.if your not down with our troops going over to iraq and defending our freedom then leave the usa. war has been around for ever and we went over there to try to stop terrorist threats in this country.
god bless our troops
London terrorist attack!!!
- Thread starter posol
- Start date
- Replies 87
- Views 4K
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
.if your not down with our troops going over to iraq and defending our freedom then leave the usa. war has been around for ever and we went over there to try to stop terrorist threats in this country.
god bless our troops
To me, killing every Islamic person would make us just as bad as the terrorists themselves, and is definetly not the answer. Every county in the world has terrorists in one shape or form, countries in Africa have torrists the supposidly kill and rape thier own people to try and gain control.
To fight a war in Iraq for a barrel of oil is not worth the price of a human life, there are better things we can do over here to help that. But to defend our country against attack, and our own saftey, that I have respect for, and would support.
To fight a war in Iraq for a barrel of oil is not worth the price of a human life, there are better things we can do over here to help that. But to defend our country against attack, and our own saftey, that I have respect for, and would support.
are you fucking kidding me????
you honestly cant tell me that you cant see a VERY fucking distinct difference between:
us
publicly declaring war
mobilizing troops to the front
dropping fliers in multiple languages to warn civilians as well as enemy combatants of what is about to happen
using smart bomb technology to minimize collateral damage
not firing on targets that do not pose a threat
and then WE FUCKING PAY TO REBUILD THEM WHEN WE ARE DONE
them
truck bombing public buildings
suicide bombing bus stops
suicide bombing malls / plazas
suicide bombing public transportation
hyjacking planes and flying them into public buildings
taking civilian contractors, that are there to help rebuild their shit hole country, hostage and beheading them
jimboburgess
Go fast, Go Cheap
I am looking foward to the first person that legitimatly calls america the "winner" because mroe people died on 9/11 than today. We kick ass even in competitions that we don't want to win. People hate us more than England.
driverunknown
Senior Member
Any of you guys watch "Siege" with Denzel and Bruce Willis? They should do that shit there and here too if they have to.
racintweek
Senior Member
before the every body jumps my bones, i do support the troops, they are much braver than i am. but i do not support our government's reason for being in Iraq.
the militant group that we should be targeting is no longer our main target. instead our troops are carrying out a pointless war.
think of it like this:
i punch someone, he talkes shit to me for a few minutes. then he goes and fights someone else just because he thinks tthe other guy was involved but, he has no credible evidence to support his decision to fight the other guy
kinda pointless, right??
go ahead and say there are terrorists in Iraq and i will agree. but there are terrorists in other countries besides Iraq and we arent declaring war on those countries even though some of them support the terrorists.
we overturned a Gov't because there are terrorists in that country, even though there were no direct link between the Gov't and the terrorsists we went and literally destroyed a country's capital city. the only thing we accomplished was pissing a lot of people off and now everyone wonders why the rest of the world hates us.
the militant group that we should be targeting is no longer our main target. instead our troops are carrying out a pointless war.
think of it like this:
i punch someone, he talkes shit to me for a few minutes. then he goes and fights someone else just because he thinks tthe other guy was involved but, he has no credible evidence to support his decision to fight the other guy
kinda pointless, right??
go ahead and say there are terrorists in Iraq and i will agree. but there are terrorists in other countries besides Iraq and we arent declaring war on those countries even though some of them support the terrorists.
we overturned a Gov't because there are terrorists in that country, even though there were no direct link between the Gov't and the terrorsists we went and literally destroyed a country's capital city. the only thing we accomplished was pissing a lot of people off and now everyone wonders why the rest of the world hates us.
racintweek
Senior Member
some stupid ass lady called into a Local talk show this morning and said it.
at least ten people called in rather furious afterwards, she got pwnd pretty bad
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
aww man u aren't gonna play the oil card? I was reading ur reply and was just waiting to hear someone say we're over there for oil. I hear that shit all the time, funny how Iraqi oil only makes up 10% of our forgien oil need. When u understand that we still supply about half of our own oil, your talking about like 5% overall. Meaning that at $2.00/Gallon (wouldn't that be nice), getting 100% of Iraqi oil ouput for absolutley nothng (which is impossible) would only lower fuel costs by a dime a gallon.
I know u didn't even say that, but I wanted to put it out there before someone argues it.
I know u didn't even say that, but I wanted to put it out there before someone argues it.
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Okay, I'll bite for the hell of it.
