|
Post by Just Here on May 17, 2004 14:36:17 GMT -5
No name's ridicule of their beliefs is understandable and definitely not out of line. Ridiculing people is out of line. I do not expect you to understand that concept though. I do not think you want to go down this road. No one is asking you to accept anyone's beliefs just accept their right to have them.
|
|
|
Post by Reality on May 17, 2004 15:08:57 GMT -5
Ridiculing people is out of line. Please read what I wrote again. Your ridicule of me was unwarranted. Has this discussion included the issue of others having the right to have beliefs or the issue that certain groups' beliefs have included murdering others? It seems to be the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 17, 2004 16:02:35 GMT -5
Please read what I wrote again. Your ridicule of me was unwarranted. You were saying that No Name was not out of line when she ridiclued people's beliefs. I believe that ridicule is wrong. I was not ridiculing you. I was observing that given your support of No Name' position I did not expect you would agree that ridicule is wrong. I think it was touched upon. My position has been that we can accept and respect people with beliefs diametrically opposed to our own and respect their right to hold these beliefs without having to accept the validity of their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Reality on May 17, 2004 20:52:08 GMT -5
There is a difference between ridiculing a person and ridiculing, for example, their politics or beliefs. Your condescending response seemed like ridicule.
Expressing ridicule is often part of how many people (including you?) show a lack of acceptance of the validity of a group's beliefs or politics that condone murdering innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 17, 2004 22:47:52 GMT -5
You are inclined to give more credence to the Fedayin fighters (knowing the despicable way they fight) than you are inclined to believe the coalition forces? Beats me, but there are people out there who actually think the terrorists (or someone like Saddam) are more trustworthy than countries like the U.S./Britan, or its leaders. Oh well. By reporters who were there. Remember, there were reporters imbedded with the troops as they moved through the country and fought in various cities. Actually, the “Fedayin” had specific form of dress/uniform that they usually wore – they were an organized force of people who were willing to die for Saddam. It is said he trusted the Fedayin more than the Republican Guard. And even women were involved in guerilla tactics; women holding their babies, and trying to lead the coalition forces into ambushes – what a very powerful propaganda tool against the coalition forces – “The coalition is purposefully killing innocent women and babies!”. In this regard – not knowing friend from foe – it is similar to Vietnam. Actually, I do recall press briefings with Centcom, when some of our bombs did cause loss of civilian life, and they did not sidestep that truth, even though it looked badly for them to admit that our own bombs had accidentally killed innocent people. Knowing the nature of our enemy during the war, I trusted the accounts of our military men more than the news conferences of Baghdad Bob! (Even though he was good for a laugh!) ;D You change the wording again – first you claim that the war was about oil. Now you mention our entire presence in the Middle East. Which is it? Being in the ME is also about trying to help keep some stability in the volitile region, and with respect to oil – actually, the ME only produces little more than 1/4 of the world’s oil (according to 2002 stats). But back to Iraq – this war wasn’t about oil. An easy claim for pessimistic people to make, but it would have been cheaper for us to seize Venezuela’s oil fields than to wage the Iraq war if the main goal of this war really pertained to oil. Sorry – you are losing me here; what does that have to do with “normal” trade of goods and services that takes place between governments? This is what you seemed to mean at first – now you are talking about black market activities operated by drug dealers. This doesn’t fall into the category of trade that I was talking about. I’ll mention again – terrorist groups don’t engage in normal trade of goods and services with the world, so I fail to see how we can stop trading with terrorist groups we don’t even trade with to begin with. ‘Course, even if we stopped trade with various countries who are suspected of supporting/harboring terrorists, this won’t stop the terrorists from trying to kill us, so I totally doubt that would solve the problem. Well, nations are “allies” depending on the issue. We were "allies" with the Soviet Union in WWII (even though the U.S. didn't trust Stalin and feared his intentions to expand Communism in Asia). And of course the U.S. and the U.S.S.R were bitter enemies during the Cold War. I’m sorry – I don’t get the point you’re trying to make here . . .
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 17, 2004 22:48:42 GMT -5
You keep trying to maintain this on the realm of “respecting” and not “ridiculing” their belief; there is nothing to “respect” about their belief that it's okay (or worthy of glorification) to purposefully kill innocent people. "Allah Akhbar!" they chanted repeatedly like a pack of wild animals, as they sawed off Nick Berg's head. Don’t think so. I said – I’ve no problem with people having beliefs other than mine. They (the fanitical Islamic terrorists) can “believe” what they want, but their “beliefs” are not something I’m going to respect, or give validity to. Just like I don’t respect or give validity to the beliefs of Hitler. Wow. So even someone like Hitler should be above “ridicule”? Political correctness at its finest. With all due respect, this is not the argument you were making earlier – before, it was about respecting their beliefs: ”You do not have to accept their beliefs, just respect them as their beliefs.”Now it is about accepting their right to have beliefs . . . ?? Any human has the right to believe what they want (well, not according to the fanatical Islamic terrorists, you don’t) – as I said, they can think what they want, but if those thoughts translate into them trying to kill me, then they must be stopped. There are beliefs people have that I may disagree with, yet I can still respect them. HOWEVER, the fanatical Islamic terrorist groups have beliefs that I will never respect. Continued attempts to be politically correct and say that we need to “respect their beliefs” just will not ever fly with me, because their beliefs happen to focus on the fact that they want to kill us all. “Yes, Mr. Terrorist – you want to kill me – I don’t agree with you, but I respect your belief.” Please I am thinking the same thing . . . This is not even in the same category of the discussion of TERRORISM. For those who did this willingly – fine, lay down willingly in the fire and burn up with the corpse of your husband; no problem – they were only killing themself, and doing it of their own volition. Problem was – not every widow wanted to be burned alive, but was forced to against her will. Yep. I know it was outlawed. People didn’t stop doing it, though. Exactly what I mentioned above. Oh my. The murderous jihadists would really love this lofty “comparison” – My friend, the above examples are not even comparable to what the terrorists want to do for their “beliefs”. To attempt to elevate suicide bombers/murders/terrorists intentionally killing innocent people as being on the same level as a “martyr” is laughable. A terrorist (who expressly intends to kill innocent people, as well as themselves in the process, if need be) is not even on the same plane as a marytr (someone who dies passively for their belief)! A martyr dies (passively) for his/her belief. A terrorist kills others for his/her belief. There is a difference. Stand by your beliefs! This is fine! AS LONG AS THOSE BELIEFS don’t include killing me or other innocent people in the process of doing it, simply because your belief happens to include killing all Americans, or Christians, or Jews, or Westerners, or anyone else you don’t deem worthy to continue living! So: “We are DOOMED if we don’t “respect” their belief of wanting to KILL us . . . we must respect them more, then they won’t want to kill us so much”. Yeah. Right. Just a thought – am I totally misunderstanding you, are you pulling my leg, or are your arguments about respecting their beliefs for real?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 19, 2004 1:49:07 GMT -5
You are inclined to give more credence to the Fedayin fighters (knowing the despicable way they fight) than you are inclined to believe the coalition forces? Beats me, but there are people out there who actually think the terrorists (or someone like Saddam) are more trustworthy than countries like the U.S./Britan, or its leaders. Oh well. Oh well. Let's see - have we ever been misled by the US government? Nope. Well, maybe the non-existent Gulf of Tonkin attack in 1964, and doctored photos of a non-existent Iraqi invasion buildup on the Saudi border in 1990. But certainly no more than that. Well, maybe Nixon did bend reality a bit with his illegal wars in Laos and Cambodia but by and large we can trust the government. Well, when you kill Canadians it is tough not to admit it. The last time I looked Iraq was in the middle east. Do you think we would put that much time and effort into ay place if there was not an abundance of natural resources? Produces - but what are the reserves?Saudi Arabia alone has about 25% of the reserves. Wonder why we allow them to fund terrorists but do not invade there? Throw in Iraq (11%), UAE (10%), Kuwait (9%), and Iran (9%) and you have about 50% of the world's oil reserves. Then there is the natural gas in Afganastan. Of course it is about the oil. The US would be stupid not to keep control of that area. But then Venezuela has only about 7% of the reserves. And the US has access to that oil field. You said "produces". it is their largest crop. You did not mention anything about trade between governments. If you want to reclassify your question feel free to do so but don't pretend you mentioned it earlier. You are not mentioning it again. This is the first time you are adding conditions. But we do trade with them. Where do you think the opiates go?
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 19, 2004 20:57:45 GMT -5
What are you talking about? I wasn’t referring to Canadians – I was talking about the Iraqi civilians. And yet you scoff at the admission of a mistake, misjudgment, accident – as if the U.S. is so bloodthirsty (like the terrorists), that it is our mission to purposefully kill innocent people. Please If oil is the primary goal, then why don’t we just invade Mexico? Or Venezuela? (Mexico, Venezuela, and Canada are 3 of our top 4 suppliers of oil). Or any of the other areas that produce almost 75% of the world’s oil supplies? Point is, the ME is a highly volitile region in which attempts to stabalize the area should not be avoided. Or do you disagree? Should the whole world just stand by while the region erupts into non-stop chaos without attempting to help? By turning our back on the ME, we would also be turning our back on Israel (that tiny speck of land that occupies – what, 1% of the land mass there?), who is under constant attack by those elements that want to utterly destroy her. If you think this, then why are you so hotly critical?? Personally, I don’t care too much about the oil aspect – my concerns are regarding the issue of terrorism, which bothers me much more than gas prices . . . . And if oil were the primary or real reason we went into Iraq, we could have invaded a long time ago. With regard to oil reserves: THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY: www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/Long and pretty in-depth, but touches on the comment you made about ME oil reserves. Sorry, but when you talked about trade, buying products: ”Do not sell them goods and don't buy theirs.” “Stop trading with them.” My first thought (naturally) was in regards to normal trade between governments. It seems to be you who reclassified that subject when you mentioned drugs. Nope. Reiteration of above comment.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 20, 2004 10:58:11 GMT -5
A small handful of soldiers out of 100,000+ in our military that are deployed there do something criminal, and you use this pitiful example to try to prove a point? Do you really think that this is the only problem that there has been? One 'pitiful' incident that just happened to be captured in photos? In the 54 page report there were lists of prisoners who had "escaped" but no one seems to know how or where theyare nor. Oddly enough some were being questioned by the intellegence people. You could be one of the few remaining people who think the incident at Mi Lai was the only time something like that happened. I cannot help but notice that you often respond with something like "But it was so much worse under Saddam" or "Well, Hitler killed a lot more people than we did". Everyone knows that these people were evil. I don't thinking setting the bar based on their actions makes your points very well. We don't want to be known as "The country that did not abuse people as badly as Saddam" or the military "that did not torture people as long as Hitler". Who did decide who would be president? I recall it the end it was the court. Who did appoint some of the justices? I think it could have been a Bush. Where do you think the misunderstanding is? This is not exactly true. Bush "won" with 47.87% of the votes (50,456.002) and Gore "lost" with 48.38% of the votes (50,999,897) Kennedy, who actually did win, had 34,227,096 votes while Nixon had 34,107,646 Kennedy did not launch the US into Vietnam. That was done by Eisenhower by making the decision to ignore the 1954 Geneva accords and organize the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. It was, perhaps, the first of many subsequent actions that demonstrated the United States' disregard for international agreements.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 20, 2004 11:40:19 GMT -5
What are you talking about? I wasn’t referring to Canadians – I was talking about the Iraqi civilians. And yet you scoff at the admission of a mistake, misjudgment, accident – as if the U.S. is so bloodthirsty (like the terrorists), that it is our mission to purposefully kill innocent people. Please Well, the US did bomb and kill Canadians as well. Hard not to report that. If you are short sighted you look at production. The US government is looking at reserves. The ME holds the lion's share. Perhaps 80%. That is the future. If you think that is not the #1 concern for the US government given our need for oil then you need to tell us what is. If it is not the #1 concern it should be. We cannot survive as a country without the oil from the ME. Why not invade Mexico? We have their oil. And the same with Venezula. But should a government that the US felt was not going to let them play come to power I think you would see the US taking action. Don't think it is not a possibility: CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez on Sunday vowed to freeze oil exports to the United States and wage a "100-year war" if Washington ever tried to invade Venezuela.
The United States has repeatedly denied ever trying to overthrow Chavez, but the leftist leader accuses Washington of being behind a failed 2002 coup and of funding opposition groups seeking a recall referendum on his presidency.
Chavez is seen by the U.S. right wing as a threat to U.S. hegemony in the American continent. Chavez, while pursuing an independent foreign policy, has been careful in his dealings with the U.S. Besides, the two countries need each other. Venezuela has the sixth largest oil reserves in the world and the U.S. is its biggest customer; around 40 per cent of the U.S.' annual oil imports are from Venezuela. But this has not prevented Venezuela from selling oil to Cuba despite the continuing U.S. blockade of the island nation. In fact, since assuming office, Chavez has expanded the country's oil export, doubling its value between 1998 and 2000. Yeah, but it is not about oil! And lose the only base in the area that we can count on. We need to stabilize the area. We need, or will need, the natural resources that are there. Try to imagine the future if we cannot get the oil we need. Think about Japan and Germany in the last War. Because of statements like your next one: We did - 10 years ago. Historically we have had access to the oil. There was no need to invade. But when things turn tense - we need to act. but why not be up front about it? It was long. And correct. I was talking about the oil reserves that are actully known to exist rather than the speculation of oil that might one day be found. All of this would quickly become a moot point if some other source of energy becomes widely used. But from where we sit today, having control of the known reserves is a better bet than letting someone else have that control while we look for those other sources. I have a pretty clear understanding of what trade is. When I used the word trade I meant the exchange of one thing for another. You know - Money for oil. Oil for food. Food for arms. Arms for hostages, you know, trading with the terrorists. - things our government does. That is what trade is. Something of value is exchanged for something of value. What did you think trade was? I wonder what normal is these days.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 20, 2004 22:20:07 GMT -5
Nope. There will always be people within the military who commit atrocities. This is not official mandate or practice of the military, despite desperate attempts by people to vilify our entire armed forces. It is, however the express intent of Islamic terrorists to purposefully kill innocent people. This is their primary goal. Good. Then stop trying to act like our entire country and its military is “evil” because there have been people who abused their power. It’s bad enough that the despicable actions of the minority of people reflects negatively on our military; it’s almost worse when people are SO quick to point the finger of total blame at the entire group. This is like saying ALL white people are racist because there were some white people who owned slaves or because there were white people who opposed integration. That’s ridiculous. And who did appoint some of the justices as well? I think it could have been a CLINTON. The misunderstanding is in the lack of comprehension many people have for the electoral process in our country. And again: I do recall press briefings with Centcom, when some of our bombs did cause loss of civilian life, and they did not sidestep that truth, even though it looked badly for them to admit that our own bombs had accidentally killed innocent people.This was the whole point of my original post – yet the military’s admission of their mistakes is also mocked? Guess they can’t win for losing. Is another dictator waiting to happen. www.militaresdemocraticos.com/en/historia.htmlI still don’t understand why you tout the importance of the U.S. needing to be in the ME for the oil, then you seem to blame them for taking actions that you perceive to be related to this importance. At any rate, you think oil is the primary reason why we are in Iraq. I don’t – I see it as a component of the war on terror (which you don’t). Lo que sea. You mean when Saddam invaded Kuwait and we pushed him out and chased him for awhile, but didn’t end his reign right then? Perhaps it’s because, despite what you have convinced yourself of – the current action in Iraq is not about oil, but about terrorism. As I said, when you mention “trade”, I automatically thought of normal economic trade -- you know, things like food, car production, oil, outsourcing to factories, etc. I wonder why it’s normal to always blame America first these days.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 21, 2004 1:59:05 GMT -5
And who did appoint some of the justices as well? I think it could have been a CLINTON. The misunderstanding is in the lack of comprehension many people have for the electoral process in our country. That is not at all the point. The high court did make the decision and some of the justices were elected by Bush. You said this was not the case. You were mistaken. I have no idea why you have brought up Clinton. I can't speak for others but I think I have a pretty good grasp of how the electorial process works. It is tough to deny when only our planes are in the air. What else could they do? Claim it was a UFO? Not after Friday. You have a very difficult time seeing that criticism is not blame. Oil is the lifeblood of an industrial nation. Planes don't fly. Trucks and tanks don't move. It is just not Iraq. It is the whole ME. Power vacuums are not a good thing in any region. Of course we could have gone after Saddam. And killed him. But that would have led to a very unstable situation. That would have been unacceptable. Terrorism might kill a few people and should be stopped. Loosing the oil reserves in the ME could easily lead to the end of the US. Oil, at least right now, is what it is all about. Trade is, as I said, trade. It happens all the time. We gave Iran (a known terrorist government at the time - they were holding US citizens as hostages) arms and they gave us hostages. That is a trade. We trade with terrorists. Who is blaming? Just pointing out that the US is not the white knight. There is a little tarnish. When you say things like "terrorists goal is to kill all Christians" it is not correct. They have stated their goals and the methods to use. Terrorism is wrong. But there is no need to distort the truth.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 23, 2004 18:18:30 GMT -5
I don’t see the Jewish people engaging in suicide murders purposefully aimed at civilian targets. This is the goal of the Islamic Jihadist terrorists. Big difference. Sorry.
It is also the philosophy of the Jihadist terrorists.
I agree that conflict won’t stop in the world until the Lord returns. It’s also imperative that good people do what they can to confront (and at times physically fight) the dangers of their time and try to prevent more innocent people from being killed.
Nope. The Supreme Court did not “decide” who would become President.
The fact was that 7 of the 9 justices ruled that the state-wide manual recount violated Floridians’ constitutional rights by not defining what would constitute a valid “vote” during the recount. Liberal justices Souter and Breyer, as well as moderate justices O’Connor and Kennedy, all found that Florida’s proposed manual recount violated the U.S. Constitution. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court had the legal authority to intervene into the Florida debacle. The election of the president and the vice president of the United States is a federal issue; the U.S. Constitution specifically sets forth the method by which the president and VP are to be elected. The Constitution provides that the state legislature – not the state supreme court – is responsible for creating the process whereby the state’s electors are to be selected -- the Florida Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds in violation of the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court intervened. They did not “decide” who would be President – Bush had already won the initial voting, AND the requested Gore recounts.
I have no idea why you brought up Bush.
And yet again – the military’s admission of their mistakes is also mocked? Guess they can't win for losing.
Because you criticize U.S. actions one moment, then turn around and offer righteous justification for those same actions the next.
Wait a minute. Why do you advocate killing Saddam and earlier you questioned the validity of killing Osama?
I admit – you have me a little baffled at times. Sometimes it seems you are fully condemning U.S. actions; other times (when discussing the same subject) it seems you fully condone them.
Ummmm . . . I’m not so naive that I don't realize the U.S. has a “little tarnish”. I just totally reject comparisons between us and the Islamic terrorists we fight (and other ludicrous comparisons to Hitler and fascists/dictatorships, etc.). And I reject the opinion that the U.S. is what’s “wrong” with the world. For all it’s imperfections, I strongly believe the U.S. is a force for good in the world, even though there are those who hate us.
No distortion. Do some research into the subject of Militant Islamic terrorists/Jihadist terrorists/Radical Islam. You’ll find a wealth of info that reveals the true intentions of this large and very dangerous group of fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 25, 2004 18:02:44 GMT -5
Wait a minute. Why do you advocate killing Saddam and earlier you questioned the validity of killing Osama? I think I may have stumbled on one source of the reason it is difficult to discuss this with you. You take whateveranyone writes and provide some meaning that may or may not match what was written. The above was in response to my statement: "Power vacuums are not a good thing in any region. Of course we could have gone after Saddam. And killed him. But that would have led to a very unstable situation. That would have been unacceptable. " From an explanation of why the US did not go after and eliminate Saddam in the first Gulf War you somehow came away with the thought I supported the killing of Saddam. It might be because it reflects the reality rather than some political stand. You think we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. I was pointing out that the terrorists will kill a few people. Good to prevent but realistically we cannot kill all the terrorists. However, losing control of the oil in the ME will cause many more problems. As a country we have to defend it at all costs. Why do you think the government is diverting oil into reserves when the price is going higher and higher?
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 0:26:38 GMT -5
Actually, I just discovered the reason I naturally drew the conclusion I did . . . . it was because I read the word “could” as “should”. I read it as “Of course we should have gone after Saddam. And killed him.”
My bad for too much rapid reading . . . .
We are fighting terrorists in Iraq.
I would suppose this could be an accurate statement. But after my research into the seriousness of just what we’re up against with regard to Militant Islamic terrorists, I am not so inclined to think that our war with “terror” is all about oil. Rather, it's ultimately about protecting our own country from attempts to destroy and/or conquer it by those very terrorists we are fighting. For indeed, destruction of our country, and having someone shouting "Allah Akbar" from the roof of the White House is the true goal of the Radical Islamic terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 28, 2004 8:53:18 GMT -5
We are fighting terrorists in Iraq. I still am puzzled as to how you know we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. Have they committed acts of terrorism? Is there a possibility that there are Iraqi people who are at war with an invading force? Just as there are Americans who would fight against an invading army. Maybe we should take a short trip to reality. You say there are 100,000 terrorists. Let's say there are 5 times that. 500,000. No 10 times that. 1,000,000 ready to attack and destroy the US. What odds do you really think they have of being successful? They do not have the weapons nor the means to deliver them. Even assuming they have nuclear weapons they are not a real threat to the US. Certainly US citizens would die. But how do the terrorists get here? I don't think they can count on FedEx or UPS to deliver their arms and supplies. We are fighting them in the ME because that is the area that the US wants and needs to have control over. Regardless of what the detractors say, you are living in one of the very few remaining superpowers. We have not (yet) alienated the rest of the world to the point that they will side with the terrorists against US. I don't see Canada giving the terrorists the use of their bases. Logistically, how do you envision this destruction of the US happening? I don't think it is in the cards to win a war against the US by hijacking planes as weapons. Unless, of course, the government keeps people in such a state of fear that we start invading any country that has a sizable Muslim population. Exactly how would this be accomplished? How does going to war with Iraq, a country that did not have a single plane in the sky during this war, fired perhaps a handful of very short range missiles, and no longer has an army, prevent this from happening? Your fear is that terrorists will kill Americans in the US. I would say that has about 100% chance of happening. You can kill in the ME, Indonesia, or any other country you wish but there are still the Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebolds of the world to deal with. Terrorism is scary. But there is no need to wallow in fear.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 30, 2004 17:44:47 GMT -5
If you’re still puzzled about the existence of terrorists in Iraq, then I can’t help you. Even Iraqi blog sites I’ve been reading through refer to the “insurgents” as “terrorists” who want to kill the “new Iraq”. Gee whiz, even the Iraqi people get it. And those who sawed off the head of Nick Berg were part of an Islamic terrorist group. Maybe we should take a short trip to re-reading what I actually posted. What I said is that there are about 1 billion Muslims in the world. Experts estimate that about 10% of the world’s Mulsims subscribe to the ideas espoused by Militant Islamists. That would be about 100 MILLION Muslims who hold the ideals promoted by Radical/Militant Islam. That is quite a hefty number of people, any one of them who may be willing to carry out little suicide missions of their own. And even your example of 1,000,000 is not a small number of people who are willing to do anything to destroy the “Western” world. It only took 19 people to actually carry out the 9/11 attacks (though there were many more people involved in the actual planning, which took years to develop). They can most certainly get their heads on the weapons and the means to deliver them. This was one of the reasons for ousting Saddam. And with WMDs, it doesn’t take much to kill a lot of people. The terror plot that was foiled in Jordan could have killed tens of thousands of people if it had been carried out. Those terrorists were caught with chemical weapons, which came from Syria. One of the locations people think Saddam’s WMDs may have been taken to is – Syria. Okay -- you just keep telling yourself that . . . They have their ways. Our borders and other means by which one can enter the country aren’t that foolproof. I guess this is why you’ve developed such a feeling of security about the situation. You are viewing the U.S. as the “bad” guys here who want “control” over the ME. Whatever floats your boat. You think that’s the only method they will try? Again, no wonder you feel so “secure” about the threat they pose. When you continue to look at the U.S. as the main bad guy, it’s much easier to feel unconcerned about the threat of Militant Islam. There was an official list of reasons for going into Iraq – one of them included his affiliation with terrorists, another one was in regard to WMDs, another one was in regard to violations of the cease-fire agreement after the first gulf war, and yet another was in regards to the brutal way in which he treated his people. I’m glad Iraq is free from Saddam, and after reading the heartfelt expressions in some Iraqi blogs, I’m even more happy for those people. “I haven’’t any thing to post after this attack [he is referring to an attack by terrorists in Karbalaa and Kadumea City a couple of months ago] , it was terrible attack, and it is a war to killing the freedom and killing the New Iraq. The terrorist killed many women, old men and children, just to kill the humanity in the new Iraq. Please…….. Please help Iraqi people Please USA and all western world help Iraqi people.”Posted by Alaasmary in March 2004 “Oh, beautiful world, after years passed, we are freedom now From the long prison, jail in the fear republic. Thanks for all who help us to being freedom felling gratitude for you due to their risk in your soul for peace to achieve freedom for children, old man and women.”Posted by Alaasmary in January 2004 “Hi everybody..
During the ex-regime we received very poor salaries, you know.. 3 or 4 dollars per month, but Saddam’’s spies and devils were living in an extravagant life, with extraordinary salaries and gifts without caring to the poor people who were starving and couldn’’t afford their living, wearing ragged clothes with bare foot children...
Inspite of all the events and hard time we are passing through due to those extremists and terrorists, many officials and teachers ( like me!) Obtained new furniture, new electric equipments and other things.. We neglected our house for many years, we couldn’’t do anything to repair it because of the lack of money, but now we did it up, it is repaired completely, painted, furnished with nice curtains and new chandeliers.. The view became so lovely that a person feels very relaxed and comfortable.. We also planted several kinds of flowers and plants that made the garden so beautiful.. All of these changes came after the liberation, we are so happy with the new Iraq in spite of the difficulties.. But as the saying goes .. No gains without pains.. I wish the future will be wonderful... and what we pass through nowadays will soon disappear, together with the coalition we can defeat those enemies..”Posted by ays in May 2004 Well, I don’t “wallow” in fear – but I’m quite aware of the reality of the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2023 20:38:13 GMT -5
This thread is interesting. From 2004. This thread is being created during the Second Intifada in Gaza. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian children perished. Another 2,000 or so civilians perished.
What of the The 5 to 10 year old orphans created in Palestine? They are the 25-30 year old Hamas "terrorists" that the IDF is using to justify the 18,000+ killed in Gaza. The children of then are the Hamas Terrorists of now.
And so it will continue.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 13, 2023 20:46:06 GMT -5
This thread is interesting. From 2004. This thread is being created during the Second Intifada in Gaza. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian children perished. Another 2,000 or so civilians perished. What of the The 5 to 10 year old orphans created in Palestine? They are the 25-30 year old Hamas "terrorists" that the IDF is using to justify the 18,000+ killed in Gaza. The children of then are the Hamas Terrorists of now. And so it will continue. The operate on the idea of: “kill then all and let god sort them out”
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Dec 14, 2023 0:38:09 GMT -5
This thread is interesting. From 2004. This thread is being created during the Second Intifada in Gaza. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian children perished. Another 2,000 or so civilians perished. What of the The 5 to 10 year old orphans created in Palestine? They are the 25-30 year old Hamas "terrorists" that the IDF is using to justify the 18,000+ killed in Gaza. The children of then are the Hamas Terrorists of now. And so it will continue.
I don't think the terror will continue if Israel does the job right this time. God told Saul, Joshua, Hezekiah, and others to utterly destroy the occupiers, but none did the complete job. The Nazi's used terror, but no future generations of Germans felt compelled to avenge them. Hopefully the Palestinians can be educated enough to realize who their real enemy is? Ultimately, God himself will utterly destroy Gaza himself (Zephaniah 2:4-7, Amos 1:7).
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2023 8:26:55 GMT -5
This thread is interesting. From 2004. This thread is being created during the Second Intifada in Gaza. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian children perished. Another 2,000 or so civilians perished.
What of the The 5 to 10 year old orphans created in Palestine? They are the 25-30 year old Hamas "terrorists" that the IDF is using to justify the 18,000+ killed in Gaza. The children of then are the Hamas Terrorists of now.
And so it will continue. Is it just me or .... When I read about flooding the underground chambers with sea water to drown the people inside, why do I think of the Nazi gas chambers? When I read that the IDF won't stop bombing until they kill all of Hamas, why do I think about the term "Final Solution" used by Nazi Germany's leaders?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 10:00:23 GMT -5
This thread is interesting. From 2004. This thread is being created during the Second Intifada in Gaza. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian children perished. Another 2,000 or so civilians perished.
What of the The 5 to 10 year old orphans created in Palestine? They are the 25-30 year old Hamas "terrorists" that the IDF is using to justify the 18,000+ killed in Gaza. The children of then are the Hamas Terrorists of now.
And so it will continue. Is it just me or .... When I read about flooding the underground chambers with sea water to drown the people inside, why do I think of the Nazi gas chambers? When I read that the IDF won't stop bombing until they kill all of Hamas, why do I think about the term "Final Solution" used by Nazi Germany's leaders? The thought of a "final solution" for the "Palestinian problem" has also come rather unpleasantly to my mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 14:02:20 GMT -5
This thread is interesting. From 2004. This thread is being created during the Second Intifada in Gaza. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian children perished. Another 2,000 or so civilians perished.
What of the The 5 to 10 year old orphans created in Palestine? They are the 25-30 year old Hamas "terrorists" that the IDF is using to justify the 18,000+ killed in Gaza. The children of then are the Hamas Terrorists of now.
And so it will continue. Is it just me or .... When I read about flooding the underground chambers with sea water to drown the people inside, why do I think of the Nazi gas chambers? When I read that the IDF won't stop bombing until they kill all of Hamas, why do I think about the term "Final Solution" used by Nazi Germany's leaders? You would be thinking wrong then. There is no similarity to the NAZI's.....
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Dec 14, 2023 23:56:29 GMT -5
This thread is interesting. From 2004. This thread is being created during the Second Intifada in Gaza. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian children perished. Another 2,000 or so civilians perished.
What of the The 5 to 10 year old orphans created in Palestine? They are the 25-30 year old Hamas "terrorists" that the IDF is using to justify the 18,000+ killed in Gaza. The children of then are the Hamas Terrorists of now.
And so it will continue. Is it just me or .... When I read about flooding the underground chambers with sea water to drown the people inside, why do I think of the Nazi gas chambers? When I read that the IDF won't stop bombing until they kill all of Hamas, why do I think about the term "Final Solution" used by Nazi Germany's leaders?
I'd agree with Wally, Israel killing armed terrorist for butchering 1200 innocent Jewish citizens is not similar to what the Nazi's did. The euphemism 'Final Solution' was a goal to exterminate every Jew, not unlike the Hamas euphemism 'River to the Sea'. The similarity is that the Nazi's and Hamas want all Jews dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2023 0:00:59 GMT -5
Is it just me or .... When I read about flooding the underground chambers with sea water to drown the people inside, why do I think of the Nazi gas chambers? When I read that the IDF won't stop bombing until they kill all of Hamas, why do I think about the term "Final Solution" used by Nazi Germany's leaders?
I'd agree with Wally, Israel killing armed terrorist for butchering 1200 innocent Jewish citizens is not similar to what the Nazi's did. The euphemism 'Final Solution' was a goal to exterminate every Jew, not unlike the Hamas euphemism 'River to the Sea'. The similarity is that the Nazi's and Hamas want all Jews dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2023 1:09:31 GMT -5
Right now, it's the extreme "no compromise, no 2 state solution" groups that are leading the Israelis and the Palestinians. Nobody cared when, for the last couple decades, Israeli strikes killed a slow but steady number of civilians. That doesn't justify Hamas' actions, but more and more, I am seeing that understanding why groups do what they do is the only way to stop a repeating cycle. Hamas doesn't have the means to kill several dozen civilians whenever they please. They fruitlessly launch second hand rockets which always get shot down, and then have city blocks obliterated in response. www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/8/7/timeline-israels-attacks-on-gaza-since-2005The Israelis (at least the Zionists) see the Palestinians as vermin. Second-class squatters on their holy land which God promised for them because they're so terribly special. To those Zionist Jews, I would kindly suggest they grow up. They're no more chosen nor special than the least and most despised of the Palestinians next to them. Jesus told the Jews once (who claimed that they were so very special and chosen because they had Abraham for a father) that God could turn a bunch of rocks into descendants of Abraham.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Dec 15, 2023 1:47:42 GMT -5
Right now, it's the extreme "no compromise, no 2 state solution" groups that are leading the Israelis and the Palestinians. Nobody cared when, for the last couple decades, Israeli strikes killed a slow but steady number of civilians. That doesn't justify Hamas' actions, but more and more, I am seeing that understanding why groups do what they do is the only way to stop a repeating cycle. Hamas doesn't have the means to kill several dozen civilians whenever they please. They fruitlessly launch second hand rockets which always get shot down, and then have city blocks obliterated in response. www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/8/7/timeline-israels-attacks-on-gaza-since-2005The Israelis (at least the Zionists) see the Palestinians as vermin. Second-class squatters on their holy land which God promised for them because they're so terribly special. To those Zionist Jews, I would kindly suggest they grow up. They're no more chosen nor special than the least and most despised of the Palestinians next to them. Jesus told the Jews once (who claimed that they were so very special and chosen because they had Abraham for a father) that God could turn a bunch of rocks into descendants of Abraham.
I think Hamas proved that they do have the capability to kill civilians on Oct 7th. Even prior to that, unsuccessful attacks wasn't from a lack of effort to achieve their ultimate objective. If not for the expensive Iron Dome defense system, the death toll in Israel would be massive.
I agree that its been a destructive cycle for decades, the 2 state solution of having sworn enemies live side by side will never work. There will never be a Palestine in the Holy Land again, and that's not a reality that radical Islamist will ever accept. Unresolved hatred does not dissolve over time, especially when its founded in religious sanctity. The solution today is war... jmo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2023 2:32:12 GMT -5
Right now, it's the extreme "no compromise, no 2 state solution" groups that are leading the Israelis and the Palestinians. Nobody cared when, for the last couple decades, Israeli strikes killed a slow but steady number of civilians. That doesn't justify Hamas' actions, but more and more, I am seeing that understanding why groups do what they do is the only way to stop a repeating cycle. Hamas doesn't have the means to kill several dozen civilians whenever they please. They fruitlessly launch second hand rockets which always get shot down, and then have city blocks obliterated in response. www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2022/8/7/timeline-israels-attacks-on-gaza-since-2005The Israelis (at least the Zionists) see the Palestinians as vermin. Second-class squatters on their holy land which God promised for them because they're so terribly special. To those Zionist Jews, I would kindly suggest they grow up. They're no more chosen nor special than the least and most despised of the Palestinians next to them. Jesus told the Jews once (who claimed that they were so very special and chosen because they had Abraham for a father) that God could turn a bunch of rocks into descendants of Abraham.
I think Hamas proved that they do have the capability to kill civilians on Oct 7th. Even prior to that, unsuccessful attacks wasn't from a lack of effort to achieve their ultimate objective. If not for the expensive Iron Dome defense system, the death toll in Israel would be massive.
I agree that its been a destructive cycle for decades, the 2 state solution of having sworn enemies live side by side will never work. There will never be a Palestine in the Holy Land again, and that's not a reality that radical Islamist will ever accept. Unresolved hatred does not dissolve over time, especially when its founded in religious sanctity. The solution today is war... jmo
I see that point. This is a very difficult issue on the larger scale.
|
|