What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Saddam Hussein executed today before dawn

  • Thread starter Finch
  • Start date
  • #41
And just to keep the misinformation out of here (and being a Canadian who has heard enough about my country being some kind of threat to the US) the alleged 9-11 hijackers did NOT enter across the Canadian/US border, I just had to set that straight
biggrin.gif


Sorry to go off topic, carry on
smile.gif
 
  • #42
Thanks for correcting me. Where did they enter?

Canada? A threat? lol. I'd move there if it wasn't so cold!
 
  • #43
Hey man, it's kinda nice where I live, hasn't snowed yet this year!!

Far as I know, all the alleged hi-jackers were in the US on US passports and entered from overseas right into the US, that's the official version as far as I know, they were mostly in the southwestern US IIRC

It just irks me to hear allegations cos I know some folks will take them for true- there was one US congressman who made some ridiculous statement about "southern Toronto" being a haven for Terrorists and it caused a big storm in some circles- thing is, "south Toronto" is DOWNTOWN and it's our provincial capital, so anyone who has never seen a map might jump right on the fear wagon with NO actual reason
biggrin.gif
 
  • #44
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">While you were buying all the republican lies I guess you did miss the fact that Bush didn't even put in 1/10th the effort to catch Bin laden as he did Saddam.</div>

And I have to add, we paid off a regional tribal leader who was fighting against us weeks before, to guard the border between Afganistan and Pakistan (Tora Bora) against Osama's escape into Pakistan.

Putting people (who were trying to kill you recently) in position to guard the border against Osama's escape instead of our Marines or Army? BRILLIANT!!
slap.gif


-Homer
 
  • #45
<div>
(scottychaos @ Jan. 01 2007,4:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So I require three things.
1. The exact crime comitted.
2. proof it happened.
3. proof that crime is an impeachable offense.</div>
These are the reasons that former Attonery Genral Ramsey Clark believes that George W. should be impeached. I think he makes a pretty good case.


1. Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.
2. Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.
3. Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.
4. Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.
5. Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
6. Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.
7. Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.
8. Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."
9. Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.
10. Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.
11. Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.
12. Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.
13. Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.
14. Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.
15. Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."
16. Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.
17. Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.
18. Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
 
  • #46
<div>
(ktulu @ Jan. 01 2007,8:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">These are the reasons that former Attonery Genral Ramsey Clark believes that George W. should be impeached. I think he makes a pretty good case.


1. Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

*snip*</div>
ok, thats a good start..
you listed the "crimes"..but thats part 1 only.
now you only need to:

2. prove they actually happened.
3. prove they ARE crimes worthy of impeachment.

without that, your list is just a bunch of made-up opinions.
I have no compelling reasons to believe anything on that list actually happened..there is no proof yet.
anyone can just make stuff up..
(as we know with the disproved "the election was stolen" fiction.)

you arent done yet..please continue.

Scot
 
  • #47
Oh yeah, silly us.

We forgot that Nixon said that if the President does it, it's not a crime.

Duh, I feel like a total tool now.
 
  • #48
<div>
(scottychaos @ Jan. 01 2007,11:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(ktulu @ Jan. 01 2007,8:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">These are the reasons that former Attonery Genral Ramsey Clark believes that George W. should be impeached. I think he makes a pretty good case.


1. Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

*snip*</div>
ok, thats a good start..
you listed the "crimes"..but thats part 1 only.
now you only need to:

2. prove they actually happened.
3. prove they ARE crimes worthy of impeachment.

without that, your list is just a bunch of made-up opinions.
I have no compelling reasons to believe anything on that list actually happened..there is no proof yet.
anyone can just make stuff up..
(as we know with the disproved "the election was stolen" fiction.)

you arent done yet..please continue.

Scot</div>
You dont seem to understand the process of impeachment scot.

First we dont have to prove they happened at this point, only that there is sufficent evidence to believe they MAY have happened. If this is true then a process very similar to a criminal trial where if found guilty he would then be removed from office. Impeachment refers both to the trial and to the actual act of removing someone from office. I personally feel that articles of impeachment should be brought up and the president should be forced to answer to the people (through their represenatives) for his actions. Is this too much to ask?

