The W
Views: 100857116
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.11.07 0157
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - I guess these are the people we are supposed to "understand".... Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(987 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (22 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3106/4700
EXP: 21664690
For next: 171972

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1303 days
Last activity: 1100 days
#1 Posted on 27.4.04 1437.41
Reposted on: 27.4.11 1438.45
....you know, the ones trying to end our way of life.

* * * * * * * * * *

Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam
By PATRICK E. TYLER
and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

LUTON, England, April 24 The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered, counterterrorism officials say.

In this former industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home. They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.

They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.


On Thursday evening, at a tennis center community hall in Slough, west of London, their leader, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, spoke of his adherence to Osama bin Laden. If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin Laden's offer of a truce provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq in three months Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said.


On working-class streets of old industrial towns like Crawley, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester, and in the Arab enclaves of Germany, France, Switzerland and other parts of Europe, intelligence officials say a fervor for militancy is intensifying and becoming more open.

In Hamburg, Dr. Mustafa Yoldas, the director of the Council of Islamic Communities, saw a correlation to the discord in Iraq. "This is a very dangerous situation at the moment," Dr. Yoldas said. "My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States."

Hundreds of young Muslim men are answering the call of militant groups affiliated or aligned with Al Qaeda, intelligence and counterterrorism officials in the region say.

Even more worrying, said a senior counterterrorism official, is that the level of "chatter" communications among people suspected of terrorism and their supporters has markedly increased since Mr. bin Laden's warning to Europe this month. The spike in chatter has given rise to acute worries that planning for another strike in Europe is advanced.

"Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods. Detecting actual recruitments is almost impossible, he said, because it is typically done face to face.

And recruitment is paired with a compelling new strategy to bring the fight to Europe.

Members of Al Qaeda have "proven themselves to be extremely opportunistic, and they have decided to try to split the Western alliance," the official continued. "They are focusing their energies on attacking the big countries" the United States, Britain and Spain so as to "scare" the smaller states.

Some Muslim recruits are going to Iraq, counterterrorism officials in Europe say, but more are remaining home, possibly joining cells that could help with terror logistics or begin operations like the one that came to notice when the British police seized 1,200 pounds of ammonium nitrate, a key bomb ingredient, in late March, and arrested nine Pakistani-Britons, five of whom have been charged with trying to build a terrorist bomb.

Stoking that anger are some of the same fiery Islamic clerics who preached violence and martyrdom before the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Friday, Abu Hamza, the cleric accused of tutoring Richard Reid before he tried to blow up a Paris-to-Miami jetliner with explosives hidden in his shoe, urged a crowd of 200 outside his former Finsbury Park mosque to embrace death and the "culture of martyrdom."

Though the British home secretary, David Blunkett, has sought to strip Abu Hamza of his British citizenship and deport him, the legal battle has dragged on for years while Abu Hamza keeps calling down the wrath of God.

Also this week, over Mr. Blunkett's vigorous objection, a 35-year-old Algerian held under emergency laws passed after Sept. 11 was released from Belmarsh Prison. The man, identified only as "G," suffered from severe mental illness, his lawyers told a special immigration appeals panel, which let him out of prison and put him under house arrest.

Mr. Blunkett insisted that that should not be the final judgment on a man already found by one court "to be a threat to life and liberty."

In an interview on the BBC over the weekend, Mr. Blunkett advocated a stronger deportation policy, initially focused on 12 foreign terror suspects held without charge since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Despite tougher antiterrorism laws, the police, prosecutors and intelligence chiefs across Europe say they are struggling to contain the openly seditious speech of Islamic extremists, some of whom, they say, have been inciting young men to suicidal violence since the 1990's.

One chapter in Sheik Omar's lectures these days is "The Psyche of Muslims for Suicide Bombing."

The authorities say that laws to protect religious expression and civil liberties have the result of limiting what they can do to stop hateful speech. In the case of foreigners, they say they are often left to seek deportation, a lengthy and uncertain process subject to legal appeals, when the suspect can keep inciting attacks.

