NationStates Jolt Archive

Al Quaeda, perhaps with the help of some former taliban, has bombed a mosque during prayer services offered in the memory of an anti-taliban cleric. Combined with the sunni extremist terrorist bombing of a mosque in Karachi earlier this week it surprises me that Muslims worldwide don't start working with the USA to fight our common enemy, the terrorists.

www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3416817&nav=0s3daWbl

I'm waiting for the traditional "members of al-Q and the Taliban aren't Muslims, so it's not like Muslims did this to Muslims".

When they wake up from the 11th Century and realize the state of their heterodoxy, it may be too late.

And they get mad at us for having troops in Saudi Arabia even though we were invited there but yet its ok for them to hit a Mosque.

And they get mad at us for having troops in Saudi Arabia even though we were invited there but yet its ok for them to hit a Mosque.
You must have missed Zarqawi's explanation from a few weeks ago about how it is now necessary to kill people who are innocent, even good Muslims (by his definition of good). Even women and children. He views it as good, no matter how many are killed, as long as you get at least one infidel.

In an age when the US is trying to design weapons that limit and reduce civilian casualties, we have an official policy proclamation from al-Q that says that killing as many innocent Muslims on their own side is good and necessary even if it only results in the death of a single infidel.

Makes you wonder when they're going to use smallpox.

You must have missed Zarqawi's explanation from a few weeks ago about how it is now necessary to kill people who are innocent, even good Muslims (by his definition of good). Even women and children. He views it as good, no matter how many are killed, as long as you get at least one infidel.

In an age when the US is trying to design weapons that limit and reduce civilian casualties, we have an official policy proclamation from al-Q that says that killing as many innocent Muslims on their own side is good and necessary even if it only results in the death of a single infidel.

Makes you wonder when they're going to use smallpox.

I had the smallpox vaccine. I wonder if they did.

I had the smallpox vaccine. I wonder if they did.
So did I. But in order to get one of us, Zarqawi said that it didn't matter how many of their own good people they kill.

So did I. But in order to get one of us, Zarqawi said that it didn't matter how many of their own good people they kill.

Well then, I am actually tempted to support this plan, as it may lead to a quick resolution of the underlying issues.

I had the smallpox vaccine. I wonder if they did.
Probably not. Not the ones under, say, 35 or so. But wait! Alll the leaders are well over 35! Smallpox it will be then.

Well then, I am actually tempted to support this plan, as it may lead to a quick resolution of the underlying issues.
Well, Bush did see to it that there was plenty of smallpox vaccine produced.

Maybe we should go ahead and vaccinate everyone in the US now, and then send Zarqawi a vial of smallpox, so we can get this over with.

Well, Bush did see to it that there was plenty of smallpox vaccine produced.

Maybe we should go ahead and vaccinate everyone in the US now, and then send Zarqawi a vial of smallpox, so we can get this over with.

Nods. It's like the dentist. It's best to get these things over and done with, rather than have them hanging over your head.

Nods. It's like the dentist. It's best to get these things over and done with, rather than have them hanging over your head.

The best part is that we could hardly be blamed. Because Zarqawi would be the one who deliberately opened the vial.

I'm liking this more and more.

The best part is that we could hardly be blamed. Because Zarqawi would be the one who deliberately opened the vial.

I'm liking this more and more.

I have come to accept, that whenever anything happens, whatever happens and for whatever reason, the US will still be blamed by the rest of the world. (Well at least the majority of the UN general assembly).

But at least this way there will be less of them to blame us.

I have come to accept, that whenever anything happens, whatever happens and for whatever reason, the US will still be blamed by the rest of the world. (Well at least the majority of the UN general assembly).

But at least this way there will be less of them to blame us.

Wasn't the US to blame for the recent solar eclipse?

Who is the terorists?
Who bombed WTC on 9/11?
Is everything CNN reports true?
Is USA really fighting against the terrorism in Iraq?
I think some of you have to think about these questions. However before begining so, you have to have baseline idea of the topic. I suggest you look for sources of information other tahn CNN.

Who is the terorists?
Who bombed WTC on 9/11?
Is everything CNN reports true?
Is USA really fighting against the terrorism in Iraq?
I think some of you have to think about these questions. However before begining so, you have to have baseline idea of the topic. I suggest you look for sources of information other than CNN.

Who is the terorists?
Who bombed WTC on 9/11?
Is everything CNN reports true?
Is USA really fighting against the terrorism in Iraq?
I think some of you have to think about these questions. However before begining so, you have to have baseline idea of the topic. I suggest you look for sources of information other than CNN.

Who is the terorists?
Who bombed WTC on 9/11?
Is everything CNN reports true?
Is USA really fighting against the terrorism in Iraq?
I think some of you have to think about these questions. However before begining so, you have to have baseline idea of the topic. I suggest you look for sources of information other than CNN.
Who bombed the WTC on 9/11? Nobody. Al Quaeda personel flew airplanes into it. Osamma bin Laden took credit/blame for the attack in his videotaped messages. The hijackers were identified. Maybe you should stop listening to the retarded conspiracy theories that come out of the idiots who the mulsim world consider intelligent and pull your head out of your ass.

BTW, Turkish Cypriot? No such thing. Turks are an invading force in Cyprus and should be drowned in the sea.

Well, Bush did see to it that there was plenty of smallpox vaccine produced.

Maybe we should go ahead and vaccinate everyone in the US now, and then send Zarqawi a vial of smallpox, so we can get this over with.

And you belive him?

I have a nice bridge for you to buy.

Smallpox vaccine isn't going to be very effective if the terrorists get their hands on the genetically modified version of Smallpox developed by the Soviets.

An Australian researcher working with mousepox, another orthopox virus and close relative of smallpox, found that by inserting the IL4 gene the virus became 100% fatal against mice that weren't resistant or vaccinated, and better than 60% fatal to mice that were. Kits to modify the genes of a virus are available over the internet with no licensing or regulation. It doesn't take much to imagine a super smallpox sweeping accross the world and killing almost everyone regardless of vaccine.

...is what I call Quaran desecration! If 1 allegedly flushed one caused riots, I can't wait to see what over a dozen burned up ones cause!

Oh, right. It doesn't seem to work that way. :(

Who is the terorists?
Who bombed WTC on 9/11?
Is everything CNN reports true?
Is USA really fighting against the terrorism in Iraq?
I think some of you have to think about these questions. However before begining so, you have to have baseline idea of the topic. I suggest you look for sources of information other than CNN.

1)Al Qaeda... but they didn't bomb the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11... they flew planes into them.

2)No. CNN is for liberals and moderate-liberals. I watch Fox News. (hehe)

3)Yes... the Coalition/USA have killed thousands of insurgents/terrorists who are trying to undermine Iraqis' new-found freedom.

Both CNN and Fox rely heavily on the Associated Press... so your beef must really be with them.

Who is the terorists?
Who bombed WTC on 9/11?
Is everything CNN reports true?
Is USA really fighting against the terrorism in Iraq?
I think some of you have to think about these questions. However before begining so, you have to have baseline idea of the topic. I suggest you look for sources of information other than CNN.

1. Being a "terrorist" is a state of mind very much akin to that of the old world European barbarians. I pervasive epidemic of ignorance, religious or cultural dogmatism, moral bankruptcy, the mind set of "might makes right," and finally an enemy to focus raw human brutality towards.

