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.

 

Sunni's and Shi'ites Uniting against the U.S.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Now noctu, If I had a newspaper in France that said blow up the trains of the evil overlords "and" had the means to do it. Even an eglitarian social democratic society such as France would have shut me down and probably arrested me, whatcha going on about then?


Originally posted by namehere
now if iraq was a free nation i might agree but its a war zone, it has no real government yet and that newspaper was helping stir up trouble to endanger the troops there so dont act like its a big issue.

ok you two fair enough on the news paper issue
I was hasty on that one at the time I didnt know it crossed the incite violence line.




posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Can you spell VIETNAM??? All i can say is maybe this will teach bush a lesson that a soveriegn states are just that... they make their choices and no-one else has the right to interfere...

P.S my condolences to anyone who has lost anyone in the war, i may be against the war but i do feel for those who are affected by it, both arab and western.



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

My comments that you quoted in this thread were made for a purpose and that purpose was that those conjectures saying that Saddam and AL-Qaeda wouldn't work together because of secular differences is seemingly defunct...would they not? Both the SUnni and the Shi'ite have MAJOR secular differences BUT they are reported to be working together? Would that not indicate that secular differences then are "null-n-void" when it comes to a common enemy...as would also be the case with Saddam and Al-Qaeda?


The Saddam and Al-Qaeda connection has nothing to do with topic of this current thread, so why bring it up? I find it strange that you could make the connection between these two War on Iraq-related things.

Here's some "logic" for ya: I think that since things are not going so well for US forces at the moment, and people might start to question the wisdom of invading Iraq and the admin's handling of the occupation, you wanted to subtly insert the idea of terrorism and Osama into the discussion of this insurgency. As we know the idea of Osama evokes a raw emotional reaction in people and makes them think of the WTC, rubble, the American Flag, and Bald Eagles crying.
That emotional reaction therby reinforces the idea that the invasion was just and we're fighting terroists (al queda) in Iraq.

Of course as newly transformed right-wing douche Dennis Miller used to say on his HBO show: "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx

Originally posted by Seekerof

My comments that you quoted in this thread were made for a purpose and that purpose was that those conjectures saying that Saddam and AL-Qaeda wouldn't work together because of secular differences is seemingly defunct...would they not? Both the SUnni and the Shi'ite have MAJOR secular differences BUT they are reported to be working together? Would that not indicate that secular differences then are "null-n-void" when it comes to a common enemy...as would also be the case with Saddam and Al-Qaeda?


The Saddam and Al-Qaeda connection has nothing to do with topic of this current thread, so why bring it up? I find it strange that you could make the connection between these two War on Iraq-related things.

Here's some "logic" for ya: I think that since things are not going so well for US forces at the moment, and people might start to question the wisdom of invading Iraq and the admin's handling of the occupation, you wanted to subtly insert the idea of terrorism and Osama into the discussion of this insurgency. As we know the idea of Osama evokes a raw emotional reaction in people and makes them think of the WTC, rubble, the American Flag, and Bald Eagles crying.
That emotional reaction therby reinforces the idea that the invasion was just and we're fighting terroists (al queda) in Iraq.

Of course as newly transformed right-wing douche Dennis Miller used to say on his HBO show: "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."



Just an addition to this particulay off-topic... Saddam and Osama hated each other for more than just secular differences... Osama saw Saddam as a 'playboy' and Saddam was threatened by Osama's Fanaticism... Saddam was a power hungry dictator, where as Osama has no desire to run a country but just wants justice for his people in the middle east...
I know someone will retalliate in some way about that justice remark, but i am just saying it how they see it...



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Its tragically apparent why and how you two would continue to miss the point.....then again, nah, its not.



seekerof



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 05:25 AM
link   
sad think is how many people still believe that there is a connection, what does it say about them ? are they lazy to pull out the informations from internet or did bush did awesome job with propaganda ? I believe 2nd to be correct, old Joseph Goebels would be ashamed oh himself if he would have seen mr Bush and his hit commando in action, even that Iraqi minister who was still winning even when bombs were falling on him is nothing compare to white house rhetoric



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 05:38 AM
link   
ATS archives are your friend.....don't be afraid to use it.
Whats even more shocking is that this "connection" is always being refered Bush....no mention of the intelligence documents or records of the previous administrations......
Seems to me that those anti-war, anti-Bush propaganda 'machines' have been doing a fine job...wouldn't you think?


seekerof



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Mrs.asianX...

I guess you just can't grasp the concept of " The enemy of my enemy, is my friend " can you ?



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
ATS archives are your friend.....don't be afraid to use it.
Whats even more shocking is that this "connection" is always being refered Bush....no mention of the intelligence documents or records of the previous administrations......
Seems to me that those anti-war, anti-Bush propaganda 'machines' have been doing a fine job...wouldn't you think?


seekerof


thats kinda cheap is not it ? when things go wrong anywhere in the world somebody ALWAYS shows up and says its not us its the guys who were doing the job be4 us, blame them, so lets put aside what clinton did and did not do, I believe that overall he was a way better president, although he had his weak moments (and I dont mean monica... thats his private affair and would u ppl have some decency u would care more what kinda job he did as president instead of who he F*** with), are not all those people, be it guys from intelligence agency or anybody else working under mr Bush ? The facts that Bush was planning all iraq thing from day 1 is not enough ? I mean he ordered to find connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, why would he do that hmm ? if u want to blame it on ignorance that bush did not know this or that... well he certainly does not know much and he proved that more than few times but if he cant live up to the job he should just give it up and for christ sake STOP blaming everybody around the president but president, if he did know for example about 9/11 and did nothing he should be fired from office if he did not know he should be fired for incompetence because he should have known.. as easy as that.. it really no brain teaser. btw right after election the US were split 50/50, actually 51/49 I believe = more than 50% people did not like bush, after 9/11 he got major support from all americans and what he did ? he blew it with Iraq... that guy is weird and if he will win the election then god help us all



posted on Apr, 7 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Seeker: Wow sometimes you're such a dink.

"Again, as posted in another thread just a few minutes ago Mr. Flinx....Are you familiar with UN Resolution 1441?
Seems that France is....
May want to find it and read it."


No, YOU READ IT. Don't quote something you obviously have never read.

" 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."


That's the relevant text. Do you see "face serious consequences" as a synonym for "militarily invaded and occupied for more than a year"?! Because nobody else did, other than the laughable "Coalition" members (onward Pulau!) who were bribed and bullied into joining (and are now bellyaching and withdrawing troops).

So if you want to quote something, read the thing first, Seeker.


jako



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join