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: Iran's President Calls For Israel's Destruction

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Odium,

Take this the right way-I don't care where you came from or what background you have-mixed race or not. It just does not matter to me and should not matter to anyone (I do acknowledge some/many people don't feel this way). What matter (to me) is what you believe in and what you say)

It is a sad point that we as a planet still have people who have such a problem with mixed race-I really feel for you if millions want you dead, just because you are of mixed race-honestly.

I agree with your point of free speech, but there are limits-wait-let me explain.
I don't feel it is free speech to incite a riot, call for a murder(s) or yell fire in a crowed theater.
I also believe with power comes responsibility.
With great power comes great responsibility.
The President of a country has great power, therefor he has a great responsibility.
I feel it is a very different issue to have a "regular" person express views that can be taken by most of the world as call for genocide.
However if that same president calls for it, it is different.
Why you ask? Because that president controls the countries military and can actually make good on his threat/desire-whereas a "regular" person can not.
Since the president has such great power, he/she MUST realize this and act accordingly.

[edit on 10/28/2005 by mrmonsoon]




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
No problem.

The question was, how many of those [Islamic] terrorist organisations came into existance after we invaded Iraq? Because at least three people here, have gone through several pages and found the majority of them are in Iraq, are part of one large organisation and didn't exist in 2002.


My answer is I don't know how many came into existence after the Iraq war. In my view, it's moot.

The reasons sited by UBL for his attacks always has been that he (and his kind) don't like ONE SINGLE American (read: western/non-mulsim) foot on holy arab land. Western presence on Arab soil is an insult to Islam and the fact that we engage in international commerce with arab governments (oil from SA for instance) fuels the fire of hatred as al Qaieda has announced their wish to topple the ruling government for this business relationship.

The hatred has always been there. Our being in Iraq and Afghanistanprovides the opportunity for these cockroaches to kill [infidel] western soldiers, Muslim civillians, and whomever else happens to wander into the crosshairs, just so they can make their point: Western presence on Arab soil as well as personal choice and freedom is unholy and un-Islamic.

BTW: The Iraq war in its present form is a continuation of Desert Storm, under international law, as a result of Saddam Hussein's continued thumbing of his nose at UN resolutions. The international community (with the exception of a few) agreed that war was necessary for Hussein's transgressions and the potential threat of WMD. International inteligence, as well as the CIA believed Hussein had WMD and that action was necessary to prevent those weapons from getting into the hands of Islamic terrorists (UBL). There are very compelling reasons for believing that Syria now has those WMD as Hussein had plenty of time to move them there in the weeks leading up to the invasion. Only time will tell; and I don't think it will be long before we know the truth of this issue.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
But then how much of his actions fall on our heads as well?

Think of it from an Iranian view-point for a minute, they have tried as have many other Middle Eastern Nation's to use the United Nation's to punish Israel. Each time the United States has used their veto to protect Israel.

Israel has broken every U.N. resolution which has not been vetoed.

So what option is left for them but war?

Then look at it again, why should Israel be allowed to have Nuclear Weapons but not Iran? Israel still has members of Levi and Irgun in their military both terrorist organisations which killed innocent people. The same groups which did not disarm in Jerusalum and broke the United Nation's agreement on the founding of the "Jewish State".

Is it no wonder that they hate the United States and Israel? Wouldn't you?

Imagine if it was a court order against a stalker, to go near your partner. This was broken and your partner got killed. The Police/Government, then in front of you did not press charges because the D.A. decides he couldn't be bothered.

You then pay for it out of your own pocket adn spend 50years trying, but nothing ever happens. Each court knocks you back, even when their is proof that this man was guilty. Would you not be angry?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   


Is it no wonder that they hate the United States and Israel? Wouldn't you?


Well, you've made a good point. If you was in their shoes, you probably would be abit pissed at the States and Israel.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by infinite]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

And as I have corrected many people before, the vast majority of terrorist acts committed either today or in the past 100 years have been done by non-muslim, political groups.

So stating that nearly all terrorists are muslim, then backing it up with a spurrious list containing little cells is a complete lie.


Go back and read my posts. I am talking about religious terrorism and regardless of how you want to dress up this pig, it remains that global Islamic terroism is the vast majority of religious terroism today and will continue to be for a long time. I never said "all terrorists are muslim" and in fact never even imlplied it. You will get nowhere with your points if you continue to put words into others' mouths.


Originally posted by stumason
What about ETA, or the IRA, or the UDF, or FARC, or those Christian fundies in the US, or Indian Communists, or the Nepalese Moaists, or the Red Brigade, or those Greeks with the date as a name (can't remember)?


ETA--(Basque Fatherland and Freedom) Not religious; They are separatists/nationalsits

IRA--Not religious; Theyr'e nationalists/separatists

UDF--Who are they?

FARC--(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) Not religious; they are communists/socialists

"Christian fundees"? Like who?

Crap--I'm done for now.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Is it no wonder that they hate the United States and Israel? Wouldn't you?


Hate us for what? Liberating a Muslim country (Kuwait) from Husseins raping and pillaging soldiers? Or do they hate us for preventing the systematic ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia? How about liberating a country from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people and systematically elliminated anyone who challenged his authority. Is this a good reason to hate us? only if you're a strict Islamist!!



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
"UDF--Who are they"

I did a little research and came up with this:

Ulster Defence Association

Here is alink to some info on them:

en.wikipedia.org...

In short:is a loyalist paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland, outlawed as a terrorist group in the UK and Republic of Ireland, which is perceived by its supporters as defending the unionist community from Irish Republican terrorism.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
IRA--Not religious; Theyr'e nationalists/separatists

UDF--Who are they?


You are joking right? IRA are Catholic and UDF/UVF are Protestant. Read up on Irish history and you see its soaked in religion. IRA would kill protestants and UDF/UVF would kill Catholics.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Freedom_for_sum, who gave Saddam those weapons?

Do not try and change the history of the United States, like it or not they have used their veto time and time again to protect Israel.

They have sold weapons [WMD at that] to places like Iraq and if you go and check up on it, not many Nation's spoke out against them attacking Iraq the first time. I don't think even Iran did, however they have done more than just that and a lot of it wasn't for the betterment of the Islamic World but rather the Government [of the U.S's] own pockets.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
You are joking right? IRA are Catholic and UDF/UVF are Protestant. Read up on Irish history and you see its soaked in religion. IRA would kill protestants and UDF/UVF would kill Catholics.


Just because they are Catholic/Protestant doesn't mean they're fighting for their religion. The IRA's goal has always been independence from Brittain. Read it here and edu-ma-cate yourself. That makes them nationalist/separatist terrorists.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Do not try and change the history of the United States, like it or not they have used their veto time and time again to protect Israel.


Someone needed to help them; especially when there were Islamic nations all around them hell-bent on irradicating the "filthy pigs". Today, however, Israel is perfectly capable of defending herself from the likes of Iran. And I gladly (as an American) accept credit for helping Israel with her defense capabilites as Israel and the US share the same democratic beliefs; unlike Iran.

As far as providing some WMD to Iraq--This, I believe, we are giulty of and is a perfect example of why the expression "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very dangerous relationship to live by. It was this relationship we were concerned about between Hussein and UBL and, at least in part, served as the reason for attacking Iraq.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by stumason

And as I have corrected many people before, the vast majority of terrorist acts committed either today or in the past 100 years have been done by non-muslim, political groups.

So stating that nearly all terrorists are muslim, then backing it up with a spurrious list containing little cells is a complete lie.


Go back and read my posts. I am talking about religious terrorism and regardless of how you want to dress up this pig, it remains that global Islamic terroism is the vast majority of religious terroism today and will continue to be for a long time. I never said "all terrorists are muslim" and in fact never even imlplied it. You will get nowhere with your points if you continue to put words into others' mouths.


Originally posted by stumason
What about ETA, or the IRA, or the UDF, or FARC, or those Christian fundies in the US, or Indian Communists, or the Nepalese Moaists, or the Red Brigade, or those Greeks with the date as a name (can't remember)?


ETA--(Basque Fatherland and Freedom) Not religious; They are separatists/nationalsits

IRA--Not religious; Theyr'e nationalists/separatists

UDF--Who are they?

FARC--(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) Not religious; they are communists/socialists

"Christian fundees"? Like who?

Crap--I'm done for now.





Dude, citing a bunch of terrorist groups and claiming the only ones doing religious terrorism are muslims is wrong.

You dress it up how you want, but compartmentalising terrorists between religious and non-religious is distorting the facts as you imply in your other posts that Muslims have it in for us, and then pointing to all these groups and saying they are the only "global terrorists".

Look at terrorism as a whole and you clearly see that Muslims form only a small minority of past and present terrorist actions.

Also, the "troubles" in Northern Ireland were classed as sectarian violence, hence it has religious motive. They weren't "freedom fighters", they would (and still do, as do the UDF et al) target those of another religious faction. You will not get IRA bombings in catholic area and vice versa from the UDF.

So wether you window dress the stats and try to palm off muslims as the only terrorsists/ religious terrorists, either way, it is wrong. There were plenty of Jewish terrorists to choose from before 1949. There are plenty of religious terrorists now that aren't muslim.

What about the LRA in Uganda? There nasty little feckers....

Christian Fundies...your seriously telling me you dont know what I am talking about? OK city mate......

There are Sikh terrorists in India/Canada

There are Hindu terrorists in northern India.

I could trawl through a list of terrorist organisations from the past 100 years and I guarantee that less than 25 % will be muslim. If your going to narrow the field to religious terrorists, I can say with a confident certainty that the majority are likely to be christian.

[edit on 28/10/05 by stumason]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
As far as providing some WMD to Iraq--This, I believe, we are giulty of and is a perfect example of why the expression "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very dangerous relationship to live by. It was this relationship we were concerned about between Hussein and UBL and, at least in part, served as the reason for attacking Iraq.


And who did those weapons get used on?

Iran...

So why should they be thankful again?

And if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find the 9/11 Commission found no link between Osama and Hussein, except the one where Osama was told to go take a flying leap.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
You have yet to show me.
I have been learning Arabic for three years now, I know enough to do well in an average conversation and to read parts of the Qu'Ran.

And actually no, since you have not been able to show a quote where it says it is O.K. to harm another than I am still right.

Where does it say you can kill someone/attack a Nation, unless it is hostile towards you or it is an act of self defence?


You said, that's it's not ok to harm a person of the book without just reason. However what happens if you're not as person of the book, does the same reason apply to them. I just say this because you singled out people of ' the book '.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

And if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find the 9/11 Commission found no link between Osama and Hussein, except the one where Osama was told to go take a flying leap.


Well, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that Saddma and Al-Qaeda were complete opposites. Sadam knew that any help to Al-Qaeda would threaten him and postion of power in Iraq. Unfortunately for him he didn't think Bush would have the balls to touch him either.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
rogue1, I took that one part due to the fact we were primarily talking about Israel. Israel is known as the "Jewish State" and are thus "People of the Book".


Source: Qu'Ran
`Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits God does not love transgressors.' (2:190)

`If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.' (8:61)


I don't have time to go through and pick out every time they speak of it, but you can't attack soemone unless they wrong you first and to many Muslim's, Israel did wrong them - by openly breaking the U.N. agreement.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
^^^

Tell me this Odium, how do muslims see poeple who are not from the ' book ' ? As equals or inferior ?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^

Tell me this Odium, how do muslims see poeple who are not from the ' book ' ? As equals or inferior ?


It depends on the Muslim, just like it does on Christian's, the Jew, the Hindu, etc.

There are a few passages which speak to attempt to convert them and if they refuse, allow them to live out their lives in "sin", however I have yet to see a verse which says you can murder them or even attack them. Except with the case of when they have control of Mecca.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Dude, citing a bunch of terrorist groups and claiming the only ones doing religious terrorism are muslims is wrong.


Again; your'e only reading what you want to and not what is actually said. I NEVER said Muslims are "the only ones doing religious terrorism". They are the overwhelming vast majority commiting these acts.


Originally posted by stumason
Look at terrorism as a whole and you clearly see that Muslims form only a small minority of past and present terrorist actions.


Actually, you may be interested to know that Muslims form the majority of terrorist actions world wide (in the past AND present) as shown by this table

Go ahead; add them up for yourself! I only counted those who have caused over 500 injuries/fatalities and the numbers I come up with are:

Islamic attacks:

Incidents: 702
Injuries: 21,188
Fatalities: 26,114

These numbers, you'll find, far excede the combination of all non-Islamic terrorist attacks. Small minority? you keep believing that!!



Originally posted by stumason
Christian Fundies...your seriously telling me you dont know what I am talking about? OK city mate......


A sure sign of ignorance! Avoiding the answer by criticising the questioner! NAMES PLEASE!



[edit on 28-10-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
What about the actions of Israel?

Everytime they fire a missile into Palestine, that is a terrorist attack. Isn't it now 12,000 people since 1998?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join