The Kidnapping\murders In The Mideast

A friend of mine wrote this and I agree with his thoughts and logic.


This situation has made me sick. Not terrorized and wanting us to cut & run but mad as h*ll!!! I realize that the purpose of terrorism is to strike at the heart of the population, to make common citizens fearful rather than strike at a nation's government or military. How do you combat an enemy that will sacrifice itself, it's children and it's humanity without becoming as brutal as the enemy itself? The media has filled the airwaves with photos and videos of the abuses of the Iraqi detainees and yet to condemn our military for the action of a few and to draw comparisons to the murder of civilians is ludicrous.
I know that the videos of the be-headings are out there and many say that adults should watch to try to understand the brutality of the enemy but I can't bring myself to do it. I can hate the murderers just fine without seeing the poor victim suffer his last moments at the hands of these animals. This is not a quick death, this is not death with dignity or purpose, this is a murder of a non-combatant by cowards who can only prey on civilized people. I have heard people say that we need to get our people and troops out of the Mideast but I can't help to remind them that we weren't there when the animals killed 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001. We were not over there when Daniel Pearl was beheaded. These murdering cowards will not stop with our withdrawal but rather be encouraged, knowing that we can be intimidated. Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and now this South Korean are more evidence that we are dealing with a group of people who have no respect for life and no shred of civilized humanity. How do we defeat a foe without sinking to their level? One thing is sure, these atrocities will continue until the mainstream Muslim world stands up and condemns these actions and people. Saudi Arabia have been dealing with these extremist with a 'wink & nod' for years and it is now time that we hold the House of Saud's feet to the fire and make them understand that if they are not condemning it, they are supporting it. Last week, a Saudi official told the western press that they condemn these actions and then told the Arab press that the Al Queda was supported by "Zionists". This is the type of anti-Semitic rhetoric that perpetuates this brutality. What kind of religion encourages it's followers to commit these kinds of acts in the name of their god. Apparently, as a Christian, I cannot fathom the thought process that would cause one religion to exterminate another religion in the name of their 'loving god'. I can also forsee a similar sentiment growing in this country. There are those who believe that all Muslims are terrorists, which they aren't but if they can't stand up with us and fight those who have hi-jacked their religion, they shouldn't be surprised when public opinion turns against them all.
The news quoted an Saudi citizen last week when the search for Paul Johnson was underway. This man actually said "How can we inform on our brothers when we see all these pictures coming from Abu Ghraib and Rafah?". To equate these events is insulting. I'm sure Nick Berg and Paul Johnson would have, if given the choice, gladly walked around naked with panties on their head rather than suffer their fate.
Is it time that we turn loose our intelligence agencies and special forces with a freer hand to infiltrate and if necessary assassinate members of radical groups? We have bound their hands in so many areas that we are in the dark in regards to so many threats that face us. One thing I do know is that while Israel still suffers attacks on it's population, their response is always swift and severe, the way it should be. Attack us and be assured that there will be reprisals. Unfortunately, too often the reprisals are criticized by the UN and other groups while the provoking attack is ignored.
God help me but if this goes on much longer, I'm afraid I'll be with the group calling for nuking all of Iraq and Syria and Iran and let God worry about sorting them out.

Can we say asshole?
He goes on saying that he doesnt think all Muslims are terrorists then at the end talks about nuking Muslim countries if this sort of thing continues...(maybe we got ourself the next Bush)
If you took the time to go and read the Qua'ran, you will be shocked and amzaed ( I guaran-damn-tee you that you will be) of what you will find out. There are extremists in every ethnic/sexual/age group whatever.
You expect the Muslim countries to fight? With what, sticks and stones? Only these terrorists have the weapons to kill, the rest of the army (if that country is lucky enough to have one) They are frantically trying to fund the hospitals where they are swarmed with innocent civilians who just happened to have been in the cross fire of terrorists and suspected terrorists alike.
Yes we do have to do something about this, and yes it is becoming irritable to watch or hear about these beheading videos, but blaming a religion will not get you ANYWHERE!!!!

