NationStates Jolt Archive

which of your civil liberties have been curbed?

...none of mine have.

then again, I'm not a terrorist, so I wouldn't know... (not saying you are... saying that we're targeting enemies of the state as opposed to people like you and me.)

Yes, Big Brother protects and loves you and would never abuse his power or target an innocent.

Ok, here's one for ya: you're saying that Bush's wiretapping is unconstitutional. Now, let's look at the "Privacy Amendment", the 14th Amedment.

Section 1 says: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You're still under the jursdiction of the US! You cannot claim immunity from the same body that grants you those rights, otherwise you lose them. That's like me stealing a car, getting arrested, and then saying that the investigation is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's right to privacy. AND WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU SEE RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXPLICTLY STATED IN THERE ANYWAYS?! I want you to find the exact text in that section that mentions it. The rest of the amendment doesn't address this issue, so don't worry about it.

Ok, so you might try to pull the 4th Amendment into this, alright,

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

These searches are within reason, they have probable cause. Would you like to not be informed of a terrorist living next door to you? I sure as hell wouldn't!

In short: STFU!

Speaking of STFU.

The 4th Amendment is violated by the President's order because they are warrantless, illegal, and not based on probable cause. (And for about a dozen more specific reasons).

Your grade school reading of the 14th Amendment is hilarious. I'm giggling too hard to bother correcting your nonsense.

Speaking of STFU.

The 4th Amendment is violated by the President's order because they are warrantless, illegal, and not based on probable cause. (And for about a dozen more specific reasons).

Your grade school reading of the 14th Amendment is hilarious. I'm giggling too hard to bother correcting your nonsense.

so basically if he is warrantless, then anything he finds will be invalid in a court of law.

rofl, yeah, oil again

so if we're in Iraq for oil... why aren't we just taking their oil?

we could really bring prices down with all that new supply... assuming demand stays about where it is.
If you're ROFL at the idea that oil is the reason we have terrorism, than please pull your head out of the sand when you stand up.
Your piss-poor connection wasn't hitting the mark, either. We aren't in Iraq to somehow acquire their oil. I've never even hinted at that conlusion, you did.
Since it's gone over your head, let me explain it in a sentence or two since you've obviously glossed over my posts explaining my perspective.

We, as stupid people, have elected pussy poll-chasers who can't give it to us straight; Oil is killing us (literally). We fund our own demise by giving billions to Saudi shitbags ... I mean, our friends (wink, wink), the Royal Family, who fund the terrorists we're pretending to fight effectively.
Like junkies, we're deep in denial. We think clamping down on our civil liberties, or taking out Saddham is going to cure the problem, when it barely treats the symptoms.
We do this to ourselves so we can drive around couches-on-wheels without a second thought. God forbid a politician should ask us, the ever-entitled, to think twice before taking our fat asses to Costco in the urban tank for our lawnbag of chips. Victory garden? Shit, the baby boomer generation on up can't even be bothered to turn down the AC a few degrees to save America.
No, that would be doing something, God forbid. It's easier just to give up our securities here at home, requiring no effort at all on our part. Just the way we like it.

Of course, the truth is usually the least heard of all perspectives here in America, so I'm not suprised that I don't see anyone else here calling Captain Obvious, but I will.

so basically if he is warrantless, then anything he finds will be invalid in a court of law.

It isn't quite that simple. But, no, the results of illegal wiretaps won't be admissible in court.

It isn't quite that simple. But, no, the results of illegal wiretaps won't be admissible in court.


so if anything he finds is useless, and invalid then why do it???
who is this really protecting? no one

um it was a joke.....stupid bitch
:eek:
How dare you treat me like your cellmate treats you!
;)
So, how 'bout an informed perspective on "The Rusty Tailpipe"?

That schtick got old faster than "You might be a redneck".
Yeah, the banality almost overtook me even as i typed it. But i managed. I'm not proud, but i'm stickin' to it.
*sigh*

Sorry, Jackson White?
THAT one's even older than the first one.
Really, you should get some new material.
Maybe those dudes you pissed off on the other thread can beat some into you - er, i mean, PERSUADE you to try new material.
You shouldn't be afraid of change.
Don't worry, we're open minded here, that's why we listen.

I agree completly though I would go further and say that newspeak was infact an attempt to limit what people could think based on limiting what they had the ability to say. eg. no word for revolution=no revolution but thats another debate
Agreed. I've heard the same from a friend of mine, and even after reading AND watching, i took it to be the same nature that propaganda possesses .... good point. I hadn't gone far enough.

rofl, yeah, oil again

so if we're in Iraq for oil... why aren't we just taking their oil?

we could really bring prices down with all that new supply... assuming demand stays about where it is.
THINK about it for a second. Under EVERY dubious condition the Bush admin has provided so far ... just how much do expect the rest of the world to agree with us if they hadn't been rationalizing out the INVASION?
see the Downing Street Memos and all the other stuff i've mentioned and educate yourself.
I've even heard some arseholes talking about using neutron weapons on the people in Iraq right from the get-go of the invasion. Just what do you think the f*cking international consequence would be to that? THINK about it.
Oh yeah, manly swagger and brush clearing, that'll do the trick.

*ahem* (posted elsewhere)

"We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." – March 30, 2003 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos
coupled with, of course ....
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

:eek:
How dare you treat me like your cellmate treats you!
;)
So, how 'bout an informed perspective on "The Rusty Tailpipe"?

give it a rest already

which of your civil liberties have been curbed?

I wouldn't know...

...none of mine have.

I wouldn't know...


That makes your post a little more synchronized with your sense of things, without the extra words you typed to screw it up ... in the right order.

On top of all that, everyone involved in the matter is subject to a squelch order, so no one is allowed to talk about it, even if required by a court of law to do so.
Yeah... If that's 'legal', then why not blow up a few buildings. Not even George's pre-packed Supreme kangaroo-Court would uphold that crap.

give it a rest already
Half-rest, or whole rest? What's the time signature? Are we doing jazz?
Hum a few bars.
Oh wait, i have to do approximately ... wait for it ... SH*T that you tell me to do, you misogynist whelp.
Back to the 40's with you.

Does this help?
http://www.shrubbish.com/bushflowchart.jpg

Okay maybe you did not get the memo....

This topic has already been done... and done... and done.... See how annoying repitition is? My God cant somone be original? Or are we all sheep that just listen and bleet whenever the shepard tells us what to think...

Now if you will excuse me kind sir I must ask the chisire cat on which way i should go... Wonderland is not an easy place to navigate and i wish to stay away from the queen of hearts..... *walks away*
:headbang:
Bush keeps doing it and doing it and doing it... (Edit)It's about time that waste of meat was impeached, tried for treason and executed. Just like any other sleaze-bag felon who causes the death of thousands of people. And there's no way I'm joining a bunch of brain-dead psychos like the NRA.(/Edit)

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.

Erroneous statement. Since the Patriot act has trod in effect, more than 15 anarchists and libertarians U.S-wide have been detained and interrogating when phone taps revealed that they were planning protests and happenings; neither of which compromise the national security in any way.

An even better question is this:

Is your life worth someone in the NSA accidentally listening in on your phone conversation with your mom?

What if Osama called you... shouldn't the NSA/USA know about that?

This is ridiculous... the number one, NUMBER ONE, responsibility of the US government is to protect its citizens. If we're dead from a terrorist attack, we can't enjoy any rights.

Big picture: The realities of terrorism have made it necessary to upgrade certain security measures, like tapping into the phone lines of those we think are conversing with the Enemy. Of course we've probably always done this (well, since we've been able to, anyway)... it's just now coming to the fore with all these people whining about their rights being trampled on, missing the fact that without some of these tactics they might end up dead.

I'm not talking to Osama or other terrorist agents/enemies of the state
I'm not a terrorist

If the above statements are true, you should have nothing to worry about in terms of losing any rights whatsoever. I sure as hell want to know if anyone in America is talking to UBL. I would thinhk most Americans want the same thing, but I guess potential terrorists' rights are more important than the right of every American to live.

Oh goody! Mommy government will protect us! Somehow this country managed to survive for over two-hundred years without trashing the Constitution, violating the law, and stomping all over the human rights of the American people. Maybe the problem is that we elected idiots.

Bush keeps doing it and doing it and doing it... If only someone would put a bullet into that waste of meat. I'd join the effing NRA, if that happened
I think you are mistaken when you advocate assassinating a world leader. You probably ought to reconsider this statement.

And how does spying on the international communications of people who are known to be involved with terrorists anti-democratic? It's not being used to silence political dissent, nor is it being used to rig elections.

Because if you buy a copy of 1984 with a credit card you're automatically put on the terrorist list.

I think you are mistaken when you advocate assassinating a world leader. You probably ought to reconsider this statement.
Plus, assassination of world leaders is widely considered to be pretty anti-democratic. :p

Is your life worth someone in the NSA accidentally listening in on your phone conversation with your mom?
So refusing to have the NSA listen in on your conversation will make you attract a terrorist attack? Is there such a condition as reverse paranoia?

I think you are mistaken when you advocate assassinating a world leader. You probably ought to reconsider this statement.

Probably true. I don't want to sound like a televangelist.

Still... Leading one power-stoned butt-head to a fate he has justly earned, beats killing thousands of innocent civilians and soldiers who are just trying to defend their country.

On the gripping hand, yeah, I'll edit my previous post.

On a slightly different subject. Imagine someone, say the French, had invaded the US to depose a tinpot dictator who had engaged in aggression against other countries. How many of my fellow Americans would have any ethical problem with killing members of the invading army? I wouldn't. I certainly doubt any patriotic neo-cons would see any problem with that.

I watched 'Red Dawn' the theater. Yes it was a crappy movie, but I remember the applause when a bunch of teenagers started killing Russians. I can imagine some sleazy Hollywood executive repackaging that movie for an Iraqi audience. They'd make a killing... So to speak.

which of your civil liberties have been curbed?

...none of mine have.

then again, I'm not a terrorist, so I wouldn't know... (not saying you are... saying that we're targeting enemies of the state as opposed to people like you and me.)
er none of my civil liberties . . .im canadian . . . but i have heard of friends of mine being racial profiled trying to get into the us. native americans and iraqi born academics going to conferences in the USA and not being allowed entrance or being severly delayed at the border for no particular reason

On a slightly different subject. Imagine someone, say the French, had invaded the US to depose a tinpot dictator who had engaged in aggression against other countries. How many of my fellow Americans would have any ethical problem with killing members of the invading army? I wouldn't. I certainly doubt any patriotic neo-cons would see any problem with that.


okay heres the problem with that analogy. Theres a reason these people who are killing American soldiers are called Insurgents. Because their not Iragis. They're Saudi, Iranian, afghani etc etc. Theyre comming in and attacking American Soldiers because they lost one of their countries in which terrorism ruled. These are a extremists who are perverting a great religion. Twisting holy doctrine to suit their needs. Your analogy does not fit the issue. If they were Iraqis attacking us, we'ed have pulled out long ago. But they welcome Americans. They want us there, and they dont want us to leave just yet, not until theyre ready to stand on their own. If we left wed be like a physical therapist saying alright we got u to the bar now learn to walk again on your own. Thats just wrong.

Now as for everyone getting the knickers in a twist over the wire taps. Let me explain the enemy a bit more. This is not conventional warfare. This isnt "hey theres the enemy go kill them." They could be anywhere. Im sure there are sleeper cells in America. Just itchin to blow us to pieces. They could be anyone. They could even be your next door neighbor. Hell if ure muslim family or anyone in your family is muslim, They could be the enemy. Why am i "profiliing" because unfortunatly for Muslims who actually work hard and are peaceful, the only people attacking us are Islamic Extremists. They can be anywhere. Now ure probably saying "What are you trying to scare me?" YES!!!!!!!!! and then again no. Because Im trying to make you understand a scary truth... we dont know who the enemy is, sure theres clues, but we dont know for sure. Thats what the wire taps are for. Now i also dont want to scare you because we cannot live in fear. A life of fear is no life at all. We cant be afraid that our neighbor is gonna blow us all away just because hes muslim, we cant be afraid that our building that we work in is going to be destroyed, we cant be afraid of another 9/11. We have to keep striving together, cause thats what made this country great. E Pluribus Unum

okay heres the problem with that analogy. Theres a reason these people who are killing American soldiers are called Insurgents. Because their not Iragis. They're Saudi, Iranian, afghani etc etc. Theyre comming in and attacking American Soldiers because they lost one of their countries in which terrorism ruled. These are a extremists who are perverting a great religion. Twisting holy doctrine to suit their needs. Your analogy does not fit the issue. If they were Iraqis attacking us, we'ed have pulled out long ago. But they welcome Americans. They want us there, and they dont want us to leave just yet, not until theyre ready to stand on their own. If we left wed be like a physical therapist saying alright we got u to the bar now learn to walk again on your own. Thats just wrong.

Now as for everyone getting the knickers in a twist over the wire taps. Let me explain the enemy a bit more. This is not conventional warfare. This isnt "hey theres the enemy go kill them." They could be anywhere. Im sure there are sleeper cells in America. Just itchin to blow us to pieces. They could be anyone. They could even be your next door neighbor. Hell if ure muslim family or anyone in your family is muslim, They could be the enemy. Why am i "profiliing" because unfortunatly for Muslims who actually work hard and are peaceful, the only people attacking us are Islamic Extremists. They can be anywhere. Now ure probably saying "What are you trying to scare me?" YES!!!!!!!!! and then again no. Because Im trying to make you understand a scary truth... we dont know who the enemy is, sure theres clues, but we dont know for sure. Thats what the wire taps are for. Now i also dont want to scare you because we cannot live in fear. A life of fear is no life at all. We cant be afraid that our neighbor is gonna blow us all away just because hes muslim, we cant be afraid that our building that we work in is going to be destroyed, we cant be afraid of another 9/11. We have to keep striving together, cause thats what made this country great. E Pluribus Unum

i agree . . . i think . . .but who's side r u on here? are you for the wire tps in which case the last (and i think most convincing part of your argument) make no sense or are u against in which case whats the first sentance of your second paragraph about . . . . .so confused .. . .

okay heres the problem with that analogy. Theres a reason these people who are killing American soldiers are called Insurgents. Because their not Iragis. They're Saudi, Iranian, afghani etc etc. Theyre comming in and attacking American Soldiers because they lost one of their countries in which terrorism ruled. These are a extremists who are perverting a great religion. Twisting holy doctrine to suit their needs. Your analogy does not fit the issue. If they were Iraqis attacking us, we'ed have pulled out long ago. But they welcome Americans. They want us there, and they dont want us to leave just yet, not until theyre ready to stand on their own. If we left wed be like a physical therapist saying alright we got u to the bar now learn to walk again on your own. Thats just wrong.

Now as for everyone getting the knickers in a twist over the wire taps. Let me explain the enemy a bit more. This is not conventional warfare. This isnt "hey theres the enemy go kill them." They could be anywhere. Im sure there are sleeper cells in America. Just itchin to blow us to pieces. They could be anyone. They could even be your next door neighbor. Hell if ure muslim family or anyone in your family is muslim, They could be the enemy. Why am i "profiliing" because unfortunatly for Muslims who actually work hard and are peaceful, the only people attacking us are Islamic Extremists. They can be anywhere. Now ure probably saying "What are you trying to scare me?" YES!!!!!!!!! and then again no. Because Im trying to make you understand a scary truth... we dont know who the enemy is, sure theres clues, but we dont know for sure. Thats what the wire taps are for. Now i also dont want to scare you because we cannot live in fear. A life of fear is no life at all. We cant be afraid that our neighbor is gonna blow us all away just because hes muslim, we cant be afraid that our building that we work in is going to be destroyed, we cant be afraid of another 9/11. We have to keep striving together, cause thats what made this country great. E Pluribus Unum
You've got your analogy wrong, bub. The insurgents are the Iraqis who are fighting us. The foreign fighters can rightly be called terrorists, but they make up, according to Army estimates, about 7% of the insurgency.