That leaves the authorities to resort to less effective means, such as mouse-trapping Islamic radicals with immigration violations in hopes of making a deportation case stick. "In many countries, the laws are liberal and it's not easy," an official said.

At a mosque in Geneva, an imam recently exhorted his followers to "impose the will of Islam on the godless society of the West."

"It was quite virulent," said a senior official with knowledge of the sermon. "The imam was encouraging his followers to take over the godless society."

While such a sermon may be incitement, recruitment takes a more shadowy course, and is hard to detect, a senior antiterrorism official said. "Believers are appealed to in the mosques, but the real conversations take place in restaurants or cafes or private apartments," the official said.

While some clerics, like Abu Qatada said to be the spiritual counselor of Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 hijacking team remain in prison in Britain without charge, others like Sheik Omar, leader of a movement called Al Muhajiroun, carry on a robust ideological campaign.

"There is no case against me," Sheik Omar said in an interview. Referring to calls by members of Parliament that he be deported, he added, "but they are Jewish" and "they have been calling for that for years."

Among his ardent followers is Ishtiaq Alamgir, 24, who heads Al Muhajiroun in Luton and calls himself Sayful Islam, the sword of Islam. He says there are about 50 members here but exact numbers are secret.

Most days, he and a handful of his followers run a recruitment stand on Dunstable Road much to the chagrin of the Muslim elders of Luton.

Mainstream Muslims are outraged by the situation, saying the actions of a few are causing their communities to be singled out for surveillance and making the larger population distrustful of them.

Muhammad Sulaiman, a stalwart of the mainstream Central Mosque here, was penniless when he arrived from the Kashmiri frontier of Pakistan in 1956. He raised money to build the Central Mosque here and now leads a campaign to ban Al Muhajiroun radicals from the city's 10 mosques.

"This is show-off business," he says in accented English. "I don't want these kids in my mosque."

Other community leaders look to the government to do something, if only to help prevent the demonization of British Muslims, or "Islamophobia," as some here call it.

"I think these kids are being brainwashed by a few radical clerics," said Akhbar Dad Khan, another elder of the Central Mosque. He wants them prosecuted or deported. "We should be able to control this negativity," he said.

In Slough, Sheik Omar spent much of his time Thursday night regaling his young followers with the erotic delights of paradise sweet kisses and the pleasures of bathing with scores of women while he also preached the virtues of death in Islamic struggle as a ticket to paradise.

He spoke of terrorism as the new norm of cultural conflict, "the fashion of the 21st century," practiced as much by Tony Blair as by Al Qaeda.

"We may be caught up in the target as the people of Manhattan were," he told them.

And he warned Western leaders, "You may kill bin Laden, but the phenomenon, you cannot kill it you cannot destroy it."

"Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then we will live under Islam in dignity," he said.

Promote this thread!
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1742/2042
EXP: 6332505
For next: 60294

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3067 days
Last activity: 281 days
#2 Posted on 27.4.04 1457.49
Reposted on: 27.4.11 1458.07
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Mainstream Muslims are outraged by the situation, saying the actions of a few are causing their communities to be singled out for surveillance and making the larger population distrustful of them.


Actually, those are the people that you're supposed to understand.

Unless you'd like to paint all of Christianity as raving theocratic lunatics because of Pat Robertson, Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill and their ilk, that is.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2130/2679
EXP: 9227178
For next: 90180

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3295 days
Last activity: 3295 days
#3 Posted on 27.4.04 1510.13
Reposted on: 27.4.11 1511.14
Funny, I found this part to be the most interesting of the article.


    "Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods. Detecting actual recruitments is almost impossible, he said, because it is typically done face to face.


So the President, who is supposed to be the only one who can protect the USA and the free world has created a whole new angry breed of undectable terrorists with his war in Iraq.
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 998/1494
EXP: 3961162
For next: 44917

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#4 Posted on 27.4.04 2116.25
Reposted on: 27.4.11 2116.34
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Funny, I found this part to be the most interesting of the article.


      "Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods. Detecting actual recruitments is almost impossible, he said, because it is typically done face to face.


    So the President, who is supposed to be the only one who can protect the USA and the free world has created a whole new angry breed of undectable terrorists with his war in Iraq.


Which is a flaw in the 'let's just kill them all' strategy. The number of terrorists is not necessarily stagnant. Any action can and will have consequences, some intended and others unintended. That's why you have to choose your actions carefully.
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 1058/2781
EXP: 9954420
For next: 45615

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 223 days
Last activity: 69 days
#5 Posted on 27.4.04 2149.49
Reposted on: 27.4.11 2150.27
    Originally posted by ges7184
      Originally posted by fuelinjected
      Funny, I found this part to be the most interesting of the article.


        "Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods. Detecting actual recruitments is almost impossible, he said, because it is typically done face to face.


      So the President, who is supposed to be the only one who can protect the USA and the free world has created a whole new angry breed of undectable terrorists with his war in Iraq.


    Which is a flaw in the 'let's just kill them all' strategy. The number of terrorists is not necessarily stagnant. Any action can and will have consequences, some intended and others unintended. That's why you have to choose your actions carefully.


Well, doing nothing is certainly not a strategy. Neither is appeasement. These idiots who want to wipe out Christianity and democracy aren't exactly viable candidates for negotiation. Hell, they wanna wipe out Israel for the crime of being Jewish...yep, all the tolerance of Nazi Germany.

"Kill 'em all" sounds pretty damn good to me. You can't change what's good about your country and hope the bad guys stop being mad at you...you have to go find the bad guys and take them out. Period.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2131/2679
EXP: 9227178
For next: 90180

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3295 days
Last activity: 3295 days
#6 Posted on 27.4.04 2214.54
Reposted on: 27.4.11 2214.54
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Well, doing nothing is certainly not a strategy. Neither is appeasement. These idiots who want to wipe out Christianity and democracy aren't exactly viable candidates for negotiation. Hell, they wanna wipe out Israel for the crime of being Jewish...yep, all the tolerance of Nazi Germany.

    "Kill 'em all" sounds pretty damn good to me. You can't change what's good about your country and hope the bad guys stop being mad at you...you have to go find the bad guys and take them out. Period.


What did going into Iraq have to do with any of that? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't attack America. I find this new American policy of "pre-emptive strikes" on the basis of faulty intelligence cherry picked by an administration that is hardly objective about the "enemy" to be treading in very dangerous water.

Why shouldn't North Korea start launching nukes at the USA? I'm sure based on their intelligence the US is an imminent threat.

I thought Bush was doing a real good job after 9/11 fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and putting the pressure on nation's, who historically have sponsored terrorism but he lost me with Iraq. Those troops, that money, that attention should have gone to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It should have gone to trying to resolve the Palestinian/Israel dispute.

But hey, I don't get a vote, and the Bush Administration has made it very clear that what the rest of the civilized world thinks doesn't mean shit.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 532/763
EXP: 1445482
For next: 40455

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 615 days
Last activity: 230 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 27.4.04 2304.44
Reposted on: 27.4.11 2305.17
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    What did going into Iraq have to do with any of that? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't attack America. I find this new American policy of "pre-emptive strikes" on the basis of faulty intelligence cherry picked by an administration that is hardly objective about the "enemy" to be treading in very dangerous water.

    Why shouldn't North Korea start launching nukes at the USA? I'm sure based on their intelligence the US is an imminent threat.

    I thought Bush was doing a real good job after 9/11 fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and putting the pressure on nation's, who historically have sponsored terrorism but he lost me with Iraq. Those troops, that money, that attention should have gone to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It should have gone to trying to resolve the Palestinian/Israel dispute.

    But hey, I don't get a vote, and the Bush Administration has made it very clear that what the rest of the civilized world thinks doesn't mean shit.



