quote:

Originally posted by melech_mike i understand that i come off very right wing

is this the same right wing that killed 6 million of your people ? dude, you cannot fight terror with terror. I understand that terrorism should be dealt with and that at this present time in the world, we are all living in fear. But do you honestly think that War will neutralise this fear ? I think not ! on the contrary I think this war will only add fuel to an already blazing fire. We all know that America has a hinden agenda and that we only hear the words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and GLOBAL TERROR as a means of gaining global support for this war and guess what ? people these days live in the 21st century and will not cave in to such weak propaganda like they did in the past ie British Dossier.

So before you go pointing the finger and labelling people TERRORISTS, think of the people that insight such terror !

___________________
cbf

quote:

Originally posted by melech_mike I'm glad that i'm not the only one who feels Saddam and other like him are a threat to world peace and stability. he must be eliminated immediately. this will shot other like him not to fuck around! i'll be the first to admit that innocent people die due to war, but the future is unclear with tyrants like this. Who knows how many more innocent people will have to die if we dont ask now. It seems to me that people easiely forget what can happen in an instant. Why wait for terror to strick again, when we could prevent the tragedy of innocent bloodshed!

I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE 10000000%%%%%%.......

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

Originally posted by melech_mike [/i][/b]
Always knew London had a huge Terrorist supporting population... but 2 million?!? Wow!

AZ - which one did you goto?
could have sworn i saw you on the news wearing a kefia... but than again, they all wear that shit. [/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Blik you shut stop putting people down you know that I can suspend you with 2 clicks of my mouse, I am sick of your attitude

Blik what is the difference between what melech_mike said and what others say....Cyrus, Az, Fastmp3 and a few others continue to attack members who do not agree with their views by calling them names, questioning their intelligence, telling them to F*CK OFF..

I agree noone shoudl attack another members views...i learned that the hard way in the past and am trying NOW to learn othersviews and see how they think...so maybe just maybe i can have a better opinion...

However condeming one user and not the next for the same thing in theory doesnt seem right....

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

Whats missing from each and everyone of these signs?














the answer is:::

Not ONE sign in an protest read
"saddam comply with what you agreed with"

or

saddam save your people

or

saddam give up the chemical/bio weapons and save your antion

or even better

saddam bea BETTER man then George Bush and avoid war with complying


OR ANYTHING along those lines....nothing regarding Saddam.....why si that?...is Saddam that innocent?...no of course he is not...he can end this if he wants to....or he can atleast TRY to...

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

because the antiwar rally was trying to speak to bush, but and not to saddamn?

it's true, saddmn should comply, and he is. besides a few trifling problems, such as a missile that "may" be able to go 5 or 10km farther than allowed, IF it has no guidance system installed, he has been in compliance.

first it was the issue of presidential palaces, then saddamn gave up on that. then it was the interviews of scientists without minders, he gave up on that too (albeit, with a tape recorder present), then it was the U2 spyplanes, and he gave up on that.

saddamn is bending over backwards to comply, and the US is still going to try to say he isn't, and attack anyway. an attack has been in the works for literally MONTHS, when troop movements started.

Hence the worldwide protests to stop the war, have more chance of doing so, but letting bush know that his actions are not right, than by telling saddamn to comply.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith because the antiwar rally was trying to speak to bush, but and not to saddamn? it's true, saddmn should comply, and he is. besides a few trifling problems, such as a missile that "may" be able to go 5 or 10km farther than allowed, IF it has no guidance system installed, he has been in compliance. first it was the issue of presidential palaces, then saddamn gave up on that. then it was the interviews of scientists without minders, he gave up on that too (albeit, with a tape recorder present), then it was the U2 spyplanes, and he gave up on that. saddamn is bending over backwards to comply, and the US is still going to try to say he isn't, and attack anyway. an attack has been in the works for literally MONTHS, when troop movements started. Hence the worldwide protests to stop the war, have more chance of doing so, but letting bush know that his actions are not right, than by telling saddamn to comply.

good point...but what about that new Iraqi scientist who came forward to day claiming Hussein has bio and chemical weapons hidden or buried...not sure exactley what was said...but come on ...Hussein is a sneaky guy.....

Furthermore there should of still been a sign reading that...based on the fact that the majority of people in the rallies are not as aware as you guys on what or what not Hussein has complied on...yet there was not even one...

And then these American protesters go on about that Bush is a terrorist.,.,.thats absurd...a terrorist attacks the innocent on purpose...yes Bush will go to war and civilians will die..but we all know that Bush does not want civilians to die...it is just a sad part of war that can not be avoided..never has been in history and never will...

Not too mention ther have been rumours that Saddam is gathering civilians around targets of the U.S. military targets so the U.S. wont bomb them...now this is not confirmedas of yet...but what kind of leader or shall i say human being would DELIBERATLY place civilians in the line of fire....thats insane...yet unconfirmed.

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith it's true, saddmn should comply, and he is. besides a few trifling problems, such as a missile that "may" be able to go 5 or 10km farther than allowed, IF it has no guidance system installed, he has been in compliance.

Oh ok ... nevermind the tons of chemical and biological agents we KNOW Iraq possessed in 1998 but have mysteriously vanished in 2003 with their weapons declaration. I guess he just flushed them all down the toilet. Never mind he's kept his scientists under lock and key. Maybe like they said they just don't like interviewing with the UN alone ... they need an official babysitter around for "their" protection.

quote:

first it was the issue of presidential palaces, then saddamn gave up on that. then it was the interviews of scientists without minders, he gave up on that too (albeit, with a tape recorder present), then it was the U2 spyplanes, and he gave up on that.

Ok nevermind the fact that he kept the palaces off limits to UN inspection teams in the past. Everybody look! He's opened the doors now! Wow who can believe that there's nothing in there!!!! When he finally allowed inspectors in I was expecting them to find fucking Oppenheimer and Einstein taking a break from the Baghdad Project, smoking an anthrax joint! Well since there's nothing in them now, we can LOGICALLY conclude that there was NEVER ANYTHING IN THEM FOR THE PAST 6 YEARS. Why good old Uncle Sta ... errr Saddam just liked his privacy. And look the scientists are now interviewing UN interviewers in PRIVATE! Why their torturers are at least an ENTIRE room away listening on tape recorders! What a GREAT concession! Oh and the spyplanes ... yes he did need a few months to plan ahead on that one before accepting, but that's better than how long he needed for the palaces! Again a stunning concession! My God Saddam seems like the most reasonable forthright and honest guy on the planet! If he was a used car salesman I would be the first guy in line to buy a car from him!

quote:

saddamn is bending over backwards to comply, and the US is still going to try to say he isn't, and attack anyway. an attack has been in the works for literally MONTHS, when troop movements started.

Wow ... I really wish you were my credit card company. I could buya bmw, overdraw my balance, pay every odd month, and hell I paid my minimum balance 6 months ago!!! I'm BENDING over backwards to comply!!! .

quote:

Hence the worldwide protests to stop the war, have more chance of doing so, but letting bush know that his actions are not right, than by telling saddamn to comply.

So they're letting Bush know that his actions are not right but nobody gives a hoot about Saddam's actions? Let's face it protestors are like pop music. They protest whatever is the flavor of the month. How many protests do you hear about Tibet anymore? Not cool anymore. China? Nothing's gonna change so why protest. The atrocities in N. Korea? Not publisized enough. Women's rights in the middle east? The gender revolution is over. How many people protested when the world came the CLOSEST it's been to nuclear war since the cold war? Anybody remember that whole spat when India and Pakistan almost went to war? Too stupid to realize what how significant that was. Nobody protests a dictatorship anymore because their lazy ... they know nothings going to happen. Ahhh but a democracy ... there's where the action is. What's the flavor of the month for the 21st century? Big government. G8(G7?) summits, WTO meetings, globalization. Gimme a break like there aren't actually people suffering that they can't protest about??? What about Africa?? If people's protest's reflected world conditions, 99.9% of all protests would revolve around civil wars, poverty, and starvation in Africa. But who really cares about a few million africans anymore? Cmon that was a 90's thing.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 good point...but what about that new Iraqi scientist who came forward to day claiming Hussein has bio and chemical weapons hidden or buried...

yep, i read that today. this guy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78875,00.html

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 not sure exactley what was said...but come on ...Hussein is a sneaky guy.....

agreed. however,this man is Husseins enemy. He was held in jail and tortued for years, then escaped. He has the motive to fabricate a story alleging iraq has these weapons. I'm not saying he is, but he could be, and with a good reason too. He has no good reason not to come forward with this info, but yet he hasn't until now, that alone suggest to me that he might be lying, or at least embelishing. He could have been bribed by the US even. and even he admits hussein does not have missiles cabable of reaching distant countries.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Furthermore there should of still been a sign reading that...based on the fact that the majority of people in the rallies are not as aware as you guys on what or what not Hussein has complied on...yet there was not even one...

well, first off, i'd like to know how you know how aware the majority of people in rallies are. Personally, i believe them to be rather well informed. I helped organize a local rally, and many of the people i had been in contact with for months and weeks before hand, trading new stories, current events, watching movies. The antiwar group, and the "left wing" in general are usually quite educated, with the exception of the bad apples who spoil it for the rest of us (ie the black block)

second, did you go to a rally? there may well have been a sign like that, you never know. but coming back to my point, the protesters were not trying to speak to saddamn, but to bush, so if there was no sign, then that is why.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 And then these American protesters go on about that Bush is a terrorist.,.,.thats absurd...a terrorist attacks the innocent on purpose...yes Bush will go to war and civilians will die..but we all know that Bush does not want civilians to die...it is just a sad part of war that can not be avoided..never has been in history and never will...

Bush is quite defintely, attacking the innocent, on purpose. call it collateral damage if you like, or accidental deaths. the truth is, bush has the choice to kill innocents or not, and if he decides to bomb iraq, he will be killing innocents. possibly he thinks he can save more lives in the end this way? possibly he is weighing western lives and ideology over eastern? neither matters. he is deciding to kill people, and that makes him a murderer, on par with the perpetrators of september 11th.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Not too mention ther have been rumours that Saddam is gathering civilians around targets of the U.S. military targets so the U.S. wont bomb them...now this is not confirmedas of yet...but what kind of leader or shall i say human being would DELIBERATLY place civilians in the line of fire....thats insane...yet unconfirmed.

this is a tactic saddamn has reportedly used before. There are also large contigents of "human shields" going to iraq to gather near infrastructure elements such as power plants and water purification facilities. they do this hoping that the US will not bomb there, and hence avoid a massive humanitarian catastrophe. However, if history is any indication, this will make no difference to the target selection(nor should it) and the attacks will go on anyway.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Bush is quite defintely, attacking the innocent, on purpose. call it collateral damage if you like, or accidental deaths. the truth is, bush has the choice to kill innocents or not, and if he decides to bomb iraq, he will be killing innocents. possibly he thinks he can save more lives in the end this way? possibly he is weighing western lives and ideology over eastern? neither matters. he is deciding to kill people, and that makes him a murderer, on par with the perpetrators of september 11th.

You can't just equate collateral damage with murder. Maybe if action is taken with depraved indifference it can be equated with murder but you can't simply say that if innocent people die it's murder. That's like saying that a having a police force is the same as murder since it's likely that innocent people die. Terrorists make it their business to target innocent civilians and incite fear. Military operations go after legitimate military targets with the goal to minimize civilian casualties. It's simply ludicrous to equate the two.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith yep, i read that today. this guy: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78875,00.html agreed. however,this man is Husseins enemy. He was held in jail and tortued for years, then escaped. He has the motive to fabricate a story alleging iraq has these weapons. I'm not saying he is, but he could be, and with a good reason too. He has no good reason not to come forward with this info, but yet he hasn't until now, that alone suggest to me that he might be lying, or at least embelishing. He could have been bribed by the US even. and even he admits hussein does not have missiles cabable of reaching distant countries.

ya thats the guy....

When i first heard i also though maybe he was bribed or promised soemthing or the other...but i really dont know so i wont make assumptions yet....

Well maybe he is Husseins enemy because he was held in jail and tortured...wouldnt you be aswell?...=)

I plan on readin up on him tomorrow...seems interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, first off, i'd like to know how you know how aware the majority of people in rallies are. Personally, i believe them to be rather well informed. I helped organize a local rally, and many of the people i had been in contact with for months and weeks before hand, trading new stories, current events, watching movies. The antiwar group, and the "left wing" in general are usually quite educated, with the exception of the bad apples who spoil it for the rest of us (ie the black block)

your right...i made a general judgement...however i am sure that the majority of the American protesters where not aware of the fact that the prganizers of the protests in America where organized by an anti-American and Marxism group who generally dislike anything America does to begin with....and hasnt it been said time and time again by most every user in the political forum, aswell as you on a few occasions that the American public is not well informed because of our corrupt corporate run media that blinds us all of the truths....which for the most part i agree with...

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith second, did you go to a rally? there may well have been a sign like that, you never know. but coming back to my point, the protesters were not trying to speak to saddamn, but to bush, so if there was no sign, then that is why.

no i wasnt at a rally, however my brother attended the one in NYC and said he saw no signs regarding Saddam...that doesnt mean they were not there...but Saddam is just as much responsible for this war as Bush is...if not MORE...

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Bush is quite defintely, attacking the innocent, on purpose. call it collateral damage if you like, or accidental deaths. the truth is, bush has the choice to kill innocents or not, and if he decides to bomb iraq, he will be killing innocents. possibly he thinks he can save more lives in the end this way? possibly he is weighing western lives and ideology over eastern? neither matters. he is deciding to kill people, and that makes him a murderer, on par with the perpetrators of september 11th..

i disagree....to compare Bush to the perpetrators of 9.11 is out of line....those men, if i should call them men, aimed passeneger airlines directly at innocent people going about their everday duties in NON-WAR times....they had no warning or idea of such an attack..

Bush on the other hand will be attacking Iraq with FULL warning and each and every civilian is aware of that...i guarantee if the victoms of 9.11 knew inadvanced of the attack they would not of gone to work that day....this is notto say Iraq civilians should run for the hills or die...just that they do have warning of war...being they are in WAR times....know what i mean...

Furthermore...Bush does not intended to bomb schools, churches, homes etc..or directley aiming at civilians...unfortunalty many will die...but not on purpose...in war there is onyl so much you can do to avoid civilian casualties...history has proven that.

He is attacking Iraq military and Hussein and their bases and political places on purpose..not aiming at babies and women saying "Look i killed another Iraq civilian woo hoo"....by no means is that what he is doing...

On the other hand terrorists do seek out and attack the innocent when they least expect it...which inturn makes them cowards,,,,,Bush is no coward,,,he may be radical..but he is going in to this with full honor and full warning to Iraq...

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So they're letting Bush know that his actions are not right but nobody gives a hoot about Saddam's actions? Let's face it protestors are like pop music. They protest whatever is the flavor of the month. How many protests do you hear about Tibet anymore? Not cool anymore. China? Nothing's gonna change so why protest. The atrocities in N. Korea? Not publisized enough. Women's rights in the middle east? The gender revolution is over. How many people protested when the world came the CLOSEST it's been to nuclear war since the cold war? Anybody remember that whole spat when India and Pakistan almost went to war? Too stupid to realize what how significant that was. Nobody protests a dictatorship anymore because their lazy ... they know nothings going to happen. Ahhh but a democracy ... there's where the action is. What's the flavor of the month for the 21st century? Big government. G8(G7?) summits, WTO meetings, globalization. Gimme a break like there aren't actually people suffering that they can't protest about??? What about Africa?? If people's protest's reflected world conditions, 99.9% of all protests would revolve around civil wars, poverty, and starvation in Africa. But who really cares about a few million africans anymore? Cmon that was a 90's thing.

BRILLIANT

___________________
Bring back 1994 NYC clubbing nights, cus the sh*t today is filled with junk parties and DJs that play sh*t House.....Zabiela, Sander, or Howells and all the rest suck and couldnt throw a night like it was in the early 90s in NYC!!!...Screw Twilo - give me Limelight circa 1993!!!

Last edited by tiesto14 on Feb-19-2003 at 08:24

quote:

And then these American protesters go on about that Bush is a terrorist.,.,.thats absurd...a terrorist attacks the innocent on purpose...

A terrorist is defined as one who uses the systematic use of terror (state of intense fear) as a means of coercion.

Given the state of omnipresent fear in the US right now (ex. the Chicago nightclub), largely incited by our government's "warnings," (not to mention the bullying does in international circles, and I'm not simply referring to the present circumstances) one can easily equate the Bush Administration, and the US over its history, as possessing terrorist qualities, albeit while operating on a different level than al-Qaeda, Hamas, et al.

So the protesters are correct, due to technicality.