"I have heard people say that we need to get our people and troops out of the Mideast but I can't help to remind them that we weren't there when the animals killed 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001."
maybe its me, but the bastards that hit my NYC and Washington on 9-11 were Al-Qaida that were stationed in Afganistan, not IRAQ. We should be still concentrating on getting them there than getting rid of Saddam and this so called liberating of IRAQ. We got Saddam on false reasons and the mastermind of the attacks (Osama) is stillout there planning his next set of attacks. Hmmm yeah thats a great plan.

"What kind of religion encourages it's followers to commit these kinds of acts in the name of their god."
hmmmm, I guess most religions that have been involved in wars in this past few centuries. Can anyone say the crusades.

"Is it time that we turn loose our intelligence agencies and special forces with a freer hand to infiltrate and if necessary assassinate members of radical groups?"
hmmm, it looks like the mantra of the terrorist view as well.

"I'm afraid I'll be with the group calling for nuking all of Iraq and Syria and Iran and let God worry about sorting them out."
hmmm yeah, go for it, I am sure that will go well with the worlds biggest religious group that will look at it as an attack on muslims. It would get them so much more reason to hate us.

I say we count our losses , get the rest of the boys out and let them deal with their own government and concentrate on getting Osama.

Can we say asshole?
He goes on saying that he doesnt think all Muslims are terrorists then at the end talks about nuking Muslim countries if this sort of thing continues...(maybe we got ourself the next Bush)


Why would he be an asshole? He didn't say that he believes that all muslim countries should be nuked, just said he would start thinking that way and he doesn't want to do that. That is why he wrote "God help me".

maybe its me, but the bastards that hit my NYC and Washington on 9-11 were Al-Qaida that were stationed in Afganistan, not IRAQ. We should be still concentrating on getting them there than getting rid of Saddam and this so called liberating of IRAQ. We got Saddam on false reasons and the mastermind of the attacks (Osama) is stillout there planning his next set of attacks. Hmmm yeah thats a great plan.

Never did he say that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks. He stated that we did not occupy Iraq or the Afghans till after 9-11. We did not occupy when Daniel Pearl was murdered , that these deaths were not caused by us invading Iraq, that the deaths would of happened no matter what,that is all he was implying.

hmmmm, I guess most religions that have been involved in wars in this past few centuries. Can anyone say the crusades.

I guess we don't learn from past mistakes in history!

I say we count our losses , get the rest of the boys out and let them deal with their own government and concentrate on getting Osama.

Thats the worst thing I have ever heard. lets leave Iraq and watch it impode, lets let the innocent muslim citizens die. Mistake or not we can't leave till the new government can take over and isure the innocent people are allowed to live.

Long winded, and poorly concluded.
He speaks of Muslims not condemning these monster's actions, and to a point I agree with this - but I ask you, when was the last time you told anybody that you think what the LRA is doing is horrible. If you haven't heard of the LRA(Lord's Resistance Army), it is a "christian" group that has about as much to with christianity as Al-Qaida has to do with Islam, and as much to do with violence and terrorism as Al-Quaida.

Thats the worst thing I have ever heard. lets leave Iraq and watch it impode, lets let the innocent muslim citizens die. Mistake or not we can't leave till the new government can take over and isure the innocent people are allowed to live.

Well, it seems you have brought the Bush Administration propeganda about the take over of Iraq hook, line and sinker.
The US does not give a rat's ass about saving innocent people. The US actively supported Iraq in the '80's during it's attack and 8 year long war on Iran.
That war cost millions of lives on both sides.

Make no mistake, the US wants to establish a major US friendly, oil rich presence in the middle East, especially now, when Saudi Arabia appears to be waffling. In the long run, it's expected to moderate the opinions and actions of the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians and the entire region.

Now before you flame me, this is a logical course of action for the US. If it works (and thats a big IF) , it will result in a more stable, prosporous and democratic middle east. However, it requires the brutal invasion and overthrow of another soverign nation, an action which is inexcusable and completely contrary to the propeganda line coming from the White House.
Meanwhile the rest of the world wonders 'who's next'? Canada? Mexico? Venezuela?