You hit the nail on the head here my friend. Of course the GOP doesnt want to see this. And some of these things might require actual diplomacy. And Diplomacy doesnt seem to be a strong point of the Bush White House. If they cant invade you or if you dont follow along with them blindly, then they dont want to talk to you.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1525/3428
EXP: 13775465
For next: 184225

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 106 days
#8 Posted on 27.4.04 2336.27
Reposted on: 27.4.11 2337.21
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Well, doing nothing is certainly not a strategy. Neither is appeasement. These idiots who want to wipe out Christianity and democracy aren't exactly viable candidates for negotiation. Hell, they wanna wipe out Israel for the crime of being Jewish...yep, all the tolerance of Nazi Germany.

    "Kill 'em all" sounds pretty damn good to me. You can't change what's good about your country and hope the bad guys stop being mad at you...you have to go find the bad guys and take them out. Period.


That's funny; I don't recall anyone suggesting "doing nothing" OR appeasement. It drives me insane how people think it's either "kill 'em all" or "doing nothing." There is NO middle ground, apparently. It's not possible to find a solution with COMMITTING GENOCIDE? Aren't "kill 'em all" and genocide the same thing? Do you understand the irony of saying "kill 'em all" while criticizing "them" for having "all the tolerance of Nazi Germany."?

And then the best part: "You can't change what's good about your country and hope the bad guys stop being mad at you." Now, and I feel like I've said this a million times to a million different people, can Iraqis use this logic? Aren't they having to right now completely change their way of life to appease America? But that's different, right? I mean, hey, they get to live by the standards Americans have deemed worthy for themselves, so obviously they should be happy, right? Or could it be that, MAYBE, democracy isn't the only reason people hate this country, but perhaps because of the same arrogant attitude described above? Absolutely not! They're just jealous! Right.

And another thing: do you really think you can kill every America hater? And even if you could, don't you think that act itself would create more America haters, thereby defeating its own purpose? We have names for people with the "agree with me or die" attitude: we call them BRUTAL DICTATORS AND TYRANTS. But hey, we have God on our side, so our crusade is different from every single other one in history where they made that exact same claim.

Look at the title of this thread, then complain about OTHER people not being tolerant. Damn.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1743/2042
EXP: 6332505
For next: 60294

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3067 days
Last activity: 281 days
#9 Posted on 28.4.04 0602.16
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0603.34
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Well, doing nothing is certainly not a strategy. Neither is appeasement.


So the only available options were...

1) Doing nothing
2) Appeasement
3) Using 9/11 as a pretext to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11... because, well, they're "bad guys" who needed to be "taken out" RIGHT THEN AND THERE because they had all these Weapons of Mass Destr... oh, wait.

It's like seeing a beehive in the woods, and either:
1) Leaving it alone, figuring that you'll smoke it out some other time
2) Minding your own business and letting the bees do their thing, as long as they're not causing you immediate problems
3) Running up with a hockey stick and whacking it as hard as you can, 'cause it's EVIL! (then wondering why you're running away in pain -- didn't you just have a Decisive Victory over EVIL?)

(edited by vsp on 28.4.04 0409)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3114/4700
EXP: 21664690
For next: 171972

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1303 days
Last activity: 1100 days
#10 Posted on 28.4.04 0646.21
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0649.22
    Originally posted by vsp
    So the only available options were...

    1) Doing nothing
    2) Appeasement
    3) Using 9/11 as a pretext to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11... because, well, they're "bad guys" who needed to be "taken out" RIGHT THEN AND THERE because they had all these Weapons of Mass Destr... oh, wait

I'm reading a book now about the runup to World War II. In 1938, when Chamberlain was talking to Hitler. Edouard Deladier was faced with three options as Prime Minister of France.

1) Doing nothing
2) Appeasement
3) Using the situation with the Sudenteland making problems for Czechoslovakia to invade a country that had nothing to do with it... because, well, they're "bad guys" who needed to be "taken out" RIGHT THEN AND THERE because they were a threat to international security.

France picked what was behind door # 2. Guess we know how that worked...


EDIT: It's looking more and more as if one of the best reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein was that it was probably the only way to get rid of Oil-for-Food. The problem wasn't simply that this huge United Nations relief program for Iraq became a gala of graft, theft, fraud, palace-building and global influence-peddling--though all that was quite bad enough. The picture now emerging is that under U.N. management the Oil-for-Food program, which ran from 1996-2003, served as a cover not only for Saddam's regime to cheat the Iraqi people, but to set up a vast and intricate global network of illicit finance.- WSJ

(edited by Grimis on 28.4.04 0804)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1744/2042
EXP: 6332505
For next: 60294

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3067 days
Last activity: 281 days
#11 Posted on 28.4.04 0745.35
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0748.09
    Originally posted by Grimis
    3) Using the situation with the Sudenteland making problems for Czechoslovakia to invade a country that had nothing to do with it... because, well, they're "bad guys" who needed to be "taken out" RIGHT THEN AND THERE because they were a threat to international security.


You really didn't go there. I'm seeing things. You really DIDN'T just compare Saddam's 2004 Iraq to Nazi Germany.

Man, I can't HANDLE this kind of humor this early in the morning... at least let me get my breakfast together first.

Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 251/810
EXP: 1529399
For next: 48156

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 140 days
Last activity: 11 days
#12 Posted on 28.4.04 0754.03
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0758.08
    Originally posted by vsp
      Originally posted by Grimis
      3) Using the situation with the Sudenteland making problems for Czechoslovakia to invade a country that had nothing to do with it... because, well, they're "bad guys" who needed to be "taken out" RIGHT THEN AND THERE because they were a threat to international security.


    You really didn't go there. I'm seeing things. You really DIDN'T just compare Saddam's 2004 Iraq to Nazi Germany.

    Man, I can't HANDLE this kind of humor this early in the morning... at least let me get my breakfast together first.




Damn, vsp beat me to it. I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee, and Grimis has obviously gotten a good start on his first fifth of bourbon. You cannot be serious in drawing an equivalence between Hussein and Nazi Germany as an international threat. And, how was Iraq a much greater threat to international to security than North Korea?

EDIT: Now, the government has announced that North Korea seems to have 8 bombs rather than 'only' two. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A47833- 2004Apr27.html

This is especially troublesome given that the country is deteriorating from within, plus the hold that Kim Jong Il has over the North Korean people. In that regard, if we are going to deliver people from suffering/oppression, how do the North Korean people not rank at the top of the list? And, if we want to get rid of really bad men, how is the Dear Leader not Target 1?



(edited by Corajudo on 28.4.04 0810)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3117/4700
EXP: 21664690
For next: 171972

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1303 days
Last activity: 1100 days
#13 Posted on 28.4.04 0808.30
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0809.17
    Originally posted by vsp
    You really didn't go there. I'm seeing things. You really DIDN'T just compare Saddam's 2004 Iraq to Nazi Germany.

    Originally posted by Corajudo
    You cannot be serious in drawing an equivalence between Hussein and Nazi Germany as an international threat

The problem is that if we did not invade Iraq, and Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, launched WMD's, etc. Opponents of the war such as yourselves would've been the first in line to blame the Bush administration for their inaction.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 252/810
EXP: 1529399
For next: 48156

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 140 days
Last activity: 11 days
#14 Posted on 28.4.04 0818.24
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0820.32
The problem is that if we did not invade Iraq, and Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, launched WMD's, etc. Opponents of the war such as yourselves would've been the first in line to blame the Bush administration for their inaction.

Hussein's army was in no condition to invade Saudi Arabia, plus there were no WMDs. I do agree with your statement in a previous post that the best thing (aside from the benefits to the Iraqi people) to come out of the invasion is exposition of the Oil for Food shenanigans.

However, I'd still argue that N. Korea is/was a far greater threat to international stability and is/was a far greater threat to its neighbors than Iraq.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 691/2705
EXP: 8971667
For next: 17152

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 13 hours
#15 Posted on 28.4.04 0831.15
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0834.47
We are dealing with htred that has been festering for over a century. Nothing we can do will change that overnight. I agree with others in that why are the only two choices appeasement or kill them all. The worst thing to come out of the resurgence of conservatism is the ability to reduce evrything to black and white. Liberals may waffle too much but at least most realize not every problem has a binary solution.
brick
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 278/535
EXP: 847975
For next: 35914

Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 573 days
Last activity: 569 days
#16 Posted on 28.4.04 0853.04
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0859.02
    Originally posted by Grimis

    The problem is that if we did not invade Iraq, and Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, launched WMD's, etc. Opponents of the war such as yourselves would've been the first in line to blame the Bush administration for their inaction.


And then the Bush administration would have pointed the finger at the Clinton administration saying well they didn't do anything either.

    Originally posted by fule injected

    What did going into Iraq have to do with any of that? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't attack America. I find this new American policy of "pre-emptive strikes" on the basis of faulty intelligence cherry picked by an administration that is hardly objective about the "enemy" to be treading in very dangerous water.

    Why shouldn't North Korea start launching nukes at the USA? I'm sure based on their intelligence the US is an imminent threat.

    I thought Bush was doing a real good job after 9/11 fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and putting the pressure on nation's, who historically have sponsored terrorism but he lost me with Iraq. Those troops, that money, that attention should have gone to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It should have gone to trying to resolve the Palestinian/Israel dispute.

    But hey, I don't get a vote, and the Bush Administration has made it very clear that what the rest of the civilized world thinks doesn't mean shit.


You may not get a vote but there are plenty of people here that feel the same way. Including some moderate republicans like myself.

(edited by brick on 28.4.04 0953)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1745/2042
EXP: 6332505
For next: 60294

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3067 days
Last activity: 281 days
#17 Posted on 28.4.04 0903.07
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0906.06
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The problem is that if we did not invade Iraq, and Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, launched WMD's, etc. Opponents of the war such as yourselves would've been the first in line to blame the Bush administration for their inaction.


Wouldn't Iraq have to have _had_ WMDs before launching them?

Hussein invaded a total of one nation during his reign -- Kuwait, spurred on by reports of diagonal drilling by Kuwait into Iraqi oil reserves, and after the US ambassador to Baghdad told Hussein "I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq" and "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border dispute with Kuwait" directly.

Whether or not what happened next (Desert Shield -> Desert Storm) was justifiable is one matter. Whether Iraq posed anything beyond a minor threat to the United States or its interests in _2003_ is quite another. It's ludicrous to suggest that Iraq did pose such a threat, much less a threat so imposing that an immediate invasion and regime change were the only practical responses. Saddam was no asset to anyone's neighborhood, but if the US was serious about its War On Terra, Iraq wasn't a particularly relevant target at that time.

Or to put it another way, the excuse of "I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first" didn't work for Andy Capp, and it's a piss-poor foreign policy when applied to countries that don't have the _capability_ of hitting.

(edited by vsp on 28.4.04 0745)
King Of Crap
Goetta
Level: 38

Posts: 192/309
EXP: 347277
For next: 23173

Since: 17.9.03
From: Holley, New York

Since last post: 3511 days
Last activity: 3442 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 28.4.04 0931.23
Reposted on: 28.4.11 0934.48
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Hell, they wanna wipe out Israel for the crime of being Jewish...yep, all the tolerance of Nazi Germany.


Yup, that whole "you kicked us out of our own land" deal had nothing to do with it...
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 1063/2781
EXP: 9954420
For next: 45615

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 223 days
Last activity: 69 days
#19 Posted on 28.4.04 1346.35
Reposted on: 28.4.11 1346.35
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    What did going into Iraq have to do with any of that? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Iraq didn't attack America. I find this new American policy of "pre-emptive strikes" on the basis of faulty intelligence cherry picked by an administration that is hardly objective about the "enemy" to be treading in very dangerous water.


I'm talking about the terrorists and insurgents US troops are currently facing in Fallujah, Najaf, and elsewhere in Iraq. You know, the bad guys that are killing people for working with coalition authorities and committing crimes against Islam...in the name of Islam. Yeah, those guys. The sooner they've got M-16 bullets in their domes, the better.

    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Those troops, that money...it should have gone to trying to resolve the Palestinian/Israel dispute.


Whoa...are you seriously suggesting US troops deployed in the Gaza Strip and West Bank? Gimme an f'n break.

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    It's not possible to find a solution with COMMITTING GENOCIDE? Aren't "kill 'em all" and genocide the same thing? Do you understand the irony of saying "kill 'em all" while criticizing "them" for having "all the tolerance of Nazi Germany."?


Kill all the terrorists and bad guys, not all Iraqis, Arabs, or Middle Easterners. Way to put words in someone else's mouth. Sorry to dash your hopes, but conservatives don't goose-step around with swastikas on.

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Do you really think you can kill every America hater? And even if you could, don't you think that act itself would create more America haters, thereby defeating its own purpose? We have names for people with the "agree with me or die" attitude: we call them BRUTAL DICTATORS AND TYRANTS.


So what's your name for terrorists who fight the good guys who knocked out one of your BRUTAL DICTATORS AND TYRANTS, and are trying to save a nation? Oh, right...we don't have the right to defend ourselves against those types. It might be un-PC.

Man, you sure wanna paint me as somebody who can't wait to kill everybody in the Middle East what ain't white. Sorry, but the Klan's robes don't fit over my cheesehead.

I'm talking about those insurgents openly opposing US troops with violence. If you're shooting at Americans, or burning their bodies and dragging 'em through the streets, YOU'RE DEAD. You've earned that bullet between your eyes.

There happen to be plenty of Iraqis who don't hate the coalition, who like what it's done so far for improving the Iraqi infrastructure, and paving a way for a return from Saddam-dom to civilization. I've heard so from the mouths of troops who've returned from Iraq. But a lot of these folks are in hiding or keeping quiet, so that the vocal al-Sadr minority, along with the rest of those fighting the new Iraqi police, government, and coalition authorities, don't kill them on the spot.

When you see evil, you fight it...or you're doing evil by turning tail a'la Chamberlain and walking away, letting it do what it will. Love him or hate him, Pres. Bush and our troops in Iraq will get the job done. Give 'em more resources, more men and an open hand, says I. We'll win this thing yet.

And as for "go back to the title of this thread"...yeah. It's about Muslim radicals threatening the peace, security, and religious freedom of the UK, and joining with Al-Qaeda to begin terrorist operations. Reality check...isn't that treason? WIPE THOSE GUYS OUT. IT'S F*CKING WAR.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 1734/3059
EXP: 11612218
For next: 249947

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2020 days
Last activity: 1954 days
#20 Posted on 28.4.04 1353.28
Reposted on: 28.4.11 1353.28
"WIPE THOSE GUYS OUT. IT'S F*CKING WAR."

Ahem...

You're right. It IS a F*CKING WAR. But said F*CKING WAR is being fought in ONE F*CKING COUNTRY and eating up BILLIONS OF F*CKING DOLLARS whilst terrorists infiltrate our countries due to lax security and poor intel. I'm ALL for going after the fucks making bombs in their basements, but in my own damn opinion the war in Iraq-localised "war", massive amounts of resources, no tangible links to the terrorists working within our own borders-flies in the face of such action. And those terrorists in Iraq, bombing and flaying American citizens? They're just icing on the cake, unnecessarily layered on by starting a battle that should've been at the end of the war on terrorism rather than the beginning.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Dude, where's your website
Next thread: Why isnt this getting more press?
Previous thread: Bush spared from dangerous threat
(987 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - I guess these are the people we are supposed to "understand"....Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.232 seconds.