2. The World Trade Center was attacked by a small number of box knives wielding Muslims who hi-jacked planes and smashed them into the buildings. These man have been identified and their affiliation to Al Quaeda has been proven. In addition to that, Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility for commanding the attack.

3. No, not everything CNN reports is true. What they tell you is selectively chosen from raw data, spun to a perspective, and marketed to maximize profitability. Truth, has next to nothing to do with it.

4. Yes the US is. The man we are dealing with claimed to have affiliation to Al Quaeda, men captured from Iraq (who as I'm sure Whispering Legs will tell you, talk. ALWAYS) have been proven to have affiliation as well. In addition to that, the character I briefly described in #1 can be found toting Soviet Era Crap against US Soldiers all over Iraq.

*Insert obligatory assault aimed at this chaps obviously pathetic intellectual capacity* :rolleyes:

Who is the terorists?

Al Qaeda, Al Zaraqawi, Homicide bombers, those that set up I.E.Ds.

Who bombed WTC on 9/11?

On 9/11, Al Qaeda flew planes into the WTC. They didn't bomb it. That took place in 1993.

Is everything CNN reports true?

Hell no. I don't Trust CNN just like I don't truly trust ANY news media though Fox News is higher on my trust list than other networks.

Is USA really fighting against the terrorism in Iraq?

Yep we are.

I think some of you have to think about these questions. However before begining so, you have to have baseline idea of the topic. I suggest you look for sources of information other than CNN.

I have. Its called the Washington Post, Fox News, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, The Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Reuters, and any other news sites I find credible. :D

Al Quaeda, perhaps with the help of some former taliban, has bombed a mosque during prayer services offered in the memory of an anti-taliban cleric. Combined with the sunni extremist terrorist bombing of a mosque in Karachi earlier this week it surprises me that Muslims worldwide don't start working with the USA to fight our common enemy, the terrorists.

www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3416817&nav=0s3daWbl

Didn't anyone notice the last part of the article where Al Quaeda denied the attack?

Didn't anyone notice the last part of the article where Al Quaeda denied the attack?
Actually the taliban denied responsibility. This was after, according to BBC, a taliban spokesman initially took responsibility for the attack. It's beleived that the taliban later retracted their statement for fear of alienating their supporters.

...it surprises me that Muslims worldwide don't start working with the USA to fight our common enemy, the terrorists.

The trouble with siding with one enemy against the other is... maybe they already decided to side with the terrorists against the USA? :p

Seriously, though, I thought there were already many muslims working with the USA against Al Qaeda and whatnot.

Turks are an invading force in Cyprus and should be drowned in the sea.there is also an invading Force in Iraq...

Actually the taliban denied responsibility. This was after, according to BBC, a taliban spokesman initially took responsibility for the attack. It's beleived that the taliban later retracted their statement for fear of alienating their supporters.Anyone can take responsability for anything...and anyone can retract anything...

want proof?

here: "I hereby take responsability for 9-11, I also take responsability for killing OJ wife...all the Antrax letters and all the Mosque Bombings"

c.c. BBC, Reuters, CNN , AlJazeera , AP, AFP, EFE, CBS , NBC, ABC, FOX ,etc.

there is also an invading Force in Iraq...

Yep called the Terrorists!

BTW: Anyone else here that the Iraqi Foreign Minister is going to ask the UN to extend the coalition forces mandate? I did :D

Anyone can take responsability for anything...and anyone can retract anything...

want proof?

here: "I hereby take responsability for 9-11, I also take responsability for killing OJ wife...all the Antrax letters and all the Mosque Bombings"

c.c. BBC, Reuters, CNN , AlJazeera , AP, AFP, EFE, CBS , NBC, ABC, FOX ,etc.

Curse you! Quick, someone contact the White House! Someone phone Downing Street! Start a war! Blow things up! Wheee! Boom! Bang! Kablooie!

-- sorry. Got a little over excited there.

It's a good point, though. You can't trust what people say, not unless they have proof. And proof is getting easier and easier to forge, in some ways. Therefore, I suggest we bomb everyone. We have to be sure.

-- I'm getting carried away again, aren't I?

Ah the Middle East, the most ignorant, arrogant, region in the world.

Only 1 out of every 1000 Arabs actually truely like America. The other 999 want to blow it straight to hell.

We seriously need to bomb the Al-Jazera Middle East Propoganda Center and set up our own propoganda there. Eventually it will work, but its better than invading every M.E. Country and have our troops die every time.

You can't really put all the blame of USA-hating on the Arabs. You deserve to be hated to be hated.

The trouble with siding with one enemy against the other is... maybe they already decided to side with the terrorists against the USA? :p

Seriously, though, I thought there were already many muslims working with the USA against Al Qaeda and whatnot.

There are... from governments like Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan to individual soldiers and civilians... but if incidents like Abu Gharib and Guantanamo and statements equating this war to the crusades - which are ANATHEMA to Muslims - continue, America will find fewer and fewer friends and more and more enemies.

The muslims I knew in university and as a journalist were intelligent, somewhat reserved folks who just wanted what every typical American or Britisher wants - a good, quiet life with enough to be happy and to provide for their children.

The philosophy of terrorism and armed struggle is this - get the dominating power, whether it's America or a regime you want replaced or a factory owner, to start using violent force against the innocents and to make the innocents feel that you're either 'for us or against us'.

And remember that once enough truth has been told, any lies that are added to it will be taken as truth as well. If I'm a young Iraqi college student who comes home only to be strip searched, have guns pointed at my head or to see my home in flames and my family a heap of mangled flesh at the doorway all thanks to Uncle Sam, any half-truths or even lies Al-Qaida, Osama or whoever tells me will be taken as 'gospel truth'.

Perhaps, in a better, easier to understand world, the heterodoxy known as the Muslim world will rise up and hate both the USA and the extremist groups amongst them. That way no one will be happy, and we can all hate each other without fear of compramise or rational thought getting in the way.

Or perhaps some godd*m moderates could get a voice in that area of the world for once.

1. Being a "terrorist" is a state of mind very much akin to that of the old world European barbarians. I pervasive epidemic of ignorance, religious or cultural dogmatism, moral bankruptcy, the mind set of "might makes right," and finally an enemy to focus raw human brutality towards.



While I agree with all points - though I modify my agreement with the answer to the fourth question: "The US thought it was and to a certain extent it is." I can't help but think that your reply to the first question can be directed as much against the United States as against the so-called 'terrorists'.

Ignorance of other cultures and other people's hurts and grievances against America, religious dogmatism rearing it's ugly head, cultural ethnocentricism, moral bankruptcy (I mean seriously, who produces and consumes most of the pornography in the world - Muslims won't even let their women or any woman for that matter, show her hair in a mosque because that would distract the devout Muslim male from his prayers and focus on Allah), might makes right attitude used against the enemy, the amphorus terrorist.