Iraq may only provide that meager ten percent, but its untapped reserves are quite substantial. Even at only ten percent, that's a LOT. Ten percent of an incredible fortune is still an incredible fortune.
The invasion of Afghanistan can be directly pointed at as the hunt for Binny and the Jets, however behind the curtains is the natural gas pipeline through to the Caspian Sea. The Taliban government wouldn't make a deal to allow the US to run that very crucial pipeline. Dunno if you remember the "Accept our carpet of gold or we'll cover you in a carpet of bombs." statement that was made by a US official when the deal broke down. Strangely after we take the Taliban down and lose track of Binny (Iraq), that the deal for the construction of that pipeline was inked by the US appointed head of the new Afghan government... who just by coincidence happened to be the former senior exec of Unocal, the company that was supposed (and is) to build and manage that pipeline. There's a lotta gas in the Caspian ya know.
Sure, oil and natural gas may not have been the main reason we went to war, but goddamn if it wasn't on someone's radar
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Also, to rev things up more... here's a news article I found. Information in this article can be confirmed with just a little looking around:
Consider The Source
May 18 - A controversial exile movement cited by President George W. Bush as a source of information on Iran's nuclear ambitions is condemned for psychologically and physically abusing its own members in a new report by Human Rights Watch.
In a document scheduled for public release this week, Human Rights Watch alleges that the Iranian exile group known as Mujahedine Khalq (MEK) has a history of cultlike practices that include forcing members to divorce their spouses and to engage in extended self-criticism sessions.
More dramatically, the report states, former MEK members told Human Rights Watch that when they protested MEK policies or tried to leave the organization, they were arrested, in some cases violently abused and in other instances imprisoned. Two former recruits told the human-rights group that they were held in solitary confinement for years in a camp operated by MEK in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein. MEK representatives in the United States and France, where MEK is headquartered, did not immediately respond to phone calls and an e-mail requesting comment.
MEK has long been controversial because of its history of violent attacks in Iran, its relationship with Saddam's regime and its background as a quasi-religious, quasi-Marxist radical resistance group founded in the era of the late Iranian shah. In 1997, the Clinton administration put MEK on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups. MEK's U.S. supporters, among whom at one point numbered dozens of members of Congress, charged that the Clinton administration only labeled MEK as a terrorist group as part of an ill-conceived attempt to improve relations with the ayatollahs who currently run Iran. However, the Bush administration added two alleged MEK front organizations to the State Department's terrorist list in 2003.
Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions. At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.
In an appearance before a House International Relations Subcommittee a year ago, John Bolton, the controversial State Department undersecretary who Bush has nominated to become US ambassador to the United Nations, was questioned by a Congressman sympathetic to MEK about whether it was appropriate for the U.S. government to pay attention to allegations about Iran supplied by the group. Bolton said he believed that MEK "qualifies as a terrorist organization according to our criteria." But he added that he did not think the official label had "prohibited us from getting information from them. And I certainly don't have any inhibition about getting information about what's going on in Iran from whatever source we can find that we deem reliable."
However, current and former senior U.S. national-security officials, who asked not to be named because they are not supposed to talk about intelligence-gathering activities, say that all the major revelations MEK publicly claims to have made regarding nuclear advances in Iran were reported in classified form—and from other sources—to U.S. policymakers before MEK made them public. A Western diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations component that has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program, said that while the MEK has occasionally come up with accurate information about Iran's nukes, the group has come up with a similar number of other tips that have not checked out.
According to Human Rights Watch, several members of Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats, only last month attended a Washington meeting of a legal "MKO-backed" group called the National Convention for a Democratic, Secular Republic in Iran. In February, the group says, a think tank co-chaired by retired U.S. military officers called for MEK to be dropped from the State Department terrorist list and recommended that the U.S. government actively support MEK in its campaign to bring down the Iranian theocracy.
According to administration officials, some Pentagon officials want to recruit former MEK members as U.S. secret agents who would infiltrate Iran on intelligence missions. The Pentagon has emphatically insisted that it has no plans to work with the MEK or any of the group's members.
The new Human Rights Watch report offers no insight into the validity or inaccuracy of MEK information about Iranian's nuclear program but it does allege strange and sometimes brutal behavior by the group’s leaders and internal security apparatus. According to the report, MEK, formed in 1965 by three political activists, originally was an "urban guerilla group" which participated in the struggle against the shah that resulted in the 1979 Iranian revolution and produced the current theocratic regime in Tehran.
In an early schism following the revolution, the MEK and Abolhassan Bani Sadr, briefly Iran's president during the 1980 U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, split away from the main revolutionary movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini and went into exile. Later, Bani Sadr in turn split from MEK after a disagreement with Massoud Rajavi, who, with his wife, Maryam, subsequently became the movement's unchallenged leader. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam allowed MEK to set up several military camps in Iraq—with a headquarters encampment near Baghdad known as Camp Ashraf—and the group proceeded to conduct paramilitary operations against the Tehran regime, the largest of which was mounted—unsuccessfully—shortly after Iran agreed to a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War. MEK reportedly lost more than 1,000 fighters in this attack.
According to Human Rights Watch, following this 1988 military defeat, the Rajavi's leadership of MEK became increasingly authoritarian and cultlike. According to an MEK defector's memoir, Rajavi claimed to have a mystical relationship with a prophet known as Imam Zaman, who is Shia Islam's version of the long-awaited Messiah. In order to better cement their relationship with their leader, and hence ultimately their Messiah, Rajavi then instructed his followers to divorce their spouses. The group had already established a practice of "self criticism," under which members were asked to undergo their own personal "ideological revolution" by confessing personal inadequacies in cultlike confession sessions.
Paranoid about defectors and possible infiltrators from the Tehran regime's intelligence apparatus, in the l990s, according to Human Rights Watch, MEK leadership ordered a series of stringent "security clearances" in which "many" members were arrested by group organizers and interrogated and even imprisoned in special buildings inside the boundaries of MEK camps in Saddam-ruled Iraq. Human Rights Watch says the testimony of former MEK prisoners paints "a grim picture of how the organization treated its members, particularly those who held dissenting opinions or expressed an intent to leave the organization."
Witnesses contacted by Human Rights Watch reported two deaths during the course of MEK internal interrogations and other cases of lengthy imprisonment. One MEK detainee interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Mohammad Hussein Sobhani, claimed to have spent eight and a half years in solitary confinement in MEK detention facilities after he started raising questions about the leadership's policies. He said he was beaten on 11 occasions with wooden sticks and leather belts. Another former MEK member interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Farhad Javaheri-Yar, claimed to have been imprisoned in solitary confinement by the group for five years.
Other witnesses told Human Rights Watch claimed it was the practice of MEK interrogators to tie thick ropes around prisoners' necks and drag them along the ground. One witness told investigators: "Sometimes prisoners returned to the cell with extremely swollen necks—their head and neck as big as a pillow." In a statement accompanying its investigative report, Joe Stork, a Human Rights Watch expert on the Middle East, commented: "The Iranian government has a dreadful record on human rights. But it would be a mistake to promote an opposition group that is responsible for serious human rights abuses.â€
Just read the damn thing, will ya.
Consider The Source
May 18 - A controversial exile movement cited by President George W. Bush as a source of information on Iran's nuclear ambitions is condemned for psychologically and physically abusing its own members in a new report by Human Rights Watch.
In a document scheduled for public release this week, Human Rights Watch alleges that the Iranian exile group known as Mujahedine Khalq (MEK) has a history of cultlike practices that include forcing members to divorce their spouses and to engage in extended self-criticism sessions.
More dramatically, the report states, former MEK members told Human Rights Watch that when they protested MEK policies or tried to leave the organization, they were arrested, in some cases violently abused and in other instances imprisoned. Two former recruits told the human-rights group that they were held in solitary confinement for years in a camp operated by MEK in Iraq under the protection of Saddam Hussein. MEK representatives in the United States and France, where MEK is headquartered, did not immediately respond to phone calls and an e-mail requesting comment.
MEK has long been controversial because of its history of violent attacks in Iran, its relationship with Saddam's regime and its background as a quasi-religious, quasi-Marxist radical resistance group founded in the era of the late Iranian shah. In 1997, the Clinton administration put MEK on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups. MEK's U.S. supporters, among whom at one point numbered dozens of members of Congress, charged that the Clinton administration only labeled MEK as a terrorist group as part of an ill-conceived attempt to improve relations with the ayatollahs who currently run Iran. However, the Bush administration added two alleged MEK front organizations to the State Department's terrorist list in 2003.
Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions. At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.
In an appearance before a House International Relations Subcommittee a year ago, John Bolton, the controversial State Department undersecretary who Bush has nominated to become US ambassador to the United Nations, was questioned by a Congressman sympathetic to MEK about whether it was appropriate for the U.S. government to pay attention to allegations about Iran supplied by the group. Bolton said he believed that MEK "qualifies as a terrorist organization according to our criteria." But he added that he did not think the official label had "prohibited us from getting information from them. And I certainly don't have any inhibition about getting information about what's going on in Iran from whatever source we can find that we deem reliable."
However, current and former senior U.S. national-security officials, who asked not to be named because they are not supposed to talk about intelligence-gathering activities, say that all the major revelations MEK publicly claims to have made regarding nuclear advances in Iran were reported in classified form—and from other sources—to U.S. policymakers before MEK made them public. A Western diplomat familiar with the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations component that has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program, said that while the MEK has occasionally come up with accurate information about Iran's nukes, the group has come up with a similar number of other tips that have not checked out.
According to Human Rights Watch, several members of Congress, including both Republicans and Democrats, only last month attended a Washington meeting of a legal "MKO-backed" group called the National Convention for a Democratic, Secular Republic in Iran. In February, the group says, a think tank co-chaired by retired U.S. military officers called for MEK to be dropped from the State Department terrorist list and recommended that the U.S. government actively support MEK in its campaign to bring down the Iranian theocracy.
According to administration officials, some Pentagon officials want to recruit former MEK members as U.S. secret agents who would infiltrate Iran on intelligence missions. The Pentagon has emphatically insisted that it has no plans to work with the MEK or any of the group's members.
The new Human Rights Watch report offers no insight into the validity or inaccuracy of MEK information about Iranian's nuclear program but it does allege strange and sometimes brutal behavior by the group’s leaders and internal security apparatus. According to the report, MEK, formed in 1965 by three political activists, originally was an "urban guerilla group" which participated in the struggle against the shah that resulted in the 1979 Iranian revolution and produced the current theocratic regime in Tehran.
In an early schism following the revolution, the MEK and Abolhassan Bani Sadr, briefly Iran's president during the 1980 U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, split away from the main revolutionary movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini and went into exile. Later, Bani Sadr in turn split from MEK after a disagreement with Massoud Rajavi, who, with his wife, Maryam, subsequently became the movement's unchallenged leader. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam allowed MEK to set up several military camps in Iraq—with a headquarters encampment near Baghdad known as Camp Ashraf—and the group proceeded to conduct paramilitary operations against the Tehran regime, the largest of which was mounted—unsuccessfully—shortly after Iran agreed to a U.N.-brokered ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War. MEK reportedly lost more than 1,000 fighters in this attack.
According to Human Rights Watch, following this 1988 military defeat, the Rajavi's leadership of MEK became increasingly authoritarian and cultlike. According to an MEK defector's memoir, Rajavi claimed to have a mystical relationship with a prophet known as Imam Zaman, who is Shia Islam's version of the long-awaited Messiah. In order to better cement their relationship with their leader, and hence ultimately their Messiah, Rajavi then instructed his followers to divorce their spouses. The group had already established a practice of "self criticism," under which members were asked to undergo their own personal "ideological revolution" by confessing personal inadequacies in cultlike confession sessions.
Paranoid about defectors and possible infiltrators from the Tehran regime's intelligence apparatus, in the l990s, according to Human Rights Watch, MEK leadership ordered a series of stringent "security clearances" in which "many" members were arrested by group organizers and interrogated and even imprisoned in special buildings inside the boundaries of MEK camps in Saddam-ruled Iraq. Human Rights Watch says the testimony of former MEK prisoners paints "a grim picture of how the organization treated its members, particularly those who held dissenting opinions or expressed an intent to leave the organization."
Witnesses contacted by Human Rights Watch reported two deaths during the course of MEK internal interrogations and other cases of lengthy imprisonment. One MEK detainee interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Mohammad Hussein Sobhani, claimed to have spent eight and a half years in solitary confinement in MEK detention facilities after he started raising questions about the leadership's policies. He said he was beaten on 11 occasions with wooden sticks and leather belts. Another former MEK member interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Farhad Javaheri-Yar, claimed to have been imprisoned in solitary confinement by the group for five years.
Other witnesses told Human Rights Watch claimed it was the practice of MEK interrogators to tie thick ropes around prisoners' necks and drag them along the ground. One witness told investigators: "Sometimes prisoners returned to the cell with extremely swollen necks—their head and neck as big as a pillow." In a statement accompanying its investigative report, Joe Stork, a Human Rights Watch expert on the Middle East, commented: "The Iranian government has a dreadful record on human rights. But it would be a mistake to promote an opposition group that is responsible for serious human rights abuses.â€
Just read the damn thing, will ya.
ok first thing first
NEWS FLASH!!!!
WE ARE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN
just because you dont hear about it every 10 minutes on the news does not mean we are not still there
second
sabz... that big ass post was a good read and all but what in the hell does it have to do with anything??????
ok so there is an anti iran group that has some seriously questionable practices
iraq was anti iran so they supported them
we are kinda anti iran so some people have suggested supporting them but clearer minds have shot that idea down
all well and good but what does it really have to do with anything ????????
maybe im just confused
NEWS FLASH!!!!
WE ARE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN
just because you dont hear about it every 10 minutes on the news does not mean we are not still there
second
sabz... that big ass post was a good read and all but what in the hell does it have to do with anything??????
ok so there is an anti iran group that has some seriously questionable practices
iraq was anti iran so they supported them
we are kinda anti iran so some people have suggested supporting them but clearer minds have shot that idea down
all well and good but what does it really have to do with anything ????????
maybe im just confused
Sabz5150
FALCON PUNCH!!!
Originally posted by E_SolSi@Jul 7 2005, 11:05 PM
ok first thing first
NEWS FLASH!!!!
WE ARE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN
just because you dont hear about it every 10 minutes on the news does not mean we are not still there
second
sabz... that big ass post was a good read and all but what in the hell does it have to do with anything??????
ok so there is an anti iran group that has some seriously questionable practices
iraq was anti iran so they supported them
we are kinda anti iran so some people have suggested supporting them but clearer minds have shot that idea down
all well and good but what does it really have to do with anything ????????
maybe im just confused
[post=522432]Quoted post[/post]
Bush can't "rout terrorism wherever it exists" if he sides us with a terrorist organization. I was under the impression that most Americans, with their "KILL DEM DAR TERRORISTS!" mindset would be a bit disturbed and pissed if they knew that our administration was siding with a terrorist organization.
Well, we did supply Binny with weapons to take care of Russia and those weapons are killing our troops even now so its not much of a suprise to the rest of us.
We cannot pick and choose what terrorists to go after... if you want to wage this 'war on terror', you can't be hypocritical. None of this "allies today, enemies tomorrow, the world is changing" bullshit. Terrorists = terrorists = terrorists.
i agree
what i am saying is, the only thing that article is really saying is that there are SOME people who happen to be part of the administration that feel we should "help them help us" as part of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset.... but it says right there in the article that they were more or less shot down.
im sure there are people in the administration that agree with B, that we should just nuke the entire middle east, and turn it into a parking lot... level minds have thus far prevailed
im sure there are people in the administration that think we should reinstate internment camps, and round up anyone of arab decent... once again level minds have prevailed
i dunno
the story shed some light on an organization i wasnt too familiar with... but the fact that some people support them does not supprise me at all
what i am saying is, the only thing that article is really saying is that there are SOME people who happen to be part of the administration that feel we should "help them help us" as part of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset.... but it says right there in the article that they were more or less shot down.
im sure there are people in the administration that agree with B, that we should just nuke the entire middle east, and turn it into a parking lot... level minds have thus far prevailed
im sure there are people in the administration that think we should reinstate internment camps, and round up anyone of arab decent... once again level minds have prevailed
i dunno
the story shed some light on an organization i wasnt too familiar with... but the fact that some people support them does not supprise me at all
and the award for the most racist, misinformed statement in this topic goes to....
go ahead and take a bow. we have done this before(WWII). my uncles father was a second born generation in this country, didnt even speak japanese, and was still put in a camp. you really need to look deeper into it.
its not a race thing, its barely a religion thing. there are terrorists in every color all around the world. if this is truly a "war on terror" then we should be going after the IRA and Anti-Abortion groups that bomb a clinic. this is a war against someone that could take over oil reserves that could fund their groups to move up from box cutters to nukes.
im against the war, i support the troops, but there are feasable(sp?) reasons we are there.
go ahead and take a bow. we have done this before(WWII). my uncles father was a second born generation in this country, didnt even speak japanese, and was still put in a camp. you really need to look deeper into it.
its not a race thing, its barely a religion thing. there are terrorists in every color all around the world. if this is truly a "war on terror" then we should be going after the IRA and Anti-Abortion groups that bomb a clinic. this is a war against someone that could take over oil reserves that could fund their groups to move up from box cutters to nukes.
im against the war, i support the troops, but there are feasable(sp?) reasons we are there.
racintweek
Senior Member
but what i dont under stand why we arent concentrating on the group of people who actually attacked us. instead we are trying to eliminate a threat.
so would would you fight a guy who punched you or teh guy who you think might punch you in a few days??
Celerity
Well-Known Member
Lovin' this thread. There are a few key points that people need to remember. I'm at work now, so pardon me if I don't go full-depth into them:
B: I tend to agree with you. But I'm also a big Ann Coulter fan. Islam is a religion that practices and preaches Fatwas and have already (through the Ayatollah) condoned and even demanded that all Islamists, extreme or not, are to kill and wipe out the Western world - Primarily that of the US. He declared war on us, Farrakhan helped, and his people have answered the call. There is no room in the future for extremists of any kind, and there is no room in a future Earth society (and space faring race) for Muslims.
Muslims, of which I am a friend to few, aren't the brightest of the bright. I have yet to be shown up on this. Muslim scientists are even skewed and behind the curve - With even their smartest being at a high-school level of intelligence. Islam is a religion that doesn't support intelligence - Instead, mainstream Islam asks you to read only the Koran and dismiss all else as false. Yeah, the Bible and Torah have it's "This book is right" groups, but the official Churches and Synagogues have assigned priests and scholars to look for new interprations of the books. They have opened their minds. Even fundamentalist or extreme Christians / Jews are willing to look at other translations of their writings and accept that it's all open to translation.
But not Islam. No no no no.. If you even mention that it may have a different meaning, you're killed publically and your family follows suit. In America mentioning it results in your doom - if not by life, then by your afterlife.
The Muslim mind is a like this O. Their brains don't seem physically capable of thinking outside of it. The O is the limit.
Afghanistan: There are many reasons we went to Afghanistan. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that we went there to oust and put an end to Al Quaida. That said, I know there were underlying reasons to go as well. Were we to enter Somalia (Like we did) to stop the flow of terrorism and it's devices (Like we did) we could also have an underlying agenda to control Gold and Diamond markets. All that flows through Somalia we had a part in.
While we're on Somalia, lemme let you in a few things. I have a friend that is very influencial in military tactics abroad. That's all I'm going to say. Ever see Black Hawk Down ? That movie chronicalled, very well, the events of that day. But do you know what happened the day AFTER? We went in and levelled that town with all we had. Air strikes, tank columns and long range missile attacks. We do this because not only do we rescue our people, we ensure that it will never happen again. We turned that place into a smoking hole. Ever see pictures of that region after the Black Hawk ? No, because it doesn't exist anymore.
Iraq: Saddam Hussein publically announced on Iraqi television and Al Jazeera that he had the ability (weapons) and the people (terrorists) and was ready to assault the US on US soil. I keep telling you this and it's ignored. He threatened us with a domestic attack at the civilian level, and promised more along those lines. He did this because he felt that he was in a position of power, his celestial signs aligned, and his astrologer told him he was ready to go.
Iran: Iran is a HUGE problem now. If the new PM of Iran IS the guy that held hostages in 1979 we have the largest problem in the world on our hands. This is the original Terrorist - The original guy that wanted the US dead because we took in the Shah, The original guy to call for the killing of Salman Rushdie, The original guy that convinced the Extreme in Iran that the US has desecrated the words of Mohammed, even when we ultimately turned our backs on the Shah. This guy paved the way for the Ayatollah to come to power. He is the reason that the Middle east is the way it is. He's the cause of all this.
Russia: Now these guys could really be called the reason for the wars. In the late 60s Russia supplied Palestine with the equipment necessary to attack Israel. Just as today Israel is a superpower that attacks rock-throwers with satellite guided smart bombs, in the late 60s it was the other way around. Russia supported the Shah, as we did. His government cycled new technologies down to the front-fighters that we see in power today. Iran and it's resources were shared by the world as friends. Wow.
Resources: We are in Iraq for it's resources. I'm ok with that. Keeping a large chunk of oil production out of the hands of a tyrant is good. Shit, I would support keeping it out of the hands of someone that is even shrewed. The global economy will fall to it's knees if resources are left in the hands of people like Saddam.... And Saudi Arabia. But forget about OPEC for a second. Tune into my favorite website: www.petroleumworld.com. These guys have the news on what everyone in the world is doing with oil - And you'll see that OPEC isn't even the problem.
B: I tend to agree with you. But I'm also a big Ann Coulter fan. Islam is a religion that practices and preaches Fatwas and have already (through the Ayatollah) condoned and even demanded that all Islamists, extreme or not, are to kill and wipe out the Western world - Primarily that of the US. He declared war on us, Farrakhan helped, and his people have answered the call. There is no room in the future for extremists of any kind, and there is no room in a future Earth society (and space faring race) for Muslims.
Muslims, of which I am a friend to few, aren't the brightest of the bright. I have yet to be shown up on this. Muslim scientists are even skewed and behind the curve - With even their smartest being at a high-school level of intelligence. Islam is a religion that doesn't support intelligence - Instead, mainstream Islam asks you to read only the Koran and dismiss all else as false. Yeah, the Bible and Torah have it's "This book is right" groups, but the official Churches and Synagogues have assigned priests and scholars to look for new interprations of the books. They have opened their minds. Even fundamentalist or extreme Christians / Jews are willing to look at other translations of their writings and accept that it's all open to translation.
But not Islam. No no no no.. If you even mention that it may have a different meaning, you're killed publically and your family follows suit. In America mentioning it results in your doom - if not by life, then by your afterlife.
The Muslim mind is a like this O. Their brains don't seem physically capable of thinking outside of it. The O is the limit.
Afghanistan: There are many reasons we went to Afghanistan. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that we went there to oust and put an end to Al Quaida. That said, I know there were underlying reasons to go as well. Were we to enter Somalia (Like we did) to stop the flow of terrorism and it's devices (Like we did) we could also have an underlying agenda to control Gold and Diamond markets. All that flows through Somalia we had a part in.
While we're on Somalia, lemme let you in a few things. I have a friend that is very influencial in military tactics abroad. That's all I'm going to say. Ever see Black Hawk Down ? That movie chronicalled, very well, the events of that day. But do you know what happened the day AFTER? We went in and levelled that town with all we had. Air strikes, tank columns and long range missile attacks. We do this because not only do we rescue our people, we ensure that it will never happen again. We turned that place into a smoking hole. Ever see pictures of that region after the Black Hawk ? No, because it doesn't exist anymore.
Iraq: Saddam Hussein publically announced on Iraqi television and Al Jazeera that he had the ability (weapons) and the people (terrorists) and was ready to assault the US on US soil. I keep telling you this and it's ignored. He threatened us with a domestic attack at the civilian level, and promised more along those lines. He did this because he felt that he was in a position of power, his celestial signs aligned, and his astrologer told him he was ready to go.
Iran: Iran is a HUGE problem now. If the new PM of Iran IS the guy that held hostages in 1979 we have the largest problem in the world on our hands. This is the original Terrorist - The original guy that wanted the US dead because we took in the Shah, The original guy to call for the killing of Salman Rushdie, The original guy that convinced the Extreme in Iran that the US has desecrated the words of Mohammed, even when we ultimately turned our backs on the Shah. This guy paved the way for the Ayatollah to come to power. He is the reason that the Middle east is the way it is. He's the cause of all this.
Russia: Now these guys could really be called the reason for the wars. In the late 60s Russia supplied Palestine with the equipment necessary to attack Israel. Just as today Israel is a superpower that attacks rock-throwers with satellite guided smart bombs, in the late 60s it was the other way around. Russia supported the Shah, as we did. His government cycled new technologies down to the front-fighters that we see in power today. Iran and it's resources were shared by the world as friends. Wow.
Resources: We are in Iraq for it's resources. I'm ok with that. Keeping a large chunk of oil production out of the hands of a tyrant is good. Shit, I would support keeping it out of the hands of someone that is even shrewed. The global economy will fall to it's knees if resources are left in the hands of people like Saddam.... And Saudi Arabia. But forget about OPEC for a second. Tune into my favorite website: www.petroleumworld.com. These guys have the news on what everyone in the world is doing with oil - And you'll see that OPEC isn't even the problem.
:wtf2:
no.... sorry but that is FLAT OUT BULLSHIT
we didn't level a fucking thing
clinton pulled troops out of somalia because he didnt want to deal with the "bad press" that comes with casualties
the somalis view that battle as a victory, because "they managed to chase the big bad US away"
do some more research.... if your friend old you that, he is full of shit
Similar threads
