I enjoyed your discussion very much, I just finished my page yesterday, Please check tenormin picture webpage devoted to tenormin picture. use of phenergan webpage devoted to use of phenergan. !

Iran with an Islamic terrorist theocratic government can not be trusted to have nuclear Energy. It is the one country in the world that can not be trusted unless there is a regime change.

Here is an exmple why: TEHRAN, Iran -- Some 200 masked young men and women gathered at a Tehran cemetery Thursday to pledge their willingness to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and Israelis.

The ceremony was organized by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has since June been seeking volunteers for attacks in Iraq and Israel.

A spokesman, Ali Mohammadi, described the group meeting Thursday as the "first suicide commando unit," though another official has claimed members already have carried out attacks in Israel.

"Sooner or later we will bury all blasphemous occupiers of Islamic lands," Mohammadi said.

-----------

If only 200 show up out of a population of 60 million, doesn't that also demonstrate they're scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

What do you do when 200 terrorists are ready to die for their cause?

Accommodate them.

I'm sorry but the ideology of Islamofascism is a culture and religion stuck in the darkness of the 12th Century that has not undergone a period of reformation or enlightenment. This is no religion of peace that sanctions the slaughter of innocents.

(Islamonazism and Islamofascism are terms used to describe the use of Nazi and/or fascist terminology, beliefs and propaganda by Islamic religious and political leaders, generally manifesting itself in calls for the destruction of the world and it's "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general.)



Iran,a known terrorist state is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We can worry about "Iranian democracy" later. First comes the safety of America,our allies and our interests. Destroy the mullahs...strike Iran now!

The future of Iran has major strategic policy consequences for the US in this region. A majority of the Iranian people who consider themselves Persian and not Arabic, would overthrow this radical Islamic theocracy if given a chance


The fact remains that Ameica's war against Islamic terror is the whole world's war against Islamo_Fascism and Islamic terrorism.

The fact is that Islam is pure evil dressed up as "peaceful" by some muslims.


Deal with the facts. Muhammad child raped a 9 year old little girl when in her own words was still playing with her dolls.

Then there is Muhammad slaughter of the entire male population of a tribe in Medina. Not to mention his muslims terrorist being told to kill his political enemies including an old man and a women with children. because those bad folks made fun of his pagan moon god cult.

Then there is Muhammad's muslim terrorist killing and stealing from Mecca caravans during the pagan Ramadan. They were told to bring back 20% of the stolen goods to Muhamhead to please allah of course.

And how do you like the koran telling men to beat their wives? It even tells the kind of stick to use.

Then there is the koran's promises of virgins, endless drunkeness (rivers of wine) and homosexual peophilia (young boys as fine as pearls).

Islamic terrorism is based on Islam as revealed through the Qu’ran.There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, which is a totalitarian construct.
In Islam All infidels are to be converted, enslaved or killed.As long as the Koran exists, Islam will continue to oppress, murder, enslave, threaten, lie and terrorize innocent people.

When I think of what type of people order their followers to commit murder, I only can think of organized crime bosses or corrupt political figures. Ayatollah Khomenni comes to mind. How would an Iranian be treated if he spoke out about Khomenni ? Amnesty International just reported that many political prisoners have been executed in Iran.
His fundamentalist Islamic regime had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world. These murderous Muslims represent exactly what Muhammad was all about. They follow Muhammad's methodology: kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others.

Hizbollah and other Islamic terrorist groups for example knows exactly what they are doing. They know it is cold-blooded murder that they are committing upon Muhammad's request.

With the Islamic terrorists , "enemy personnel" can be anyone from an English Hi humanitarian worker in Iraq, an Indian Kafir(Infidel who doesn't believe in Allah), a Russian,A communist, An Algerian muslim kid, a Dutch filmmaker(van Gough) or Jewish toddler. In short, the enemy is anyone not a Muslim(or sometimes a muslim) who does not believe the world is destined to be ruled by Islam.

Just wanted to invite all to the "IN THE NEWS BOARD". We talk about all to Kobe, Scott Peterson, The war, Hurricanes, some just post a joke. Would love to have you stop by now and then. Hope to see you, just click on the link. In The News.

http://www.quicktopic.com/27/H/yf6n5CMKrr4mf

Actually, it's been over a year between meaningfull posts :) Wow.. Again.. wow :)

Wow :) This thread is still alive? 5 months between posts! Sheesh. That alone merits a reply, however flamish-warish-trollish it might be :)

I didn't see the video though. I didn't see all the pictures of the iraky(sp) prissoners that the senate(?) saw and refused to show the world because they would enflame hatred and violence against the US. We've been told that these pictures, or some of them, are fare worse than the ones that the media has. I'll reserve my judgment untill we can see the whole picture (never?). Nobody deserves that kind of treatment, american or otherwise, whatever the situation. The bible seems to be held in high esteem by a lot of US-americans. You know, "GOD bless america" and all of that? What does it say about violence and vengeance in there? Turn the other cheek?

Ah heck ... here's my opinion : I am, and always have been anti-war.

Does that mean I won't punch you in the face if you punch me first? Probably not :) That would be okay right? I'd be defending myself after all! (in real life, I'd probably be too stunned to act back :p) But what if I was the school bully and you punched me first because I bullied you around? Would that be ok? Would I then be the victim? It all depends on who you think shot the first shot. Nobody ever thinks they shot first, and everyone thinks that the other side is evil. That's the problem with vengeance and with war in general. Do you know of a situation where vengeance actually is the end of a situation? It's an evil self-feeding infinite loop :)

There has got to be a better solution than war. There just *has* to be.

That's it for me. I have to go back to work.

Flame away! (it's an hopeless discussion anyway, for both sides).

after seeing the video all u foold still anti war? wat kinda shit was that... all the al qaeda fuks should be shot healed then shot again and again and again and bush has to stop being a lil pussy if he gives a threat and a demand follow throw with it...

انا اخنث كل امريكي وامريكيه

Edited by author 04-17-2003 12:44 AM
"the most powerful military force in the world"
"the only one that has ever used nukes"
 the one that invades countries"
"despite international outcry"
"the one that says it's fighting for freedom"
"while it locks away it's own citizens and censors it's press"
"the one that develops, markets, sells, and uses weapons of mass destruction"

i try not to insult people by calling them "trolls" because it is counterproductive to a discussion but - you are an idiot. there is so much garbage you just spouted out that i don't know where to begin. theres a false high moral ground you gleefully take by 'attacking the man' when you obviously don't know shit from shinola. without living under a totalitarian regime you are without any knowledge of what it is like and like a buffoon, you attack the freedoms you are allowed by democracy... demoicracy that had to fight through challenges like an attack by a twisted sadistic regime like Togo's Japan. A regime that spread bubonic plaque on innocent people and performed ghastly human experiments.

back to the history books for you!

i can only assume the mention of Palestine set you off. I have a beef with Palestine it is true. the beef comes in two words - Kurds and Tibetans.

Both are a noble people who suffer from having their land occupied. Both have people disapear off the street. Both are robbed of their culture, oppressed, denied liberty or equal rights and denied a country of their own much like the Palestinians. Thing is, neither uses suicide bombers. The Kurds are even smack dab in the middle of terrorist centra, but they are human.

The Palestinians were given what they wanted in 2000. they were offered a bigger country than ever offered before with internationally recognized borders and a seat at the UN. Clinton called their bluff. Why? Because even if they weren't happy with the offer - ironing out an agreement means making a counter offer and they didn't even do that. They saw they could get what they asked for and they walked away from the negotiations- because (!) what they really want is to exploit and kill their deprived people(the children most of all) and call them 'martyrs'.

I ask you: WOULD THE TIBETANS OR THE KURDS TURN DOWN THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND A SEAT AT THE UN?

The Palestinians hold the key to the first step in bringing peace to that region, but it is so obvious that they do not want it. Israel are bastards it is true, but the Palestinians are monsters- how can you in good concience turn away from peace?

The Tibetans and the Kurds deserve better and the Palestinians get what they get.

"...sick death cult called Palestine..."

One could easily call the most powerful military force in the world, the only one that has ever used nukes, the one that invades countries that it feels threatened by despite international outcry, the one that says it's fighting for freedom while it locks away it's own citizens and censors it's press, the one that develops, markets, sells, and even uses weapons of mass destruction, a "sick death cult", too. But that would make them a troll, like this hornsofthedevil character. And replying to trolls is just a waste of time.

 "The people selling the weapons are, in many cases, the same people selling the news"

this is the same preposterous crap that i hear all the time. that the people at the news are selling us propaganda. okay, so the news here is hysterical and bombastic in its slant. it stirs up fear and fear puts asses in seats. but to say that NBC is a puppet of the arms industry is ridiculous. i know people who work for NBC. I know people in prominent positions at CNN(if you lived in Atlanta at one point, you will know someone at CNN) and these people went into the business to be journalists. they are just like you and me. they have hopes and dreams and a concious and there are tons of them employed. there are mistakes, oversights, bad journalism and flat out yellow journalism that occurs, but your proposal ios a conspiracy theory- no more. to think that thousands of people will lay down there love of what they do in this free country to lie for the weapons industry ..and on top of it all, for not that much money either! working in a news agency gives you a wealth of sources from all corners of the world and you put forth the fantastic idea that they are slanting the information they get to boost profits in weapons production. it is without validity.

"the only single force thats responsible for that many deaths in Iraq are international sanctions."

another conspiracy theory spun by the antiwar(stalinist worker party based A.N.S.W.E.R.) contingent. Saddams regime had sanction placed upon it that were again APROVED BY THE ENTIRE UN. these were food for oil programs that sent medical supplies and food to Iraq for their oil. But we are all supposed to believe that food and medical supplies in mass quantities have killed thousands of children. It is a lie. Let me tell you why there is so much death of the innocent in Iraq: Saddam Hussein was reselling the food and medical supplie to Syria and the sick death cult called Palestine while his own people starved. Remember when the weapons inspectors first went into Iraqin November? They searched one of Saddam's fifty palaces and were flabbergasted by the wealth and opulence on display. It was all over the news(google search should find it). The reason for the reaction was because that palace didn't exist when they were last there. He built it during the nineties with money he was making off of reselling the food and medicine meant for his people. Sanctions did not kill children in Iraq, Saddam Hussein did. Keeping his people in line with mild starvation is a lesson he learned from his idol Joseph Stalin.
 
 "You need to get it through your skull that war is actually not a good default course of action."

There are just so many damn examples of that NOT being the case that we could go on forever. I mean, if war is not a good course of action, perhaps we should have never been in Korea? After all, look at the terrible difference we made - free and prosperous life in the south with a thriving economy and excellent quality of life while in the North, all the money the state has is put towards weapons and military while its people literally dig ditches for food.

i'm sticking by the simple fact that all free countries had to fight for their freedom. i wasn't happy that we had to go into Iraq. I think the whole thing could have been avoided if France Germany and Russia had signed on instead of putting their own profits first. it would have been the entire world against Saddam and it is arguable that he would have stepped aside. if anything, they are accountable for this mess as well.

I don't have time to respond to your whole post right now, horns, but I will later. For now I'm just going to pick a couple points:

how exactly are we making money off of going into Iraq [?] I think if we wanted to make money and have cheap oil, we would have lifted the sanctions aginst Saddam and bought all the oil we wanted.

Oil is but one small part of the equation. The real money to be made is in selling weapons to the U.S. government, and getting contracts to rebuild shit after they blow it up. The people selling the weapons are, in many cases, the same people selling the news (and, as such, heavily influencing public opinion). (GE(NBC)) sells expensive bombs to the US government. When they drop bombs, and need to buy more, GE makes money. Thats why it's in their financial interest to make sure the public supports war, and make sure the right people get elected (through our wonderful legalized-bribery system called campaign contributions ). I'm sure you're aware of the Haliburton contract(s?) for large undisclosed sums of money; the fact that the Vice President was their CEO, and they're still run by the administration's friends seems a bit relevant.

How would we "have a right" to go in there when we cannot garner support from you in Iraq?
The immediacy of the situation in Rwanda makes it different. I still don't really support the U.S. intervening; I simply said that the case for intervention was a little bit more valid there. Saddam hasn't recently indicated that he was going to step up his evil actions; he was continuing to do the same things he'd done for years. And he wasn't killing millions of people; the only single force thats responsible for that many deaths in Iraq are international sanctions.

Noam Chomsky said that there would ba a 'silent genocide'with thousands dead in Afghanistan - but it never happened.
I don't know what Chomsky said, but there were thousands killed in Afghanistan.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...002/0831brahimi.htm
(weather it was committed by US troops, or, as in the case above, by their allies with their protection, doesn't make the people any less dead or put the us any less at fault)

Ted Rall said it was all for an oil pipeline- that was never pursued
I don't know a lot about this issue, but I was under the impression that it was being built. Heres what a quick google search turned up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

you supported the Taliban? Thats what you seem to be saying.
Where did I say that? You still seem under the delusion that if I don't support bombing a group, I actually support them. You need to get it through your skull that war is actually not a good default course of action.

ah, i've already wasted longer than I intended replying to you. i'm done for now..

wow.
"our politicians all making a (financial) killing in the (human) killing business"
how exactly are we making money off of going into Iraq. I think if we wanted to make money and have cheap oil, we would have lifted the sanctions aginst Saddam and bought all the oil we wanted. we could have done that right?
But no you are holding our morality against us. you see the sanctions(you previously decried) were approved UNANIMOUSLY by every nation in the UN. The threat of military action against Iraq was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the UN(15-0). So besides being blindsided by nations who arguably were looking out for their own interests and not for those of the Iraqi people, how can you say that the action is across the board "illegitimate".

"I do think, though, that the U.S. is hardly qualified to bring people to a war crimes court that it itself doesn't recognize for it's own people."
I personally don't think that we should sign onto that war crimes court. The reason being that if we do, the cards are unfairly stacked against us. The European nations you so gleefully align yourself with are all dependent on the military might of the United States. Never in the history of the world has there been so many countries reliant on one for their security. the argument that they do not want us there should not be put forth here either my friend. any one of those countries can ask us to take our personel from the military bases. They do not because they want our protection. With more military in other countries defending their sovereignity, assisting with crisis, backing up action againt ethnic violence, now we are to be subject to a war crimes tribunal that we did not have a real hand in designing? Its like an employee telling a boss how much that boss should make. i'm not saying we should dictate the terms solely(it needs to be revised), but there are many countries that claim to be part of this wolrd community who are not democratic. we don't take orders from countries that don't represent their people. i happen to agree with that.

"military action in Iraq... has mostly killed honorable people"
REALLY!!! WOW!?? you have a soft spot for fascism huh? there is overwhelming and undeniable evidence from Iraqis that the Fayadheen, paramilitary forces and republican guard were some of the most bloodthirsty animals ever seen in our time. cutting off the heads of women in the street, torturing indiscrimnately, raping girls in front of their parents and cutting the tongues out of those who speak out. This is from the mouths of all of the Iraqi people. Do you have the audacity to say that you know what that regime was like more than the people who live there? I don't give a flying fuck if those forces are killed because they could have given up and taken part in a democracy at any time. you pity their fate? why? Are you getting your news from www.Indymedia.com? that would explain a lot.
Just how do you justify classifying our troops as "Christian invaders partaking in an action that is religiously motivated" when our record shows quite the opposite. Our attack of Japan did not turn it into a "little american colony" nor did action in Panama, Grenada, Germany, or Bosnia(of which the US contributed more troops, money, ships, and planes than any other nation). You are making a BLIND ASSUMPTION based on some kind of adolescent viewpoint - that behind every conceded good there is an evil lurking and behind every truth there is a lie. Name a country we attacked for "religious" reasons in the last 20th century.