While Iraq may or may not have had real and dangerous ties to Al Qaida, America's opened up a HUGE can of worms here. Just because we have the smart weapons, the infrastructure and hardware does not guarantee a win. May I remind you of Gandamak, Afghanistan where the remnants of a British army (the most advanced in the world at the time) were slaughtered in unfamiliar and hostile landscape by a populace that hated them... of Isandhlwana where 'native tribesmen' overwhelmed an entire rifle toting British column... of the Moro Wars in the Philippines where fanatically devout suicide fighters would launch berserker charges that were so unstoppable that the US Army had to adapt the 45 caliber pistol... they are ruthless and unyielding at the mass base of their followers are ignorant - and dangerous. And they are fighting for their sovereign nation against what they perceive is a puppet government controlled by morally bankrupt, perverted and pornographic America. What better way to get into heaven and satisfy moral outrage than by killing as many infidel Americans as you can?

Curse you! Quick, someone contact the White House! Someone phone Downing Street! Start a war! Blow things up! Wheee! Boom! Bang! Kablooie!

-- sorry. Got a little over excited there.

It's a good point, though. You can't trust what people say, not unless they have proof. And proof is getting easier and easier to forge, in some ways. Therefore, I suggest we bomb everyone. We have to be sure.

-- I'm getting carried away again, aren't I?
nah... you are right on...
you are reacting like a normal Soviet or US gov...

and the name is just rite "The Eagle of Darkness"...

http://www.mundoposible.cl/imagenes/eagle-us.jpg
AKA "The Blind Eagle"

Yep called the Terrorists!

BTW: Anyone else here that the Iraqi Foreign Minister is going to ask the UN to extend the coalition forces mandate? I did :D
Perhaps you would like to read the letter from the previous Iraqi Foreign Minister before the US illegally invaded his country?

Letter From Iraqi Foreign Minister to the U.N. (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/11/13_iraqi-minister-letter.htm)

November 13, 2002

Perhaps if the US had heeded this letter, then there wouldn't be any mosques blown up in Iraq, no flattening of Fallujah campaigns, no dead US soldiers on Iraqi soil?

nah... you are right on...
you are reacting like a normal Soviet or US gov...

and the name is just rite "The Eagle of Darkness"...

http://www.mundoposible.cl/imagenes/eagle-us.jpg
AKA "The Blind Eagle"

One does one's best.

Al Quaeda, perhaps with the help of some former taliban, has bombed a mosque during prayer services offered in the memory of an anti-taliban cleric. Combined with the sunni extremist terrorist bombing of a mosque in Karachi earlier this week it surprises me that Muslims worldwide don't start working with the USA to fight our common enemy, the terrorists.

www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3416817&nav=0s3daWbl
USA has bombed more mosques than any terrorists. I don't think that they are so keen to cooperate with the country who has done more damage on the area than anyone else.

And yet there are thousands of Muslims fighting with USA. They are more noble than I could ever be.

Perhaps you would like to read the letter from the previous Iraqi Foreign Minister before the US illegally invaded his country?

Letter From Iraqi Foreign Minister to the U.N. (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/11/13_iraqi-minister-letter.htm)

November 13, 2002

Perhaps if the US had heeded this letter, then there wouldn't be any mosques blown up in Iraq, no flattening of Fallujah campaigns, no dead US soldiers on Iraqi soil?

I suggest you get on over to the GlobalSecurity web site, and look at the before and after photos of Fallujah.

It wasn't flattened. Please check your statements for veracity before posting them.

Perhaps you would like to read the letter from the previous Iraqi Foreign Minister before the US illegally invaded his country?

Letter From Iraqi Foreign Minister to the U.N. (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/11/13_iraqi-minister-letter.htm)

November 13, 2002

Perhaps if the US had heeded this letter, then there wouldn't be any mosques blown up in Iraq, no flattening of Fallujah campaigns, no dead US soldiers on Iraqi soil?

By former you mean before our Invasion? LOL!!!! Now your really funny CH!

I suggest you get on over to the GlobalSecurity web site, and look at the before and after photos of Fallujah.

It wasn't flattened. Please check your statements for veracity before posting them.Why look at the pages from 1 web site...when you can see all the pics from all web sites

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Fallujah+massacre&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1193948,00.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FAL409A.html

Why look at the pages from 1 web site...when you can see all the pics from all web sites

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Fallujah+massacre&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

Still not flattened. Pictures of protesters making unsupported assertions don't make Fallujah flat.

None of the mosques, for instance, are out of operation at this point. None were "completely destroyed".

Why? Because US forces went house to house - it's the hard way to clean out resistance.

USA has bombed more mosques than any terrorists. I don't think that they are so keen to cooperate with the country who has done more damage on the area than anyone else.

And yet there are thousands of Muslims fighting with USA. They are more noble than I could ever be.
The USA has gone out of it's way to avoid bombing mosques. Even when clearing Fallujah our troops took care not to damage mosques unless armed terrorists were inside, and then only to do the minimum damage necessary to dislodge or kill the terrorists. Al Quaeda, on the other hand, has intentionally targeted mosques with worshippers inside. See the difference?

there is also an invading Force in Iraq...
They're planning to leave as soon as the situation is stable. The Turks have collonized Cyprus.

Still not flattened.it is indeed possible to kill every man woman and child of any city without "flattening" the buildings..

it is indeed possible to kill every man woman and child of a city without "flattening" the buildings..
Not if you give them warning and allow them to leave first. That's what the US did. We're not the barbarians here.

Not if you give them warning and allow them to leave first. That's what the US did. We're not the barbarians here.Ossama keeps warning us (US citizens) about Israel every time he gets a chance...

...once he gave us the warnings...(according to you) we are all fair play to him...

Ossama keeps warning the US about Israel every time he gets a chance...I guess once he gives the warning...(according to you) we are all fair play to him...
He never said anything about Israel or the Palestinians prior to 9-11.

He never said anything about Israel or the Palestinians prior to 9-11.how would you know?

probably You are not even aware of all the messages he sent us AFTER 911.

Ossama keeps warning us (US citizens) about Israel every time he gets a chance...

...once he gave us the warnings...(according to you) we are all fair play to him...
No, Osama keeps giving ultimatums. The US gave warning to the people of Falujah. If Osama was to be on an ethical par with the USA he'd have made reasonable requests, and told the people in the twin towers not to be at work on 9/11.

how would you know?

probably You are not even aware of all what he said AFTER 911.

Yes I am. I've read every one of the statements he's made publicly online.

In fact, it has even been pointed out by experts that Bin Laden NEVER said a SINGLE WORD about ANYTHING except the stationing of US forces in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War as being the reason for the 1993 and 9-11 attacks.

Yes I am. I've read every one of the statements he's made publicly online.

In fact, it has even been pointed out by experts that Bin Laden NEVER said a SINGLE WORD about ANYTHING except the stationing of US forces in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War as being the reason for the 1993 and 9-11 attacks.

And the embassy bombings not to mention the attacks in Saudi Arabia against our forces there too.

Anyways, we are no longer IN Saudi Arabia so now he's attacking us for supporting Israel. Something he hasn't said before 9/11 but has stated afterwards.

Oceandrive here needs to be brought up to speed.

I think saying that 'Muslims hate the USA' is a bit silly - not all muslims hate the US, in the same way that not all muslims are pro-Al-Qaeda.

it is indeed possible to kill every man woman and child of any city without "flattening" the buildings..

:rollseyes:

Actually it is impossible to do so unless they are running out into the street and getting caught in the cross fire.

Besides, the city had full warning to evacuate. We attacked and didn't even come close to flattening the city nor killing everyone inside it..

:rollseyes:

Actually it is impossible to do so unless they are running out into the street and getting caught in the cross fire.

