|
Satan lives in Iraq, lets bomb them!! (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| fastmp3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
Izzy... this is not education, its the muslim religion. They're not supposed to teach their kid their religion anymore?
I don't think you would like to have the stuff written in the Torah about the goyim published in here...
lets just say its not any better. |
good point there malek ... |
|
|
| Renegade |
I don't have time to write a lot here, but I'm still unclear about some things.
To all those advocating an invasion of Iraq, I really do not understand what is to be gained from such an action. As I will continue to restate, war should be the last resort in a desperate situation and should not be entered into whimsically, especially in such a volatile region as the middle-east. George Bush has made it quite clear that he is not interested in exploring diplomatic options: he is much more intent on invading the state of Iraq and replacing its leader with one who will better suit the needs of the US government (the man they have lined up, by the way, is facing serious charges in an International Court in Denmark). The aim, I suspect, is not to ensure the national security of the US (as Saddam does not have the means to attack the US and I doubt, even if he did, that he'd be stupid enough to try) but to simply strike out - in typical, paranoid US bandwagon fashion - at a man they believe represents a cause that they are eager to stamp out. They failed dismally in bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, so - in order to be seen as doing something - they did the next best thing in their eyes and ousted the Taliban government. Now, with Bin Laden still on the loose (or dead, I suppose we can't really be sure) they have set their sights on a man who has done little over the past 11 years to warrant such paranoid scrutiny.
Now the US is using the term "terrorism" - which it applies very loosely - to justify military action against a man, who, when all is said and done, they just don't like very much. But this is how it is now - just as, in the 50's, 60's and 70's where the US went blindly to war against an enemy it simply knew as "communism", now it enters this new century with a desire to irridcate something it calls "terrorism", and it is willing to disregard international laws that it has both signed and instigated to acheive this aim. So, in order to justify war on Iraq, all George Bush needs to do is associate Hussein's name with terrorism (he would have probably called him a communist 40 years ago) to strike fear in the chords of the world-wide community and, with the events of Sept 11 still fresh in their mind, persuade them emotionally into committing themselves to this new war. Yet, as JohnSmith said, virtually no evidence exists to suggest that the state of Iraq is a threat to any other country (with the weapons it has currently, it is only capable of attacking those states directly adjescent to it) nor that it is funding the operations of terrorist factions such as the Al Quieda. Iraq, so far as we can ascertain, is not a threat to anyone (we cannot be certain, though, because the US - not Iraq - that is not agreeing to terms that would allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq).
But Saddam is still evil though isn't he? Look at how he treats his own people! That should be reason enough to oust him, right?
Perhaps, but then you'd have to oust other leaders such President Mugabe of Zimbabwe who's racist policies have left hundereds of white farmers dead and the Zimbabwean economy on its knees - yet America turns a blind shoulder. And even if the US were to oust Hussein, it's no guarantee that the new leader will be any better. As I said earlier, the man they have in line to replace Hussein has a dubious moral spectrum as well. And America's past record in such matters is hardly brilliant - we only need to look at the mess that is the Afghani "government" one year on to see evidence of this. Or perhaps we could go back further and look at the US led coup in Chile that left the American-sympathiser General Pinochet in charge, where he went on to murder tens of thousands of his own people. But at least he liked America, right?
Quite apart from all this, a war in Iraq will destablise the Middle-Eastern region even further, and will almost certainly eliminate what little Arab support the US has there. Dropping bombs on an Arabic country - in these sensative times - will be to stir up a hornets nest that could lead to something bigger occurring, and something that is of a far greater threat to the US than Saddam himself will ever be. The US must learn at some point, that the rest of the world isn't going to put up with its neo-empirialistic cock-shafting for much longer, and that if it continues to act in such an ignorant, xenophobic manner with regards to its foregin policies then it must, at some point, expect a backlash.
Anyway, I'll leave it at that.
I think the main point that I'm trying to get across here, is that there is no point discussing all the pros and cons of an Iraqi invasion until someone can explain to me one thing that we stand to gain from such an offensive (keeping in mind all that I have said above). Until then, I can't really see any point in continuing this conversation. War is an evil that should not be entered into without several extremely good reasons, and I can fail to think of even one as to why we (not just the US) should attack Iraq. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
*nods*
so.. about that piece.. :D |
|
|
| Xer |
And the latest news flash
Bush says:
DIplomatically if we can
Force,if we must. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
well, i think it's wrong that they are teaching them that stuff in school. on BOTH sides, don't tell me that the israelis aren't taught to hate the palestinians.
So, it's horrible that children are taught to hate, on both sides.
By the way, even if it is not in the textbooks, another huge part is played by the media.
take a listen to these:
http://www.fair.org/counterspin/mp3.html
peace. |
i can tell you straight up that the israeli education system does NOT teach hatered. let me tell you my personal story in all of this, that way you can better understand where im coming from. Highschool in israel did all it can to promote peace as it would benefit the entire country. we took time out of classes to watch live the signing of all the peace accords. first with arafat at the white house, then with jordan and egypt followed by the oslo accords. We weeped and had vast ceremonies in school when PM Radin - a true peace pioneer, was assasinated. the halls were filled with murals of white doves and olive branches. we took feild trips to spend some time with arabs at their highschools (i went to nazareth). as you can see the educations system did all it could to promote peace... and in fact looking back i could honestly say that i was brainwashed into being a left wing passifist peace hippy, hard to belive now, but i really was... (no offense btw). but as time moved on and after the failed camp david talks, terrorism continued and even intensified. things started going downhill and i saw things for what they truly are. sept 11 (which i experinced from within the US) also added to my dissillusion. now i have become a realist. i understand that there are certain things one most never allow to happen and to never justify. Sure, i too would like to see the whole world rid of all WOMD (as someone said, you?) but in reality i know that will never happen, there will always be those looking for them to seek power. I have come to accept and even endores certain countries to posses them in order to preserve the standards and rights i belive in. I belive that terrorism is unnacceptable for ANY reason and stopping it should be a pre-requesite to any negotiations.
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
Izzy... this is not education, its the muslim religion. They're not supposed to teach their kid their religion anymore?
I don't think you would like to have the stuff written in the Torah about the goyim published in here...
lets just say its not any better.
|
those are not quotes directly taken from the koran, those are straight up from grammar books and such. furthermore, it is widely known that the hammas (a recognized terror group both by the US and UN) finances educational institustions in palestine for kids of all ages.
i listened to the first one... what BS... they said that while the media claimed there was calm up until the two sucide bombings that happened two or so weeks ago, the palestinians were under cerfews and other oppressive actions... sure i dont doubt that but what they failed to say was why this was happening, of course there was no calm during that period. i followed the news then (and now). at the time there were still many rocket attacks by palestinians into surrounding israeli settlements, there were many snipers shooting at israeli cars driving around the west bank, there were infiltraters who would sneek into jewish villages and kill their civilians, why didnt they say anything about that? the israei army is only in there as a rection and detterent to terrorism.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
They failed dismally in bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, so - in order to be seen as doing something - they did the next best thing in their eyes and ousted the Taliban government. Now, with Bin Laden still on the loose (or dead, I suppose we can't really be sure) they have set their sights on a man who has done little over the past 11 years to warrant such paranoid scrutiny.
|
at the time, the taliban and ossama were one in the same, even clinton had pleaded with the taliban (personal contact with omar forget the rest of his name - the spiritual leader of taliban) and he refused to throw ossama out, to add to the insult he asked clinton that he should join him in ousting the true evil power in the world, the jews (this was all seen last night on 60 minutes II http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain523750.shtml)
now ossama may or may not be dead (i belive he is) but in all practicality he's dead. he's no longer a real threat to america, ossama is probably more focused and hiding and staying alive rather then planning out some evil plot, there are still on going operations to seek him out.
| quote: |
George Bush has made it quite clear that he is not interested in exploring diplomatic options: he is much more intent on invading the state of Iraq and replacing its leader with one who will better suit the needs of the US government (the man they have lined up, by the way, is facing serious charges in an International Court in Denmark). The aim, I suspect, is not to ensure the national security of the US (as Saddam does not have the means to attack the US and I doubt, even if he did, that he'd be stupid enough to try) but to simply strike out - in typical, paranoid US bandwagon fashion - at a man they believe represents a cause that they are eager to stamp out.
Yet, as JohnSmith said, virtually no evidence exists to suggest that the state of Iraq is a threat to any other country (with the weapons it has currently, it is only capable of attacking those states directly adjescent to it) nor that it is funding the operations of terrorist factions such as the Al Quieda.
think the main point that I'm trying to get across here, is that there is no point discussing all the pros and cons of an Iraqi invasion until someone can explain to me one thing that we stand to gain from such an offensive (keeping in mind all that I have said above). Until then, I can't really see any point in continuing this conversation. War is an evil that should not be entered into without several extremely good reasons, and I can fail to think of even one as to why we (not just the US) should attack Iraq.
|
Look George Bush, even though he wants a regime change, is OK with inspectors as long as iraq follows the rules. they have not been from 1992 to 1998. there-fore a stronger resolution that allows total freedom in inspection, needs to be inacted in order to allow harasher outcomes if it fails agian. no place should be off limits, no lies should be tolerated, iraq must fully comply and aid the inspectors when they as for it. that is why a new resolutions is needed.
Furthermore, yes iraq does posses a national security danger to the US, that is why they are going after him rather then some sleeze bag in Zimbabwe, there are probably many more leaders who need to be sent away. Saddam is danger to the US (and in my point of view to the entire region). I am trying to prove that yes, there is enough facts pertaining to how saddam is seeking weapons grade nuclear material. yes his government has aided the terrorism in israel, yes there is involvment with al-queda. but even if it werent saddam DOES carry missles that can reach, all the countries in the regine (including israel which is not a direct neighbour) and it poses a DIRECT threat to the US in the following way: say he does aquire a dirty bomb or some weapon carrying chemical or biological agents, i am not nieve enought to think that he wont sell these to organizations that would like to see thier use on the US. the weapons risk getting into the wrong hands, and being used for inappropriate actions.
listen if saddam were truly willing for peace and wants to end all of this, he could come out publicly, document and show all the WOMD he posses, then destroy them and allow weapons inspectors to check that he has no more and will not have the means of making them agian. how about a personal world tour showing and saying how he is ready for peace and what actions he has taken and will take in the future.
if only i wasnt dreaming. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
hmm..
no time to post but, just a simple question.
can i be taken on a tour of all the US weapons facilities? how about the whitehouse? can i go right into presidents bush's bedroom, and check under the bed, just to make sure he hasn't got a nuke tucked in there?
I agree with inspections. I agree that it's important we disarm iraq, and ALL countries. I am a realist as well, but, an optimistic one.
However, invading into his personal HOME is goin a little far. and yes, i have seen in the dossier the size of the "palace" area, with buckingham palace superimposed for exemplary purposes. I agree, that is a little much.
I suppose.. if it were up to me, i would tell saddamn he can have one presidential palace, where he resides, and all others woudl be searched.
does that sound like a reasonable comprimise to you?
Also, i wasn't aware you were in israel izzy. We should talk more indepth about this, i could learn a lot from you it seems.
peace. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
hmm..
no time to post but, just a simple question.
can i be taken on a tour of all the US weapons facilities? how about the whitehouse? can i go right into presidents bush's bedroom, and check under the bed, just to make sure he hasn't got a nuke tucked in there?
However, invading into his personal HOME is goin a little far. and yes, i have seen in the dossier the size of the "palace" area, with buckingham palace superimposed for exemplary purposes. I agree, that is a little much.
|
ya i also read the dossier, no i dont expect the inspectors to go into the bedrooms living rooms and such, i mean come on lets talk for real, just as you said its kinda hard to hide tons of weapons and Chem/Bio/Nuc material under your bed. thats reasonable but i mean every place that could harbour factories or stock piles of those things should be searched, why not? of course no one is going to inspect US of weapons same as no one is going to inspect Germany or UK or India. for one they already admit they have them (iraq still insists it is free of WOMB, ya right) the reason iraq is being searched is becuase of its previous history of use of those weapons, becuase we cant trust saddam with them in his hands/power.
| quote: |
I agree with inspections. I agree that it's important we disarm iraq, and ALL countries. |
agian difference of opinoin, i dont think there will ever be a point where ALL countries we will be free of those weapons, there will always be those seeking to use them to attain power or political gains. for that matter i am for some countries, who stand for what i belive in, to have them in order deter, defend and protect everyone else from that threat.
| quote: |
I suppose.. if it were up to me, i would tell saddamn he can have one presidential palace, where he resides, and all others woudl be searched.
does that sound like a reasonable comprimise to you?
|
sounds like a deal to me! if only that could take place, reason being that if he were to have stuff in the other palaces, spy satelites and survalience aircraft would see movement of those stuff coming out to other hiding places (or see them entering to the designated place).
| quote: |
Also, i wasn't aware you were in israel izzy. We should talk more indepth about this, i could learn a lot from you it seems.
peace. |
well im not in it now, im a junior studying at a university here in texas. im an israeli citizen (only citizenship i hold, unfortunately) lived there for over half of my life. actually get this, one (there are a few others) of the reasons im in the US now is that i decided to draft dodge the obligatory military service we citizens have to serve :eek: (see theres more to me then meets the eye) its a long story though... we could talk more indepth about it if you want, to bad i cant invite you over for a strong cup of turkish coffee.
:) |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
yeah.. it's too bad..
and yeah by "were" i meant, past tense, i see you are in texas now. i would like to talk more with you though, it might be worht the cost of a long distance phone call or something..
anyway.. as for WOMD possibly being allowed in the hands of some people.. well, that's definitely a debatable point.
in an ideal world, we'd all work things out by talking. and if not talking, then maybe we'd beat each other up. failing that maybe some guns or bombs. i think that's as far as it should go though, and that all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons should be removed from this planet. ship em into the sun or something, i don't know..
of course.. that is a very idealistic notion, and not likely to happen. and even if it did, now that we have opened pandora's box, i'm sure someone would try to make some more.. |
|
|
| Philby |
wow!
what a thread!
umm ok here goes :rolleyes:
I think I agree more with JohnSmith and Renegade. A couple of things first though. I live in Australia, a Western country. Our Prime Minister John Howard supports America in whatever it wants to do it would seem, which I don't necessarily agree with. We have what we call 'tall poppy syndrome' where people seem envious of sucess and try to bring people down, 'cutting the poppies' I suppose you could say. What I mean by this is that sometimes I am thinking 'oh great more america crap'. This is not really 'anti-america', its more 'anti-whatever country is in the same position as america'. We all know USA is a large sucessfull country with powerful military and influence, I think that a lot of people get fed up with seeing or hearing about America because of what America is, I mean if it was another country we would be 'anti-them' in a way. I hope that made sense!
Like a couple of people said it I think America wants to attack Iraq because they are a threat to the USA national security. But why? How are they a threat? Do they have the capability to invade America? I guess America is worried about Iraq having nuclear weapons? But many other nations do also and seem to be more volatile and hostile at the moment. Look at Pakistan and India. I think they both have nuclear weapons, and there is active fighting between the two of them! In Kashmir I think at least. If not to America then aren't these nations threatening the national security of everyone living around them??? Perhaps the 'threat of national security' is influenced I think because America has fought with Iraq in the past.
People say "look at what Hussein does to his own people" What does he do? I'm sorry I don't know much about it but one thing I have read is that many people are poor because there are trade sanctions? ie Countries like America won't sell them food or something?
About chemical weapons too, what happened in WW1? Didn't the allies use poison gas in the war too? When did Hussein use these weapons on his own people? And what does his own people mean? Did he just drop a chemical weapon on any old civilian complex or perhaps was it used against his enemies or soemthing?
America says Iraq is a threat because they have Weapons Of Mass Destruction. But America has these too! Why isn't it a threat to Iraq that America has WOMD? Or any other nation? I guess like my dad says, because we are in the west "Iraq is the bad guys! They're not allowed to have them hehe"
I mean for all I know Australia could decide that America having aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons is a threat to our national security, and we will be able to attack them. Pfft of course thats rediculous you say. Well why? Thats exactly what it looks like to me. America doesnt like Iraq having these weapons. They say its a threat and they think they should be allowed to attack them.
America also wants support to do this from other countries like UK and Australia. They could say hey we have helped you in the past you owe us. Well what happened in the past? The world was at war and a nation attacked us, we requested the help of allies at the time. If Iraq launched an attack on USA and USA requested help of Australia then I would be for that in some ways. I am not for Australia sending its best soldiers (SAS) to a country that really hasn't done much in the last few years other than annoy George Bush by not doing what he wants. I guess this all comes down to: No War on Iraq!
OMG IM A HIPPY!!!!!!! :nervous:
Also if you want us to send our soldiers to help you which we have in Afghanistan then you should ing take our steel and farm products! :p |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
From Izzy:
| quote: | | those are not quotes directly taken from the koran, those are straight up from grammar books and such. furthermore, it is widely known that the hammas (a recognized terror group both by the US and UN) finances educational institustions in palestine for kids of all ages. |
I think you didn't get my point... those phrases are in the Coran, maybe not word by word, but its in there. |
|
|
| cweb |
Classic post by Renegade!
now to the thing that Osama is practically dead. How the heck do you know that? Because GW didnt find him? Because he was not seen on TV anymore? I for one, think that Osama is not dead, there are many reports that al-qaida fighrers were able to flee to other place like pakistan. how not osama? I dont know, if he was really dead, I think al-qaida would have told us that alöready and made him some sort of a martyr! and start the holy war...now I think he is sitting behind some rocks ou there in another country, planning another attack and grinning about the stupidity of GW. in Afghanistan there was a cell, how do you know there isnt any other al-qaida cells where he could hide, like in Jemen the supposed new headquarter of al-qaida?
Finish you business before you start a new one!
Oh I just saw "Siege", a late 90s movie with bruce and denzel, I really hope it will not happen what i saw in this movie... |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | i can tell you straight up that the israeli education system does NOT teach hatered. |
What a lie. The state of Israel is based on racism. Racism = Hatred.
The premise of the state of Israel is a home for the JEWISH people, not any people- JEWISH people. Any person with Jewish parents, even if they have no connection to the land of Israel itself can become an Israeli citizen.
Yet heres the laugh, any palestinian who was driven out of their home in 1948 has no right of return. They arent called refugees for nothing. They were driven out of their land by force. THis is a fact. Those that deny the truth of what actually happened to the Arabs are applying the same logic as the neo Nazis who deny there was a holocaust.
In all the negotiations between the Arabs and Israelis the one thing that was never on the cards, a right of return for the displaced peoples of 1948. And why might that be? Because to accept a right of return of the palestinians is to accept that a fundamental crime was committed against the arabs in the name of Zionism.
No right of return. No compensation for the land stolen. No even a ing apology.
And then people on this board have the audacity to condemn palestinians for being indoctrinated into believing that martydom is glorious.
If my grandfathers land was stolen from me, I would make damn sure that I would do WHATEVER it takes to get the land back, and if I couldnt do it, I would make sure my children were brought up to NEVER FORGIVE AND TO NEVER FORGET. |
|
|
|
|
