Aug 10 - One million Iraqis killed!

most viewed right now
 71
Birdman broke af - about to lose his mansion due to $12 Million Dollar Loan
137 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 65
Image(s) inside Went To The 4:44 Tour Last Night
56 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 58
yukmouth responded to gonzoe
22 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 24
Video inside Was there ever a bigger weed carrier than SliffStar
118 comments
@hiphop

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Is this genocide?

Props Slaps
 08-13-2007, 08:41 PM         #181
RealWorldSht 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 theoffsprg said:
What exactly is the point of copying and pasting the names of countries that America has supported? Foreign policy isn't always about supporting ideals that we are in agreement with. Only one of those you listed even extended into the 21st century. What do you want me to do? Take a time machine and change History? It's not like I am going to stop loving America.

You brought up dictatorships, saying people should have a right to freedom.

 theoffsprg said:
After all, everybody deserves a chance a freedom, or do you think Arab countries deserve dictatorships?

No U.S Foreign Policy is exactly about supporting ideals you agree with. Those being the preservation of U.S interests abroad, and extending the U.S's control.



The British and US governments gave three reasons for going to war with Iraq. The first was to extend the war on terrorism. The second was to destroy its weapons of mass destruction before they could be deployed. The third was to remove a brutal regime, which had tortured and murdered its people.


If the purpose of the war was to defeat terrorism, it has failed. Before the invasion, there was no demonstrable link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Today, al-Qaida appears to have moved into that country, to exploit a new range of accessible western targets. If the purpose of the war was to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before he deployed them, then, as no such weapons appear to have existed, it was a war without moral or strategic justification.


So just one excuse remains, and it is a powerful one. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. While there was no legal argument for forcibly deposing him on the grounds of his abuse of human rights, there was a moral argument. It is one which our prime minister made repeatedly and forcefully. "The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam," Tony Blair told the Labour party's spring conference in February. "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."


Had millions of British people not accepted this argument, Tony Blair might not be prime minister today. There were many, especially in the Labour party, who disagreed with his decision but who did not doubt the sincerity of his belief in the primacy of human rights.


There is just one test of this sincerity, and that is the consistency with which his concern for human rights guides his foreign policy. If he cares so much about the welfare of foreigners that he is prepared to go to war on their behalf, we should expect to see this concern reflected in all his relations with the governments of other countries. We should expect him, for example, to do all he can to help the people of Uzbekistan.


There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.


His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learned his politics in the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamist terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homos3xuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.


But Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western a.sset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been vying. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.


So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (£300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years".


There is little question that the power and longevity of Karimov's government has been enhanced by his special relationship with the United States. There is also little question that supporting him is a dangerous game. All the principal enemies of the US today were fostered by the US or its allies in the past: the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Wahhabi zealots in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein and his people in Iraq. Dictators do not have friends, only sources of power. They will shift their allegiances as their requirement for power demands. The US supported Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in order to undermine the Soviet Union, and created a monster. Now it is supporting a Soviet-era leader to undermine Islamist extremists, and building up another one.


So what of Tony Blair, the man who claims that human rights are so important that they justify going to war? Well, at the beginning of this year, he granted Uzbekistan an open licence to import whatever weapons from the United Kingdom Mr Karimov fancies. But his support goes far beyond that. The British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has repeatedly criticised Karimov's crushing of democracy movements and his use of torture to silence his opponents. Like Roger Casement, the foreign office envoy who exposed the atrocities in the Congo a century ago, Murray has been sending home dossiers which could scarcely fail to move anyone who cares about human rights.


Blair has been moved all right: moved to do everything he could to silence our ambassador. Mr Murray has been threatened with the sack, investigated for a series of plainly trumped-up charges and persecuted so relentlessly by his superiors that he had to spend some time, like many of Karimov's critics, in a psychiatric ward, though in this case for sound clinical reasons. This pressure, according to a senior government source, was partly "exercised on the orders of No 10".

In April, Blair told us that he had decided that "to leave Iraq in its brutalised state under Saddam was wrong". How much credibility does this statement now command, when the same man believes that to help Uzbekistan remain in its brutalised state is right?


Last edited by RealWorldSht; 08-13-2007 at 08:47 PM..
 08-13-2007, 08:43 PM         #182
exhilarate 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
To all the people that voted genocide, i'm curious if they understand what that word means.

It's not like were k!lling random civilians, yes there is innocent casualties but were restoring standard of living there.

The argument of us bein in Iraq, if we weren't there there'd always be some group of a**holes goin zomg!!1!!11 why aren't they in there wtf?

So no matter what no one is going to be happy, and personally I could care less how much iraqis die if it results in the cultivation of a better world to live in.
 08-13-2007, 09:22 PM         #183
theoffsprg 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 RealWorldSht said:
You brought up dictatorships, saying people should have a right to freedom.




No U.S Foreign Policy is exactly about supporting ideals you agree with. Those being the preservation of U.S interests abroad, and extending the U.S's control.



The British and US governments gave three reasons for going to war with Iraq. The first was to extend the war on terrorism. The second was to destroy its weapons of mass destruction before they could be deployed. The third was to remove a brutal regime, which had tortured and murdered its people.


If the purpose of the war was to defeat terrorism, it has failed. Before the invasion, there was no demonstrable link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Today, al-Qaida appears to have moved into that country, to exploit a new range of accessible western targets. If the purpose of the war was to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before he deployed them, then, as no such weapons appear to have existed, it was a war without moral or strategic justification.


So just one excuse remains, and it is a powerful one. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. While there was no legal argument for forcibly deposing him on the grounds of his abuse of human rights, there was a moral argument. It is one which our prime minister made repeatedly and forcefully. "The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam," Tony Blair told the Labour party's spring conference in February. "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."


Had millions of British people not accepted this argument, Tony Blair might not be prime minister today. There were many, especially in the Labour party, who disagreed with his decision but who did not doubt the sincerity of his belief in the primacy of human rights.
So, now you claim to know which ideals I agree with...Miss Cleo, is that you?!? Last time I checked Tony Blair isn't the prime minister today, did I miss something? This may not be a "demonstratable link" (according to you) between Al-Qaeda and Hussein, but it is again, courtesy of ABC, and the way back machine, circa 1999. I can cut and paste too, here are some of the reasons we went to war. Now I am no mathematics major, but I am pretty sure there are more than three reasons.
Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and r*pe. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to a.ssassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign a.ssistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to a.ssume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To a.ssume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.



Last edited by theoffsprg; 08-13-2007 at 09:27 PM..
 08-13-2007, 09:33 PM         #184
KingoBling 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
man the majority of americans think that they are the world, well guess what, the world thinks your fu*kin coward a.ss snitches, who cant even f!ght a fair war and are having people thousands of miles away firing rockets and sh*t that cost like millions of dollars to k!ll some kids and their families. and you guys are saying who cares as long as its not americans. you guys need to think about what it would be like to be sitting typing about how much you love america then BOOM! motherfu*kers go flying like 500 feet in the air cause some chinese and russian motherfu*kers are now bombing your a.sses, and now your moms are being fu*king r*peD and k!llED. you fu*king a**holes make me sick, and you guys are probably the ones fu*king hating on mike vick, but you kjnow who cares about some sand n*ggas right. idiots
 10 years ago '05        #185
Sheeed 1 heat pts
space
space
space
$12,028 | Props total: 12 12
damn stupid ppl outnumber intelligent people in the united states
 08-13-2007, 09:58 PM         #186
Domic462 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 TheseNutsBich said:
as long as they not americans, I dont give a fukk...
^^^ Reason why half the world hates the U.S.
 08-13-2007, 10:02 PM         #187
theoffsprg 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 KingoBling said:
man the majority of americans think that they are the world, well guess what, the world thinks your fu*kin coward a.ss snitches, who cant even f!ght a fair war and are having people thousands of miles away firing rockets and sh*t that cost like millions of dollars to k!ll some kids and their families. and you guys are saying who cares as long as its not americans. you guys need to think about what it would be like to be sitting typing about how much you love america then BOOM! motherfu*kers go flying like 500 feet in the air cause some chinese and russian motherfu*kers are now bombing your a.sses, and now your moms are being fu*king r*peD and k!llED. you fu*king a**holes make me sick, and you guys are probably the ones fu*king hating on mike vick, but you kjnow who cares about some sand n*ggas right. idiots
Hahahaha, we're supposed to f!ght fair wars now? Are we supposed to be like "Here you go Iraq, have some of our tanks, and bunker busters, so you can k!ll our troops!" This thread has been fun, but there is some adage about arguing on the internet, and I think we have reached that point. See you all in some other anti-American thread! Bye Haters!
 08-14-2007, 12:19 AM         #188
RealWorldSht 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 theoffsprg said:
So, now you claim to know which ideals I agree with...Miss Cleo, is that you?!?
This is what I said:

No U.S Foreign Policy is exactly about supporting ideals you agree with. Those being the preservation of U.S interests abroad, and extending the U.S's control.

*You = America, not you personally.


Last time I checked Tony Blair isn't the prime minister today, did I miss something?
Yes you did, he had reached the end of his term in June 2007. It is relatively current, I'm sure Uzbekistan hasn't had any revolutions in the last 8 weeks.


This may not be a "demonstratable link" (according to you) between Al-Qaeda and Hussein, it is again, courtesy of ABC, and the way back machine, circa 1999. I can cut and paste too, here are some of the reasons we went to war. Now I am no mathematics major, but I am pretty sure there are more than three reasons.
Well basically those are all reasons for the first gulf war.

The reasons listed for the second Iraq war can be pretty much summed up by WMD's. There was no mention of Al Qaeda.

Take this portion:

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

While it was true (that Sadam was sourcing material for Nuclear Weapons), it was true in the 80's, not the 2000's and miscontrued as a recent event to construct evidence of WMD's in Iraq.



Honestly I don't get what your points are? None of America's justifications are valid. Sadam posed a risk to the region?

Wtf, you staged the Gulf Of Tompkin incident to invade North Vietnam (illegally).

If any one country on this earth poses a major threat to anyone, its good ol' U.S.A.

It seems you can do whatever you want without accountability. You may think thats a good thing, but wait until China learns it from you and starts doing what it wants without consideration for the rest of the world.

I mean seriously, think of the ramifications for that.

China see's you starting wars for oil etc, and they start doing the same. Pretty soon the world becomes a plate of food being carved up by two super-powers. If theres a country with oil, one will say: "we better take it before they do", and so little countries fall like domino's, until theres just the two of you left.. then Big war.


Last edited by RealWorldSht; 08-14-2007 at 12:48 AM..
 10 years ago '04        #189
LitO 
space
avatar space
space
$4,036 | Props total: 355 355
 RealWorldSht said:
Yeah you really shouldn't sit round and cry. When the U.S is coming to shape your countries poltical system its probably time to leave.

Blowback's a bi*ch ain't it.
Just be happy we aint coming at Australia yet.
My unit just left Australia, on the 31st MEU.. and, umm YALL DONT WAN'T IT.

War Is War. Nothing else.
 10 years ago '05        #190
hbk83 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$4,037 | Props total: 1232 1232
I was gonna join up for the military out of high school, one of my teachers told me "with bush in office I guarantee we go to war, so expect it. and trust me that war is noone's war to f!ght" still bugs me out how right she was.
 10 years ago '04        #191
Method 
space
avatar space
space
$311 | Props total: 1 1
how is it genocide, its war, in war people die. Can't blame an American soldier for having a heavy finger when his friends are dying from fu*king suicide bombers...
 10 years ago '04        #192
LitO 
space
avatar space
space
$4,036 | Props total: 355 355
 Method said:
how is it genocide, its war, in war people die. Can't blame an American soldier for having a heavy finger when his friends are dying from fu*king suicide bombers...
:applause::applause::applause::applause:

This guy never lies.
 08-14-2007, 09:05 AM         #193
discourse 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
it's genocide because they lied going into the war. they said it was for weapons of mass destruction but of course there was no proof and none were ever found. i feel sorry for you if you are in the military and stuck in a foreign desert surrounded by people who hate you. you have been conned suckas!!!
 08-14-2007, 09:23 AM         #194
$h0wtym3 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 KingoBling said:
man the majority of americans think that they are the world, well guess what, the world thinks your fu*kin coward a.ss snitches
lol lol

Get off that weed homie, since when are you ambassador to the world?

