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.

 

Pending Iraqi Genocide

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Calculated destruction is not genocide. Genocide is the killing off of a specific group of people. By looking at the word, geno-cide, I'd conclude that it is the killing off of a group of people of a particular, unique genetic code, huh? But that does not describe war. As I have noticed, there are Germans still with us, and the Japanese must be over there building all these Nissans I see, so they are not wiped out.

Yes, I'm sure evil tyrants who attack others, or groups of evil people who attack others, might have genocide in mind. This does not mean that either the U.S. or the U.K. have genocide in mind.

To continue to say things such as "War is murder" or "War is genocide" lessens the meaning of both murder and genocide.

To live in a country that protects you from violent death at the hands of a foreign enemy while at the same time criticizingit for protecting you is alot more than merely unappreciative.

I just had a thought, that if there were to be some way to assure that only those opposed to war with Iraq would be harmed or killed, it might be an idea to not go to war and then allow whatever planned atrocity to happen. But then it occured to me that would be evil, to allow someone to get killed for being shallow, slow or myopic. In the civilized world, we try and protect the ignorant from themselves. Hence, the warning of suffocation on plastic bags. What is a blatantly obvious threat to some goes unnoticed by others.




posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Java
Bout Time, are you saying that you are pissed that Clinton didn't do more in Kosovo, as in more military action or other types of coercion?

Are you saying that going to Kosovo, which was strictly a humanitarian move to protect the Muslims who were acting as terrorists (novel idea, huh? An Islamic terrorist) and oust Slobadon Milosowassisname, was an honorable deed, while going into Iraq, which will also accomplish a great, if not greater humanitarian deed, is not as noble?
Kosovo was not even a threat to the Western world in any way, other than regional instability in a limited area. Civilians in London, Washington D.C. and Sydney weren't even in the least bit in any kind of danger. This time, there is ample reason for the citizenry of non-Islamic nations to be concerned, yet now it isn't a noble cause to do a humanitarian action that will also aid in the protection of the rest of the world?

The cause is just and right for the citizenry here in the West, no matter if your theories of oil companies making a profit were to come to be.

It also seems that you miss no chance to point fingers at past republican presidents for their moves to contain and combat the Soviet threa across the world, yet you make no mention of how the democratic presidents have had a strong hand in bringing the ingedients together to make us weak and be a target. Sounds like a possible partisan position to me.


Yes, the moves of Clinton in relation to Kosovo ( was a UN action, but he should have moved quicker ) and Chechnya ( you've read my post on the affair after the theater incident; Russia has applied systematic murder & scorched earth to the mix) I am pissed at because of slow action & inaction, respectively.
Tell me, please say it ain't so, that you think Slobo & the Boys were in the right!?!?! Kosovo was never about containing warfare to avoid the danger of spillover, you know that.
Humanitarian deed as the impetus behind the Iraq invasion? That's so weak the administration even rarely uses it.
That's like me pissing on my lawn and gloating that I'm great at fertilizing it.

Did Saddam invade any neighbor except for 12 hours in Kuwait?
Did Iraqis pilot jets into the WTC?
Does Iraq have Al Qaeda training camps within their borders?
Did Al Qeda flee to Iraq or Pakistan when the Afgan campaign started?
Where does Iraq rank in comparison to Israel among groups like the UN Human Right Commission or AI?
Again comparing the two countries, how many UN violations does each tally?

Regardless of our difference of opinion on whether oil is the reason for this war ( it is ), the fact that "oil companies making a profit" will most certainly occur is without question. The new Iraqi government in waiting has already said as much. There is no moral high ground for any country involved in this pending clusterf***; especially not the US. France , Germany, Russian concerned about the innocents in Iraq? BS! They just happen to have nice oil contract with Saddam. US & UK concerned about the innocent Iraqis? BS! They just so happen NOT to have the contracts.
And Java, I disagree with most of your points, but thanks for keeping the ATS quality exchange in place. Hey wait, when did you ever hear me rag on Repubs re: the Soviets?

Mason - no numbnutz, I'm not "too ignorant to look it up"; again, you and you alone are required to prove your points.