As to your anti-Muslim screed, I'll leave it alone--you damage yourself enough without me having to pile on.

You've got your analogy wrong, bub. The insurgents are the Iraqis who are fighting us. The foreign fighters can rightly be called terrorists, but they make up, according to Army estimates, about 7% of the insurgency.

As to your anti-Muslim screed, I'll leave it alone--you damage yourself enough without me having to pile on.


first... anti muslim screed... i seem to recal calling Islam a great religion. and it is. these people are so fricken disaplined and dedicated its like.... holycrap. and i said MOST muslims are decent hardworking peaceful people. a minority has perverted the religion to support their aims. while it is a tragedy that we have to profile all muslims, muslims are the only group of people who are engaging in terrorist attacks at us. jews, no... hindus... no...buddists... people wont even kill a spider let alone humans... muslim extremists...hmmm 9/11, iran embacy, 93wtc, munic, palistinian bombers, sry but heythought why most are not we cant be sure... so we check those were suspicious of and unfortunatly its an undefined enemy we have to target everyone who fits some of the profile... and when i mean target i mean like... pulling them asside in the airport security line to be wanded... not abducting them in the middle of the night.


and about the insurgencies, YOUR WRONG!... while some Iraqis are fighting against us they fall into the same group... old saddam regimist fundamentalist extremist muslims. MOST however welcome our presence

i agree . . . i think . . .but who's side r u on here? are you for the wire tps in which case the last (and i think most convincing part of your argument) make no sense or are u against in which case whats the first sentance of your second paragraph about . . . . .so confused .. . .

i should clarify... im really impartial about the wire taps. i dont care... government wants to wiretap on suspected terrorists let them, if they dont oh well... i think theyre neccessary but i can see where both sides comefrom so im just like hey just let it be

and about the insurgencies, YOUR WRONG!... while some Iraqis are fighting against us they fall into the same group... old saddam regimist fundamentalist extremist muslims. MOST however welcome our presenceNo--insurgents are defined as those who are fighting against the legal and established government, aka rebels. The Iraqis who are fighting against the Iraqi government and their allies in the coalition are properly termed insurgents. The 7% number I quoted comes from the US Army's estimates of the enemy--don't like that number, take it up with them. They say that over 90% of the insurgency is homegrown, and that there are relatively few foreign fighters or terrorists involved in Iraq, although they do make up the majority of the suicide bombers.

No--insurgents are defined as those who are fighting against the legal and established government, aka rebels. The Iraqis who are fighting against the Iraqi government and their allies in the coalition are properly termed insurgents. The 7% number I quoted comes from the US Army's estimates of the enemy--don't like that number, take it up with them. They say that over 90% of the insurgency is homegrown, and that there are relatively few foreign fighters or terrorists involved in Iraq, although they do make up the majority of the suicide bombers.


okay fine w.e. it still doesnt change the fact that the Iraqi insurgents are exteme muslim fundamentalists and are the MINORITY of the people of Iraq. Most Iraqis welcome our presence and our glad that now they dont have to live under a psycotic dictator. They now have freedoms that were before denied them. So... we shouldnt leave Iraq... because they want our help... and the insurgents need to realize all they are is a speed bump... cause now that the Iraqis have freedom theyre not gonna let it go.

okay fine w.e. it still doesnt change the fact that the Iraqi insurgents are exteme muslim fundamentalists and are the MINORITY of the people of Iraq.


No many of them are post-Saddam loyalists and Sunni's, unlike Osama and Al-Qudea which is made up primaraly of the wasabi Shi'ite muslims.


Most Iraqis welcome our presence and our glad that now they dont have to live under a psycotic dictator.


You might want to check the latest polls, they're happy we got Saddam out but would now like us to leave (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html).


Naginah

Because if you buy a copy of 1984 with a credit card you're automatically put on the terrorist list.

Actually 1984 is a Standard Procedures Manual passed out to all Bush White House Staff.

No many of them are post-Saddam loyalists and Sunni's, unlike Osama and Al-Qudea which is made up primaraly of the wasabi Shi'ite muslims.



You might want to check the latest polls, they're happy we got Saddam out but would now like us to leave (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html).


Naginah
the following is a quote from the link you just posted

As many Iraqis say the war "humiliated" Iraq as say it "liberated" the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces there now (although most also say they should stay for the time being);

read your sources before you post them.. okay so they resent our overwhelming force there... but most would rather us stay then leave...

Actually 1984 is a Standard Procedures Manual passed out to all Bush White House Staff.

dude wtf are you smoking......BUSH ISNT TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR MIND. IF YOU TALK BAD ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION YOUR NOT GONNA GET SENT TO ROOM 101! WE DONT HAVE THOUGHT POLICE!! GOD DAMNIT!!

we were attacked. we went to war. new threat came. EVERY INTELIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs!!! HE REFUSED TO LET UN INSPECTORS IN!! A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS DONT YOU THINK!!! and then instead of sitting around waiting for us to get blown to bits we struck first. disposed of a violent psycotic dictator and are now helping the new gov get on its feet.

some people......man

EVERY INTELIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs!!! HE REFUSED TO LET UN INSPECTORS IN!! A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS DONT YOU THINK!!!
some people......man

No, not every intelligence agency said he had them. There was even disagreement in our own. No one was certain that he didn't have them. Likewise, no one was really certain that he did. Still, it's not even as back and white as that, because no one but the current coalition thought that the threat was actionable. As it turns out, those that thought the intel didn't rise to the level of action were proven absolutely 100% correct.

Oh, and Saddam didn't throw the inspectors out the last time. Bush did.

This has been a presentation of History for Those Who Don't Live in Fantasyland.

dude wtf are you smoking......BUSH ISNT TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR MIND. IF YOU TALK BAD ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION YOUR NOT GONNA GET SENT TO ROOM 101! WE DONT HAVE THOUGHT POLICE!! GOD DAMNIT!!

Actually, there is evidence that the NSA and FBI have been using Bush's tactics to spy on domestic opposition. That is the first step.

we were attacked. we went to war. new threat came.

We were attacked. Then we went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks!!

EVERY INTELIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs!!!

False.

HE REFUSED TO LET UN INSPECTORS IN!!.

False.

some people......man

Some people, indeed.

I've told tarsonis enough times where to look for answers that actually have to do with the people who did the work investigating, but Fox and the neo-sh*thead agenda got to him first, and, apparently being conservative, is by definition inflexible to change. Or, he likes to lie for argument.
Either way, he's quite probably a lost cause, evidenced more by his lack of brevity to more than a few imposing posts.

I've told tarsonis enough times where to look for answers that actually have to do with the people who did the work investigating, but Fox and the neo-sh*thead agenda got to him first, and, apparently being conservative, is by definition inflexible to change. Or, he likes to lie for argument.
Either way, he's quite probably a lost cause, evidenced more by his lack of brevity to more than a few imposing posts.

I wouldn't call him conservative. Conservatives can at least think and realize when something is not working as claimed. He just buys every single lie from the Bush Administration without question and chants it like it was God's Spoken Words.

Yeah, Tarsonis is officially a Bushevik.

I wouldn't call him conservative. Conservatives can at least think and realize when something is not working as claimed. He just buys every single lie from the Bush Administration without question and chants it like it was God's Spoken Words.

Yeah, Tarsonis is officially a Bushevik.
My apologies, i concede to your point.
*bows*

The sad thing is we may never know if he ever got a cool furry hat out of selling his soul.

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.


Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

Actually, there is evidence that the NSA and FBI have been using Bush's tactics to spy on domestic opposition. That is the first step.



We were attacked. Then we went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks!!



False.



False.



Some people, indeed.

after you're done licking Saddam's boots, make sure you invite him to dinner. hahaha

Saddam was reprehensible... his ousting was unequivocally justified.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

after you're done licking Saddam's boots, make sure you invite him to dinner. hahaha

Saddam was reprehensible... his ousting was unequivocally justified.

I can't disagree that Saddam sucked, but how many of the pre-war rationales have come true? 0-5 and the manager would sit down Albert Puljos. For one to disagree with Bush doesn't mean they support Saddam. I know, the whole world is black and white and nuclear fission is simply the splitting of atoms.

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

dude wtf are you smoking......BUSH ISNT TRYING TO CONTROL YOUR MIND. IF YOU TALK BAD ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION YOUR NOT GONNA GET SENT TO ROOM 101! WE DONT HAVE THOUGHT POLICE!! GOD DAMNIT!!

we were attacked. we went to war. new threat came. EVERY INTELIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD SAID THAT SADDAM HAD WMDs!!! HE REFUSED TO LET UN INSPECTORS IN!! A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS DONT YOU THINK!!! and then instead of sitting around waiting for us to get blown to bits we struck first. disposed of a violent psycotic dictator and are now helping the new gov get on its feet.

some people......man


These people slay me. When they realize how many brutal, psychotic dictators we have and still protect in this world they will realize their flawed rationale. You think it's about "freeing people" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bush didn't even know (Newsweek, US News) the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a up until 2004, what makes you think he cares about these people? Because he and the talking heads said they did? Actions are it, words are just shit.

These people slay me. When they realize how many brutal, psychotic dictators we have and still protect in this world they will realize their flawed rationale. You think it's about "freeing people" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Bush didn't even know (Newsweek, US News) the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a up until 2004, what makes you think he cares about these people? Because he and the talking heads said they did? Actions are it, words are just shit.

okay fine heres the flaw in your rationale...

Newsweek, USnews, the New Yorker, La times, ny times, = anit-bush.
these 5 newspapers i have listed, have repeadedly posted false articles and have had to post articles apologizing. Do me favor, watch one episode of bill oriely.. and keep an open mind while doing so...

conclusion newspapers LIE to discredit bush. in the end they only discredit themselves. now granted bush isnt the brightest crayon in the box, but who did know the diference between Sunni and Shi'a?

Actually, there is evidence that the NSA and FBI have been using Bush's tactics to spy on domestic opposition. That is the first step.



We were attacked. Then we went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks!!



False.



False.



Some people, indeed.


1. We went to war with afghanistan was what i meant. and Iraq is the new threat.

2. TRUE! maybe not all but, GB, Germany, Russia, china EVEN SAUDI ARABIA, said that the evidence suggests that Iraq had WMDS.

3. TRUE! Saddam repeatedly refused to let UN inspectors search for WMDS. Eventually we had to make a choice. Let Saddam get away or do something about it.

and just to add the Iraqi war is NOT illegal as most people say. Bringing enriched uranium into the country is a violation of the Whatever the resolution was called that ended the war. Coalition forces had every legal right to go back after the FIRST time Saddam did it, but they didnt they waited till later.

okay fine heres the flaw in your rationale...

Newsweek, USnews, the New Yorker, La times, ny times, = anit-bush.
these 5 newspapers i have listed, have repeadedly posted false articles and have had to post articles saying this. Do me favor, watch one episode of bill oriely.. and keep an open mind while doing so...

conclusion newspapers LIE to discredit bush. in the end they only discredit themselves. now granted bush isnt the brightest crayon in the box, but who did know the diference between Sunni and Shi'a?

It's simple. One has to fact-check what one reads and watches. When you watch Bill O'Reilly, he REGULARLY makes "factually incorrect statements."

As far as knowing the difference between Sunni and Shi'a...well, don't you think you should know these things about a country before deciding that you'll be greeted with open arms and flowers if you invade?

The lengths you go to defend Bush are frankly pathetic. I'm ashamed that you are a fellow American. The galling political blindness and intellectual incuriousness is frankly revolting. Grow up.

1. We went to war with afghanistan was what i meant. and Iraq is the new threat.

How was Iraq a threat? We knew they weren't in league with Al Qaeda, and we knew that the WMD's they had, if they had any, were old and almost certainly inoperative. Furthermore, the WMD's he had at one paoint never had the capability of reaching us here in the U.S. You, son, were frightened by bogeyman stories.

2. TRUE! maybe not all but, GB, Germany, Russia, china EVEN SAUDI ARABIA, said that the evidence suggests that Iraq had WMDS.

No one but the U.S. and GB (and don't forget Poland!) thought the threat of the pathetic WMD's Saddam had a small chance of having rose to the level of war. Guess what. They were right and we were wrong. They suggested caution and we didn't listen, and now you want to blame them? What a joke.

3. TRUE! Saddam repeatedly refused to let UN inspectors search for WMDS. Eventually we had to make a choice. Let Saddam get away or do something about it.


Inspectors were in Iraq before the war started. Saddam didn't kick them out. Bush did.


and just to add the Iraqi war is NOT illegal as most people say. Bringing enriched uranium into the country is a violation of the Whatever the resolution was called that ended the war. Coalition forces had every legal right to go back after the FIRST time Saddam did it, but they didnt they waited till later.

When did they bring enriched uranium into Iraq? Show me when and where Iraq brought uranium into Iraq.

Secondly, why do you care about UN resolutions? In every other way, you show nothing but contempt for the UN...but when you need an excuse, suddenly the UN is an authority.

I wouldn't call him conservative. Conservatives can at least think and realize when something is not working as claimed. He just buys every single lie from the Bush Administration without question and chants it like it was God's Spoken Words.

Yeah, Tarsonis is officially a Bushevik.


1. Iraqi war inst working ASWELL as wed hoped..., but it is working, they have elections, a constitution, they're getting an army trained by the best in the world, and they dont have to worry about getting thrown in a wood chipper, (well... atleast the government doing it anyway)

2. everything you just said is posted on farleft antibush websites (not about me personally) almost word for word, excuse me for actually weeding out the facts from fiction instead of taking it all and believeing what people say is the truth. here ill list my sources on where i get my government info

1. Fox news(oh mygosh,)
2. CNN
3. The Cell
4. Bill O' Reily books
5. Headline news,
6. The reports released by congress and the FBI

some how i find it hard to believe that they covered up information and it just so happened to "leak" to far left antibush websites.(coinicidence maybe) now if a probush website suddenly told me that Bush is doing some bullshit, id probably pay attention and look it up.

Tell me, Tarsonis, how many times a pro-Castro publication says mean things about Castro?

now granted bush isnt the brightest crayon in the box, but who did know the diference between Sunni and Shi'a?

Well, I for one did. And I would bet almost anything that the CIA did. And the military intelligence. And many of his advisers, including Ahmed Chalabi, could have told him the difference. So did probably many, many people close to the president. Question is, why didn't he know?

How was Iraq a threat? We knew they weren't in league with Al Qaeda, and we knew that the WMD's they had, if they had any, were old and almost certainly inoperative. Furthermore, the WMD's he had at one paoint never had the capability of reaching us here in the U.S. You, son, were frightened by bogeyman stories.
Saddam Housein was a Terrorist sympathizer, he hated us and he harbored suspected terrorists. Now try follow this. Saddam gets wmd. He supplies Terrorists with wmd, Terrorists make it over here, BOOM!!!!!!!!!! THERE GOES YOUR WEEKEND!!!!!!!!!! CITIES ARE IN RUIN MASS RADIATION AND DESTRUCTION CAUSE BY WMDS!!!! and what do leftist say WHY DIDNT BUSH STOP IRAQ FROM SUPPLYING TERRORISTS?!?!?!
so basically its damned if you do and damned if you dont.
boogyman stories?? personally id rather go in and be Wrong then not go in and be right and hten watch American cities blow up on cnn.

