Since last post: 2576 days Last activity: 622 days
#1 Posted on 27.10.02 1727.10 Reposted on: 27.10.09 1729.03
I've got a friend who was telling me that protests in Washington DC are currently banned (as of sometime earlier this year or possibly last). I can't really believe that this is true, at lost not in language as simple as that.
I've tried a couple of net searches and have been able to find a few tidbits on banning stationary protests but no real detail or context. Anyone here know whether it is in fact currently illegal to stage a protest in the DC area and what the context behind this is (beyond the obvious "the gov't wants to ignore the people" reasoning)and maybe have a link or two to share that would further elaborate?
Since last post: 1875 days Last activity: 641 days
#5 Posted on 28.10.02 1411.26 Reposted on: 28.10.09 1418.30
I love these anti- war hypocrites... these are the same people who say we should try an "understand the terrorists who attacked us." Why are people who attack and kill thousands of civilians ok, but when we retaliate, we are evil? OH! Don't attack Sadaam! He is really a great guy! Sure he supports Al Quaida and other terrorist groups, gasses his own people and neighbors, lobbed missiles at a nation that was not even attacking him (Isreal), attempted to conquer a neighboring soverign nation, has openly and chronically violated the terms of the treaty signed to end the last war- war is wrong! Give me a break... so we should just sit back and allow this guy to build a nuke, strap it on a SCUD, and lob it into Isreal? No fucking way... they guy uses GAS on his own people! OF COURSE he is going to use his new toy once it is done. And you can damn well guarantee that it will be a lot harder to genereate support for an attack once he has the bomb...
Since last post: 3426 days Last activity: 3426 days
#6 Posted on 28.10.02 1655.21 Reposted on: 28.10.09 1659.01
I love these anti- war hypocrites... these are the same people who say we should try an "understand the terrorists who attacked us."
So you would rather be ignorant of the reasons the terrorists committed suicide and mass murder against your country? Ignorance is bliss?
OH! Don't attack Sadaam! He is really a great guy! Sure he supports Al Quaida and other terrorist groups ...
Islamic fundamentalists have hated Saddam for years because he is a military dictator, who gives the clergy in Iraq no influence whatsoever. He invaded Iran in 1980 (with Washington's military and economic support), and Iran at the time was the leading fundamentalist country. The world is a complex place, Pool-Boy -- America's enemies are most often at each other's throats too. I would be very surprised if Saddam is as involved with Al-Qaida as the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. When is America invading those countries?
they guy uses GAS on his own people! OF COURSE he is going to use his new toy once it is done.
WWI era mustard gas Saddam made with the help of Washington and London. Saddam doesn't have any nuclear reactors (Washington helped him build one in the early '80s but Israel bombed it before it became operational) and it is next to impossible to build a good-sized nuke while smuggling in a few grams of fissionable material when you need tons of the stuff.
Now, North Korea has lots of nuclear reactors and lots of fissionable material ... when is America invading again? 2003 or 2004? Oh, sorry ... North Korea doesn't have any oil, and the men behind the throne in the White House are oil men. Edit: oops I hadn't read the debate about North Korea in the "Susan Sarandon is a whore" topic. Didn't try and start it all over again here.
Do you know what would make me support a war on Iraq? Perhaps if Bush got up in front of the TV cameras and said "our hands are filthy with the support we have given Saddam over the years. The suffering of the Iraqi people is in great part due to President Carter, President Reagan, and President Daddy. We are sorry, and we are going to try and make amends by deposing this tyrant." Hell it's worth a shot.