Thats the worst thing I have ever heard. lets leave Iraq and watch it impode, lets let the innocent muslim citizens die. Mistake or not we can't leave till the new government can take over and isure the innocent people are allowed to live.

You're funny. You're sitting here touting your buddy's letter, that talks about annihilating whole countries, "God help him" or not, and in the same breath, you talk about "innocent muslim citizens". Make up your mind.

Also, you might want to take a look at the numbers. Bushy boy's little foray into Iraq has killed more "innocent muslim citizens", than it has "terrorists".

"I have heard people say that we need to get our people and troops out of the Mideast but I can't help to remind them that we weren't there when the animals killed 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001."
maybe its me, but the bastards that hit my NYC and Washington on 9-11 were Al-Qaida that were stationed in Afganistan, not IRAQ. We should be still concentrating on getting them there than getting rid of Saddam and this so called liberating of IRAQ. We got Saddam on false reasons and the mastermind of the attacks (Osama) is stillout there planning his next set of attacks. Hmmm yeah thats a great plan.
It is a known FACT tha Al-Qaida is located in MANY contries besides Afghanistan. They are in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, Spain, and have been in many other places including Venice. Florida.......and YOU, in YOUR infinate wisdom don't think they are in Iraq?? Pulease!
"Is it time that we turn loose our intelligence agencies and special forces with a freer hand to infiltrate and if necessary assassinate members of radical groups?"
hmmm, it looks like the mantra of the terrorist view as well.
No. It is the mantra of national defense....defense of civilization!
I say we count our losses , get the rest of the boys out and let them deal with their own government and concentrate on getting Osama.
I say you must be on drugs to think it is in the world's best interest to cut and run. You cave in to terror....you leave the door open for more terror than you ever dreamed of! That is what happened on 9/11. The terrorists were encouraged by the lack of action following previous terror attacks.

It is a known FACT tha Al-Qaida is located in MANY contries besides Afghanistan. They are in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, Spain, and have been in many other places including Venice. Florida.......and YOU, in YOUR infinate wisdom don't think they are in Iraq?? Pulease!
Whats up with the "YOU, in YOUR infinite wisdom comment?" Are we not in a free society to express our views, its only my opinion, besides I never said they are not in Iraq. You are correct in your statement that they are everywhere. But the fact remains, it was not Saddam that masterminded the attacks and last I heard Osama was not in Iraq.
No. It is the mantra of national defense....defense of civilization! Well to me it would just make us the same on their same level if we start the assassinations. Now I may be wrong in my views but we start to give the intelligence agencies (thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one) more power and they will start to push for more laws much more dangerous to our freedoms which would make the Patriot Act look tame. Can anyone say Big Brother.
I say you must be on drugs to think it is in the world's best interest to cut and run. You cave in to terror....you leave the door open for more terror than you ever dreamed of! That is what happened on 9/11. The terrorists were encouraged by the lack of action following previous terror attacks.
Who said anything about caving in to terror. There is no reason to be in Iraq, every reason Bush and company have put out are not true. Now its true we are in or at least of the point of no return, no matter how much I would love to just get up and go you can't for multiple reasons, but it has been done in the past, unfortunently after so much bloodshed was done first. As for 9/11, I live and witness the horror that day here in NY. I am all for making the people who did this or masterminded this attack pay dearly. But not by going in to take out a dictator and leaving his country in ruins when he had nothing to do with it and still have Osama alive and coming up with more schemes to attack us. To me it doesn't make sense.

Disclaimer:
The views expressed are those soley of the poster, it is not the view of anyone one else. :smile:

You're funny. You're sitting here touting your buddy's letter, that talks about annihilating whole countries, "God help him" or not, and in the same breath, you talk about "innocent muslim citizens". Make up your mind.

Also, you might want to take a look at the numbers. Bushy boy's little foray into Iraq has killed more "innocent muslim citizens", than it has "terrorists".


Just call me John Kerry jr.

im disturbed that he wants us to react like israel. i mean really. have their actions ceased the terrorism in their country, or caused it to explode?

did their hevay handed approach to terror cease the senseless violence? or are they still victims of bus bombings?

israels "reactions" have done a number of things:
been condemed by the rest of the world (excepting the US)

killedthousands of innocent civilians. more than the terrorist attacks against them.

and cause violence in the region on BOTH sides to increase astronomically.

this is not the route America should take. period.

Yep :iagree:

i find this all very ironic.

this is not the route America should take. period.

Too late.

[QUOTE=lazysmurff]im disturbed that he wants us to react like israel. i mean really. have their actions ceased the terrorism in their country, or caused it to explode?
QUOTE]

I don't think Isreal has done everything that they wanted to do. They have stopped short of doing all that they can do.

As for Iraq who is "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" who resides near Baghdad? Could he be Osama's second in charge? How did he end up in Iraq? Was he in Iraq before the US invaded Iraq?

As for Iraq who is "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" who resides near Baghdad? Could he be Osama's second in charge? How did he end up in Iraq? Was he in Iraq before the US invaded Iraq?[/QUOTE]


so you invade a whole country to get one man. :screwy:

let me know if you want any one in canada i will drag em to the border myself.

so why aren't you using spec. ops to get osama and the boys. seems it would be cheaper and save them a little in the PR department.

He goes on saying that he doesnt think all Muslims are terrorists then at the end talks about nuking Muslim countries if this sort of thing continues...(maybe we got ourself the next Bush)


If Bush had wanted to nuke the middle east, he'd have already done it. I know when I woke up on 9/11 and saw those pictures, if the news had announced that NORAD was preparing to fire a few ICBMs at random into the middle east, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Now I would, but then I didn't. He missed his chance because he didn't want to do it, kind of a surprise to the libbies here I know...


You expect the Muslim countries to fight?


No, I expect them to stand up and tell the world that it's not what they're all about and start to work with the CIA and the other countries intelligence agencies to report on and root out these worthless bastards.


They are frantically trying to fund the hospitals where they are swarmed with innocent civilians who just happened to have been in the cross fire of terrorists and suspected terrorists alike.


All the more reason to tell what they know instead of just trying to hide from it.

"I have heard people say that we need to get our people and troops out of the Mideast but I can't help to remind them that we weren't there when the animals killed 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001."
maybe its me, but the bastards that hit my NYC and Washington on 9-11 were Al-Qaida that were stationed in Afganistan, not IRAQ. We should be still concentrating on getting them there than getting rid of Saddam and this so called liberating of IRAQ. We got Saddam on false reasons and the mastermind of the attacks (Osama) is stillout there planning his next set of attacks. Hmmm yeah thats a great plan.



You DO know that Iraq worked with Al Qaida on other projects don't you? Iraq helped support them.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13679

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

That last one has a link to a UN report showing that Saddam had entire missile compounds and missiles themselves labeled and sold as scrap metal so they could cross the borders into other countries, RIGHT BEFORE THE US GOT THERE. The've found some of the missiles intact with their UN weapons inspection tags still on them.

How's them apples? I completely agree with going to Iraq, not just to kick out Saddam, but to build a democracy, like we did with germany after WW2, that will help us in capturing and holding back any future terrorists. Right now, other than Isreal, there are no 'true' allies of ours in the middle east, this whole operation is to try and make one. It's a prudent idea, even though since it's an election year the media will make it look like another Vietnam and a complete failure, that we're there for no reason other than oil. They've done a pretty good brainwashing job so far from all the remarks I see as to 'what we're doing in Iraq'.

Meanwhile the rest of the world wonders 'who's next'? Canada? Mexico? Venezuela?

We already have half of Mexico living here, why invade them? We already control Canadas strings, why invade there? Venezuela I don't know about, that would be a debatable one.

Now for the serious tone. It makes perfect sense to create a stable democratic government over in the middle east, after all, that's the best way to defeat terrorists. Terrorism doesn't just breed fear, it's bred BY fear. Eliminate the fear, (helplessness, fear of attack, insecurity of government rule), and you'd go a long way towards eliminating terrorism. Whats so bad about picking Iraq to do this with? We already hacked the Taliban down in Afghanistan and have them started on their way to democracy, but Afghanistan wouldn't really be all that much of an example to the other countries and wouldn't be all that powerful. Iraq on the other hand, would be and was already in poor shape with a dictator whom the people living there hated... ripe for the picking I'd say. It makes perfect sense. The only problem is, Bush should have invaded Iraq earlier, because now all the critical times over there are here during an election year and the media is chewing it to pieces with lies and half truths. If Kerry gets elected, he can either toe the line and finish what Bush started, (which would unfortunately garner him all the credit if it's successful), or he can withdraw and do a half assed job over there, the country can collapse in on itself and we'll have even more terrorists to deal with. We'll see how it turns out.

ahem, so far, the Iraq war is a complete failure...

we havent found WMD

the government we are about to establish is already shakey, full of back stabbing and bickering and threats to leave and disolve it before it even gets started.

and we have yet to show that iraq had any ties to alqeuda that our government doesnt have.

the iraqi public has said they would feel safer without our presence.

we still havent found bin laden, or put a damper on terror.

besides ousting a tyranical dictator that we helped put in power, what good have we done?

ahem, so far, the Iraq war is a complete failure...

we havent found WMD


Read the UN report in the links of my above post


the government we are about to establish is already shakey, full of back stabbing and bickering and threats to leave and disolve it before it even gets started.


Duh, Germany had the same problem when it first started to get back to its feet after WW2, but it didn't have people blowing stuff up while they tried to start.


and we have yet to show that iraq had any ties to alqeuda that our government doesnt have.


Links in my above post again.


the iraqi public has said they would feel safer without our presence.


Probably because in the short term the bombs would stop, in the long term, they'd hate us more for leaving before a stable government started, just like they hated ust more during the last Gulf War for not finishing the job of killing Saddam and starting this whole ordeal back then.


we still havent found bin laden, or put a damper on terror.


That's yet to be seen, and as Bush and many other have said many times before, this won't be a short fight, it'll take a long time.


besides ousting a tyranical dictator that we helped put in power, what good have we done?

STARTED the progress towards a better government. Look at the U.S., when we first started other countries were betting we wouldn't last 50 years, (we almost didn't), and in fact at first we BARELY made it. It'll take a lot of work on our part and theirs but it's possible to do this if we see it through, instead of bowing out like the libbies would like. Everything has to start somewhere.

God, you libbies give up too easily, your attitude is exacly what the terrorists are playing on, 'give em a bloody nose and they'll run like a bunch of pussies'. That's what they expect and so far, from what the media is showing them, it's the reaction they wanted! If Washington and Jefferson had been liberals, this country wouldn't be here right now, they'd have given up before the war was finished...

i read your articles, and im wondering if you did at this point.

the first, from frontpage (a notably conservative media outlet) is about how allawi is making more unsubstantiated claims about saddam. the man is an exile, who is miffed that he didnt get any power after the war, and is desperatly clawing for any sliver of fame he can grasp. if you read the article, you would know, this is the same man that reported that saddam was trying to buy uranium, which was proved a hoax. hardly a reliable source.

the second article isnt telling anyone anything they didnt already know. they are just wording things differently. get around the semantics, and youll find that all thats going on, according to the world tribune (another incredably conservative outlet), is that iraq shipped "dual use" components out of the country. we knew that, thanks for the update. :rolleyes:

and yes, maybe all governments have a little bit of trouble starting up. ill grant you that. but the area isnt conducive to democracy. they dont know how to work together. what people seem to be missing is that religious and family loyalty are much more important to them than national loyalty. the difference between there country and our newly formed country is this....they dont have a common enemy, we did.

and no, the attitude of the liberal is not what the terrorists are playing on. they play on fear, and who looks more scared, the guy who says "lets not over react" or the government who whips its populace into a frenzy, and blindly flails its military might at anything that moves?

