Originally posted by funhouse_1970: What a sad bunch of posts. Left and Right bickering while the real terrorists are priming the pump for the next self-inflicted terrorist attack.
Did Thom ever find any experts from NIST (or anybody) to debate for the Official Conspiracy Theory side (i.e. the 9-11 Commission Report) ? They're a scared bunch of propagandists.
Maybe he could arrange a debate between Greg "Leftgatekeeper" Palast and Dr. Stephen Jones?
GG posted: "Brent, are you familiar with the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO)? The IBO's purpose is to create world citizens. With certainty, it's an indoctrination to hold attitudes and values dictated by IBO that hold no objective truth. IBO is hostile to the foundational principles of the United States and in our Declaration of Independence that states, "We hold these truth to be self-evident." IBO aggressively teaches the contrary view.
According to IBO, terrorists exist only in the mind of the beholder. Sounds like some posters in the forum have already signed onto IBO."
Well, as professional US gov't intel has found that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq under Saddam, then by this reasoning the CIA & DIA and associated agencies are part of the IBO.
"I have in my hand a list of 57 card-carrying members of the IBO which are employed by US Intel" (Joe McCarthy redux)
Question: since GG and her colleagues are searching for absolutes how would you classify the actions of Bin Laden when he and the Mujahideen were doing their stuff against Soviet tanks and planes? Tell me you and Cal Thomas were not cheering them on. It was good then but its evil now or maybe ablloutes should be left to Vodka
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
Originally posted by funhouse_1970: What a sad bunch of posts. Left and Right bickering while the real terrorists are priming the pump for the next self-inflicted terrorist attack.
Did Thom ever find any experts from NIST (or anybody) to debate for the Official Conspiracy Theory side (i.e. the 9-11 Commission Report) ? They're a scared bunch of propagandists.
Maybe he could arrange a debate between Greg "Leftgatekeeper" Palast and Dr. Stephen Jones?
I'm discouraged by the lack of response there was to my question. The question openly challenges the protections assured by the First Amendment. For some strange reason Americans seem to have capitulated the right to free speech. Should Bush, or anybody, be permitted to dictates what we can or cannot contemplate and discuss regarding the defining moment of the decade? Does the government have the authority to outlaw the collective dialog which should naturally follow any event involving numerous actors participating and observing from very different perspectives? IOW, does the government have the right to tell Air Traffic Controllers or first responders that they are not allowed to talk about what they observed, or not allowed to publicly speculate about what really happened? What about Sibel Edmonds? At what point does the National Security Act of 1947 simply become a tool for criminals to cover up crimes? I'm inclined to believe that line was crossed before this ink dried on the bill.
Every time I see the subject header of this thread, I want to start a new thread called "The war on Dummies for Terrorists". Rule number #1 it doesn't matter how threatening you are. What matters is how threatening you seem to be. Terrorism is about terrorizing. Let the other guy do most of the work. You just have to scare him, and then make him believe that you are invisible and invincible. A few hundred deaths in a maritime disaster without the cameras rolling, just doesn't sell the way people jumping out of burning buildings sells before thousands of cameras sells. The nice thing about terrorizing dummies is that you can tell them that it's not their job to understand what happened. You'll take care of that. Of course you change hats before you do that. It's their job to be terrorized, oh, and to do some shopping.
In their own words - read what our congressionals once knew and now cover over as well as our information less media. Also, at the same time ask yourself why will the media not show the people jumping out of the trade towers burning on September 11. They don't want you to remember - nor the many attacks against the American people overlooked by Clinton. READ on- - - -
quote:
President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Clinton on Operation Desert Fox : "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.
Vice President Albert Gore : "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Sandy Berger , Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry : "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards : "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Dick Durbin : "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons -inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After the 2000 election:
When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
So, Ted, Dick and Harry € what's your real agenda?
Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats. Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.
In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.
( This essay is based on a Patriot Alert (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=340) that was circulated 11 November. If you are interested in exact quote sources, start by entering the words "Clinton Iraq 1998" into your Internet search engine.)
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Damn it! Its not about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any politician: Its about the fact that civil servants such as: Scott Ritter said Sadham was contained and no longer a threat. So what happened? He was acussed of some trumped up charge of Statutory Rape and the case is mysteriously dismissed and the records sealed: No explanation Hans Blick: He was doing his job methodically inspecting and coming up empty. Why wasn't he allowed to be proceed? Because he would conclude that there was no threat. Unlike you: we are Not mouthpieces for the Democrats. The progressives are believers in laws and not government of men By your irrational fear you are helping the construct the "fascist Architecture " Bruce Cockburn sang about years ago. You want to know about terrorism: Let me tell you about Herman Gue rring
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Are you falling into this trap? Do you attack the peace makers? Do you quesition the patriotisms of those who question this war? I have read you mockery of Denis Kucchinich
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
GG: Anyone really familiar with the situation knows Bill Clinton killed even more Iraqis than did George W. Bush. Clinton did it through draconian sanctions.
And, yes, the Dems also were wrong about the WMD.
Neither fact of which excuses the international crimes of unjustified aggression against Iraq that have been committed by the United States.
The "last resort" position of the cornered US conservative is usually to say the Dems are just as bad. Which is not even a defense.
GG posted: "So, Ted, Dick and Harry € what's your real agenda?"
Gain and retain power for their party, and say whatever it takes, truth be damned, in order to do so. They must've thought a few years ago saying Saddam had WMD was good politically. And maybe they actually believed it then. Now it's not good in that way.
Originally posted by BrentBozo: GG: Anyone really familiar with the situation knows Bill Clinton killed even more Iraqis than did George W. Bush. Clinton did it through draconian sanctions.
Neither fact of which excuses the international crimes of unjustified aggression against Iraq that have been committed by the United States.
The "last resort" position of the cornered US conservative is usually to say the Dems are just as bad. Which is not even a defense.
Most of Clinton's victims were children and the elderly.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Same idology with a different way of implementing it.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
I have never been 100% satisfied that _no_ WMD were found in Iraq. How they might have gotten there is a different matter.
Consider the following:
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_7,_2003 Embedded NPR journalists relay reports from a top official with the 1st Marine Division that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered 20 medium range BM-21 missiles armed with warheads containing deadly sarin and mustard gas that are "ready to fire."
The detection was reported by a specialized NBC team. I know for an absolute fact that the US military has invested very heavily in NBC detection technology and training. I went through some of the specialized training.
Subsequent statements never directly addressed this reported find. Only generalities such as Rumsfeld's: "almost all first reports we get, turn out to be wrong. We don't do first reports and we don't speculate." If Rumsfeld will not speculate, please allow me to do so. The Iraqis were unlikely to arm 20 missiles with Raid House and Garden. It has been well known for over a century that accurate NBC field testing is a matter of life and death, as well as mission success. NBC field tests don't mistake sarin for bug spray. Not only that, we have sarin and mustard gas to explain.
There are a few different possible explanations for the report.
The NBC team detected a false positive. This seems utterly absurd.
The unidentified military spokesperson misstated the information. This is very hard to believe.
The reporter misunderstood the report.20 missiles armed with nerve gas and blister agent, and ready to fire is kind of hard to misinterpret.
The report was intentional Public Diplomacy. Now we are entering into the realm of the plausible.
The report is accurate. People claim that Rumsfeld would have faxed the confirmation report to every news outlet on the planet, had WMD been discovered. So who would have been under a direct threat from a mobile launcher armed with such weapons? New York? DC? Frisco? Anchorage?
There are a few different possible explanations for the report.
what about the report is a propaganda lie meant to build support for the war?
sort of like the jessica lynch rescue? even she testified that the pentagon and white house 'beefed' up the story. while her comrads were injured/killed and jessica herself was injured, the government lied about the way she was 'rescued'. she was in an unguarded hospital, where several iraqis were taking care of her wounds.
how about the tillman incident? according to the pentagon/white house, tillman died while fighting terrorists. but it turns out that he was actually battling other friendly soldiers and he got hit and killed by friendly fire. even though the government knew that, they still played up the 'go joe' angle for their propaganda. it took the tillman family and several congressmen to get to the bottom of that lie.
so even this little WMD missile thing can be another lie and propaganda ploy. its bush's way of trying to tie 911 to iraq to al quida.
------------------------------------------ debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons -inspection process."
Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman: sort of like the jessica lynch rescue? even she testified that the pentagon and white house 'beefed' up the story. while her comrads were injured/killed and jessica herself was injured, the government lied about the way she was 'rescued'. she was in an unguarded hospital, where several iraqis were taking care of her wounds.
Are you suggesting that people within the USG would fabricate a story with the intent to deceive and manipulate the public? That, according to Field manual (FM) 33-1, the U.S. Army psychological operations (PSYOP) doctrinal manual, would be illegal. These same kind of sensational accusations were leveled against the BATF and others concerning David Koresh.
quote:
Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman: how about the tillman incident? according to the pentagon/white house, tillman died while fighting terrorists. but it turns out that he was actually battling other friendly soldiers and he got hit and killed by friendly fire. even though the government knew that, they still played up the 'go joe' angle for their propaganda. it took the tillman family and several congressmen to get to the bottom of that lie.
Are you sure this isn't the whole "war of fog" problem? Kind of like the Gulf of Tonkin. Tillman was reportedly "livid" about UBL escaping from the Tora Bora. Perhaps that contributed to the incident. When people get angry, sometimes they get out of control.
quote:
Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman: so even this little WMD missile thing can be another lie and propaganda ploy. its bush's way of trying to tie 911 to iraq to al quida.
Are you suggesting al Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11? Didn't it turn out that although the FBI found no hard evidence linking UBL to 9/11, KSM confessed to it before the secret tribunal?