Besides, the city had full warning to evacuate. We attacked and didn't even come close to flattening the city nor killing everyone inside it..
No, it's possible. Neutron bomb would get the job done. I'm sure somewhere there's a looney conspiracy theory that says we used one.

Yes I am. I've read every one of the statements he's made publicly online.

In fact, it has even been pointed out by experts that Bin Laden NEVER said a SINGLE WORD about ANYTHING except the stationing of US forces in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War as being the reason for the 1993 and 9-11 attacks.
LOL...is that CNN / FOX / AP "experts"?

LOL...is that CNN / FOX / AP "experts"?
Nope.

LOL...is that CNN / FOX / AP "experts"?
Hey OceanDrive, why do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid, brainwashed sheep following the herd?

Hey OceanDrive, why do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid, brainwashed sheep following the herd?

Because he's an Air America loving, die hard, Michael Moore loving Liberal.

Because he's an Air America loving, die hard, Michael Moore loving Liberal.
I'd listen to Air America if their broadcasts reached my area.

I've got some respect for Michael Moore (for his documentary about GM abandoning Flint Michigan to poverty).

I don't act like OceanDrive. It's got nothing to do with being a liberal.

I'd listen to Air America if their broadcasts reached my area.

I've got some respect for Michael Moore (for his documentary about GM abandoning Flint Michigan to poverty).

I don't act like OceanDrive. It's got nothing to do with being a liberal.

I'm a fairly diehard conservative - and I listen to Air America, and NPR, and other news sources on a regular basis. I also READ BOOKS (which I bet Drunk Commies does), and I talk to people who I meet who JUST MAY be experts (it's easier to meet them in Washington, D.C. - the town is full of them).

It also helps to speak several foreign languages, read foreign news sites in their native language, and to have been fairly well traveled.

It's not a conservative/liberal thing. Ocean would rather attack the potential source than discuss what's actually happenning.

I think what Ocean doesn't want to argue with is that the satellite pictures on the Global Security website (showing Fallujah before and after) are not from Department of Defense photos, but photos from a commercial satellite outside of US government control.

The photos show that Fallujah was not leveled, destroyed, etc.

He wouldn't be able to argue that the foreign-owned satellite was corrupted somehow by Fox News.

He wouldn't be able to argue with the content of the photos.

Ocean would rather attack the potential source than discuss what's actually happenning.Any given sunday I will target your sources, your logic, your knoledge, your weak spots, your strong arguments..
I will shoot at anything that moves...

but most of the time I will target your "bottom line"

I got to go...but I will be back

There are... from governments like Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan to individual soldiers and civilians... but if incidents like Abu Gharib and Guantanamo and statements equating this war to the crusades - which are ANATHEMA to Muslims - continue, America will find fewer and fewer friends and more and more enemies.

The muslims I knew in university and as a journalist were intelligent, somewhat reserved folks who just wanted what every typical American or Britisher wants - a good, quiet life with enough to be happy and to provide for their children.

The philosophy of terrorism and armed struggle is this - get the dominating power, whether it's America or a regime you want replaced or a factory owner, to start using violent force against the innocents and to make the innocents feel that you're either 'for us or against us'.

And remember that once enough truth has been told, any lies that are added to it will be taken as truth as well. If I'm a young Iraqi college student who comes home only to be strip searched, have guns pointed at my head or to see my home in flames and my family a heap of mangled flesh at the doorway all thanks to Uncle Sam, any half-truths or even lies Al-Qaida, Osama or whoever tells me will be taken as 'gospel truth'.


thing is, the insurgents are targeting civilians, not the US...

Any given sunday I will target your sources, your logic, your knoledge, your weak spots, your strong argumants.., i will shoot at anything that moves...

but most of the time I will target your "bottom line"

I got to go...but I will be back

Well, make sure you wash your hands when you finish.

And you need to get around to attacking the satellite photos.

By former you mean before our Invasion? LOL!!!! Now your really funny CH!
You find the death of 1600+ US Soldiers, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis is somehow funny?

Not to mention the over 10,000 US soldiers who have been wounded and tens of thousands innocent Iraqis wounded.

His letter states what 4 inspection teams have confirmed....NO WMD in Iraq.

You find the death of 1600+ US Soldiers, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis is somehow funny?

Wait! We only lost 1600? What was it in Vietnam? 55,000! WWII? 400,000! How many Americans lost their lives at Shilo? 22,000. How many died at Gettysburg? 54,000! In perspective, the Iraqi death toll is light. You need to do better than that CanuckHeaven if you expect to put casualty numbers on something. BTW: More civilians have died in WWII, Vietnam, and in Genocides all over the planet but yet, I'm hearing NO ONE complain about that. What's your take on it?

Not to mention the over 10,000 US soldiers who have been wounded and tens of thousands innocent Iraqis wounded.

Goes back to the casualties suffered in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and Civil War.

His letter states what 4 inspection teams have confirmed....NO WMD in Iraq.

And yet they did have reason to lie CanuckHeaven. They didn't want to lose power but they did and all I can say is THANK GOD!!! Go get'em boys. You got the terrorists on the run.

His letter states what 4 inspection teams have confirmed....NO WMD in Iraq.

But we did find out what happened to the 1800 gallons of missing anthrax.

Something that no UN inspection would have ever revealed.

But we did find out what happened to the 1800 gallons of missing anthrax.

Something that no UN inspection would have ever revealed.
What happened to it?

What happened to it?

I drank it. Me and my freinds had a huge kegger.

But we did find out what happened to the 1800 gallons of missing anthrax.

Something that no UN inspection would have ever revealed.


You have to look hard for the anthrax story- I guess people dont feel thats really a threat. Or they are so full of shit they hope we didnt hear about it.

This one was easy to miss, and really illustrates how much credibility Colin Powell willingly sacrificed in front of the UN.

The reason the anthrax in question was measured in gallons is because it was liquid and looked more like coke than a small vial of powder. Worse yet, in that particular state the anthrax only lives a few years before becoming inert. Colin Powell knew this, that there was no evidence the Iraqis had produced any more, and therefore the anthrax he was talking about was harmless even if its whereabouts were indeterminate. I would say it's one of the best examples of how the administration mislead America into the war.
I don't know about you but my coke always looked like a small vial of powder. Well a bag of powder anyway.

But we did find out what happened to the 1800 gallons of missing anthrax.

Something that no UN inspection would have ever revealed.
This one was easy to miss, and really illustrates how much credibility Colin Powell willingly sacrificed in front of the UN.

The reason the anthrax in question was measured in gallons is because it was liquid and looked more like coke than a small vial of powder. Worse yet, in that particular state the anthrax only lives a few years before becoming inert. Colin Powell knew this, that there was no evidence the Iraqis had produced any more, and therefore the anthrax he was talking about had long been harmless even if its whereabouts were indeterminate. I would say it's one of the best examples of how the administration misled America into the war with Iraq.

This one was easy to miss, and really illustrates how much credibility Colin Powell willingly sacrificed in front of the UN.

The reason the anthrax in question was measured in gallons is because it was liquid and looked more like coke than a small vial of powder. Worse yet, in that particular state the anthrax only lives a few years before becoming inert. Colin Powell knew this, that there was no evidence the Iraqis had produced any more, and therefore the anthrax he was talking about had long been harmless even if its whereabouts were indeterminate. I would say it's one of the best examples of how the administration misled America into the war with Iraq.

I challenge you to prove to me that all 1800 gallons of a deadly biological agent could become completely harmless, using medical and scientific terms.

If a terrorist group in Canada or Mexico was in posession of 1800 gallons of a substance that we had reasonable expectations of being dangerous, I bet we'd do something about it regardless of what our neighbor's government thought. Why do you people waste so much effort defending an evil country and it's leader?

Why look at the pages from 1 web site...when you can see all the pics from all web sites

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Fallujah+massacre&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1193948,00.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FAL409A.html

you do realize that the last link in your hate against america happened WAAAY before the fallujah seige right?

and let's get to the real heart of it? Why do you hate america so much?

Wait! We only lost 1600?
ONLY 1600 LOST? Obviously yours wasn't one of them. How nice of you to write off ONLY 1600 deaths of US soldiers. I am sure their families and friends wouldn't quite see it in the same light as you.

These are soldiers who didn't need to die in Iraq over trumped up US charges. There is over 10,000 injured US soldiers who didn't need to get injured in Iraq. There are tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who didn't need to get killed or injured by US soldiers in an illegal and immoral war.

all you can do is downplay the number of US deaths compared to other wars. How magnanimous of you. You believe strongly in this war but you won't put your ass on the line. How nice of you to volunteer someone elses lives.

Did you read the letter by Naji Saberi Ahmed? Probably not. In it, he calls out Colin Powell and rightly so, and it shows that the US was detrmined to invade Iraq, NO MATTER WHAT!!

Let's go back to say that Iraq, having seen this fabrication work perhaps with some countries and amongst public opinion, while others maintained silence, confronted them with its agreement to the return of the UN inspectors, having agreed on this first with you, as UN chief, in New York on 16 September, 2002, and later in a press statement issued jointly in Vienna following a meeting on 30th September-1st October between an Iraqi technical delegation headed by Dr. Amer Al-Sa'di, Chief Inspector Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But after Iraq's acceptance of the return of the UN inspectors had become an established fact including the agreement of 19 October, 2002, on the date of their return, and only a few hours this agreement was reached, Collin Powell, the US Secretary of Sate, declared that he would refuse to accept the inspectors' return to Iraq.


And yet they did have reason to lie CanuckHeaven. They didn't want to lose power but they did and all I can say is THANK GOD!!! Go get'em boys. You got the terrorists on the run.
Again you are so confused. The majority of insurgents are Iraqi Sunnis, and they don't appear to be going away just yet?

ONLY 1600 LOST? Obviously yours wasn't one of them. How nice of you to write off ONLY 1600 deaths of US soldiers. I am sure their families and friends wouldn't quite see it in the same light as you.

I"m sure you realize that 1600 soldiers died in the cause of freedom? 400,000 did the same in World War II. "One life lost is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" I put things into perspective. I"m a realist. Sixteen hundred americans that lost their lives is tragic. However, when I stack it up to other casualty numbers, its nothing. I mourn each soldier that has lost their lives in Iraq AND in Afghanistan. However, when seen in a grand scheme of things.... 1600 soldiers dieing is nothing compared to the numbers that died in Vietnam, Korea, World War II, World War I, and the Civil War.

These are soldiers who didn't need to die in Iraq over trumped up US charges. There is over 10,000 injured US soldiers who didn't need to get injured in Iraq. There are tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who didn't need to get killed or injured by US soldiers in an illegal and immoral war.

*yawns* 1600 soldiers died removing a tyrant and a threat from the Middle East. Sixteen Hundred soldiers died to remove a terrorist from his own nation. Sixteen Hundred Soldiers died to make sure the Iraqi people don't have to suffer from Prejudice as well as rape and torture rooms. Break down the civilian casualty numbers and you'll find that most have died, not as a result of American attacks, but by Saddam's gang of thugs and of the terrorists threatening the stability of Iraq.

all you can do is downplay the number of US deaths compared to other wars. How magnanimous of you. You believe strongly in this war but you won't put your ass on the line. How nice of you to volunteer someone elses lives.

Maybe because I can serve my country in better ways. Besides, I don't want to put up with the eneptness of our political generals who would rather issue orders from the United States and not on the Front lines with the troops they theoretically command.

Did you read the letter by Naji Saberi Ahmed? Probably not. In it, he calls out Colin Powell and rightly so, and it shows that the US was detrmined to invade Iraq, NO MATTER WHAT!!

Who cares what a member of the Old Iraqi Regime has to say.

Again you are so confused. The majority of insurgents are Iraqi Sunnis, and they don't appear to be going away just yet?

And yet SUNNI is the majority of the Islamic faith if I remember right. The Sunnis want the power back in Iraq so they can keep the Shi'ites down. We're not going to let that happen and neither will the Iraqi people. Besides that, the Sunni Iraqi people are now joining the political process. The Insurgency is starting to unravel. They are despirit. The Iraqis can almost defend themselves now. Soon we'll leave.

God Bless Our men and women in Uniform

I think what Ocean doesn't want to argue with is that the satellite pictures on the Global Security website (showing Fallujah before and after) are not from Department of Defense photos, but photos from a commercial satellite outside of US government control.

The photos show that Fallujah was not leveled, destroyed, etc..and when did I ever say that Falluhah was leveled ?

as usual you are assuming I said something...and as usual you are wrong.

like I sais so many times...read the posts WL, read the posts.

Well, make sure you wash your hands when you finish.
thank you for reminding me to wash my hands...you are so caring.

*damn, he reminds me of my late aunt...always reminding me to wash my hands*

you do realize that the last link in your hate against america happened WAAAY before the fallujah seige right?

and let's get to the real heart of it? Why do you hate america so much?What makes you assume I hate America?

BTW, I am from America...I would appreciate it if you use capitals..like this: America.

I would do the same for your country..wherever you are from.

I challenge you to prove to me that all 1800 gallons of a deadly biological agent could become completely harmless, using medical and scientific terms.

If a terrorist group in Canada or Mexico was in posession of 1800 gallons of a substance that we had reasonable expectations of being dangerous, I bet we'd do something about it regardless of what our neighbor's government thought. Why do you people waste so much effort defending an evil country and it's leader?
No need to use jargon. Scott Ritter said as much in an interview. And from what I remember from my math 308 class, and problems on the growth and death of populations, he's deafinately not kidding. That's why the US and Russians put so much effort into drying and removing the static charge from anthrax to get it into a convienenty powdered form (such as was used in the anthrax letters). It's hard to do, but I guess it's convienent to know that if you want it, it's on the shelf. And no, if we knew it was biologically inert, we wouldn't overreact, our intelligence services would use their advantage wisely. They'd take the time to learn as much as possible about those involved and try to kill the whole thing at once. Contrary to the current administration's opinion, the national security services are extremely competent organizations, and in the case of the CIA, they've already stopped WWIII once back in 1992.

It's not an accident Colin Powell held up the significantly more threatening vial of powder, when a bottle of coke would have been a far more apt (and easier to obtain) metaphor. Think about that.

I suggest you get on over to the GlobalSecurity web site, and look at the before and after photos of Fallujah.

It wasn't flattened. Please check your statements for veracity before posting them.
Apparently it not just about aerial shots, it is about words (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/14/MNGF69RDSN1.DTL):

"The city's a mess; we destroyed a lot of houses," Hammes said. "Now we've got to go in and fix them."

