It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Grieving Mother's Campaign Against Bush's War

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Can we leave the partisan rubbish at the door please. Its really useless and counter productive. This is not a right vs. left or Republican vs. Democrat issue. Those who wish to make it so can take their propaganda else where. Partisanship is the epitome of ignorance, do not indulge in it.


Then can I ask why you keep trying to imply that there is a link between the current administration, Republicans, and the nazis?.....

You are right thou, this is counter productive.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Very good A-68, I disagree with what you are saying but at least there is food for thought there. Thank you.

Now, let me ask you this - why do people lie? To cover something else up. Do people lie to hide something good?

As for the good reasons to take out Saddam, well, that isn't America's place anymore and arguable never was. If there was a time for that it would have been when they asked for your help, but that fell on deaf ears and how many people got slaughtered because they beleived America would come to their aid as was promised? But I digress...

Is it not this American and more generally Western expansion into the ME that the "terrorists" are fighting against? SO then, wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that less envolvement, not more, would have the desired effects of peace?

How many people did Saddam kill over his years in power? How many Iraqi's have been killed over this war? Can't use the Iraqi's as a reason, if the purpose was to help them, how could waging a war in their backyards help them?

This has done more for the terrorist movement than anything else could possibly do, and the US was aware of that and they STILL did it, showing at the very least a complete lack of understanding of the problem - but that is why they lied. The official reason, and the real reason have always been two different things, and they know you(The royal you, as in all American's) wouldn't go for it unless you were frightened...

Good thing 911 indeed. It provided a real good example of terrorism, ofcourse 911 and Iraq have nothing to do with one another - ofcourse the American public thought differently after the linguistic structure used by the government - which had to be done intentionally so they lied again...

But why change when it is obvious that regardless what they do the voting public either doesn't know or worse doesn't care - which is why Bush and his gang have been getting more peacockish about it.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
Could someone please tell me the reasons again for this war. I have lost count. First it was the WMD, then it was Saddam, then it was spreading Democracy....


All of the above reasons, and some others were given for the war. Only those who do not like Republican presidents keep trying to sell to the world that the reasons for the war have been changing, when in fact they never changed.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Passer By
Could someone please tell me the reasons again for this war. I have lost count. First it was the WMD, then it was Saddam, then it was spreading Democracy....


All of the above reasons, and some others were given for the war. Only those who do not like Republican presidents keep trying to sell to the world that the reasons for the war have been changing, when in fact they never changed.


Nope, sorry. I don't remember Powell, or Cheney or Bush or anyone for that matter saying anything other than WMD - remember the little vile Powell had to scare the world? Sorry my man, the reason was WMD, it was changed when the gig was up on that one, and shanged it to get Saddam, and then changed that after they "got him".

You attempt to label me and everyone that manages to see through the tripe as being against one party or another underlines exactly how "they" managed to brain wash and minipulate some of the more weak minded. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
Very good A-68, I disagree with what you are saying but at least there is food for thought there. Thank you.

Now, let me ask you this - why do people lie? To cover something else up. Do people lie to hide something good?


You continue to make it sound like everything leading up to the coallition going into Iraq was a calculated, premeditated lie. You know that isn't the case as well as I do. Your statement is predicated upon the President's WMD argument and the fact that, as of yet, no large caches of WMD's have been found. A few have, though not enough to serve as sole justification for the invasion of Iraq. Evidence of WMD's and WMD programs; however, continues to pile up as does evidence of shipping WMD's out of the country. We may yet find the "smoking gun" WMD's, or evidence of such, but as I pointed out earlier WMD's were not the only reason for the invasion.


As for the good reasons to take out Saddam, well, that isn't America's place anymore and arguable never was. If there was a time for that it would have been when they asked for your help, but that fell on deaf ears and how many people got slaughtered because they beleived America would come to their aid as was promised? But I digress...


The U.S. failure to support the poor people who were encouraged to revolt against Saddam Hussein immediately following the 1991 Iraqi war is a sad and shameful day in our country's proud history. The mission to take out Saddam Hussein was clearly our "place." The Iraqi's had been violating the various U.N. resolutions and violating the terms of the ceasefire and firing on U.S. military personnel, not to mention gassing the Kurds, etc..


