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.

 

Delta Force founder: Bush may have started World War III

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Not exactly a balanced news article, is it?

I suppose not, but few will root for more destruction and insitigate war, especially after they've experienced it.

Haney clarifies:

'NO REAL THREAT TO U.S.'
Retired Army sergeant major Eric Haney, who helped start the elite covert counterterrorism group Delta Force, is speaking out against the President's idea that there is an alleged foreign threat out to get the U.S., according to a Los Angeles Daily News interview.

"There is no real threat to the U.S. in the world," he reportedly said, adding the dramatic opinion that, "Bush has formented World War III," and "Americans voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on."


There is nothing to fear, but fear itself. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt.



[edit on 3-4-2006 by Riwka]




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
"There is no real threat to the U.S. in the world," he reportedly said, adding the dramatic opinion that, "Bush has formented World War III," and "Americans voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.





If there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world. Then whats all that talk about terrorism that he has been blabbing about? That don't make sense. Delta Force wasn't created just for fun.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Amethyst,
I'm sorry to say this man. But in the dog-eat-dog world we live in. Its hard to live by the Christian principles that I believe in as well. Its even harder to live by them when youre dealing with other individuals on the scale that POTUS has to. Every country looks after their own interests, and I dont blame them one bit.

All I'm saying is, is that if you dont know the man personally, then dont make assumptions about them.



It's really not as difficult as you think.

What's difficult is doing said things without standing out among your 'peers'. The world we live in now is not the world we lived in even so recently as 10, maybe 15 years ago......Evil surrounds us, we must be wary always. These are dangerous times for mankind, in which we will discover whether or not the kindness of strangers prevails. And the forecast is looking grim.

Don't be afraid. The judgements of mortal man, no matter what his station, matter not. There are two opinions that matter in the world. Yours, and God's. That's true for everyone. And may the philosophy of peace and kindness reign for many years to come. (I just don't see it happening)


[edit on 3-27-2006 by Loki]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Yep, how dare this "ex" military man share his opinion on this war when so many ATSers know so much more than him, enough at least to publicly question his integrity.


So what people on ATS cant question anyones motives? Or since this guy was in a unit that dosent even offically exists nobody on ATS should question him or his motives?

Everybody has angles and motives it only makes sense to try to figure out what those are.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
well cheney and his bush have small minded down pat.


Mod Note: One Line Response – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Don't tell me...this man is going to try to run for office...

Pleeease, president Bush didn't start any war, much less WWIII...

Try to do a search for how long Islamic extremists have been waging wars around the world... and do a search to see what group of people is involved in more wars than any other around the world.

I'll give you a hint, Islamic extremists.

More than half of the wars/conflicts around the world have Islamic extremists fighting in them. The largest and most recent genocide was commited by Islamic extremists in south Africa, millions of people have been murdered by Arab militias since 1983 in south Africa alone....

And some people want to claim that president Bush started WWIII?......




[edit on 28-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Pleeease, president Bush didn't start any war, much less WWIII...

Muaddib you are delusional! Bush invaded Iraq as a matter of choice, we were not being threatened by them...if that is not starting a war I don't know what is. I know you will start bludgeoning me with "facts" on how all these countries thought Iraq had WMD but doesn't cahnge the fact THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY!!! besides that Saddam wasn't threatening us.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Don't tell me...this man is going to try to run for office...

Pleeease, president Bush didn't start any war, much less WWIII...

Try to do a search for how long Islamic extremists have been waging wars around the world... and do a search to see what group of people is involved in more wars than any other around the world.

I'll give you a hint, Islamic extremists.

More than half of the wars/conflicts around the world have Islamic extremists fighting in them. The largest and most recent genocide was commited by Islamic extremists in south Africa, millions of people have been murdered by Arab militias since 1983 in south Africa alone....

And some people want to claim that president Bush started WWIII?......




[edit on 28-3-2006 by Muaddib]




Muaddib, you of all people should know that the middle east has been a puppet of east v. west politicking since the cold war.

