Although this topic is a little obvious, what does everyone think of the proposed war on Iraq by that Bush Monkey?

Dumb. Outrageous. Bush has a hidden agenda, and everyone should protest against the war.

All the college-commies should be airdropped into Bahgdad.

This is my view on the War on Iraq

We should hire Scythian mercenaries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
This is my view on the War on Iraq

---

This is what I would call Zen politics! FoxL

quote:

---

Originally posted by UbiloZ:
Dumb. Outrageous. Bush has a hidden agenda, and everyone should protest against the war.

---

Goddamn right!!!!
This is a war against oil prices, not terror.
This war must be stopped NOW!!

My views on general US policy

What's wrong with fighting a war over oil prices?

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
What's wrong with fighting a war over oil prices?

---

Because its pretty pointless, and if we just bomb them they would have to raise oil prices even higher so they can afford military things and bombs to fight the USA. If we bomb them they would just be losing money and they would just raise the price of the oil so they could get more money for their war.

I don't think this war is over oil though because no one would be crazy enough to bomb a place for oil(but you never know with bush, lol) Anyways, i think its because bush is just intemidated by Saadam and he is just trying to finish what his dad started, what clinton continued, and that bush wants to end. I feel its pointless to go into war because they could easily send something over here and hurt the USA really badly. I feel we should just wait and see what Sadaam has to say about the USA, it might not help but it might help also. But if we just go off and bomb them then it would mean war against Iraq, and thats some serious stuff Iraq is not a weak country and they have weapons that could do alot of damage in the USA.

Iraq and its neighbours have the largest amount of oil in the world. If Saddam, for example, decides to "help" the Palestinians by military force, things would go from bad to worse in the middle east.

ONE of many effects would be a shortage of oil. Something that affects the western world in general and USA in particular.

In the early 1970ies there was an oil-crisis because the arabic members of OPEC decided it was time for them to get some money for their oil. The production was slowed down and the result was a shortage for oil, gasoline etc, all over the western world. This had a significant effect on the economy, and therefore on peoples lifes in general (apart from such things that they all of a sudden couldn�t use their cars or heat their houses as they wanted). It also lasted long enough for the effects to seep down all the way to the third world.

Something similar, but much worse, would be the effect if Saddam does something crazy, wich he�s likely to.

To try to avoid this could perhaps be called to go to war because of the oil. But is that necessarily a bad thing, considering the above?!

Still, I don�t believe it�s the main reason behind Bush�s plans for war against Iraq...

Sero venientibus ossa! FoxLeonard


[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-21-2002).]

If we did not kick out the palestinians, no one would have a problem. Even if we gave a better-than-just compensation to palestinian people placed in camps, there would not be a problem.
Fuck Iraq, we have NO reason to attack them. NONE

www.nion.us

And so I don't get barraged for only posting a link, I'm completely opposed to this war.

Look, it is always the leftist anti-war people with no goddamn facts. They all rely on emotions and assumptions. I learned real facts not Green Party propaganda. Green Party propaganda is all that you people spout whether you realize it or not.

Is there anyone who agrees that we should take out Saddam?

Here it is again. I will continue to state the facts until you take this crap to the Bitch and Moan section were it belongs.


Since you can't find it on your own here is why we are attacking Iraq:

In the 80's Saddam fought a war with Iran and the U.S. backed him. There is actually footage of Don Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam. We were playing him for a fool to suit our needs with Iran. However, Saddam went too far when the war ended. He used chemical weapons on the already defeated enemy and on the Kurds in the north who opposed him. Many people died slow and painful deaths.

Saddam invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War. Our original objective was to drive him out of Kuwait.

At the end of the war, the U.N. gave him tons of regulations to follow if he wanted to stay in power. Weapons inspections were part of the deal. So the U.N. inspectors came and they found a wherehouse with chemical weapons as well as anthrax and botulism(sp.). They blew up the factory and Saddam thought it was all over.

From then on, it was basically cat-and-mouse. The U.N. regulations protected certain areas such as "presidential palaces" and gave him room to fuck around. The inspectors came to certain suspected buildings and they would stall as trucks moved the contraband out the back. There are aerial photos of this happening. Also, Saddam stole the food that we gave to his people under the Food for Oil program and sold it to other countries. It was all a game until 1998 when Hussein kicked out inspectors.

In 1998, Bill Clinton implied that Saddam should be unseated, but he failed to act. US and British planes have been shot at nearly everyday since then while patrolling the no-fly-zones and they return fire. Clinton did not have the balls to show leadership in face of anti-war idiots.

God only knows what Saddam has been up to since 1998. But we all know is that when he gets his hands on a nuke, he will use it. We already know he has chemical weapons, which are extremly brutal and he has already used them.

As far as any reasonable person is concerned, the U.N. has no real authority. It is a feel-good puppet coalition. It contradicts everything it has ever said regarding Saddam.

Now Bush is in power and he wants to take care of the problem. Bush shows leadership in the face of uninformed protestors on the Iraq issue.

If Bush backs down and pulls a Clinton, then we are all screwed. He will be giving in to the crazy leftists and idiot forgeiners.

Oh, and off the subject he burned those Kuwaiti oil fields, so don't try to say the US is sooo bad on air pollution and then turn around and kiss Saddam's ass. People I know can't drive perfectly good cars because of strict air pollution inspections, while smaller countries drive piece of shit black-smoke-a-thons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Look, it is always the leftist anti-war people with no goddamn facts. They all rely on emotions and assumptions. I learned real facts not Green Party propaganda. Green Party propaganda is all that you people spout whether you realize it or not.

Is there anyone who agrees that we should take out Saddam?

Here it is again. I will continue to state the facts until you take this crap to the Bitch and Moan section were it belongs.


Since you can't find it on your own here is why we are attacking Iraq:

In the 80's Saddam fought a war with Iran and the U.S. backed him. There is actually footage of Don Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam. We were playing him for a fool to suit our needs with Iran. However, Saddam went too far when the war ended. He used chemical weapons on the already defeated enemy and on the Kurds in the north who opposed him. Many people died slow and painful deaths.

Saddam invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War. Our original objective was to drive him out of Kuwait.

At the end of the war, the U.N. gave him tons of regulations to follow if he wanted to stay in power. Weapons inspections were part of the deal. So the U.N. inspectors came and they found a wherehouse with chemical weapons as well as anthrax and botulism(sp.). They blew up the factory and Saddam thought it was all over.

From then on, it was basically cat-and-mouse. The U.N. regulations protected certain areas such as "presidential palaces" and gave him room to fuck around. The inspectors came to certain suspected buildings and they would stall as trucks moved the contraband out the back. There are aerial photos of this happening. Also, Saddam stole the food that we gave to his people under the Food for Oil program and sold it to other countries. It was all a game until 1998 when Hussein kicked out inspectors.

In 1998, Bill Clinton implied that Saddam should be unseated, but he failed to act. US and British planes have been shot at nearly everyday since then while patrolling the no-fly-zones and they return fire. Clinton did not have the balls to show leadership in face of anti-war idiots.

God only knows what Saddam has been up to since 1998. But we all know is that when he gets his hands on a nuke, he will use it. We already know he has chemical weapons, which are extremly brutal and he has already used them.

As far as any reasonable person is concerned, the U.N. has no real authority. It is a feel-good puppet coalition. It contradicts everything it has ever said regarding Saddam.

Now Bush is in power and he wants to take care of the problem. Bush shows leadership in the face of uninformed protestors on the Iraq issue.

If Bush backs down and pulls a Clinton, then we are all screwed. He will be giving in to the crazy leftists and idiot forgeiners.

Oh, and off the subject he burned those Kuwaiti oil fields, so don't try to say the US is sooo bad on air pollution and then turn around and kiss Saddam's ass. People I know can't drive perfectly good cars because of strict air pollution inspections, while smaller countries drive piece of shit black-smoke-a-thons.

---

First off all mister dumass, we all know this crap.
Whether or not Hussein is an asshole, that alone is NOT a reason to attack the country!
Bush says Iraq has links to terror, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THAT!!! If there were, then europe would be behind us.
Second and finally mister horseraper, if there were a ground war, not only would american lives be lost, but many otherwise innocent Iraqis would be slaughtered simply because they are patriots.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHOs "FACTS" ARE WRONG!!!!

I could be wrong
-Homer

buttthrax!

I�m totally for taking out Saddam!

I just wonder if a military attack on Iraq is the only option.

As you might have noticed I�ve done my best to try to tell approximately the same story as you have told. And I haven�t recieved any comments on it whatsoever, strangely enough...

Wiecny kwiat wtadza! FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
Whether or not Hussein is an asshole, that alone is NOT a reason to attack the country!

---

I agree, and in their viewpoint, and mine and alot of other people Bush seems to be a pretty big asshole to me, considering he could just go along and kill innocent people because of something he assumes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
First off all mister dumass, we all know this crap.
Whether or not Hussein is an asshole, that alone is NOT a reason to attack the country!
Bush says Iraq has links to terror, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THAT!!! If there were, then europe would be behind us.
Second and finally mister horseraper, if there were a ground war, not only would american lives be lost, but many otherwise innocent Iraqis would be slaughtered simply because they are patriots.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHOs "FACTS" ARE WRONG!!!!

I could be wrong
-Homer

---

Dude, when the fuck did I say "Saddam is an asshole"? I said he is a madman who will not hesitate to nuke his neighbors. I NEVER said anything about a link to terror other than Saddam's.

And look, in the Gulf War there weren't that many Iraqis being killed because they surrendered willingly. We captured bout 50,000 who weren't loyal to Saddam. They are not fanatics like the Taliban who are willing to be "martyrs".

I dont think it will be the slaughter picture that you paint. That is Green Party propaganda whether you realize it or not. If it is the slaughter picture, it will be Saddam's will not ours.

And for American lives, back in the Gulf War, we had very few casaulties, especially in comparision to Vietnam and other blood-baths. We lost some brave men and women when Saddam's bitch ass flew a scud into one of our bases while they slept.

Now, I am comparing this to the Gulf War, and there are no guarantees. But I am not working at the Pentagon at the moment, so I can't really say how this is going to go down.

If you think its not going to happen, you are fooling yourself. No more of Saddam's international mischief and menacing.

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-22-2002).]

VIVA LA COMMUNISM!

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
First off all mister dumass, we all know this crap.
Whether or not Hussein is an asshole, that alone is NOT a reason to attack the country!
Bush says Iraq has links to terror, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THAT!!! If there were, then europe would be behind us.
Second and finally mister horseraper, if there were a ground war, not only would american lives be lost, but many otherwise innocent Iraqis would be slaughtered simply because they are patriots.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHOs "FACTS" ARE WRONG!!!!

I could be wrong
-Homer

---

Saddam is not "an asshole", and that�s not the reason Bush wants to get rid of him!

If you had bothered reading the post you qouted in extensio, you would have realized that he is a real threat on the Middle East.

Thereby he�s also threatening the oil, not to forget that he already controls a vast amount of it. By threatening the oil he threatens world economy, etc etc.

There�s most likely evidence enough that Saddam has connections to terrorists. But that kind of evidence is not excactly something CIA et al would make public, for obvius reasons.

The European Union IS behind USA, also on using military force, IF NEEDED! They want to try all other options first.

One of their reasons is what you refer to, that there would be a lot of blood-shed.
Another reason is that a war in the already unstable Middle East, could easily go out of control, and become the kind of catastrophy Saddam is likely to create on his own, one day or another.

As USA once supplied Iraq with all kinds of weapons and military technology, I can understand that Bush is a little sceptical about the weapon inspectors. The didn�t find anything of significance all through the 1990ies. Still, USA knows for a fact it�s there!

Do you want to change the world?! Start with the world inside your head!

Ewige Bluemnkraft! FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Saddam is not "an asshole", and that�s not the reason Bush wants to get rid of him!

Ewige Bluemnkraft! FoxLeonard

---

I realize that it's in quotes, but let me clarify so we don't send the wrong message:

Saddam IS an AssHole!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_russian_bastard:
VIVA LA COMMUNISM!

---

Figures. Coming from a russian-canadian, that's twice the socialist.

Personally, i'm all for war, not like some off you faggots.

But i will state here that major military action isn't always the way to go. Sometimes the most effective means are non-contact.

I mainly don't want to see an all out war that ends up with more peacekeepers in the country.