Husein Is it not this American and more generally Western expansion into the ME that the "terrorists" are fighting against? SO then, wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that less envolvement, not more, would have the desired effects of peace?


No, what you argue for is appeasement of the insurgent groups. You obviously read my previous post, so you should know that we are not expanding into the ME. We, along with our coallition partners, are trying to give the Iraqi people a chance to build a stable, democratic society. The entire world has to know we'll leave as soon as possible. When we do leave, an Iraqi government that truely represents the people of Iraq will be in place and then peace may be realized.


How many people did Saddam kill over his years in power? How many Iraqi's have been killed over this war? Can't use the Iraqi's as a reason, if the purpose was to help them, how could waging a war in their backyards help them?


If the purpose of the war was to oust Saddam Hussein and turn the country over to the people of Iraq how could the war have possibly been fought anywhere else? You know as well as I that the vast majority of the casualties in Iraq have come from insurgent bombs and attacks directly upon the people of Iraq, not from coallition military actions. The coallition goes out of it's way to preclude collateral damage, sometimes excessively so. If any other group in the world was doing what the coallition is doing, the collateral damage would be staggering and you know it.


This has done more for the terrorist movement than anything else could possibly do, and the US was aware of that and they STILL did it, showing at the very least a complete lack of understanding of the problem - but that is why they lied. The official reason, and the real reason have always been two different things, and they know you(The royal you, as in all American's) wouldn't go for it unless you were frightened...


You're using circular logic here that I will not even attempt to refute. I will admit the invasion of Iraq has led to an increase in terrorist actions both inside and outside of Iraq. I will even, reluctantly, stipulate the coallition knew such was likely to happen; however, as I have pointed out twice already, there were still good and sufficient reasons to go in.

The remainder of your post is not worth commenting on as all you're doing is rehashing the same arguments over and over again.

I sincerely hope the time I have put into this rebuttal of your comments lets you see the illogic of what you're saying.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
A-68:

How is it illogical my friend? Bush and Blair both new that the reasons were slim and there has been ample evidense, if circumstantial, that they went out of their way to get the reasons for the war. This isn't debatable, they knew there were no WMDs there, they also knew no other reasons would suffice going into Iraq - so they lied, intentionally and knowingly - lied.

There were no other reasons. Powell never said that Saddam had to leave, he said there were WMD and they were going to use them on the USA, they even knew where they were, on maps and such.

It was only after some time when it was clear to everyone that there were, as was suspected, no WMD's - then it turned that they had to get Saddam - who was clearly tied in with OBL through linguistic structures that had a majority of America's on one poll thinking that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. This too shows how little the US had to go after even Saddam, because simply being a tyrant is not enough.

The reasons were WMD's, there were no WMD's, all evidense shows that both Bush, Blair and others were told repeatedly there were no WMD's and they still touted that line. This is a slam dunk my man, you and America and some of the world were played. Pure and simple.

As for other reasons to go into Iraq, like what? Violating UN sanctions? Didn't the US not listen to the UN in order to invade Iraq? Would you support someone breaking the law to teach someone a lesson for breaking the law? Darn tooting it is illogical, as was this whole Iraq mess.

The increase in terrorism was a certainity - and why did they do it? To defend the UN's rules(That they broke in doing it)? If they knew there would be an increase in terrorist in the region and felt the risk was worth it, and as you say, the majority of those innocent Iraqi's have been killed by the increase in Terrorists that the US knew would occur if they went in - then isn't it still because of the US that they are dead? The US felt the risk was worth it - but once again for what? Saddam wasn't then or ever wasa threat, they knew there were no WMD's, and the UN rules excuse holds no more water than a sieve, seeing as the US broke the same UN's rules and have repeated ignored the same violations with Isreal.

There is nothing illogical about my stance that I can see. It all flows from one core concept. However, if you can show me(or are aware of where I can find it) a file that shows that the push leading into the war with Iraq was about anything other than the WMD's, and explicitly stating other reasons, then I will be more than happy to rethink my entire position.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Phugedaboudet, are you honestly comparing the validity of the Iraq War to that of World War 2?


If he is, then he is right. Radical Muslims want to destroy the west, the only way to take care of this problem is to at least try to root it out, instead of thinking on the rights of terrorists that would rather see you and me converted to their version of Islam or dead.

This is a global war because radical Islamists can be found everywhere on the planet. Would i rather prefer peace and harmony with all of humanity? of course, but that's not what happens in the real world. There are groups of people out there that want us submit to them and their view of their religion, or they want us dead.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
It's a shame this grieving woman lets herself be used so shamelessly--ah well, she was probably vulnerable and easy to manipulate.


Her son made a decision to fight for us. What she is doing is a disgrace to the memory of her son and what he was fighting for. I know she lost a loved one and she should morn his loss, but she shouldn't try to use the death of her son for her own political motivations.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
MUADDID:

Can you please tell me where did you get your mind reading powers from? Knowing what others around the world think.. Nemisis envaribly follows hubris my man.

What they said publically they want is for the west to be out of the ME, how about starting with that and when(if) that fails then we can draw about your Kreskin like powers? But until then how about sticking to what they have said they wanted, and not what some political figure here says that they want. Because, you know, they lie and have lied about this before, which is what really got this muck going.

Leave the middle east, and maybe things get better. Maybe they won't, but at least they wouldn't be able to blame the west anymore.

But that isn't likely to happen is it? I wonder why?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Then can I ask why you keep trying to imply that there is a link between the current administration, Republicans, and the nazis?.....

You are right thou, this is counter productive.

Theres no link between the current administration and Republicans??

With regards to Republicans and Nazis, where have I said such a thing? There are good people who are Republicans and there are good people who are Democrats. That is not the issue here. When you can understand that you are wasting your time and intellect on mindless protection of the Republican party, the better. What do you care if mindless people bash the Republican party en masse for the actions of a few members? You know, and I know, that you cannot possibly tar all Republicans with the same brush, its what the individual believes and says thats important.

Muaddib, I will judge Republicans and Democrats the same. I will not blindly support Democrats or blindly condemn Republicans. That is a ridiculous position for any one to take and allows the true partisanistas to get away with what ever they want because the people are too busy fighting a non-existant turf war.

Also the so called "War" on Terror and World War Two are completely different. With WW2 there was a defined enemy, it was recognizable as nation states and with the destruction of their respective governments there would be an end to the War. That is the complete opposite to the so called "War" on Terror.

BOT if we may, this mother is no more manipulated into questioning the reasons for her sons death than those who support the Iraq War. Those who believe in their hearts that the Iraq War was justified and legal know just as much facts as those who believe otherwise. The Bush administration would have you believe it was legal and justified, does that mean you are manipulated just as much as this poor woman is? I would answer, yes.

[edit on 8/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Theres no link between the current administration and Republicans??


Are all Republicans part of the administration?.....no.....that's why I mentioned both the administration, and all other Republicans that are not part of this administration......



Originally posted by subz
With regards to Republicans and Nazis, where have I said such a thing?


Subz quite a few times you have implied this, and in this thread you did the same once more.


Posted by: subz
On: Sun August, 7 2005 @ 23:55 GMT
Im sure thats what grieving mothers were told by the Reich when their sons died on the Eastern and Western fronts.


If you did not want to imply a connection, why would you even mention the reich?.... The current administration and it's policies have nothing in common with the nazis.


Originally posted by subz
Also the so called "War" on Terror and World War Two are completely different. With WW2 there was a defined enemy, it was recognizable as nation states and with the destruction of their respective governments there would be an end to the War. That is the complete opposite to the so called "War" on Terror.


The enemy in this war is also defined although they use many other tactics which normally nations wouldn't use, except the Chinese. *Refer to the book "Unrestricted War". In this book Chinese government officials present new ways to fight wars, such as bombing the WTC, using terrorists such as Bin Laden, etc.