No one but the U.S. and GB (and don't forget Poland!) thought the threat of the pathetic WMD's Saddam had a small chance of having rose to the level of war. Guess what. They were right and we were wrong. They suggested caution and we didn't listen, and now you want to blame them? What a joke.

They suggested caution... hmmm well seeing as they werent the ones in the furnace, maybe they would, but they werent the ones who were worried about being attacked... britain was attacked because they support us.


Inspectors were in Iraq before the war started. Saddam didn't kick them out. Bush did.
i didnt say they werent allowed in the country, Saddam refused to let them search his munitions plants, his research plants, etc etc.
they left because Bush was fed up with Saddams noncomplyance and invaded.


When did they bring enriched uranium into Iraq? Show me when and where Iraq brought uranium into Iraq.
Saddams been bringing in Uranium and Plutonium since 1998, why do you think Clinton bombed Iraq. For the same reason. Saddams been bringing this stuff in from Africa.

Secondly, why do you care about UN resolutions? In every other way, you show nothing but contempt for the UN...but when you need an excuse, suddenly the UN is an authority.

The UN is a bunch of pussies. pardon my french. Didnt you read about the oil for food program. which was just a front that iraq used to bribe UN delagates. oh wait thats all a lie created by Bush. The UN was a good idea, but its grown corrupt, and we dont need theyre support. If we have to go alone we will, cause this my friend is the greatest country in the world, like it or not, President of the Us is pretty much in charge of the free world.

1. Iraqi war inst working ASWELL as wed hoped..., but it is working, they have elections, a constitution, they're getting an army trained by the best in the world, and they dont have to worry about getting thrown in a wood chipper, (well... atleast the government doing it anyway)

Instead they have to worry about being blown up by IEDs meant for Americans or being kidnapped and murdered for collaboration. America fucked up by dismantling the government infrastructures that could have kept the Jihadist insurgency from gaining a foothold, and reduced their membership by simply keeping Baathists busy making sure the government kept operating.

2. everything you just said is posted on farleft antibush websites (not about me personally) almost word for word, excuse me for actually weeding out the facts from fiction instead of taking it all and believeing what people say is the truth. here ill list my sources on where i get my government info

1. Fox news(oh mygosh,)
2. CNN
3. The Cell
4. Bill O' Reily books
5. Headline news,
6. The reports released by congress and the FBI

I don't know why you separate O'Reilly from FOX, the same with CNN and Headline News. The reports from Congress and FBI would be the most impartial of the "sources" you cited, but even then I expect you to cherrypick the passages that sound in your favor. And that's assuming those reports do exist.

some how i find it hard to believe that they covered up information and it just so happened to "leak" to far left antibush websites.(coinicidence maybe) now if a probush website suddenly told me that Bush is doing some bullshit, id probably pay attention and look it up.

Expect a Pro-Bush website to publish bad news about Dear Leader? Further proof you're a Bushevik, Comrade. You'll get more truth by asking David Irving if the Holocaust happened or asking David Duke if black people ever got lynched.

Any group that publishes bad news about Bush is not pro-Bush. At best, they're impartial.

NEXT!!

Well, I for one did. And I would bet almost anything that the CIA did. And the military intelligence. And many of his advisers, including Ahmed Chalabi, could have told him the difference. So did probably many, many people close to the president. Question is, why didn't he know?


Never asked. and can someone give me a direct quote from the article cause i have never heard of this before.

and okay you knew this, but whats your response to the newspapers printing articles based on false information

Tell me, Tarsonis, how many times a pro-Castro publication says mean things about Castro?

um well let me think its a DIFFERENT SENARIO!!!!!!!!! Castro is a dictator and he controls the press. say something bad about him and get THROWN IN JAIL!!!!!

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.

Privacy is not a democratic value. Breaking laws does not equate to "un-democraticness". We are not a democracy, we are a republic. The war on terror isn't to protect democracy, it is to protect american interests', in the spread of democracy. Privacy rights are not the foundation of democracy. Would you like to prove the patriot act is silly?

Shut Up.

Instead they have to worry about being blown up by IEDs meant for Americans or being kidnapped and murdered for collaboration. America fucked up by dismantling the government infrastructures that could have kept the Jihadist insurgency from gaining a foothold, and reduced their membership by simply keeping Baathists busy making sure the government kept operating.
what infrastructure... Saddam ruled everything, and the puppet of a government supported him because they were afraid or actually thought he was a good man. Sorry to say that cutting the head off doesnt actually kill the snake in this instance. Saddam gone the government still would be the same as it always was. Now they have a government that actually protects theyre liberties.







Expect a Pro-Bush website to publish bad news about Dear Leader? Further proof you're a Bushevik, Comrade. You'll get more truth by asking David Irving if the Holocaust happened or asking David Duke if black people ever got lynched. where did this sociallist paranoia come from? No i dont expect a Pro-Bush website to publish bad news. That was kinda the point. Cause guess what, no ones impartial to this. Your either anti bush or Pro-Bush.

Anti-bush- (please someone fill in, in a non argumentative way. cause im not anti bush so its not my place to define them)

Pro-Bush has been defined by the far left as members of Bushes sociallist cause. wanting to take over the world and obstruct and oppress us.

real Pro-Bush- People who support the person they elected. Dont always agree with him, but overall support him. MOST people who are pro bush would never let him take over the country cause we also believe in democracy and our patriotic to our country's beliefs in freedom.

Any group that publishes bad news about Bush is not pro-Bush. At best, they're impartial.



once again there is no impartialness.

Privacy is not a democratic value. Breaking laws does not equate to "un-democraticness". We are not a democracy, we are a republic. The war on terror isn't to protect democracy, it is to protect american interests', in the spread of democracy. Privacy rights are not the foundation of democracy. Would you like to prove the patriot act is silly?

Shut Up.


FROM THE HALF LINE AT THE BUZZER!!!!!! HE SCORRRRRREEEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and just to add the Iraqi war is NOT illegal as most people say. Bringing enriched uranium into the country is a violation of the Whatever the resolution was called that ended the war. Coalition forces had every legal right to go back after the FIRST time Saddam did it, but they didnt they waited till later.

I disagree. The war was illegal. There were no UN-resolution authorizing war, the cease-fire resolution gave no authority to the US to unilaterally declare it violated (Neither could they wait and then declare that Iraq had violated the agreement a long time ago, so they would take action now), and it was not an act of selfdefence.

I disagree. The war was illegal. There were no UN-resolution authorizing war, the cease-fire resolution gave no authority to the US to unilaterally declare it violated (Neither could they wait and then declare that Iraq had violated the agreement a long time ago, so they would take action now), and it was not an act of selfdefence.


Okay a little history lesson. I believe that it was the Gulf of Tonklin(however its spelled) Resolution that ended the Gulf War. Where Coalition of GB and US and some other countries pulled out of Iraq as long as Saddam submitted to UN inspections and didnt bring in WMDs or and materials for making WMDs. Once they resumed the importation of Uranium and Plutonium, they violated the peace treaty, coalition forces then had every right to go back in.

I disagree. The war was illegal. There were no UN-resolution authorizing war, the cease-fire resolution gave no authority to the US to unilaterally declare it violated (Neither could they wait and then declare that Iraq had violated the agreement a long time ago, so they would take action now), and it was not an act of selfdefence.

An actually... i dont believe a country needs the UN's ok to declare war. We went to the UN to ask for HELP in our coming war with iraq. But thanks to the corrupt issues in that establishment they decided not to help. So we said fine well go it alone... Britain came long for the ride, as always... cause theyre cool like that

what infrastructure... Saddam ruled everything, and the puppet of a government supported him because they were afraid or actually thought he was a good man. Sorry to say that cutting the head off doesnt actually kill the snake in this instance. Saddam gone the government still would be the same as it always was. Now they have a government that actually protects theyre liberties.

Excuse me Comrade Bushevik.

The U.S. bombed the shit out of the utilities in the major cities (power, water) which they then had to waste money on trying to rebuild, only to have their efforts crippled or delayed by the insurgents who stymied those rebuilding efforts. And without power and potable water available conditions worsened and people died, worsening Iraqi opinion against the occupiers. The U.S. shot itself in the foot.

And after Saddam had been overthrown they dismantled the Iraqi army and left thousands of men unemployed, men who could have been kept busy preventing the chaos that erupted on Iraqi streets in the aftermath, and kept those same men from turning to the insurgency out of desperation.

where did this sociallist paranoia come from? No i dont expect a Pro-Bush website to publish bad news. That was kinda the point. Cause guess what, no ones impartial to this. Your either anti bush or Pro-Bush.

Here's a quote from you:

now if a probush website suddenly told me that Bush is doing some bullshit, id probably pay attention and look it up.

Right there, you state you'll only give credence to criticisms against Bush if they come from a source that favors Bush so much they would never dare print such stories about him.

In other words, you're a Bushevik. Blind, obedient and unquestioning of Dear Leader's bullshits and cockups.

An actually... i dont believe a country needs the UN's ok to declare war. We went to the UN to ask for HELP in our coming war with iraq. But thanks to the corrupt issues in that establishment they decided not to help. So we said fine well go it alone... Britain came long for the ride, as always... cause theyre cool like that

Well, according to international law there are only a few instances that allows for legal war. (This is international law that the US officially agrees with.) One is if sanctioned by the UN security council. Another is selfdefence. This war was neither, and as such illegal.

And the resolution that ended Gulf war I was UN Security counsil Resolution 687. Another resolution would be needed to authorize continued warfare.

Excuse me Comrade Bushevik.

The U.S. bombed the shit out of the utilities in the major cities (power, water) which they then had to waste money on trying to rebuild, only to have their efforts crippled or delayed by the insurgents who stymied those rebuilding efforts. And without power and potable water available conditions worsened and people died, worsening Iraqi opinion against the occupiers. The U.S. shot itself in the foot.

And after Saddam had been overthrown they dismantled the Iraqi army and left thousands of men unemployed, men who could have been kept busy preventing the chaos that erupted on Iraqi streets in the aftermath, and kept those same men from turning to the insurgency out of desperation.



Here's a quote from you:



Right there, you state you'll only give credence to criticisms against Bush if they come from a source that favors Bush so much they would never dare print such stories about him.

In other words, you're a Bushevik. Blind, obedient and unquestioning of Dear Leader's bullshits and cockups.

1. if you think insulting me will affect me in any way your sorely mistaken.
2. you obviously dont know anything about warstrategy because the bombing of powerplants and water utilities is actually a strategical move.
3. They dismantled the Iraqi army... why... because the army did Sadams bidding, they killed innocent people, and made sure no one stood against him
4. and where did you get the word bushevik? from a farleft website perhaps, this is an example of what Bill O'rielly calls "kool aid".
5. And were not oblivious to Bush's mistakes. just instead of griping about them and saying down with that fucker, we realise hes only human,
6. THe probush site thing was to make a point. That im not gonna listen to the anti-bush websites because so far all theyve done is lie and twist facts. let me ask you something, do you support cindy sheehan?

Well, according to international law there are only a few instances that allows for legal war. (This is international law that the US officially agrees with.) One is if sanctioned by the UN security council. Another is selfdefence. This war was neither, and as such illegal.

And the resolution that ended Gulf war I was UN Security counsil Resolution 687. Another resolution would be needed to authorize continued warfare.


yes but the UN approved the US bombing of Iraq in 1998. This was done in response to treaty violation, no resolution was ever reached by the UN therefore theire approval still covers this. but people forget about 1998 for somereason

yes but the UN approved the US bombing of Iraq in 1998. This was done in response to treaty violation, no resolution was ever reached by the UN therefore theire approval still covers this. but people forget about 1998 for somereason

Yes, there's no difference between a single set of surgical missile strikes and a protracted war/occupation.

The ability of Busheviks to paint everything monochramatically borders on the mentally disturbed.

Yes, there's no difference between a single set of surgical missile strikes and a protracted war/occupation.

The ability of Busheviks to paint everything monochramatically borders on the mentally disturbed.


yay someone proved my point. while im stating FACT all you can do is slander... what an effective defense

yay someone proved my point. while im stating FACT all you can do is slander... what an effective defense

and it wasnt just missle strikes we had bombers in the air droping what else but bombs, and ground forces ready to be deployed... so now whos painting what

and someone please tell me where "Bushevik" started from, all it is, is slander in an attempt to descredit people, cause hey whoever disagrees with you is obviously an idiot, inferior and should be shot...hmmm.. makes you think

1. if you think insulting me will affect me in any way your sorely mistaken.

Bushevik is a label of political affiliation which also happens to be an insult. I'm not weeping here because you're reacting to it.

2. you obviously dont know anything about warstrategy because the bombing of powerplants and water utilities is actually a strategical move.

The Iraqi army was a joke in the years following Desert Storm, and disrupting the utilities did not decrease their nearly non-existent capabilities against the U.S. military. Cutting off the supplies only inflicted their damage on the civilian population.

3. They dismantled the Iraqi army... why... because the army did Sadams bidding, they killed innocent people, and made sure no one stood against him

Only a small fraction of the Iraqi Army (mostly officers and mostly in the Republican Guard) were hardcore loyalists. The rest were just soldiers doing their job and probably earning paychecks to support their families. By costing those soldiers their jobs, the U.S. basically doubled the effectiveness of the insurgency.

4. and where did you get the word bushevik? from a farleft website perhaps, this is an example of what Bill O'rielly calls "kool aid".

Look up "Bolshevik" sometimes and then see how their traits are similar to many of Bush's unquestioning supporters. Like yourself. And if anyone is drinking Jonestown Juice here (and yet live) it's Bill O'Reilly.

5. And were not oblivious to Bush's mistakes. just instead of griping about them and saying down with that fucker, we realise hes only human,

Not only are you aware of his frequent mistakes (you should have seen it when he bankrupted 3 companies Daddy put him in charge of) but you also give him a special slap on the wrist pass for those mistakes. In other words you are all subscribing to the Peter Principle to its penultimate degree. When America is on the verge of a Dark Age, don't bitch and whine chanting "Clinton's Fault."

6. THe probush site thing was to make a point. That im not gonna listen to the anti-bush websites because so far all theyve done is lie and twist facts. let me ask you something, do you support cindy sheehan?

And the Pro-Bush sources tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth? What does Cindy Sheehan have to do with this thread other than being yet another boogieman besides Bill Clinton and Michael Moore the Busheviks like to scare little children with at bedtime or try and distract people from a topic they have no solid argument on?

yay someone proved my point. while im stating FACT all you can do is slander... what an effective defense

Again, you're only seeing in black and white. I wouldn't feel the need to needle you if you read what was written honestly, but you refuse to do it.

Again, equating 1998 with the current Iraq war is wrong in both scale and intent. Plerase address that instead of running your internal editor yet again.

Sir, I say this with all sincerity. The only reason you are receiving such a tongue-lashing from a large number of people is because you richly deserve it. If what you post is an accurate representation of your beliefs, then you are a sad and pathetic human and I have nothing but contempt for you. You are an example of the very worst that society has to offer. YOU may think I'm just attacking you because you disagree. Feel free to think so. The truth is that the evidence of your continuing self deception is so evident that rational discourse with you is simply impossible and I will not further waste my time attempting it.

To repeat, any personal attacks on you (or, more likely, the rather simple and stereotypical persona you're presenting,) are richly deserved and you have no one to blame but yourself. Please take it to hear that is you are honestly representing your thoughts, then they are so laughable that they have convinced me that you are merely playacting.

yes but the UN approved the US bombing of Iraq in 1998. This was done in response to treaty violation, no resolution was ever reached by the UN therefore theire approval still covers this. but people forget about 1998 for somereason

I fail to see that the mentioned resolution could be used to authorize war. Do you know which resolution this is?