sure, say my attitude is what the terrorists want, but im not scared of them....are you?
----------------------------------------------------------
"COWARDICE, n. A charge often levelled by all-American types against those who stand up for their beliefs by refusing to fight in wars they find unconscionable, and who willingly go to prison or into exile in order to avoid violating their own consciences. These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do so—all to the howling approval of the all-American mob. This type of behavior is commonly termed 'courageous.'"
—Chaz Bufe, The Devil's Dictionaries ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)

If Bush had wanted to nuke the middle east, he'd have already done it. I know when I woke up on 9/11 and saw those pictures, if the news had announced that NORAD was preparing to fire a few ICBMs at random into the middle east, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Now I would, but then I didn't. He missed his chance because he didn't want to do it, kind of a surprise to the libbies here I know...
If Bush would have done that, we wouldn't be writing to each other here in AF. That would have started WW3 for sure. We can't go off and just nuke an entire country without thinking it out. That would surely place us in the history books (if there are any left over) that we started World War Three. I am sure the Pakistan would love us nuking a muslim country and then they would do it to India, we strike Pakistan, etc etc.
We already have half of Mexico living here, why invade them? We already control Canadas strings, why invade there? Venezuela I don't know about, that would be a debatable one.
hahaha maybe we should switch places with mexico.
You DO know that Iraq worked with Al Qaida on other projects don't you? Iraq helped support them.
I do believe lazysmurff responded the best in the first two paragraphs above so I won't, but I will add this to the mix. Under your assumption, Are you saying We should have every reason to go in and take out a dictator and take over his country because he helped Al Qaida. Then what does it say our ourselves, being that we help put Saddam in power and helped him out in the past with weapons, etc, The same with Osama and the CIA war that was fought in Afganistan against Iran, etc. Like the old saying goes, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Read the UN report in the links of my above post


Erm, I did. Have you? What we've got here is Iraq scrapping away the motors for their SA-2 rockets, which is hardly illegal - especially considering the SA-2 has a range of (gasp) 60 kilometers (40 miles) (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/v-75.htm). Those babies wouldn't be hitting Manhattan unless you launched them from Brooklyn.

Duh, Germany had the same problem when it first started to get back to its feet after WW2, but it didn't have people blowing stuff up while they tried to start.

Good God. Perhaps the reason stuff is getting blown up there is because the Iraqis hate us and want us out (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/06/16/a1.iraquspoll.0616.html). The situation in Germany was a tad different. For example, legend has it that GERMANY started that war, and didn't just get bombed and invaded for a bunch of ridiculous reasons.

Probably because in the short term the bombs would stop, in the long term, they'd hate us more for leaving before a stable government started, just like they hated ust more during the last Gulf War for not finishing the job of killing Saddam and starting this whole ordeal back then.

No, they hate us for continually bombing them throughout the 90s and imposing sanctions (combined with bombing) that have caused child mortality and sickness rates to skyrocket (http://www.iacenter.org/baghdad.htm) turns out Oil-for-food's not so useful when your water treatment and sewage plants have been blown up!

STARTED the progress towards a better government. Look at the U.S., when we first started other countries were betting we wouldn't last 50 years, (we almost didn't), and in fact at first we BARELY made it. It'll take a lot of work on our part and theirs but it's possible to do this if we see it through, instead of bowing out like the libbies would like. Everything has to start somewhere.

Awww, turns out that Richard Perle disagrees with you (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0526-11.htm) You remember him, right? He's one of the big ones in the group planned this whole invasion. He says, and I'll quote:

''With violent resistance to the U.S.-led occupation showing no signs of ending, Perle said the biggest mistake in post-war policy "was the failure to turn Iraq back to the Iraqis more or less immediately.'' ''

RICHARD PERLE. Not yer typical pinko, no? Think that should put this all to bed. Have a nice day!

If Bush would have done that, we wouldn't be writing to each other here in AF. That would have started WW3 for sure. We can't go off and just nuke an entire country without thinking it out.


Yeah, that's why I said, 'I wouldn't do it now'. Another thing is that I don't remember them immediately knowing who did it, they only suspected it, so it'd be kinda rash to go nuking places that you weren't sure had anything to do with it...



I do believe lazysmurff responded the best in the first two paragraphs above so I won't, but I will add this to the mix. Under your assumption, Are you saying We should have every reason to go in and take out a dictator and take over his country because he helped Al Qaida. Then what does it say our ourselves, being that we help put Saddam in power and helped him out in the past with weapons, etc, The same with Osama and the CIA war that was fought in Afganistan against Iran, etc. Like the old saying goes, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Christ, here we go again. "It's not the poor terrorists fault! Look at what we've done! We're the reason that this is all happening, oh woe is us! Let's grovel and beg for forgivness at the feet of Osama Bin Laden!" Liberals make me sick. Tell me oh wise one, in all your liberal wisdom, instead of condemning what HAS been done, what would you do? What would the liberal answer be to all this? Hold a peace vigil? Have a sit-in? Send over the Fem-nazis to deal with them? (that last one might actually work with those ravenous bitches and their big mouths, or it'll get all the fem-nazis killed...not much to lose in either case there!)

Well?

Good God. Perhaps the reason stuff is getting blown up there is because the Iraqis hate us and want us out (http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/06/16/a1.iraquspoll.0616.html). The situation in Germany was a tad different. For example, legend has it that GERMANY started that war, and didn't just get bombed and invaded for a bunch of ridiculous reasons.



Good God you Libby reject! Perhaps it's been mostly Iraqis that've been killed by terrorist bombings over there lately fucktard! Gee wilikers Batman! Also Batman! Good God, if Britain and France had bombed the shit out of Germany and invaded them in the early-mid thirties, WW2 never would have happened! Good God! What a mind dump!


No, they hate us for continually bombing them throughout the 90s and imposing sanctions (combined with bombing) that have caused child mortality and sickness rates to skyrocket (http://www.iacenter.org/baghdad.htm) turns out Oil-for-food's not so useful when your water treatment and sewage plants have been blown up!


Do you liberals talk to each other to get your stories down pat? This is the same shit, "It's our fault! We're responsible for all the woes in the world! Maybe we should just lay down and die for them so they'll stop killing people! (Or at least start killing OTHER people). As for the oil for food program, maybe that's because it went from 'oil to food' to 'oil sold for money given underhand to a certain dictator from a corrupt UN and the people starving as a result' Ya think!


Awww, turns out that Richard Perle disagrees with you (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0526-11.htm) You remember him, right? He's one of the big ones in the group planned this whole invasion. He says, and I'll quote:

''With violent resistance to the U.S.-led occupation showing no signs of ending, Perle said the biggest mistake in post-war policy "was the failure to turn Iraq back to the Iraqis more or less immediately.'' ''

RICHARD PERLE. Not yer typical pinko, no? Think that should put this all to bed. Have a nice day!

Awww, turns out that

Good God! I don't give a shit what this asshole thinks! Most of the infrastructure was completely destroyed and they had no government, but a lot of groups that wanted to BE the government, (kinda like right now), however, we had no UN support, nor did we have our soldiers in the position of helping to at least HELP keep these groups from wiping each other out, nor was there any supplementary economy or anything to jump start it with.

Think that should get its lazy ass out of bed! Have a shitty day!


GOOD GOD!

Good God you Libby reject! Perhaps it's been mostly Iraqis that've been killed by terrorist bombings over there lately fucktard! Gee wilikers Batman! Also Batman! Good God, if Britain and France had bombed the shit out of Germany and invaded them in the early-mid thirties, WW2 never would have happened! Good God! What a mind dump!

Respectful AND well-argued! I now understand. I must be reading all the facts wrong because I am, in fact, a Libby reject and a fucktard. Thank you!

England and France invading Germany in the 30s? That would have -been- WW2. 'sides, one of the great things about us democracies as that we (didn't use to) just go around bombing and invading other countries cuz we don't like their leaders.

Terrorists blowing up Iraqis, the Air Force blowing up Iraqis (www.iraqbodycount.org), just seems to be their lot in life, although I don't think any 'terrorists' were blowing anything up in Iraq (other than us) before we invaded.

Can I get a moderator's opinion of the above justacruiser quote?

Do you liberals talk to each other to get your stories down pat? This is the same shit, "It's our fault! We're responsible for all the woes in the world! Maybe we should just lay down and die for them so they'll stop killing people! (Or at least start killing OTHER people). As for the oil for food program, maybe that's because it went from 'oil to food' to 'oil sold for money given underhand to a certain dictator from a corrupt UN and the people starving as a result' Ya think!

2+2 equals 4 no matter where ya go -- it's not like math teachers "talk to each other to get their stories down pat."

Um, we INVADED THEM, for, it turns out, no real reason. When a country invades another country and blows stuff/people up, you can expect the people on the receiving end of the bombs to get a little uppity.

And malnutrition was only a tiny part of the problem. Oil-For-Food didn't provide any funding for rebuilding the sanitation infrastructure we blew up in the Gulf War -- so while food was coming in, they were still drinking dirty, untreated water and their sewage system was destroyed. This leads to sickness and death, especially in children. This makes Iraqis angry. Oh, and the constant bombings during 'peacetime,' and that whole invasion thing, and Abu Ghraib probably didn't help...

The problem is, if the Iraqis hate us this much, any democratic government they get's going to have to go with the will of the people. And that's gonna be unpleasant for us.


Good God! I don't give a shit what this asshole thinks! Most of the infrastructure was completely destroyed and they had no government, but a lot of groups that wanted to BE the government, (kinda like right now), however, we had no UN support, nor did we have our soldiers in the position of helping to at least HELP keep these groups from wiping each other out, nor was there any supplementary economy or anything to jump start it with.

Ok, how about a different guy's take on occupying Iraq:

"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
-- From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"
by President George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, 1998

You remember HIM, right? That commie pinko guy. That bleeding-heart Liberal white-male-guilt-spreading Marxist.

I notice you didn't mention the whole SA-2 missile part, so I guess we're agreed on that.

Good God you Libby reject! Perhaps it's been mostly Iraqis that've been killed by terrorist bombings over there lately fucktard! Gee wilikers Batman! Also Batman! Good God, if Britain and France had bombed the shit out of Germany and invaded them in the early-mid thirties, WW2 never would have happened! Good God! What a mind dump!


You just don't care for the AF user guidelines, do you? Enjoy your vacation.

You just don't care for the AF user guidelines, do you? Enjoy your vacation.

When his arguments are reduced to shreds, I guess there is no other way for him to retaliate, other than trying to bellittle his opponent, in order to both draw away from the real argument, and to make whatever argument his opponent had in the first place, seem less credible, though I doubt he actually thought about it in such abstract terms.

A natural politician, perhaps?

When his arguments are reduced to shreds, I guess there is no other way for him to retaliate, other than trying to bellittle his opponent, in order to both draw away from the real argument, and to make whatever argument his opponent had in the first place, seem less credible, though I doubt he actually thought about it in such abstract terms.

A natural politician, perhaps?

Owned. :icon16:

When his arguments are reduced to shreds, I guess there is no other way for him to retaliate, other than trying to bellittle his opponent, in order to both draw away from the real argument, and to make whatever argument his opponent had in the first place, seem less credible, though I doubt he actually thought about it in such abstract terms.

A natural politician, perhaps?
:owned:

You just don't care for the AF user guidelines, do you? Enjoy your vacation.
Just out of curiosity, what was he banned for? Calling names? Being sarcastic? Swearing?

I'm not backing what he said I just would like to know so I won't make the same mistake. :sunglasse

Uncalled flaming?http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/contrib/tweetz/headshake.gif

I'm not sure what uncalled flaming is.

Could it have been because of this rule?

DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

Anyway..enough of the diversionary side track from me.:)

/\YES! thats it....I just posted uncalled flaming because it made sense to me

Now we're discussing flaming and banning. We've lost the topic.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)