Hell, ever since the first crusade, the west has been exploiting the middle east.

I tell you now without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it is the warlike influence of western politics on the peoples of the middle east that have led to their militiaristic and violent tendencies. I have no doubt in my mind that we're merely reaping what we have been sowing.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Muaddib you are delusional! Bush invaded Iraq as a matter of choice, we were not being threatened by them...if that is not starting a war I don't know what is. I know you will start bludgeoning me with "facts" on how all these countries thought Iraq had WMD but doesn't cahnge the fact THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY!!! besides that Saddam wasn't threatening us.


Grover, appart from you never contributing anything else except your own twisted opinions, you have never given evidence to contradict what other members and i have been saying for almost two years now.......ever...

To make matters worse it seems that you have some short memory problem as there are several threads, currently active, in ATSNN which show and prove that Saddam and his regime were a threat to the U.S....

I don't know exactly how you think you can pull off this lattest twisted opinion of yours, when right now so many threads prove the contrary, and even before these new threads came up, some members of the forums and I have been giving, for about two years, direct links and information which show that Saddam did have a wmd program, we just didn't find the stockpiles of wmd...which is what people like yourself are trying to use as an excuse for your political bickerings ...

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loki

Muaddib, you of all people should know that the middle east has been a puppet of east v. west politicking since the cold war.

Hell, ever since the first crusade, the west has been exploiting the middle east.

I tell you now without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it is the warlike influence of western politics on the peoples of the middle east that have led to their militiaristic and violent tendencies. I have no doubt in my mind that we're merely reaping what we have been sowing.


On the contrary, and you should have checked on the history of Islam and the first crusades, to find out that today's "warlike tendency of Islamic extremists" is a direct consequence of the tendency of their forefathers...

The first crusade to have ever been waged was done by Muslims in the 7th century AD., which lasted for over 1,200 years. The Christian response to this Muslim crusade, which had the goal of spreading Islam by force throughout the world, led to the first Christian crusade to attack back at the invading armies of the Muslims. Both sides did their share of evil deeds, but the warlike people who started the crusades were the newly converted Muslims, which by definition are exactly today's Islamic extremists.

These days there are many Muslims which have denounced to this ancient warlike tendency which they forefathers started, and will not mimic what their forefathers did. These Muslims are called moderates, they have adapted to the modern world, they accept western society, and there are quite a few that even have adapted to the western life.

The middle east was not a region dominated by Arabs, in facts the Arabs that existed back then were mostly nomad tribes, which Mohammed united mostly by force to attempt his goal of domination of Islam over the rest of the world.

if you do a search on what was Mohammed's job, you will find that he was a pillager, and a common thief, who prayed on caravans killing, by beheading, people even after they had surrendered and taking women, including a little girl as his slave wives.

He broke pretty much every rule that supposedly the archangel Gabriel gave him and he said so himself.

Islamic extresmists these days are a mirror image of what Muhammed was, and what he wanted to accomplish.

All the "knowledge which has been said in some history books to have come from Muslims" were nothing more than plagiarism which Muslims did from other ethnic groups (such as the Assyrians) which existed and were in control of the middle east before the Muslim crusades started.

BTW, Sudan is an Islamic country which is ruled by Sharia, and it was the government of Sudan who sanctioned and backed the Arab militias from exterminating millions of people since 1983 to present day in South Africa alone...

The western world has nothing to do with what these Islamic extremists are doing.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Your "history" of Islam is what is twisted bub...after reading that ignorant little tirad. I know better now than to take any your assertions even passingly serious especially if you start calling them facts. It is so full of lies and illusions I don't even know where to begin other than to suggest you read a history of Islam as a culture and a religion, because I tell ya even as a non-muslim I find the ignorance and the assertions you have inbedded there offensive. For a man as apparently (but then appearances can be false) intelligent as you seem to be, you can do better.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I highly recommend Karen Armstrong's bio of Muhammad as well as her "triology" "A histroy of God". "The Battle for God: a History of Fundamentalisms" and "holy War: the Crusades and their Imapct on Today's World"...very educational books eridite and humane.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
This current world war was started on 911.

Once that happened, the US was bound to respond and reorganize the middle east, destroying dictatorships and Islamic Republics.

How do we know this guy was in delta force, and, more importantly, why do we care about his opinions?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Your "history" of Islam is what is twisted bub...after reading that ignorant little tirad. I know better now than to take any your assertions even passingly serious especially if you start calling them facts. It is so full of lies and illusions I don't even know where to begin other than to suggest you read a history of Islam as a culture and a religion, because I tell ya even as a non-muslim I find the ignorance and the assertions you have inbedded there offensive. For a man as apparently (but then appearances can be false) intelligent as you seem to be, you can do better.



REally?....

So I just told lies, you don't give any evidence for this except mentioning some books which may or may not say what you claim, but then again many people write books and quite a few of them are not "full of facts"...


Let's see whether or not I was telling the truth....

The Islamic expansion to the world by the sword started in 617-622 AD.

The following link gives a short history of how Islam spread.

www.mnsu.edu...

The following is a map with dates and where Islam spread to.



Now, it seem that people like Grover would have us beleive that Islam could have been spread without the shed of blood in Christian countries, in a time when people were extremely religious, even more than now....

Most cities in the Middle East were not Arabic, cities like present day Iraq and parts of Iran were populated by other ethnic people, such as the Assyrians, who populated Iraq and parts of Iran for almost 700 years before the Muslims invaded. BTW, the Assyrians were Christians.

The following is an excerpt on the spread of Islam and the conquests in Spain.




On July 19, 711, an army of Arabs and Berbers unified under the aegis of the Islamic Umayyad caliphate landed on the Iberian Peninsula. Over the next seven years, through diplomacy and warfare, they brought the entire peninsula except for Galicia and Asturias in the far north under Islamic control; however, frontiers with the Christian north were constantly in flux.


Excerpted from.
www.metmuseum.org...

My guess is that grover will try to argue that the Muslim invaders also used diplomacy. Well, Hitler also used diplomacy and many countries surrendered to him without much of a fight also.



BTW, despite some claiming the contrary, even Mohammed used deceipt to attrack some of his people, such as the following.




In 616 he published a revelation recognizing three Meccan idols, Lat, Ozza and Manah, as intercessors with Allah. In consequence of this concession to their faith, the Koray#es, his own tribe, fell down on their faces in adoration of Allah, and the exiles in Abyssinia returned to their native land. But Mohammed soon became ashamed of the weakness by which he had purchased public support. The verses were struck out of the Koran and the weakness was attributed to the devil.


Excerpted form.
www.atheists.org...

Remember that Islam is supposed to be the truth, yet he used deceipt trying to get converts among his people.

Let's read some more.




Armed combat was immediately born of the new religion and the first war was between Mecca and Medina.

Mohammed began to place himself on the level with crowned heads of nations and in 628 had a seal made with the inscription on it: "Mohammed the messenger of God." As the governor of Medina he became tyrannical and cruel. At one point he sacrificed one hundred camels to emphasize a preachment he made from the back of a camel. In one disagreement with Jews he had six hundred men of one tribe put to death and all of the women sold as slaves. He used private assassination. He added many wives to his family and concubines. He married women whom he had never even seen and some who were already married. To effectuate this he obtained from god a special law entitling him to exceed the usual number of wives. He finally coveted Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son Zaid. Zaid obligingly divorced her but when the young woman demanded a revelation to sanction the union, this was producted by Mohammed and the obliging Gabriel.



Excerpted from.
www.atheists.org...

The information from above comes from a three-volume set of Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed by a German, Sprenger.

Let's see what the Q'uran says about wives.




"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one." Al-Qur’an (4:3)

Before the Qur’an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and many men had many wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit of four wives.
Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them.



Excerpted from.
www.islamonline.com...

Some of the women which Mohammed married and were captured in battle were: Safia Bint Huyay and Rayhana Bint Zayd, two Jewish women captured after raids, Maria the Copt from Egypt, a Christian slave who was sent as a gift from Egypt to Mohammed, among others.

Here is a Muslim link which shows how Mohammed treated women and perhaps will show those who are not into the PC game why many women are treated so badly by many Muslims.

Read the whole thing, it will open your eyes.

Anyways, here is the excerpt.




Juwairiyya Bint al-Harith: She was taken captive during the raid of Banu al-Mustaliq and was part of the spoils. No one knows when this battle took place exactly. So the dates given for her marriage to Muhammad are the fifth or the sixth year after the Migration. Ibn Hisham claims that Muhammad bought her from Thabit Ibn Qais, set her free, and later married her.
Safiyya Bint Huyay: She was among the spoils of Khaibar (one of the famous Jewish tribes), which was conquered in the sixth year A.H., and was chosen for Muhammad.
Ummu Habiba: Stories say that the Negus of Ethiopia gave her to Muhammad as a wife.
Maria, the Copt: al-Muqawqas, king of Egypt, sent four female slaves to Muhammad and Maria was one of them. She reached Medina in the seventh year after the Migration. Only Khadija and Maria gave birth to male children among all of Muhammad's wives.



Excerpted from.
www.islameyat.com...

The other wives he took can be found in that link.

BTW, there were times when he fell in love with the slave/wife that was to be for a soldier of his, yet Mohammed claimed that Allah said she had to be for him.


I have extensively and many times before given ample evidence of what I have said, including excerpting from the Q'uran to back my statements, so I will present some of the excerpts from the Q'uran, once more.

BTW, it seems that somehow Grover keeps forgetting these facts even though he has been part of these discussions before...

Despite Grover coming to tell us all his delluded lies, here is the truth.

A translation of the Quran by a Muslim on the spoils of war, booty.




38. Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).

39. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.


40. If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector - the best to protect and the best to help.

41. And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For Allah hath power over all things.

42. Remember ye were on the hither side of the valley, and they on the farther side, and the caravan on lower ground than ye. Even if ye had made a mutual appointment to meet, ye would certainly have failed in the appointment: But (thus ye met), that Allah might accomplish a matter already enacted; that those who died might die after a clear Sign (had been given), and those who lived might live after a Clear Sign (had been given). And verily Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).



Excerpted from.
web.umr.edu...

in the above the first thing you can see is that "unbelievers' were punished for not believing in Islam, and those who did not believe knew of what had happened to other unbelievers....

Which reminds me of the following statements from an ex-Muslim.




Readers have been fortunate to get a rare chance of reading a written debate (posted in series in NFB) between an Iranian Mullah Ayatollah Montazeri and Dr. Ali Sina an Iranian progressive intellectual.
[...]

I thought I should share this with some of my friends in North America. So, I e-mailed this debate to my friends, all of them who read it had the same feelings like me. One senior retired professor in Canada wrote me: “this debate broke my heart, I could not sleep for several nights, and it has surely shattered my dream which I was harboring in my heart for the last sixty some years. As a human being—I have become completely naked. Especially, I could not understand why and what for Prophet of Islam had to slaughter (beheading) some 900 hundreds of surrendered unarmed human beings in the war of Banu Qurayza. I can not imagine what was the actual scenery of that cruel episode? And I will never understand how the Prophet named this religion as—religion of peace?”


Excerpted from.
www.faithfreedom.org...

Here is another account of this one of the many slaughters caused by Mohammed.



.
Now Huyayy b. Akhtab had gone with B. Qurayza into their forts when Quraysh and Ghatafan had withdrawn and left them, to keep his word to Ka`b b. Asad; and when they felt sure that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them Ka`b b. Asad said to them: 'O Jews, you can see what has happened to you; I offer you three alternatives. Take which you please.'

(i) We will follow this man and accept him as true,
[...]

(ii) let us kill our wives and children and send men with their swords
[...]

(iii) tonight is the eve of the sabbath and it may well be that Muhammad and his companions will feel secure from us then, so come down, perhaps we can take Muhammad and his companions by surprise.'


They said: 'Are we to profane our sabbath and do on the sabbath what those before us of whom you well know did and were turned into apes?' He answered, 'Not a single man among you from the day of your birth has ever passed a night resolved to do what he knows ought to be done.' [Sirat, pp. 461-462]


Excerpted from.
answering-islam.org.uk...


So tell us Grover, are Muslims themselves lying?.... is the Quran lying?....

The religion of peace has in it's holy book a section for spoils of war, booty and of course, 1/5 of the booty from all raids and battles was to go to Mohammed, his relatives, and "supposedly" the poor....


Stop trying to be PC correct and open your eyes.

(mod edit: tag fix)


[edit on 3-4-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
So Grover...now that I have given, once again...., excerpts from the Quran, and even from Muslim sites which back what I have said.....what are you going to try to say to dismiss the facts?....

Anyways, Islamic extremism was not brought forth by the western world. Islamic extremism is inherent and it is a part of what Islam in the early days was. Extremists are merely following exactly what Mohammed did and what he wanted done.

I know there are some Muslims that are good people, and would not think to do some of the things that are written in the Quran, or that people like OBL want to do once more, such as spreading Islam by the sword again as Mohammed and the early Muslims did.

I really think it is time for a majority of Muslim clerics/mullahs, at least those who really are looking for peace and not to have the world enslaved by Islam, to unite and negate all of those things which makes Islamic extremism possible.

I hope it happens, but i don't believe it will happen, unfortunately.


[edit on 3-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
it is not worth arguing with you...when I read what you wrote all I can say is so what? To judge the past by the criteria of today is foolish. Any group, religion or civilization has to be placed within the context of its time....Muhammad was not outside or above his times he was a man of it and please tell me one empire that was not built on bloodshed, or one civilization of the time that did not treat women as property? Islam was born in the warring tribes of Arabia this is true and it does indeed reflect that fact, but you paint the whole of the Islamic experince, all 1400+ years of it with a borad and biased brush...Ignorance is everywhere and at all times, the question is whether a religion or civilization transends its roots. Islam like all the other great living religions have transended their times to become universal, they speak to the human heart. You are great at quoting...perhaps its time to try and understand what you quote.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, Sudan is an Islamic country which is ruled by Sharia, and it was the government of Sudan who sanctioned and backed the Arab militias from exterminating millions of people since 1983 to present day in South Africa alone...
[edit on 28-3-2006 by Muaddib]


could you provide links to back up this claim. i only ask because Sudan is a northern African country as opposed to South Africa, which is actually a country in itself (which hates being confused with southern Africa) and couldnt be further away from Sudan on the map of the African continent if it tried.

having lived there for 3.5 years, i think i would have heard if millions of people had been killed in South Africa by islamic militants. killed by apartheid yes, but not by islamic militants



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Sudan is in the Sahara, a couple thousand miles north of South Africa....dispute that with your facts bub.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   


First thing is first: the Delta Force doesn't exist and second: President Bush didn't start anything. He's just following up on what's already been started by the Muslim world.


Wow, I really hope you're making a little joke here by going along with the general perception that Delta doesn't exist. I was down in SWTG at Bragg for a while and I can tell you that yes, they do indeed exist. I know it's a huge joke that the military doesn't really acknowledge them...but I don't see where you're getting at. Maybe by stating they don't exist, you're giving away that Bush didn't start WWIII is a joke too.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The religion of peace has in it's holy book a section for spoils of war, booty and of course, 1/5 of the booty from all raids and battles was to go to Mohammed, his relatives, and "supposedly" the poor....

Stop trying to be PC correct and open your eyes.


Have you ever read the Old Testament in the Bible? Would you dare use that as an excuse to attacks Jews?

If you somehow think that the Jewish and Christian religions are somehow free of bloodshed, then you are sorely mistaken. Yet, we do not use the excuse of these books as evidence of the "evil" nature of their followers.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join