Just becuz you think we are "fu*kin coward a.ss snitches" doesn't mean "the world" does too. Somebody needs to give you a hug.

 08-14-2007, 10:47 AM         #195
EncinoMan 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 KingoBling said:
man the majority of americans think that they are the world, well guess what, the world thinks your fu*kin coward a.ss snitches, who cant even f!ght a fair war and are having people thousands of miles away firing rockets and sh*t that cost like millions of dollars to k!ll some kids and their families.
I am fairly certain that most of the world doesn't view us as coward a.ss snitches... Maybe more along the lines on being somewhat of a bully nation, pushing around some other countries into trying to get them to believe what we do. And, umm, war ain't fair. War will never be fair. It has always and will always be a case of who has the best weapons and the biggest, baddest army.
 10 years ago '05        #196
Sheeed 1 heat pts
space
space
space
$12,028 | Props total: 12 12
 $h0wtym3 said:
lol lol

Get off that weed homie, since when are you ambassador to the world?

Just becuz you think we are "fu*kin coward a.ss snitches" doesn't mean "the world" does too. Somebody needs to give you a hug.

but they do....:rolleyes: that or a lot of them just dont like you
 08-14-2007, 11:43 AM         #197
dre4dollas 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
approx. 628 a day since march '03
 10 years ago '04        #198
x Tha Arkitek x 59 heat pts59
space
avatar space
space
$18,681 | Props total: 6826 6826
 Mr.Freeze said:
Well if it was just k!lling them for fun thats fu*ked up but if it was army VS army sh*t happens some of us die some of them die,it's war.
its not the Iraqi Army we're f!ghting, their Army is f!ghting along our side


 mt fuji said:
ain't no army vs army dude

iraq DON'T HAVE NO ARMY!!!
yes they do...like i just said, they f!ghting right next to th US Military

i have no comments for all of these ignorant comments in this thread, more than half of you are clueless :sick:
 08-14-2007, 12:15 PM         #199
BabyJoker 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
This is sad. Anyone that is proud of murder should be ashamed. Cot damn.
 08-14-2007, 01:29 PM         #200
RicFlair 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 discourse said:
it's genocide because they lied going into the war. they said it was for weapons of mass destruction but of course there was no proof and none were ever found. i feel sorry for you if you are in the military and stuck in a foreign desert surrounded by people who hate you. you have been conned suckas!!!


all that has nothing to do with the definition of genocide.


now if we were there to k!ll every and all iraqis then that would be genocide. but we are simply not deliberatly k!lling all iraqis. if that were the case we wouldnt be propping up a puppet govt and training their military. yes too many people have died. yes waaay too many civilians have died, no we should not have gone to war. but that isnt genocide.
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 73
NBA Bron and the Cavs been on they sh-t since ...
31 comments
18 hours ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 64
Image(s) inside trust a big butt and smile
41 comments
19 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 61
Video inside ‘Saturday Night Live’ and Kevin Hart Deliver One Disappointing Christma..
39 comments
22 hours ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 53
Teanna Trump got a son now? :deadpg:
86 comments
18 hours ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 51
Video inside So Maliah blessed us this morning
76 comments
21 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 37
Damn!! Is all I can say
89 comments
21 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 35
Image(s) inside Eaton this booty for Breakfast, Lunch, & Dinner
65 comments
19 hours ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 34
Image(s) inside Peewee Longway chain supposedly snatched in Macon, Georgia
121 comments
18 hours ago
@hiphop
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy