Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Poll Only
Jihadist terrorists
Topic Started: Jan 10 2005, 07:50 AM (2,296 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I wonder if Somerled thought Saddam was uncorrupt, or served the people, or was a truly democratic leader? (Let's ask the 300,000 in unmarked graves who tried to ask Saddam the same thing, shall we?)
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
One has to wonder where all these freedom fighters were when Saddam was in power. Shouldn't they have fought for freedom and self-determination then too? Shouldn't they have fought against oppresive regiemes like the Taliban? Shouldn't they fight against the tyranical government of Iran? Why do the fight against the innocents that they want to protect?

I think that some members are so fixated on bashing America that they will throw support behind a pack of murderers.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
cptjeff
Jan 12 2005, 02:47 PM
Let me put it this way- Ghandi would approve of their goals, just not their ways. so would MLK. so would George Washington. so Would Thomas Jeforson, and for that matter, about all of our fouding fathers. some would even approve of the means!

Actually, you are way off base in your assertion that any of these people would support either their motives or their methods. Our Founding Fathers were seeking liberty and freedom and would not have agreed with the teachings of Islam. Ghandi actually had his own troubles with followers of Islam (an argument that is still unresolved in regards to Kashmir).
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
I really didn't know that these people wanted totalitarian governments that ruled through fear of violence and imposed overly strict laws on the common man while allowing the rich and powerful to act as they want to.

You are seriously out of touch with reality on this matter jeff.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 12 2005, 09:23 PM
I wonder if Somerled thought Saddam was uncorrupt, or served the people, or was a truly democratic leader? (Let's ask the 300,000 in unmarked graves who tried to ask Saddam the same thing, shall we?)


Also don't forget to ask the almost 800,000 Iranians and Iraquis killed in
the Iran/Iraq war as well ( a war that Saddam started ) as well as all the
Kuwait folks that were raped and butchered before the (horrible fascist) USA
led coalition intervened.

We did find the Weapon of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein. Amnesty
international puts his body count at over one million people (lifetime stats).
Now that his killing spree has been permanently ended (see recent events)
and his genocidal regime (including his psycho sons who were trying to rack
up similar stats) has been destroyed, this has apparantly "dismayed" the
"enlightened" left, who constantly congratulate themselves on thier
"humanitarianism". Rush to the defence of genocidal dictators, win a Nobel
Peace Prize. Or mumble something about "International Law", and win an
honourary diploma from some university with a good leftist "think tank".

...and as far as my opinion of the United Nations is concerned: :rotfl:

The most hilarious CIRCUS of modern times.... :rotfl: :rotfl:
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
doctortobe
Jan 13 2005, 12:45 AM
One has to wonder where all these freedom fighters were when Saddam was in power. Shouldn't they have fought for freedom and self-determination then too? Shouldn't they have fought against oppresive regiemes like the Taliban? Shouldn't they fight against the tyranical government of Iran? Why do the fight against the innocents that they want to protect?

I think that some members are so fixated on bashing America that they will throw support behind a pack of murderers.

They were left in the lerch by the USA when they rebelled against the Baathists because it didn't suit the USA at the time to help them get rid of Saddam and coy.

The rest of your post is oversimplified as not all the fighters are as described, only a small number of extremists are.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Jan 13 2005, 03:37 AM
doctortobe
Jan 13 2005, 12:45 AM
One has to wonder where all these freedom fighters were when Saddam was in power.  Shouldn't they have fought for freedom and self-determination then too?  Shouldn't they have fought against oppresive regiemes like the Taliban?  Shouldn't they fight against the tyranical government of Iran?  Why do the fight against the innocents that they want to protect?

I think that some members are so fixated on bashing America that they will throw support behind a pack of murderers.

They were left in the lerch by the USA when they rebelled against the Baathists because it didn't suit the USA at the time to help them get rid of Saddam and coy.

The rest of your post is oversimplified as not all the fighters are as described, only a small number of extremists are.

somerlag apparently believes that these so call insurgents are Kurds and Shia.
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Jan 13 2005, 06:53 AM
somerled
Jan 13 2005, 03:37 AM
doctortobe
Jan 13 2005, 12:45 AM
One has to wonder where all these freedom fighters were when Saddam was in power.  Shouldn't they have fought for freedom and self-determination then too?  Shouldn't they have fought against oppresive regiemes like the Taliban?  Shouldn't they fight against the tyranical government of Iran?  Why do the fight against the innocents that they want to protect?

I think that some members are so fixated on bashing America that they will throw support behind a pack of murderers.

They were left in the lerch by the USA when they rebelled against the Baathists because it didn't suit the USA at the time to help them get rid of Saddam and coy.

The rest of your post is oversimplified as not all the fighters are as described, only a small number of extremists are.

somerlag apparently believes that these so call insurgents are Kurds and Shia.

Some will be. Some may even be muslim converted christians and even diseffected yanks.
If you are privy to the makeup of the Iraqi insurgencies (there are several different groups) feel free to share it with us so we can all be as well informed as you think you are. Links would be handy.

