Arab lady tells it like it is on Al-Jazeera

[bigburpco]

It seems pretty heavily anti-muslim, which is badin some degrees, but also correct in some of the things she says. Overall I agree with her, but she sure came off a little bit anti-muslim.

Still though, i'm surprised Al-Jazeera even let her thing air for as long as it did. lol.

omg, bribery!

 

[Solaris]

Our last war of conquest was the Spanish-American war. In every other conflict, we've either come to the defense of allies or left the country we supposedly 'conquered'. I don't think you can call Iraq or Afghanistan 'conquests' by any stretch of the imagination, because we derive absoloutely no material benefit from being there, besides the (admittedly murky) concept of Middle Eastern stability and democracy. You probably should look up the word 'conquest', because I've never heard it to refer to small wars before.

We have two very strategic strongholds in the middle east, control over oil. And a good beachhead to invade Syria, Iran and pretty much anyone else in the region.

 

[Raziaar]

We have two very strategic strongholds in the middle east, control over oil. And a good beachhead to invade Syria, Iran and pretty much anyone else in the region.

Heh... this 'we invade your countries for oil' thing is as crazy of a conspiracy theory in my opinion, as the WTC attacks being orchestrated by the US government.

If we were so intent on invading for oil... please pray tell me why didn't we do it much earlier in the past? And don't say, "because we didn't know how rare oil would be some day".

Because that would be wrong. Henry Ford predicted the incredible shortage of oil ages ago, and him and George Washington Carver were working on alternative fuel sources.

Wars... even those of such a small scale as the second Iraq war(in comparison to other war durations and sizes), are HUGE fuel guzzlers. The war machine uses incredible amounts of oil, which make the whole effort seem pointless, especially as it endangers the world's oil supply(including the invading countries) as the defenders destroy oil wells.

I dunno... just seems bogus to me.

 

[Solaris]

Heh... this 'we invade your countries for oil' thing is as crazy of a conspiracy theory in my opinion, as the WTC attacks being orchestrated by the US government.

If we were so intent on invading for oil... please pray tell me why didn't we do it much earlier in the past? And don't say, "because we didn't know how rare oil would be some day".

Because that would be wrong. Henry Ford predicted the incredible shortage of oil ages ago, and him and George Washington Carver were working on alternative fuel sources.

9-11....

 

[Raziaar]

9-11....

Yes? What about it? Speak up little Billy.

 

[Gray Fox]

Heh... this 'we invade your countries for oil' thing is as crazy of a conspiracy theory in my opinion, as the WTC attacks being orchestrated by the US government.

If we were so intent on invading for oil... please pray tell me why didn't we do it much earlier in the past? And don't say, "because we didn't know how rare oil would be some day".

Because that would be wrong. Henry Ford predicted the incredible shortage of oil ages ago, and him and George Washington Carver were working on alternative fuel sources.

Wars... even those of such a small scale as the second Iraq war(in comparison to other war durations and sizes), are HUGE fuel guzzlers. The war machine uses incredible amounts of oil, which make the whole effort seem pointless, especially as it endangers the world's oil supply(including the invading countries) as the defenders destroy oil wells.

I dunno... just seems bogus to me.

The US did not have Bush and the current hawks in power then, the us had other preorities like the cold war. And it was very much about oil, bot only does Iraq contain a lot of oil which insures a steady supply in the future to the US, but you also get to keep it out of the hands of the rivals of the US like China, plus Bush does not handle in the intrest of his country he handles in his interest, and the companies he and cheny and the others own have made a lot of money out of the Iraq war.

Yes? What about it? Speak up little Billy.

It gave them the excuse of pretendig to fight terrorism, before that the avrage joe american did not care as much about terrorism. It was the pearl harbor that the PNAC needed as an excuse toexpand the power of the US.

 

[Raziaar]

The US did not have Bush and the current hawks in power then, the us had other preorities like the cold war. And it was very much about oil, bot only does Iraq contain a lot of oil which insures a steady supply in the future to the US, but you also get to keep it out of the hands of the rivals of the US like China, plus Bush does not handle in the intrest of his country he handles in his interest, and the companies he and cheny and the others own have made a lot of money out of the Iraq war.


It gave them the excuse of pretendig to fight terrorism, before that the avrage joe american did not care as much about terrorism. It was the pearl harbor that the PNAC needed as an excuse toexpand the power of the US.

See, all of this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. There may be deeper, more sinister motivations at work here, but its certainly not as shallow of a cause as 'oil'.

Conspiracy Theorists need to be more creative.

 

[Solaris]

See, all of this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. There may be deeper, more sinister motivations at work here, but its certainly not as shallow of a cause as 'oil'.

Conspiracy Theorists need to be more creative.

Stern, get off vacation. We can't hold them much longer.

 

[Raziaar]

Stern, get off vacation. We can't hold them much longer.

You have no staying power whatsoever.

 

[DeusExMachina]

We don't need to Stern to flood the thread with a buncha links now do we.

But I will agree that one of the reasons we are in Iraq is because of oil. But, it isn't like we're murdering Iraqis in genocide and appointing corrupt fascist dictators to rule over the country while we suck away their resources. We learned better from the 60s and 70s.

 

[Pajari]

We have two very strategic strongholds in the middle east, control over oil. And a good beachhead to invade Syria, Iran and pretty much anyone else in the region.

And we want to get the hell out of there as soon as possible. Also, where do you think we invaded Iraq from? Saudi Arabia and Quatar, mostly. We took Afghanistan via Pakistan, Tajikistan, and several other neighboring countries. We've got 'beachheads' (also known as "allies" to non-Marxists) all over the world.

Also, it was not a war for oil. That's pretty much bunk, since the price of oil has continued to climb worldwide since 2003, and we've got plenty of oil in other places (Russia, here, Nigeria, Venezuela) that we use. If we really wanted oil, why not invade someone closer to home like Venezuela?

Stern, get off vacation. We can't hold them much longer.

Are you holding us now? Were you ever stemming our tide of reason? Stern's capitalization-free link spamming isn't going to help the fact that your theories don't carry an ounce of water.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Solaris, in contrary to what you think Stern's view of this is a little less fanatical like yours. At least i think it is
You seem to blame every single bad thing in the world on the west, and for instance the middle-East problems are ALL to be blamed on the West.
God how i wish the world was that simple....

 

[Adabiviak]

Preach that sh!t sister! Can I get an amen!

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

Preach that sh!t sister! Can I get an amen!

Amen.
6Goddamnmother****ingsonofashittingbitchchars

 

[CptStern]

What would Hamas or the president of Iran do with our weapons? Just because they lack the means to inflict serious harm on the world doesn't mean they are any less barbaric.

speculation ..they possess wmd and have used them in the past when invaded by iraq. They have yet to use them on anybody else ..so it just seems it's exactly what it appears to be ..idle threats to stir up the masses ..the US on the other hand ...

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03


you carry out your threats

And yes, we do kill people from far away. Is that worse than using a personal weapon like a pack of c4 strapped to the chest?

yes it is ..c4 takes outmaybe a dozen people ..deliberately bombing water treatment plants during the first days of desert storm led to the deaths of over a million iraqis ..half those children under 5. ..they knew the outcome and they deliberately prevented humanitarian aid that would have repaired the plants. You cant possibly argue the C4 is more barbaric

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here- we're barbaric and morally reprehensible because we kill people? That's quite a yardstick to measure civilization by.

no I didnt say that .. you're morally reprehensible because you kill for your own gain

..Iraq war was a sham from the very beginning that had nothing to do with wmd

..nothing to do with humanitarianism:

“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops

Our last war of conquest was the Spanish-American war. In every other conflict, we've either come to the defense of allies or left the country we supposedly 'conquered'.

yes because everything is black and white to you ...unless El salvador is flying the american flag it hasnt been conquered. The US has orchestrated coups, civil wars, regime change in pretty much ever latin american country for the last 50 years ...not too mention the Congo, Haiti, Laos, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Cambodia, Angola etc etc etc

I don't think you can call Iraq or Afghanistan 'conquests' by any stretch of the imagination, because we derive absoloutely no material benefit from being there, besides the (admittedly murky) concept of Middle Eastern stability and democracy.

you'd have to be on the not so intelligent side to believe that nonsense ..rewrite history all you want but that is not the reason why you went into iraq:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George Bush March 18, 2003


in fact it was the only reason:


"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

No, that doesn't make it "alright". You can't expect one hundred percent perfection out of an entire society. When we've got the leader of an entire nation calling for what amounts to genocide, I think the bigotry is pretty obvious and that is definitely not "alright".

They're just words ..if we are to judge by actions then the US is lacking in anything resembling morals. You invaded and subsequently destroyed a nation for your own gain. Actions speak louder than words

I dont expect 100% perfection ..that's impossible ..but what I DO expect is not to be manipulated, not to be lied to and for gods sakes quit being a hypocrite and pointing fingers at countries for commiting atrocites when you're guilty of the same or worse

 

[Pajari]

speculation ..they possess wmd and have used them in the past when invaded by iraq. They have yet to use them on anybody else ..so it just seems it's exactly what it appears to be ..idle threats to stir up the masses ..the US on the other hand ...

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03

you carry out your threats

Yeah, Iran's use of WMD was an idle threat. And our attack on Iraq was a murderous orgy. This is ridiculous.

yes it is ..c4 takes outmaybe a dozen people

Uh oh! Moral relativiam ahoy! This is a new concept for you.

..deliberately bombing water treatment plants during the first days of desert storm led to the deaths of over a million iraqis ..half those children under 5. ..they knew the outcome and they deliberately prevented humanitarian aid that would have repaired the plants. You cant possibly argue the C4 is more barbaric

I can definitely argue that c4 is more barbaric, but I won't. How about Saddam's cassing of the Kurds or his suppression of the rebellions following the Gulf War?

no I didnt say that .. you're morally reprehensible because you kill for your own gain

..Iraq war was a sham from the very beginning that had nothing to do with wmd

Oh right, I forgot. The terrorists aren't murdering for their personal gain. We're the greedy capitalists that invade a country to send the price of oil skyrocketing and erode our support around the world, as well as tie up our budget and military and cause grief for the families of thousands of soldiers across the country. I don't see how its a sham, and I don't see how we benefit at all from the occupation of Iraq.

yes because everything is black and white to you ...unless El salvador is flying the american flag it hasnt been conquered. The US has orchestrated coups, civil wars, regime change in pretty much ever latin american country for the last 50 years ...not too mention the Congo, Haiti, Laos, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Cambodia, Angola etc etc etc

Yeah, a word like "conquest" is pretty black and white. A phrase like "political meddling" or "dollar diplomacy" would have been more accurate. And I know that the US has had its finger in a lot of pies, that much is blindingly obvious. And to be quite honest, look at our occupation of Haiti in the early 20th century. Latin America could use some help, if you ask me.

you'd have to be on the not so intelligent side to believe that nonsense ..rewrite history all you want but that is not the reason why you went into iraq:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George Bush March 18, 2003

in fact it was the only reason:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

I'd like to point out that everyone, on both sides of the aisle in congress and all over the UN, agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There was strong evidence to indicate Saddam had WMD, namely that he used them on the Kurds back in the early nineties, and that he was developing a nuclear program that was so far advanced by the early eighties that Israel stepped in a put a stop to it.

They're just words ..if we are to judge by actions then the US is lacking in anything resembling morals. You invaded and subsequently destroyed a nation for your own gain. Actions speak louder than words

Anything resembling morals.. so, would free elections, rebuilding Iraqi infastructure, rooting our members of the old regime and bringing them to justice, and refraining from beheading people on camera and distributing the video over the internet come anything clsoe to morals for you, or are your standards a bit higher? Actions do speak louder than words, and I think the Iraqi situations speaks to the dictators of the world that their bullshit won't be tolerated anymore, and that they can't rightly thumb their nose at the rest of the world and murder their own people for thirty years and expect to get away scot-free.

Those are some loud words to me.

I dont expect 100% perfection ..that's impossible ..but what I DO expect is not to be manipulated, not to be lied to and for gods sakes quit being a hypocrite and pointing fingers at countries for commiting atrocites when you're guilty of the same or worse

I'm the hypocrite for accusing the Middle East of extremism, barbarity, and murderous hatred? What?

 

[Solaris]

-and refraining from beheading people on camera and distributing the video over the internet
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/140206bbeating_vid.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/281105trophyvideo.htm

 

[CptStern]

Yeah, Iran's use of WMD was an idle threat. And our attack on Iraq was a murderous orgy. This is ridiculous.

they've yet to use wmd on anyone without provocation ..the US cant say the same ..but nice attempt at putting words in my mouth

Uh oh! Moral relativiam ahoy! This is a new concept for you.

what does that have to do with what we're talking about? quit clouding the issue

I can definitely argue that c4 is more barbaric, but I won't. How about Saddam's cassing of the Kurds or his suppression of the rebellions following the Gulf War?

what does it have to do with what we're talking about? you cant just dismiss what the US did by saying "well saddam did so and so" ..who cares? it has NO bearing on what I've said about the US. Saddam's crimes dont vindicate you (US) of your crimes.

Oh right, I forgot. The terrorists aren't murdering for their personal gain.

what does that have to do with what we're discussing ...I'm starting to believe that you use the "well they did it so can we" justification to justify pretty much anything and everything ..."Hey saddam tortured and murdered people, let's do the same"

We're the greedy capitalists that invade a country to send the price of oil skyrocketing and erode our support around the world, as well as tie up our budget and military and cause grief for the families of thousands of soldiers across the country. I don't see how its a sham, and I don't see how we benefit at all from the occupation of Iraq.

well then you're not looking hard enough and are also short sighted. From the Project of the New American Century (a right wing think tank made up of the who's who of the bush admin) statement of principles:


"America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. [the great fascists of the 20th century would be proud]

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."


http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

from Rebuilding America's Defenses ..You really should read it


"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.

Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region"



"America’s global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.

"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" "

"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies – as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation – are creating a dynamic that may threaten America’s ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate"

I don't see how its a sham

explain how saddam's wmd capabilities went from this


to this

in 2 short months

I want a straight answer

Yeah, a word like "conquest" is pretty black and white. A phrase like "political meddling" or "dollar diplomacy" would have been more accurate. And I know that the US has had its finger in a lot of pies, that much is blindingly obvious. And to be quite honest, look at our occupation of Haiti in the early 20th century. Latin America could use some help, if you ask me.

you mean like overthrowing democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz and plunging guatemala into a 30 year civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands? or overthrowing democraticaly elected Juan Torres and replacing him with the murderous Hugo Banzer? or how about having a hand in the removal of democratically elected Salvador Allende and replacing him with the murderous Augusto Pinochet? or helping muderous Jonas Savimbi or the muderous Mobutu Sese Seko?

I'd like to point out that everyone, on both sides of the aisle in congress and all over the UN, agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

you mean evidence supplied by the US? you mean evidence supplied to the US by long time CIA paid informant/terrorist/murderer Iyad Allawi or long time CIA employee Ahmad Chalabi? or how about evidence of the single most crucial bit of information that powell used to go to the security council based on the word of someone the CIA called a "liar", and "crazy"?

There was strong evidence to indicate Saddam had WMD, namely that he used them on the Kurds back in the early nineties, and that he was developing a nuclear program that was so far advanced by the early eighties that Israel stepped in a put a stop to it.

lies


"Since 1995, the United States intelligence community knew that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed in the field of ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons and biological weapons. What cause the Bush administration to change its stated assessment is the policy decision undertaken by the Bush administration to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power. Around this policy, the Bush administration fixed intelligence, including analysis that it claims was the result of a reexamination of the facts in light of the events of September 11, 2001-- namely that because of the terrorist attacks against the United States on that date, the United States could no longer tolerate an uncertain situation in Iraq. The reason why I highlight this is that the Bush administration in making these statements acknowledges the uncertainty that exists regarding WMD. This is a far cry from the statements made by the president and indeed members of his administration, under oath to the Congress of the United States, that they knew these weapons existed."

I can tell you as the person who was responsible for some of the most sensitive intelligence operations run by the United Nations vis a vis Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction program, the person who had total access to every shred of intelligence data provided by the international community of the United Nations regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that while there may have been uncertainty about the final disposition of the totality of Iraq’s WMD programs, the entire world including the CIA acknowledged that the United Nations’ weapons inspectors had, by 1998, accounted for 95-98% of Iraq’s declared stockpiles. That there was uncertainty regarding the final disposition of this 5-2% that could not be absolutely verified, but there was no nation, and I will say that again, no nation including the United States, that had any hard factual data to sustain the argument that Iraq a) retained weapons of mass destruction, or b) was actively reconstituting weapons of mass destruction.



So I will contradict the Bush administration by stating NO nation supported the Bush administration’s contention that Iraq maintained viable massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at any time from 1998 up until the eve of the invasion in March of 2003.

I will say this, that as early as 1992 the CIA was in possession of enough data to sustain the notion that Iraq had been disarmed in the field of ballistic missiles. By 1993 the CIA had enough data to sustain the notion that Iraq had been disarmed in the field of biological weapons. By 1994, the CIA had enough data to sustain the finding that Iraq was disarmed in the field of chemical weapons. And by 1995, the CIA was in possession enough data to sustain the finding that Iraq was disarmed in the field of biological weapons. This knowledge, this certainty of data, was passed over from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. Therefore, I would say that the president’s rhetoric was not only baseless, but deliberately misleading.

- Scott Ritter

Anything resembling morals.. so, would free elections, rebuilding Iraqi infastructure,

that you destroyed prior to invasion in 1991 ..which incidentily lead to the deaths of over a million iraqis half of those children under 5

rooting our members of the old regime and bringing them to justice,

you mean like terrorist and murderer Iyad Allawi? you made him prime minister of iraq

and refraining from beheading people on camera and distributing the video over the internet come anything clsoe to morals for you, or are your standards a bit higher?

yes but taking photos of tortured pows is ok by you? again I dont see how this has anything to do with what we're talking about.

Actions do speak louder than words, and I think the Iraqi situations speaks to the dictators of the world that their bullshit won't be tolerated anymore,

so upwards of 200,000 iraqis had to die just so you can get out the message to would be terrorists "the US isnt going to take it anymore" ..who's being morally reprehensible here?

and that they can't rightly thumb their nose at the rest of the world and murder their own people for thirty years and expect to get away scot-free.

you didnt seem to give a shit when he was committing his worst atrocities ..in fact you called him friend

I'm the hypocrite for accusing the Middle East of extremism, barbarity, and murderous hatred? What?

it's pretty obvious I'm talking about the US and not you ..but nice attempt at side stepping the issue




Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)


you dont think that's barbaric? you have a strange sense of moral ethics if you cant see that

 

[Ome_Vince]

-and refraining from beheading people on camera and distributing the video over the internet
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/140206bbeating_vid.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/281105trophyvideo.htm

Difference is, those are incidents by soldiers gone insane. Nice of you to link OGRISH video's here.
Want me to start linking insurgents cutting off people's heads for the only reason: they are white?
That British woman who was married to an Iraqi and was involved in helping Iraqi civilians (lived there for many years)?
Why did she have to die?
I can link a shitload of Ogrish, dirty movies showing barbaric acts for no reason, including the classical Madrid, London and 9/11.
Why dont i? Because i DONT generalise and dont blame all Iraqi's or muslims.
You blame everything on the US and UK, which is over generalising the other way around.
Its tollerated just like for instance racism vs white people is widely tollerated.
I dont want to be discriminated by people like you, because im from the west, just as a Muslim does not want to be discriminated by others for 9/11.

Iraq invasion was wrong, and Bush is a moron comparable with a mindless dictator, but these acts of barbarism by alot of insurgents also against their own people are also wrong.
You tell me why Iraqi policemen or random Iraqi civilians have to die by car-bombings which are often orchestrated by foreign Jihad fighters...

You tell me why you battle certain forum members from generalising muslims and Iraqi's why you are equally discriminating the West (especially USA)?

How can you blame all the middle-east's problems on the USA? Isnt is possible
that alot of problems are caused by other parties? including the middle-east itself?
The middle-east has had problems with all parts of the world before the USA+Israel were even created!!!
And not only with the West, ZOROASTRIANISM has been anihilated, India has countless problems, the Byzantines have been anihilated, the Berbers have been conquered etc etc.
There is alot of shit in both sides, which you dont want to see, but i can say with full conviction that even though the west still has alot of problems, at least it is on a better and more tollerant path than countries like Iran...
How do i judge this? Just look at the laws Iran has, and how their society deals with its own people, and most importantly their actions...
And whoever put them into this situation or helped them into it doesnt matter. Hitler came to power in Germany due to England and France raping Germany, that doesnt cut-out the German's own responsibility for their actions..

I also hope one day you'll see the world is not black&white....
Yes you can have critisism vs what the US and or coalition does, but for gods sake put everything in perspective and look at certain situations from multiple angles instead of 1: prisonplanet or some other hippy site...

 

[Raziaar]

That British woman who was married to an Iraqi and was involved in helping Iraqi civilians (lived there for many years)?

She was also a muslim I believe. UNless we're thinking of a different woman.


And Solaris, don't post links to videos that are from Ogrish.com

That's in bad taste and I don't think even allowed on these forums.

 

[Solaris]

What? I Linked to Prison Planet videos.

And Vince not all insurgents cut off heads, just as not all Soldiers torture.

 

[Raziaar]

What? I Linked to Prison Planet videos.

And Vince not all insurgents cut off heads, just as not all Soldiers torture.

It doesn't matter dude... it's still an ogrish video, that shows people DYING.

 

[Solaris]

I don't know, I didn' watch the secound one, was looking for a different one but...

It's no worse than the guantanmo photos.

 

[Ome_Vince]

What? I Linked to Prison Planet videos.

And Vince not all insurgents cut off heads, just as not all Soldiers torture.

I cant believe im seeing this!!! Congrats Solaris you just saw something less black&white!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03


you carry out your threats

Stern, how relative. Whats more, thats not even a threat by Bush, but a statement how Iran poses a threat. Thats not a threat, thats an opinion.

A threat would be more like this.

"If you don't become Christian Conservatives now and surrender your oil, we will invade and skull **** you." -Bush

yes it is ..c4 takes outmaybe a dozen people

So do Cruise Missles. And your point being?

deliberately bombing water treatment plants

Both are equally responsible for their let downs, America's Military, and Saddams. Saddam chose to let those people die from dehydration, but America chose to bomb the plant in the first place. America had its Agenda, and Saddam had his. Both were irresponsible at the time, I agree.

you're morally reprehensible because you kill for your own gain

No more morally reprehensible then the Arab Legion of 1967, 1953, 1948, 1947, and 1946, and the Anti-Jew Arab riots of 1941, 1938, 1937, 1925 etc. etc., add nausem and Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Hai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Riots_of_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Nabala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Yehuda_Street_Bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadassah_medical_convoy_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

Suez Crisis: Throughout this period, the Egyptian government, most notably President Gamal Abdel Nasser, continued to publicly incite hostility and violence against Israel. On August 31, 1955, Nasser announced that "there will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

You really should'nt be pointing your finger at other members. How many of these people, in all of these attrocities and massacres, will killing and mass exodusing other people for their own gain?

Would you kill for your own gain? Are you that immorale? I would'nt kill for my own gain, would you? Oh, and guess what? You can't point the fingers of blame at individuals here on the forums because they're not the ones out there actually, 'killing' for their own gain. But the people I quoted here from my Wikipedia Sources, were.

“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops

Bring me a source for that please. I want to see his quote, and the story in full.

The US has orchestrated coups, civil wars, regime change in pretty much ever latin american country for the last 50 years ...not too mention the Congo, Haiti, Laos, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Cambodia, Angola etc etc etc

Perhaps so, but besides Uncle Sam masterbating all over Latin America, would'nt you agree that a good break from poverty is what those countries needed? It was a good thought, but a horrible outcome. As for strong arming several of those countries, can we think that maybe our intent was'nt to be the worlds Jackass, but perhaps the worlds friend in by stopping terrorist factions from leading those countries to an even worse situation then they are now?

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

What we're the other reasons? I would like a source for this also. Where you got the quote, I want to read that story, op-ed piece, whatever. We should'nt be in the dark about this.

I dont expect 100% perfection ..that's impossible ..but what I DO expect is not to be manipulated, not to be lied to and for gods sakes quit being a hypocrite and pointing fingers at countries for commiting atrocites when you're guilty of the same or worse

Okay, for your source, its torture, not death. We don't behead our prisoners or justify making massacres out in front of someones home just because he managed to chop down a tree in our front lawn. See, Tobisho, the talking Palestinian Chic who hates Jews, Canadians, Americans, Germans, Italians, the French, Russians, Turkish people etc. ad Nausem, add wikipedia, and add this:

On a children's program discussing the importance of trees, "Tarabisho - the Talking Chick" - was the center of the discussion. The child moderator asked Tarabisho what he would do if someone, specifically a "little boy," were to chop down his tree. In his squeaky little voice, Tarabisho answered: "I'll fight him and make a big riot, I'll call the whole world and make a riot. I'll bring AK-47s [assault rifles] and the whole world, I'll commit a massacre in front of the house".

Rather than use this opportunity to teach children the value of peaceful communication and negotiation - peace education in other words - the Palestinian Authority instead aired a message that promoted violence as a way to solve problems.
[PA TV, October 22, 2004]

http://pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_tabisho.asx

-and refraining from beheading people on camera and distributing the video over the internet

Umm, who in a terrorist group does this? As for your links, PrisonPlanets bias blinds me. But then again, they do allow some inefficient op-eds, although I agree the killings posted are wrong.

See, we agree that their wrong, but people like you, justify the killing of Israeli Civilians in the same manner as Collateral damage. Thats just wrong, and we've seen you do it to.

the US cant say the same

If your referencing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would you prefer Tokyo, a battle that would've swallowed more then 500,000 dead? The battle for the Island of Japan is speculated to be 6x worse then the actual Atomic Bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

I don't believe people back then had the proper insight into war as we do now. Still, I believe we should dismantle our Nuclear Weapons. Their purposeless.

it has NO bearing on what I've said about the US. Saddam's crimes dont vindicate you (US) of your crimes.

I agree. No sides crime vindicate any other response or return crimes occuring.

explain how saddam's wmd capabilities went from this


to this

in 2 short months

I want a straight answer

Because they're idiots.

you mean like overthrowing democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz and plunging guatemala into a 30 year civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbenz

I agree with CptStern on this. Before you read my earlier statements as Hypocrasy, I'm only talking about us cleaning up several of our messes. Arbenz ... there was no reason to oust him. No. Reason. At all.

that you destroyed prior to invasion in 1991 ..which incidentily lead to the deaths of over a million iraqis half of those children under 5

Oh? And if Saddams such a white horse crusader coming to their rescue ... well, why did'nt he? There was no aid from him to his people. So either he believed in the principles of the strong overcoming the weak, or he just liked to watch his people suffer.

 

[CptStern]

I cant be bothered to look through your nonsense kerberos ..debating you is like deliberately driving a nail into my forehead: painful, messy and I come out dumber for it in the end

 

[Raziaar]

I cant be bothered to look through your nonsense kerberos ..debating you is like deliberately driving a nail into my forehead: painful, messy and I come out dumber for it in the end

But you look absolutely SMASHING as a coat-hangar. You could even stand in as a picture mount!

 

[CptStern]

I dont get it

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Te'-te' CptStern. Your obviously not that important for a debate.

 

[Raziaar]

I dont get it

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/280569/2/istockphoto_280569_nail_head.jpg

I could just hang my coat on it. Less funny if I have to explain it.

 

[CptStern]

Te'-te' CptStern. Your obviously not that important for a debate.

dont you mean "tsk tsk"? oh I forgot, language isnt your strongest trait

half the time I cant understand what you say the other half I dont want to understand because it's just utter drivel that has little to do with what we're talking about and a complete waste of time.


oh and the irony of calling me "jeb" I live in a city of 4 million? you?


raziaar: oh ok now I get it, visual aids do help

 

[K e r b e r o s]

dont you mean "tsk tsk"? oh I forgot, language isnt your strongest trait

Suppose I was'nt white, and perhaps English was'nt my strongest language. Could I ask you then why your being such a racist against me?

(Because wether you knew it our not, I'm not white, and not American by ' race '. There I said it. It's starting to bother me, you know. Your statement about the jews, and your constant haggering me of my communication skills is drawing my patience to a close. Yes, I'll admit it. I'm not from this country. So why persecute me because of it?)

half the time I cant understand what you say the other half I dont want to understand because it's just utter drivel that has little to do with what we're talking about and a complete waste of time.

No, you understand it all perfectly its just you have nothing better to say it to it. Your rebuttal falls short here, as it has in the past.

But we all know your afraid of confronting what I brought to this debate.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

raziaar: oh ok now I get it, visual aids do help

Anyway, for CptStern, I'd just like to say this publicly:

Argueing with you is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if I win, your still going to say I'm retarded.

 

[CptStern]

Suppose I was'nt white, and perhaps English was'nt my strongest language. Could I ask you then why your being such a racist against me?

I asked you if english was your second language and said I was willing to overlook that last week

(Because wether you knew it our not, I'm not white, and not American by ' race '. There I said it. It's starting to bother me, you know. Your statement about the jews, and your constant haggering me of my communication skills is drawing my patience to a close. Yes, I'll admit it. I'm not from this country. So why persecute me because of it?)

I'd really like to see you try to show how I'm anti-semetic because that couldnt be further from the truth ..and I dont care what nationality you are, my parents are immigrants I'm used to hearing broken english

No, you understand it all perfectly its just you have nothing better to say it to it.

no, I'm not being facetious when I say I dont understand at least half of what you say ..not because I dont want to, but because I cant

Your rebuttal falls short here, as it has in the past.

see? this is an example of me not understanding what you're saying ..I understand the words but not the meaning behind your words. In other words I dont understand how you came to the conclusion that my rebuttle falls short

But we all know your afraid of confronting what I brought to this debate.

oh come on, what a joke ...I've debated people far more knowledgeable than you, I'm not one to run from a debate

 

[mortiz]

Stern, how relative. Whats more, thats not even a threat by Bush, but a statement how Iran poses a threat. Thats not a threat, thats an opinion.

The quote concerns Iraq, not Iran.

So do Cruise Missles. And your point being?

What point were you trying to make exactly?

No more morally reprehensible then the Arab Legion of 1967, 1953, 1948, 1947, and 1946, and the Anti-Jew Arab riots of 1941, 1938, 1937, 1925 etc. etc., add nausem and Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Hai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Riots_of_1947
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Nabala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Yehuda_Street_Bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadassah_medical_convoy_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

You really should'nt be pointing your finger at other members. How many of these people, in all of these attrocities and massacres, will killing and mass exodusing other people for their own gain?

Would you kill for your own gain? Are you that immorale? I would'nt kill for my own gain, would you? Oh, and guess what? You can't point the fingers of blame at individuals here on the forums because they're not the ones out there actually, 'killing' for their own gain. But the people I quoted here from my Wikipedia Sources, were.

You're avoiding the issue. The sources you've posted have little baring on the issue at hand, unless you'd blame Arabs of today for those atrocities? In which case I'd guess you'd have to blame the Germans of today for the Holocaust. Nasty things happening in the past isn't some form of justification.

Perhaps so, but besides Uncle Sam masterbating all over Latin America, would'nt you agree that a good break from poverty is what those countries needed? It was a good thought, but a horrible outcome. As for strong arming several of those countries, can we think that maybe our intent was'nt to be the worlds Jackass, but perhaps the worlds friend in by stopping terrorist factions from leading those countries to an even worse situation then they are now?

A good thought just doesn't cut it. If you're going to be messing around with peoples lives, even their deaths you'd better make sure you go into it both eyes open and with a plan and several contigency plans. Steaming into a country like a big lumbering dog, smashing it around a bit and then coming out, shrugging your shoulders and saying "oh, but I meant well!" won't do you any favours, like it isn't doing them any favours in Iraq right now.

Okay, for your source, its torture, not death. We don't behead our prisoners or justify making massacres out in front of someones home just because he managed to chop down a tree in our front lawn.

Would you prefer it if the 'Terrorists' released videos of the western prisoners writhing around naked on the floor covered in their own feces while they stand around pointing and laughing? Or perhaps they could attach electrodes to parts of their bodies and give them electric shocks? Iraqi's have made it clear that from their stand-point that is ultimately disrespectful, they believe that a quick death is preferable to that type of indignity.

See, Tobisho, the talking Palestinian Chic who hates Jews, Canadians, Americans, Germans, Italians, the French, Russians, Turkish people etc. ad Nausem, add wikipedia, and add this:

And? There's extremists in every country, or have you forgotton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazis]these guys? Still a popular movement in the United States.

 

[Ome_Vince]

The sources you've posted have little baring on the issue at hand, unless you'd blame Arabs of today for those atrocities? In which case I'd guess you'd have to blame the Germans of today for the Holocaust. Nasty things happening in the past isn't some form of justification

Why doesnt this then also count for the West + Israel???????

 

[mortiz]

Why doesnt this then also count for the West + Israel???????

Because that's on-going situation. I'm talking about taking one conflict and using it as some form of justification for a completely unrelated one.

 

[Ome_Vince]

So the Crusades, Israel's creation, the 3-4 arab wars, that caused them to lose lands, western imperialism are ongoing situations?
90% of the stuff i see posted here as justification for terrorist/hate acts are justified by things that happened years and years and years and years ago..

 

[mortiz]

So the Crusades, Israel's creation, the 3-4 arab wars, that caused them to lose lands, western imperialism are ongoing situations?
90% of the stuff i see posted here as justification for terrorist/hate acts are justified by things that happened years and years and years and years ago..

I didn't justify terrorism or hate acts, nothing of the sort, but the problem in the west bank is certainly an on-going situation because it was never resolved after the 1967 six-day war.

 

[Ome_Vince]

yeah, i didnt really want to target you, just in general forum people in their attitude towards the world problems.
The West-Bank is an ongoing situation, but most of the Israel-Arab problems go much deeper than simply the West-Bank which is only the tip of the iceberg..