Secondly the grounds for impeachment are "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." --US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4.
This means violation of International law, like invaiding a country on false pretenses or waging an agressive war are impeachable offenses. Usurping the power of the constitution through the patriot act also impeachable.


Oh and lastly for not believing any of it, do you live in a cave? One with out tv, radio, newspaper, or internet connection (im guessing you must telepathically post here)? Because alot of these events were well covered by the media. Also if you go to the capital you can read an official copy of the patriot act, because im sure you will say any other copy is just "made up" by someone.

There now that I have done a great deal of the thinking for you and informed you of how your constitution works I will end for now.

p.s. I do not conclude the election was stolen. I believe what happened was a result of a flawed system, however that is a completely differnt debate.
 
  • #49
<div>
(ktulu @ Jan. 01 2007,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">First we dont have to prove they happened at this point, only that there is sufficent evidence to believe they MAY have happened.</div>
ok then, where is the sufficient evidence that it MAY have happened?

If all these supposed crimes have taken place, and if "sufficeint evidence" exists to begin the impeachment process..then why isnt it happening?

maybe its not happening because..there IS no sufficient evidence?
and all these supposed "crimes" are in fact pure fiction?

still waiting for:

2. prove they actually happened.
(or "sufficient evidence" that they happened..thats fine too)

you still havent shown me anything to make me believe you didnt just make the whole list up out of thin air..

Scot
 
  • #50
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Canada? A threat? lol. I'd move there if it wasn't so cold! </div>

What's wrong with Mexico? There are much more CPs there than Canada
rock.gif
 
  • #51
Scotty I applaud you. That was very good, and I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I do not give a rip what anyone says. Saddam had WMDs at one point in time, AND there was sufficient evidence that he still had them. For Christ sakes he gassed some Curds with some of his WMDs. Why do you think the crackhead was hung?
crazy.gif


It is very easy for outsiders looking in to call our system flawed too. Ever take a look at your own sometime? I do not think anyone is perfect and every system is not perfect. Yet I do think our system is pretty good. Not perfect mind you, but good. There are some things I would LOVE to have changed, but they will never happen since the people that need to vote for it will never vote themselves term limits.

Saddam needed to be taken out period. We might have jumped at it too soon because OBL is still loose, but heck he is on his deathbed anyway. Kidney failure ya know. That can be a really B@#%h. You start getting all Jandus and stuff. Really hard to do things when you have all stuff building up in your blood.

I wonder if those that are urging for impeachment with no proof of any "crime" can be tried for conspiracy to commit treason? LMAO
rock.gif


Now I know I come off as a hard right wing guy sometimes, but Bush was the better of the two evils. Gore was a joke and still is. Kerry wasn't much better. Edwards is scary, and Hilary is the witch from Hades. I do like Obama though.

I am POed at the republicans because they Piggy backed the on line gambling bill on the back of some other bill that needed to be passed. That SUCKED! I would really like a multi party system instead of just a two party system. I know your going to say that there are more than two parties, but the way it is setup there really is only effectively two parties. Not like over in the UK. Even though I do not think they are doing an effective job over there, I do like ow that system is setup. We need a hybrid between the two.

Now onto those who do not believe in capital punishment. ARE YOU NUTS? If you have proven someone committed a crime worthy of Capital punishment why would we need to pay to keep them alive for the rest of their life? Give them free medical care and free food? Air conditioned cells and free TV? We could be using that money to help get the homeless people off the booze and teach them a skill. Since I do not believe throwing money at them does any good, but throwing education and dependance assistance could potentially work. If you do the crime you should pay the price. Why do you think we have so much crime anyways?? Because the criminals know if they are caught they are going to go to jail where life is easy and they are in the AC while the taxpayers foot the bill. We didn't have all that much crime when the system was full of hard behinds. The bleeding heart leftists have dumbed woosied the punishments so much that they are not deterrents anymore. Heck I believe they should have to work for their food, and live in tents like the one Sheriff in Az did. Make them wear pink cloths and work for their food. They also live in tents. But nooooooo many people have given the dang criminals more rights than the hard working civilized person, and we wonder why the crime rate has risen. Because you can murder someone and get life in prison where all your health care and food is free for the rest of their miserable life. And lets face it prison is better accommodations than some of those folks have in the real world. No wonder. If we could cut off hands for steeling something and scar a person's back up with a cane for vandalism and other petty offenses we would have less crime. We pay too much money to keep someone in prison when they should be working for their food and earning there cloths.
 
  • #52
He did not gas people with WMDs. We are talking nukes here.
We have insiders calling out system flawed! The EC sucks!


As far as capital punishment, I don't support it. If we kill we are no better than they are. I believe that life in prison is faaar worse than death. You give me the choice between life in prison and death and i'll choose death in a second. I do support the medical care and food and AC is part of living. I don't think we should give them TV though. The pink thing sounds pretty homophobic to me. What, you're supposed to be ashamed to wear pink? WTH?

Don't work don't eat? What, are we going to starve them? I believe that our BS laws are what is filling up the prisons and wasting money. Some laws ruin more lives than they save. You know the ones.


As far as scarring people and cutting off hands... I believe that's what our islamic extremist friends do.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
 
  • #53
<div>
(scottychaos @ Jan. 02 2007,1:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(ktulu @ Jan. 01 2007,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">First we dont have to prove they happened at this point, only that there is sufficent evidence to believe they MAY have happened.</div>
ok then, where is the sufficient evidence that it MAY have happened?

If all these supposed crimes have taken place, and if "sufficeint evidence" exists to begin the impeachment process..then why isnt it happening?

maybe its not happening because..there IS no sufficient evidence?
and all these supposed "crimes" are in fact pure fiction?

still waiting for:

2. prove they actually happened.
(or "sufficient evidence" that they happened..thats fine too)

you still havent shown me anything to make me believe you didnt just make the whole list up out of thin air..

Scot</div>
ok fine. I find these self explanitory, but I will respond. If you want exact specific details well your not going to get them because I dont have that much spare time on my hands nor am I getting paid to prosecute the president.

1. The invasion of Iraq based on "intelligence" that turned out to be wrong, and which the president has never actully produced for the public to see. Therefore making the invasion based on false pretence and regaurdless invading another country is illegal under international law unless they attack you first or are an imminent threat, which Iraq was not. Unless you dont believe that the war is going on in Iraq, unless of course you have been there personally, otherwise it could all be "made up out of thin air". I forget that tens of thousands of deaths are probably "pure fiction" in your book since you didnt see all of the bodies they must not exist.
2. Again where is this evidence of weapons of mass destruction?
3. Our military attacked civilian areas like street side restaurants to try to kill Saddam, but instead killed only civilians. Also the multiple civilian installations that were destroyed by our military with no attempt to control it by our president. Also supplying bombs to Isreal while they droped them on civilians (which was declared a war crime by every country in the UN but the US) should also be sufficent evidence.
4. Again do you live in a cave?
5. See patriot act and military commissons act of 2006 (suspends writ Habeas Corpus)
6. Again where are these WMD programs?
7. Again this illegal war
8. military commissions act of 2006
9. military commissions act of 2006
10. military commissions act of 2006
11. I will admit I have no concrete proof of this point, but evidence from Abu Ghraib should show evidence of misconduct in our treatment of prisoners.
12. self explanitory
13. patriot act and military commissons act of 2006
14. patriot act
15. patriot act (there is no legal defintion of terrorist hence the problem here)
16. patriot act and military commissons act of 2006
17. self explaintory
18. He withdrew us from the international criminal court system and broke a treaty with Russia with out authorization from the people that alone is reason to remove him.


As for why it hasnt happened yet, do you really think the republicans would have removed him when he they had run of the entire government as long as he was in power. Party loyalty unfortunatly has become more important than the good of the country. Hopefully our new democratic congress will take this issue up as their first order of business when they take over.
 
  • #54
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He did not gas people with WMDs. We are talking nukes here.</div>

Definition of Weapon of Mass Destruction:

Dictionary: a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)

Google: Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity.

