I think its time to question the legacy of the quran and islam faith. Obviously the quran was written approx. 500 years after the anouncement of the New Testament, which covers even the tribe of Ismael. The quran was written as a political maneuvre leaning on the old testament, as a provocation by an (as some say) epilectic writer. I have nothing against free speech and opinions, but considering Islam as religion is a bit far fetched and the cause of troubles we're facing now. Enough evidence in the book itself when it's calling directly to fight all mankind and all those who don't follow the spirit of the quran. Islam? No thank you Once again...Its not the people who are bad but the spirit behind it...
Yes I did read the article when someone says Al queda to 90% of americans it means 911 , they are interchangable to most people. Anyone with half a brain knows what they are infering. They know the average american is too stupid to understand the difference, when they say al queda they are really saying 911 here is quote from mia see its bullshit speak, iraq ... support ... 911 Its a dishonest presentation of the facts There has been few Alqueda people in every country in the middle east at one point or anther, it means very little. If talking to them years ago is a reason to invade, why isn't supporting them and finacing them a reason to do something to saudi arabia you guys are grasping at straws Here is another article from fox news explaining the non link again http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html Why do you think so many people don't know the facts? Its beyond my comphrension that someone can look at this and not see the dishonestly of it all. So when do you think we should invade saudia arabia, everyone is very stoked to go to war to get the terrorists, but no one talks about saudia arabia.
Two Arabs are sitting in a Gaza Strip bar while smoking and chatting over a pint The first Arab pulls his wallet out and starts flipping through pictures, and they start reminiscing. "This is my oldest son, he was a martyr." "Praise Allah! You must be so very proud," says the other. "Yes, and this is my second son. He was a martyr also." "A fine looking young man... praise be to Mohammed!" replies his friend. After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Arab says wistfully, "They blow up so fast, don't they?"
I've watched it as well, in parts. Couldn't watch it without interruptions, too sick. It help putting things into perspective and demontrating what hatred can really look like.
Children in Iraq will be able to grow up in a better society if we do things right. I don't consider what we do hatred. Even though it looks bad. Sorry, but I don't see a purpose behind what I've seen on that tape. But in war there are victims. I see a greater cause.
If people are oppressed, peace is artificial. I cannot imagine growing up in a society under a dictator. I would want my children to have better.
As if it matters? Most Americans don't care about the verses in the quran that call for their death and are driving terrorism. They don't care about the details of things. What they care about is that they have a government that is going to take care of them, protect them from danger and take measures to ensure our safety. Iraq supported terrorism, Zarqawi (who is the leader of al qaida in Iraq) was in Iraq prior to to our invasion, 911 is terrorism, Bush is going after terrorism. Nah, there couldn't be any link there. The Weekly Standard link I provided earlier doesn't have 10 ties between saddam and al qaida. It doesn't have 20 ties between them. No, it has 37 ties going from the early 90s into 2003. Yea, lets forget about zarqawi. I mean, he is al qaida and he was in iraq prior to our invasion and when some of his thugs were caught with 20 tons of chemical wmd in Jordan and said they were training with zarqawi prior to the invasion, well, it doesn't *really* mean a whole lot It means very little to who? To you? That's an opinion. Did it mean very little for the four numbnuts in London who killed 50+ people? Did it mean very little when they blew up trains in Spain? Did it mean very little when they killed 3000 on 9/11? We didn't invade because of an al quaida link. It wasn't on the list of demands saddam was presented. Personally, I say you are grasping at straws in trying to twist things around. Apparenly you are not even clear why we invaded or the conditions we laid out to saddam to avoid war: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html Notice the precise nature of the conditions? Which one do you think was the most difficult for saddam? This is why we went to war. saddam had a choice, unlike the people he butchered. Incorrect. My opinion is that you are twisting straws to connect each other. Here's why I say that. I don't contend that saddam was behind 9/11. I don't have anything that suggests that notion and I don't perpetrate it. However, there is plenty of evidence that saddam had ties to al quaida. Not the least of which was zarqawi in iraq prior to the invasion and the 37 ties the Weekly Standard published. I do submit there were ties between saddam and al qaida because there is evidence that suggests such. I'm not sure *who* you are speaking about grasping straws, but there is grasping, then there is twisting. Regarding Saudi. Yes, not only am I sick of our government blowing smoke up their asses because of oil, I'm tired of it as well. Many "conservatives" are. It's a precarious position to be in. Do we shut down our economy and transportation system, or do we blow the crap out of them? I'm tired of their funding mosques here in the US that preach the killing of Christians and Jews. I don't like their new amabassador who has ties to bin laden and terrorism. I don't like the way they treat women. Yea, there isn't much I like about saudi in the least bit. Don't ask me the solution, because I honestly don't know. Because mainstream media has worked hard to get their own version of stories they want people to believe in. They deliberately avoid any story of good things going on there and seek only to portray the worst in everything. When new findings or evidence comes out, many deliberately do not comment on it, or do like the NYT is famous for doing...put it on page 13 hidden away in some small obscure paragraph. The dishonesty of what? That al quaida had a relationship with saddam? That zarqawi, an al qaida leader was in Iraq prior to our invasion? That zarqawi used 20 tons of chemical WMD in a failed attempt on Jordan? That the New York Times showed the looting of WMD just weeks after our invasion. Considering the NYT is one of the most unfriendly newspapers in America towards Bush. The dishonesty that islam is peace and tolerance? The dishonesty that religion isn't a driving factor in today's terrorism? I agree. There's a lot of dishonesty going on. I'm also convinced we see it coming for opposite sources. I don't mind talking about saudi. I'm not opposed to going after any country that supports, funds or produces terrorists. They are cracking down, or at least some of their arrests would seem to indicate, but they are still preaching hatred and funding hated in mosques in America. If we can put pressure on them to disuade them, I'm for that too. I don't think waiting 12 years of doing nothing, like we did with Iraq is the answer though.
Oh, right and Crazy Rob is...Crazy! Just kiddin' mate Anyway, I checked your last link, and in the first page of images it did not take long to find this: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Mar2005/050308-N-5319A-008.html Is this excluded from your point? Also, can you provide images of torture and killings of kids under Saddam? I suppose not many, but I guess that's because he wasn't that bad, in fact you could always see him cheered by the crowds. Bush instead can't be seen in that situation, by coincidence Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, even Arafat and many others could... The difference is killing intentionally or as the side effects of having to bring peace and freedom through war as things have gone to far thanks to the UN and too bloody much democracy in the western world. Which also made and still makes the Vietnamese and North Korean people suffer. I prob love waisting time and getting bad rep votes...
And unfortunately that is how people judge these things. Widely televised pictures of the kind Rob has shown and no footages of what Henny has given us. We fortunately are allowed to show what bad sideeffect our actions have had. If you of course choose to look at "closed societies" the same way as at ours, you are missing the big picture and will let your emotions cloud your view.
Are you sure about that? I don't watch much television, but I've never seen images like that. In fact, I have only heard of dead civilians a handfull of times.
Definitely a lot more than the type that Henny has shown. Those of course are too disturbing to show on TV. Yet they are real. And no isolated incidences.
ST, if you're referring to the images in post #243, I've seen those on TV and in the newspapers before.
Rob, this one. And I think there is a big difference between seeing a picture and actual footage. Actual footage reveals a lot more. Like the cold blodded attitude of those who do the killing. The determination and hatred behind it. Yes, we have wounded and killed kids, but if we saw the footage, I'm sure it would be clear that those killings were tragic accidents and not us targetting kids and shooting them out of spite against the terrorists.
Tutor please answer these questions: 1- Who is more dead, the guy with chopped head or a guy with bullet in his brain? a) chopped head more dead b) bullet in the head more dead c) both are dead 1- Who is more dead, women and children exploded by a car bomb or women and children killed by laser guided missile? a) more dead by car bomb b) more dead by missile c) both are dead Thank you.
If I had a choice on how to die, I would choose B on the first. On the second one, if I had to die, I would want it to be for something that is going to bring some good in the end. That IMO would be the liberation of Iraq and stabilizing their society so that future generations can make their own choices and not be enslaved by a dictator and his infrastructure.
Great point, it's so true! That's why a Marine, whether US or Royal, would not enthusiastically and so typically cut throats of other unarmed, blindfolded people completely at their mercy.