the hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis.

[Walt Starr]

41. I agree 100%

No doubt about it, when it comes to the death of Paul Johnson, the buck stops at George Bush's desk.

[stevedeshazer]

46. It is precisely the Bush administration arrogance

that led to this.

Paul Johnson is/was just some guy trying to make money, just like most of the rest of us.

Because of the Bush doctrine of "pre-emption", a guy like this has his head lopped off.

I have a friend who grew up in Saudi Arabia in the 70s, and 80s, his dad worked for Aramco. He never had fear that anything bad would happen because he was an American. That sure as hell has changed.

These Bush bastards need to go. :grr:

[donhakman]

48. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a...

all my graphic illustrations are being deleted today - why bother

adios

[never cry wolf]

60. A pic like that is not advisable

on a public website. I bet the secret service may take an interest.

[Insider]

50. Bush Cabal lives by the sword

and other people die by it. a real shame.

"My answer is bring them on."--George W. Bush

[flpoljunkie]

65. Dubya, the "neoconned" president who lit the match in the Middle East...

Osama's unwitting accomplice.

What a legacy!

[John BigBootay]

66. Sophistry....

My great uncle, a casualty of WWII, would be alive were it not for the actions of the Roosevelt administration.

Nick Berg and Paul Johnson are victims of the terrorist gang Al Qaeda, not victims of the Bush administration. They knew the dangers when they went into the ME.

And SOME of us Dems side with Clinton and other Dem leaders and support this war against human monsters who behead their victims, fly planes into crowded buildings and blow up nightclubs.

My "enemies" are NOT AMERICANS!

Flame away... I am fireproof.

[outinforce]

74. You'll Get No Flames

from me.

[bpilgrim]

77. terrorism is up since this gang took over

they have plenty of responsibility for this mess. wether folks want to act like children and see only black and white fine, hope it makes you feel better but it wont make the facts on the ground any different.

we are supporting MIGHTY WAR MACHINES to keep MILLIONS in OPPRESSION and STEAL their resources.

we ignore that FACT at OUR peril.

peace

[John BigBootay]

82. When I vote for Kerry in November---

I fully EXPECT him to continue the war on terror much the way Bush has or Clinton or Gore would have.

And damn the oppression crap-- we're talking about OUR OWN LIVES and the lives of billions of others. I will never surrender or give relief to the Al Qaeda animals.

Period. End of Story.

[bpilgrim]

89. ignorance is bliss

enjoy

peace

[John BigBootay]

96. You don't think Kerry will fight terrorism?

I'll wager you that he'll escalate the fight BEYOND what Bush has done. He'll have less pressure from harpies like you and 99% of the folks here on DU, the press, Hollywood, Michael Moore and everyone else clamoring for his head on a stick--

And of course the republicans won't object to widening and escalating the war.

That equates to a blank check.

When you pull the lever for Kerry wishing to end the war-- be careful what you wish for.

[bpilgrim]

97. pfft...

yeah, he'll fight 'terrorism' whatever...

i wasn't talking about your ignorance of ker... oh, nevermind

peace

[saigon68]

103. "BRING EM ON" shouted the AWOL CHIMPANZEE

"Just wait til I fuck up Iran", he continued

[Hippo_Tron]

85. I support fighting terror, but not how Bush is doing it

Yes we do need to use military action to fight Al Quaeda, but that's only a first step. Ultimately we need to fight terror through humane means. If we can fight poverty, disease, and hunger in the middle east then the terrorists will have less influence over the people there. The more regimes we topple the more propaganda Al Quaeda can create and the more terrorists and suicide bombers they will recruit.

On the issue specifically, Paul Johnson did know the risks going into Saudi Arabia. However the fact that Paul Johnson was abducted by Al Quaeda, shows that there are still Al Quaeda groups around in Saudi Arabia and god knows where else in the middle east. But, the one thing we do know is that THEY WERE NOT IN IRAQ. We are fighting the war on terror in the wrong country and that is ENTIRELY Bush's fault. Now, I don't think that we should overthrow the Saudis or any other regime for that matter but I think that we should ACTUALLY get them to cooperate in fighting terror and not let them off the hook because they have oil and they are friends with the Bushes.

[John BigBootay]

93. I don't KNOW they were not in Iraq!

There is a lot of contradictory evidence in this matter and I cannot say for certain one way or the other.

But I trust ANY American administration more than I trust Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein-- yes, even the Bush administration.

What most people here are too hung up on is this: they hate Bush and crave the return to power more than they hate the terrorist monsters who want nothing less than the total destruction of the west.

I won't be a party to that kind of blind hatred for my fellow Americans.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. There is NO evidence that there were ties between Saddam and Al Quaeda

Even the lazy mainstream media is talking about this now. We invaded a country based on lies. And to play devil's advocate, people have a good reason to hate Bush with a passion. In many peoples' eyes he ordered the death of roughly 10,000 Iraqi cvillians and 1000 American troops and counting so that Halliburton could tap into Iraq's oil reserves. Not to mention the fact that this has inflamed tensions in the middle east. Invading Iraq has helped Al Quaeda create propaganda and recruit more terrorists and it did nothing to fight terror since we know that Al Quaeda was not in Iraq or connected to Saddam.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. I'd like to note that Paul Johnson was abducted by AL QUAIDA

And in Saudi Arabia, NOT in Iraq. Good job fighting the war on terror shrub... :puke:

[outinforce]

80. You're Not Suggesting, I Hope

that, in order to fight Al Queda, we should invade Saudi Arabia???

What actions do you think shrub should have taken to fight Al QUeda and to have actually prevented the death of Paul Johnson??

[Hippo_Tron]

88. Actually make them cooperate in fighting Al Quaeda

Remember that the Bushes are connected to the Saudi royal family, so Bush gives him a pass from the "axis of evil" despite the fact that they don't really help fight terrorists. Not to mention that invading Iraq for no legitimate reason and the Abu Greib issue helped Al Quaeda recruit more people and gain more influence.

[Nevernose]

81. So was Clinton responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing?

Bush didn't cut that poor man's head off, a bunch of religious whackos did. Their have always been some fundamentalist muslim zealots who hated us and want to see as many dead Westerners as possible (at least since the 1940's/50's); what Bush has done hasn't really added much to the Saudi mixture of oppresive politics and oppresive religion.

Your argument is a lot stronger when it comes to the thousands of dead in Turkey, Bali, NY City, and elsewhere due to terroristic acts than it is to Saudi Arabia (not to mention the terrorists and resistance fighters in Iraq).

[bpilgrim]

90. responsibility lies upon all of us to some degree

unless you prefer the CARTOON world view.

it is certainly POPULAR these days

peace

[catmandu57]

84. I used the anology of a chimpanzee with a hand grenade

before this fucking mess started. The monkey pulled the fucking pin and threw the grenade, not caring about the consenquences. It just sits and screeches as the shrapnel trakes it's toll. I'll go one step farther Will, If not for st. ronnie discontinuing Carters energy programs this man and many many more would still be alive.
The entire region is going to go to hell, it's a wonder it hasn't already, WWIII in the wings.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

86. yup. KICK

nt

[donhakman]

94. Reagan taught Iran

exactly how powerful they can be in manipulating US politics.
Fisrt with hostages, then with US weapons.

I do not buy into the eye for an eye teaching.

But for those who do, this one's for you...

[bigtree]

95. We don't yet know what was in the killers minds, beyond their rhetoric

using our aggressions and ambitions in the region as justification for their barbarism. I tend to accept as true one justification that they used: Their desire to effect the release of their comrades from prison. The rest may well be sophistry. At any rate, none of their reasoning rises to anything that would excuse the beheading of Mr. Johnson.

We have no way of knowing whether their rhetoric is contrived or genuine without any knowledge of who the individuals involved are. Could be that they are merely opportunists with an agenda far removed from the political posturing that they cover themselves with.

I choose to blame the killers, and I am unconvinced that they would be restrained from such murderous acts in the absense of our meddling and aggressions in the region. Many such acts against Americans in the region have occured in the past without a Bush to blame.

If a group of Americans similarily murdered a Japanese national here during WWII would we be justified in blaming Hirohito?

[THUNDER HANDS]

99. I'm not so much replying to your statement, as I am

marveling in amazement at how you can write four words and get over 100 replies.

I bow to you good sir.

:)