This book was printed with the permission of the Chinese government before the 9\11 attack. For all we know this is a Chinese war against the west, except this time around they are using terrorists to attack us. I am not saying it is, but this is a conspiracy forum, and it is a bit too convinient that we were attacked 2 years after this book was printed in China.

The wars of today are fought differently than they were fought in the past. Nowadays the enemy uses different tactics, but the enemy is defined, they are Radical Muslims and they want either submission or the destruction of the west.


Originally posted by subz
BOT if we may, this mother is no more manipulated into questioning the reasons for her sons death than those who support the Iraq War.


I never said she was being manipulated, i said that she is manipulating the death of her son for her own political views.


Originally posted by subz
The Bush administration would have you believe it was legal and justified, does that mean you are manipulated just as much as this poor woman is? I would answer, yes.


I am not being manipulated in any way, form, or matter, I have a different opinion, and I see justification for the war with the information I have researched myself and which I have posted, along with some other members, in these forums.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Busted: Cindy Sheehan


‘He Acted Like It Was A Party’?

Cindy Sheehan (search) — the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq last year who's now camped outside President Bush's Crawford ranch demanding to see him — said yesterday on CNN that a private meeting with President Bush last year was offensive, insisting, "He acted like it was a party ... he came in very jovial, like we should be happy that ... our son died for [the President's] misguided policies."

But just after that 2004 meeting, she gave a very different account, telling her local paper, the Vacaville Reporter, "I now know [the president is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She added that President Bush "gave us ... the gift of happiness, of being together."

Political Grapevine




seekerof



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   


‘He Acted Like It Was A Party’?

Cindy Sheehan (search) — the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq last year who's now camped outside President Bush's Crawford ranch demanding to see him — said yesterday on CNN that a private meeting with President Bush last year was offensive, insisting, "He acted like it was a party ... he came in very jovial, like we should be happy that ... our son died for [the President's] misguided policies."

But just after that 2004 meeting, she gave a very different account, telling her local paper, the Vacaville Reporter, "I now know [the president is] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She added that President Bush "gave us ... the gift of happiness, of being together."


I heard this today on my daily dosage of FoxNews... It seems a bit suss to me, maybe she could of had a visit from some men in black suits, men who were escorting a programmer of some kind...

Whether or not she changed her mind (for some reason), it doesn't disguise the fact that the Bush Administration lied to her and the rest of the American populous - and it doesn't excuse the side-stepping techniques the government has been using this last 5 years or more...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Oh course, ghostsoldier...
Anything that contradicts is "suss", eh?

Try busted again:
Account of Iraq War Protestor's Meeting With Bush Draws Scrutiny



In re-posting the original story on the paper's Web site, Editor Diane Barney said: "It's important that readers see the full context of the story, instead of just selected portions. We stand by the story as an accurate reflection of the Sheehan's take on the meeting at the time it was published.'”





seekerof

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Are all Republicans part of the administration?.....no.....that's why I mentioned both the administration, and all other Republicans that are not part of this administration......

Yes but also all the administration are Republicans. It was a joke any way Muaddib



Originally posted by Muaddib
Subz quite a few times you have implied this, and in this thread you did the same once more.

If you did not want to imply a connection, why would you even mention the reich?.... The current administration and it's policies have nothing in common with the nazis.

I was not 'implying' the current administration are Nazi's Muaddib. Im sure the post I was refering to has been removed. It was the post that was glorifying the death of this soldier and saying his death was justifiable because he was serving his country. I used that reference because not all countries aims are noble in war. You can just as easily die for a country fighting an evil war (Reich) as you can for a war you think is good (Iraq). That was meant to nullify the automatic "justified death because he died fighting for his country" rubbish. The post I was responding to is gone, I wasnt responding to you at all and there was no inference of Nazism to any one.


Originally posted by Muaddib
The enemy in this war is also defined although they use many other tactics which normally nations wouldn't use, except the Chinese.

This is meant to be a War on Terrorism, not a War on Islamic Terrorism. There was no distinction drawn between Islamic or Christian or Jewish terrorism. Therefore the "enemy" is an 'ism' and cannot be clearly defined. You could easily pass a terrorist walking down the street and you would have no idea they were your enemy.


Originally posted by Muaddib
I never said she was being manipulated, i said that she is manipulating the death of her son for her own political views.

You didnt, but others did. It was them I was responding to.


Originally posted by Muaddib
I am not being manipulated in any way, form, or matter, I have a different opinion, and I see justification for the war with the information I have researched myself and which I have posted, along with some other members, in these forums.

Thats fine, I respect that. Again, it wasnt you I was responding to there.

[edit on 8/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
MUADDID:

Can you please tell me where did you get your mind reading powers from? Knowing what others around the world think.. Nemisis envaribly follows hubris my man.


No mind reading powers, we have covered this many times in these forums, do a search and you will find the information. Osama Bin Laden and others like him have many times talked about how they were thinking on ways to attack the west (as in the interview that was done with him by a reported in 1997, there is a copy of that interview in these forums) meanwhile the US was helping him fight the Russians in the 80's. Many radical Muslims have also said that they want those lands that "were theirs in the past" such as Andalucia (Spain), Italy, Jerusalem, Kashmir, parts of France, etc, etc.


Originally posted by Passer By
What they said publically they want is for the west to be out of the ME, how about starting with that and when(if) that fails then we can draw about your Kreskin like powers? But until then how about sticking to what they have said they wanted, and not what some political figure here says that they want. Because, you know, they lie and have lied about this before, which is what really got this muck going.


What they have said is that they want a new Islamic caliphate and the world to submit to this caliphate, if submission is not possible, then they want the destruction of the west. Everything else they "demand" is just part of their main goal. Search throughout these forums and you will find much information about this.



Originally posted by Passer By
Leave the middle east, and maybe things get better. Maybe they won't, but at least they wouldn't be able to blame the west anymore.

But that isn't likely to happen is it? I wonder why?


They will find other reasons to blame the west. Look at Spain, after the 3/11 attacks, Islamic terrorists said they would not attack Spain again once the troops got out of Iraq, yet, they tried to attack Spain several times after the troops pulled out.

There is also the attempted attacks in France in 2000 and 2003, where french authorities found evidence of radical muslims plans to attack with biological attacks in that country despite the objection of the french on the war against Iraq.

Islamic radicals will always find excuses to make people in the west think it is our fault that they are attacking the west....

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Every interview I have seen of OBL's he always says it is the west's influance, expansion, control over the ME. That is their stated goal. Maybe their goal will change if they get one thing, demand the next, but in order to see that one would either have to be a mind reader or a time traveler, and I am neither. So I am just going to have to take them at their word that it is American's control of the ME and Islamic countries that they are fighting about. Leave the Middle east and maybe that chills things out.

Very simple when you think of it. You're not welcome somewhere, leave it and let them worry about it.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
.
The math doesn't add up to the reported totals from the report itself.


"On average, 34 Iraqis every day have met violent deaths since the invasion of March 2003," he said at the launch of the report in London.

www.commondreams.org...

March 2003 - March 2005 = 24 months,
April 2005 - July 2005 = 4 months,

4 + 24 = 28 * 30.5 days per month * 34 per day = 29, 036

Please, Muaddib, do the math for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...
These figures don't include the 5,000 to 10,000 civilians killed during the invasion itself.

Estimates of military Iraqis [the guys that sat on and controlled this political powder keg we unleashed] run from 10,000 to 45,000.

Here with actual local municipal counts has the total civilian loss at 37,000.
www.wanniski.com...

Low estimate of Iraqis dead from invasion and occupation 29,000 + 5,000 + 10,000 = 44,000 dead Iraqis

High estimate 37,000 + 10,000 + 45,000 = 92,000 dead Iraqis

Other sources:

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.


Saddam did send money to families of palestinian suicide bombers in Israel,
But i have never heard a single credible account of training terrorists on Iraqi soil.
your link:

Two Iraqi Military defectors, an unnamed former Lt. General and a Captain Sabah Khodada recently gave details of an Iraqi school at Salman Pak . . .

Are these sources to be as trusted as Ahmad Chalabi was when he was being paid $340,000.00 per month to spin [bogus] tales that made the adminstration happy?
How much were these guys paid? One of them won't even allow his name to be released.
Can you say 'Credibility Gap'?

Saddam wanted WMDs.
Point of fact he, due to UN inspectors had NONE.
CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Are you saying the CIA is in the pocket of the so-called liberal media?

What alternate reality are you living in?

9 billion dollars is UNACCOUNTED for. That by definition means it has gone into unknown hands. The term used is Embezzled.

. . . the provisional authority . . . relied on Iraqi ministries to manage development money that was transferred to them.
edition.cnn.com...
Perhaps more of the administration's trusted friends like Chalabi. The newly trained Iraqi police and military are riddled with insurgent supporters. To imagine that some of the 9 billion embezzled dollars hasn't made its way into insurgent hands is inconcievable.

No Iraq was not a disaster.
It was a potential powder keg.

George Bush and blind flag wavers lit the powder keg.
NOW Iraq is a mess.
A potential civil war. A spawning ground for terrorists. A training ground for terrorists.
And thanks to GW Bush's support of torture, Abu Graib is now the recruiting poster for more Anti-American terrorism.

Has GW Bush made a single effort to find, acquire or contain nuclear matterials around the world? His fiasco in Iraq is emboldening the Iranians with their atomic weapon ambitions, after he has fractured any alliance consensus and tied up our military on this counter-productive disaster in Iraq.

George W Bush is supporting terrorism not the war AGAINST terrorism.

The only true American patriots are the minutemen guarding our southern border.

The American military is just the meat puppet of corporate oil and war-profiteering interests.
.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
Every interview I have seen of OBL's he always says it is the west's influance, expansion, control over the ME. That is their stated goal. Maybe their goal will change if they get one thing, demand the next, but in order to see that one would either have to be a mind reader or a time traveler, and I am neither. So I am just going to have to take them at their word that it is American's control of the ME and Islamic countries that they are fighting about. Leave the Middle east and maybe that chills things out.

Very simple when you think of it. You're not welcome somewhere, leave it and let them worry about it.


You are obviously unaware of Osama Bin Laden stated goals, which in great part is the re-establishment of a Caliphate where all Muslims live, and to get back all those lands which were theirs in the past.

Are you willing to give to radical Muslims Kashmir, Jerusalem, Turkey and every other muslim state that is pro-democratic, Spain, Italy, parts of France, Yemen country, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Muscat, Jordan, Palestine etc, etc? and then after that to have the world dominated by radical Islam?

Here is an excerpt from a thread which Valhall did on this topic a while back.


They believe in an Islamic state in which all are governed by Sha'ria, which is Islamic law, with strict observance of the Qur'an and religous observances. They believe there should be no foreign presence ( nonbelievers) within this Islamic state, and that this unified Islamic nation should be ruled under a re-established Caliphate. In order to re-establish the unified Islamic nation and the Caliphate, Jihad is necessary to free the believers of Islam currently ruled by "non- Islamic" rulers. (To be clear, a "non-Islamic ruler" is defined as any ruler who is not currently ruling his country in accordance with Sha'ria.) Any country previously under Islamic rule should be brought back under Sha'ria and the Caliphate by Jihad. This Jihad, they believe, is mandatory and actually can be viewed as a sixth pillar of Islam, according to the Islamists.


Excerpted from.
www.terroranalysis.com...

That is not the end of the goals of Al Qaeda and other radical muslim groups, they want the world to be dominated by Islam.


[edit on 8-8-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
MUADDID, I am aware of every interveiw I have seen or read from them, and they simply state nothing to what you are saying. If I have missed one where he states these goals, how about a link? If not, it sounds more like fear mongering.

I am not ready, willing or in a position to let them have any country. Only America seems to think it has a say in other nations affairs, I will say though that should they try to take Spain, or France, or the like then we can take care of them - but they haven't done that and to my knowledge never stated they want those places.

All they have repeatedly said is for America to get out of the ME. Now, why don't you get out of the middle east?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join