And pictures from the ground level:

Gruesome ones included. (http://crisispictures.org/infocus/2005/05/fallujah-in-pictures.html)

Al Quaeda, perhaps with the help of some former taliban, has bombed a mosque during prayer services offered in the memory of an anti-taliban cleric. Combined with the sunni extremist terrorist bombing of a mosque in Karachi earlier this week it surprises me that Muslims worldwide don't start working with the USA to fight our common enemy, the terrorists.

www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3416817&nav=0s3daWbl

You don't seem to realize that the USA has screwed these people over so much in the past decades that it still looks worse than the Taliban. I wouldn't like someone who blew up a place of worship for my religion, but I would feel worse about someone who's done the same thing dozens of times over. Especially if the former successfully claims to do it in the name of this religion. Here is where "collateral damage" and "ends justifying the means" comes back to haunt you.

Apparently it not just about aerial shots, it is about words (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/14/MNGF69RDSN1.DTL):

"The city's a mess; we destroyed a lot of houses," Hammes said. "Now we've got to go in and fix them."

And pictures from the ground level:

Gruesome ones included. (http://crisispictures.org/infocus/2005/05/fallujah-in-pictures.html)

None of the mosques in the city of Fallujah were "destroyed". All of them are still standing, and all are still in use.

The vast majority of homes are still there - and not "flattened".

You need to choose your words carefully. You make it sound as though the place was indiscriminately carpet bombed from the air - something the US does not do, or even have the equipment to do anymore - because we don't employ unguided bombs from bombers anymore.

The number of civilian casualties in Fallujah as a percentage of the population was extremely low - and the evacuation of civilians prior to the battle was an instrumental part of keeping them low. If we had intended to kill everyone there, and didn't care about civilian casualties, and just wanted to get as many insurgents as possible, we could have prevented everyone from leaving, and definitely eliminated everyone.

As it is, Canuck, nearly 500,000 people heeded the warning, and left Fallujah. The drawback was that a lot of insurgents, including Zarqawi (who isn't even an Iraqi) left the city. If the US was as evil as you propose, we would have killed the 500,000 people just to get Zarqawi. As it stands, we did nothing of the sort.

Tragically, there are still civilian casualties. But not on the scale that you and others constantly imply.

I don't for one second believe that a photo of a dead or wounded civilian is from an actual location at an actual time - especially if the photo is being used by people who side with the insurgents. I've seen far too many intentionally misidentified photos through the years used by Palestinian propagandists (the best ones are completely mismatched photos of a woman and a bulldozer). That, and some Photoshop, will get you a cup of coffee in Baghdad.

You don't seem to realize that the USA has screwed these people over so much in the past decades that it still looks worse than the Taliban. I wouldn't like someone who blew up a place of worship for my religion, but I would feel worse about someone who's done the same thing dozens of times over. Especially if the former successfully claims to do it in the name of this religion. Here is where "collateral damage" and "ends justifying the means" comes back to haunt you.
What has the USA done to "screw these people over"? We weren't the former collonial powers. We weren't invading them like the Soviets. We've provided aid to them.

What has the USA done to "screw these people over"? .in one word:

Israel

in one word:

Israel

Ocean, up until the Iraq war, that's not what Osama said.

None of the mosques in the city of Fallujah were "destroyed". All of them are still standing, and all are still in use.

The vast majority of homes are still there - and not "flattened".

You need to choose your words carefully. You make it sound as though the place was indiscriminately carpet bombed from the air - something the US does not do, or even have the equipment to do anymore - because we don't employ unguided bombs from bombers anymore.

The number of civilian casualties in Fallujah as a percentage of the population was extremely low - and the evacuation of civilians prior to the battle was an instrumental part of keeping them low. If we had intended to kill everyone there, and didn't care about civilian casualties, and just wanted to get as many insurgents as possible, we could have prevented everyone from leaving, and definitely eliminated everyone.

As it is, Canuck, nearly 500,000 people heeded the warning, and left Fallujah. The drawback was that a lot of insurgents, including Zarqawi (who isn't even an Iraqi) left the city. If the US was as evil as you propose, we would have killed the 500,000 people just to get Zarqawi. As it stands, we did nothing of the sort.

Tragically, there are still civilian casualties. But not on the scale that you and others constantly imply.

I don't for one second believe that a photo of a dead or wounded civilian is from an actual location at an actual time - especially if the photo is being used by people who side with the insurgents. I've seen far too many intentionally misidentified photos through the years used by Palestinian propagandists (the best ones are completely mismatched photos of a woman and a bulldozer). That, and some Photoshop, will get you a cup of coffee in Baghdad.
Herein lies the main problem. You state one thing, which would probably closely mirror the government stance and then on the other side, you get stories such as this one (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6E722418-6B50-4D2A-93E1-77C9A8FC6DAC.htm):

Almost half of the mosques in the Iraqi city of Falluja have been destroyed, with US warplanes launching air strikes and fierce fighting on the ground continuing........

Many of the city's 300,000 people had fled to escape air strikes and artillery bombardments preceding the assault. The US military said about half the residents had fled.

So, who do we believe? You seem to totally support Bush's foreign policy, and of course Aljazeera is a mainstream Arabic news site.

Of course, there are other news reports or commentary:

The Destruction of Mosques in Fallujah: An Open Letter to George Bush (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1210-32.htm)

The city of mosques -- Fallujah -- now lies mostly in ruins. So do many of its mosques.

While you would have us believe your story, there are more reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35979-2004Nov9_2.html) that contradict your position:

The Jolan and Askali neighborhoods seemed particularly hard hit, with more than half of the houses destroyed. Dead bodies were scattered on the streets and narrow alleys of Jolan, one of Fallujah's oldest neighborhoods. Blood and flesh were splattered on the walls of some of the houses, witnesses said, and the streets were full of holes.

Some of the heaviest damage apparently was incurred Monday night from air and artillery attacks that coincided with the entry of ground troops into the city. U.S. warplanes dropped eight 2,000-pound bombs on the city overnight, and artillery boomed throughout the night and into the morning.

And one more, even though there are many more:

This article in the Guardian tells us quite a bit more than we've heard to date:

Other glimpses of life in Falluja come from Dr Hafid al-Dulaimi, head of the city's compensation commission, who reports that 36,000 homes were destroyed in the US onslaught, along with 8,400 shops. Sixty nurseries and schools were ruined, along with 65 mosques and religious sanctuaries.

The city's pre-campaign population was appx. 300,000. If 36,000 homes were destroyed with four people per home, that's around half of the city's homes.

All of these stories are just fabrications? I don't think so.

All of these stories are just fabrications? I don't think so.

I do. I've spoken to people who are currently stationed there, and have set foot in every mosque in Fallujah.

They aren't commanders or high ranking officers, or senior government officials. They have no reason to lie about what they do.

At no time were jet fighters used to hit any targets in Fallujah. The AC-130 was used almost exclusively to selectively hit individual people from the air.

NO mosques were destroyed CanuckHeaven. If some where then its because the terrorists were hiding there. Therefore they are a legitament military target if the terrorists and insurgents fire at us from there.

I do. I've spoken to people who are currently stationed there, and have set foot in every mosque in Fallujah.

They aren't commanders or high ranking officers, or senior government officials. They have no reason to lie about what they do.

At no time were jet fighters used to hit any targets in Fallujah. The AC-130 was used almost exclusively to selectively hit individual people from the air.
I don't want to call you a liar, so I will continue to post opposing stories, this one from Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm):

Operation al-Fajr (Dawn)
Operation Phantom Fury [Fallujah]

November 8, 2004 - ?

This operation was initially named Phantom Fury by DoD. It was later renamed Operation al-Fajr (Arabic for Dawn) by the Iraqi Defence Minister.

An estimated 10,000-15,000 American troops launched Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah on November 8, 2004. This followed weeks of aerial bombardment by U.S. planes.

Not days of bombing but weeks.

From the same article:

On 09 November 2004 U.S. air strikes destroyed an apartment complex and train station prior to U.S. troops pushing into south Fallujah.

Again, these points run contrary to your stories, and those who you have spoken to.

I don't want to call you a liar, so I will continue to post opposing stories, this one from Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-phantom-fury-fallujah.htm):

Operation al-Fajr (Dawn)
Operation Phantom Fury [Fallujah]

November 8, 2004 - ?

This operation was initially named Phantom Fury by DoD. It was later renamed Operation al-Fajr (Arabic for Dawn) by the Iraqi Defence Minister.

An estimated 10,000-15,000 American troops launched Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah on November 8, 2004. This followed weeks of aerial bombardment by U.S. planes.

Not days of bombing but weeks.

From the same article:

On 09 November 2004 U.S. air strikes destroyed an apartment complex and train station prior to U.S. troops pushing into south Fallujah.

Again, these points run contrary to your stories, and those who you have spoken to.


FOLLOWED is the operative word. During the Operation there were no airstrikes from fighter or bomber aircraft. All airstrikes after 8 Nov were done by AC-130.

And the city was not carpet bombed, and it was not leveled. All of the mosques are still standing.

FOLLOWED is the operative word. During the Operation there were no airstrikes from fighter or bomber aircraft. All airstrikes after 8 Nov were done by AC-130.

And the city was not carpet bombed, and it was not leveled. All of the mosques are still standing.


Interesting.

And how do you validate the claim?

What makes you assume I hate America?

BTW, I am from America...I would appreciate it if you use capitals..like this: America.

I would do the same for your country..wherever you are from.

my caps lock key is broken (roll) so what if i type america or America or russia or Russia, or Iraq or iraq. You get the meaning, and i don't like to use caps (call me lazy)

and if you look at my little name it shows where i'm from. which you obviously didn't check if you're asking where i'm from.

what makes me assume you hate America(for your benefit)? the fact that you post links from what appears to be extremely biased "news" sources, and posting images of something that wasn't even related to the siege of fallujah (ah, i noticed how you didn't care if i didn't capitalize the city...) in defense against said siege.(or is it seige... either way)

that, and what i perceive to be your general disdain for americans being in Iraq.

FOLLOWED is the operative word. During the Operation there were no airstrikes from fighter or bomber aircraft. All airstrikes after 8 Nov were done by AC-130.

And the city was not carpet bombed, and it was not leveled. All of the mosques are still standing.
Actually the operative words here are:

"weeks of aerial bombardment by U.S. planes"

And more, (http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle6000.html) from boots on the ground:

Marine, Army and Iraqi troops opened their Fallujah assault Nov. 8 with massive artillery and air strikes pounding the city before tanks, armored vehicles and troops on foot pushed in from the north.

Again, further down the article:

When Fallujans do return en masse, they will find many parts of their city in ruins, with bank buildings scorched, mosques bombed, shops destroyed, cars burned, doors to their homes forced open and their cupboards and drawers rifled by foreigners.

"It's going to be difficult putting Fallujah together again, but not impossible," said Pashos. "That is the saddest, to have it all come to this, all these people's homes destroyed."

More fabrications? I think not.

In an age when the US is trying to design weapons that limit and reduce civilian casualties, we have an official policy proclamation from al-Q that says that killing as many innocent Muslims on their own side is good and necessary even if it only results in the death of a single infidel.
That's why we who stand for human rights are the good and the Islama-Nazis are the evil.

Another note, this reminds me of that time I heard the US bombed a Baghdad restaurant because they thought Saddam might have been inside. Instead a bunch of innocent civilians were killed. Don't ask me for a source, I don't have one, so you can say this is a lie if you want.

NO mosques were destroyed CanuckHeaven. If some where then its because the terrorists were hiding there. Therefore they are a legitament military target if the terrorists and insurgents fire at us from there.
So obviously you really don't know what you are talking about, seeing that you contradicted yourself. :eek:

Actually the operative words here are:

"weeks of aerial bombardment by U.S. planes"

-snip-
The heavy handed tactics used in Fallujah were regrettable but may have been necessary. Besides, Germany suffered much worse than this at the hands of the Allies in WWII, but that all turned out for the best. Everything was rebuilt there, and Fallujah will be rebuilt too.

in one word:

Israel
1 Israel has nothing to do with Pakistan and Afghanistan, where this mosque bombing story comes from.

2 If the Arabs can't get used to Israel continuing to exist, tough shit. We'll continue to fight and they'll continue to suffer and die until they realize that no matter what they do Israel will not be pushed into the sea. It's a democratic nation, it's an ally of the USA, and it's not going anywhere.

The heavy handed tactics used in Fallujah were regrettable but may have been necessary. Besides, Germany suffered much worse than this at the hands of the Allies in WWII, but that all turned out for the best. Everything was rebuilt there, and Fallujah will be rebuilt too.
Heavy handed tactics? Talk to me about being heavy handed when a bunch of B1 bombers drop full bombloads indiscriminately and gut a city without warning the civilian population. That's heavy handed. Maybe it should be done once or twice to show the world just how much restraint the US military has shown in the Iraq war. You know, put things into perspective.

So obviously you really don't know what you are talking about, seeing that you contradicted yourself. :eek:

How did I contradict myself when I clearly said the word IF? I think you lost your reading comprehension skills.

IF some where destroyed then apparently the terrorists were firing at us from inside them so they are clearly military targets. Thats under international law too incase you've forgotten.

...If the Arabs can't get used to Israel continuing to exist, tough shit. We'll continue to fight and they'll continue to suffer and die...haha...your "foreign policy" always comes down to the Imperial song

its the Arabs we are after
we got Death Star
we got Death Star
we got Death Star
they will join us or suffer...
they will join us or Die

haha...your "foreign policy" always comes down to the Imperial song

its the Arabs we are after
we got Death Star
we got Death Star
we got Death Star
they will join us or suffer...
they will join us or Die
except we're not trying to build an empire. If someone attacks our allies shouldn't we help defend them? If repressive theocrats attack a democracy shouldn't we go to it's aid?

haha...your "foreign policy" always comes down to the Imperial song

its the Arabs we are after
we got Death Star
we got Death Star
we got Death Star
they will join us or suffer...
they will join us or Die

Now thats funny! That's really funny. Sorry that we support Israel! NOT!!!!

Someone on this planet has to defend them so no one else is smart enough to do it, that leaves it to the most powerful country on Earth.

Germany suffered much worse than this at the hands of the Allies in WWII, but that all turned out for the best.
lets firebomb every poor city...and they will turn out for the best. :rolleyes:
Everything was rebuilt there, and Fallujah will be rebuilt too.Just like Afghanistan was rebuilt...

The heavy handed tactics used in Fallujah were regrettable but may have been necessary. Besides, Germany suffered much worse than this at the hands of the Allies in WWII, but that all turned out for the best. Everything was rebuilt there, and Fallujah will be rebuilt too.
Well the only thing that is regrettable about the Iraq War was that it was started in the first place, which would have made the flattening of Fallujah unnecessary to begin with.

Actually, I don't see how the US can win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis by bombing their cities and killing innocent citizens, and destroying their habitats and mosques.

This campaign is totally different than the one in Germany. You do recall that it was the Germans who started the war? The Iraqis didn't ask the US to liberate them, especially by blowing them to bits.

If repressive theocrats attack a democracy shouldn't we go to it's aid?we didn't help Iran's Democracy when It was savagely destroyed by a repressive force...and we din help the Chilean Democracy when they were drowned on their own blood by the same repressive force on 9-11.

How did I contradict myself when I clearly said the word IF? I think you lost your reading comprehension skills.

IF some where destroyed then apparently the terrorists were firing at us from inside them so they are clearly military targets. Thats under international law too incase you've forgotten.
My comprehension was good enough to find your obvious contradiction. :D

we didn't help Iran's Democracy when I was attacked by a repressive force...and we din help the Chilean Democracy when they were attacked by the same repressive force on 9-11.
So since we failed in those situations we should quit? We should allow another democracy to fall to barbarians?

Well the only thing that is regrettable about the Iraq War was that it was started in the first place, which would have made the flattening of Fallujah unnecessary to begin with.

IT! WAS! NOT! FLATTEN!

My comprehension was good enough to find your obvious contradiction. :D

I'm still waiting since I know for a fact I said the word if. Wanna point it out to me?

Heavy handed tactics?
I meant relative to the rest of the military's behaviour in the war.

So since we failed in those situations we should quit? We should allow another democracy to fall to barbarians?at the very least we should stop funding those barbarians...if we pay for the barbarians weapons and if we pay for the barbarians expenses...we are just as guilty of torture and murder.

at the very least we should stop funding those barbarians...if we pay for the barbarians weapons and if we pay for the barbarians expenses...we are just as guilty of torture and murder.
I agree. We shouldn't fund or support in any way governments or non state actors who run contrary to the ideals of human rights and democracy.

Well the only thing that is regrettable about the Iraq War was that it was started in the first place, which would have made the flattening of Fallujah unnecessary to begin with.

Actually, I don't see how the US can win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis by bombing their cities and killing innocent citizens, and destroying their habitats and mosques.

This campaign is totally different than the one in Germany. You do recall that it was the Germans who started the war? The Iraqis didn't ask the US to liberate them, especially by blowing them to bits.

last time I checked, it was the insurgents who were targeting civilians...

and if you don't think the war should have been started, you're admitting that Saddam Hussein's brutal reign was just fine and dandy. Either you want him in power, or you don't. Thanks to the coalition, he's gone. The war is worth it because of that.

I'm still waiting since I know for a fact I said the word if. Wanna point it out to me?
You went from a definite "NO", to an indefinite "IF", and if you cannot see the contradiction, then I cannot help you.

I agree. We shouldn't fund or support in any way governments or non state actors who run contrary to the ideals of human rights and democracy.
holy cow...

I agreed with you and with Corneliu...all the same day...

you guys are using your jedi powers on me...arent you? :D

You went from a definite "NO", to an indefinite "IF", and if you cannot see the contradiction, then I cannot help you.

Either that or your not understanding what I said. Frankly I go with the latter and not the former.

last time I checked, it was the insurgents who were targeting civilians...

and if you don't think the war should have been started, you're admitting that Saddam Hussein's brutal reign was just fine and dandy. Either you want him in power, or you don't. Thanks to the coalition, he's gone. The war is worth it because of that.
You make an assumption that by not backing this war, then I am backing Saddam. You assume wrong.

The US precipitated this war for the wrong reasons and the results have been devestating to the people of Iraq, and I do believe that the public relations fallout for the US has been equally devestating.

Saying that Saddam was a brutal dictator and killed thousands of Iraqis is not improved by US forces killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and destroying their country in the process.

lets firebomb every poor city...and they will turn out for the best.
I didn't say anything like "every city should be levelled or firebombed". I said heavy tactics were sometimes necessary.

Just like Afghanistan was rebuilt...
Or Germany, Italy, Austria, France, or Poland. Or Japan. Or South Korea.

The Afghanistan occupation was a joke. If the US had any sense they would put about 100,000 more troops in there and flood the country with social workers. But they won't because the Republicans are right-wing bastards, supported by nationalistic armchair Rambos who don't care about what happens as long as they get to smash some Ay-Arabz.

Actually, I don't see how the US can win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis by bombing their cities and killing innocent citizens, and destroying their habitats and mosques.
By building hospitals, schools and infrastructure. Which they have already begun to do.

This campaign is totally different than the one in Germany. You do recall that it was the Germans who started the war? The Iraqis didn't ask the US to liberate them, especially by blowing them to bits.
Saddam did start this war. The only problem was that it came 23 years too late, thanks very much Ronald fucking Reagan. Saddam should have been removed as soon as he started his war against Iran that killed 1.5 million of their people. Kind of like Germany how invaded Poland in 1939.

The Germans didn't ask the US to liberate them, especially by blowing them to bits. But most Germans today are glad that the US did just that.

Your antiwar forces never asked the Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal Talabani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_Talabani)'s party, for example, is a member in good standing of the Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called internationalism.

The US precipitated this war for the wrong reasons and the results have been devestating to the people of Iraq, and I do believe that the public relations fallout for the US has been equally devestating.

Saying that Saddam was a brutal dictator and killed thousands of Iraqis is not improved by US forces killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and destroying their country in the process.
It was started for the wrong reasons, but for the right results. That's good enough.

The US has not killed anything like the number of people Saddam killed in Iraq. They're not destroying the country á la Vietnam. The vast majority of fighting is in the Sunni areas.

It was improved. Saddams sons were even more sadistic than he was. When they inherited the leadership I have no doubt that the Iraqi people would continues to suffer from many more years of torture and genocide.

It was started for the wrong reasons, but for the right results. That's good enough.
I believe that most of the world will disagree with the results. Even a majority of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq wasn't "worth it".

The US has not killed anything like the number of people Saddam killed in Iraq.
How do you know that? Are you counting the ones that rebelled against him (spurred on by Bush Sr.) during the Gulf War?

They're not destroying the country á la Vietnam.
The war isn't over yet, so give them enough time and maybe they will succeed?

The vast majority of fighting is in the Sunni areas.
This is acceptable then?

It was improved. Saddams sons were even more sadistic than he was. When they inherited the leadership I have no doubt that the Iraqi people would continues to suffer from many more years of torture and genocide.
You cannot say for sure what the future would have held for Iraq?

It was started for the wrong reasons, but for the right results. That's good enough.

The US has not killed anything like the number of people Saddam killed in Iraq. They're not destroying the country á la Vietnam. The vast majority of fighting is in the Sunni areas.

It was improved. Saddams sons were even more sadistic than he was. When they inherited the leadership I have no doubt that the Iraqi people would continues to suffer from many more years of torture and genocide.

I don't believe it. We agree on something!! :eek: