protesters protest on war on terror isnt this just helping terrorists or have protesters forgot what

i feel anger and shame on these protesters, you know why i think this is because they never gave a toss about 9/11 is saveing terror all they like to do see there world suffer please post in thankz

Um.
What protesters are you talking about?
Can you expound on that, please?

Maybe they mean the protests in Rome???


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think they care about terrorism, and essentialy have their heart in the right place. The problem is that they have become so scared by the realities of history, and war that they can no longer in my opinion understand the difference between good and evil. They are so cynical that they categorize everyone as selfish, arrogant, and tyranical. As a result they almost seem to justify what the terrorists do by saying that countries like the U.S are just as bad if not worse.

The issue I have with this kind of thinking is that it does not let people see any good in what we are doing, and basicly puts everyone in the same moral box regardless of the lengths we go to protect innocent life, and even how we rebuild the countries of our enemies. This is a conflict of ideology, and despite our many faults, I think if we must choose between their way and ours, ours at least allowes for future growth and change, while theirs brings only darkness and stagnation.

These protestors are consumed by anger and fear, they offer no real solutions and only create more problems for the world by giving the terrorists, and true tyranical leaders a sense that they are wining and through terror can create change in our societies.

true tyrannical leaders == terrorists!!!! Is that what you are implying? If your talking about Iraq and terrorism, the link has been established through a flawed intelligence system (the last of this evidence being the CIA resignations in my opinion), the evidence of which still in debate.
As far as us being the world's police force...what's the point of NATO then, obviously nothing? So, I guess your all for invasions of other dictatorships... Iraq is poor...do UN/US sanctions have anything to do with it?

If we had let the UN take care of Iraq, they would have put sanctions like they did last time, and which Clinton agreed on. These sanctions killed more people, mainly children under the age of 5 than the people that have died in the war.

Acording to conservative figures the sanctions the UN and Clinton put on Iraq killed 500,000 children in Iraq, and not only that but what about the food for oil program scandal?

" United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for a full investigation into a scandal involving the United Nation's Oil-for-Food program.

At least three senior United Nations officials are suspected of taking multimillion-dollar bribes from the Saddam Hussein regime, U.S. and European intelligence sources tell ABCNEWS.

One year after his fall, U.S. officials say they have evidence, some in cash, that Saddam diverted to his personal bank accounts approximately $5 billion from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. "

Excerpted from.
abcnews.go.com...

Not only that but the sanctions, which were supposed to stop all trades to and from Iraq except foodstuffs, medical suppies and other humanitarian needs, did not work that well. The Russians have been involved in a lot of scandals, which everyone is so conviniently forgetting for some reason...

Lets see some of the scandals.


" Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph in Baghdad show that Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders.

Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two countries also signed agreements to share intelligence, help each other to "obtain" visas for agents to go to other countries and to exchange information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.

The documents detailing the extent of the links between Russia and Saddam were obtained from the heavily bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad yesterday. "

Excerpted from.
www.mondopolitico.com...

The evidence of Russia's deceit comes from many sources, ranging from Israeli intelligence, western intelligence, and Russian defectors.

"In the NY Times on January 31st, William Safire disclosed one of the world's worst kept secrets, when he said: �Iran is secretly building nuclear bombs with Russia's help.� Russia denies this and insists that it has never helped either Iran or Iraq accumulate Weapons of Mass Destruction. Russia says it has only helped Iran build a civilian nuclear facility, and �what we sell to Iran is personnel carriers, tanks and very short-range air defense systems.� Western intelligence agencies and Israel claim there is ample evidence to the contrary. "

Excerpted from.
www.hsletter.com...

" In May 18th, 1967, Yuri Andropov took over the leadership of the KGB. The Russian security services evolved into a state within the Soviet state, as it became clear when Andropov became the communist party�s general secretary after Leonid Brezhnev�s death, in 1982. During Andropov�s era, which was far longer than that of any other KGB chief, the Soviet secret services supported international terrorism through satellite states and Marxist "liberation fronts". "

Excerpted from.
www.cc.jyu.fi...

" Only a select number of countries are confirmed to directly support terrorism. Russia, China, and North Korea are the main sources of ballistic missile and nuclear technology proliferation. As countries continue to fall to Marxism, corruption, or radicalism, many countries continue to remain unable to secure sensitive stockpiles, secure the loyalty of certain politicians and businesses, and unable to adequately fight the war on terrorism. Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan are all listed as state sponsors of terrorism. "

Excerpted from.
www.worldthreats.com...

Also another thread where I posted more information about this is here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Isn't it your right as a citizen in a free country to assemble and peacefully protest about something? If, for example, I think that war should always be the LAST resort as opposed to the first, don't I have the right to get out on the street and SHOW people how I think to maybe get them to realize that there's more than one valid opinion to this mess?

?

Originally posted by Jakomo

Isn't it your right as a citizen in a free country to assemble and peacefully protest about something? If, for example, I think that war should always be the LAST resort as opposed to the first, don't I have the right to get out on the street and SHOW people how I think to maybe get them to realize that there's more than one valid opinion to this mess?

?

yes but they dont do much good really, violence seems the most effective in changing things but thats obviously a bad idea.

We may not support terrorist but we had done enough damage in the past financing some of this countries and giving them the meanings for them get to the places they are now and be able to use our own money to fight us back.

It is funny how this country can give money so freely to other countries.

Perhaps the protest are for this same reason, it is not so much protesting for the war on terror but for the consequences of this war.

Then maybe we should just all go sit down do nothing, and watch the big show on TV.

You ask, what did the protest done that was good?

I say, what did the war done that was good?

You fight fire with fire, You fight nonsence with nonsence. tiz simple.

Originally posted by Muaddib
If we had let the UN take care of Iraq, they would have put sanctions like they did last time, and which Clinton agreed on. These sanctions killed more people, mainly children under the age of 5 than the people that have died in the war.

Acording to conservative figures the sanctions the UN and Clinton put on Iraq killed 500,000 children in Iraq, and not only that but what about the food for oil program scandal?

Clinton was not the one who put the sanctions in place.
It was George Bush Sr. who put sanctions on Iraq.
It was followed by sanctions by the UN.

Here's a chronology from a US government site:
Iraq Sanctions

1990
August 2
Iraq invades Kuwait. The U.S. government embargoes oil imports from Iraq, freezes Iraqi and Kuwaiti assets in the United States, and starts moving naval reinforcements towards the Persian Gulf. The U.N. Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 660 condemning the Iraqi invasion and calling for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

August 5
President Bush says that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait "will not stand" and proposes a sweeping economic blockade and sanctions against Iraq.

August 6
The U.N. Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 661 imposing a mandatory and complete embargo of all investment and trade, including oil, with Iraq and occupied Kuwait. This results in a reduction of over 4 million bbl/d in oil supplies to world markets (over the next several months, Saudi Arabia increases its production to make up the loss). President Bush orders the deployment of U.S. armed forces to defend Saudi Arabia in an operation named "Operation Desert Shield."
-------------------------------------

Now as far as protesters, I think people should voice their opinions and try to stop actions that they see as unjust.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by AceOfBase]

I said "Clinton agreed on." Clinton could have changed it anytime he wanted to, but he didn't, just like he didn't do squat when we were attacked several times. Clinton saw the results of the UN sanctions, but he decided to keep agreeing with it because he was too much of a wimp to do something else.

" In August 1995 the UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) reported that there had been a fivefold increase in child mortality in Iraq since the imposition of sanctions.

In simple terms, over half a million children under the age of 5 have died as a result of the sanctions, imposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

............................

In April 1996, the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), formerly known as the Harvard Study Team, visited Iraq to assess the effect of the sanctions - imposed in August 1990 - on the civilian population. The team was made up of 24 doctors, public health experts, economists, lawyers and health surveyors from 8 countries. "

Excerpted from.
www.oneworld.org...

CLinton was in office from 1993-2001...

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Tactical op

i feel anger and shame on these protesters, you know why i think this is because they never gave a toss about 9/11 is saveing terror all they like to do see there world suffer please post in thankz

In America the Bill of Rights gives citizens the right to protest. You have the right to share your disgust. Ain't it grand?

Anyone who criticizes a citizen for exercising their right to add to the dialogue is helping the terrorists. But don't get me started on who those terrorists might be.

Amen, if we let the government take away one of our most basic freedoms because of terrorists, then the terrorists have won. They are disrupting our society, everytime we lock down more and more, they just laugh, because they have done what they wanted...

BushCo. only wishes our right to protest could be curtailed. After all, it was Bush who said, "It'd be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship." He he. I somehow doubt he was joking.

First I want to say... I am not taking up for the protesters. But I believe as some others also do... that the war on terriorism can't be won the way it is being fought. When a group is killed others take their place. Maybe they're not for the terriorist....just not for the way it's being fought.

The war on terror is every bit as bogus as the war on poverty and the war on drugs. The war on drugs is nothing more than controlling the drug trade. When will people wake tf up?