Epimames posted: "So who would have been under a direct threat from a mobile launcher armed with such weapons? New York? DC? Frisco? Anchorage?"
Epimames, am following your reasoning as to why the report may not have been true, except for this speculation. A medium-range launcher is range of just a few hundred miles, correct?
My guess is that the instance was one of "public diplomacy". If it had really been true, Rummy would've run with it.
Originally posted by BrentBozo: A medium-range launcher is range of just a few hundred miles, correct?
My guess is that the instance was one of "public diplomacy". If it had really been true, Rummy would've run with it.
The missiles named in the report have an advertised maximum range of 20 KM, but the launcher is a self-propelled vehicle. 100 Km/hr on a paved highway seems plausible.
What was reported to have been found or not found in Iraq may well be more a matter of what the Administration wants you to believe than it is a matter of reality. Here's something that came to my attention too late to have any bearing on Saddam's fate: Saddam did not gas the Kurds?. In all our conflicts with Iraq, that incident was the single action that prevented me from giving Saddam any sympathy. Here's another interesting perspective on Saddam: Thanks for the Memories. I don't recall the details, but I have long had the impression that the US had given Saddam the tacit green-light to invade Kuwait. Are you familiar with the babies in incubators scam?
Originally posted by leftysergeant: As long as I can remember knowing how to read, and I am 60 years old now, I remember reading newspaper articles on the fact that Islam was spreading world-wide faster than was Christianity AND WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Fundie Christians have been making a holy war against everyone who does not believe their far-out doctrines for centuries.
Is it possible that people who are not Fundie Christians have made pretense to being such in order to stir up strife or act as agents provocateur? Is it possible that, say, arms merchants or privatized armies such as Blackwater might contribute financially to, or otherwise foster a militant faction within (Fundamental) Christianity in order to stir up business, as it were?
Well, I wonder really what impels people to join big congregations. There's the possibility of family tradition, but there's also the possibility of business contacts and social networking for the pursuit of the big green, and there's also the possibility of some sort of genuinely spiritual awakening and following of some sort of charismatic figure or group. The more I watch the by-play in the media and on boards like this, I kind of think the big green rules almighty.
I'm thinking of cost-benefit analysis from a venal parishioner's perspective, one who has some control over whether his child will be on the front lines, and one who has some sort of insider connections to the gravy train that emerges from far flung military campaigns and the war profiteering that ensues from them.
I think the Bible thumping takes place in hierarchies. To illustrate the idea, I'll focus on two levels, the bottom and the top, to begin to develop what I'm thinking of spiritual motivations that might flow from religious community.
At the bottom level, somehow the front line folk need pride in sending their children to combat. At the top level, somehow the string pullers need some sense of moral righteousness about their forays into new territory. Whether they need a church to give them this "peace of mind" is another question, but it seems to be of some help in resolving doubt about aggressive actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
quote: "What was reported to have been found or not found in Iraq may well be more a matter of what the Administration wants you to believe than it is a matter of reality. Here's something that came to my attention too late to have any bearing on Saddam's fate: Saddam did not gas the Kurds?. In all our conflicts with Iraq, that incident was the single action that prevented me from giving Saddam any sympathy. Here's another interesting perspective on Saddam: Thanks for the Memories. I don't recall the details, but I have long had the impression that the US had given Saddam the tacit green-light to invade Kuwait. Are you familiar with the babies in incubators scam?"
Okay- now I got it, Epimames- you were facetious whwn you mentioned the possibility of hitting US targets
Yes, am very familiar with babies-torn-from-incubators lie.
I believe Glaspie told Saddam something along thelines of: "We have no say in your intra-Arab dispute" with Kuwait.
Will get to your links about Saddam later. Would say we know much of what we've been indoctrinated with over the years was to serve an aggressive agenda in the region.
The links are pretty short and to the point videos. I am stunned by the amount of material that has become available due to the internet which wasn't previously very well known. I dread the potential threats posed by the efforts to limit the free-flow of information.
Well, I wonder really what impels people to join big congregations. There's the possibility of family tradition, but there's also the possibility of business contacts and social networking for the pursuit of the big green, and there's also the possibility of some sort of genuinely spiritual awakening and following of some sort of charismatic figure or group. The more I watch the by-play in the media and on boards like this, I kind of think the big green rules almighty.
I'm thinking of cost-benefit analysis from a venal parishioner's perspective, one who has some control over whether his child will be on the front lines, and one who has some sort of insider connections to the gravy train that emerges from far flung military campaigns and the war profiteering that ensues from them.
I think the Bible thumping takes place in hierarchies. To illustrate the idea, I'll focus on two levels, the bottom and the top, to begin to develop what I'm thinking of spiritual motivations that might flow from religious community.
At the bottom level, somehow the front line folk need pride in sending their children to combat. At the top level, somehow the string pullers need some sense of moral righteousness about their forays into new territory. Whether they need a church to give them this "peace of mind" is another question, but it seems to be of some help in resolving doubt about aggressive actions.
quote:
True, Fair, and Forgiving
Reflections on the Book of Matthew
Pounding hoofs upon the high road In the wind blown rainy night So bitter cold and lonely A fugitive in flight
Burn the chaff left from the harvest Kill the seed you didn't sow Feign to play the good lord Whom you may never know Outcast as the leper The one who disagreed Stayed true to his convictions Your word he wouldn't heed
Chasing down the road to extinction All that doesn't fit in your vision Of the world the way you think it should be
I will not be made in your image I will not conform to your rule I will never pay you my homage I will not be played for a fool
You are the mortal enemy Of everything I want to be And all I want to be Is all I'll ever be For all I want to be Is me
I can look into the high heavens And for myself use my own eyes To see you don't behold the true image Why hide your ignorance with your lies
You know your power is derived from deception The blind man in control of perception As your lead your sheep on to destruction
There were many who were with me They swore that they agreed But as the darkness fell I saw my allies flee
At one point I recall You were standing next to me Singing your own song Of how we'll all be free
Was that the disguise Of the predator as sheep Scheming to deceive And slay me as I sleep?
* What the Islamists themselves are saying about their plans for America--nuclear devastation, followed by Islamic sharia law
* How Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is leading a radical anti-American revolution that aims to increase Iranian influence in our hemisphere
* Why China's plans go beyond regional hegemony to driving the United States out of the Pacific
* How even allegedly "friendly" countries, like Russia, are conspiring against us
* How the most violent and hate-inspiring Islamic ideology comes from sermons written and read by our "ally" Saudi Arabia's government-backed Wahabbi clergy - which, because they are official, are tantamount to Saudi government statements
* How many countries have threatened using nuclear weapons against America (it's more than you think)
* How, five years before September 11, Osama bin Laden had made clear his intentions to strike the United States by any and every means
* Islamic "hate factories": how from the Palestinian West Bank to the holiest mosques in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- as well as on television, radio, and from hundreds of other podiums - leading Muslim clerics preach the "right" of Muslims to commit terror and to subject all "infidels" to Muslim rule
* Excerpts from some Islamist websites that beg to be read in the context of the Democrats' hell-bent desire to force the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq
* What al Qaeda's official training manual teaches about beating and killing hostages
* Leading Islamic clerics give their views on topics such as "The Entire Earth Must Be Subjected to Islam" and "We Have the Right to Kill 4 Million Americans"
* What the al Qaeda terrorists and others are saying and doing, continuously, to foment violence in Iraq
* How Islamists are trying to turn secular Turkey into an Islamist state
* How dangerous is North Korea's Kim Jong Il to America and its interests abroad? Let him speak for himself
* Russia's Vladimir Putin on al Jazeera -- denying that terrorists exist, defending Iran and its nuclear program, and more
"This book is not a call to war or even a war warning," writes Babbin. "It is, instead, a call to listen, to study, to understand in the context of the complex world in which we live the plain words that our enemies and potential enemies say to us and to each other. It is a reminder to be vigilant. It is, I hope, a searchlight which we can use to penetrate the forest of events that surrounds us and find the narrow paths around the wars that may -- like the war against terrorists and the nations that support them -- come upon us unaware."
"What part of ‘We intend to kill you!' don't we understand?"
"If you think we're not in a crisis, the following record of what our enemies are saying about us should change your mind. Jed Babbin has compiled an invaluable record of what America's enemies from Osama bin Laden to Hugo Chavez to the radical regimes of North Korea and Iran are saying about their intentions towards us. We've been warned. It's up to us now to make sure we have the leaders necessary to mount America's defense." - NEWT GINGRICH
"Osama bin Laden warned us before September 11. But few Americans listened. In this compelling manifesto, Jed Babbin urges his fellow citizens to open their ears and eyes to the words of our enemies worldwide--from Castro and Chavez to the Taliban and the Iranian mullahcracy. Pay attention before it's too late." - MICHELLE MALKIN
"My friend Jed Babbin has carefully compiled the record of what our adversaries write and say about us--and what they intend to do to us. This book is a must-read for all who understand the first axiom of war: ‘know your enemy.'" -- OLIVER NORTH, Lt. Col. USMC (Ret.)
"What part of ‘We intend to kill you!' don't we understand? As Jed Babbin documents in this sobering and necessary book, our foes around the world--from near-nuclear Iran to the insane Kim Jong-il in North Korea--not only chant ‘Death to America,' but openly outline their plans for a second September 11--only this time, worse. In the Words of Our Enemies is a must-read for conservatives, and needs to be highlighted in red and given to every appeasement liberal. Osama bin Laden and company don't deserve a second chance." - MARK LEVIN
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
You know your power is derived from deception The blind man in control of perception As your lead your sheep on to destruction
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Originally posted by GG: [hegemony to driving the United States out of the Pacific
"Osama bin Laden warned us before September 11. But few Americans listened. In this compelling manifesto, Jed Babbin urges his fellow citizens to open their ears and eyes to the words of our enemies worldwide--from Castro and Chavez to the Taliban and the Iranian mullahcracy. Pay attention before it's too late." - MICHELLE VIN
Castro is going to invade the U.S. any time now. Chavez is going to take over Washington, D.C. and install himself in the White House. Right.
The enemey is here, not over there. Are we hated around the world? Sure. Do we deserve it. Yep. We've caused so much suffering around the world with our meddeling and installation of dictatorships, I'm suprised we aren't hated more.
Corporations like Chiquita bannana supported right-wing paramilitary groups to keep wages low and workers in line on poverty wages. Good old right-wing. Money over people everytime. If they get in the way of maximum profits, hire some gunmen and shoot 'em.
The U.S. government has backed one atrocity after another in Latin and Central America to protect its corporate interests. Need a dictator to do it? No problem. We'll arrange a coup.
We helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran and put in a dictator Shah. The Shah didn't claim Iran owned its own oil. He was friendly to American business interests.
He was also a tyrant. The people overthrew him, and now what do we have? We brought it upon ourselves.
We maintained an armed force in Saudi Arabia which is an affront to Islam. Sunni extremists wanted us out of their country and away from their holy sites. We said no. They attacked us.
I don't like terrorist attacks. They are despicable. We should stop encouraging them. We should stop encouraging hatred of the U.S. in every country we meddle in....over private corporate interests.
Learn how the U.S. actually functions in the world and you won't be suprised by peoples reactions to us.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
We maintained an armed force in Saudi Arabia which is an affront to Islam. Sunni extremists wanted us out of their country and away from their holy sites. We said no. They attacked us.
As taxpayers and Americans we should be offended that we are protecting the royal family in Saudi Arabia. We would be pissed off if US GI's were protecting the Queen of England
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
Originally posted by GG: The first attack on our Homeland was with hijacked airplanes. The next terrorist attack on the USA could be with trucks and truck-trailers. Unseen and unreported in the media, many persons of Middle Eastern origins have been acquiring driving licenses for heavy vehicles and especially for inflammable, combustible and Hazardous chemicals. link
I am coming late to this thread and have not read the whole thing. However there was an attack in 1993 with a truck bomb that attacked the World Trade Center.
Also like to point out that Sharia law is followed most closely in Saudi Arabia, our great ally and friends with G W Bush. They have public beheadings every Friday. And that Iraq, even under evil dictator Saddam, was more secular (ie non-religious in government) than is Iran or Saudi Arabia. but thanks to our occupation is likely to become a JIhadist state, ruled by Shi'ite Muslims...
Posts: 8 | Location: Seattle | Registered: 05 May 2007
Originally posted by GG: [hegemony to driving the United States out of the Pacific
"Osama bin Laden warned us before September 11. But few Americans listened. In this compelling manifesto, Jed Babbin urges his fellow citizens to open their ears and eyes to the words of our enemies worldwide--from Castro and Chavez to the Taliban and the Iranian mullahcracy. Pay attention before it's too late." - MICHELLE VIN
Castro is going to invade the U.S. any time now. Chavez is going to take over Washington, D.C. and install himself in the White House. Right.
The enemey is here, not over there. Are we hated around the world? Sure. Do we deserve it. Yep. We've caused so much suffering around the world with our meddeling and installation of dictatorships, I'm suprised we aren't hated more.
Corporations like Chiquita bannana supported right-wing paramilitary groups to keep wages low and workers in line on poverty wages. Good old right-wing. Money over people everytime. If they get in the way of maximum profits, hire some gunmen and shoot 'em.
The U.S. government has backed one atrocity after another in Latin and Central America to protect its corporate interests. Need a dictator to do it? No problem. We'll arrange a coup.
We helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran and put in a dictator Shah. The Shah didn't claim Iran owned its own oil. He was friendly to American business interests.
He was also a tyrant. The people overthrew him, and now what do we have? We brought it upon ourselves.
We maintained an armed force in Saudi Arabia which is an affront to Islam. Sunni extremists wanted us out of their country and away from their holy sites. We said no. They attacked us.
I don't like terrorist attacks. They are despicable. We should stop encouraging them. We should stop encouraging hatred of the U.S. in every country we meddle in....over private corporate interests.
Learn how the U.S. actually functions in the world and you won't be suprised by peoples reactions to us.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Yes and consider that the reason the Iraqi parliament is not meeting their "benchmarks" may be because they don't like giving away their natural resources to foreign investors. One of their "benchmarks" is to pass this oil law. No wonder they are dragging their feet.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/56301/ The proposed oil law facing the Iraqi cabinet would allow Western oil companies to take about 50% of all production as their share, an "obvious robbery of the Iraqi oil," says oil workers union heavy.
Have to wonder why the details of this law are not discussed in the mainstream press.
Posts: 8 | Location: Seattle | Registered: 05 May 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
"ISLAM ISN'T EXACTLY A RELIGION OF PEACE. Converts to Islam - -
*frequently end up shooting total strangers (John Muhammad and Lee Malvo),
*try to detonate planes with explosives in their shoes (Richard Reid),
*fight against their country (American Taliban John Walker Lindh) and frag fellow GIs (Hassan Akbar ).
When was the last time you heard of a Jewish convert going after civilians with a high-powered rifle, or a Catholic convert waging jihad to avenge Thomas Moore?
Religion usually makes people better (kinder, more compassionate and more tolerant). The religion of peace is the exception to the rule. You might say Islam is to religion as rap is to music.
Islam isn't minority friendly.
In Freedom House's 2006 Global Survey, of the 8 countries with the worst human rights records, 5 are Muslim -- Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Libya, Syria and Sudan. The other three -- Cuba, North Korea and Burma -- are communist dictatorships. Cuba and North Korea are frequently aligned with radical Muslim regimes.
Which would you rather be -- a Muslim living in Tel Aviv or a Jew living in Tehran? A Coptic Christian in Egypt or an Egyptian Muslim in Rome? An Orthodox Serb in Muslim Kosovo or a Turk in Germany?
Islam has the concept of the dhimmi (non-Moslem living under Islam), which is several steps below blacks in the Jim Crow South -- though slightly better than Jews in Nazi Germany.
Where Have All The Moderate Muslims Gone -- Long Time Passing?
If suicide bombers are radical Muslims, apologists for suicide bombers must be moderate Muslims.
If someone slaughtered hundreds of innocents in the name of Christianity, everyone from the Pope and Billy Graham to your parish priest or local pastor would denounce the crime as an obscenity -- without reference to the fall of Constantinople.
Hardly a day goes by that evil isn't perpetrated in the name of Islam somewhere in the world. When it comes to denouncing same, moderate Muslims are mostly AWOL.
Occasionally, we'll hear from a Muslim not mired in the Dark Ages. Usually, they're wondering where all of the other moderate Muslims are. One is Irshad Manji, a fellow at Yale University and the author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith."
Ms Manji can author such a book while safely ensconced in New Haven. If she wrote a book suggesting -- or even hinting -- that Islam is less than perfection, while residing anywhere in the Muslim world, she'd be dead. In fact, in many parts of the Islamic world, a woman can get in serious trouble for reading a book.
Islam is bent on global conquest.
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant . The Koran... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and all dialects." -- Dr. Al-Qaradawi, Egyptian-born, Qatar-based spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in the world. -- posting on the website of the Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi government. (These oil-rich fascists control roughly 80% of U.S. mosques.)
Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. "America will be destroyed. But we must be patient." -- Saudi Professor Nassar bin Suleiman al-Omar on al-Majd TV.
Within 100 years of Muhammed's death, Islam had conquered the Middle East and spread across North Africa before it was finally stopped in southern France. Today, due to immigration, one in every 10 Frenchmen is a Muslim and an estimated 50,000 convert to Islam each year .
In Britain, with 1.5 million Muslims, attendance at mosques is higher than at services for the Church of England. Islam is spreading down both coasts of Africa -- in Nigeria, Kenya, the Sudan and Ethiopia -- as well as in the Balkans, former Soviet republics, Asia and the Philippines.
Whether they bury us with swords, explosives or immigration and procreation, the fate Islam has in store for us is the same.
If you don't get it, you're not paying attention. Or, perhaps your religion (liberalism) blinds you to the truth.
Islam is: A) A religion of peace B) A religion of rest in peace C) A religion that leaves you in pieces or D) A religion that wants a piece of what you have now -- the rest later?" ____________________________ Too many Americans are taking the easy route - blame America first and believe Islamofascism will stop. Islam has a mandate and those that do not follow are infidels and will be killed. It's really not difficult to understand their intention for caliphate. Let's correct what we do wrong; but lets stop blaming it all on American policies. We have a giant of an enemy fast advancing and they dwell amongst us even within our borders.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
GG: We have Aryan nations hate groups in the military.
July 7, 2006 Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts By JOHN KIFNER
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
"We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. "That's a problem."
A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.
The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.
The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote "The Turner Diaries," the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. "They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military," he said, "because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists."
The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.
The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."
The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. "There are others among you in the forces," one participant wrote. "You are never alone."
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."
"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
The SPLC, like the ADL is a Mossad front. They attempt to smear anybody they don't like with the same broad brush. Ted Gunderson, Linda Thompson, Vernon Howell, etc. There is more evidence to support the idea that they were directly involved in the bombing of the Murray Federal building than there is to suggest any kind of "White Supremacist" involvement.
They've been whining about "white supremacists" in the military for decades. When do they start talking about issues such as the extensive Mossad spying in and on the US?
