Babs Posted July 17, 2004 #51 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Stamford....yes, I will try to get more information and get back to you. Some info. has been going around our offices here. Just because a country has a growing Muslim population doesn't mean that they will be overrun by Islamic fundamentalists Your head is in the clouds, Stamford. I'm not talking about peaceful Muslims, they cannot protect us from their Muslim terrorists. I'm talking about 20% of France's population is Muslim....and that number is growing. France cannot resist the terrorists without the US. There will be a cultural takeover when there gets to be enough Muslim in France, and then the terrorists will be there for 'the kill'. France will be so busy arguing about what to do next, that it will be easy for the terrorists to take over. The country will be in turmoil and weakened. There are 64 Muslim countries in the world. The terrorists will take over each non-Muslim country, one at a time. They intend to kill all the infidels...translated: every non-Muslim. If the U.S. is divided and doesn't fight as a united country, it will be defeated. Pure and simple. No other free country in the world will survive without the U.S. Every free country will be defeated. And here we sit being critized by other countries on how we're going about this war on terrorism. Even our own country is divided now. People are worried about a civil war here, I was worried about a civil war breaking out the last election. A civil war would be perfect for the enemy. I guess we are in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 17, 2004 #52 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Your head is in the clouds, Stamford. I'm not talking about peaceful Muslims, they cannot protect us from their Muslim terrorists. I'm talking about 20% of France's population is Muslim....and that number is growing. France cannot resist the terrorists without the US. There will be a cultural takeover when there gets to be enough Muslim in France, and then the terrorists will be there for 'the kill'. France will be so busy arguing about what to do next, that it will be easy for the terrorists to take over. The country will be in turmoil and weakened. didn't something similar happen to Egypt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted July 17, 2004 #53 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Wen exactly bathory?????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 17, 2004 #54 Share Posted July 17, 2004 i dunno i was asking a question perhaps i'm thinking of something that happened a long time ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted July 17, 2004 #55 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted July 17, 2004 #56 Share Posted July 17, 2004 IT did happen wen the fall of the pharoes happened These are different times. The french wont fall to muslim extremists. The boom on muslim populations in our countries will slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp23 Posted July 17, 2004 #57 Share Posted July 17, 2004 The terrorists will take over each non-Muslim country, one at a time. They intend to kill all the infidels...translated: every non-Muslim Wow babs you seem to have some inside knowlege of these terrorists master plans, maybey you'd like to share with us your source for this knowlege. I think the US has set an example of terror for so long that the fundamentalist muslem world(which was encouraged if not created by the US during the Afganistan/Russian war, to harbour support against "the communists") is now following their lead. The illegal US envasion of Soverign Iraq is just the latest in a long line of terrorist/criminal acts comitted by old Uncle Sam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 17, 2004 #58 Share Posted July 17, 2004 The illegal US envasion of Soverign Iraq is just the latest in a long line of terrorist/criminal acts comitted by old Uncle Sam. care to tell us how its illegal? you know, what law did they break? all that sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp23 Posted July 17, 2004 #59 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Nuremberg Charter defines, Crimes against peace: (i)Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii)Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). if this doesn't describe the invasion of Iraq I don't know what does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asterix Posted July 17, 2004 #60 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Alright, in order to see some things in the proper light.. 1) Regardless of how convenient it is to use the word "Muslim" as a synonym of "Terrorist" (or other way around), the truth is far from that. Not all Muslims are terrorists, as not all terrorists are muslims. Actually, one of the greatest terrorist figures of all times, Carlos the jackal, was born in Venezuela. 2) It's quite safe to assume that terrorism is something born after WWII. Perhaps they were some isolated cases before, with assassinations of key-figures or explosives-related attacks, but they are far from being considered of similar nature. The birth and the causes of the "modern terrorism" is quite multi-dimensional, but it generally comes down to the sudden urge for "questioning the authority". Or better, since this need existed since forever, to the possibilities for the materialization of this need. After WWII, people not only demanded "everything here and now", but also believed, perhaps for the first time in human history, that they have the power to achieve this goal. The branch of this ideology that has no morals/reason and believes that everything is allowed as long as it serves "the cause", is the nursery for terrorism 3) The muslim-related terrorism, has always had the ONE and the SAME basic reason. The state of Israel. As many times in human history, and perhaps because it's in human nature to act impulsively, after WWII the Jewish population was in the center of sympathy and as a result, with really swift and hasty procedures and without much foresight, the decision was taken to allocate a small piece of land in the Holy Lands for the foundation of the state of Israel. Was the Jewish population entitled for something like this? Well, why not I guess. Was it necessary to plan things much, much more carefully? Definately. 4) think the US has set an example of terror for so long that the fundamentalist muslem world(which was encouraged if not created by the US during the Afganistan/Russian war, to harbour support against "the communists") is now following their lead. Seeing it with objective eyes, it is the sad truth. 5) If the American people feel unsafe at the present, and I can understand this worry, they have only old Uncle Sam to blame. The foreign policy of USA in the last 30 years, since Lyndon Johnson's presidency and on, is creating more and more anti-americanism all around the globe. (And inside US as well!) 6) ...And last. Quite famous quote by Benjamin Franklin, quite popular these days. And very true. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 18, 2004 #61 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Crimes against peace: (i)Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii)Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). ok so what violations of international treaties, agreements or assuraces occured? need i remind you, Iraq has been breaking resolutions almost everyday for the past 10 years:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightbird Posted July 18, 2004 #62 Share Posted July 18, 2004 this is incredible. I can not believe there are so many naive people out there who are still trying to justify this war. the US government wanted IRaq. so they went and got it. it wasnt about WMD, it wasnt about the "cruel tyranny" and it wasnt about liberating a people. if it was, then american would not be subjecting Iraqis to abuse, torture and murder. when I think of all the children who have died becuase of this war it makes me sick that some people are still championing it as some grand crusade out to save the world. save the world from what????? there was no link to bin Laden and Saddam, in fact your good ol georgie boy had more contact and links with bin Laden and his family than Saddam did. Lets remember here folks, the US armed Iraq when Iran was the enemy, just like you armed Pol Pot in Cambodia when Vietnam was the enemy and then stood back and watch thousands of innocent people being slaughtered by him. you did nothing then, and yet now you expect the rest of the world to believe that the US is out to free a supressed people?? come on! get a grip! lets move onto the next fallacy......the real reason given, given as Bush could not go against the Geneva convention which states that no country may invade another without that country first attacking or being a danger. Iraq was no danger to the US or the rest of the world, so Bush and his cronies had to dig up some false intelligence about WMD's which is now all coming to light. when that failed, they then went back to the freeing of a race of people. its funny how they can forget about Sudan isnt it. or Cuba, or any other country which is in civil war, or under the rule of a dictator. why was it only Iraq the US challeneged? could it be...~gasp~...oil???? Let's see......a base in Afghanistan.....but the richest source of oil is the mIddle East..take Iraq, and then you can begin on the rest of the middle east. good logic no? and I think that is more in line with what Bush was thinking. Either that or he just wanted him becuase his Daddy did. I'm going to go get some of the info I have saved on this and post it for you to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightbird Posted July 18, 2004 #63 Share Posted July 18, 2004 LATEST IRAQ-AL QAEDA "EVIDENCE" PROVES FALSE Just days after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission acknowledged that there was "no credible evidence"[1] to support the White House's pre-war assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection,[2] the Bush administration is now putting out "new evidence" that supposedly proves the claim. But as reported by newspapers around the country, senior U.S. intelligence officials say this "evidence" is false. Days after Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he "probably"[3] had more evidence than the 9/11 Commission to prove an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, Republican commissioner John Lehman said he was given "new intelligence"[4] showing that "at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, was a very prominent member of al Qaeda."[5] But according to U.S. officials, intelligence experts are "highly skeptical that the Iraqi officer had any connection to al-Qaida."[6] Newsday noted that the CIA concluded "a long time ago" that the individual in question "was not an officer in Saddam Hussein's army."[7] President Bush and Vice President Cheney have both continued to insist on an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, despite "senior U.S. officials now saying there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league."[8] Members of the 9/11 Commission are formally calling on Cheney to provide any shred of proof[9] to support his assertion last week that "the evidence is overwhelming"[10] that the Iraqi government had a relationship with al Qaeda. Sources: 1. "9-11 panel finds 'no credible evidence' of link between al-Qaida and Iraq", The Seattle Times, 6/17/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41725. 2. Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 9/17/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41726. 3. "Al Qaeda Link To Iraq May Be Confusion Over Names", Washington Post, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41727. 4. "Al-Qaida, Fedayeen militia tie Disputed", AZCentral.com, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41728. 5. "Iraqi officer tied to al Qaeda", Reuters UK, 6/20/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41729 =532610§ion=news. 6. "Intelligence experts cast doubt on ties between Iraq, al-Qaida", Knight Ridder, 6/21/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41730. 7. "CIA: No Iraqi officer link in al-Qaida meeting", Newsday, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41731 318.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines. 8. "Doubts Cast on Efforts to Link Saddam, al-Qaida", Common Dreams News Center, 3/03/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41732. 9. "Sept. 11 Panel Asks Cheney for Saddam-Al Qaeda Evidence", NPR: All Things Considered, 6/20/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41733. 10. "Al-Qaida, Fedayeen militia tie disputed", AZCentral.com, 6/22/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1217079&l=41728. Visit www.misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillcrazy Posted July 18, 2004 #64 Share Posted July 18, 2004 nightbird, Very good post and research. I commend your efforts. But in the same tone as my enthusiasm for your dedicated research and fact finding, I must point out that there are some here that will deny any evidence that the U.S./U.K went to war and cost lives on false information. It has been my continual effort to get people to research facts for themselves before spouting off about things, that in reality, they know nothing about. It seems to me that certain people will not admit Bush and Blair were wrong. The intel was wrong and it may have been known that it was wrong PRIOR to any invasion, as it now seems to be the case. Again kudos for a job well done. SC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 18, 2004 #65 Share Posted July 18, 2004 (edited) it may have been known that it was wrong PRIOR to any invasion, as it now seems to be the case. oh? Night so what violations of international treaties, agreements or assuraces occured? need i remind you, Iraq has been breaking resolutions almost everyday for the past 10 years:) Edited July 18, 2004 by bathory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asterix Posted July 18, 2004 #66 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Offence justifies another offence? no no no... If a country violates the international laws, can their importance be proven by another violation? If for arguments sake we forget about this, and focus on Saddam Hussein, and agree that he was a murderous dictator, and it was for everybodys benefit to get rid of him, isn't the war in Iraq bit like killing a fly with a cannon? I'm not ready to grand George Bush with the title of world-police. This hole thing has been like trying to prevent the greenhouse-effect with turning up the air-conditioning. Mrs Asterix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp23 Posted July 18, 2004 #67 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of[/u] aggression![/u] I don't think the US was in any danger of being over-run by Iraqi forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillcrazy Posted July 18, 2004 #68 Share Posted July 18, 2004 it may have been known that it was wrong PRIOR to any invasion, as it now seems to be the case. oh? Please feel free to quote the entire text next time. I hate it when I've been Michael Moored. Might I suggest reading the 9/11 commisions report, The butler report and of course our own cogressional investigation into the Iraqi war before you state "Oh?" It seems that the evidence presented in regards to the CIA was flawed, now the question is not what who knew what, but more of When did they know it. Sounds Like Iran/Contra all over again. But what the F do I know, I only do this for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 19, 2004 #69 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Please feel free to quote the entire text next time. I hate it when I've been Michael Moored. i didn't change the meaning of what you said, quit whining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillcrazy Posted July 19, 2004 #70 Share Posted July 19, 2004 (edited) Please feel free to quote the entire text next time. I hate it when I've been Michael Moored. i didn't change the meaning of what you said, quit whining No problem, since it was meant as a joke but that's okay. Bye all, see you in the funny papers. Edited July 19, 2004 by stillcrazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamford Posted July 19, 2004 #71 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Your head is in the clouds, Stamford. I'm not talking about peaceful Muslims, they cannot protect us from their Muslim terrorists. I'm talking about 20% of France's population is Muslim....and that number is growing. So what? My God, you claim your not talking about peaceful Muslims and yet you say that a Muslim uprising is imminent, purely because 20% of the population is Muslim. Lets for one second assume that you are right, Babs. What would you suggest the US does about it? Invade France? France cannot resist the terrorists without the US. There will be a cultural takeover when there gets to be enough Muslim in France, and then the terrorists will be there for 'the kill'. France will be so busy arguing about what to do next, that it will be easy for the terrorists to take over. The country will be in turmoil and weakened. Hmm, seeing as the French opposed the Iraq War, why are they the next targets? Oh, yes, because there are Muslims living there and therefore under the control of Osama and ready to rage war against the 'infedels'. There are 64 Muslim countries in the world. The terrorists will take over each non-Muslim country, one at a time. They intend to kill all the infidels...translated: every non-Muslim. If the U.S. is divided and doesn't fight as a united country, it will be defeated. Pure and simple. No other free country in the world will survive without the U.S. Every free country will be defeated. Ah, a new improved 'Domino Effect' - cool!! And here we sit being critized by other countries on how we're going about this war on terrorism. Even our own country is divided now. People are worried about a civil war here, I was worried about a civil war breaking out the last election. A civil war would be perfect for the enemy. I guess we are in trouble. A civil war? Yeah, right! I think by that comment alone you pretty much give yourself away as someone who is suffering from an acute case of paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted July 19, 2004 #72 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Lets for one second assume that you are right, Babs. What would you suggest the US does about it? Invade France? Don't get the US started, they need such little prodding when it comes to invasions... I think by that comment alone you pretty much give yourself away as someone who is suffering from an acute case of paranoia. Bingo, we have a winner! Ah, a new improved 'Domino Effect' - cool!! It worked so effectively during the cold war it has been updated. The Red Scare worked very well...It allowed the government to snoop into anyone's life it wanted to regardless of the legality of the snooping, it prompted citizens to inform on each other, Anyone that was questionionable in their support could be harrased...blacklisted...arrested...interrogated... Does any of this sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamford Posted July 19, 2004 #73 Share Posted July 19, 2004 It worked so effectively during the cold war it has been updated. The Red Scare worked very well... I can see the advertising: From the country that bought you 'Reds Under the Bed', new Improved 'Islamaphobia' (now with added paranoia) - Warning: May cause uncontrollable, violent mood swings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted July 19, 2004 #74 Share Posted July 19, 2004 LOL stamford an fluffybunny , you 2 could be a double act. The scary thing is that its actually happeneing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted July 19, 2004 #75 Share Posted July 19, 2004 From the country that bought you 'Reds Under the Bed', new Improved 'Islamaphobia' (now with added paranoia) - Warning: May cause uncontrollable, violent mood swings. Please give warning in future before posting stuff like this. You have damaged my sides, and may have stopped me ever having children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now