For one thing when I said "an asshole" I was paraphrasing.
For another, we cannot say "because saddam is a threat on the middle east we have reason to oust him." When he attacks someone, then we have legal course to kick his ass, but until he does something wrong we don't! If the other bush fucker had taken him out when he had the legal chance, then we would not be in this connundrum!
The simple fact is that the one bush made a collosal mistake, and his kid wants to fix it.
That is great and all, but this is really an inopportune time to do so.

How can somebody be opposed to a war on Iraq. Look at the facts.
1: Iraq is not and has not allowed U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq since 1998, and even when there were inspectors they did not have complete unfettered access to all of Iraq. Military force should be used to enforce this U.N. resolution.
2. Saddam CONSTANTLY fires at U.S. and coalition aircraft. This is a direct assault on the U.S. military and we should have the right to go in there and defend ourselves.
3. Saddam has killed over 50,000 Kurds. Because of this, all peace-loving Kurds must live in fear today because of this tyrant. Need I send a gassed Kurdish baby to your home to convince you that we must dispose of Saddam?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsaxton14:
How can somebody be opposed to a war on Iraq. Look at the facts.
1: Iraq is not and has not allowed U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq since 1998, and even when there were inspectors they did not have complete unfettered access to all of Iraq. Military force should be used to enforce this U.N. resolution.
2. Saddam CONSTANTLY fires at U.S. and coalition aircraft. This is a direct assault on the U.S. military and we should have the right to go in there and defend ourselves.
3. Saddam has killed over 50,000 Kurds. Because of this, all peace-loving Kurds must live in fear today because of this tyrant. Need I send a gassed Kurdish baby to your home to convince you that we must dispose of Saddam?

---

WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR YEARS DONKEYFUCKER
The simple fact is that currently, the US has no impetus to attack Iraq more than to protect our own oil interests!!!!

Homer

If you had bothered to read buttthrax and my posts on the subject (here and in similar threads), you would know by now that we both say that Saddam is a threat, not only to the Middle East (wich is bad enough in itself), but to the whole world.

There is reason to believe that Bush Sr�s earlier collaboration with Saddam had implications on why he didn�t (try to) take out Saddam at the end of the Gulf War.

Another reason could have been what we have seen an example of recently, in Afghanistan. Namely that it�s not an easy task to take out one particular guy as a part of a big military operation. Bin Laden might have been killed in Bora Bora, or elsewhere, but nobody knows for sure, and he continues to be a threat. Saddams resources for going into hiding are even better than Bin Laden�s, and were so ten years ago as well.

This is one reason why I�m far from sure that a full scale war on Iraq is the solution. But I am convinced that Saddam has to be dealt with, one way or the other.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:

The simple fact is that currently, the US has no impetus to attack Iraq more than to protect our own oil interests!!!!

---

Interests that happens to "coincide" with the rest of the worlds need for oil!

Sero Venientibus ossa!

FoxLeonard

Read the post before quoting it Homer, I cannot stress the importance of doing this. If you don't do this it makes you look like the idiot you are. I can't believe that you are sick enough to play politics while Saddam is plotting your doom and terrorizing the Kurds (yes, his treatment of the Kurds is definitely TERRORISM). This is not about oil interests!!! Read my post Homer, I don't want to be redundant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
Homer

If you had bothered to read buttthrax and my posts on the subject (here and in similar threads), you would know by now that we both say that Saddam is a threat, not only to the Middle East (wich is bad enough in itself), but to the whole world.

There is reason to believe that Bush Sr�s earlier collaboration with Saddam had implications on why he didn�t (try to) take out Saddam at the end of the Gulf War.

Another reason could have been what we have seen an example of recently, in Afghanistan. Namely that it�s not an easy task to take out one particular guy as a part of a big military operation. Bin Laden might have been killed in Bora Bora, or elsewhere, but nobody knows for sure, and he continues to be a threat. Saddams resources for going into hiding are even better than Bin Laden�s, and were so ten years ago as well.

This is one reason why I�m far from sure that a full scale war on Iraq is the solution. But I am convinced that Saddam has to be dealt with, one way or the other.

FoxLeonard

---

Iraq's direct link to terrorism?
Speculation.
I agree that Saddam needs to die, I agree that he needs to be attacked at some point, but we need some FUCKING REASON!!!
Wait until Saddam does not allow weapons inspectors into his private sauna, then send the inspectors in with marines, if he fights the marines, turn his pallaces into parking lots and set up a puppet government.
JUST DON'T FUCKING DO IT NOW!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsaxton14:
Read the post before quoting it Homer, I cannot stress the importance of doing this. If you don't do this it makes you look like the idiot you are. I can't believe that you are sick enough to play politics while Saddam is plotting your doom and terrorizing the Kurds (yes, his treatment of the Kurds is definitely TERRORISM). This is not about oil interests!!! Read my post Homer, I don't want to be redundant.

---

Like I have alluded to in other posts, I don't favor letting that fucker go free, I just think we need to wait for some hard evidence on a RECENT move by Saddam that would be grounds, under international laws, to oust his ass.

Saddam is still firing at coalition aircraft. Saddam is still terrorizing the Kurds. U.N. inspectors still aren't in Iraq. To satisfy leftists like you I might send a U.N. inspector into his presidential palace, and if he touched that inspector I would turn Iraq into a parking lot, and put a puppet government into power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsaxton14:
Saddam is still firing at coalition aircraft. Saddam is still terrorizing the Kurds. U.N. inspectors still aren't in Iraq. To satisfy leftists like you I might send a U.N. inspector into his presidential palace, and if he touched that inspector I would turn Iraq into a parking lot, and put a puppet government into power.

---

That is what I just said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:

I agree that Saddam needs to die, I agree that he needs to be attacked at some point, but we need some FUCKING REASON!!!

JUST DON'T FUCKING DO IT NOW!

---

Homer, are you arguing for the sake of argument?!

If not:

How come you can "agree that Saddam needs to die" and still say "we need...REASON!"

As we have plenty of reason:

WHEN would be a convenient time to deal with Saddam?!

AFTER he has decided to "help" the Palestinians and put half of the middle east on fire?!

If you want to change the world, start with the world inside your head!

Sero venientibus ossa! FoxLeonard

***Saddam is still firing at coalition aircraft.***

Well, yeah any country would do the same thing. If the Cuban planes fly over Florida, they would be blasted too. If Paki planes fly over India, they would be blasted. (Country, border, flyzone Protection).

***Saddam is still terrorizing the Kurds.***

The Kurds have better living standard then the Iraqis, they are funded by the US (and others). They have shopping market, cellphones, etc.

***U.N. inspectors still aren't in Iraq.***

U.N. = BadNews

***To satisfy leftists like you I might send a U.N. inspector into his presidential palace, and if he touched that inspector I would turn Iraq into a parking lot,***

Weren't you just complaining about the Kurds dying and now you want to turn the country (population. 23milion) into a parking lot.

***and put a puppet government into power.***

Please make up you mind and good luck in you adventure.

Nox, actually the US embassy gave Saddam the green light to attack kuwait before the gulf war, and when the US ambassador at that time went back to the USA she was assasinated (do i smell CIA here?).

If you are an American citizen and you wish to voice your opposal to the upcoming war you may register at this site:
http://www.moveon.org

Do it with your eyes open, however.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
Nox, actually the US embassy gave Saddam the green light to attack kuwait before the gulf war

---

I've read that before. However, the way I've read that is that Saddam misinterpreted what was said by give some words the meaning he wanted them to have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue-Rock:
when the US ambassador at that time went back to the USA she was assasinated (do i smell CIA here?).

---

Educate me on this please.

Nox

April Glaspie met with Saddam in the summer of 1990, and told him:

"...we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

(...)We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Arab league Secretary General Chadli] Klibi or via [Egyptian] President [Hosni] Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions."

To which Saddam responded in a letter that Iraq wanted no confrontation with the US and the 100,000 troops massed on the border with Kuwait were not intended to be used in an invasion.

Less than a week later, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in support of, according to Saddam, an uprizing against that country's government. Utter hogwash, as his objectives were plainly to repatriate Kuwait and its oil as part of Iraq.

You should also know that on the same day as Glespie's meeting with Hussein, according to Mubarak after several days of discussion, Iraqi officials had agreed to meet Kuwaiti officials in Jeddah to sort their differences. Hussein also told him Iraq had no intention of invading Kuwait.

So, Glespie (who is alive as far as I know) made it "clear" that the US considered Arab-Arab conflicts none of its business as long as Iraq acted within the mandate of the Arab League and in coordination with other Arab countries.

Which clearly did not happen. Hence, Saddam, by going against his word and betraying both the US and other Arab countries, exposed himself to international retribution and acted very much in character as a gambler.

whether or not we gave saddam a green light we did pursue an offensive war after kuwait was liberated, our stated aim.

According to George Bush in a speech given on August 8 1990, the "four simple principles" of American involvement in a war were Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, restoration of Kuwait's government, stability in the Gulf, and protection of Americans in the region.

August 17: Iraqi parliament speaker Saadi Mahdi Saleh declared Iraqi intentions to detain and move Westerners, including Americans, to key military targets in Iraq as human shields. The moves began on the 20th.

January 20, 1991: after the air campaign begins, Iraq released videotapes of American POWs and declared that they would be placed at strategic sites (coalition targets) as hostages.

A strategic decision was made to invade Iraq to cripple the Iraqi military and force unconditional surrender and withdrawal. To quote General Colin Powell, "We're going to cut this army off, and then we're going to kill it." This invasion happened before Iraq left Kuwait, therefore was offensive in that it reached the Euphrates river and closed off Iraqi retreat avenues.

On March 2 a cease fire was agreed to on condition that until all its requirements were met US troops would remain in Iraq. After all coalition POWs were returned and Iraq declared its annexation of Kuwait null and void, the US withdrew from Iraqi soil, having fulfilled the four principles.

The stated aims of the US were achieved through sound military strategy and it is ludicrous to say that the military pursued an "offensive war" after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait.

[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 12-07-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by UbiloZ:
Dumb. Outrageous. Bush has a hidden agenda, and everyone should protest against the war.

---

well thats my opinion right there.

America must be the most retarded country in the world. It learns NO LESSONS.
Name me one thing good that the USA has done? Can't, can you? We (the English) didn't lose America - we threw it away. It's crap.

Yes, Saddam is a c*nt, but who are the finest purveyors of torture? The good old US of fucking A. Innocent till proven guilty? You lying bunch of inbred wankers. How would you like to be strapped to a wheelbarrow for six months (you can't even IMAGINE the distress, you cunts. Guilty or not.) SS? They were the Greenpeace of their day. You fucking evil scum. And before you ask, I'm white, English, and 80% of my city have "no war in my name* in their windows.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
[B]Iraq and its neighbours have the largest amount of oil in the world. If Saddam, for example, decides to "help" the Palestinians by military force, things would go from bad to worse in the middle east.

first u assume he even gives a flying shit about the palestinians, second so things go bad to worse, israel is still a possibly nuclear armed nation that gets bigger and bigger paychecks as time passes from the US, not to mention the latest additions to the arsenal.plus i don't think things can get worse however if they do how the fuck does it matter to us here in the US, unless that is we step in this shit.
"ONE of many effects would be a shortage of oil. Something that affects the western world in general and USA in particular."

most of US oil comes from Latin America. as for the rest of the western world. umm.. they are against this war, for the most part, except for dogboy blair.

"In the early 1970ies there was an oil-crisis because the arabic members of OPEC decided it was time for them to get some money for their oil. The production was slowed down and the result was a shortage for oil, gasoline etc, all over the western world. This had a significant effect on the economy, and therefore on peoples lifes in general (apart from such things that they all of a sudden couldn�t use their cars or heat their houses as they wanted). It also lasted long enough for the effects to seep down all the way to the third world."

yea this bull shit i will disect later

"Something similar, but much worse, would be the effect if Saddam does something crazy, wich he�s likely to."

yea based upon what is he likely to?! and wat is this crazy thing he's "likely" to do.
maybe now he's freaking likely too, b/c busch keeps telling him we r at war,

"To try to avoid this could perhaps be called to go to war because of the oil. But is that necessarily a bad thing, considering the above?!"

yea its a bad thing, its his natural resource even though he is a reject, the ppl there r fighting a hard battle to oust the guy bombing them is niether helpful to them nor us, not to mention they are inncoent!-

"Still, I don�t believe it�s the main reason behind Bush�s plans for war against Iraq..."

nope it fucking isn't, the big reason would be to defend Israel, b/c thats thats the biggest looming threat - he occasionally bombs Israel, to gain favor at home.
not to mention the next target - Iran a bigger threat to Israel, and then potentially Syria, yup our boys,
pre-dominately the poor working class, and minorities will be fighting a war to defend Israel, cuz the paychecks we keep sending them are obviously not enough.






[This message has been edited by farwah (edited 12-08-2002).]

Sorry, did I forget? I don't fucking like you! You are scum. You allow the Israelis to kill children. ( You don't see the photos in the US, but we do in Europe). You are the scum above my plug. If I could kill you all (not regular ignorant thick Americans, but proper in control (!) psychopaths, I would. FIGHT THAT IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. AMERICA MURDERS PEOPLE DAILY. FACT. By killing the American government, I would prevent a greater evil. By European law, I would walk. Fuck the US. When did they last have an Iraqi weapons inspector in? Piss off, the lot of you. (Don't know where to, though, you're in someone else's country anyway. (Yes, you're right, most of the modern white world hate you as much as the Arab world. Good luck assholes. You'll fucking need it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Look, it is always the leftist anti-war people with no goddamn facts. They all rely on emotions and assumptions. I learned real facts not Green Party propaganda. Green Party propaganda is all that you people spout whether you realize it or not.

Is there anyone who agrees that we should take out Saddam?

---

alright i agreee with u, your facts make sense, Sadam must be taken out- but i still oppose war, i don't htink u need to carpet bomb the nation, and set up a cute little puppet government, b/c thats just gonna piss the iraqi's off, and i am sure they will find another Sadam.
the guy is an ass hole, lots of Iraqi's hate him enough. look at the amount of refugees leaving that country. supporting a war makes him stronger, b/c he becomes thier champion who keeps them from death- yes he is a fucking monster - lets oust the basterd.
but thier are better ways, for one supporting his opposition, or an ICC, that can throw him in prison.
he doesn't sleep in one place for more then one night, and no one knows where he is better then the iraqi's , the kurds can be pretty down right nasty too, support the kurds, win the iraqi ppl's appreciation do the right thing, allow them to figure out thier own governemnt instead of one that will 4ever after be looked upon as a Us puppet gov't defending US interests.

secondly, i am a bit confused, r u suggesting that this war is for purely benevolent purposes, in other words - the only reason the US is in Iraq, is to safe guard the middle eastern people - the kurds, the Irani's, the kuwaiti's, other Iraqi's etc?

wat u call green party propoganda is far more factual then u give it credit,
lives- iraqi lives, innocent lives will be lost, even if not at the hand of Americans most likley i think as human shields.
war - this war is not the solution- it doesn't eradicate the fact that in the future iraq - not under Sadam- will not attack Kuwait, that the next leader will be less of a terrorist and not wish to create weapons to defend his dictatorship.
the only thing that could make that happen is if the Iraqi and kurdish ppl, want that and have the power to defend themselves and detrmine thier own future, niether of which this war does, on the contrary it takes both of those liberties away from them.

Now Trojan, tell us how you really feel.

Nox

Okay, then. No, only joking! OIL OIL FUCKING OIL. That's all it is. As for Israel = remember Hitler's Germany. That's you in the 21st century. Anyway, Happy Christmas.

quote:

---

Name me one thing good that the USA has done? Can't, can you? We (the English) didn't lose America - we threw it away. It's crap

---

We prevented you from having the discomfort of having to learn German. I know you will deny this, but you have allready demonstrated an atrocious knowledge of history. "Threw away," hahahaha.

quote:

---

How would you like to be strapped to a wheelbarrow for six months

---

Don't bend over when you speak, it prevents you from making sense.

quote:

---

And before you ask, I'm white, English, and 80% of my city have "no war in my name* in their windows.

---

I could care less about what the mob thinks. Right and wrong are not determined by the popular sentiment of the masses. An idea is not strong just because it is popular, remember that.

quote:

---

first u assume he even gives a flying shit about the palestinians

---

He doesn't, but they are useful idiots and tools in the right hands.

quote:

---

yea based upon what is he likely to?! and wat is this crazy thing he's "likely" to do.
maybe now he's freaking likely too, b/c busch keeps telling him we r at war,

---

He supports terrorism, he hates the US, don't have much of an immagination do you?

quote:

---

yea its a bad thing, its his natural resource even though he is a reject, the ppl there r fighting a hard battle to oust the guy bombing them is niether helpful to them nor us, not to mention they are inncoent!-

---

Someone made a carpet bombing commment earlier and I will adress that one and this now: you have no concept of how modern war is fought. We don't need to level cities, we can target building and cripple his ability to fight that way.

quote:

---

Sorry, did I forget? I don't fucking like you! You are scum. You allow the Israelis to kill children. ( You don't see the photos in the US, but we do in Europe). You are the scum above my plug. If I could kill you all (not regular ignorant thick Americans, but proper in control (!) psychopaths, I would. FIGHT THAT IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. AMERICA MURDERS PEOPLE DAILY. FACT. By killing the American government, I would prevent a greater evil. By European law, I would walk. Fuck the US. When did they last have an Iraqi weapons inspector in? Piss off, the lot of you. (Don't know where to, though, you're in someone else's country anyway. (Yes, you're right, most of the modern white world hate you as much as the Arab world. Good luck assholes. You'll fucking need it.

---

For someone who has his head up his ass, I must admit that I expected more mumbling and less shouting. Allow the Israeli's to kill children? You are without a doubt one of the most retarded individuals on this forum. When Palestinian innocnets die, it is collateral dammage that results from the terrorists hidding ammong the civilians. The Palestinians target Israeli civillians and as such, the terrorist and those that harbor them should be given no mercy. You say you would not kill the average dummy amercian and only go after the leadership, yet you condone the Palestinians indiscriminate targeting of women and children. Go eat a dick.

quote:

---

When did they last have an Iraqi weapons inspector in? Piss off, the lot of you

---

Saddam through us out and he stopped the inspectors. Once again, you are stupid.

quote:

---

but thier are better ways, for one supporting his opposition, or an ICC, that can throw him in prison.

---

Either of your options still involves removing him by force. The opposition does not need moral support or he would have allready been gone and the ICC is unable to enfore anything without military action.

quote:

---

war - this war is not the solution- it doesn't eradicate the fact that in the future iraq - not under Sadam- will not attack Kuwait, that the next leader will be less of a terrorist and not wish to create weapons to defend his dictatorship.
the only thing that could make that happen is if the Iraqi and kurdish ppl, want that and have the power to defend themselves and detrmine thier own future, niether of which this war does, on the contrary it takes both of those liberties away from them.

---

By replacing Saddam with a regime that is sympathetic to US interests, we will accomplish all those things. It doesn't need to be a puppet government, but it has to be one that supports liberty.

quote:

---

"They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there is a lot of oil out there we need."

---

- Air force Brigadier General William Looney (director of operations for keeping Iraqi planes from flying south of the 32nd parallel)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
According to George Bush in a speech given on August 8 1990, the "four simple principles" of American involvement in a war were Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, restoration of Kuwait's government, stability in the Gulf, and protection of Americans in the region.

August 17: Iraqi parliament speaker Saadi Mahdi Saleh declared Iraqi intentions to detain and move Westerners, including Americans, to key military targets in Iraq as human shields. The moves began on the 20th.

January 20, 1991: after the air campaign begins, Iraq released videotapes of American POWs and declared that they would be placed at strategic sites (coalition targets) as hostages.

A strategic decision was made to invade Iraq to cripple the Iraqi military and force unconditional surrender and withdrawal. To quote General Colin Powell, "We're going to cut this army off, and then we're going to kill it." This invasion happened before Iraq left Kuwait, therefore was offensive in that it reached the Euphrates river and closed off Iraqi retreat avenues.

On March 2 a cease fire was agreed to on condition that until all its requirements were met US troops would remain in Iraq. After all coalition POWs were returned and Iraq declared its annexation of Kuwait null and void, the US withdrew from Iraqi soil, having fulfilled the four principles.

The stated aims of the US were achieved through sound military strategy and it is ludicrous to say that the military pursued an "offensive war" after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait.

[This message has been edited by Vox (edited 12-07-2002).]

---

first; simple? methinks that stability in the gulf region could not be considered 'simple'.
second; invading a country that has our citizen as hostages doesn't seem like a great job of protecting said citizens(see iran).
third; we aare currently pursueing a offensive war in iraq. we bomb regularly, we destroy infrastructure, cicilian and military. we dont have ground troops but we are an agressive force in a 'ceasefire'.

quote:

---

We prevented you from having the discomfort of having to learn German. I know you will deny this, but you have allready demonstrated an atrocious knowledge of history. "Threw away," hahahaha.

---

BS:
The US didn't fight WW2 alone , as usual they joined in the end, they were too scared to fight at first util japan bombed the crap out of pearl harbour (a day to be celebrated)
So i wouldn't give all the credit to the US if I was you.

quote:

---

He doesn't, but they are useful idiots and tools in the right hands.

---

Idiots or not, they are human beings who are fighting for their freedom and rights.

quote:

---

He supports terrorism, he hates the US, don't have much of an immagination do you?

---

The US is the biggest terrorist, because of the US policies sep 11 occured, these policies must be changed to stop bloodshed in the world (or minimise it)

quote:

---

Someone made a carpet bombing commment earlier and I will adress that one and this now: you have no concept of how modern war is fought. We don't need to level cities, we can target building and cripple his ability to fight that way.

---

Many innocent people will be lost anyway, thousands probably, this is not afghanistan, it is much more densly populated and the cities are much more complex, also the US would do much more economic damage to Iraq.

quote:

---

For someone who has his head up his ass, I must admit that I expected more mumbling and less shouting. Allow the Israeli's to kill children? You are without a doubt one of the most retarded individuals on this forum. When Palestinian innocnets die, it is collateral dammage that results from the terrorists hidding ammong the civilians. The Palestinians target Israeli civillians and as such, the terrorist and those that harbor them should be given no mercy. You say you would not kill the average dummy amercian and only go after the leadership, yet you condone the Palestinians indiscriminate targeting of women and children. Go eat a dick.

---

Israel are terrorists ( don't start the legitimate country bs) Activists and militant groups are a legitimate force to fight israel and this opinion is shared by many, go watch som unbiased news to see what happens to the palestinians every day don't restrict yourself to CNN and ABC and other US BS.

quote:

---

Saddam through us out and he stopped the inspectors. Once again, you are stupid.

---

False, During the Clinton era, the inspectors were withdrawn, not expelled by Saddam.

quote:

---

Either of your options still involves removing him by force. The opposition does not need moral support or he would have allready been gone and the ICC is unable to enfore anything without military action.

---

Too late now to take out Saddam, The US should've done it when they had the chance in the gulf war. Saddam's overthrow should be left to the people now.

quote:

---

By replacing Saddam with a regime that is sympathetic to US interests, we will accomplish all those things. It doesn't need to be a puppet government, but it has to be one that supports liberty.

---

LOL, how can a regime that supports the US and it's interests in every way not be a puppet government??? If a government of Iraq truly was established by the people, I guarantee it would be anti-US.
BTW: Im an Iraqi who migrated to NZ 7 years ago , I know how Iraqis feel.

quote:

---

BS:
The US didn't fight WW2 alone , as usual they joined in the end, they were too scared to fight at first util japan bombed the crap out of pearl harbour (a day to be celebrated)
So i wouldn't give all the credit to the US if I was you.

---

No we didn't fight the war alone, but we turned the tide. France was defeated and England was being bombed routinely. Patton defeated Rommel in North Africa and from their US troops invaded Italy. You celebrate facist Japan? LOL.

quote:

---

Idiots or not, they are human beings who are fighting for their freedom and rights.

---

And through their tactics they have proven that they deserve neither. They have lost any sympathy that they may have deserved and Israel should crush them with an iron fist.

quote:

---

The US is the biggest terrorist, because of the US policies sep 11 occured, these policies must be changed to stop bloodshed in the world (or minimise it)

---

This is a misrepresentation of history and a denial of fundamentalist Islam. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait asked us to interven. I have posted earlier on radical Islam and will sumarize simply by saying that our freedom and success undercut their power and therefore in order to maintatin control, the US is demonized and they seek our destruction.

quote:

---

Many innocent people will be lost anyway, thousands probably, this is not afghanistan, it is much more densly populated and the cities are much more complex, also the US would do much more economic damage to Iraq.

---

So what? The whole situation could be avoided if Saddam stepped down. He is a threat to the United States and international interests. He deals with terrorist and helps to fund/support them. If he chooses to fight rather than go peacefully, of course people will die.

quote:

---

Israel are terrorists ( don't start the legitimate country bs) Activists and militant groups are a legitimate force to fight israel and this opinion is shared by many, go watch som unbiased news to see what happens to the palestinians every day don't restrict yourself to CNN and ABC and other US BS

---

Your glorious freedom fighters purposely target women and children. Legitimate or not, their tactics are abhorent. Considering the success that Ghandi had in India and how much international criticism is raised as is, one could argue that if the Palestinians were truly serious about peace, then they would demonstrate and use non-violent methods to make their voices heard. It is very hard to feel sympathy for them when some rag-head extremist walks onto a bus or into a cafe and kills as many innocents as they can. Israel targets the terrorists and anyone else who dies is an unfortunate casualty. It is in Israeli power to kill them all, so don't give me that bull shit about unrestrained Israeli force.

quote:

---

False, During the Clinton era, the inspectors were withdrawn, not expelled by Saddam.

---

No, Saddam accused the inspectors of being spies and threw them out.

quote:

---

Too late now to take out Saddam, The US should've done it when they had the chance in the gulf war. Saddam's overthrow should be left to the people now.

---

Yes, the people should overthrow him, they just have to cope with the tanks, guns, and mustard gas. Yay! Vive le revolucion!

quote:

---

LOL, how can a regime that supports the US and it's interests in every way not be a puppet government??? If a government of Iraq truly was established by the people, I guarantee it would be anti-US.
BTW: Im an Iraqi who migrated to NZ 7 years ago , I know how Iraqis feel.

---

A pro-Us regime only needs to be one that cracks down on their domestic terroism and allows political and economic freedom to their people. As an Iraqi, I am sure that feel good knowing that while your ex-countrymen are starving, your leader is building some really big palaces. If that is how the Iraqis feel, then they deserve to starve as the admiration they feel for the palance of their leader can surely fill the void in their belly.

This is a respond to vox, who thinks the US did not give iraq the green light to invade kuwait:
PS: Nox, apparently April Galspie still survives, I was misinformed.


1991 and the crisis in Iraq. Suddenly, the world learned of a small country, located on the southern border of Iraq, known as Kuwait.

In late July 1991, before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. State Department Spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler announced, "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait."

The next day Hussein summoned United States Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to explain the statements.

"April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein the understanding that the U.S. was going to stand aloof from the crisis," says Dr. Dwight Simpson, Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University. "In effect you could say, and this is one means of interpreting this, that the U.S. gave Saddam a sort of green light [to invade Kuwait]."

April Glaspie has since been retired from the foreign service and has never made any comments with regard to this.

"She was acting under orders from Washington-it wasn't her own doing-but they [the State Department] never explained this," adds Simpson.

Eight days later, after meeting with Glaspie, Hussein invaded Kuwait.


Now is that enough to prove the US gave the green light?


[This message has been edited by Blue-Rock (edited 12-08-2002).]

More proof of the US giving the green light to saddam to attack kuwait:
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/iraq-desert-storm.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:
Dude your political system blatantly does not work. If it did, we wouldnt have had to listen to months of wrangling about 'pregnant chads'.

---

Ever hear of an OFF switch. I've heard that it does wonders in eliminating things you don't want to hear.

However, since you brought it up, the singular way to get 'pregnant chads' is to run multiple cards through the machine at once. A democratic party official had a machine in the back of his car and went to different polling places. Our system works. The demos lost anyway.

Talk about systems not working, we get televised sessions of Parliment. You have a lot of guts to talk about our system.

Nox

Glaspie's meeting and the words exchanged are clearly not giving Saddam Hussein "permission" to invade Kuwait, nor did Glaspie make any statements that the US would not respond to an invasion. I clearly showed you that she told him the US would stay uninvolved from any Arab-Arab conflict that was condoned by the Arab League.

Saddam's invasion was not. Therefore, American intervention didn't go against anything said at the meeting. Saddam made a stupid decision, thinking the US was too weak-willed to intervene if he invaded.

And even if it did, so what? Diplomacy is not about friendship or honesty and never has been. Anyone who believes a foreign diplomat is out to help them before protecting that diplomat's own state is retarded and needs to learn a lesson.

Basic international relations for heads of state:
1. Take nothing at face value.
2. Read between the lines and analyze your enemy's motives.
3. Power politics is a zero sum game.
4. If you benefit from an action, everyone else suffers accordingly (see number 3).
5. All states will work to protect their interests over every other state's.
6. Only great powers can oppose UN coalitions successfully.

Saddam gambled, and lost.

To address the issue of hostages and invasion: I explained the invasion was a part of a successful strategy to break the Iraqi will to wage war. Protecting American lives was the goal of remaining in Iraq until they were all accounted for. Therefore, not unnecessary or excessive or beyond the US's stated aims.

As for "stability in the Middle East," true, a very difficult and improbable goal. But restoring the pre-Kuwait invasion balance of power---and maintaining pressure through the no-fly zones, military bombings, and weapons inspections---did much to restore stability, by keeping Saddam from becoming a threat.

To all you Iraqi sympathisers: no intelligent political analyst denies that the US is in the game of looking out for number one. If this must be done by crushing a burgeoning threat, so be it, and more power to the US government. Just stop claiming that Bush is evil or Jews are behind it, because that gets old and just shows your lack of comprehensive thinking.

quote:

---

No we didn't fight the war alone, but we turned the tide. France was defeated and England was being bombed routinely. Patton defeated Rommel in North Africa and from their US troops invaded Italy. You celebrate facist Japan? LOL.

---

LOL, im not celebrating Facsit japan, i am celebrating a devestating blow to the US navy.

quote:

---

And through their tactics they have proven that they deserve neither. They have lost any sympathy that they may have deserved and Israel should crush them with an iron fist.

---

No, they have many supporters across the western and eastern world, and Israel uses much worse methods to maintain israel's security.. as i say again, PLZ go watch som unbiased news.

quote:

---

This is a misrepresentation of history and a denial of fundamentalist Islam. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait asked us to interven. I have posted earlier on radical Islam and will sumarize simply by saying that our freedom and success undercut their power and therefore in order to maintatin control, the US is demonized and they seek our destruction.

---

WTF are you talking about?

quote:

---

So what? The whole situation could be avoided if Saddam stepped down. He is a threat to the United States and international interests. He deals with terrorist and helps to fund/support them. If he chooses to fight rather than go peacefully, of course people will die.

---

Oh, so it's ok for thousands of iraqi's to die, go bankrupt, but Sep 11 is not OK? just because some americans die it makes it not ok? I SAY GO TO HELL...

quote:

---

Your glorious freedom fighters purposely target women and children. Legitimate or not, their tactics are abhorent. Considering the success that Ghandi had in India and how much international criticism is raised as is, one could argue that if the Palestinians were truly serious about peace, then they would demonstrate and use non-violent methods to make their voices heard. It is very hard to feel sympathy for them when some rag-head extremist walks onto a bus or into a cafe and kills as many innocents as they can. Israel targets the terrorists and anyone else who dies is an unfortunate casualty. It is in Israeli power to kill them all, so don't give me that bull shit about unrestrained Israeli force.

---

MY GOD, how ignorant are you?
GHANDI'S CASE WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, the british were not killing indians in the thousands were they now?
They were just selling them manufactured items from the UK and that got india poor, what the hell does this have to do with palestine? NOTHING. Your misinterpretation of history and your Misunderstanding of why events occured is the reason why you are arguing such foolishness, everything you say comes out of CNN, i've heard it all before.

quote:

---

No, Saddam accused the inspectors of being spies and threw them out.

---

If i'm wrong , prove me wrong so i will believe you.
PS: THEY WERE SPIES, IT WAS ADMITTED PUBLICLY.

quote:

---

Yes, the people should overthrow him, they just have to cope with the tanks, guns, and mustard gas. Yay! Vive le revolucion!

---

The people almost overthrew him in the gulf war, they had control of all Iraq except Baghdad ( and Tikrit i think), but then the US stabbed them in the back and decided they would support Saddam and this resulted in the massacre of thousands of Iraqi's.

quote:

---

A pro-Us regime only needs to be one that cracks down on their domestic terroism and allows political and economic freedom to their people. As an Iraqi, I am sure that feel good knowing that while your ex-countrymen are starving, your leader is building some really big palaces. If that is how the Iraqis feel, then they deserve to starve as the admiration they feel for the palance of their leader can surely fill the void in their belly.

---

Yet another stupid reply by you nuke child,
there is no terrorism in Iraq, Saddam is the only threat, he and the US sanctions are the reasons why the people are starving , I gave you some UN figures in my posts before. As i say again, Any regime in Iraq that supports the US is a puppet regime, Because iraqis are anti-US, if you don't believe me go give my ruined country a visit and talk to some people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UbiloZ:
Bush rules and everyone should protest for the war.

---

FUCK Iraq ANd Muslims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fuck iraq and muslims?
I GIVE U A BIG FUCK YOU...

Stop this now. Get back on topic.

Nox

well that guy is a bit stuffed in the head, im waitin for replies...

quote:

---

LOL, im not celebrating Facsit japan, i am celebrating a devestating blow to the US navy.

---

And yet you are celebrating facism considering it was the US that put an end to the threat posed by both Japan and Germany. WW2 liberated the world from one of the greatest threats and evils it has ever known.

quote:

---

No, they have many supporters across the western and eastern world, and Israel uses much worse methods to maintain israel's security.. as i say again, PLZ go watch som unbiased news.

---

The only reason that Europe supports Palestine is because of their guilt about Colonialism. Europe also has the luxury of still viewing them as freedom fighters because they can still safely use public transit and go clubbing without worrying about some asshole with a belt bomb screaming jihad. If Europe had been hit like America or experienced a fraction of what Israel has, then they would loose all sympathy.

Israeli tactics are appropriately brutal. They are fighting against an enemy that revels in civilian death, has no sense of honor, and hids like a coward among his own people. The terrorists have chosen the battlefield, an urban environment in which they disguise themselves as civillians. Of course death tolls are high, but what do you expect when gun fire comes from an appartment or someone in a crowd of protestors starts shooting. Their is no option except to open fire as their is no reason to expect the Israelis to risk the lives of their own troops.

quote:

---

WTF are you talking about?

---

Radical Islam is based upon its ability to claim supremacy and perfection. America is an example that they are not, so our mere existance is a threat to the radical leaders power. The leaders cannot moderate, or they risk assassination. Therefore all they can do is preech our destruction unless we fall on our knees and convert, that is not an option. Bin Ladin is mad, in part, that American troops are in Saudi Arabia, but we are only there to stop one Muslim nation from invading another Muslim nation.

quote:

---

Oh, so it's ok for thousands of iraqi's to die, go bankrupt, but Sep 11 is not OK? just because some americans die it makes it not ok? I SAY GO TO HELL...

---

Vox allready described the security of nations. The US is not to be blamed for the deaths from the sanctions, why, because Saddam choose not to use the money he recieved from oil for his food. He made choices, bad ones, know he must suffer the consequences.

quote:

---

MY GOD, how ignorant are you?
GHANDI'S CASE WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, the british were not killing indians in the thousands were they now?
They were just selling them manufactured items from the UK and that got india poor, what the hell does this have to do with palestine? NOTHING. Your misinterpretation of history and your Misunderstanding of why events occured is the reason why you are arguing such foolishness, everything you say comes out of CNN, i've heard it all before.

---

The only reason that Israel is their is violence is because the Palestinians choose to use terrorism rather than peaceful protest as an option. Both India and Palestine wanted to be their own nation independent of foreign rule, that is their simmilarity. What they produced is of no concern.

If the Palestinians followed Ghandi rather than using suicide bombings, Israel could not get away with their "war crime." As is, anything bad that happens to the Palestinians can be written off as combating terrorism and securing Israeli citizens. If their was no violece, their would be no excuse for Israeli actions and the diplomatic preasure would force the Israelis to give the Palestinians their own state. No matter how much you want to demonize Israel as a monster, they are not, and their government would cave to the preasure of the International community, however, since the Palestinians are a threat, Israel will continue to give the world the finger as they will not screw themselves for a violent enemy.

quote:

---

If i'm wrong , prove me wrong so i will believe you.
PS: THEY WERE SPIES, IT WAS ADMITTED PUBLICLY.

---

Even though it is from your hated CNN, here you go.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/08/iraq/ Iraq told the inspectors to fuck off, so the UN pulled them out in the event of US military action. I never claimed that they weren't spies, but considering they were meant to find HIDDEN weapons, to me it is not suprising.

quote:

---

The people almost overthrew him in the gulf war, they had control of all Iraq except Baghdad ( and Tikrit i think), but then the US stabbed them in the back and decided they would support Saddam and this resulted in the massacre of thousands of Iraqi's.

---

quote:

---

he and the US sanctions are the reasons why the people are starving

---

No, he is the only reason people are starving.

quote:

---

Because iraqis are anti-US, if you don't believe me go give my ruined country a visit and talk to some people.

---

Anti-US does not make them pro Saddam or pro terror. As long as they are not pro terror, like France, I could not give a damn about what they think about us. Once again, your country is ruined because of the incomptency of your leader, not US involvement. All he had to do was prove that his weapons program was dismantled and the sactions would have ended. Instead he played games, stalled for time, and blocked off access. None of those are reasons to trust him or lift the sanctions. His choices are what screwed Iraq.

quote:

---

And yet you are celebrating facism considering it was the US that put an end to the threat posed by both Japan and Germany. WW2 liberated the world from one of the greatest threats and evils it has ever known.

---

I view the US as facist, so when one facist attacks the other , i become happy.

quote:

---

The only reason that Europe supports Palestine is because of their guilt about Colonialism. Europe also has the luxury of still viewing them as freedom fighters because they can still safely use public transit and go clubbing without worrying about some asshole with a belt bomb screaming jihad. If Europe had been hit like America or experienced a fraction of what Israel has, then they would loose all sympathy.

---

Man you don't know anything about freedom fighters, these groups are freedom fighters, they fight for their rights, if the israelis dont like it they can get out.

quote:

---

Israeli tactics are appropriately brutal. They are fighting against an enemy that revels in civilian death, has no sense of honor, and hids like a coward among his own people. The terrorists have chosen the battlefield, an urban environment in which they disguise themselves as civillians. Of course death tolls are high, but what do you expect when gun fire comes from an appartment or someone in a crowd of protestors starts shooting. Their is no option except to open fire as their is no reason to expect the Israelis to risk the lives of their own troops.

---

How can you say that, GO WATCH SOMETHING OTHER THAN CNN. These are palestinian people, they are as worthy of freedom as you are, they have NO army, NO weapons to organise themselves to fight the israeli army, this is a case of honourable people fighting for a just cause against an expansionist, evil regime.
israeli terrorism: http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/update_cover.htm

quote:

---

Radical Islam is based upon its ability to claim supremacy and perfection. America is an example that they are not, so our mere existance is a threat to the radical leaders power. The leaders cannot moderate, or they risk assassination. Therefore all they can do is preech our destruction unless we fall on our knees and convert, that is not an option. Bin Ladin is mad, in part, that American troops are in Saudi Arabia, but we are only there to stop one Muslim nation from invading another Muslim nation.

---

What are you talking about, you are wrong mate, that quote above shows how little you know about islam and it's ideology.. anyway what do you mean by radical islam? binladen is in radical islam and so are all wahabis, but real islam is based on the idea on how religion and politics should not be seperated, this is normal islam.
Here is a link telling you a bit about islam's ideology, hope you find it useful:
http://www.khomeini.com/gatewaytoheaven/Information/IslamAndIslamicIdeology.htm

quote:

---

Vox allready described the security of nations. The US is not to be blamed for the deaths from the sanctions, why, because Saddam choose not to use the money he recieved from oil for his food. He made choices, bad ones, know he must suffer the consequences.

---

I was talking about the casualties of war, i know that saddam is responsible for deaths of iraqis, but so are the US.

quote:

---

The only reason that Israel is their is violence is because the Palestinians choose to use terrorism rather than peaceful protest as an option. Both India and Palestine wanted to be their own nation independent of foreign rule, that is their simmilarity. What they produced is of no concern.

---

1st of all, in palestine they created israel and came millions of jewish imigrants, they also kicked out many palestinians (hundreds of thousands) and made them all refugees, they stole their land, they stole their holy sites, and they slaughter them every day. This is very different from india's position, because no significant numbers went to india to live and they were not slaughtered and humilitated and treated so cruely, so if you know anything about human behaviour, then you would understand that different situations are dealt with different methods. Force is the only way to oppose israeli rule because peaceful methods have all failed as israel chooses not to abide by them.

quote:

---

If the Palestinians followed Ghandi rather than using suicide bombings, Israel could not get away with their "war crime." As is, anything bad that happens to the Palestinians can be written off as combating terrorism and securing Israeli citizens. If their was no violece, their would be no excuse for Israeli actions and the diplomatic preasure would force the Israelis to give the Palestinians their own state. No matter how much you want to demonize Israel as a monster, they are not, and their government would cave to the preasure of the International community, however, since the Palestinians are a threat, Israel will continue to give the world the finger as they will not screw themselves for a violent enemy.

---

If the palestinian do not oppose israel, israel would just swallow up the rest of palestine and make it part of a new israel. They will always be suported by the US, even when you see the US condeming the israeli actions from time to time they do nothing to stop them.

quote:

---

The people almost overthrew him in the gulf war, they had control of all Iraq except Baghdad ( and Tikrit i think), but then the US stabbed them in the back and decided they would support Saddam and this resulted in the massacre of thousands of Iraqi's.

---

I see you haven't replied to this paragraph...

quote:

---

No, he is the only reason people are starving.

---

The iraqi economy is crippled because of the sanctions, bad economies lead to poverty, proven fact.

quote:

---

Anti-US does not make them pro Saddam or pro terror. As long as they are not pro terror, like France, I could not give a damn about what they think about us. Once again, your country is ruined because of the incomptency of your leader, not US involvement. All he had to do was prove that his weapons program was dismantled and the sactions would have ended. Instead he played games, stalled for time, and blocked off access. None of those are reasons to trust him or lift the sanctions. His choices are what screwed Iraq.

---

No iraqi is pro-saddam (only those that really benefit form him), and the US will put a government that is pro US which is a puppet government.
Believe me your govt. won't take your opinion into consideration.

quote:

---

I view the US as facist, so when one facist attacks the other , i become happy.

---

The US was facist back then...?

quote:

---

Man you don't know anything about freedom fighters, these groups are freedom fighters, they fight for their rights, if the israelis dont like it they can get out.

---

Freedom Fighters are the names that terrorist give themselves so that they become palatable to the rest of the world. Much in the same way that the Wahhabism refer to themselves as Salafism, the way of the ancestors.

quote:

---

How can you say that, GO WATCH SOMETHING OTHER THAN CNN. These are palestinian people, they are as worthy of freedom as you are, they have NO army, NO weapons to organise themselves to fight the israeli army, this is a case of honourable people fighting for a just cause against an expansionist, evil regime.
israeli terrorism: http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/update_cover.htm

---

For the record, I do not watch CNN, and even if I did, they are quick to jump on Israel too. All people are worthy of freedom, but their tactics invalidate that claim. Through their methods, they can no longer claim any such right. A common example is the legal system, violent criminals are stripped of their right to freedom or happiness. If the people were honerable, they would attack military targets, not civilian ones. By attacking civilians, the Palestinians are declaring a situation of absolute war. What absoulte war means is that civilian targets become an option. A historical example is WW2 where planes just flew over and dropped their bombs. What this means is that if the Israelis wanted to, they could push the Palestinians into the sea regardless of the casualties. Why? Because the Palestinians targeted civilians.

quote:

---

What are you talking about, you are wrong mate, that quote above shows how little you know about islam and it's ideology.. anyway what do you mean by radical islam? binladen is in radical islam and so are all wahabis, but real islam is based on the idea on how religion and politics should not be seperated, this is normal islam.
Here is a link telling you a bit about islam's ideology, hope you find it useful: http://www.khomeini.com/gatewaytoheaven/Information/IslamAndIslamicIdeology.htm

---

I think I explained this in another post. The link is from a Shia background, not a Sunni one. While their are simmilarities between the two, their are also big differences.

quote:

---

1st of all, in palestine they created israel and came millions of jewish imigrants, they also kicked out many palestinians (hundreds of thousands) and made them all refugees, they stole their land, they stole their holy sites, and they slaughter them every day. This is very different from india's position, because no significant numbers went to india to live and they were not slaughtered and humilitated and treated so cruely, so if you know anything about human behaviour, then you would understand that different situations are dealt with different methods. Force is the only way to oppose israeli rule because peaceful methods have all failed as israel chooses not to abide by them.

---

The history of the land as followed, before World War One, Palestine was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. After World War One, the Ottomans decided to abandon the empire and focus their efforts on Turkey. Palestine was declated a British Mandate. After World War Two, the Brits decided, with a subsequent vote by the UN, to create the state of Israel. The point was that with a nation of their own, it would be harder to oppress the Jews. All the immigrants were doing is moving to a land that was allready "theirs." You call them expansionistic, but much of the territory that they are fighting over today Israel took after being attacked first. It is the spoils of war. They were attacked, they won, and this is what they took.

Earlier, you attacked my knowledge of Political Islam. One important fact that you are forgeting though is that political Islam hates nationalism. Political Islam prefers to view itself as a race neutral world order where it matters not who governs you, so long as you are with your fellow Muslims. I bring this up, because the surrounding Islamic states were not jumping at the notion of accepting the Palestinians. When the Palestinians tried to emmigrate to Jordan, the King unleased the tanks on them. This is off topic, but is just another poor Islam in the Middle East.

The meat and potatoes of this though is that you are trying to claim that Israel is just another Middle East dictator and would treat a protest against them and the same way the Chinnese treated Tienamin Square. This is simply not true. The Indians also suffered abuse and humiliation at the hands of the British, but they did not resort to violence. Peaceful methods have not failed, they merely have been poorly used.

quote:

---

If the palestinian do not oppose israel, israel would just swallow up the rest of palestine and make it part of a new israel. They will always be suported by the US, even when you see the US condeming the israeli actions from time to time they do nothing to stop them.

---

Once again, the protests would work as they would raise more sympathy than violence and for Israel, it would be easier to trust a non-violent opponent. The US will not criticize Israel anti-terror efforts because they cannot logically condem the Israelis for their war on terror while we continue ours.

quote:

---

The iraqi economy is crippled because of the sanctions, bad economies lead to poverty, proven fact.

---

But the root of the problem still remains, Saddam.

quote:

---

No iraqi is pro-saddam (only those that really benefit form him), and the US will put a government that is pro US which is a puppet government.
Believe me your govt. won't take your opinion into consideration.

---

The puppet government in and of itself, will do more for the Iraqi people than Saddam ever will and because it is backed by the US, it will be much easier to rebuild Iraq and invest in that nations future.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
[QUOTE] Freedom Fighters are the names that terrorist give themselves so that they become palatable to the rest of the world. Much in the same way that the Wahhabism refer to themselves as Salafism, the way of the ancestors.

---

No, in islam anyone who fights for their freedom is a freedom fighter or mujahid, This label has been given to them by most muslims who aknowledge that they are fighting for their civil rights and basic human needs.

quote:

---

For the record, I do not watch CNN, and even if I did, they are quick to jump on Israel too. All people are worthy of freedom, but their tactics invalidate that claim. Through their methods, they can no longer claim any such right. A common example is the legal system, violent criminals are stripped of their right to freedom or happiness. If the people were honerable, they would attack military targets, not civilian ones. By attacking civilians, the Palestinians are declaring a situation of absolute war. What absoulte war means is that civilian targets become an option. A historical example is WW2 where planes just flew over and dropped their bombs. What this means is that if the Israelis wanted to, they could push the Palestinians into the sea regardless of the casualties. Why? Because the Palestinians targeted civilians.

---

LOL, you are contradicting yourself, if you do not watch CNN, then how do you know that they are quick to jump on israel? In fact i watch CNN from time to time and they cover up
Most crimes and terror methods used by israel on the palestinian people. This is the case for all US media ...http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article691.shtml

This absolute war rubbish can go to the trash because it is illogical not to defend yourself in this situation "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" (as Malcolm X likes to put it). These people are suffering only because of a racist zionist country being set up that denies their basic human rights. Why should these innocent civilians suffer? They shouldn't, and this is why the people's movement-unarmed but desperate resort to these methods, i am not saying bombing civilians is right but go look back at israel's war crimes history -not just in palestine but in lebanon and other neighbouring countries as well, this horrific record makes it legitimate to use any means that will liberate palestine form zionist hands and restore peace and stability to the middle east region.

quote:

---

I think I explained this in another post. The link is from a Shia background, not a Sunni one. While their are simmilarities between the two, their are also big differences.

---

So what? shia is islam as well. And that linkshows the general ideology of islam so there isn't much difference.

quote:

---

1st of all, in palestine they created israel and came millions of jewish imigrants, they also kicked out many palestinians (hundreds of thousands) and made them all refugees, they stole their land, they stole their holy sites, and they slaughter them every day. This is very different from india's position, because no significant numbers went to india to live and they were not slaughtered and humilitated and treated so cruely, so if you know anything about human behaviour, then you would understand that different situations are dealt with different methods. Force is the only way to oppose israeli rule because peaceful methods have all failed as israel chooses not to abide by them.

---

The history of the land as followed, before World War One, Palestine was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. After World War One, the Ottomans decided to abandon the empire and focus their efforts on Turkey. Palestine was declated a British Mandate. After World War Two, the Brits decided, with a subsequent vote by the UN, to create the state of Israel. The point was that with a nation of their own, it would be harder to oppress the Jews. All the immigrants were doing is moving to a land that was allready "theirs." You call them expansionistic, but much of the territory that they are fighting over today Israel took after being attacked first. It is the spoils of war. They were attacked, they won, and this is what they took.[/QUOTE]

1st off all i have proven my point of the differing situation of india and palestine pretty well, since you have failed to reply to it.

I agree to your history lesson perfectly well, until you reach this statement "After World War Two, the Brits decided, with a subsequent vote by the UN, to create the state of Israel." Britain decided to create israel way before the UN vote and even WW2, do you recall this letter?
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00pp0

another useful link:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4195725,00.html

quote:

---

Earlier, you attacked my knowledge of Political Islam. One important fact that you are forgeting though is that political Islam hates nationalism. Political Islam prefers to view itself as a race neutral world order where it matters not who governs you, so long as you are with your fellow Muslims. I bring this up, because the surrounding Islamic states were not jumping at the notion of accepting the Palestinians. When the Palestinians tried to emmigrate to Jordan, the King unleased the tanks on them. This is off topic, but is just another poor Islam in the Middle East.

---

Very well said, you replied very well with that statement. These states are not run in accordance with islamic law which bans nationalism, and this is because of the british who cut up the middle east to keep it weak and in their hands( the brits drew up he mideast borders).

quote:

---

The meat and potatoes of this though is that you are trying to claim that Israel is just another Middle East dictator and would treat a protest against them and the same way the Chinnese treated Tienamin Square. This is simply not true. The Indians also suffered abuse and humiliation at the hands of the British, but they did not resort to violence. Peaceful methods have not failed, they merely have been poorly used.

---

Go read my previous posts on how the indian situation differs from the palestinian situation, so different situations are dealt with differently. EG. (very basic situations)
A guy walks up to you and then walks away just to intimidate you ( you might tell him to f*** off)
another situation would be if a guy walks up to you you with a shotgun in his hands ( i think you'd run and wouldn't tell him to f*** off)

quote:

---

Once again, the protests would work as they would raise more sympathy than violence and for Israel, it would be easier to trust a non-violent opponent. The US will not criticize Israel anti-terror efforts because they cannot logically condem the Israelis for their war on terror while we continue ours.

---

once again, israel cannot be dealt with peacefully, this has been tried and failed because israel refuses to recognise a palestinian state. Israel has acted very harshly in diplomatic processes with palestine.
http://www.watzal.com/tjt0702.html

quote:

---

But the root of the problem still remains, Saddam.

---

But the US is still a major contributor to this problem, my point was they both are a problem and it seems that you have agreed.

quote:

---

The puppet government in and of itself, will do more for the Iraqi people than Saddam ever will and because it is backed by the US, it will be much easier to rebuild Iraq and invest in that nations future.

---

maybe so, but all the oil will be sucked up from iraq and iraq will be used as a military base for the US, this will make the iraqis unhappy and will lead to god knows what (revolts etc...).

Comon nuke, before i declare myself the winner...

I have been busy in the real world recently, and I like to save the posts that require a lot of reading and research until I have free time to do it justice.

quote:

---

No, in islam anyone who fights for their freedom is a freedom fighter or mujahid, This label has been given to them by most muslims who aknowledge that they are fighting for their civil rights and basic human needs.

---

The Muhajaroons were the companions of the prophet who journeyed with with him on his exodus from Mecca to Medina. To call the Palestinian freedom fighters Muhajir is to insult the prophet and the companions. Your freedom fighters break all the rules of warfare. They kill innocent women and children and that is forbiden. They indiscriminantly slaughter and show no restraint. They use fire as punishment and only Allah has the right to use fire. They are not Muhajaroon, they are terrorists who seek to legitimize themselves by using Islamic history.

quote:

---

LOL, you are contradicting yourself, if you do not watch CNN, then how do you know that they are quick to jump on israel? In fact i watch CNN from time to time and they cover up
Most crimes and terror methods used by israel on the palestinian people. This is the case for all US media ...http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article691.shtml

---

Allow me to clarify for you then. I don't live my life waiting for Crossfire to come on.

quote:

---

This absolute war rubbish can go to the trash because it is illogical not to defend yourself in this situation "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" (as Malcolm X likes to put it). These people are suffering only because of a racist zionist country being set up that denies their basic human rights. Why should these innocent civilians suffer? They shouldn't, and this is why the people's movement-unarmed but desperate resort to these methods, i am not saying bombing civilians is right but go look back at israel's war crimes history -not just in palestine but in lebanon and other neighbouring countries as well, this horrific record makes it legitimate to use any means that will liberate palestine form zionist hands and restore peace and stability to the middle east region.

---

Absolute war is not crap, it is what happens when a military campaign escalates from targeting military targets to civillian ones. You argue that the Palestinians should defend themselves in anyway necessary, but you criticise the Israelis for doing the same? Your innocnets are suffering because they decided to win their independence through murder, mayhem, and terror. The Palestinians asked the Israelis for land that they had no right to. It was either granted to Israel by the UN or it was taken as a result of warfare. It is illogical to expect Israel to instantly cave when asked to: "please give us some land." Israel said no, and from that you justify the terror attacks? Anytime you criticize Israel of warcrimes, you must first realize that they were attacked first, and are responding to a threat.

India and Palestine are simmilar in the respect that both lands were governed by a foreign body against the will of the people. Both sides politely asked to have their land and governthemselves, and both people were laughed and told to shove off. At this point, according to you, peace should have been abandoned and arms taken up. It is wrong to deny the English military prescene and India and that thr rule of law was backed by the gun. Ghandi choose peace, the Palestinians choose war. Ghandis forces were persecuted and his followers were killed and imprisoned, yet, they have their own country while the Palestinias are still fighting and pushing Israel to a point where completely expelling them is an option. Peace worked in India because the British actions were an embarrasment and it was too much of a hassle to keep arresting everyone. Israel, however, will not stop fighting because to do so would be to give in to the terrorists and implicitly legitimize their tactics because, well, they worked. Israel will not cave to terror because to do so would be to invite other terrorists groups to attack because it has been shown that those tactics are effective. Ghandis tactics allowed both sides to leave the confrontation peacefully, while the Palestinians only enrage the Israelis to a point where they would rather fight to the last than give in.

[quote]maybe so, but all the oil will be sucked up from iraq and iraq will be used as a military base for the US, this will make the iraqis unhappy and will lead to god knows what (revolts etc...).[quote] Any oil that is sold, will be sold on the world market. This money will be go to the Iraqi people and will be used to repair their country. Millitary bases are to be expected, because it relieves our need to depend upon the Saudis and with the initial power vacuum, one can expect internal strife. As for the people being mad, they said the same thing about Afghanistan.

In my opinion the war boils down to this:
Saddam violated a treaty by not letting weapons inspectors in. Are we supposed to ignore that? Hitler violated a treaty by building a German military in WWII, but the U.S. wanted to stay out of it due to fear of causualties. Make no mistake, sooner or later we will be involved. Do we want to fight now and lose lives or wait. If we wait we will pay a much greater cost. Say whatever you want about Bush, but we all know that Saddam is making weapons of mass destruction. Hell, he tests them on his own people. Some say he doesn't intend to use them against the U.S. Is he building these just for fun then? I think I get the anti-war point somewhat. I mean, why don't we wait until Saddam kills innocent Americans? Sure that would be a piss poor job of defending our country but at least then it would be justified if we attack. I just hope that my children aren't among the ones who die just so some hippie feels we did the right thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
[QUOTE] The Muhajaroons were the companions of the prophet who journeyed with with him on his exodus from Mecca to Medina. To call the Palestinian freedom fighters Muhajir is to insult the prophet and the companions. Your freedom fighters break all the rules of warfare. They kill innocent women and children and that is forbiden. They indiscriminantly slaughter and show no restraint. They use fire as punishment and only Allah has the right to use fire. They are not Muhajaroon, they are terrorists who seek to legitimize themselves by using Islamic history..

---

LOL, you are a crack up, i never said muhajir-that means migrant or a migrating person (i speak arabic), i said Mujahid-meaning freedom fighter or a person who carries out jihad. And it isn't an insult to the prophet calling some one a muhajir, Im a muhajir as I migrated from my home land to NZ, i don't really know where you got that from.

Now to the killing of innocent women and children, i would like to point out that no israeli is innocent, no occupier is innocent, the people who died in sep 11 were innocent as they were not occupying anyone's land, but no israeli is innocent, they are all occupiers so it is not forbidden to expell them by war.

Plz clarify the using fire bit because i don't really understand what you mean by fire.

So when someone occupies your land you are expected to expell them, i hope that more victories like Hizbollah's will be achieved by these freedom fighters until palestine goes into the hands of it's rightful owners.

quote:

---

LOL, you are contradicting yourself, if you do not watch CNN, then how do you know that they are quick to jump on israel? In fact i watch CNN from time to time and they cover up
Most crimes and terror methods used by israel on the palestinian people. This is the case for all US media ...http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article691.shtml

---

quote:

---

Allow me to clarify for you then. I don't live my life waiting for Crossfire to come on.

---

I don't get what you mean, i proved to you the bias of US media and you talk about cross fire?

quote:

---

This absolute war rubbish can go to the trash because it is illogical not to defend yourself in this situation "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" (as Malcolm X likes to put it). These people are suffering only because of a racist zionist country being set up that denies their basic human rights. Why should these innocent civilians suffer? They shouldn't, and this is why the people's movement-unarmed but desperate resort to these methods, i am not saying bombing civilians is right but go look back at israel's war crimes history -not just in palestine but in lebanon and other neighbouring countries as well, this horrific record makes it legitimate to use any means that will liberate palestine form zionist hands and restore peace and stability to the middle east region.

---

quote:

---

Absolute war is not crap, it is what happens when a military campaign escalates from targeting military targets to civillian ones. You argue that the Palestinians should defend themselves in anyway necessary, but you criticise the Israelis for doing the same? Your innocnets are suffering because they decided to win their independence through murder, mayhem, and terror. The Palestinians asked the Israelis for land that they had no right to. It was either granted to Israel by the UN or it was taken as a result of warfare. It is illogical to expect Israel to instantly cave when asked to: "please give us some land." Israel said no, and from that you justify the terror attacks? Anytime you criticize Israel of warcrimes, you must first realize that they were attacked first, and are responding to a threat.

---

1st of all, Israelis occupied the land illegaly by migrating there illegaly and fighting and terrorising the arabs illegaly (go read some more about the subject).

2nd of all the UN is controlled by the big powers of the world so it supported Britain and the US and russia did not oppose the idea either. SO the creation of israel was not a suprise- the UN can go to hell.

3rd the palestinians did not request for land that wasn't theirs, that was the israelis and the palestinians said no, you are gettin the events of history mixed up here my friend.

4th Israel was not attacked first the palestinians were attacked first when land from them was stolen by zionist immigrants, this started the war, and Israel began using terror methods long ago when they did not have their own state.


So when you say that these terrorists are wrong and shouldn't attack israel go back to your history books and read a little and you'lll understand how this problem started -your beloved UN and the creation of Israel caused all this.

quote:

---

India and Palestine are simmilar in the respect that both lands were governed by a foreign body against the will of the people. Both sides politely asked to have their land and governthemselves, and both people were laughed and told to shove off. At this point, according to you, peace should have been abandoned and arms taken up. It is wrong to deny the English military prescene and India and that thr rule of law was backed by the gun. Ghandi choose peace, the Palestinians choose war. Ghandis forces were persecuted and his followers were killed and imprisoned, yet, they have their own country while the Palestinias are still fighting and pushing Israel to a point where completely expelling them is an option. Peace worked in India because the British actions were an embarrasment and it was too much of a hassle to keep arresting everyone. Israel, however, will not stop fighting because to do so would be to give in to the terrorists and implicitly legitimize their tactics because, well, they worked. Israel will not cave to terror because to do so would be to invite other terrorists groups to attack because it has been shown that those tactics are effective. Ghandis tactics allowed both sides to leave the confrontation peacefully, while the Palestinians only enrage the Israelis to a point where they would rather fight to the last than give in.

---

Thats BS, these situations are only similar in the basics where they are occupied, but all the complex issues are different.
This war is not about land only, it is about sacred land holy to muslims, christians and jews, and it has gone way beyond the indian situation, in india only britain was involved here all western nations have supported israel. EG. suez crisis : britain and France and israel against egypt.

I gave you how different situations are dealt with differently in my previous posts and you seem to agree, so now you have to understand this is very different form the indian situation in many ways, read my previous posts, i think eventually you'll agree with me.

quote:

---

Any oil that is sold, will be sold on the world market. This money will be go to the Iraqi people and will be used to repair their country. Millitary bases are to be expected, because it relieves our need to depend upon the Saudis and with the initial power vacuum, one can expect internal strife. As for the people being mad, they said the same thing about Afghanistan.

---

If you did not notice ,afghanistan is much more war torn than iraq, and in iraq people are much more educated and understand much better about the outside world and politics, so there would be a much greater chance of them opposing US military occupation than afghanistan would.

A BBC report said that american bases are being attacked about three times a week in afghanistan, so that proves there are people against american occupation.

Also how do you know that the oil will be sold to the benefit the iraqi people, mate i know for sure that's BS, the oil will be stolen by US companies and the US will benefit only.

Military bases are not wanted and if this justifies a war with iraq then i would get the idea about you caring only for your own country's benefit and power, because any person with morals will be opposed to challenging the territorial integrity of Iraq by putting bases there and killing innocent people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by realeyesrealize:
In my opinion the war boils down to this:
Saddam violated a treaty by not letting weapons inspectors in. Are we supposed to ignore that? Hitler violated a treaty by building a German military in WWII, but the U.S. wanted to stay out of it due to fear of causualties. Make no mistake, sooner or later we will be involved. Do we want to fight now and lose lives or wait. If we wait we will pay a much greater cost. Say whatever you want about Bush, but we all know that Saddam is making weapons of mass destruction. Hell, he tests them on his own people. Some say he doesn't intend to use them against the U.S. Is he building these just for fun then? I think I get the anti-war point somewhat. I mean, why don't we wait until Saddam kills innocent Americans? Sure that would be a piss poor job of defending our country but at least then it would be justified if we attack. I just hope that my children aren't among the ones who die just so some hippie feels we did the right thing.

---

Saddam would not attack the US because he knows he will lose his power, he would only do so when the US are really going to take him out and he might attack the US troops attacking iraq, but they are invading so they deserve it.

Saddam would never attack first , he is a smart man and he wouldn't do anything to jeopradise his power.

So what is Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? israel has them and so do all US allies, so Saddam wouldn't take on the western world he's not stupid.

I hope that i have pointed out to you that saddam would NOT attack first.

Many more Iraqi innocent people will die from the war than iraqi armed forces, so i am opposed to this war completely but i know for sure that the US will attack , you just wait and see they will find some fake excuse to attack.

You sound pretty sure that Saddam would never attack first. Saddam fronts terrorism which isn't sticking his neck out on the line because he can deny that he has anything to do with it. Don't get me wrong, I say that if we can avoid war then that is the best way to go. However, we need to make sure that we have Saddam under control. We can't let him sell these weapons or the world will be in trouble. And I am aware that many US allies have weapons of mass destruction. I also realize that many allies of the US would use these weapons in a manner that would kill innocent people, and they wouldn't care. I'm not condoning this. However, Extreme Islamic groups would like to use Saddam's WOMD to kill every innocent person who is not the same color and religion as they are. To top it off, they will do this even if it means destroying themselves.

Ok you are correct almost on everything, but Saddam would not help islamic goups because they pose a big threat to his regime, i've said this before but i think this needs saying again, Saddam killed off all the islamic groups and all the communist groups when he came into power.

Muhajaroon is the title that freedom fighters take upon themselves in order to identify with Muhammad and his follows as they struggled on their emmigration from Mecca to Medina. The Freedom Fighters want to draw support to their movement by identifying with popular Islamic history in comparing themselves to the loyal followers of the Prophet.

This, however, is an insult to the Prophet as they violate the rules of war that he set forth. They claim his name and use the most vile of tactics. If you claim that these rules can be broken when onbe is on the offensive, then why can't they be broken when fighting kafirs, infidels? These rules were enstated to show the moral superiority of Islam over other religions. To discard them when it suits your needs is vile and foul. In the Koran, Allah rewards those submit and follow his rules and path, their vigilence and spiritual purity to them should be enough to ensure their victory as Allah rewards those who are in the right.

The fire part is simple, fire is to be used as a limited weapon. The reasoning is that Allah uses fire to punish people, burning in hell, and therefore to use fire as a weapon is an attempt at imatating Allah and his means of punishment.

The victories of Hezbollah condem the entirety of Islam and are a black mark upon Islamic civilization.

My reference of Crossfire was in response to you claiming that I contradict myself. Here is what I mean: I do not watch CNN on a religious or even a regular basis, but I am aware of its existence. The times that I have watched it, I have seen them fight the President hard on his policy towards Israel and the Gulf. They are always clamoring for more time, restraint, and how the Israelis response is too harsh, to swift, or too unguided.

Israel is a legitimate state. It was created by a vote from the UN out of British owned land that they receieved when Turkey abandoned the Ottoman Empire. This is the same situations that happened when any of the colonial territories were given up: borders were drawn and land was distributed, in this case, the Israelis were given the land. This does not legitamize the methods of the terrorists.

The Sacred Land issue should not be a problem. The Wahhabi are allowed to control Mecca and yet they allow Shia and Sufi in as well as non Wahhabi Suni. Israel has no incentive to close off the sacred sights as they are loosing the income from "tourism." And you shouldn't be suprised that the Western Nations have supported Israel, it was their vote in the UN that created them.

The situation are different, yes, but the response of the Palestinians to it has greatly aggrevated their cause. Even if peace can be reached, Israel will still demand that the terrorist groups be hunted down and destroyed. They will not forgive the buses, cafes, and clubs that have been bombed, nor the innocent people that died in the attack. India was successful becuase their pacifism allowed them to claim victom hood and a moral superiority to the British. In Palestine, no such moral superiority exists as defenseless women and children are executed by masked gunmen or exploded as they shop in the market.

quote:

---

A BBC report said that american bases are being attacked about three times a week in afghanistan, so that proves there are people against american occupation.

---

That is as representative of the Afghan people as the terrorists are on the whole of Islam.

quote:

---

Also how do you know that the oil will be sold to the benefit the iraqi people, mate i know for sure that's BS, the oil will be stolen by US companies and the US will benefit only.

---

I know this because it is good public relations. The United States does not want to be seen as a looter and the world media will have a field day if the US loots their oil. Selling on the world market will also effectively lower the price on all oil meaning that the Administration could claim credit for any drop in gas prices. Lastly, any company that either pumps or refines the oil will need to rebuild the oil fields, rebuild the infrastructure, and have workers at the facilities. All of this translates into income for the Iraqi people and wealth generation. With disposable income, their will be profit incentives for other businesses to enter as now, people have capital to invest and money for luxury items. It is not cost effective for whatever company that takes over to import all of the labor or materials it needs to rebuild Iraq.

You talk about territorial integrity and about the ignomy of invaders, but how do you propose that you deal with a despot? How are we to ensure that once Saddam is gone, someone worse does not take his place? Should we leave and let whatever weeds are left sprout and mature? Military bases help to stabalize the power vaccuum that is left after any leader is gone. We have been criticized for turning our backs on the countries that we liberate, military bases are their to ensure what we liberate, stays liberated.

It is not a matter of Saddam attacking first. It is a matter of him slipping a terrorist group a weapon, selling it on the black market, or having it stolen. When Saddam does retire, their will be a power vacuum, who will take over? Their might be a civil war among the genearls or a Kurdish uprising. The point is that in any even of internal turmoil, things have a tendency to get embezzeled/stolen. Iraq is not a reliable or responsible nation that should be allowed to possess the most destructive weapons on Earth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
Muhajaroon is the title that freedom fighters take upon themselves in order to identify with Muhammad and his follows as they struggled on their emmigration from Mecca to Medina. The Freedom Fighters want to draw support to their movement by identifying with popular Islamic history in comparing themselves to the loyal followers of the Prophet.

This, however, is an insult to the Prophet as they violate the rules of war that he set forth. They claim his name and use the most vile of tactics. If you claim that these rules can be broken when onbe is on the offensive, then why can't they be broken when fighting kafirs, infidels? These rules were enstated to show the moral superiority of Islam over other religions. To discard them when it suits your needs is vile and foul. In the Koran, Allah rewards those submit and follow his rules and path, their vigilence and spiritual purity to them should be enough to ensure their victory as Allah rewards those who are in the right.

---

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Where did you get this muhajiroon talk from?
I have NEVER heard of these groups calling themselves muhajiroon and never heard that if someone calls themselves that it is an insult to the prophet, so i think you are imagining things unless you can back up you talk.

quote:

---

The fire part is simple, fire is to be used as a limited weapon. The reasoning is that Allah uses fire to punish people, burning in hell, and therefore to use fire as a weapon is an attempt at imatating Allah and his means of punishment.

The victories of Hezbollah condem the entirety of Islam and are a black mark upon Islamic civilization.

---

I've never heard about these freedom fighters using flamethrowers against israelis, but i have seen pics of palestinian babies burned by israeli troops.( How far can this terrorism go...sigh)

I'm proud of Hizballah because they liberated occupied land and kicked the israelis out with bravery and honour.

quote:

---

My reference of Crossfire was in response to you claiming that I contradict myself. Here is what I mean: I do not watch CNN on a religious or even a regular basis, but I am aware of its existence. The times that I have watched it, I have seen them fight the President hard on his policy towards Israel and the Gulf. They are always clamoring for more time, restraint, and how the Israelis response is too harsh, to swift, or too unguided.

---

Well then i can safely tell you that i watch CNN regularly and they cover up most horrors committed by the "legitimate" israeli government, i can see this because other channels show very terrible things that are NEVER seen in "free" american news.

quote:

---

Israel is a legitimate state. It was created by a vote from the UN out of British owned land that they receieved when Turkey abandoned the Ottoman Empire. This is the same situations that happened when any of the colonial territories were given up: borders were drawn and land was distributed, in this case, the Israelis were given the land. This does not legitamize the methods of the terrorists.

---

I do not believe in the UN, as they are only a cover up for for the super powers who want to control the world's weath and resources, so don't tell me any more "legitimate" things based on UN actions.

quote:

---

The Sacred Land issue should not be a problem. The Wahhabi are allowed to control Mecca and yet they allow Shia and Sufi in as well as non Wahhabi Suni. Israel has no incentive to close off the sacred sights as they are loosing the income from "tourism." And you shouldn't be suprised that the Western Nations have supported Israel, it was their vote in the UN that created them.

---

What sacred land issue problem? I was referring to sacred land in jerusalem which is sacred for Muslims, jews and christians and other sacred places in palestine like Bethlehem for christians. I wasn't talking about Mecca.

quote:

---

The situation are different, yes, but the response of the Palestinians to it has greatly aggrevated their cause. Even if peace can be reached, Israel will still demand that the terrorist groups be hunted down and destroyed. They will not forgive the buses, cafes, and clubs that have been bombed, nor the innocent people that died in the attack. India was successful becuase their pacifism allowed them to claim victom hood and a moral superiority to the British. In Palestine, no such moral superiority exists as defenseless women and children are executed by masked gunmen or exploded as they shop in the market.

---

To my joy you have agreed that the situation is different and in your previous post you agreed different situations are dealt with differently (am i right?).
So now we are at least on the same path, OK the palestinian cause would have gotten more support if it was dealt with peacefully, im agreeing on that, but the problem is it CAN'T be dealt with differently, if it was, I would be happy and you would be happy too.
You seem to fail to ralise that life is much more complex than that.

quote:

---

A BBC report said that american bases are being attacked about three times a week in afghanistan, so that proves there are people against american occupation.

---

That is as representative of the Afghan people as the terrorists are on the whole of Islam.][/QUOTE]

FALSE, it represents that the afghans don't like the USA and want them to get out, bye bye they say.

quote:

---

I know this because it is good public relations. The United States does not want to be seen as a looter and the world media will have a field day if the US loots their oil. Selling on the world market will also effectively lower the price on all oil meaning that the Administration could claim credit for any drop in gas prices. Lastly, any company that either pumps or refines the oil will need to rebuild the oil fields, rebuild the infrastructure, and have workers at the facilities. All of this translates into income for the Iraqi people and wealth generation. With disposable income, their will be profit incentives for other businesses to enter as now, people have capital to invest and money for luxury items. It is not cost effective for whatever company that takes over to import all of the labor or materials it needs to rebuild Iraq.

---

Man, i woke up from a dream yesterday and it wasn't half as good as what you are saying about public relations and how iraqi oil will be dealt with.
I think you believe that the US is the "peacemaker" when they are nothing but the "peacefaker".
Do you truely believe the US is attacking Iraq to get rid of terrorism and evil around the world?
My friend i think you should wake up from your fantasy land and stop watching too much Oprah and com bak to reality.
THE OIL WILL BE STOLEN.

quote:

---

You talk about territorial integrity and about the ignomy of invaders, but how do you propose that you deal with a despot? How are we to ensure that once Saddam is gone, someone worse does not take his place? Should we leave and let whatever weeds are left sprout and mature? Military bases help to stabalize the power vaccuum that is left after any leader is gone. We have been criticized for turning our backs on the countries that we liberate, military bases are their to ensure what we liberate, stays liberated.

---

HMMM, liberation you say?
A country is only TRUELY LIBERATED when the people control the country in every way, not general tommy franks and his bum buddies from the navy putting bases there.
Military bases in the long term only cause the iraqi public anger to grow, an excellent example of this today is Korea, did you see the anti-US protests on this "ALLY" of yours, if the rest of your allies hate you as much as korea then your doomed for sure.

If the US is really serious about rebuilding iraq maybe some money could help as the USA are the richest country by FAR, look at afghanistan, that shows how generous you americans are, you bomb the place and put your army there and karzai is wondering where the promised riches will com from...

quote:

---

It is not a matter of Saddam attacking first. It is a matter of him slipping a terrorist group a weapon, selling it on the black market, or having it stolen. When Saddam does retire, their will be a power vacuum, who will take over? Their might be a civil war among the genearls or a Kurdish uprising. The point is that in any even of internal turmoil, things have a tendency to get embezzeled/stolen. Iraq is not a reliable or responsible nation that should be allowed to possess the most destructive weapons on Earth.

---

Plz don't label iraq as saddam, that only shows your ignorance.
Saddam would more likely keep the weapons for himself rather than waste it on a guy living in a cave.
CIVIL WAR? LOOOOOOOOOOL
Imagination these days...keeps on amazing me further and further.
THIS IS NOT AFGHANISTAN, people are CIVILISED, plz go watch some documentary about the people of iraq and then come back to me. civil war is very unlikely as the people would want to end the decades of sufferin imposed on them by the USA (as they put saddam to power).

What I am talking about is simple. The name Muhajiroun was the name given to the followers of Muhammad who emigrated from Mecca to Medina with him. Islamic extremists analogize themselves to the Muhajirouns as the group of suffering loyalists who devoutly followed the Prophet on the hard journey. This is simmilar to an American militia fondly thinking of themselves as the Minutemen, a reference to the heros of the American Revolution. It is not always an insult to the Prophet, but considering thier brutal tactics, to imply that the Prophet would have associated with such brutal murders, would clearly break several blasphemy laws.

I too doubt that the terrorists employed freedom fighters, but I wonder how explosives and incindinearies are considered.

I could be proud that the Tutsis gained power over the Hutus, but because of all of the people who were murdered, any victory would turn to ash. Hezbollah has no honor. To claim so is laughable.

Even if you disregard the UN's vote to create Israel, you have to respect Britains right to do with the teritory as they see fit, as it is their land.

As for Sacred Land, you claimed earlier that the situation was complicated because of the Holy Land that was located in Israel. I too was referring to Jerusalem, but I was also pointing out a simmilar problem in the Muslim world where Mecca is in Wahhabi land. The Wahhabis have a history of violently persecuting all non-Wahhabi, yet they allow Shia, Sufi, and "other Sunni" to visit the Kabba. If you are afraid that Israel will block off the holy sites, they won't, why, because they are tourists sites that would generate income.

quote:

---

So now we are at least on the same path, OK the palestinian cause would have gotten more support if it was dealt with peacefully, im agreeing on that, but the problem is it CAN'T be dealt with differently, if it was, I would be happy and you would be happy too.
You seem to fail to ralise that life is much more complex than that.

---

I am not completely understanding this comment. What I am saying is this, at its roots, both the Indians and the Palestinians had a choice, to either deal with their problem peacefully or violently. I maintain that if they had chosen peace, they would have had more success, because as is, they have made themselves a threat to Israels existence. Israel will not tolearte this threat anymore than it would tolerate Syrias or Egypts aggresion. Now, the situation has to be dealt with differently as violence requires a differnt response than peace. Becuase violence was chosen, they have no right to lament their losses or blame the Israelis for the direct outcome of their choices.

quote:

---

FALSE, it represents that the afghans don't like the USA and want them to get out, bye bye they say.

---

You are missing my point. From the actions of the terrorists, I could claim that Islam is a foul religion of violence and brutality that is an obscene perversion of the Abrahamic faiths. You can not claim that the action of a few in Afghanistan are representative of the whole nor can I claim that the actions of the terrorists represent the entirety of Islam. A single part does not define the whole.

I watch Oprah now? I thought it was just too much CNN. Its good to know thought that you think I am in otuch with my femine side though. The oil will not be stolen because the international community will raise hell, as if they won't no matter what, but the US would also lose the ability to justify any future war. Even though its sad, the US does seem to care about what the world thinks.

You are trying to claim that the South Koreans want us gone? That is beyond a doubt the most hillarious statement I have read all day. With the North becoming more violent and aggresive, they aer free to kick us out, but then they would be left bent over a barrel. South Korea needs us for protection. They need us, and despite your faux claim of hatred, they realize that if we were gone, then they would entirely be at the mercy of the militaristic north.

Saddam and Iraq are synonomous. He is a dictator that has complete control over the country and every action within it. The people are not Saddam and they are not Iraq. The point of this is that since he has complete control over the state, you cannot seperate him from the state.

If Saddam has the capability to manufacture nukes, why wouldn't he give them to some guy in a cave? Part of his power comes from his mystery and uncertainty. He does not need to have a billion bombs to protect himself, it is not inconceivable that he would slip one to a terrorist group to attack the US.

A civil war is not unimaginalbe. Saddam took power through a military coup and you cannot claim that during his rule, the country became more civilized. When he dies, their will be a power vaccuum. I find you immagination laughable now to believe that suddenly the people will take power despite the fact that the generals will be alive, kicking, and still controlling the military. If it was a simple matter of revolt, Saddam would allready be gone, however, since he wields the military as a swoprd agaisnt his own people, you cannot believe that spontaneously upon Saddams death, the people will take power and the generals will stand aside. Also, if the people wanted to end the suffering that Saddam was imposing on them, then they should be glad that the US is invading and rectifying their mistake.

About the muhajiroun linguistics, I for one am interested to see support from Nuke or Blue Rock although I am inclined to agree with Nuke.

Rock, what "terrible things" do you see on your free news stations?

What is the tone of the news where you're from? Any editorializing in them?

There is censorship on the television in America. This is because children watch television and most Americans don't want their children to hear or see certain things, like bloody dead babies...or brutally murdered Israel children, which you don't see on the TV here either. You think everybody in this country is educated by the television...but that's wh`ere you and the rest of our sniveling European friends are sorely mistaken.

The press reports what happens. CNN is in fact the least Zionist of them all, but I digress. The fact is, people know what happens, and we support it. You're talking about the people who took total war to a new level and flattened two Japanese cities in the blink of an eye. We understand the use of force, and we can back up our rhetoric with a fist if need be.

When a person advocates my utter destruction, justifies themselves by claiming spiritual enlightenment and citing a religious duty to enslave or kill me, and has repeatedly attacked me with the intention of killing me, I tend to weigh the sanctity of their life rather dubiously. Israel is no different. Israelis serve in the military because they know they must protect themselves against people who want them eliminated. They begin to calculate dead Palestinians in terms of Israeli lives saved. And the benefit of a dead criminal who had killed and/or would kill dozens of citizens outweighs the ambiguious moral cost of collateral damage in the form of the "innocents" he chose to hide behind.

When women and children repeatedly attack Israeli soldiers, it only increases these soldiers' wariness of trusting women and children, and their likelihood of being harmed inevitably increases.

Israel is blunt in its refusal to cede to Palestinian terrorism, and rightly so. Arabs have repeatedly voiced their desire to eradicate Jews from the Middle East. If the US said that about Iraq, what do you think world opinion would be like then?

South Koreans hate the US? Hardly. We bring money in and lighten them of their economic burden by allowing free trade and immigration into the US. Japan and Korea might bellyache about US Marines who rape their daughters, but politically and economically speaking, Korea and Japan might as well be begging for American hegemony to balance out their big, growing and nuclear-armed neighbor and their little, historically-invasive and black-hole poor, nuclear-armed neighbor.

In fact, Taiwan and Japan buy our missile defense weaponry and technology.

No government where the US has installed troops in the last fifty years has officially asked them to leave, except for France...and guess what? The Americans left. We don't impose ourselves on people without their consent.

Afghanistan is an interesting case, as the official government has gained power in a vaccuum and must rely on US strength to build a system the people want.

Question: all these attacks against US soldiers in Afghanistan, they go unnoticed here in America how? Soldiers go fight, soldiers come home and then they talk about what happened. I know several. Soldiers are not the type to unthinkingly agree with and support their government. They reserve that level of fidelity for their fellow soldiers. Perhaps the Afghans are entirely ineffectual in combat and haven't caused a single casualty. But you of all people, with your broad experience in news programming, should know that journalists of all nationalities will cluster around blood like flies on shit. If there were a legitimate struggle of the people against the US in Afghanistan, we would hear about it, I promise you.

Islam is not a religion of peace. The prophet's actions and words, in the Qur'an as well as dubiously "recorded" in the ha'dith, demonstrate an attitude toward outsiders that is demeaning, megalomaniacal...and backed up with threats and uses of murder and treachery. A religion of the sword, perhaps. Of peace, hardly.

When the Iraqis live with the American soldiers and realize the benefits they bring, in addition to the benefits of a government without Saddam Hussein, they will begin to realize that the US is not a great oppressor and oil thief.

Although I can give a brief explanation of the linguistics, I am in no way the most qualified of sources.

Arabic is based on a tri-literal root system. This means that the meaning of most words is determined by a combination of three letters.
Examples:

Islam: the word means submission and it is formed by the root slm.

Mu: this is a prefix attached to words and means: "those who"
Example Muslim= those who submit

Mujahid= those who strugle with
Mujahir= those who emmigrate with

When groups use either of these terms, they are seeking to identify themselves with the loyalists who stayed true to Muhammad in his most desperate times.

heh 'appropriately brutal'.. yeah i'll remember that one heh..

err actually boys.. its all about oil..the iraqis have the largest currently unexploited oil reserves (10 million barrels).. afghanistan is how it will get to Japan and China.. so whose gonna control it??.. lets have a war

also the British did not i repeat fucking NOT give palestine to the israelis.. that clear??.. thats why we were at war with them for about 3 years.. Begin and his bunch of terrorists.. sorry i forgot they're legit now..heh.. 'government in exile' anyone..heh..actually we were railroaded by the us israeli and jewish interests cos of all the money we still owed them after WW2.. they threatened to bankrupt us..

as for bin laden don't make me laugh.. he's a member of the Carlyle group.. he and his mate GB actually make money from this.. heh

and i just saw this

And yet you are celebrating facism considering it was the US that put an end to the threat posed by both Japan and Germany

err NO! (us) you fucking didn't it was a team effort.. and i could trifle about the fact that you waited until it was a foregone conclusion (seeing as the soviets had got their arse in gear) before you joined in..
too much holywood .. go read some books..