Wikipedia: Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

Therefor, using gas to kill people as was done = use of a WMD.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I just assumed we were talking about the 2004 election, because everyone knows that election was stolen as well..
so BOTH the 2000 and the 2004 elections were stolen by the republicans? of course..why not..if you are going lie and claim one was stolen (nevermind those pesky facts) why not go all-out and claim BOTH were stolen?</div>

Without taking sides, the problem was that the Supreme Court went AGAINST all precedence. They had established a precedence that had been upheld time after time. But then, all of a sudden, for no reason, they not only decided that there'd be no recound, but they anounced the winner. Now, if I were on the losing end of a piece of legistlation that went against established precedence, was arbitrary, ill defined, and without any sort of apparent reason, I'd be mad, too.

If you think I'm a crackpot, pick up a history text, look it up on the web, whatever you like.

In fact, the decision was so "far out" that you never hear it mentioned in legal cases. It seems like everyones a bit ashamed of it. lol

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I disagree with people who say the Bush administration was unprepared after ignoring warnings such as that memo. They responded with stunning speed - ramming through their wish list of Patriot Act, government reorganization, tax policies, etc. They definitely were ready to act. </div>

:chuckle:
 
  • #55
Oh hell, we KNEW he had chemical weapons. We were after nukes! Or rather The Bush was... Or rather he SAID he was.
 
  • #56
Of course we knew Iraq had WMDs at one time - we helped Hussein get them and looked the other way when he used them.  When Hussein was no longer of any use to us, we responded to his invasion of Kuwait by destroying his military capability in Bush Sr.'s Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions.

By the time of Bush Jr.'s Iraq invasion, Iraq was no threat to anyone outside its borders.  Bush distracted the nation from real terrorists to give the Neocons the Iraq invasion they'd been lusting for, creating many more terrorists and weakening the US.  While creating a carnage.  The Bush administration misled the nation and it's disgraceful to accept it, let alone defend it.
 
  • #57
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Bush distracted the nation from real terrorists to give the Neocons the Iraq invasion they'd been lusting for, creating many more terrorists and weakening the US.</div>

Oh yes, but not to be forgotten... the no-bid government contracts awarded to Halliburton and the like, where the CEO's, etc get multi-millions, and the soldiers and everyone else in the free-world gets the shaft from the war.

Oh yes, and thank God for term limits... if the President Office didn't have terms limits, the two party monopoly that we have all grown to love (Republicats and Democans) would have given us a leader... for LIFE
sign_help.gif


-Homer
 
  • #58
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
1. The invasion of Iraq based on "intelligence" that turned out to be wrong, and which the president has never actully produced for the public to see. Therefore making the invasion based on false pretence and regaurdless invading another country is illegal under international law unless they attack you first or are an imminent threat, which Iraq was not. Unless you dont believe that the war is going on in Iraq, unless of course you have been there personally, otherwise it could all be "made up out of thin air". I forget that tens of thousands of deaths are probably "pure fiction" in your book since you didnt see all of the bodies they must not exist.
</div>

The President should be tried of war crimes because the intelligence that was given to him and the congress at that time wasn't 100% accurate?
Oo.gif


Unfortunately when you fight a war people die and even the innocent is among those who die. That does not null the objective to free Iraq. Freedom comes with a price tag.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
2. Again where is this evidence of weapons of mass destruction?
</div>

I don't know if the information is still classified or not. However it was presented to the President and the Congress and everyone agreed based on this information.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
3. Our military attacked civilian areas like street side restaurants to try to kill Saddam, but instead killed only civilians. Also the multiple civilian installations that were destroyed by our military with no attempt to control it by our president. Also supplying bombs to Isreal while they droped them on civilians (which was declared a war crime by every country in the UN but the US) should also be sufficent evidence.
</div>

Unless Saddam and his troops were to separate themselves from the civilians and go onto a battlefield how were we supposed to avoid this? Do you not think he purposefully hid amongst innocent civilians? Once again it is the unfortunate part of war.

Well if Hammas wasn't a bunch of cowards and fought like real men instead of hiding about the innocent and using women and children as meat shields I'm sure the civilian casualties would have been far less. But you see the terrorist extremists we are fighting over there are spineless cowards and will use tactics such as occupying homes of innocent families and temples. Their women and children hold no significant value over there but merely pawns in their lunatic brainwashed holy war.

Also since when did you care about innocent civilians dying? Don't you support the liberation of Palestine? You know those people who strap bombs onto themselves and run into Israel markets and stores killing innocents?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
4. Again do you live in a cave?
</div>

Why not provide some source of argument instead of wise cracks?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
5. See patriot act and military commissons act of 2006 (suspends writ Habeas Corpus)
</div>

How has the Patriot Act personally effected you or anyone else on this board? The answer is it hasn't because it doesn't apply to any of us.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
6. Again where are these WMD programs?
</div>

Why ask the same question twice?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
7. Again this illegal war
</div>

Aren't you a supporter of Iran's Nuclear Program?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
8. military commissions act of 2006
9. military commissions act of 2006
10. military commissions act of 2006
</div>

Am I missing something or are these all the same point with a different number?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
11. I will admit I have no concrete proof of this point, but evidence from Abu Ghraib should show evidence of misconduct in our treatment of prisoners.
</div>

The things that occurred at Abu Ghraib were wrong. However they can never compare to the islamic extremists disgusting and evil acts.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
12. self explanitory
13. patriot act and military commissons act of 2006
14. patriot act
15. patriot act (there is no legal defintion of terrorist hence the problem here)
16. patriot act and military commissons act of 2006
17. self explaintory
</div>

Unless you are phoning a call to a terrorist organization in the middle east, this protects you.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
18. He withdrew us from the international criminal court system and broke a treaty with Russia with out authorization from the people that alone is reason to remove him.
</div>

That's just plain silly. Why do we have to be a part of the international criminal court system? If you haven't noticed this administration (and I'm thankful for this) doesn't care about the international communities view of us and quite frankly I don't either. I will take criticism and genuinely trying to do good over global popularity any day.

Lastly Ktulu, correct me if I'm wrong of course....would it be wrong to say you hate Bush because he supports Israel? I know your all for the liberation of Palestine so I could see why your POV is skewed. Just curious.
 
  • #59
Please delete the post above me.
(Done! -Est)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Well if Hammas wasn't a bunch of cowards and fought like real men instead of hiding about the innocent and using women and children as meat shields I'm sure the civilian casualties would have been far less. But you see the terrorist extremists we are fighting over there are spineless cowards and will use tactics such as occupying homes of innocent families and temples. Their women and children hold no significant value over there but merely pawns in their lunatic brainwashed holy war.

Apparently we don't hold the innocent families in significant value either. You DON"T bomb civilians just because a bad guy MIGHT be there. Look what Isreal did.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also since when did you care about innocent civilians dying? Don't you support the liberation of Palestine? You know those people who strap bombs onto themselves and run into Israel markets and stores killing innocents?

Since when are you someone to say something like that? What about the ISREALI"S who opress the palestinians! OR since Isreal is the "Holy land" they can do no wrong? Should the palistinians kill isreali's? NO! Should the Isreali's opress and deny the palistinians rights and invade their homes? NO!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How has the Patriot Act personally effected you or anyone else on this board? The answer is it hasn't because it doesn't apply to any of us



It does if we make too many international phone calls... kinda paranoid. Kind of like an invasion of privacy.... Kind of like an ominous fear to speak out.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Why do we have to be a part of the international criminal court system?

.. Are you serious? Surely this is a joke... WE ARE AMERICA!!

It's OK. I know you're very religious and since Isreal is the "holy land" Your opinion must me skewed.
 
  • #60
The reason why I brought up Israel is the fact that many people hate Bush because he supports them. I have no allegiance to the "Holy Land" or Israel. Sure I'd like to travel there one day and visit the lands Jesus once walked. Besides that I don't need a Holy Land to have a relationship with my Savior.

You can bash Israel all you want. Hammas was clearly in the wrong and provoked Israel to do what it did. Yes civilians died but in the end it wasn't because of the bombings. It was because the cowards overtook the civilian homes and forced the families to stay there or they'd kill them. It was a cheap tactic to try and avoid any confrontation with Israel.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
It does if we make too many international phone calls... kinda paranoid. Kind of like an invasion of privacy.... Kind of like an ominous fear to speak out.

Your just paranoid.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
.. Are you serious? Surely this is a joke... WE ARE AMERICA!!

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/25818.htm
 
Back
Top