But I don't believe that it makes much difference. The US went to the UN to get authorization to go to war, so they too believed another resolution was needed. The government claimed that resolution 1441 was adequate for this task, but that resolution gave no clear authorization. Due to this dispute, the administration went back to the UN to get a new resolution. When that failed because the french threatened to veto anything, the US went to war anyway. (On the grounds of pre-emptive self defence if I remember correctly.)

Again, you're only seeing in black and white. I wouldn't feel the need to needle you if you read what was written honestly, but you refuse to do it.

Again, equating 1998 with the current Iraq war is wrong in both scale and intent. Plerase address that instead of running your internal editor yet again.

Sir, I say this with all sincerity. The only reason you are receiving such a tongue-lashing from a large number of people is because you richly deserve it. If what you post is an accurate representation of your beliefs, then you are a sad and pathetic human and I have nothing but contempt for you. You are an example of the very worst that society has to offer. YOU may think I'm just attacking you because you disagree. Feel free to think so. The truth is that the evidence of your continuing self deception is so evident that rational discourse with you is simply impossible and I will not further waste my time attempting it.

To repeat, any personal attacks on you (or, more likely, the rather simple and stereotypical persona you're presenting,) are richly deserved and you have no one to blame but yourself. Please take it to hear that is you are honestly representing your thoughts, then they are so laughable that they have convinced me that you are merely playacting.


wait.. wait wait...im the scum of society because

A. I support the person we put in office.
B. Because obviously YOU cant be wrong, so the only explanation is that ive disalusioned myself.
C. Ive calmly tried to explain things to you, but you cant see past your beliefs that bush sucks and everything he does is wrong.
D. I support the war in Iraq, which yes has been hard on the people there, but now, they have a government that well actually work for THEM, they now have a police force that can fight the insurgency, theyre lives got bad but are now getting better.
E. And i think that we shouldnt bend over and take it up the ass, because cowards are killing civilians.

I tried not to insult but i now have to say YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! you are the spineless weeklings who dont see things for what they really are. Some people die and you run and stick your head in the sand. Truth is ITS A SHITTY WORLD. AND IF WERE EVER GONNA CHANGE IT SOME ONE MIGHT HAVE TO DIE! OUR SOLDIERS OVER THERE HAVE REINLISTED MORE TIMES THAN ANY WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY! WONDER WHY? BECAUSE THEY SEE HOW WERE HELPING PEOPLE THERE EVERY DAY! AN ENTIRE NATION IS FREE! FEW PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN COMPARISON TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUT WAY THE NEEDS OF THE FEW! HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT SHOULD BE THERE TO PROTECT THEM! SO INSURGENTS ARE KILLING PEOPLE FOR COLABORATION.. SO INSTEAD OF EXPLOITING THEYRE DEATHS TO FURTHER YOUR VIEWS. WHY NOT REALIZE THAT THEYRE DIEING FOR A GOOD CAUSE! AND HONOR THEYRE SACRIFICE INSTEAD OF OMG! SOME DIED! WONT THAT BE THE DAY WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO DIE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN! IMAGINE IF PEOPLE IN 1776 WERENT WILLING TO DIE FOR A CAUSE? WHAT IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERENT WILLING TO DIE? IMAGINE!

Again, you're only seeing in black and white. I wouldn't feel the need to needle you if you read what was written honestly, but you refuse to do it.

CORRECTION. i think im the only one whos NOT Seeing in black and white. Your views basically are that people have died so what ever is happening is bad and shouldnt be happening.
MY view is a bit more grey, yeah people are dieing, but the majority of people are benefiting from it, if you cant see that, your too narrowsited

Again, equating 1998 with the current Iraq war is wrong in both scale and intent. Plerase address that instead of running your internal editor yet again.

i dont believed i equated it to the current situation. i believe i stated how the UN had approved of us going into Iraq earlier. we never had to invade on ground. Now we went back in and ended up having to invade.

Sir, I say this with all sincerity. The only reason you are receiving such a tongue-lashing from a large number of people is because you richly deserve it. If what you post is an accurate representation of your beliefs, then you are a sad and pathetic human and I have nothing but contempt for you. You are an example of the very worst that society has to offer. YOU may think I'm just attacking you because you disagree. Feel free to think so. The truth is that the evidence of your continuing self deception is so evident that rational discourse with you is simply impossible and I will not further waste my time attempting it.
alright ill play on your turf

DONT HATE ME ITS WHAT I BELIEVE!! OPPRESSION!! WHAT THEYRE SAYING IS OFFENSIVE AND THEY SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO SAY THAT!!!
there is that better

To repeat, any personal attacks on you (or, more likely, the rather simple and stereotypical persona you're presenting,) are richly deserved and you have no one to blame but yourself. Please take it to hear that is you are honestly representing your thoughts, then they are so laughable that they have convinced me that you are merely playacting.

you know what this is a waiste of time. cause since your so "supperior" that my beliefs are "laughable"...get a clue alright.. basically youve been force fed so much far left propaganda about how bush is evil and his supporters follow him unquestionably that your brain has been turn to mush! WAKE UP! SEE WHATS HAPPENING!!! LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!!!

CORRECTION. i think im the only one whos NOT Seeing in black and white. Your views basically are that people have died so what ever is happening is bad and shouldnt be happening.
MY view is a bit more grey, yeah people are dieing, but the majority of people are benefiting from it, if you cant see that, your too narrowsited

Nowhere did I say anything close to what you're saying I said.


i dont believed i equated it to the current situation. i believe i stated how the UN had approved of us going into Iraq earlier. we never had to invade on ground. Now we went back in and ended up having to invade.

We didn't have to invade. That's the point.


alright ill play on your turf

DONT HATE ME ITS WHAT I BELIEVE!! OPPRESSION!! WHAT THEYRE SAYING IS OFFENSIVE AND THEY SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO SAY THAT!!!
there is that better

Oh, I have no problem disliking people for what they believe if what they believe is misguided or evil.



you know what this is a waiste of time. cause since your so "supperior" that my beliefs are "laughable"...get a clue alright.. basically youve been force fed so much far left propaganda about how bush is evil and his supporters follow him unquestionably that your brain has been turn to mush! WAKE UP! SEE WHATS HAPPENING!!! LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!!!

Yes, I've been force fed things like FACTS and HISTORY...all of which indicates that Bush is the worst President to ever lead America. I'm not the one denying evidence just because it doesn't fall into the tiny sphere of sources I deem "acceptable." I'm able to excercize critical thinking and...you know...double check sources. I don't even give sources I particularly like a free pass.

But enough of this. I don't know why I'm arguing with a construct. I just wish your attempt to parrot a hard-core Bushevik was a little more humorous.

you know what basically its this

your damned if you do and your damned if you dont.

A. we go into Iraq, people start dieing shit were fucked

B. we do nothing and then Iraq is connected to WMDs going off in our cities. SHIT WERE FUCKED!

and since youre so smart, what is your solution... hmm? you critisize and your point fingers... if your so smart WHAT WOULD YOU DO! WHATS YOUR PLAN??

you know what basically its this

your damned if you do and your damned if you dont.

A. we go into Iraq, people start dieing shit were fucked

B. we do nothing and then Iraq is connected to WMDs going off in our cities. SHIT WERE FUCKED!

and since youre so smart, what is your solution... hmm? you critisize and your point fingers... if your so smart WHAT WOULD YOU DO! WHATS YOUR PLAN??
If we do your plan A, people will die. If we do nothing, we don't know whether or not nukes would randomly start exploding in the U.S. like you say they will. And so far, Bush isn't going to be vindicated by history.

An unknown number of people will die, many would be innocent, if we invade Iraq and start a war that will take an unknown amount of time. If we don't invade Iraq, those lives are spared.

And if you're so smart, my friend, why would the terrorists be mad at us in the first place? Could it be because America and other Western nations have been fucking with their culture for hundreds of years and randomly put a Jewish nation where they live? Think before you act.

you know what basically its this

your damned if you do and your damned if you dont.

A. we go into Iraq, people start dieing shit were fucked

B. we do nothing and then Iraq is connected to WMDs going off in our cities. SHIT WERE FUCKED!

and since youre so smart, what is your solution... hmm? you critisize and your point fingers... if your so smart WHAT WOULD YOU DO! WHATS YOUR PLAN??

Iraq, if it had had WMD, had none, NONE capable of attacking the US. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, had the experience and network to pull of an attack on the U.S.. Why, then, did we divert resources away from Al Qaeda to attack Iraq?

MY plan would have been to continue to exert political pressure on Iraq. I would have continued to work with foreign allies to squeeze Saddam even more. I would have allowed the inspectors to finish their job. I would have left a larger force in Afghanistan. I would have rebuilt Afghanistan more and let THAT be the example of a democritizing force in the Muslim world. Leaving a job half-finished and then attacking another Muslim country was the WORST thing we could do if the idea was to reduce anti-American sentiment in the region (which is an important factor in reducing terrorism.)

As terrorism is a global problem, I WOULD NOT have allowed the disparagment and poor diplomacy with our OFFICIAL allies such as Germany and France and others. If the idea is to defeat terrorism, we need the help of every major nation on the planet and, as foreign opinion polls point out over and over and over again, America has never been as unpopular as it is now. If you can't see why that's a problem, then there's no help for you.

As president, I would not have removed dissenting voices (such as Richard Clark and General Shinzeki,) who would have served to give me a more complete picture of what's going on.

As President, I would encourage greater transparency. An open and fully functioning government would be a much better deterrent to terrorism than a shadowy government constantly being called into doubt. The world doesn't trust Bush and a large number of US citizens don't trust Bush either. Therefore there is less cooperation. Less cooperation means lower effectiveness. No amount of secret spying can make up for that lost effectivness.

wait.. wait wait...im the scum of society because

A. I support the person we put in office.
B. Because obviously YOU cant be wrong, so the only explanation is that ive disalusioned myself.
C. Ive calmly tried to explain things to you, but you cant see past your beliefs that bush sucks and everything he does is wrong.
D. I support the war in Iraq, which yes has been hard on the people there, but now, they have a government that well actually work for THEM, they now have a police force that can fight the insurgency, theyre lives got bad but are now getting better.
E. And i think that we shouldnt bend over and take it up the ass, because cowards are killing civilians.

Scum floats to the top. You're not scum. You're a Bushevik.

A. You support an inept, boorish welfare-handout fratboy who has been proven in history to be incapable of properly managing a private company, much less one of the most powerful nations in the world.

B. You have proven to everyone literate on this board that you delude yourself in every regards to Bush and his incompetent handling of foreign and domestic policies.

C. Bush sucks and is wrong. I wouldn't give a shit normally, except he's in a position of power where his incompetence is damaging the United States in the short as well as the long term in many aspects, especially economics, justice and global relations.

D. The War on Iraq was waged on lies and contempt for the rest of the world. What good may come out of it does not negate the wrong that the plan was conceived from. Going by this logic you well as might say John Wayne Gacy was a good man because he entertained children.

E. Instead you choose to bend over and take it up the ass from an incompetent fratboy who's turning this country into the ultimate George Orwell/Margaret Atwood novel.

I tried not to insult but i now have to say YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! you are the spineless weeklings who dont see things for what they really are. Some people die and you run and stick your head in the sand. Truth is ITS A SHITTY WORLD. AND IF WERE EVER GONNA CHANGE IT SOME ONE MIGHT HAVE TO DIE! OUR SOLDIERS OVER THERE HAVE REINLISTED MORE TIMES THAN ANY WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY! WONDER WHY? BECAUSE THEY SEE HOW WERE HELPING PEOPLE THERE EVERY DAY! AN ENTIRE NATION IS FREE! FEW PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN COMPARISON TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUT WAY THE NEEDS OF THE FEW! HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT SHOULD BE THERE TO PROTECT THEM! SO INSURGENTS ARE KILLING PEOPLE FOR COLABORATION.. SO INSTEAD OF EXPLOITING THEYRE DEATHS TO FURTHER YOUR VIEWS. WHY NOT REALIZE THAT THEYRE DIEING FOR A GOOD CAUSE! AND HONOR THEYRE SACRIFICE INSTEAD OF OMG! SOME DIED! WONT THAT BE THE DAY WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO DIE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN! IMAGINE IF PEOPLE IN 1776 WERENT WILLING TO DIE FOR A CAUSE? WHAT IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERENT WILLING TO DIE? IMAGINE!

Looks like you've been sharing Kool-Aid with Bill O'Reilly there. I could almost swear you were him for a second there.

wait.. wait wait...im the scum of society because

A. I support the person we put in office.
B. Because obviously YOU cant be wrong, so the only explanation is that ive disalusioned myself.
C. Ive calmly tried to explain things to you, but you cant see past your beliefs that bush sucks and everything he does is wrong.
D. I support the war in Iraq, which yes has been hard on the people there, but now, they have a government that well actually work for THEM, they now have a police force that can fight the insurgency, theyre lives got bad but are now getting better.
E. And i think that we shouldnt bend over and take it up the ass, because cowards are killing civilians.

I tried not to insult but i now have to say YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! you are the spineless weeklings who dont see things for what they really are. Some people die and you run and stick your head in the sand. Truth is ITS A SHITTY WORLD. AND IF WERE EVER GONNA CHANGE IT SOME ONE MIGHT HAVE TO DIE! OUR SOLDIERS OVER THERE HAVE REINLISTED MORE TIMES THAN ANY WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY! WONDER WHY? BECAUSE THEY SEE HOW WERE HELPING PEOPLE THERE EVERY DAY! AN ENTIRE NATION IS FREE! FEW PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN COMPARISON TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUT WAY THE NEEDS OF THE FEW! HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT SHOULD BE THERE TO PROTECT THEM! SO INSURGENTS ARE KILLING PEOPLE FOR COLABORATION.. SO INSTEAD OF EXPLOITING THEYRE DEATHS TO FURTHER YOUR VIEWS. WHY NOT REALIZE THAT THEYRE DIEING FOR A GOOD CAUSE! AND HONOR THEYRE SACRIFICE INSTEAD OF OMG! SOME DIED! WONT THAT BE THE DAY WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO DIE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN! IMAGINE IF PEOPLE IN 1776 WERENT WILLING TO DIE FOR A CAUSE? WHAT IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERENT WILLING TO DIE? IMAGINE!

And yet, everything you've just said only compounds how terrible the crimes of George W. Bush really are.

When Bush came into office, he, as every president has before him, swore an oath, not to the country or the people, but to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. In point of fact, the oath of office is specifically listed in the Constitution itself:


:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now, the reason why the oath is to the Constitution and not to the nation or to the people is very simple, and in point of fact the very same reason you just mentioned--to the Founders, loyalty to the Dream lay above and prior to loyalty to the People. In other words, it is impossible to sacrifice the Constitution in order to save America, because the Constitution is America.

And yet, sacrificing the Constitution in order to ostensibly "save" America is precisely what President George W. Bush has set out to do. I don't know if you watched Condoleeza Rice on Meet the Press this weekend, but I did, and that was the sole justification (behind a vague and unsubstantiated claim that the President had statutory and constitutional authority to do what he did, which Rice could not back up officially because she's "not a lawyer", unofficially because there is no such authority) given for what the President has done: we needed to set aside the congressionally-approved FISA because it was inadequate for saving the people in case of attack. When pressed on why it was inadequate, as it allows the President to retroactively seek approval for actions if he deems it necessary, and most authorizations in the past have been given in a matter of hours, Condoleeza had no answer other than to insist, in spite of the plain fact that she was lying, that the President was acting in accord with FISA even when he was not.

Let's be clear here a moment: in 1978 during the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed and the President approved the FISA bill. In it, strict limitations were put into place about when and how the President of the United States, or any executive authority for that matter, could wiretap American citizens. Part of that bill included a measure that is part and parcel of American legal tradition: a check on the power of the executive to wiretap by requiring a judicial authorization. In effect, the President had to receive authorization from the Judiciary Branch of the Federal Government in order to wiretap American citizens. Now, you may not particularly like this measure. Heck, I know that neo-cons in general like Cheney and Wolfowitz despise bills like this, because it restricts the ability of the executive to act. But it is still the law of the United States, and the President of the United States is obligated, if not just by Supreme Court decision, but also by his oath of office, to uphold the laws the legislative branch passes that fit within the context of the Constitution. Yes, even the ones the President doesn't like. In this case, the President did not do so; in point of fact, he deliberately broke the law.

This is not like the American Civil War; far from it. American citizens are not fighting amongst themselves over what the Constitution means. Nor still is this a threat anywhere near approaching the foreign threats to this nation that the Soviet Union posed only 20 years ago. We are engaged in a war, yes, but it is a war with the riff-raff of humanity: they are fighting for a backwards way of life and an obsolete dream. That dream has no toehold in this nation. So the idea that you could compare the very grave threat that the Civil War posed to the Constitution itself, or the threat of complete annihilation of mankind posed by the Cold War with the farfetched threat of the immolation of a few cities is absurd. If then those crises were not enough for us to set aside the Constitution, in fact, if we still stated clearly that acts by Lincoln in cases like Ex Parte Merryman and Ex Parte Milligan were wrong even during the height of the Civil War or directly thereafter, we ought to consider seriously any attempts to overturn the Constitution now.

As such, if the President has no valid reason to overturn the law of this nation, and he clearly has no Constitutional authority to do so, and yet he did, then it is not a matter of partisan politics to say that he broke his oath to uphold the Constitution. It is a matter of fact. The fact that he has done so, however, does not glorify the loss of lives that our soldiers have contributed. Rather, it spits in their face. They are not fighting abroad so that the Constitution can be laid aside at home.

Scum floats to the top. You're not scum. You're a Bushevik.

A. You support an inept, boorish welfare-handout fratboy who has been proven in history to be incapable of properly managing a private company, much less one of the most powerful nations in the world.

B. You have proven to everyone literate on this board that you delude yourself in every regards to Bush and his incompetent handling of foreign and domestic policies.

C. Bush sucks and is wrong. I wouldn't give a shit normally, except he's in a position of power where his incompetence is damaging the United States in the short as well as the long term in many aspects, especially economics, justice and global relations.

D. The War on Iraq was waged on lies and contempt for the rest of the world. What good may come out of it does not negate the wrong that the plan was conceived from. Going by this logic you well as might say John Wayne Gacy was a good man because he entertained children.

E. Instead you choose to bend over and take it up the ass from an incompetent fratboy who's turning this country into the ultimate George Orwell/Margaret Atwood novel.



Looks like you've been sharing Kool-Aid with Bill O'Reilly there. I could almost swear you were him for a second there.Well said, my friend.
I admit, Saddam was a bastard to his people, but is it our place to police the world? I think not.

after you're done licking Saddam's boots, make sure you invite him to dinner. hahaha

Saddam was reprehensible... his ousting was unequivocally justified.
Pathetic.

okay fine heres the flaw in your rationale...

Newsweek, USnews, the New Yorker, La times, ny times, = anit-bush.
these 5 newspapers i have listed, have repeadedly posted false articles and have had to post articles apologizing. Do me favor, watch one episode of bill oriely.. and keep an open mind while doing so...

conclusion newspapers LIE to discredit bush. in the end they only discredit themselves. now granted bush isnt the brightest crayon in the box, but who did know the diference between Sunni and Shi'a?
anit-bush?
Yes, so your assertions of lacking veracity on people much better schooled than yourself make you ... what? rpo-bush?
The one episode of Bill O'Reilly worth watching will be his response to Jon Stewart's RESPONSE to him. The one where Billybob called it "Secular Central" instead of Comedy Central, just like a schoolyard brat with equitable experience and judgment. Keep an open mind when you see that.
Prove. Do it. Show that they're false. Otherwise you're AGAIN flapping gums about something you don't even understand.

1. We went to war with afghanistan was what i meant. and Iraq is the new threat.

2. TRUE! maybe not all but, GB, Germany, Russia, china EVEN SAUDI ARABIA, said that the evidence suggests that Iraq had WMDS.

3. TRUE! Saddam repeatedly refused to let UN inspectors search for WMDS. Eventually we had to make a choice. Let Saddam get away or do something about it.

and just to add the Iraqi war is NOT illegal as most people say. Bringing enriched uranium into the country is a violation of the Whatever the resolution was called that ended the war. Coalition forces had every legal right to go back after the FIRST time Saddam did it, but they didnt they waited till later.
1. No, Iraq is who we attacked and invaded. The threat was us.

2. No, GB had the MI:6 reports through Downing Street, and there was a series of explicit memos regarding the falsification of the case for war. I know this for two reasons: i've read them and i possess copies of them. The british government, when asked about them, replied "ah, that's old news."
Germany also has released information about them attempting to dissuade the use of "curveball" as THE source, along with that other torture-persuaded fella, with ya know, extraordinary rendition. As for Russia, i don't as of yet possess any particular information per-or-dis-suasive to the case, but i'm not imagining it hard to find. Unless i was you.
And as for Saudis ... well, why do you think they would be so supportive? As i said in my last post, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.
3. Bullsh*t. Read the Duelfer Report. Duelfer, the guy who actually was involved. Get educated.

And we all know how the Wilson/Plame thing is turning out.

Keep up the good work, you're just destroying your side ever further.

2. everything you just said is posted on farleft antibush websites (not about me personally) almost word for word,
Show. Divulge. Or STFU.


now if a probush website suddenly told me that Bush is doing some bullshit, id probably pay attention and look it up.
That's f*cking classic!!! Good post!
Oh wait, isn't that exactly what's going on right now?

Tell me, Tarsonis, how many times a pro-Castro publication says mean things about Castro?
I don't think Tarsonis knows anything about Castro unless any of those sources he posted actually mentions them, currently. I think if you press him, he'll profess that Castro is some kind of motor oil, one he heard is made by libruhls.

after you're done licking Saddam's boots, make sure you invite him to dinner. hahaha

Saddam was reprehensible... his ousting was unequivocally justified.

Did I say anything complimenting or defending Saddam? No.

Nice job of insulting a strawman.

Saddam Housein was a Terrorist sympathizer, he hated us and he harbored suspected terrorists. Now try follow this. Saddam gets wmd. He supplies Terrorists with wmd, Terrorists make it over here, BOOM!!!!!!!!!! THERE GOES YOUR WEEKEND!!!!!!!!!! CITIES ARE IN RUIN MASS RADIATION AND DESTRUCTION CAUSE BY WMDS!!!! and what do leftist say WHY DIDNT BUSH STOP IRAQ FROM SUPPLYING TERRORISTS?!?!?!
so basically its damned if you do and damned if you dont.
boogyman stories?? personally id rather go in and be Wrong then not go in and be right and hten watch American cities blow up on cnn.
Well, you certainly attempt to garner attention well, with an over-emotive outburst of pleas for dramatic interpretation.



britain was attacked because they support us.


Whatwhatwhat?? You're teetering dangerously close to some kind of truth here. It's like we don't even know you anymore!

i didnt say they werent allowed in the country, Saddam refused to let them search his munitions plants, his research plants, etc etc.
they left because Bush was fed up with Saddams noncomplyance and invaded.
Again, wrong. There's plenty of reports that explain what actually happened.
Go educate yourself.



Saddams been bringing in Uranium and Plutonium since 1998, why do you think Clinton bombed Iraq. For the same reason. Saddams been bringing this stuff in from Africa.
Research, research, research.



The UN is a bunch of pussies. pardon my french.
Wow. You're using french to qualify your position? Another classic!!!

Didnt you read about the oil for food program. which was just a front that iraq used to bribe UN delagates. And some prominent politicians as well! Maybe you'll indulge us and post them, hmmm?

Did I say anything complimenting or defending Saddam? No.

Nice job of insulting a strawman.
Ahh, cut him some slack - it's his best material. That's why he uses it SO OFTEN.

Never asked. and can someone give me a direct quote from the article cause i have never heard of this before.

and okay you knew this, but whats your response to the newspapers printing articles based on false information
What do you mean, *THE* article? If you were any adept at the research you so fondly like to *NOT* post but keep referencing, you'd know that.
Again, prove 'em false. Not just using their opponent's rationale.

what infrastructure... Saddam ruled everything, and the puppet of a government supported him because they were afraid or actually thought he was a good man. Sorry to say that cutting the head off doesnt actually kill the snake in this instance. Saddam gone the government still would be the same as it always was. Now they have a government that actually protects theyre liberties.







where did this sociallist paranoia come from? No i dont expect a Pro-Bush website to publish bad news. That was kinda the point. Cause guess what, no ones impartial to this. Your either anti bush or Pro-Bush.

Anti-bush- (please someone fill in, in a non argumentative way. cause im not anti bush so its not my place to define them)

Pro-Bush has been defined by the far left as members of Bushes sociallist cause. wanting to take over the world and obstruct and oppress us.

real Pro-Bush- People who support the person they elected. Dont always agree with him, but overall support him. MOST people who are pro bush would never let him take over the country cause we also believe in democracy and our patriotic to our country's beliefs in freedom.




once again there is no impartialness.
You know, for you, this is a decent post.

Okay a little history lesson. I believe that it was the Gulf of Tonklin(however its spelled) Resolution that ended the Gulf War.
OMFG. YOU are giving a history lesson?
Okay, little adjustment here ... The Gulf of Tonkin is in Vietnam, and the rationale for war there in the first place ( in the amazing but almost predictable fashion of how you get things wrong in a bizarrely coincidental fashion) was just recently exposed, in the papers that show that THAT provocation, also, was a flare up of misinformation in order to prompt a military action. 'Nam and Iraq, holdin' hands.

1. if you think insulting me will affect me in any way your sorely mistaken.
2. you obviously dont know anything about warstrategy because the bombing of powerplants and water utilities is actually a strategical move.
3. They dismantled the Iraqi army... why... because the army did Sadams bidding, they killed innocent people, and made sure no one stood against him
4. and where did you get the word bushevik? from a farleft website perhaps, this is an example of what Bill O'rielly calls "kool aid".
5. And were not oblivious to Bush's mistakes. just instead of griping about them and saying down with that fucker, we realise hes only human,
6. THe probush site thing was to make a point. That im not gonna listen to the anti-bush websites because so far all theyve done is lie and twist facts. let me ask you something, do you support cindy sheehan?
1) Oh really? Is that why you called me bitch and told me to drop it? Who's sore?
2) Yes, the STRATEGERY involved, including the strategery involving the guard, seems to have worked well for a bunch of people we're supposedly "liberating". Libruhlating.
3) Hmmm.
4) Where did O'Reilly get the term "Secular Central"? From a farright website, perhaps, or his completely rational objectivity? Yes, sup of O'Reilly's "kool aid" - a term i'm sure he didn't lift from the hippies a few decades back. Integrity, indeed. Furthermore, he should call it "Nog-aid", that way he'll sound superior when he spouts that "War on Christmas" bullsh*t, which has obviously been proven wrong by a few recent well-known polls.
5)Oh really? He's the President of the U.S.A. His mistakes are obviously VERY COSTLY. You've said yourself that he attests to and is representative of more.
I'll further clarify:
"I trust that God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." - George W. Bush, at campaign visit to Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. July 9, 2004
So i'm sure these kinds of thoughts go through ... everybody's head at some point, ever better to announce them in public, to people you intend to vote for you.
6) Prove it. You still haven't. Maybe people shouldn't bother waiting for you to back your statements up with facts. I know wines that have keener brevity than yourself.

After all is done, change the subject. What about Cindy? Maybe you shouldn't leave us waiting.

And yet, everything you've just said only compounds how terrible the crimes of George W. Bush really are.

When Bush came into office, he, as every president has before him, swore an oath, not to the country or the people, but to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. In point of fact, the oath of office is specifically listed in the Constitution itself:



Now, the reason why the oath is to the Constitution and not to the nation or to the people is very simple, and in point of fact the very same reason you just mentioned--to the Founders, loyalty to the Dream lay above and prior to loyalty to the People. In other words, it is impossible to sacrifice the Constitution in order to save America, because the Constitution is America.

And yet, sacrificing the Constitution in order to ostensibly "save" America is precisely what President George W. Bush has set out to do. I don't know if you watched Condoleeza Rice on Meet the Press this weekend, but I did, and that was the sole justification (behind a vague and unsubstantiated claim that the President had statutory and constitutional authority to do what he did, which Rice could not back up officially because she's "not a lawyer", unofficially because there is no such authority) given for what the President has done: we needed to set aside the congressionally-approved FISA because it was inadequate for saving the people in case of attack. When pressed on why it was inadequate, as it allows the President to retroactively seek approval for actions if he deems it necessary, and most authorizations in the past have been given in a matter of hours, Condoleeza had no answer other than to insist, in spite of the plain fact that she was lying, that the President was acting in accord with FISA even when he was not.

Let's be clear here a moment: in 1978 during the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed and the President approved the FISA bill. In it, strict limitations were put into place about when and how the President of the United States, or any executive authority for that matter, could wiretap American citizens. Part of that bill included a measure that is part and parcel of American legal tradition: a check on the power of the executive to wiretap by requiring a judicial authorization. In effect, the President had to receive authorization from the Judiciary Branch of the Federal Government in order to wiretap American citizens. Now, you may not particularly like this measure. Heck, I know that neo-cons in general like Cheney and Wolfowitz despise bills like this, because it restricts the ability of the executive to act. But it is still the law of the United States, and the President of the United States is obligated, if not just by Supreme Court decision, but also by his oath of office, to uphold the laws the legislative branch passes that fit within the context of the Constitution. Yes, even the ones the President doesn't like. In this case, the President did not do so; in point of fact, he deliberately broke the law.

This is not like the American Civil War; far from it. American citizens are not fighting amongst themselves over what the Constitution means. Nor still is this a threat anywhere near approaching the foreign threats to this nation that the Soviet Union posed only 20 years ago. We are engaged in a war, yes, but it is a war with the riff-raff of humanity: they are fighting for a backwards way of life and an obsolete dream. That dream has no toehold in this nation. So the idea that you could compare the very grave threat that the Civil War posed to the Constitution itself, or the threat of complete annihilation of mankind posed by the Cold War with the farfetched threat of the immolation of a few cities is absurd. If then those crises were not enough for us to set aside the Constitution, in fact, if we still stated clearly that acts by Lincoln in cases like Ex Parte Merryman and Ex Parte Milligan were wrong even during the height of the Civil War or directly thereafter, we ought to consider seriously any attempts to overturn the Constitution now.

As such, if the President has no valid reason to overturn the law of this nation, and he clearly has no Constitutional authority to do so, and yet he did, then it is not a matter of partisan politics to say that he broke his oath to uphold the Constitution. It is a matter of fact. The fact that he has done so, however, does not glorify the loss of lives that our soldiers have contributed. Rather, it spits in their face. They are not fighting abroad so that the Constitution can be laid aside at home.

Well said. Bravo!!!

wait.. wait wait...im the scum of society because



I tried not to insult but i now have to say YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! you are the spineless weeklings who dont see things for what they really are. Some people die and you run and stick your head in the sand. Truth is ITS A SHITTY WORLD. AND IF WERE EVER GONNA CHANGE IT SOME ONE MIGHT HAVE TO DIE! OUR SOLDIERS OVER THERE HAVE REINLISTED MORE TIMES THAN ANY WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY! WONDER WHY? BECAUSE THEY SEE HOW WERE HELPING PEOPLE THERE EVERY DAY! AN ENTIRE NATION IS FREE! FEW PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN COMPARISON TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! THE NEEDS OF THE MANY OUT WAY THE NEEDS OF THE FEW! HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT SHOULD BE THERE TO PROTECT THEM! SO INSURGENTS ARE KILLING PEOPLE FOR COLABORATION.. SO INSTEAD OF EXPLOITING THEYRE DEATHS TO FURTHER YOUR VIEWS. WHY NOT REALIZE THAT THEYRE DIEING FOR A GOOD CAUSE! AND HONOR THEYRE SACRIFICE INSTEAD OF OMG! SOME DIED! WONT THAT BE THE DAY WHEN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WILLING TO DIE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN! IMAGINE IF PEOPLE IN 1776 WERENT WILLING TO DIE FOR A CAUSE? WHAT IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERENT WILLING TO DIE? IMAGINE!
Uhm, you're actually an excellent example of a
foam-at-the-mouth conservative. Certainly you've heard that it's the libruhls that are guilty of this, which the conservatives try and rationalize their eugenic and morally bankrupt philosophies upon. Well, thanks for steering us through that myth.
We're both better for it.

Well said. Bravo!!!
Seconded! *bows*

wow . . .this escalated fast . . .yesterday=nice, semi-civilised debate . . .today= bloody reampage of name calling and personel remarks . . .(not that I dont like personnel remarks but) its only an issue . . . . not the end of the world . . .calm down a bit eh?

wow . . .this escalated fast . . .yesterday=nice, semi-civilised debate . . .today= bloody reampage of name calling and personel remarks . . .(not that I dont like personnel remarks but) its only an issue . . . . not the end of the world . . .calm down a bit eh?
That's usually how NS General works. All threads either get hot and everyone starts insulting everyone else and get locked by the Mods, or they don't and thus they're not interesting and die a horrible, slow death.

That's usually how NS General works. All threads either get hot and everyone starts insulting everyone else and get locked by the Mods, or they don't and thus they're not interesting and die a horrible, slow death.
I might offer that this thread dabbles a lil' in both parks.

That's usually how NS General works. All threads either get hot and everyone starts insulting everyone else and get locked by the Mods, or they don't and thus they're not interesting and die a horrible, slow death.
lol good point

If I may depart from the kindergarden insults and the jingoism and return to the original topic and debate point, let's just say I am happy that I'm Canadian.

Well said. Bravo!!!

You're too kind.;)

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.
The fact that democracy and freedom often coexist doesn’t mean they are the same thing. What Bush has done is violate civil liberties, something that congress Democratically enabled him to do with the PATRIOT act.

The fact that democracy and freedom often coexist doesn’t mean they are the same thing. What Bush has done is violate civil liberties, something that congress Democratically enabled him to do with the PATRIOT act.

Did they? The question about whether Bush exceeded his legal authority is still open.

The fact that democracy and freedom often coexist doesn’t mean they are the same thing. What Bush has done is violate civil liberties, something that congress Democratically enabled him to do with the PATRIOT act.

Back the truck up a moment.

The PATRIOT act does not allow the President to ignore, nor does it overturn, the wiretapping provisions in the FISA bill. It does (egregiously) allow some warrantless searches for information, but that isn't the same thing as wiretapping.

The whole problem with this is that Bush isn't acting with the approval of Congress. He is acting directly opposite to the stated legislative intent of a law passed by Congress and signed by a former President. As Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer case points out, however, the President's power to act in the name of national defense is broad, but it not unlimited, and in fact is at it's lowest ebb, to use Jackson's language, when the President is acting directly contrary to the will of Congress. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down President Truman's attempt to seize steel mills from striking workers during the Korean War, even in spite of the fact that steel was essential to the war effort, because his actions were taken without regard for relevant legislation that Truman happened to disagree with. The Supreme Court was right to do so. The same thinking applies, or at least ought to apply, here.

The fact that democracy and freedom often coexist doesn’t mean they are the same thing. What Bush has done is violate civil liberties, something that congress Democratically enabled him to do with the PATRIOT act.
ok but without freedom you can only have a pretence of democracy and without democracy there is often no chance for freedom

The whole idea of warrantless wiretapping to preserve freedom is as ironic as it is disturbing. The alleged 'Land of the Free' is only properly named if you don't say 'Ayatolla' on the phone. When people are self-censoring in their 'private' phone calls, for fear of the government, I can't see how a free state can exist.

hmmmm lets see....ummm ...signals from inside the US to outside get filtered....or as some say " WIRE TAPPED '....ummm these signals are to and from so called ...Ummm terrorist or suspected terrorist...from inside the US to OUTSIDE the US...they are random...they are intercepts of microwave or ethernet ..or other..types of communications..they are intercepts ...during ...a ...time ..of ...WAR,,,,,WTF ???



WTF ?


Whats your point ?

hmmmm lets see....ummm ...signals from inside the US to outside get filtered....or as some say " WIRE TAPPED '....ummm these signals are to and from so called ...Ummm terrorist or suspected terrorist...from inside the US to OUTSIDE the US...they are random...they are intercepts of microwave or ethernet ..or other..types of communications..they are intercepts ...during ...a ...time ..of ...WAR,,,,,WTF ???



WTF ?


Whats your point ?
What the fuck are you saying? Is it really necessary to use that many ellipses? Jesus fucking christ. I wish it was that easy for me to give up personal freedoms, that would make my life somewhat easier, but alas; I am sane.

Oh, and nice job arguing against yourself. I do hope that post was sarcastic.

in case you misssed this from 1996...


It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.

The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world.

The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

Under the present circumstances, and under the banner of the blessed awakening which is sweeping the world in general and the Islamic world in particular, I meet with you today. And after a long absence, imposed on the scholars (Ulama) and callers (Da'ees) of Islam by the iniquitous crusaders movement under the leadership of the USA; who fears that they, the scholars and callers of Islam, will instigate the Ummah of Islam against its' enemies as their ancestor scholars-may Allah be pleased with them- like Ibn Taymiyyah and Al'iz Ibn Abdes-Salaam did. And therefore the Zionist-Crusader alliance resorted to killing and arresting the truthful Ulama and the working Da'ees (We are not praising or sanctifying them; Allah sanctify whom He pleased). They killed the Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzaam, and they arrested the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmad Yaseen and the Mujahid Sheikh Omar Abdur Rahman (in America).

By orders from the USA they also arrested a large number of scholars, Da'ees and young people - in the land of the two Holy Places- among them the prominent Sheikh Salman Al-Oud'a and Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali and their brothers; (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). We, myself and my group, have suffered some of this injustice ourselves; we have been prevented from addressing the Muslims. We have been pursued in Pakistan, Sudan and Afghanistan, hence this long absence on my part. But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindukush mountains in Khurasan ; where--by the Grace of Allah-the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the super power was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greater). Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that had been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist-Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the journey of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) and the land of the two Holy Places. We ask Allah to bestow us with victory, He is our Patron and He is the Most Capable.

From here, today we begin the work, talking and discussing the ways of correcting what had happened to the Islamic world in general, and the Land of the two Holy Places in particular. We wish to study the means that we could follow to return the situation to its' normal path. And to return to the people their own rights, particularly after the large damages and the great aggression on the life and the religion of the people. An injustice that had affected every section and group of the people; the civilians, military and security men, government officials and merchants, the young and the old people as well as schools and university students. Hundred of thousands of the unemployed graduates, who became the widest section of the society, were also affected.

Injustice had affected the people of the industry and agriculture. It affected the people of the rural and urban areas. And almost every body complain about something. The situation at the land of the two Holy places became like a huge volcano at the verge of eruption that would destroy the Kufr and the corruption and its' sources. The explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging as a result of the sever oppression, suffering, excessive iniquity, humiliation and poverty.

People are fully concerned about their every day livings; every body talks about the deterioration of the economy, inflation, ever increasing debts and jails full of prisoners. Government employees with limited income talk about debts of ten thousands and hundred thousands of Saudi Riyals . They complain that the value of the Riyal is greatly and continuously deteriorating among most of the main currencies. Great merchants and contractors speak about hundreds and thousands of million Riyals owed to them by the government. More than three hundred forty billions of Riyal owed by the government to the people in addition to the daily accumulated interest, let alone the foreign debt. People wonder whether we are the largest oil exporting country?! They even believe that this situation is a curse put on them by Allah for not objecting to the oppressive and illegitimate behaviour and measures of the ruling regime: Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars. The honourable Ulamah and scholars as well as merchants, economists and eminent people of the country were all alerted by this disastrous situation.

Quick efforts were made by each group to contain and to correct the situation. All agreed that the country is heading toward a great catastrophe, the depth of which is not known except by Allah. One big merchant commented : '' the king is leading the state into 'sixty-six' folded disaster'', (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). Numerous princes share with the people their feelings, privately expressing their concerns and objecting to the corruption, repression and the intimidation taking place in the country. But the competition between influential princes for personal gains and interest had destroyed the country. Through its course of actions the regime has torn off its legitimacy:

(1) Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law. The regime entered into a bloody confrontation with the truthful Ulamah and the righteous youths (we sanctify nobody; Allah sanctify Whom He pleaseth).

(2) The inability of the regime to protect the country, and allowing the enemy of the Ummah - the American crusader forces- to occupy the land for the longest of years. The crusader forces became the main cause of our disastrous condition, particularly in the economical aspect of it due to the unjustified heavy spending on these forces. As a result of the policy imposed on the country, especially in the field of oil industry where production is restricted or expanded and prices are fixed to suit the American economy ignoring the economy of the country. Expensive deals were imposed on the country to purchase arms. People asking what is the justification for the very existence of the regime then?

Quick efforts were made by individuals and by different groups of the society to contain the situation and to prevent the danger. They advised the government both privately and openly; they send letters and poems, reports after reports, reminders after reminders, they explored every avenue and enlist every influential man in their movement of reform and correction. They wrote with style of passion, diplomacy and wisdom asking for corrective measures and repentance from the "great wrong doings and corruption " that had engulfed even the basic principles of the religion and the legitimate rights of the people.

But -to our deepest regret- the regime refused to listen to the people accusing them of being ridiculous and imbecile. The matter got worse as previous wrong doings were followed by mischief's of greater magnitudes. All of this taking place in the land of the two Holy Places! It is no longer possible to be quiet. It is not acceptable to give a blind eye to this matter.

As the extent of these infringements reached the highest of levels and turned into demolishing forces threatening the very existence of the Islamic principles, a group of scholars-who can take no more- supported by hundreds of retired officials, merchants, prominent and educated people wrote to the King asking for implementation of the corrective measures. In 1411 A.H. (May 1991), at the time of the gulf war, a letter, the famous letter of Shawwaal, with over four hundred signatures was send to the king demanding the lift of oppression and the implementation of corrective actions. The king humiliated those people and choose to ignore the content of their letter; and the very bad situation of the country became even worse.

People, however, tried again and send more letters and petitions. One particular report, the glorious Memorandum Of Advice, was handed over to the king on Muharram, 1413 A.H (July 1992), which tackled the problem pointed out the illness and prescribed the medicine in an original, righteous and scientific style. It described the gaps and the shortcoming in the philosophy of the regime and suggested the required course of action and remedy. The report gave a description of:

(1) The intimidation and harassment suffered by the leaders of the society, the scholars, heads of tribes, merchants, academic teachers and other eminent individuals;

(2) The situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) regardless of the Shari'ah as instituted by Allah;

(3) The state of the press and the media which became a tool of truth-hiding and misinformation; the media carried out the plan of the enemy of idolising cult of certain personalities and spreading scandals among the believers to repel the people away from their religion, as Allah, the Exalted said: {surely- as for- those who love that scandal should circulate between the believers, they shall have a grievous chastisement in this world and in the here after} (An-Noor, 24:19).

(4) Abuse and confiscation of human rights;

(5) The financial and the economical situation of the country and the frightening future in the view of the enormous amount of debts and interest owed by the government; this is at the time when the wealth of the Ummah being wasted to satisfy personal desires of certain individuals!! while imposing more custom duties and taxes on the nation. (the prophet said about the woman who committed adultery: "She repented in such a way sufficient to bring forgiveness to a custom collector!!").,

(6) The miserable situation of the social services and infra-structure especially the water service and supply , the basic requirement of life.,

(7) The state of the ill-trained and ill-prepared army and the impotence of its commander in chief despite the incredible amount of money that has been spent on the army. The gulf war clearly exposed the situation.,

(8) Shari'a law was suspended and man made law was used instead.,

(9) And as far as the foreign policy is concerned the report exposed not only how this policy has disregarded the Islamic issues and ignored the Muslims, but also how help and support were provided to the enemy against the Muslims; the cases of Gaza-Ariha and the communist in the south of Yemen are still fresh in the memory, and more can be said.

As stated by the people of knowledge, it is not a secret that to use man made law instead of the Shari'a and to support the infidels against the Muslims is one of the ten "voiders" that would strip a person from his Islamic status (turn a Muslim into a Mushrik, non believer status). The All Mighty said: {and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are the unbelievers} (Al-Ma'ida; 5:44), and {but no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find the slightest misgiving in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission} (An-Nissa; 4:65).

In spite of the fact that the report was written with soft words and very diplomatic style, reminding of Allah, giving truthful sincere advice, and despite of the importance of advice in Islam - being absolutely essential for those in charge of the people- and the large number who signed this document as well as their supporters, all of that was not an intercession for the Memorandum . Its' content was rejected and those who signed it and their sympathisers were ridiculed, prevented from travel, punished and even jailed.

Therefore it is very clear that the advocates of correction and reform movement were very keen on using peaceful means in order to protect the unity of the country and to prevent blood shed. Why is it then the regime closed all peaceful routes and pushed the people toward armed actions?!! which is the only choice left for them to implement righteousness and justice. To whose benefit does prince Sultan and prince Nayeff push the country into a civil war that will destroy everything? and why consulting those who ignites internal feuds, playing the people against each other and instigate the policemen, the sons of the nation, to abort the reform movement. While leaving in peace and security such traitors who implement the policy of the enemy in order to bleed the financial and the human resources of the Ummah, and leaving the main enemy in the area-the American Zionist alliance enjoy peace and security?!

The advisor (Zaki Badr, the Egyptian ex-minister of the interior) to prince Nayeff -minister of interior- was not acceptable even to his own country; he was sacked from his position there due to the filthy attitude and the aggression he exercised on his own people, yet he was warmly welcomed by prince Nayeff to assist in sins and aggressions. He unjustly filled the prisons with the best sons of this Ummah and caused miseries to their mothers. Does the regime want to play the civilians against their military personnel and vice versa, like what had happened in some of the neighbouring countries?!! No doubts this is the policy of the American-Israeli alliance as they are the first to benefit from this situation.

But with the grace of Allah, the majority of the nation, both civilians and military individuals are aware of the wicked plan. They refused to be played against each others and to be used by the regime as a tool to carry out the policy of the American-Israeli alliance through their agent in our country: the Saudi regime.

Therefore every one agreed that the situation can not be rectified (the shadow cannot be straighten when its' source, the rod, is not straight either) unless the root of the problem is tackled. Hence it is essential to hit the main enemy who divided the Ummah into small and little countries and pushed it, for the last few decades, into a state of confusion. The Zionist-Crusader alliance moves quickly to contain and abort any "corrective movement" appearing in the Islamic countries. Different means and methods are used to achieve their target; on occasion the "movement" is dragged into an armed struggle at a predetermined unfavourable time and place. Sometime officials from the Ministry of Interior, who are also graduates of the colleges of the Shari'ah, are leashed out to mislead and confuse the nation and the Ummah (by wrong Fatwas) and to circulate false information about the movement. At other occasions some righteous people were tricked into a war of words against the Ulama and the leaders of the movement, wasting the energy of the nation in discussing minor issues and ignoring the main one that is the unification of the people under the divine law of Allah.

In the shadow of these discussions and arguments truthfulness is covered by the falsehood, and personal feuds and partisanship created among the people increasing the division and the weakness of the Ummah; priorities of the Islamic work are lost while the blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control over the Ummah. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the Ministry of Interior. The right answer is to follow what have been decided by the people of knowledge, as was said by Ibn Taymiyyah (Allah's mercy upon him): "people of Islam should join forces and support each other to get rid of the main "Kufr" who is controlling the countries of the Islamic world, even to bear the lesser damage to get rid of the major one, that is the great Kufr".

If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. No other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it; the people of knowledge, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated: "to fight in defence of religion and Belief is a collective duty; there is no other duty after Belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting the life and the religion. There is no preconditions for this duty and the enemy should be fought with one best abilities. (ref: supplement of Fatawa). If it is not possible to push back the enemy except by the collective movement of the Muslim people, then there is a duty on the Muslims to ignore the minor differences among themselves; the ill effect of ignoring these differences, at a given period of time, is much less than the ill effect of the occupation of the Muslims' land by the main Kufr. Ibn Taymiyyah had explained this issue and emphasised the importance of dealing with the major threat on the expense of the minor one. He described the situation of the Muslims and the Mujahideen and stated that even the military personnel who are not practising Islam are not exempted from the duty of Jihad against the enemy.

Ibn Taymiyyah , after mentioning the Moguls (Tatar) and their behaviour in changing the law of Allah, stated that: the ultimate aim of pleasing Allah, raising His word, instituting His religion and obeying His messenger (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is to fight the enemy, in every aspects and in a complete manner; if the danger to the religion from not fighting is greater than that of fighting, then it is a duty to fight them even if the intention of some of the fighter is not pure i.e . fighting for the sake of leadership (personal gain) or if they do not observe some of the rules and commandments of Islam. To repel the greatest of the two dangers on the expense of the lesser one is an Islamic principle which should be observed. It was the tradition of the people of the Sunnah (Ahlul-Sunnah) to join and invade- fight- with the righteous and non righteous men. Allah may support this religion by righteous and non righteous people as told by the prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM). If it is not possible to fight except with the help of non righteous military personnel and commanders, then there are two possibilities: either fighting will be ignored and the others, who are the great danger to this life and religion, will take control; or to fight with the help of non righteous rulers and therefore repelling the greatest of the two dangers and implementing most, though not all, of the Islamic laws. The latter option is the right duty to be carried out in these circumstances and in many other similar situation. In fact many of the fights and conquests that took place after the time of Rashidoon, the guided Imams, were of this type. (majmoo' al Fatawa, 26/506).

No one, not even a blind or a deaf person , can deny the presence of the widely spread mischief's or the prevalence of the great sins that had reached the grievous iniquity of polytheism and to share with Allah in His sole right of sovereignty and making of the law. The All Mighty stated: {And when Luqman said to his son while he admonish him: O my son! do not associate ought with Allah; most surely polytheism is a grievous iniquity} (Luqman; 31:13). Man fabricated laws were put forward permitting what has been forbidden by Allah such as usury (Riba) and other matters. Banks dealing in usury are competing, for lands, with the two Holy Places and declaring war against Allah by disobeying His order {Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury} (Baqarah; 2:275). All this taking place at the vicinity of the Holy Mosque in the Holy Land! Allah (SWT) stated in His Holy Book a unique promise (that had not been promised to any other sinner) to the Muslims who deals in usury: {O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah and relinquish what remains (due) from usury, if you are believers * But if you do (it) not, then be appraised of WAR from Allah and His Apostle} (Baqarah; 2:278-279). This is for the "Muslim" who deals in usury (believing that it is a sin), what is it then to the person who make himself a partner and equal to Allah, legalising (usury and other sins) what has been forbidden by Allah. Despite of all of the above we see the government misled and dragged some of the righteous Ulamah and Da'ees away from the issue of objecting to the greatest of sins and Kufr. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

Under such circumstances, to push the enemy-the greatest Kufr- out of the country is a prime duty. No other duty after Belief is more important than the duty of had . Utmost effort should be made to prepare and instigate the Ummah against the enemy, the American-Israeli alliance- occupying the country of the two Holy Places and the route of the Apostle (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) to the Furthest Mosque (Al-Aqsa Mosque). Also to remind the Muslims not to be engaged in an internal war among themselves, as that will have grieve consequences namely:

1-consumption of the Muslims human resources as most casualties and fatalities will be among the Muslims people.

2-Exhaustion of the economic and financial resources.

3-Destruction of the country infrastructures

4-Dissociation of the society

5-Destruction of the oil industries. The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world. The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and push them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land; therefore spread of the fighting in the region will expose the oil wealth to the danger of being burned up. The economic interests of the States of the Gulf and the land of the two Holy Places will be damaged and even a greater damage will be caused to the economy of the world. I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. We also warn the aggressors, the USA, against burning this Islamic wealth (a crime which they may commit in order to prevent it, at the end of the war, from falling in the hands of its legitimate owners and to cause economic damages to the competitors of the USA in Europe or the Far East, particularly Japan which is the major consumer of the oil of the region).

6-Division of the land of the two Holy Places, and annexing of the northerly part of it by Israel. Dividing the land of the two Holy Places is an essential demand of the Zionist-Crusader alliance. The existence of such a large country with its huge resources under the leadership of the forthcoming Islamic State, by Allah's Grace, represent a serious danger to the very existence of the Zionist state in Palestine. The Nobel Ka'ba, -the Qiblah of all Muslims- makes the land of the two Holy Places a symbol for the unity of the Islamic world. Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world. The sons of the two Holy Places are directly related to the life style (Seerah) of their forefathers, the companions, may Allah be pleased with them. They consider the Seerah of their forefathers as a source and an example for re-establishing the greatness of this Ummah and to raise the word of Allah again. Furthermore the presence of a population of fighters in the south of Yemen, fighting in the cause of Allah, is a strategic threat to the Zionist-Crusader alliance in the area. The Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) said: (around twelve thousands will emerge from Aden/Abian helping -the cause of- Allah and His messenger, they are the best, in the time, between me and them) narrated by Ahmad with a correct trustworthy reference.

7-An internal war is a great mistake, no matter what reasons are there for it. the presence of the occupier-the USA- forces will control the outcome of the battle for the benefit of the international Kufr.

I address now my brothers of the security and military forces and the national guards may Allah preserve you hoard for Islam and the Muslims people:

O you protectors of unity and guardians of Faith; O you descendent of the ancestors who carried the light (torch) of guidance and spread it all over the world. O you grandsons of Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqaas , Almothanna Ibn Haritha Ash-Shaybani , Alga'ga' Ibn Amroo Al-Tameemi and those pious companions who fought Jihad alongside them; you competed to join the army and the guard forces with the intention to carry out Jihad in the cause of Allah -raising His word- and to defend the faith of Islam and the land of the two Holy Places against the invaders and the occupying forces. That is the ultimate level of believing in this religion "Deen". But the regime had reversed these principles and their understanding, humiliating the Ummah and disobeying Allah. Half a century ago the rulers promised the Ummah to regain the first Qiblah, but fifty years later new generation arrived and the promises have been changed; Al-Aqsa Mosque handed over to the Zionists and the wounds of the Ummah still bleeding there. At the time when the Ummah has not regained the first Qiblah and the rout of the journey of the Prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), and despite of all of the above, the Saudi regime had stunt the Ummah in the remaining sanctities, the Holy city of Makka and the mosque of the Prophet (Al-Masjid An-Nabawy), by calling the Christians army to defend the regime. The crusaders were permitted to be in the land of the two Holy Places. Not surprisingly though, the King himself wore the cross on his chest. The country was widely opened from the north-to- the south and from east-to-the west for the crusaders. The land was filled with the military bases of the USA and the allies. The regime became unable to keep control without the help of these bases. You know more than any body else about the size, intention and the danger of the presence of the USA military bases in the area. The regime betrayed the Ummah and joined the Kufr, assisting and helping them against the Muslims. It is well known that this is one of the ten "voiders" of Islam, deeds of de-Islamisation. By opening the Arab peninsula to the crusaders the regime disobeyed and acted against what has been enjoined by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), while he was at the bed of his death: (Expel the polytheists out of the Arab Peninsula); (narrated by Al-Bukhari) and: (If I survive, Allah willing, I'll expel the Jews and the Christians out of the Arab Peninsula); saheeh Aljame' As-Sagheer.

It is out of date and no longer acceptable to claim that the presence of the crusaders is necessity and only a temporary measures to protect the land of the two Holy Places. Especially when the civil and the military infrastructures of Iraq were savagely destroyed showing the depth of the Zionist-Crusaders hatred to the Muslims and their children, and the rejection of the idea of replacing the crusaders forces by an Islamic force composed of the sons of the country and other Muslim people. moreover the foundations of the claim and the claim it self were demolished and wiped out by the sequence of speeches given by the leaders of the Kuffar in America. The latest of these speeches was the one given by William Perry, the Defense Secretary, after the explosion in Al-Khobar saying that: the presence of the American solders there is to protect the interest of the USA. The imprisoned Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali, may Allah hasten his release, wrote a book of seventy pages; in it he presented evidence and proof that the presence of the Americans in the Arab Peninsula is a pre-planed military occupation. The regime want to deceive the Muslim people in the same manner when the Palestinian fighters, Mujahideen, were deceived causing the loss of Al-Aqsa Mosque. In 1304 A.H (1936 AD) the awakened Muslims nation of Palestine started their great struggle, Jihad, against the British occupying forces. Britain was impotent to stop the Mujahideen and their Jihad, but their devil inspired that there is no way to stop the armed struggle in Palestine unless through their agent King Abdul Azeez, who managed to deceives the Mujahideen. King Abdul Azeez carried out his duty to his British masters. He sent his two sons to meet the Mujahideen leaders and to inform them that King Abdul Azeez would guarantee the promises made by the British government in leaving the area and responding positively to the demands of the Mujahideen if the latter stop their Jihad. And so King Abdul Azeez caused the loss of the first Qiblah of the Muslims people. The King joined the crusaders against the Muslims and instead of supporting the Mujahideen in the cause of Allah, to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he disappointed and humiliated them.

Today, his son, king Fahd, trying to deceive the Muslims for the second time so as to loose what is left of the sanctities. When the Islamic world resented the arrival of the crusader forces to the land of the two Holy Places, the king told lies to the Ulamah (who issued Fatwas about the arrival of the Americans) and to the gathering of the Islamic leaders at the conference of Rabitah which was held in the Holy City of Makka. The King said that: "the issue is simple, the American and the alliance forces will leave the area in few months". Today it is seven years since their arrival and the regime is not able to move them out of the country. The regime made no confession about its inability and carried on lying to the people claiming that the American will leave. But never-never again ; a believer will not be bitten twice from the same hole or snake! Happy is the one who takes note of the sad experience of the others!!

Instead of motivating the army, the guards, and the security men to oppose the occupiers, the regime used these men to protect the invaders, and further deepening the humiliation and the betrayal. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). To those little group of men within the army, police and security forces, who have been tricked and pressured by the regime to attack the Muslims and spill their blood, we would like to remind them of the narration: (I promise war against those who take my friends as their enemy) narrated by Al--Bukhari. And his saying (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) saying of: ( In the day of judgement a man comes holding another and complaining being slain by him. Allah, blessed be His Names, asks: Why did you slay him?! The accused replies: I did so that all exaltation may be Yours. Allah, blessed be His Names, says: All exaltation is indeed mine! Another man comes holding a fourth with a similar complaint. Allah, blessed be His Names, asks: Why did you kill him?! The accused replies: I did so that exaltation may be for Mr. X! Allah, blessed be His Names, says: exaltation is mine, not for Mr. X, carry all the slain man's sins (and proceed to the Hell fire)!). In another wording of An-Nasa'i: "The accused says: for strengthening the rule or kingdom of Mr. X"

Today your brothers and sons, the sons of the two Holy Places, have started their Jihad in the cause of Allah, to expel the occupying enemy from of the country of the two Holy places. And there is no doubt you would like to carry out this mission too, in order to re-establish the greatness of this Ummah and to liberate its' occupied sanctities. Nevertheless, it must be obvious to you that, due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted i.e using fast moving light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other word to initiate a guerrilla warfare, were the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it. And as you know, it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces not to be engaged in a conventional fighting with the forces of the crusader enemy (the exceptions are the bold and the forceful operations carried out by the members of the armed forces individually, that is without the movement of the formal forces in its conventional shape and hence the responses will not be directed, strongly, against the army) unless a big advantage is likely to be achieved; and great losses induced on the enemy side (that would shaken and destroy its foundations and infrastructures) that will help to expel the defeated enemy from the country.

The Mujahideen, your brothers and sons, requesting that you support them in every possible way by supplying them with the necessary information, materials and arms. Security men are especially asked to cover up for the Mujahideen and to assist them as much as possible against the occupying enemy; and to spread rumours, fear and discouragement among the members of the enemy forces.

We bring to your attention that the regime, in order to create a friction and feud between the Mujahideen and yourselves, might resort to take a deliberate action against personnel of the security, guards and military forces and blame the Mujahideen for these actions. The regime should not be allowed to have such opportunity.

The regime is fully responsible for what had been incurred by the country and the nation; however the occupying American enemy is the principle and the main cause of the situation . Therefore efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the Grace of Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come -by the Permission of Allah- when you'll perform your decisive role so that the word of Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels (Kaferoon) will be the inferior. You will hit with iron fist against the aggressors. You'll re-establish the normal course and give the people their rights and carry out your truly Islamic duty. Allah willing, I'll have a separate talk about these issues.

My Muslim Brothers (particularly those of the Arab Peninsula): The money you pay to buy American goods will be transformed into bullets and used against our brothers in Palestine and tomorrow (future) against our sons in the land of the two Holy places. By buying these goods we are strengthening their economy while our dispossession and poverty increases.

Muslims Brothers of land of the two Holy Places:

It is incredible that our country is the world largest buyer of arms from the USA and the area biggest commercial partners of the Americans who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men and financial supports.

To deny these occupiers from the enormous revenues of their trading with our country is a very important help for our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture. By doing so we would have taken part in (the process of ) cleansing our sanctities from the crusaders and the Zionists and forcing them, by the Permission of Allah, to leave disappointed and defeated.

We expect the woman of the land of the two Holy Places and other countries to carry out their role in boycotting the American goods.

If economical boycotting is intertwined with the military operations of the Mujahideen, then defeating the enemy will be even nearer, by the Permission of Allah. However if Muslims don't co-operate and support their Mujahideen brothers then , in effect, they are supplying the army of the enemy with financial help and extending the war and increasing the suffering of the Muslims.

The security and the intelligence services of the entire world can not force a single citizen to buy the goods of his/her enemy. Economical boycotting of the American goods is a very effective weapon of hitting and weakening the enemy, and it is not under the control of the security forces of the regime.

Before closing my talk, I have a very important message to the youths of Islam, men of the brilliant future of the Ummah of Muhammad (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM). Our talk with the youths about their duty in this difficult period in the history of our Ummah. A period in which the youths and no one else came forward to carry out the variable and different duties. While some of the well known individuals had hesitated in their duty of defending Islam and saving themselves and their wealth from the injustice, aggression and terror -exercised by the government- the youths (may Allah protect them) were forthcoming and raised the banner of Jihad against the American-Zionist alliance occupying the sanctities of Islam. Others who have been tricked into loving this materialistic world, and those who have been terrorised by the government choose to give legitimacy to the greatest betrayal , the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). We are not surprised from the action of our youths. The youths were the companions of Muhammad (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him), and was it not the youths themselves who killed Aba-Jahl, the Pharaoh of this Ummah? Our youths are the best descendent of the best ancestors.

Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf -may Allah be pleased with him- said: (I was at Badr where I noticed two youths one to my right and the other to my left. One of them asked me quietly (so not to be heard by the other) : O uncle point out Aba-Jahl to me. What do you want him for? , said Abdul Rahman. The boy answered: I have been informed that he- Aba-Jahl- abused the Messenger of Allah (), I swear by Allah, who have my soul in His hand, that if I see Aba-Jahl I'll not let my shadow departs his shadow till one of us is dead. I was astonished, said Abdul Rahman; then the other youth said the same thing as the first one. Subsequently I saw Aba-Jahl among the people; I said to the boys do you see? this is the man you are asking me about. The two youths hit Aba-Jahl with their swords till he was dead. Allah is the greatest, Praise be to Him: Two youths of young age but with great perseverance, enthusiasm, courage and pride for the religion of Allah's, each one of them asking about the most important act of killing that should be induced on the enemy. That is the killing of the pharaoh of this Ummah - Aba Jahl-, the leader of the unbelievers (Mushrikeen) at the battle of Badr. The role of Abdul Rahman Ibn Awf , may Allah be pleased with him, was to direct the two youths toward Aba-Jahl. That was the perseverance and the enthusiasm of the youths of that time and that was the perseverance and the enthusiasm of their fathers. It is this role that is now required from the people who have the expertise and knowledge in fighting the enemy. They should guide their brothers and sons in this matter; once that has been done, then our youths will repeat what their forefathers had said before: "I swear by Allah if I see him I'll not let my shadow to departs from his shadow till one of us is dead".

And the story of Abdur-Rahman Ibn Awf about Ummayyah Ibn Khalaf shows the extent of Bilal's (may Allah be pleased with him) persistence in killing the head of the Kufr: "the head of Kufr is Ummayyah Ibn Khalaf.... I shall live not if he survives" said Bilal.

Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

I say to Secretary of Defence: The sons of the land of the two Holy Places had come out to fight against the Russian in Afghanistan, the Serb in Bosnia-Herzegovina and today they are fighting in Chechenia and -by the Permission of Allah- they have been made victorious over your partner, the Russians. By the command of Allah, they are also fighting in Tajakistan.

I say: Since the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential; then they would be even more enthusiastic, more powerful and larger in number upon fighting on their own land- the place of their births- defending the greatest of their sanctities, the noble Ka'ba (the Qiblah of all Muslims). They know that the Muslims of the world will assist and help them to victory. To liberate their sanctities is the greatest of issues concerning all Muslims; It is the duty of every Muslims in this world.

I say to you William (Defence Secretary) that: These youths love death as you loves life. They inherit dignity, pride, courage, generosity, truthfulness and sacrifice from father to father. They are most delivering and steadfast at war. They inherit these values from their ancestors (even from the time of the Jaheliyyah, before Islam). These values were approved and completed by the arriving Islam as stated by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him): "I have been send to perfecting the good values". (Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer).

When the pagan King Amroo Ibn Hind tried to humiliate the pagan Amroo Ibn Kulthoom, the latter cut the head of the King with his sword rejecting aggression, humiliation and indignation.

If the king oppresses the people excessively, we reject submitting to humiliation.

By which legitimacy (or command) O Amroo bin Hind you want us to be degraded?!

By which legitimacy (or command) O Amroo bin Hind you listen to our foes and disrespect us?!

Our toughness has, O Amroo, tired the enemies before you, never giving in!

Our youths believe in paradise after death. They believe that taking part in fighting will not bring their day nearer; and staying behind will not postpone their day either. Exalted be to Allah who said: {And a soul will not die but with the permission of Allah, the term is fixed} (Aal Imraan; 3:145). Our youths believe in the saying of the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him): "O boy, I teach a few words; guard (guard the cause of, keep the commandments of) Allah, then He guards you, guard (the cause of ) Allah, then He will be with you; if you ask (for your need) ask Allah, if you seek assistance, seek Allah's; and know definitely that if the Whole World gathered to (bestow) profit on you they will not profit you except with what was determined for you by Allah, and if they gathered to harm you they will not harm you except with what has been determined for you by Allah; Pen lifted, papers dried, it is fixed nothing in these truths can be changed" Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. Our youths took note of the meaning of the poetic verse:

"If death is a predetermined must, then it is a shame to die cowardly."
and the other poet saying:
"Who do not die by the sword will die by other reason; many causes are there but one death".

These youths believe in what has been told by Allah and His messenger (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) about the greatness of the reward for the Mujahideen and Martyrs; Allah, the most exalted said: {and -so far- those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish. He will guide them and improve their condition. and cause them to enter the garden -paradise- which He has made known to them}. (Muhammad; 47:4-6). Allah the Exalted also said: {and do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay -they are- alive, but you do not perceive} (Bagarah; 2:154). His messenger (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) said: "for those who strive in His cause Allah prepared hundred degrees (levels) in paradise; in-between two degrees as the in-between heaven and earth". Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) also said: "the best of the martyrs are those who do NOT turn their faces away from the battle till they are killed. They are in the high level of Jannah (paradise). Their Lord laughs to them ( in pleasure) and when your Lord laughs to a slave of His, He will not hold him to an account". narrated by Ahmad with correct and trustworthy reference. And : "a martyr will not feel the pain of death except like how you feel when you are pinched". Saheeh Al-Jame' As-Sagheer. He also said: "a martyr privileges are guaranteed by Allah; forgiveness with the first gush of his blood, he will be shown his seat in paradise, he will be decorated with the jewels of belief (Imaan), married off to the beautiful ones, protected from the test in the grave, assured security in the day of judgement, crowned with the crown of dignity, a ruby of which is better than this whole world (Duniah) and its' entire content, wedded to seventy two of the pure Houries (beautiful ones of Paradise) and his intercession on the behalf of seventy of his relatives will be accepted". Narrated by Ahmad and At-Tirmithi (with the correct and trustworthy reference)

Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is doublethan their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.

The youths also reciting the All Mighty words of: "so when you meat in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks..." (Muhammad; 47:19). Those youths will not ask you (William Perry) for explanations, they will tell you singing there is nothing between us need to be explained, there is only killing and neck smiting.











...etc.

Well out of the ass's (oops horse's) mouth...George Bush has admitted to breaking domestic laws - DEMOCRATIC LAWS - by illegally bugging his own people. Isn't the whole "war on terrorism" a fight to protect democracy? How can Bush say this when he goes against the very foundation of democracy? One more reason to get rid of that silly Patriot Act down there in the US. Impeach the guy already.

The only thing he has admitted or has been proven at this point is to the monitoring of calls made from the U.S. to overseas to people with links to suspected terrorist organizations. Though it is a minor inconvenience and abridgements of our rights, I far prefer that to having planes flying into New York skyscrapers. Unless you have something to hide, that is, I can't imagine what you would be so worried about. It is not the beginning of the end, or even a serious infringement of anyones rights in any way that really matters. Besides, you fail to mention that 4 out of the last 5 presidents have authorized wiretaps on private citizens. This isn't only Bush that has done this.

Get a grip.

The only thing he has admitted or has been proven at this point is to the monitoring of calls made from the U.S. to overseas to people with links to suspected terrorist organizations. Though it is a minor inconvenience and abridgements of our rights, I far prefer that to having planes flying into New York skyscrapers. Unless you have something to hide, that is, I can't imagine what you would be so worried about. It is not the beginning of the end, or even a serious infringement of anyones rights in any way that really matters. Besides, you fail to mention that 4 out of the last 5 presidents have authorized wiretaps on private citizens. This isn't only Bush that has done this.

Get a grip.
So if Bush doesn't authorize wiretapping, there would be hijacked aircraft flying all over New York City? :confused: That's almost as bad as some people's assertions that had Bush not been appointed ruler of America in 2000, we'd all be speaking Arabic.

So if Bush doesn't authorize wiretapping, there would be hijacked aircraft flying all over New York City? :confused: That's almost as bad as some people's assertions that had Bush not been appointed ruler of America in 2000, we'd all be speaking Arabic.

That's certainly one possibility. As are bombs going off in train stations, etc., etc. The point is, that if gathered intelligence can even possibly help prevent such things from occurring, then it is a price I can live with comfortably. If we'd paid attention to the intelligence gathered before 9/11, we could have prevented it.

Which leads to the next point. If you are so much against it, you must have something to hide from the intelligencia. What are you so afraid of?

Which leads to the next point. If you are so much against it, you must have something to hide from the intelligencia. What are you so afraid of?
That America gives up the principles it stands for, in order to make some people feel a little safer? America is the constitution, as Xenophobialand put it a while ago on these boards, and breaking the constitution is breaking America.

Fact of the matter is that if this is illegal, then it is grounds for impeachment.

That's certainly one possibility. As are bombs going off in train stations, etc., etc. The point is, that if gathered intelligence can even possibly help prevent such things from occurring, then it is a price I can live with comfortably. If we'd paid attention to the intelligence gathered before 9/11, we could have prevented it.

Which leads to the next point. If you are so much against it, you must have something to hide from the intelligencia. What are you so afraid of?
A corrupt government, maybe?

That America gives up the principles it stands for, in order to make some people feel a little safer? America is the constitution, as Xenophobialand put it a while ago on these boards, and breaking the constitution is breaking America.

Fact of the matter is that if this is illegal, then it is grounds for impeachment.

The Senate granted war powers to the president after 9/11. Which makes your comment absurd. He is authorized to make appropriate decisions regarding national security within that mandate. Of course the Senate could always withdraw that mandate. One they gave to Bush by a vote of 99 to 1. Many Democrats were included in that vote. (But that would require a majority in the Senate, wouldn't it? Guess that won't happen any time soon....) But until that day, what he is doing is nothing more or less than what Clinton and Carter also both authorized while in office.

The point is, it is not an illegal act. And all your and Xenophobialand's pontificating does not make it any more so.

A corrupt government, maybe?

Show me any government that isn't, to a greater or lesser extent.

but if the court is secret than how do we know about it :) unlesss...... OMG Somone told on the secret court! at least they dont know about the secret congress or secret Queen.....yet

I have a few things to say. You won't listen but I'll say them regardless.

Bush didn't sign a paper making it legal to perform wiretaps on suspected international terrorists. Bush signed a paper granting his private panel of spies immunity from legal action for wrongfully performing intelligence on anyone they please.

The reason Bush has gotten away with removing so many civil liberties in such a short time comes in three parts. All of which are explained by Aristotle as the corruption of demagoguery. Norbet Elias calls it nationbuilding, and Hitler called it Nationalism. Just because we're calling it self-defence doesn't change what it is. A rose by any other name is still riddled with pricks. You, the private citizen, are responsible for performing any and all duties to represent yourself on your own behalf. This is called representative government. If you just sit idly by and never accept responsibility for your government, you are a peasant or a serf or possibly a slave. YOU are the problem, not the capitalist who DID act in the spirit of democracy and get himself voted in (regardless of the ethical and moral boundaries that may have been crossed in rigging that election.)

Finally, if you're not going to do anything about the removal of your civil liberties but complain, you don't deserve them in the first place. If you think it's too much work, too bad. A good capitalist would weigh the loss of personal revenues and drop in standards of living aganst the act of taking some 'poor me' time out of their life to go do the job the right way rather than just letting someone with more motivation and less aptitude take control of their personal economy.

"The only kind of control that's real is self-control. The rest is illusion."

I have a few things to say. You won't listen but I'll say them regardless.

Bush didn't sign a paper making it legal to perform wiretaps on suspected international terrorists. Bush signed a paper granting his private panel of spies immunity from legal action for wrongfully performing intelligence on anyone they please.

The reason Bush has gotten away with removing so many civil liberties in such a short time comes in three parts. All of which are explained by Aristotle as the corruption of demagoguery. Norbet Elias calls it nationbuilding, and Hitler called it Nationalism. Just because we're calling it self-defence doesn't change what it is. A rose by any other name is still riddled with pricks. You, the private citizen, are responsible for performing any and all duties to represent yourself on your own behalf. This is called representative government. If you just sit idly by and never accept responsibility for your government, you are a peasant or a serf or possibly a slave. YOU are the problem, not the capitalist who DID act in the spirit of democracy and get himself voted in (regardless of the ethical and moral boundaries that may have been crossed in rigging that election.)

Finally, if you're not going to do anything about the removal of your civil liberties but complain, you don't deserve them in the first place. If you think it's too much work, too bad. A good capitalist would weigh the loss of personal revenues and drop in standards of living aganst the act of taking some 'poor me' time out of their life to go do the job the right way rather than just letting someone with more motivation and less aptitude take control of their personal economy.

"The only kind of control that's real is self-control. The rest is illusion."
Good post. *bows*


..*BUMP*

That's certainly one possibility. As are bombs going off in train stations, etc., etc. The point is, that if gathered intelligence can even possibly help prevent such things from occurring, then it is a price I can live with comfortably. If we'd paid attention to the intelligence gathered before 9/11, we could have prevented it.

Which leads to the next point. If you are so much against it, you must have something to hide from the intelligencia. What are you so afraid of?

Why do you close the bathroom door behind you?

Show me any government that isn't, to a greater or lesser extent.

That's the point. All governments are corrupt, and giving them more power never makes them less corrupt. Giving the executive branch the power to wiretap citizens without any warrant or oversight of any kind is an open invitation to corruption. As such, it is a greater danger to me personally than any terrorist.

The Senate granted war powers to the president after 9/11. Which makes your comment absurd. He is authorized to make appropriate decisions regarding national security within that mandate. Of course the Senate could always withdraw that mandate. One they gave to Bush by a vote of 99 to 1. Many Democrats were included in that vote. (But that would require a majority in the Senate, wouldn't it? Guess that won't happen any time soon....) But until that day, what he is doing is nothing more or less than what Clinton and Carter also both authorized while in office.

The point is, it is not an illegal act. And all your and Xenophobialand's pontificating does not make it any more so.

You are likely referring to the broad language included in a resolution passed by the House and Senate on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" involved in the attacks. The argument goes that this authorization implicitly allows the President to ignore FISA. The problem of course is that the President tried, in the very same resolution, to get language included that explicitly allowed the wiretapping that the NSA ultimately did. Congress explicitly rejected including that language in the bill. Thus, you cannot by any stretch of the imagination suppose that it was the intent of the legislature to allow this wiretapping, or to suppose that it was the intent of the legislature to bypass FISA.

As a result, there is no reason to suppose that the President had the statutory authority to do what he did. He sure as hell didn't have constitutional authority, unless you are of the opinion (an opinion which has been shot down repeatedly and explicitly by the Supreme Court, by the way) that the President has unlimited power during wartime, or more succinctly, that if the President does it, then it is not illegal. This view, however, is not supported by legal precedent, nor is it supported by reason or history: one of the central pillars of our society is the idea that no man is ever above the law, nor is any man allowed to single-handedly make the law, and with good reason, because such a rule is an invitation for tyranny.

You can lament my pontification all you want, but until you can respond to my argument, I believe that's check and mate.

i would just like to say


BOOOYAH!!!!!!!!!!

and perhaps

MODED!!!!!!

<3