It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


'Our fight is not for a homeland or a region...'

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Simulacra

Solution - Eliminate Allah and these clowns would have nothing to fight for. Agreed?

Not sure the problem would go away by wiping out Allah.

If we could do away with all religious belief systems, those that rely solely on faith, we would have a good start.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
Always remember the liberal mantra:

Do not confuse me with facts; I know what I believe.

It pretty clear that the government of America views Iraqis and Muslims as subhuman. For example - it was announced that a civilian contractor was going to be put on trial for "Assult" for his role in the "Abuses" at Abu Ghraib Prison.

This guy didn't "abuse" or "assult" the prisoner. He tortured the prisoner by beating him, kicking him, and punching him till he dies. This guy tortured the man to death.

If that happened to an American - it would be murder. We would be calling it a war crime and we would seek the death penalty. But because he is an Iraqi - a beating to death becomes "abuse" rather than a horrific murder. You see - hilling an Iraqi and killing an American are two different things entirely. Killing an Iraqi doesn't even generate the kind of outrage that someone abusing an American dog or cat would get.

Now - how is this different the beheadings of Americans? Well - beheadings are more grusome to look at when pictures are released. But a beheading is actually a lot less painful than being kicked to death. If I were the prisoner and I was given a choice between beheading and being kicked to death - I'd have to go with the beheading.

My point is - I'm not justifying the beheadings - I'm unjustifying the "abuses" of Iraqis that are really grusome murders. The American contractor is a war criminal and her should be turned over to the Iraqis for trial in Iraq for torture and murder. Not only should he face thise charges - but everyone who commanded him all the way up the chain of command should be put on trial for international war crimes - including General Sanchez - Rumsfield, and Bush. These are the people who ordered the rapes, torture, and murders.

I believe I said something simmilar to this yesterday.UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has firmly opposed US efforts to extend immunity of US citizens from prosecution for war crimes.

Unfortunately, under the U.N. ICC the U.S. and _all_ of it's officials and citizens are exempt from war crimes prosecution (or at least were)....

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 11:44 AM

Originally posted by DrHoracid
America is beginning to understand who the real enemy is and who our friends are. Anything "french" is our enemy, in North America , Europe, Africa, or anywhere else. Speak French get "Fried".

Deny Ignorance man, come on. The only real enemy is ignorance as seen in that statement above. I can't believe someone would actually say something like that. You must hang out with verfed.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 01:55 PM

We are not violently oppressing the jihadists. Had a Fallujah type situation arisen under Saddam's rule, he would not have given the insurgents time to negotiate or dig in or escape, he would have entered with brute force.

How short your memories are. You forget that Saddam gassed several Kurdish towns in 1987. 5,000 dead.

Further, these insurgents were not the people Saddam was violently oppressing. That would be the Shi'as, who make up the majority of the population, and, not coincidentally, the overwhelming majority of the people ecstatic about the fact we came in and freed them from Saddam. You have to understand, to the Sunnis, we have not freed them of Saddam's oppression and cruelty; we have robbed them of his protection and good graces. He was one of them. They loved him.

let's get something straight: First off: Many of these "Jihadists" are "insurgents"; Jihadists are those who fight in the name of Allah for 'said' reason, and justify these means by 'said' scripture; "insugerents", are, as is stated in any standard dictionary: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government. These 'insurgents' seemed to have been mixed up with "Al-Queda" and many other terrorists organizations that have been flooding the internet and media with thier 'so-called' cries of war against the non-believers.

Now, remember, Saddam 'gassed' those Kurds after being told that Iranians were hiding in those parts and the Kurds were harbouring them -- harbouring his enemies, he simply acted like any 'MILITARY' comander and cheif would: He bombed the town to bring down his enemies. Americans like to call it "collateral damage", tell me, good sir, is it not the same in these circumstances, or is America only allowed to kill civilians in war then call label it "collateral damage".

Oh, and trust me, all these 'accusations' that Saddam did 'this and that' really need to be further researched; some of these 'accusations' such as the, "human shredder", has already been defaced, how much more pre-war propaganda crap are gonna have to put up with? Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt, as bad as all 36 other dictators in this world, how come they have not been targeted?

Why the call for help? Because half of Byzantine was swallowed up by Muslim hoards, in addition to 2/3s of Christendom.

So what? Did you think the Byzantine kingdom just appeared out of thin air? Do you think the Greeks never conquered other lands? What about Alexander? What about British imperialism? The slave trade?

Come on.


new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in