Do you deny the existence of Aryan Nations in the Military? Who killed Pat Tillman?
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
Under pressure from a federal judge to produce at least 87 pages of “un-redacted” internal FBI documents related to the 1995 bombing of the 1995 Oklahoma City federal building, the Oklahoma City FBI office has filed under seal documents with a Salt Lake City federal court that could unlock some of the mysteries surrounding the terrorist attack that left 168 dead.
Along with the documents under seal the agency cited a number of reasons the court should continue to protect persons whose names were originally blacked out of some of the crucial documents and certain facts the FBI alone possesses about activities at a paramilitary terrorist training camp called Elohim City.
Filed in federal court in Salt Lake City, Utah, attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the FBI Oklahoma City office should not have to make public details that some believe could prove the FBI had prior knowledge of the plot to bomb the Oklahoma City federal building, but somehow failed to stop it.
This litigation is part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue.
At the center of the controversy is an unclassified copy of a memorandum marked “From the Director of the FBI” that contains several references to an FBI undercover operation at Elohim City before the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.
The electronic message was sent to the OKBOMB investigation task force and a select group of FBI offices around the nation some eight months after the 1995 federal building bombing.
The potentially explosive contents of the teletype, among other things, exposed for the first time an informant operation being conducted by nationally known civil rights lawyer Morris Dees through his organization the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
In some detail the FBI acknowledged the SPLC was engaged in an undercover role where it monitored subjects for the FBI believed to be linked to executed bomber Timothy McVeigh, the white supremacist compound at Elohim City and the mysterious German national Andreas Carl Strassmeir.
Dated Jan. 4, 1996, the four-page teletype was drafted and issued under the authority of FBI director Louis Freeh, but was heavily redacted (portions blacked out).
Despite these redactions, the document clearly describes individuals the FBI believed were associated with the OKBOMB and BOMBROB cases – two high profile domestic terrorism cases the FBI was investigating as possibly connected.
Many of the details in this potentially explosive document had never been made public before.
The OKBOMB case focused several hundred FBI agents on the truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
The FBI’s BOMBROB investigation was much smaller. It involved a wide-ranging search for a group of neo-Nazi bank robbers in the mid-1990s whose stated goal was the overthrow of the U.S. government through violence. Many of the subjects listed in the BOMBROB investigation lived at or frequented Elohim City and were closely associated with Strassmeir.
Only days after the Jan. 4, 1996, cable was sent, the first two arrests were made in the BOMBROB case. Within 13 months of the electronic message, four more persons were jailed in connection with 22 bank robberies the radical rightwing group participated in across seven Midwestern states.
Three of the individuals arrested in the BOMBROB case lived at Elohim City with Strassmeir, who has been repeatedly been linked to McVeigh in numerous accounts published in this newspaper.
Since this newspaper first published its story about the Freeh teletype on December 14, 2003, a series of FOIA requests have turned up additional teletypes from the FBI director, providing even more details about the surveillance operation the agency was involved in with the SPLC at Elohim City and elsewhere.
Litigation growing out of the Trentadue FOIA requests recently led to an order by Judge Kimball in Salt Lake City, directing federal agents to turn over to him all copies of FBI documents responsive to Trentadue’s FOIA requests so the court could decide if the names and details contained on the complete documents should be made public.
Hoping to influence the court to keep those documents away from the public, the FBI cited numerous privacy considerations for withholding them.
Evidencing the degree of prior knowledge the FBI had of activities at Elohim City and other terror camps associated with McVeigh and the bombing of the federal building, government lawyers admitted this week for the first time that redactions of names contained in these explosive documents at the center of the controversy included:
“Three third parties (who) provided information to the FBI that concerns organizations and individuals known or suspected to be violent and possibly engaged in domestic terrorism.
“In particular, the information in question here was related and relevant to the FBI’s investigation of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One of the third parties acquired some of the information by interacting directly, undercover, with the above described organizations and individuals.”
Apparently referring to spies working for the SPLC, the government wrote: “The names and identifying information of the parties who provided information to the FBI under an implied assurance of confidentiality have been redacted and withheld from release.”
Bombing suspects withheld
Referring to persons the FBI says it still could be investigating for the bombing 10 years ago, the lawyers for the government said: “Names and identifying information of third parties who were (and, possibly, still are) of investigative interest to the FBI have been redacted and withheld from release. … Being a suspect or person of interest in an FBI investigation – in particular, the FBI investigation of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building – carries obvious negative connotations and stigmas… Accordingly these third parties have a significant privacy interest in the nondisclosure of their names and other information that would lead to their identification.”
Nearly a decade ago, U.S. attorneys in the federal trials of Terry Nichols and McVeigh assured U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch that that all investigative leads about Elohim City had been exhausted and no connections other than a single phone call and a chance meeting between Strassmeir and McVeigh had been uncovered.
After this newspaper acquired these new but heavily redacted copies, attorneys for both McVeigh and Nichols have reviewed them and told the Gazette they were never turned over in discovery.
A hearing has been scheduled in Salt Lake City on Nov. 10 to hear arguments as to whether the court will release some or all of the contents of the documents submitted under seal.
If our media wanted to do Americans a great service they would replay the footage of the Muslims rejoicing a very short time after the attacks of 9/11. We watched it on the news; the fact is Muslims are the terrorists - Muslim do the beheadings; Muslims are not expected to abide by any international laws and treaties yet our American soldiers are fighting them with one arm tied behind their backs.
Every - EVERY terrorist attack has been done by Muslims. They have loudly proclaimed - total annihilation to Israel and next is olde Sam. They are working to get favoritism for their jihad and from the sounds of your posts, you are in agreement that they succeed. Great? We need more Americans like you~?!~??
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Originally posted by James Leo: Do you deny the existence of Aryan Nations in the Military?
More significantly, why should I care? I recently got into a discussion about "Skinhead" violent crime and decided to do a bit of research. What I found is that it is almost nonexistent. The BS about "Aryan Nations graffiti" is laughable. I am far more concerned about the conclusive evidence that these gun-mounted video scenes indicate that someone in possession of Israeli-supplied weapons are killing US troops in Iraq and using the scenes to produce propaganda films intended to enrage Americans by giving the appearance that the killers are Arabs. The metallic ringing sound heard upon each firing is the sound of the buttstock buffer spring. You only hear that when you have your cheek against the stockweld. The kick seen in the video dictates, beyond question, that the camera is fixed to the weapon. I know what firing a semiautomatic assault weapon looks like through the gun-sites, and sounds like from the stockweld.
quote:
Originally posted by James Leo: Who killed Pat Tillman?
If I had to guess, I'd say a person from the same group who perpetrated 9/11. That could be CIA, ISI, Mossad or someone in the Rangers. Of course there is nothing to say that a CIA or Mossad agent isn't serving as a Ranger. Then there's Blackwater. There are huge organized crime stakes in Afghanistan. They last thing the crooks want is some all American hero fingering them. It wasn't "Aryan Nations".
If our media wanted to do Americans a great service they would replay the footage of the Muslims rejoicing a very short time after the attacks of 9/11. We watched it on the news;
It would have no more impact on me now than it did then. I don't watch TV. What I have read is that the alleged celebrations were completely unrelated to 9/11, and were probably staged. AFAIK, it consisted of a few people dressed in Arab clothes shown for a few seconds throwing candy to kids. Perhaps you would appreciate a rerun of Daniel Plesch's, Jerome Hauer's or Heinz Kissinger's comments of that day, as well.
quote:
Originally posted by GG: the fact is Muslims are the terrorists - Muslim do the beheadings; Muslims are not expected to abide by any international laws and treaties yet our American soldiers are fighting them with one arm tied behind their backs.
Sounds more like an intelligence operation than religious fanaticism. Seems like it's working to.
quote:
Originally posted by GG: Every - EVERY terrorist attack has been done by Muslims. They have loudly proclaimed - total annihilation to Israel and next is olde Sam. They are working to get favoritism for their jihad and from the sounds of your posts, you are in agreement that they succeed. Great? We need more Americans like you~?!~??
Epimanes: You are going to tell me that the Saudis have less influence than the Israelis ? Please don't tell me the Saudis and the Israelis are in cahoots. Saudi Arabia is the most anti semitic country on the planet
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
IIRC, the king of Saudi Arabia said that it was wrong to hat Jews because the Jews were descendants of Arabs. Arabs, of course, are considered to be Semitic. As for arms sales to the Saudis, the Hawks in Israel like that kind of thing. The more dangerous the world appears, the more secure their grasp on power is. More interesting is the report that Zim American Israeli Shipping Co. was delivering weapons to Iran. The company is partly owned by the Israeli government. They just so happened to evacuate the WTC shortly before 9/11/01, breaking a very expensive lease. They moved their operations to Norfolk until recently. Now they are back in NYC.
ASSOCIATED PRESS - KABUL, Afghanistan – The bullet-riddled body of a South Korean hostage was found by police today in central Afghanistan after a purported Taliban spokesman said the militants had killed one of the captives. Some of the other Koreans were released, however.
The male victim had 10 bullet holes in his head, chest and stomach, and was discovered in the Mushaki area of Qarabagh district in Ghazni province, said police officer Abdul Rahman.
The Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, said earlier that the hostage was killed because Afghan authorities hadn't met their demands to release other militants from prison. A police official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation said militants told him the hostage was sick and couldn't walk and was therefore shot.
Two Western officials said some of the original 23 South Koreans kidnapped last week had also been released. One of the officials, who asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to share the information, said six women and two men had been taken to the main U.S. base in Ghazni. The South Korean news agency Yonhap also said eight were released.
An Afghan official involved in the negotiations said earlier a large ransom would be paid to free eight of the hostages. The official spoke on condition he not be identified citing the sensitivity of the matter, and no other officials would confirm the account. Foreign governments are suspected to have paid for the release of hostages in Afghanistan in the past but have either kept it quiet or denied it outright.
The Taliban originally had demanded that 23 jailed militants be freed in exchange for the Koreans.
The South Korean hostages, including 18 women, were kidnapped July 19 while riding a bus through Ghazni province on the Kabul-Kandahar highway, Afghanistan's main thoroughfare.
Earlier, a Danish reporter of Afghan origin escaped a kidnap attempt in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday, the Danish Foreign Ministry said. The unidentified man "was close to being caught but managed to get away and reach a local police station," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ole Neustrup said. "He is safe and sound." The Dane was first reported to be German but that report proved to be false, Khan said.
The series of recent kidnappings – 26 foreigners have been abducted in the last week – prompted the Afghan government to forbid foreigners living in Kabul from leaving the city without police permission.
Police said officials stationed at checkpoints at the city's main gates would stop foreigners from leaving Kabul unless they informed officials 24 hours in advance of their travel plans, said Esmatullah Dauladzai, Kabul's provincial police chief. The directive, issued Wednesday, is related to the recent kidnappings, he said.
Elsewhere, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said a soldier was killed in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday by a rocket-propelled grenade. ISAF didn't release the soldier's nationality but the majority of troops in the east are American.
The U.S.-led coalition said 20 suspected Taliban militants were killed Wednesday after a failed ambush on coalition and Afghan troops in Kandahar province. link
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
GG's problem(today)seems to be that she is being 'unfair' to women terrorists; shame on you, for lumping them into a category with men terrorists! Can't we B nice to everybody today, GG??
Posts: 582 | Location: New York City | Registered: 13 February 2007
Originally posted by GoodBusiness: GG's problem(today)seems to be that she is being 'unfair' to women terrorists; shame on you, for lumping them into a category with men terrorists! Can't we B nice to everybody today, GG??
Women terrorists - please explain.
Am I to be NICE to terrorists, is that what you are stating?
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
I was listening these statements of Rex Tillerson. What he says is really not very reassuring. He's saying that 25% of known world petroleum has been used already. That really means we consumed that almost entirely in the past 50 years. As your graph shows, consumption is growing rapidly, and will continue to do so until it hits a wall.
Democrats do not listen to what our enemies are saying.
It is foolish to say al Quaeda was not in Iraq before 9-11
Terrorists prefer Democrats to win over Republicans
Terrorists played the victory song when Democrats won last November because they know Democrats do not understand and are a piece of cake talking interface dialog and avoiding the issues
Muslims hate and fear George Bush because of his "cowboy" attitude
Terrorists use women and children to hide and as shields
Democrats do not listen to what our enemies are saying, and unless we take them seriously America will lose because they hate
Hahahah,if that were true then why did they attacked us right after he got in office?
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast..."
quote:
Al-Qaida terrorist has Jewish roots | Jerusalem Post
A man who starred in a video released by al-Qaida's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri on Saturday, inviting Americans to convert to Islam, has been identified as Adam Yehiye Gadahn, an American with Jewish ancestry.
According to Wikipedia, he was born Adam Pearlman on September 1, 1978, the grandson of a prominent Jewish surgeon and the son of musician Phil Pearlman, who converted to Christianity and changed his named to Gadahn (apparently derived from the Biblical figure Gideon.) He grew up in Santa Ana, California, converted to Islam and, in 1995, posted an essay on the USC Web site describing his conversion. According to his parents, Gadahn moved to Pakistan in 1998, where he married an Afghani refugee.
The FBI believes he attended al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan and served as an al-Qaida translator and English spokesman.
It was the second time Gadahn has appeared in the same video with Zawahri. In a July 7 video marking the one-year anniversary of bombings against the London transit system, Gadahn said no Muslim should "shed tears" for Westerners killed by al-Qaida attacks.
GG, replace the words muslim or terrorist with the word "Jew", and you'd sound just like Hitler's Propaganda Minister. No one would be able to tell the difference.
You really should stop reading all of this hate stuff in the books you keep posting. It's bad for your soul.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
Polyamnesty - See our enemy - grab a hold of their intent and consequences of any who have the courage to speak:
"The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) - whose very founders have been arrested in connection with terrorist activities - has decided to silence once and for all its harshest and bravest critic: the Freedom Center's Robert Spencer.
CAIR is using legal threats to extort groups who ask Robert to speak at their gatherings and tell the truth about Islamic Jihad.
You may recall, not long ago {I} asked Robert, a fearless patriot, to come join the Freedom Center team. Spencer's powerful internet site, Jihad Watch, was taking on radical Islam in ways no one in on the planet was doing - daily, sometimes hourly, exposing their financial underpinnings and digging deep to reveal the roots of Islamofascism's evil and terror.
Robert is so good at what he does terrorists issued a fatwa - a legal decree in sharia law requiring any Muslim to kill Spencer if they had the chance. The fatwa's closing line is nothing less than bloodcurdling:
"May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over."
However, rather than striking fear into Robert's heart, the death decree has made him more focused and dedicated to exposing the "religion of peace" for it truly is.
Recently Robert was invited to speak at a conference hosted by the Young America's Foundation in Washington, D.C. YAF the leading conservative organization for high school and college-aged Americans.
A day before Robert was to deliver a talk titled "The Truth About the Council on American-Islamic Relations," YAF officials found an ominous letter on their FAX machine.
A powerful Washington, D.C. law firm told YAF that Robert was, in essence, a hate-filled liar and that CAIR had ordered the law firm "to purse every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that made" at the conference. It doesn't get much more threatening than this and still remain within the bounds of the law."
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
However, rather than striking fear into Robert's heart, the death decree has made him more focused and dedicated to exposing the "religion of peace" for it truly is.
Geeg, How are things? Hope all well your side of the world.
Re: The quote above. The whole idea is completely absurd. Terrorism is being undertaken by a handful of extremists on every side of the political and religious spectrum. Many for reasons well outwith their alleged belief systems. To suggest that Islam is not a religion of peace based upon the actions of a tiny minority of people who use it (and don't understand it) as a vehicle for thier misplaced rage is silly.
It's like saying every football (soccer fan) is a hooligan based on the misdeamenours of a few thugs at soccer games.
It isn't accurate and it isn't helpful.
When the world is run by fools it is the duty of intelligence to disobey
Posts: 1723 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 02 August 2001
Many challenges in this part of the world, KennyMac - thanks for asking.
To jidhad is a mandate to all Muslims barring none. Peaceful Muslims exist but they fear this mandate placed upon them. If they are not compliant they are as good as dead as all infidels. What is helpful is to know our enemy.
Do you really need the Qu'ran references to jihad? I don't think so. Sha'ria spreads - we too often remain silent. Robert Spencer is a courageous man.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Originally posted by KennyMac: The only enemies you see are those you make yourself Geeg.
Tell that to the families of who lost loved ones on 9/11, lost by human bomberings, lost by beheadings, and kidnapped and riddled with gun shots as the current Korean soldiers. Actually, I've lost track of the 20 plus Koreans kidnapped. The last I knew two were shot because demands were not met. Tell those families, KennyMac, that have missing and dead family members that it is only make believe fantasy world. Tell the families who have a husband, brother, or father serving in Afghanistan and Iraq that their loved ones are not putting their lives on the front lines of the most dangerous places in the world so that they and all human civilization can exist in freedom. Go for it!
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Do you have the courage to apologize, John Murtha or just what's your point of all this? _____________________________________ "Innocent" at Haditha FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/10/2007
IT’S BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE JOHN MURTHA charged that U.S. Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” in Haditha. Yesterday, a military commander lifted Murtha’s preemptive conviction.
Last May, John Murtha held a press conference accusing our soldiers of slaughtering 24 Iraqis – including women and children – in the town of Haditha in late November 2005. He guaranteed an investigation would determine “[o]ur troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” His words ricocheted around the Arab world, as Al Jazeera dutifully quoted him. This “pressure,” Murtha said, could be ended by bringing troops home. The government eventually charged four men with “unpremeditated murder.”
On August 9th, the military dismissed all charges against one of the remaining three Marines accused of murder.[1] Indeed, Lt. Gen. James Mattis went further than finding Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt not guilty; he called the 22-year-old “innocent.” He concluded his statement by noting Sharratt “has always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, he remains in the eyes of the law – and in my eyes – innocent.”
All the accused have claimed they engaged in a battle with terrorists, who hid inside a home, and the civilian deaths were unintentional. Mattis verified this claim, adding a fact that seems to elude Murtha: “our nation is fighting a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians.”
The ruling is merely the latest indication that the government’s case against the three is crumbling. In June, Lt. Col. Paul Ware told the prosecution flatly, “The account you want me to believe does not support unpremeditated murder. Your theories don’t match the reason you say we should go to trial.” Relatives would not allow doctors to autopsy the bodies, and the house in question had been freshly repaired and painted before investigators could retrieve additional evidence. (Ware also doubted Iraqi witnesses would travel stateside to testify.) However, photographs of the scene revealed the curtains and walls were riddled with bullet holes – indicating a firefight had taken place.
In April, the government dropped charges against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz in exchange for his testimony and provided immunity for several others. A defense attorney states Dela Cruz has already changed his story five times.
Two others remain charged with murder: Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum and Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich. Tatum’s Article 32 hearing – a military-style Grand Jury, which determines if the case proceeds to a court martial trial – wrapped up late last month. Prosecutors accuse Tatum of not following the Rules of Engagement, which state the Marine must identify that each specific target has hostile intent before firing. Which sounds like a terrific way to end up in the Memorial Day eulogy rather than the Veterans Day parade.
Tatum nearly broke down into tears when he recounted that he may have killed a child; yet he maintains after an explosion, he heard someone rack an AK-47 and could not clearly see the targets through the smoke. The prosecution’s star witness, Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza, testified Tatum ordered him to murder the innocents, then Tatum did it himself when he refused.
There are, however, significant reasons to question Mendoza’s veracity. While Tatum passed his lie detector test, Mendoza failed his. Mendoza admitted shooting two unarmed people, and confessed to lying and withholding evidence for more than a year. His testimony conflicts with that of every other witness, and with itself. Oh, and “Mendoza is trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers.” Mattis has yet to rule in this case.
Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has yet to have his Article 32 hearing.
If Murtha genuinely cared about the troops, he would have protested the conditions of their interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys to those who asked, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not give them bathroom breaks. (The men had to relieve themselves into bottles.) Had this treatment taken place at Guantanamo Bay, Congress would have already held a dozen hearings on the issue. When this treatment is accorded to enlisted men instead of terrorist murderers, the Democratic Left’s outrage seems to wane.
The media, too, lost interest when the proceedings no longer portrayed the enlisted men as brutal babykillers. True to form, Murtha’s blood libel made front page headlines. The proceedings were largely passed over – except when Mendoza testified. News of the exoneration has yet to make a ripple. Murtha demonized Sharratt and the others in front of the entire world. Tatum and Wuterich may yet prove guilty, but if they are acquitted, they may well join Sharratt in asking, “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”
Sharratt’s good name was the first casualty of Jack Murtha’s Iraq policy. If the Left succeeds in following all his advice, future casualties will not be figurative.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Democrats do not listen to what our enemies are saying.
It is foolish to say al Quaeda was not in Iraq before 9-11
Terrorists prefer Democrats to win over Republicans
Terrorists played the victory song when Democrats won last November because they know Democrats do not understand and are a piece of cake talking interface dialog and avoiding the issues
Muslims hate and fear George Bush because of his "cowboy" attitude
Terrorists use women and children to hide and as shields
Democrats do not listen to what our enemies are saying, and unless we take them seriously America will lose because they hate
1. AlQuaida was NEVER in Iraq. Any Jihadists was immediately killed by Saddam Hussein. OBL was his biggest enemy and OBL had a fatwah out on the head of SH. They were arch enemies.
2. You are right that no one is listening to our "enemies" WE SHOULD. They would tell us why they are so pissed at us and you might just learn what it is WE have been doing to THEM for all these years.
3. The war on terrorism is a hoax. It's not a country, but a mindset which is created BY US and the result of needless suffering and oppression on their side. For every terrorist we kill 10 will take his place. People hate because we have oppressed them. They have every reason to hate us. And UNLESS we change our tactics they will continue and we will reap the consequences of what we have sown. It starts with us. You are foolish to think otherwise.
Posts: 863 | Location: West Palm Beach, FL | Registered: 21 June 2007
Originally posted by GG: Epimanes[QUOTE]Muslims did not attack the US on 9/11/01.
quote:
If our media wanted to do Americans a great service they would replay the footage of the Muslims rejoicing a very short time after the attacks of 9/11. We watched it on the news; the fact is Muslims are the terrorists - Muslim do the beheadings; Muslims are not expected to abide by any international laws and treaties yet our American soldiers are fighting them with one arm tied behind their backs.
That was an old tape provided BY Israel to the media in an attempt to impugn the Arabs. This has been exposed a long time ago.
quote:
Every - EVERY terrorist attack has been done by Muslims. They have loudly proclaimed - total annihilation to Israel and next is olde Sam. They are working to get favoritism for their jihad and from the sounds of your posts, you are in agreement that they succeed. Great? We need more Americans like you~?!~??
Don't believe everything you're told. Oklahoma wasn't done by Muslims. So far Israel is and has been illegally occupying and oppressing the Palestinians. And they are not allowed to defend themselves or punish us for funding all this aggression against them? Huh? Is there a cause and effect here?
Posts: 863 | Location: West Palm Beach, FL | Registered: 21 June 2007
Originally posted by polycarp: GG, replace the words muslim or terrorist with the word "Jew", and you'd sound just like Hitler's Propaganda Minister. No one would be able to tell the difference.
You really should stop reading all of this hate stuff in the books you keep posting. It's bad for your soul.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 863 | Location: West Palm Beach, FL | Registered: 21 June 2007
Originally posted by Gerry: For every terrorist we kill 10 will take his place. People hate because we have oppressed them. They have every reason to hate us. And UNLESS we change our tactics they will continue and we will reap the consequences of what we have sown. It starts with us. You are foolish to think otherwise.
For every 10 that take their place, we need to manufacture and launch 20 cruise missles.
How have we "oppressed" oil rich nations by buying oil? OBL hates the west because we are infidels and handled Saddam when he was "excused" for asking the king if he could try to move Saddam out of Kuait. Rag tag dirtbag terrorists that target buildings/buses/other full of civilians and plant roadside bombs need to treated like the varmints they are. Lead poisoning via frontal lobe.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1913
Posts: 2404 | Location: Redmond WA | Registered: 04 September 2006
Originally posted by BrentBozo: A medium-range launcher is range of just a few hundred miles, correct?
My guess is that the instance was one of "public diplomacy". If it had really been true, Rummy would've run with it.
The missiles named in the report have an advertised maximum range of 20 KM, but the launcher is a self-propelled vehicle. 100 Km/hr on a paved highway seems plausible.
What was reported to have been found or not found in Iraq may well be more a matter of what the Administration wants you to believe than it is a matter of reality. Here's something that came to my attention too late to have any bearing on Saddam's fate: Saddam did not gas the Kurds?. In all our conflicts with Iraq, that incident was the single action that prevented me from giving Saddam any sympathy. Here's another interesting perspective on Saddam: Thanks for the Memories. I don't recall the details, but I have long had the impression that the US had given Saddam the tacit green-light to invade Kuwait. Are you familiar with the babies in incubators scam?
SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE read on...
November 18, 1998 Did Saddam Hussein Gas His Own People?
Memo To: Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor From: Jude Wanniski Re: Iraqi use of Poison Gas
On the Jim Lehrer News Hour Monday night, you repeated the assertion that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people." As the President’s National Security Advisor, I had assumed you of all people would not make such assertions without having supporting evidence. Early this year, on the supposition that the Iraqi situation would blow up again, I made serious inquiries about this charge. On April 7, I sent the following memo to Chairman Jesse Helms of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If you have better information, Mr. Berger, I hope you can supply it, as this is the most serious of all charges made against Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis readily acknowledge using chemical weapons against Iran a few times late in the war, but using such weapons in wartime is not nearly as serious as "gassing his own people."
* * * * *
To Senator Helms:
I continue to make inquiry into the situation in Iraq, as it is likely to brew up into another crisis one of these days when the United Nations has no choice but to conclude that Iraq is not hiding any weapons of mass destruction -- or if they are, they are so well hidden that nobody is going to find them. As you know, I’m sure, the warhawks in the United States will continue to insist that the embargo remain in place no matter what, and there will be assertions from around the world that we have not been acting in good faith. As you also know, I believe there are serious questions regarding our behavior toward Iraq that go back further. You would agree, I think, that at the very least our State Department gave a "green light" to Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait in August 1990. The more I read of the events of the period, the more I believe history will record that the Gulf War was unnecessary, perhaps even that Saddam Hussein was willing to retreat back to his borders, but our government decided we preferred the war to the status quo ante.
In my previous correspondence with you on this matter, I had been in a quandary about the state of our relations with Baghdad during that critical period. In the months immediately preceding the "green light" given by our Ambassador, April Glaspie, a number of your Senate colleagues including Bob Dole had traveled to Baghdad, met with Saddam, and found him to be a head of state worthy of support. Even Sen. Howard Metzenbaum [D-OH], a Jewish liberal and staunch supporter of Israel, gave him a seal of approval. What disturbs me even now, Jesse, is that these meetings occurred after the Senate Foreign Relations committee had accused Iraq of using poison gas against its own people, i.e., the Kurds. Like all other Americans, in recent years I had assumed that what I read in the papers was true about Iraq gassing its own people. Once the war drums again began beating last November, I decided to read up on the history, and found Iraq denied having used gas against its own people. Furthermore, I heard that a Pentagon investigation at the time had also turned up no hard evidence of Saddam gassing his own people.
This is serious stuff, because the United Nations tells us that 1.4 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions, which is three thousand times more than the number of Kurds who supposedly died of gassing at the hands of Saddam. Many of my old Cold Warrior friends practically DEMAND that we not lift the sanctions because if Saddam would gas his own people, he would gas anyone. Now I have come across the 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The report is 93 pages, but I append here only the passages having to do with the aforementioned issue:
Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East
Excerpt, Chapter 5
U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER
Introduction. Throughout the war the United States practiced a fairly benign policy toward Iraq. Although initially disapproving of the invasion, Washington came slowly over to the side of Baghdad. Both wanted to restore the status quo ante to the Gulf and to reestablish the relative harmony that prevailed there before Khomeini began threatening the regional balance of power. Khomenini’s revolutionary appeal was anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted to get rid of him.
United by a common interest, Iraq and the United States restored diplomatic relations in 1984, and the United States began to actively assist Iraq in ending the fighting. It mounted Operation Staunch, an attempt to stem the flow of arms to Iran. It also increased its purchases of Iraqi oil while cutting back on Iranian oil purchases, and it urged its allies to do likewise. All this had the effect of repairing relations between the two countries, which had been at a very low ebb.
In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation -- according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.
Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before adjournment).
It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest. * * * * *
I wonder, Senator, had you ever read this material? The entire report is worth reading, as a matter of fact, because of its credibility on the threshold of the Iraqi invasion. The authors are quite emphatic, by the way, in stating that Iraq was struggling for its financial survival at this point -- because of its debts from the Iranian war, and the decline of the world oil price. That is, they did not believe Iraq would have expansionist designs in the Middle East for years to come, given how financially flattened they had been.
It does seem to me that if Congress did act more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, it may have contributed substantially to the economic distress of our ally in the war with Iran. That is, by squeezing Saddam with sanctions that included a cutoff of IMF assistance, it thrust Saddam into the confrontation he had with the Emir of Kuwait over oil fields and better port access to the Gulf that the Iraqis claimed going back to World War I.
The more I pull on this piece of string, the more I believe you should commit resources of the Foreign Relations Committee to a review of this history. In this period, the Democrats did have control of Congress and another senator chaired Foreign Relations. It could be that a different viewpoint at a distance of time would enable even slight adjustments of policy. It is now a season where everyone is asking for apologies of events that occurred generations ago, even hundreds of years ago. We should deal today with those issues which could grow tomorrow into embarrassments for which our grandchildren will have to apologize. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to keep you informed as I collect this Iraqi ball of string.
SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT GAS THE KURDS. . . Nor did Iraqi soldiers pull babies out of incubators in Kuwait, as the Zionist-controlled media proclaimed in order to promote the first Gulf War. That was later exposed and admitted to be a story cooked up by the ad agency hired to arouse American's support for a war thousands of miles from our borders with a country which leader never made a threat against America. They just wanted U.S. soldiers to "go get that evil mad-man" and if a few hundred thousand innocent Iraqi's die in the process. . . so what?
The book Saddam Hussein gives more information on the media lies about Hussein "gassing his own people", whatever the hell that means. The people in Iraq aren't 'his', anymore than Americans are the U.S. Government's people. Not me, anyway. How about you?
Here's what Nita Renfrew, the author of Saddam Hussein (.pdf format) tells us:
"In March 1988, the Iranians managed to take the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja, near the border. Some of the fiercest fighting of the war ensued in Iraq's effort to retake it, and Halabja became the site of one of the greatest tragedies of the war. After the fighting stopped, with Iran still in possession of the town, the international press was invited in. Hundreds of people lay dead in the streets, many of them Kurdish women clutching their dead babies, their dark blue lips indicating that they were victims of cyanide gas.
The Iranians condemned Saddam for gassing his own people, and the Kurdish rebels quickly joined in the condemnation, but Saddam denied the charges.
The Pentagon later issued a report that said that although both sides used chemical weapons at Halabja, each apparently believing they were targeting enemy positions, there was no evidence that it was the Iraqis who gassed the Kurds. In fact, Iraq was not believed to have cyanide gas, whereas, it was known that Iran did.
The mayor of Halabja also said he believed it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds. Although the Pentagon's findings on the Halabja massacre were reported by the Washington Post, they went largely unnoticed by most Americans. Instead, most U.S. media used the Halabja incident as definite proof that Saddam was a mass murderer.
Later, there was another incident in which the Kurds claimed that Saddam had used chemical weapons. A UN inspection team, however, found bad burns but no evidence of gas."
We're inundated about the terrible 'human rights' violations committed by Saddam Hussein, and people repeat the accusations like good little parrots. Until I read the book, Saddam Hussein, I was not aware that the Kurds rejected an opportunity to form their own government. Here's an excerpt on that:
"In 1970, Saddam proposed a plan for Kurdish autonomy, meant to take effect as law in March 1974. The plan included provisions for the administration of Kurdish territory to pass into Kurdish hands and for a Kurdish parliament to be elected.
Also, Iraq would have a mandatory Kurdish vice-president. Unlike Turkey and Iran, where the Kurds have not been allowed to speak their own language, Iraq ensured that Kurdish would be the first language in the local kurdish government, schools, and universities.
However, at the instigation of the shah of Iran, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA, the U.S. government agency that conducts most international covert activities), and Israel, the Kurds rejected the terms and unleashed a bloody civil war. Within a year there were 60,000 casualties, among them 16,000 Iraqi soldiers."
Now, you'll want to read what a CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, has to say about the media lies that "Saddam gassed his own people". I'm tired of the lies. Aren't you?
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. -- It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: ''The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.''
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's ''gassing its own people,'' specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades -- not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition -- thanks to United Nations sanctions -- Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
War with Iraq - Again? Introduction and Overview. Reading this first will put the other items in this section into perspective. —Jackie Hussein Did NOT Gas the Kurds! New York Times: "The United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."
Zionist Campaign for War with Iraq In Revisionist Perspective by Paul Grubach "Why should the U.S. go to war to serve Israeli-Zionist interests? Why should mostly non-Jewish White, Black, and Hispanic Americans — who make up the vast majority of the U.S. armed forces — have to risk their lives for the Jewish state of Israel?"
America's Ultra-Secret Weapon - "dial-a-hurt" HPMs are man-made lightning bolts crammed into cruise missiles. The Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland has been studying how to deliver varying but predictable electrical pulses to inflict increasing levels of harm: to deny, degrade, damage or destroy, to use the Pentagon's parlance. HPM engineers call it "dial-a-hurt."
The Mother of All Wars - SHOCK and AWE MUST READ! "Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples' neurological systems, "to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."
Pentagon Eyes Mass Graves (for U.S. Soldiers) Denver Post: "The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon."
View from Baghdad This following article is the reality that 99% of the world sees about the Iraq situation and the U.S. role. This war is not over oil. It's about ownership and control of Earth's resources. . . this proven technology could provide an ABUNDANCE of cheap, clean energy worldwide, virtually overnight, if it was not ruthlessly suppressed with inventors bankrupted if not murdered.
War - No Matter What! Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine. Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh military onslaught, he told an all-party meeting on global security.
Saddam's Bodyguard Warns of Secret Weapons A source close to Mr. Sharon said, "Sharon intends to shatter the growing anti-war movement. He plans to call all those European leaders who are wavering . . ." Is this the ONE witness Richard Perle needed to trigger a fresh military onslaught?
Seeds of Destruction What keeps Bush from planting evidence of WMD in Iraq? Think about it. Bush is willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to forward his agenda to destroy Iraq. To his disappointment, inspectors have found NOTHING thus far except some crated-up, 20 year-old warheads. Hardly evidence of an active program for WMD.
U.S. Demands Iraq Show Cooperation by This Weekend What can we make of this convoluted and contradictory piece? The headline says 'this weekend' (2-15/16). In the body of the article we read: "Mr. Bush did not mention Friday as a turning point. Ms. Rice said he had set no deadline for action by the Security Council." Much of what we read in the controlled media is designed to 'shape public opinion' and generate fear and anxiety. Stay close with God in peace and love. —Jackie
U.S. Documents show embrace of Saddam Hussein in early 1980's From the National Security Archive "The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq. . . "
Book: Saddam Hussein Book about Saddam Hussein, which tells a side of the story that you will not get from the major media. Note: This link requires Acrobat Reader from Adobe.
Turkish Parliament Refuses to Accept G.I.'s in Blow to Bush ANKARA, Turkey, March 1 - The Turkish Parliament today dealt a major setback to the Bush administration's plans for a northern front against Iraq, narrowly rejecting a measure that would have allowed thousands of American combat troops to use the country as a base for an attack.
Bush and 2 Allies Seem Set for War to Depose Hussein N.Y.Times - 3-17-03 BUSH: "Saddam Hussein can leave the country if he's interested in peace. You see, the decision is his to make, and it's been his to make all along on whether or not there's the use of military."
Bush Planned Iraq Regime Change Before Becoming President Sunday Herald, United Kingdom, September 15, 2002 "A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001...'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'"
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century Written in September 2000, before George W. Bush was President, and prior to September 11th, this document is the report the Sunday Herald (U.K.) called, "A blueprint for US global domination." Among other things, the report establishes missions for U.S. military forces to:
"defend the American homeland
"fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous theatre wars
"perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions
"transform U.S. forces to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs'"
U.S. Awards Deals for Post-War Iraq "A USAid spokeswoman said that the companies were chosen because of their proven ability, and that it was a policy to use US companies for projects funded by the American taxpayer." U.S. soldiers will bomb the Iraqis to hell, then the "American taxpayer" will pay, and pay, and pay to rebuild what they destroyed. Except, you can't rebuild or re-animate dead babies and men and women, not even one, nor the half-million Iraqis expected to be murdered. Oh, yes. . . the sanitized war-term for murder now is "collateral damage." Just Another Staged Baghdad Rally? They told us that the Iraqis were dancing in the streets, celebrating at the thought of being "liberated." Could it be they lied to us again?
Sham Saddam Scam An analysis of the allegation that Saddam Hussein was captured.
Saddam Was NOT Captured "The Pentagon spin machine is trying to dupe us all by telling us that this photo was taken in December. It shows two American soldiers lifting the lid off that elaborate 'spider hole', where they claim they have found Saddam Hussein."
Who Writes Letter(s) to Editors for Soldiers? Many Soldiers, Same Letter Newspapers around U.S. get identical missives from Iraq. ". . . appear to be part of a campaign to present a positive picture of the U.S. occupation."
Army to Recall Former Military Members CNN News 6.29.04 "The Army is preparing to notify about 5,600 retired and discharged soldiers who are not members of the National Guard or Reserve that they will be involuntarily recalled to active duty for possible service in Iraq or Afghanistan. . . "
Pick Your Price: Your Blood or Your Soul By John Kaminski Demonic demagogues like Joseph Farah, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh all have recently recommended killing large numbers of innocent Iraqis "to teach them a lesson." . . . it's not cool to mess with Uncle Sam and mutilate his hired killers, the highly paid mercenaries he hired to assassinate Iraqi intellectuals. . . "
Thousands of US troops evacuated from Iraq for unexplained medical reasons September 2003 "At no point in the last six months have the American people been told that for every soldier who has been killed in Iraq, at least another 15 have fallen so ill that they had to be flown back to the United States."
Michael Moore blames the lust for oil and big business and others blame the decadent American culture for Islamic terroism. Islamic aggression against non-Muslims to dhimmi and second-class status occurred many centuries before America and before the AMerican cultural left of abortion, sexual promiscuity, divorce and other so called "rights".
However, one can understand the resentment of Muslims when Westerner's population controllers force human pesticides and insist that their women be sterilized. Or one can understand their anger when school children bring home pornographic sex ed books funded by USAID.
As conservatives we should export what has made this nation strong and great such as the principles of self-government, majority rule, minority rights, free enterprise and religious freedom.
But we need to stop exporting the cultural left's America forcing nations to accept abortion in exchange for food and medicine, feminist's conception of the family, sex ed that promotes promiscuity at an early age, and other elements of vulgar corrupting elements. We as a nation are doing deliberate violence to the values of families in 3rd and 4th world countries. That's how we have made our enemies.
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
You have no right to export any of your ideas to another nation. Want to support the Universal Declartion of Human Rights? Great. Want to export America's limited ideas of human rights and decmocracy. Nope.
It just isn't proper to export limited ideals when a whole range of possibilities stand before the human race when and where it chooses to go beyond our limited ones.
Democracy isn't capitalism...and capitalism can exist within a democracy when regulated to prevent excesses. And one day, we'll ultimately develop a system that hasn't been dreamed of yet. One that actually works fora everyone.
If nations are being forced to accept abortions in exchange for food and medicine, then look to see just who has been running our government for the past 30 years. It hasn't been Liberals. They ceased being around to even run for election in any large numbers over 2 decades ago.
Want to stop making enemies? Stop robbing people and their nations blind. Stop allowing company's like Chiquita bannana to support death squads to maximize their profits. Stop supporting conservative governments from doing the same thing like Reagan did in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Stop corporate and CIA asssinations of democratically elected governments...particularly in So. America and probably in Africa as well. 250 world-wide interventions for American monied interests. Absurd! We aren't the Roman Empire, but sure act like it. If we don't like the heads of our vassal states, we remove them. Tends to cause hatreds to flare up when you force one brutal dictator after another down peoples throats.
Who supported Saddam when he came to power? Give you a guess. Who helped overthrow an elected moderate government in Iran and installed a despot Shah? Give you another.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
Originally posted by polycarp: You have no right to export any of your ideas to another nation. Want to support the Universal Declartion of Human Rights? Great. Want to export America's limited ideas of human rights and decmocracy. Nope.
It just isn't proper to export limited ideals when a whole range of possibilities stand before the human race when and where it chooses to go beyond our limited ones.
Democracy isn't capitalism...and capitalism can exist within a democracy when regulated to prevent excesses. And one day, we'll ultimately develop a system that hasn't been dreamed of yet. One that actually works for everyone.
If nations are being forced to accept abortions in exchange for food and medicine, then look to see just who has been running our government for the past 30 years. It hasn't been Liberals. They ceased being around to even run for election in any large numbers over 2 decades ago.
Want to stop making enemies? Stop robbing people and their nations blind. Stop allowing companyies like Chiquita bannana to support death squads to maximize their profits. Stop supporting conservative governments from doing the same thing like Reagan did in Nicaragua and El Salvador. More right-wing death squads.
Stop corporate and CIA assasinations of democratically elected governments...particularly in So. America and probably in Africa as well. 250 world-wide interventions for American monied interests. Absurd! We aren't the Roman Empire, but sure act like it. If we don't like the heads of our vassal states, we remove them. Tends to cause hatreds to flare up when you force one brutal dictator after another down peoples throats.
Who supported Saddam when he came to power? Give you a guess. Who helped overthrow an elected moderate government in Iran and installed a despot Shah? Give you another.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
Originally posted by GG: Michael Moore blames the lust for oil and big business and others blame the decadent American culture for Islamic terroism. Islamic aggression against non-Muslims to dhimmi and second-class status occurred many centuries before America and before the AMerican cultural left of abortion, sexual promiscuity, divorce and other so called "rights".
However, one can understand the resentment of Muslims when Westerner's population controllers force human pesticides and insist that their women be sterilized. Or one can understand their anger when school children bring home pornographic sex ed books funded by USAID.
As conservatives we should export what has made this nation strong and great such as the principles of self-government, majority rule, minority rights, free enterprise and religious freedom.
But we need to stop exporting the cultural left's America forcing nations to accept abortion in exchange for food and medicine, feminist's conception of the family, sex ed that promotes promiscuity at an early age, and other elements of vulgar corrupting elements. We as a nation are doing deliberate violence to the values of families in 3rd and 4th world countries. That's how we have made our enemies.
Originally posted by Gerry: For every terrorist we kill 10 will take his place. People hate because we have oppressed them. They have every reason to hate us. And UNLESS we change our tactics they will continue and we will reap the consequences of what we have sown. It starts with us. You are foolish to think otherwise.
For every 10 that take their place, we need to manufacture and launch 20 cruise missles.
How have we "oppressed" oil rich nations by buying oil? OBL hates the west because we are infidels and handled Saddam when he was "excused" for asking the king if he could try to move Saddam out of Kuait. Rag tag dirtbag terrorists that target buildings/buses/other full of civilians and plant roadside bombs need to treated like the varmints they are. Lead poisoning via frontal lobe.
We have engaged in over 250 illegal foreign incursion, such as overthrowing democratically elected heads of state and replacing them with dictators, who made their own people suffer but did OUR bidding. If you have to ask such an incredibly stupid question as that, you have no knowledge of our historic aggression and you claim to know Colin Powell? Please, do yourself a favor and study our actions in Iran in 1953 http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/htdtisirancoup.html
Nicaragua:
On the Belgian Congo- Patrice Lumumba and SeseSeko Mobuto?
On Chile and the assasination of Allende and replacing him with Augusto Pinochet. Kissinger has been indicted by France in that affair.
ElSalvador and its death squads...
Involvements in elections in France and Italy
Murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Morro.
Our carte blanche support of Israel against the illegal occupation/oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Remember 88 U.N. Security Council resolutions of which Israel today is still in violation?
Panama??
Haiti??
That's just for openers....there's lots more. Let me know when your're done and I'll provide some more.
Posts: 863 | Location: West Palm Beach, FL | Registered: 21 June 2007
Another supporter of terror, Reagan called them freedom fighters
quote:
After four years of Jimmy Carter's human rights nagging, the region's anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.
The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.
In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -- then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins” of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. [For details, see Martin Edwin Andersen's Dossier Secreto.]
Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.
The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.
Originally posted by douglaslee: Another supporter of terror, Reagan called them freedom fighters
quote:
After four years of Jimmy Carter's human rights nagging, the region's anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.
The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.
In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -- then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins” of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. [For details, see Martin Edwin Andersen's Dossier Secreto.]
Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.
The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.
What did Usama bin Laden do but sell drugs to the CIA, make a few videos and wear funny hats? I am certain he was not behind 9/11. I have serious doubts about the other terrorist attacks he was accused of. Yihya Majadin Adams is the best example of what "al Qaeda" really is.
" The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) - whose very founders have been arrested in connection with terrorist activities - has decided to silence once and for all its harshest and bravest critic: the Freedom Center's Robert Spencer.
CAIR is using legal threats to extort groups who ask Robert to speak at their gatherings and tell the truth about Islamic Jihad.
You may recall, not long ago I asked Robert, a fearless patriot, to come join the Freedom Center team. Spencer's powerful internet site, Jihad Watch, was taking on radical Islam in ways no one in on the planet was doing - daily, sometimes hourly, exposing their financial underpinnings and digging deep to reveal the roots of Islamofascism's evil and terror.
Robert is so good at what he does terrorists issued a fatwa - a legal decree in sharia law requiring any Muslim to kill Spencer if they had the chance. The fatwa's closing line is nothing less than bloodcurdling:
"May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over.
However, rather than striking fear into Robert's heart, the death decree has made him more forcused and dedicated to exposing the "religion of peace" for it truly is.
Recently Robert was invited to speak at a conference hosted by the Young America's Foundation in Washington, D.C. YAF the leading conservative organization for high school and college-aged Americans.
A day before Robert was to deliver a talk titled "The Truth About the Council on American-Islamic Relations," YAF officials found an ominous letter on their FAX machine.
A powerful Washington, D.C. law firm told YAF that Robert was, in essence, a hate-filled liar and that CAIR had ordered the law firm "to purse every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that made" at the conference.
In other words: silence Robert Spencer or be sued. It doesn't get much more threatening than this and still remain within the bounds of the law."
* * * * * * * * Without traditional regular moral principles that may be consulted confidently, justice cannot long endure anywhere.
Posts: 6275 | Location: Maine | Registered: 31 December 2005
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
are killing US troops in Iraq and using the scenes to produce propaganda films intended to enrage Americans by giving the appearance that the killers are Arabs. The metallic ringing sound heard upon each firing is the sound of the buttstock buffer spring. You only hear that when you have your cheek against the stockweld. The kick seen in the video dictates, beyond question, that the camera is fixed to the weapon. I know what firing a semiautomatic assault weapon looks like through the gun-sites, and sounds like from the stockweld.
Can't we B nice to everybody today, GG??