Yeah, Rwanda. Its funny how Clinton is considered the "good" president when he was downright cowardly when facing the events of Rwanda(i didn't hate Clinton-i consider myself neither dem or rep). Fact is, there are so many facets of your stand against this war that through hindsight you conveniently omit when mentioning Rwanda. Had we gone in, it would have been EXACTLY the seemingly "religiously motivated incursion on a sovereign nation by the agressive superpower" Would you havew not said that the Hutus and the Tutsis have the right to sort out their country for themselves. How would we "have a right" to go in there when we cannot garner support from you in Iraq? It is a double standard.

there were antiwar people against action in Bosnia. There were antiwar people against action in Afghanistan. Both have been proved patently wrong. Noam Chomsky said that there would ba a 'silent genocide'with thousands dead in Afghanistan - but it never happened. Ted Rall said it was all for an oil pipeline- that was never pursued. Children in Afghanistan are back in school and a cycle of ignorance and violence is being broken. Thousands upon thousands of Afghanis are able to return to their hometown and start to live again without the Taliban taking them away for having a radio. You really have to tell me what it is you wanted in Afghanistan - you supported the Taliban? Thats what you seem to be saying.

There are pockets of resistence that will surge up for years and years to come. thats okay, because the US hasn't left yet and those animals will get their due for trying to deny the people from being able to run their own country. are you against that?

as for the simplistic two groups you have defined(A or B) i belong in group B i guess because i don't think of killing as wrong if we are killing killers. Freedom has to be fought for - and this is self evident. i defy you to put forth an example of a nation with freedom that was not fought for. hard to do huh?

as for your assumption that the Iraqi's were "honky dorry" under Saddam, perhaps you should read about the rose tinted glasses we were all forced to wear thanks to prominent news organizations that refused to report the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html

hornsofthedevil, I really like how you just skip over the point re: conflicts of interest, and our politicians all making a (financial) killing in the (human) killing business. But anyhow....

are you mad about Slobodan Milosovic? Are you ready to rally for his release?
Where did that come from? Because I oppose killing, you think I want to see a killer released? That makes no sense. The military action there was backed by a much larger number of countries, which made it more legitimate. As you accurately guessed, I do generally oppose military action at face value, but I am able to acknowledge that some of it is more justified than other. The action in Iraq violates international law; the actions in bosnia upheld it.

I do think, though, that the U.S. is hardly qualified to bring people to a war crimes court that it itself doesn't recognize for it's own people. American soldiers are far from faultless; they have had a history of committing warcrimes. To not turn them (, or President Bush 1, or Don Rumsfeld,) over to the warcrimes court is hypocrisy.

horns: as for equating the jubiilation over 9/11 with that of the invasion of Iraq - that is not a fair analogy. the people in our country weren't cheering over 9/11. understand - this is a regime that TORTURES on a wide scale my friend

Americans cheering military action in Iraq, which has mostly killed honorable people who were fighting not to defend saddam but to defend their home from the christian invaders, is a very accurate analog to arabs cheering 9/11. Both acts were cowardly, illegal, religiously motivated, and deadly. Both groups of people cheering these atrocities are doing it either (a) because they hate people of the opposite religion, and truly want more blood to be spilled, or (b) because they feel the other side is guilty, and it's a fair act of war, and they've been manipulated by propaganda to the point where they don't see the killing as wrong. Far more people, on both sides, fall in group (b) than group (a). Which are you?

horns: I bet there are a lot of people in Rwanda who wish that a military action would have taken place in their country and then maybe a little less than a million people would have been slaughtered there.

Now you're making my point for me! That is a prime example of an immediate threat to human life, where people were suddenly be slaughtered at a very fast rate. That is a prime example of when a simple peacekeeping force would have actually been useful. If our military's goals were really so noble, we would have done something there. But, as you know, we did not. Iraq, however, has been doing the same thing for years. There was no imminent invasion planned. There were no sudden mass-killings. There was no immediate threat whatsoever. What there was, was the same thing that exists in lots of lots of countries: A brutal dictator ruling his country with an Iron fist, and having a handful of leftover weapons that he bought from his old western allies. If there is justification to "liberate" the poor people of Iraq, then there are a whole lot of other places we better liberate too. Quite frankly, more places than we have resources to "liberate" at this point (assuming we keep with our bombs-are-liberation m/o).

I'll be glad if it turns out saddam has been removed at the end of this. Then, at least, the whole thing won't have been in vain (as it was in Afghanistan). But the point is, we didn't have a right to remove him. As get your war on reminds us, though, "You've got to break a few international law eggs to make a freedom omelet."

*sigh*