Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Saddam
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Sat Dec 30 08:15:15 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So saddam hoessein has been executed

Do you think that he has got the right punishment, or do you believe that killing him is not the solution ?

I think alot of people have very different opinions on this one, so I'd like to know what you think about it

For me the death penalty is never the answer, and it sickens me that there are countries that still execute it...

I'd rather seen him locked up for life, but I can believe that alot of people just don't believe that that punishment is severe enough, ... ,

Anyway, some thoughts please :)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Dec 30 09:04:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Perhaps you should look at a list of his atrocities and then consider what would be justice for him.

I didn't rejoice when I heard like a lot of idiots because it wasn't a cause to rejoice, it was a grim, solemn occasion, but it was one that had to happen.


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Sat Dec 30 09:38:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think it's hard to find a good solution for things like that

On one hand you just wanna say , kill him he deserves it more than anyone, Wich was also the first idea that popped into my mind

But it's so contradictory with what I normally believe...

It's more about the fact that it brought up so many mixed feelings

How can you believe for yourself that that person really needed to die, while you always say that you are against things like that ...

That is what I'm wondering about for myself
It's like I don't live up to my own ideals, wich scares me more then I would have guessed



 
FN Posted: Sat Dec 30 09:41:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think by doing so they made the guy into a martyr and I also feel like death penalty is a bit too easy


 
addi Posted: Sat Dec 30 10:14:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I think by doing so they made the guy into a martyr and I also feel like death penalty is a bit too easy

yup yup

Killing him let him off easy. He should have been kept alive and in a stinkin' prison for the rest of his life. Christophe is right...the insurgents are looking for any reason to add to their killing cause, and a martyr was just created. I won't be the least bit surprised to see the suicide bombings go up a few notches.

Killing Saddam did absolutely nothing to solve the myriad of problems over there.


 
FN Posted: Sat Dec 30 10:44:10 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  In the long run it won't change a thing, in the short run it'll just cause an added amount of attacks during the next 3-4 weeks before it goes back to the regular what, 1000 attacks a month?


The worst for me is that everybody seems to be forgetting that china and to a much lesser (but not all that insignificant in combination with china) extent india and russia are watching how america is going flat on its face over an insignificant country like irak, if you catch my drift.


 
FN Posted: Sat Dec 30 10:52:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And the damage it is doing to the american economy is just beyond me.

For one thing, look at the trade surplus china announced yesterday (or the day before, I'm a bit oblivious about time lately) (also, granted, as a side note: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2006/gb20060522_662112.htm?campaign_id=search ) and the american deficits...


 
FN Posted: Sat Dec 30 11:48:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Buitenland/default.asp?art={A6FB77D3-6DC2-4224-BF57-874AF38ABF45}


 
addi Posted: Sat Dec 30 11:50:28 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And the damage it is doing to the american economy is just beyond me.

it's not beyond me...it sucks big time.

There will be no "winning" this war, only trying to figure out a way to end our involvment and save face as much as possible (much like Vietnam...Nixon's "Peace with Honor" bullshit).
Years from now historians will look back on the decision to invade and I'm betting most accounts will conclude that it was one of the most dumbass decisions in our history.


 
FN Posted: Sat Dec 30 12:08:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I just wonder how serious will anybody still take it from now on when for example the us (with or without in combination with europe) would say to china in a decade or 2 that they're crossing a line and that they'd better watch out "or else" when they've seen how iraq went.

There should never have been any ground forces and it simply wasn't something, in my opinion, worth antagonizing the eu for instead of just waiting untill a solid consensus was met.

I'm all for pre-emptive strikes when it's proven that they need to happen (iran right now/north korea 5-10 years ago) but there the us is being everything but consequential so one has to wonder what's going on and what image is desired to be portrayed.

It's a mockery and I'm serious when I say that I think the day will come that china acts up and there'll be nothing to outbluff it with.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sat Dec 30 16:10:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i don't support the death penalty and i don't think saddam should have been killed...

but it's hard to imagine any other way it would have panned out.

personally, i think no matter the atrocities charged to a person, how can you flip them around and say that he deserves to die? i mean... personally, i don't think we as people have the wisdom [or fail-safe system] to say who dies and who doesn't. lock 'em up for the rest of their days, i'm better with... let them live with themselves and in the end if they feel no remorse, i doubt they would have had their death been premature.

either way, i'm one for everything working out in the end on the grand scale [and everything happening for a reason].


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Dec 30 16:36:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  We did not execute Saddam, the Iraqis did, it was their court, their judicial system. It was their decision to kill him.
As absurd as it sounds, for the Iraqis, as long as he was alive, there would be a chance, however slim, that he could someday return to power.

Anyone who thinks we have accomplished nothing over there needs to talk to a few Iraqis. The Kurds are thriving, the Marsh Arabs are coming back, the girls go to school and all the school children now have books and paper and pencils.
They have cleaner and more abundant water supplies and new sewage systems are being built all over the country.
They had a 70 percent turnout in a democratic election. You don't see that a lot in the Middle East you know.

And of course there is that "no terrorist act on US soil" since 9/11.
That's only happened once since 1979, mostly due the efforts of Ronald Reagan.

As for our economy, it's stronger than ever. Unemployment is at an all time low, the housing market is through the roof, the stock market setting records like crazy.
This war is not hurting our economy.
And the economy is Iraq is booming as well.

I do agree that it's time to start thinking about when Iraq will stand on it's own, but not to cut and run.
Their army is doing pretty good, it's the Iraqi police that is the big problem. They suck.

True, none of this has come cheaply, but as cliche as it sounds, every American should know that freedom is not cheap.


 
FN Posted: Sat Dec 30 17:06:41 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>We did not execute Saddam, the Iraqis did, it was their court, their judicial system. It was their decision to kill him.

The trial was a fraud, the least they could have done was get a judge that wasn't crapping his pants evey time saddam looked at him.

>As absurd as it sounds, for the Iraqis, as long as he was alive, there would be a chance, however slim, that he could someday return to power.

Doubtful

>Anyone who thinks we have accomplished nothing over there needs to talk to a few Iraqis. The Kurds are thriving, the Marsh Arabs are coming back, the girls go to school and all the school children now have books and paper and pencils.

Yeah, all is well

>They have cleaner and more abundant water supplies and new sewage systems are being built all over the country.
>They had a 70 percent turnout in a democratic election. You don't see that a lot in the Middle East you know.

No but it also made the balance swing from sunni to shi'ites overnight with civil war as a result.

Also it remains to be seen how long the democracy will stand without it being forced from outside.

Islam and democracy is pretty hard (if not impossible) to combine you know.

>And of course there is that "no terrorist act on US soil" since 9/11.
>That's only happened once since 1979, mostly due the efforts of Ronald Reagan.

That could have a thousand reasons, singling out the fact that iraq was invaded seems pretty ludicrous.

And even then it remains to be seen if being "lured" into iraq wouldn't have proven to be a greater feat of terrorism considering the cost, casualties and embarassement.

>As for our economy, it's stronger than ever. Unemployment is at an all time low, the housing market is through the roof, the stock market setting records like crazy.

America is living on credit hif.

>This war is not hurting our economy.

It isn't hurting the stocks of weapon companies, true.

But trade deficits aren't things that show their teeth in the short run, and once the problems will have to be dealt with, with some luck there'll be a liberal president in office and he'll get blamed for it.

>And the economy is Iraq is booming as well.

Ka-booming indeed.

>I do agree that it's time to start thinking about when Iraq will stand on it's own, but not to cut and run.

I agree with you there, leaving now would result in anarchy, and you might as well annexate iraq into iran then.

>Their army is doing pretty good, it's the Iraqi police that is the big problem. They suck.

I think it's the terrorists that are causing the trouble.

>True, none of this has come cheaply, but as cliche as it sounds, every American should know that freedom is not cheap.

The problem with this kind of blind rhetoric hif is that it just isn't believable when you watch/read something other than exclusively fox and its affiliates.

And I know you like to think you do but lets face it, you only really read what you like to read. And that's true for a lot of people, don't get me wrong, but some people hide it more or less than others.

Same old I guess, which is why I wouldn't know who to vote for if I lived in the US.

I mean, I couldn't support socialist hypocrites and I couldn't vote for populists that belittle my intelligence either.

Meh.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Dec 30 21:18:44 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>We did not execute Saddam, the Iraqis did, it was their court, their judicial system. It was their decision to kill him.
>
>The trial was a fraud, the least they could have done was get a judge that wasn't crapping his pants evey time saddam looked at him.
>
Of course it was a fraud, he was really innocent. And the judge was frightened of him, he had him executed.

>>As absurd as it sounds, for the Iraqis, as long as he was alive, there would be a chance, however slim, that he could someday return to power.
>
>Doubtful
>
Hence the beginning of my sentence "as absurd as it sounds" and followed by the term "however slim".
>>Their army is doing pretty good, it's the Iraqi police that is the big problem. They suck.
>
>I think it's the terrorists that are causing the trouble.
>
Really ? no shit ?

>>True, none of this has come cheaply, but as cliche as it sounds, every American should know that freedom is not cheap.
>
>The problem with this kind of blind rhetoric hif is that it just isn't believable when you watch/read something other than exclusively fox and its affiliates.
>
>And I know you like to think you do but lets face it, you only really read what you like to read.
>
Where do you get this ?
Read only what I like to read ?
I'm a conservative and almost every media outlet available to me is slanted to the left. I spend more time on msnbc.com than I ever spent on FOX because they have a better website. I get exposed to more leftist bullshit than the conservatives could ever put out. The conservatives only have talk radio and the internet and part of FOX news. If you add them all together, they don't get even half the coverage that any one of the major networks get, and then you have the print media, New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, don't tell me I only read or watch what I want to read or watch.
Tell me Chris, what conservative outlets do you subscribe to ? Or do you only read and watch what you want to read and watch ?
>I mean, I couldn't support socialist hypocrites and I couldn't vote for populists that belittle my intelligence either.
>
>Meh.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Sat Dec 30 22:32:46 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  chris has said what i've felt better then i was currently going to word it. the blind ideals of the right is mind blowing. rape, murder, and unrest is what the troops have brought. Civil war and the pestilence of Christian beliefs and "freedom" which go against the entire culture that has been in place before this shabby over-wrought country puked itself into existence.




 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sat Dec 30 22:59:17 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Panda_Bear said:
>and the pestilence of Christian beliefs
>

hate to be a fire starter... but i'm pretty sure the "pestilence of Christian beliefs" was already in that region before we got there...

Also, in no way is the Iraq war a Christian war. It's a war fought by many christians and supported by one, but it's not a Christian war. there are MANY christians who don't condone it, and if anything oppose it.

Can I also add that nowhere in Christianity does it say to wage war in God's name? And call me crazy... but Jesus didn't seem too much into the war thing, either. actually, He seemed to be a whole lot into the "help each other" sorta deal.

AND also, if you look at christianity on its own as a religion [and by religion, i mean a set of beliefs, not practices], it's really not that bad. so can we PLEASE stop treating chrsitianity like it's the bane of all that is good and right in the world? because the last i checked, it wasn't christianity... it was people who believed in christianity.

and because of free will, Jesus can't exactly MAKE all his followers do the right thing... kinda sucks [the whole free will thing] BUUUUUTTT it's necessary.

people have a tendency to screw good things up. myself not exempt.

same goes for islam [that it's a religion and not the source of all evil].

i think we all just need a little more understanding and a little less finger-pointing...

[at this point, i heard a christophe-like voice saying into my ear: "fat chance."]

SOOOOOOOOOO, from one christian to whoever else on behalf of all the mean, jerkish christians who've ever picked a fight with you or hurt you with no cause or talked down to you or belittled your beliefs or acted SO holier-than-thou you wanted to kick 'em in the crotch...

sorry. we kinda suck at life every once in awhile [more often than not].

but please... don't hate on Jesus. it's not His fault we're so incredibly stubborn and dence.


 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 31 00:17:08 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Of course it was a fraud, he was really innocent. And the judge was frightened of him, he had him executed.

That's not the point I was making. My point is that it reminded me so much of Göring at Nürnberg but this time without a Jackson ever getting his act together that it was to the point of being freaky.

>>>As absurd as it sounds, for the Iraqis, as long as he was alive, there would be a chance, however slim, that he could someday return to power.
>>
>>Doubtful
>>
>Hence the beginning of my sentence "as absurd as it sounds" and followed by the term "however slim".

The doubtful remains, and also wether that was in fact even slightly believed by many iraqi's as well.

If only by the die hard loyalists, then surely there couldn't be that many of them who still believed it since there are so few, or so I hear, and if believed by "the happy liberated people", then it seems their trust in the situation/in the us/in their (democratic) furute would be rather low.

>>>Their army is doing pretty good, it's the Iraqi police that is the big problem. They suck.
>>
>>I think it's the terrorists that are causing the trouble.
>>
>Really ? no shit ?

I question the fact that the iraqi police force, considering the hazards that come with the job, is the root of all the trouble in iraq. Do you feel that by arresting more people and giving them harder sentences the terrorist attacks would stop or what? It's not like the guys blowing themselves up are likely to be intimidated by getting arrested hif.

If I'd have to chose I'd rather be in the iraqi army with the us constantly watching my back when I'm focused and on a mission than as an iraqi police officer having to patrol.

>"The problem with this kind of blind rhetoric hif is that it just isn't believable when you watch/read something other than exclusively fox and its affiliates."

>Where do you get this ?
>Read only what I like to read ?
>I'm a conservative and almost every media outlet available to me is slanted to the left. I spend more time on msnbc.com than I ever spent on FOX because they have a better website. I get exposed to more leftist bullshit than the conservatives could ever put out.

Let me rephrase.

I know what you mean in terms of having to put up with leftist crap overload in the media. Trust me on that one.

I'm also quite happy believing that you do in fact read/watch a lot of different sources, so in that sense I take the "only reading what you want" thing back even though that's not how I intended it to come across.

But let me define "read" for the purpose of how I did mean it: there's a difference between reading something and shaking your head before you've read a letter and reading something which you've already agreed to before you've read a letter.

Everybody does that to some extent, I agree with stuff from sources/channels/reporters I tend to agree with more easily as well and put more scrutinity on the stuff I propably won't like to hear about, but there's a limit to how far you let yourself give stuff that you like to hear the benefit of the doubt if you want to raise yourself above being a drone.

I'm not indirectly calling you a drone though, for the record, because I know there's probably some stuff out there that in your head you do have your doubts about even though you would never admit to it. I don't think that the republican party is custom tailored exactly to the way you like it in a way that you never come across something that you'd think is bogus.

But one example of what I mean with in the end going beyond that point of "benefit of the doubt" is how you're still denying global warming. And just doubting it would be one thing, I could come to terms with that in some way, but flat out denying that it could be happening is, in my opinion, a bridge too far with stuff like this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming for a quick check up for those who feel like it). Hell, even I see that in my childhood, which isn't that many moons ago, there used to be snow almost any year and now you just don't get any except way out of season. But that's just anecdotal, the readings are there.

And that's also my problem with republicans in america, they take stuff too far and way too extreme to the point of being so ridiculous sometimes that people seem to have a sort of relapse and go "something that way off said by something in that high of a position must be credible or he wouldn't risk saying it" so the more absurder it gets the more eagerly people swallow it, *especially* when they have close to no idea what they're talking about.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you who said "the greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed". It was true then and it is still true today.

Like denying the consequences to the economy the war in iraq is having. Saying "the consequences are limited" would be one thing, but what do republicans do? That's not spectacular enough so they say everything is going 100% absolutely perfect, even better than perfect and all the naysayers don't know what they're talking about, no matter what their background is, because 1 o'reiley (to name one) and 1 right wing economist easily trump 50 neutral economists (they do exist, people who just look at figures) and even more easily trump 500 left wing ones if need be.

And then when you say "wait a minute, how many of these people agreeing with that 1 guy because fox says so, actually have a serious specific type of education to make those calls about economy or enviroment and declare them as the one and only truth without a doubt in their minds" you're shot down.

And again, I see it here happening all the time just as well, the state budgets from the past year are coming in but 90% of the people have no serious idea about how stuff like economic reports can be manipulated and still be absolutely correct yet give totally different representations of reality than what the reality in fact is, because that's just how accounting works.

It's that what "frightens" me with any type of ideology, be it right wing or left wing or something in between: once it goes beyong the point of that reasonable doubt and it moves into the abyss of infallible unquestionable truth it's unhealthy.

And yeah, from what I'm seeing as a neutral observer, who even fits in closest with republican ideology in theory and in a very big way (and not at all with american liberal ideology), I can't help but notice that that kind of behaviour tends to be much more rampant in the republican camp.

And 10 years from now those debts, to get back on topic, have added up and the backlash is felt and it'll be either the fault of the democrat in office or the last democrat that has been in office before it, and the general public will believe whatever their favorite channel tells them too because more than half doesn't know how it works by a long shot. They think they do, but they don't.

Anyway, every single article I've seen you quote has always been dogmatic reproduction of the republican mantra's, usually from fox or other sites that are cleary rather extreme right wing.

I'm sorry but I can't take newssites that sell t-shirts with cool quotes on them and have ads of clearly heavily biased books seriously (even if that bias would be the "correct bias", news in my opinion has to be if not 100% then 99% neutral).

I think the main problem in the us media (and I see it evolving towards that point where I live as well, much to my quite literal horror) is that the reporters themselves are always strongly sided with either one party or the other, but you very rarely get just information without the journalist him/herself adding his 2 cents (or 200 dollar) that nobody (should have) asked for.

News is becoming entertainment instead of a tool to spread mere neutral and objective, measurable facts.

And what you get because of that is a constant stream of conflicting subjective material, and whoever then plays the most agressive is seen as the top dog by the plebs.

>Tell me Chris, what conservative outlets do you subscribe to ? Or do you only read and watch what you want to read and watch?

I think that I can say in all confidence, even without my usual arrogance, that I'm more than a mere "well informed".

I read books, papers, sites, magazines, watch the news, you name it, from several countries in several languages (granted, only western ones) and just as many viewpoints and nuances thereof because of it, with a passion, because I get a kick about evolving into at least moderately grasping and understanding the complexities of things like these and the kind of frivolous enjoyment that reminds me of when I used to build camps as a kid that I get out of being a smartass about it all afterwards.

Just like I'm having fun here. It's all just a brainteasing game hif ;o)

But always with my conservative and right wing "true liberal" (look it up, you might be surprised what liberalism actually is instead of what american liberals make of it) outlook on life as a basis to start from but never as a goal to find justification for at the cost of letting stuff that I don't agree with slide through when it suits me.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Dec 31 02:01:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif said:
>
>And of course there is that "no terrorist act on US soil" since 9/11.
>That's only happened once since 1979, mostly due the efforts of Ronald Reagan.
>


Uh, if I'm not mistaken, from now to 9/11 is about 5 years. Now, you guys were attacked in 1993, right? And from 9/11 to February 1993 is almost nine years? So, I'm not quite following your logic. You're saying Bush has protected America since 9/11, all of five years. But, does that not mean that Clinton should get more credit, as he kept America safe for what, 8 years? I'm not quite following your logic here. At all. "Woo hoo we haven't been attacked in 5 years. But wait, before 9/11, we hadn't been attacked in 8. Go go magic Bush powers, he'll keep us safe by causing global instability."

And if I were to continue, I would probably be just copying many of Chris' points, and he probably said it better, so I shall say, I agree with Chris on his above points.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Dec 31 02:08:23 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, and on the original topic, I don't think Saddam should have been executed. For one, it was not a fair trial, in the least. Only an international court could have been close to neutral, and even that is doubtful. But, as most American intalled dictators, he was removed from power by the Americans when he failed to follow their lead. Its the American, we put you there, and we can take your out attitude. 'Tis foolish.


 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 31 06:45:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Video of the excution itself, shot with a mobile phone apparantly:

http://www.zattevrienden.be/sfw/film_volledige_executie_saddam


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Dec 31 08:21:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>Hif said:
>>
>>And of course there is that "no terrorist act on US soil" since 9/11.
>>That's only happened once since 1979, mostly due the efforts of Ronald Reagan.
>>
>
>
>Uh, if I'm not mistaken, from now to 9/11 is about 5 years. Now, you guys were attacked in 1993, right? And from 9/11 to February 1993 is almost nine years? So, I'm not quite following your logic. You're saying Bush has protected America since 9/11, all of five years. But, does that not mean that Clinton should get more credit, as he kept America safe for what, 8 years? I'm not quite following your logic here. At all. "Woo hoo we haven't been attacked in 5 years. But wait, before 9/11, we hadn't been attacked in 8. Go go magic Bush powers, he'll keep us safe by causing global instability."
>
>And if I were to continue, I would probably be just copying many of Chris' points, and he probably said it better, so I shall say, I agree with Chris on his above points.
>
Do a little more research dude:

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.



 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Sun Dec 31 09:18:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i have nothing against Jesus. He was an awesome guy.

two words.

The crusades.

yes the pestilence has been there awhile before us. but america is continuing to force it down their throats by instilling a christian based democracy...

extreme right wing christianity and radical parts of islam aren't all that different. they both have no humor and a strict world view.

i do hold most christians accountable esp. the ones in charge. if they really want to follow what they are preaching then they'll find the sections of the bible where Jesus has said live and let live. i've had some rather pleasant and sweet christian friends. and i have no issue with them liking and looking up to Jesus. The days in which George has had a "bad" day as a christian has lead to thousands of dead iraqis. civil war and tumult. religion is really the worse invention of men. along with a standardized system of money.


 
addi Posted: Sun Dec 31 09:18:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Do a little more research dude:

I'll play this silly game, even though I think it's really kind of pointless.

your words:
"And of course there is that "no terrorist act on US soil" since 9/11."

>Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

So you changed horses in the middle of the stream and decided to include plots, eh. Should we start listing plots as examples of attacks on American soil since Bush arrived?

>November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

Last time I checked Saudi Arabia wasn't on U.S. soil..unless someone changed it and neglected to inform me : )

>June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

Ditto

>August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

Africa


>October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Aden, Yemen







 
FN Posted: Sun Dec 31 11:39:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Panda_Bear said:
>two words.
>
>The crusades.

I really wonder how much you actually know about the crusades and the implications they've had.

And I mean truly know except "some christian guys went over and killed some muslims for fun".

Also, ever heard about what happened on the Iberian peninsula around 700-ish? The crusades only started around 1100.

>yes the pestilence has been there awhile before us. but america is continuing to force it down their throats by instilling a christian based democracy...

I take it you are in favor of islamic dictatorschip and against christian democracy?

>extreme right wing christianity and radical parts of islam aren't all that different. they both have no humor and a strict world view.

That much I agree with, to an extent.

>i do hold most christians accountable esp. the ones in charge. if they really want to follow what they are preaching then they'll find the sections of the bible where Jesus has said live and let live.

It also has some sections about retribution, no?

>The days in which George has had a "bad" day as a christian has lead to thousands of dead iraqis.

I think you give him too much credit if you say it was out of an ethical motivation.

>civil war and tumult. religion is really the worse invention of men. along with a standardized system of money.

Religion has fueled the creation of the finest works of art in human history.

Standardized system of money is what allows you to have a roof over your head and not a hut


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Dec 31 12:58:04 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Silentmind said:
>>Hif said:
>>>

>>
>Do a little more research dude:
>

I had a funny feeling you'd say that. But, again, perhaps you should read your OWN words more carefully. If we include overseas death caused by extremists, then clearly bush has caused much more death than president clinton. I mean, many of the deaths in iraq are/were caused by extremists. Same thing in afganistan. Don't change the definition in the middle of the argument. And in this case, the point still stands, because in all cases, comparing bush to clinton, bush has caused the bigger mess.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Dec 31 13:00:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I should clarify my last statement. In all cases of FOREIGN policy, bush has caused has caused the bigger mess.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Dec 31 17:33:05 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Silentmind said:
>>>Hif said:
>>>>
>
>>>
>>Do a little more research dude:
>>
>
>I had a funny feeling you'd say that. But, again, perhaps you should read your OWN words more carefully. If we include overseas death caused by extremists, then clearly bush has caused much more death than president clinton. I mean, many of the deaths in iraq are/were caused by extremists. Same thing in afganistan. Don't change the definition in the middle of the argument. And in this case, the point still stands, because in all cases, comparing bush to clinton, bush has caused the bigger mess.
>
Umm, US embassies overseas are considered soveriegn US soil, same as any other country that has an embassy here.


 
innocenceNonus Posted: Mon Jan 1 01:03:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ms.Moon said:

>extreme right wing christianity and radical parts of islam aren't all that different. they both have no humor and a strict world view.
>

hahahahaha. kinda true. different methods, but i get the same vibe from both.

>religion is really the worse invention of men.

lol. only counts if you believe religion was created by man. but even so, i understand why people would say that about organized religion.

>along with a standardized system of money.

personally, i'm leaning toward a bartering system, but my mind's still not made up yet.


 
FN Posted: Mon Jan 1 06:53:16 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html


 
FN Posted: Mon Jan 1 10:52:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.saddamisnotdead.com/?p=3

surprise surprise

sigh


 
addi Posted: Mon Jan 1 12:24:22 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybe he's chillin' with Elvis


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jan 1 18:15:13 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>maybe he's chillin' with Elvis
>
Nah, they really needed a new ghost of Christmas past.


 
J. Posted: Wed Jan 10 20:14:00 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
Saddam Hussein - Thanks for the Memories:

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

What is the truth?

Cruise: "I want the truth"
Nicholson: "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"




 
addi Posted: Wed Jan 10 22:13:14 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:

>What is the truth?
>
>Cruise: "I want the truth"
>Nicholson: "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"


The truth can be a bitter pill to swallow.





 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]