From your source: "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Are you under the impression that Iraq is now "unchecked"?
Hoisting the 'should of-would of-could of' argument for something we are already doing is stupid. Assuming that Iraq, under US and world scrutiny as it is now, can pull of anything along the lines of reactor building to bring a nuke online is crazy.
War is not justified. Keeping the checks in place is.



posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Java: it doesn't matter whether the powers that be have genocide in mind. that's what it is. and please, changing deliberate to calculated makes no difference since the words are interchangeable and basically have the same meaning (systematic is closer in meaning to calculated...why am i going into that, anyway...)

while, i understand your need to believe that war isn't genocide i'm sure the innocent iraqi population won't agree with you if the US & UK go ahead with "shock and awe" as it's being called. even with smart weapons this type of warfare is nasty business when it's done in a densely populated area. i can't imagine, 1 bomb every 3 seconds for two days on a people already suffering.

but, like Dubya said, they are there to liberate-they aren't the enemy-their government is their enemy. it makes me think of something a Vietnam Vet told me...the North Viet's dropped leaflets that read, black man go home this isn't your war--and all they while they were shooting to killing them.



posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Grow up Saph, stop parrotting the same crap. Calling this genocide is a weak and ridiculous argument. The US is not ' trying ' to kill the Iraqi peole en masse as you seem to think.
If genocide was the aim, then they wouldn't be wasting money a smart munitions, they woulkd just carpet bomb.
So please think the next time you use the word ' genocide '.

PS. PLease offer something more that the slogans ' war is murder ' and ' Iraqi Genocide '.



posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 11:02 AM
link   
the word genocide comes from geno- (meaning tribe or race) and -cide (killing). there isn't a real method in proving genocide but there are legal ways to describe it. these are the punishable offenses set up by the UN. but, in recent years folk have started to expand the meaning of genocide to include actions taken in war: genocide can amount to the killing of only one person of a group and still be recognized as a genocidal act if the intent to destroy is there...blah, blah, blah...here's what other's think even though i personally believe all war is genocide... (i'll highlight for those with attention problems) :


Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn in 1990: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator."

i like this one the best
Vahakn Dadrian in 1975: "Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion with lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor in contributing to the decision for genocide." He distinguished 5 typology of genocide: 1) cultural--forced assimilation, 2) latent--unintended casualties, 3) retributive: punishment of minority, 4) utilitarian--for control over resources, and 5) optimal--deliberate extermination.

Helen Fein in 1988: "Genocide is a series of purposeful actions by a perpetrator(s) to destroy a collectivity through mass or selective murders of group members and suppressing the biological and social reproduction of the collectivity. This can be accomplished through the imposed proscription or restriction of reproduction of group members, increasing infant mortality, and breaking the linkage between reproduction and socialization of children in the family or group of origin. The perpetrator may represent the state of the victim, another state, or another collectivity."

Leo Kuper in 1981 and 1985: Accepts UN definition but adds two distinctions: genocides of international warfare and domestic genocides that include 1) conditions of religious, ethnic, and racial struggle for power or autonomy, 2) the process of decolonization, 3) actions against indigenous peoples, and 4) genocides against hostage groups.

Yehuda Bauer in 1984 Genocide is "the planned destruction . . . of a racial, national, or ethnic group as such, by the following means: a) selective mass murder of elites or parts of the population; b) elimination of national (racial, ethnic) culture and religious life with the intent of "denationalization"; c) enslavement, with the same intent; d) destruction of national (ethnic, racial) economic life, with the same intent; e) biological decimation through the kidnapping of children, or the prevention of normal family life, with the same intent."

that's enough.

murder bad--peace good. another slogan, maybe but doesn't make it less true.



posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 11:54 AM
link   
You just lost your genocide argument by your own hand. Good.

While we are in the mood for quoting others, here's one for you:
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
For those of you who wish to read the entire speech given by a man who understood the difference between real peace and cowardly submission, here it is:

libertyonline.hypermall.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 12:46 PM
link   
We heard the same BS about how the people of Afghanistan didn't want us to help them fight off the Taliban and how American bombs would do more hard than good. Well, let's see...

www.defenselink.mil...



posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 02:41 PM
link   
First Ill address the notion of 800 cruise missles aimed at Bagdhad. BULL the quote was 800 missles aimed at IRAQ I read the same quote in a different paper it was put out by a pentagon spokesman. He says the intent is to cause a massive psycological shutdown of the Iraqi general staff by hitting as many targets at once as possible thus the "shock and awe". B-T you imply in your post we aill be reducing every house in Bagdhad to ruin because of the mass of weapons targeted there. WELL they ALL are not targeted there. The impact of several missles in the capital of Iraq will be felt by the population no doubt but in a numbing way only. Loss of power water and Telephony coupled with the constant airraid siren and AAA will be a strain and SOME people will die. But the action is taken to reduce casualties in the end by parlysing the Iraqi Military thus making the war shorter which keeps people alive.
Next SAP. you my dear live in a dream world it may be nice but it is a dream none the less You compare what my Grandfather did (fighting in WW2) to what the Nazis did at the camps blows away any of your credability. You call war MURDER is it homicide yes is it MURDER NO even the Law can see the difference why cant you? You say there is no justification for murder
Would it be murder if I were to catch a man assaulting you and put a gun to his head an blow his brains out all over the wall and thus save your life??Would that murder be justified? Is self defense Murder? or killing to save others? You have seem to not know there is a differrence and killing is not a black and white act it is a grey act and many things about it are just and many things about it are wrong. Maybe if you cared to know you would not confuse war with genocide. Genocide is also a term leftist throw about and apply to the oddest of situations. You said one person could be killed and it could be called genocide? How is that? Genocide is a "mass" killing implying more than one person being killed for the simple fact they belong to a particular ethnic group. A single killing even by a soldier in wartime would be called a murder unless that person is armed which means he posed a threat to the soldier and the soldier acted in self defense!



posted on Feb, 2 2003 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Saphronia = greatest moron!



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I find it astonishing that many of you feel it is appropriate to go into Iraq and kill a few hundred thousand people based on the assumption that its current administration will continue with the precedent set by its historical actions, and yet you can't accept that the US is willing to kill a large number of civilians in order to finish the war quickly even though their precedent for doing so in the past is supported by many of you.


to hear the same people who claim that Hiroshima was a justifiable action necessary for bringing the war to an end claim that their is no way their government would initiate large scale civilian genocide in order to theoretically stunt this conflagration is really quite worrying.

do people here's political memory's alter depending on the situation they're discussing or are they just so obsessed with the spectacle of war that their perception becomes selective?



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Java: the intent of "shock and awe" is to kill as many iraqis as possible in the early stages so you convince the others that it is useless to fight. the stated objective is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction--but the real goal is regime change. to ursurp one government to replace it with another by the means of killing as many nationals as possible is genocide as described in my other post by Vahakn Dadrian and in his book, "Warrant for Genocide" also, this includes the killing of civilians, the cutting off of civilian water supply, eletricity, access to food, and comerce. the intent here is very clear. there is no convincing you guys...so it'll be what it is.

ha, calling me a moron was quite the clever attack. name calling is a lost art. moron...now that's beauty. we wouldn't want anyone to have an independant thought in a democracy. we want everyone to have the opinions we tell them to have...no wait...that's communism. i'm sorry. maybe i am a moron.



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
we wouldn't want anyone to have an independant thought in a democracy. we want everyone to have the opinions we tell them to have...no wait...that's communism. i'm sorry. maybe i am a moron.


No dear, they're fascists, much worse than commies in my opinion!


Humanitarian reasons are noble, and that folks like Java concentrate on those is a valid mirror to their morality, but it's not what the Bush team is operating under.


Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President




By Neil Mackay



A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

continued.....

www.sundayherald.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
we wouldn't want anyone to have an independant thought in a democracy. we want everyone to have the opinions we tell them to have...no wait...that's communism. i'm sorry. maybe i am a moron.


No dear, they're fascists, much worse than commies in my opinion!


Humanitarian reasons are noble, and that folks like Java concentrate on those is a valid mirror to their altruistic morality, but it's not what the Bush team is operating under.


Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President




By Neil Mackay



A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

continued.....

www.sundayherald.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
Java: the intent of "shock and awe" is to kill as many iraqis as possible in the early stages so you convince the others that it is useless to fight. the stated objective is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction--but the real goal is regime change. to ursurp one government to replace it with another by the means of killing as many nationals as possible is genocide as described in my other post by Vahakn Dadrian and in his book, "Warrant for Genocide" also, this includes the killing of civilians, the cutting off of civilian water supply, eletricity, access to food, and comerce. the intent here is very clear. there is no convincing you guys...so it'll be what it is.

ha, calling me a moron was quite the clever attack. name calling is a lost art. moron...now that's beauty. we wouldn't want anyone to have an independant thought in a democracy. we want everyone to have the opinions we tell them to have...no wait...that's communism. i'm sorry. maybe i am a moron.


No, Love, you are adding meaning to "shock and awe" so as to create a new picture, one that is not meant to be there. Bad Girl!!

As far as calling you a moron, it was unintentional, or a Freudian slip if you prefer, but I did not set about to do that.



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Bout Time, I will rest on the pages of history to determine which of the two economic systems was found to be more fertile soil for mass murder, actual genocide (not hysteric claims) and totalitarianism. I dare say that your hated America can't hold a candle to many of the failed nations and attempted empires of the last century.
I notice also that you use the word morality with contempt. You should quit thinking that you and your other "enlightened" friends and collegues are beyond such a concept. It is what allows people to live among each other with some manner of civility, not the illogical concept of "If it feels good, do it" and relative morality.



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Java
Bout Time, I will rest on the pages of history to determine which of the two economic systems was found to be more fertile soil for mass murder, actual genocide (not hysteric claims) and totalitarianism. I dare say that your hated America can't hold a candle to many of the failed nations and attempted empires of the last century.
I notice also that you use the word morality with contempt. You should quit thinking that you and your other "enlightened" friends and collegues are beyond such a concept. It is what allows people to live among each other with some manner of civility, not the illogical concept of "If it feels good, do it" and relative morality.


You're way off:
I was paying you a compliment. It accidently double posted, but if you notice in the second I wrote 'altruistic morality', exactly because I did not want it to be taken as sarcasm. The people, like you, who laser focus on the potential humanitarian collateral to the Iraqis as the primary impetus, are good people thinking in a good neighbor-moral fashion. I feel, however, that to confuse that with Bush having it in his top 5 reasons is a big stretch.

Second wrong:
I love my country & if yo think I am harsh, remeber this Twainism I follow - "Support your country all the time & it's government when they deserve it"



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 05:44 PM
link   
No, I didn't mean you hated America, but the hated America, the part of America that you hold in contempt (this nation is very multi-faceted, often contradictory, to the point to term convoluted comes to mind) cannot compare to the atrocities discovered to be true at the hands of those controlling communist regimes. I know better than to say you hate America. No matter what differences you and I may have, you are still an entrepreneur, a man that is living out the American Dream as it was intended to be, and I am still an employee, that is to say, a tool of that which was built by the hands of someone else who had a dream. While your opinions may be misguided, and you may be in dire need of my political leading
, you still have more at stake in this nation. My hat has always been off to those with the guts to be an entrepreneur.

While my altruistic morality (thanks for the compliment, a trip to the dictionary was in order) will be happy about any benefit the Iraqi people will enjoy by their release, my main desire and goal is to have Hussein killed, or better yet, sent into exile before the war commences, and the chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons (nuclear, by thinking that he could have possibly acquired an unaccounted for hand-carriable at the fall of the Soviet Union) away from a lunatic whose three stated goals are to destroy Israel, destroy America, and to make himself the main player in the middle-eastern region. Between his stated goals, him known to have two out of the three most feared weapons to date, and connections to terrorist organizations, and the fact that he has continuously thumbed his nose at the world by not complying with the agreements that stopped him from getting his butt thoroughly stomped the last time we were over there, he is a threat that is growing more immediate and one that must be dealt with for the sakes of your and my children.



posted on Feb, 3 2003 @ 06:32 PM
link   
This quote sums it up.


Just over a year ago Afghanistan "was ruled by the Taliban, which has to be one of the most ignorant, repressive and ineffective governments ever to have ruled on earth,"


America is the light, and the Arab nations (and the formerly Arab controlled Afghanistan) is the darkness. Do not confuse Arabs with Islam, just because all Arabs are islamic and they pretty much whiped out everything else they could, doesn't mean the religion world wide is bad because of their actions. Arabs, need a major crushing, and be awoken to freedom for once.

They are slaves to their own minds, may we finally break their cages, even if we have to break a few heads.

Sincerely,
no signature

References:

www.defenselink.mil...



posted on Feb, 4 2003 @ 01:06 PM
link   
who died and made america G-d, living in the flesh the savior of people from their own governments, society and of course...religion. the living breathing Yeshua/Jesus sent to save Arabs from their doom and gloom with a bomb on the end of an olive branch. men in 4,000 dollar suites rushing in screaming, "we are here to help"...pack up you stuff leave your home and head to this refugee camp with no running water and a tent for shelter. we'll supply you with processed food that will poision your system while the remnants of our bombs give you and your seeds cancer and increases your infant mortality rate. soon your cities will be like ours concrete as far as the eye can see, and smoke plumes that increase the chance that your children will be born with asthma. don't worry we are here to save you of course we will appoint the best government for you at first. maybe in 20 or so years you can have a free election but not until the dummy governments sign all the contracts that we need to take the land out of you hands and put it in the hands of our corporate machine. YOU HAVE BEEN DECLARED SAVED...from freedom to determine your own destiny courtesy of Zion.



posted on Feb, 4 2003 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Gee, Saph, is that an anti-Jewish sentiment showing? Even if not, it is a picture of America that has never been seen. Countries that we've helped or or conquered have always had their own will and self-determination afterward, including Afghanistan. Most of them have even managed to make sure and bite the hand that helped them.

FreeMason, you might want to rethink those thoughts, they are a wee bit over the edge, wouldn't you think? Even if we were to take it upon ourselves to help those who we think are backward, would crushing them be the way to bring them to the light? Besides, if I were to want to go and lend a helping hand up, I'd rather go to Africa. Those nations are in more dire need of assistance.
By crushing, I feel you mean to bring them to our light kicking and screaming, whether they want to go or not. Where would such authority come from? No, even though their primitive ways are destroying the environment and causing the desert to increase dramatically, we do not have the right to interfere.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join