Maybe one of your pals will provide you with information from their "secret" sources. :evil1:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Jan 13 2005, 07:14 AM
Dwayne
Jan 13 2005, 06:53 AM
somerled
Jan 13 2005, 03:37 AM
doctortobe
Jan 13 2005, 12:45 AM
One has to wonder where all these freedom fighters were when Saddam was in power.  Shouldn't they have fought for freedom and self-determination then too?  Shouldn't they have fought against oppresive regiemes like the Taliban?  Shouldn't they fight against the tyranical government of Iran?  Why do the fight against the innocents that they want to protect?

I think that some members are so fixated on bashing America that they will throw support behind a pack of murderers.

They were left in the lerch by the USA when they rebelled against the Baathists because it didn't suit the USA at the time to help them get rid of Saddam and coy.

The rest of your post is oversimplified as not all the fighters are as described, only a small number of extremists are.

somerlag apparently believes that these so call insurgents are Kurds and Shia.

Some will be. Some may even be muslim converted christians and even diseffected yanks.
If you are privy to the makeup of the Iraqi insurgencies (there are several different groups) feel free to share it with us so we can all be as well informed as you think you are. Links would be handy.

Maybe one of your pals will provide you with information from their "secret" sources. :evil1:

Why don't you prove it's anyone other than Sunni Muslims.
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Jan 13 2005, 07:17 AM
somerled
Jan 13 2005, 07:14 AM
Dwayne
Jan 13 2005, 06:53 AM
somerled
Jan 13 2005, 03:37 AM
doctortobe
Jan 13 2005, 12:45 AM
One has to wonder where all these freedom fighters were when Saddam was in power.  Shouldn't they have fought for freedom and self-determination then too?  Shouldn't they have fought against oppresive regiemes like the Taliban?  Shouldn't they fight against the tyranical government of Iran?  Why do the fight against the innocents that they want to protect?

I think that some members are so fixated on bashing America that they will throw support behind a pack of murderers.

They were left in the lerch by the USA when they rebelled against the Baathists because it didn't suit the USA at the time to help them get rid of Saddam and coy.

The rest of your post is oversimplified as not all the fighters are as described, only a small number of extremists are.

somerlag apparently believes that these so call insurgents are Kurds and Shia.

Some will be. Some may even be muslim converted christians and even diseffected yanks.
If you are privy to the makeup of the Iraqi insurgencies (there are several different groups) feel free to share it with us so we can all be as well informed as you think you are. Links would be handy.

Maybe one of your pals will provide you with information from their "secret" sources. :evil1:

Why don't you prove it's anyone other than Sunni Muslims.

So you think it's entirely internal , these Iraqi insurgents are all home grown and all diseffected and disenfranchised Sunnis ? (They are just a bunch of rebels who are resisting the occupation by foreign powers then - that makes them freedom fighters I suppose .)

And you don't think Iraq has drawn in fighters from all the arab world and from terrorist organisations since the place was invaded ?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Someone would have to be an unobservant moron to ask me if I thought the Sunni TERRORISTS in Iraq are home grown.

They are not. The are from Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
You talkin' to me? YOU talkin' to ME?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Fesarius
Jan 13 2005, 01:48 PM
^^^
You talkin' to me? YOU talkin' to ME?

Ah yous talkin' to me?

B}
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Jan 13 2005, 07:47 AM
Someone would have to be an unobservant moron to ask me if I thought the Sunni TERRORISTS in Iraq are home grown.

They are not.  The are from Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

So there are still no "foreign" terrorists in Iraq who are intent on making trouble, killing for the publicity and generally causing continual ferment and troubles ? Edit But wait : He actually said
Quote:
 
They are not. The are from Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
So that answers that question. So time to rephrase it - what proportion of the insurgency are foreign fighters / foreign terrorists (the two things are not necessarily the same by the way) ?end edit


Where are your links - or is this just your opinion ?
Offline | Profile ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
Swidden
Jan 13 2005, 01:15 AM
cptjeff
Jan 12 2005, 02:47 PM
Let me put it this way- Ghandi would approve of their goals, just not their ways. so would MLK. so would George Washington. so Would Thomas Jeforson, and for that matter, about all of our fouding fathers. some would even approve of the means!

Actually, you are way off base in your assertion that any of these people would support either their motives or their methods. Our Founding Fathers were seeking liberty and freedom and would not have agreed with the teachings of Islam. Ghandi actually had his own troubles with followers of Islam (an argument that is still unresolved in regards to Kashmir).

really? our founding fathers respected the Bible, a book very similar to the quran (have you read both? I've read the bible and most of the quran- have you?) the insurgents want an invading force out. what were our founding fathers fighting? oh yes, that invading army- british, wern't they?

as for Ghandi, what was that quote? "I am a Chistain, a Muslum, a Hindu and a Jew." yeah, what about that? it was a muslem that convinced him to start eating when he fasted to stop the violece between religions. the one who urged it on in the first place, if I recall. who shot and Killed Ghandi? was that a Muslem, a member of the world's most peaceful religion? no, it was a Hindu.

I think you might be the mixed up one here.

Also, what about Nelson Mandela? did you know that the US labeled him a terrorist? well, we all know the story of what he was fighting for now, don't we? or are we rusty on that section of history as well?



As for all of these other posts, I sugest that you prove your accusations. you seem to be reciting from the bush election site and it isn't too convincing. especally if you try to find facts to back it up, because there arn't any.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Poll Only

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus