You will see more of this scene if we cut and run like cowards

Barbarian observes:
If we had more capable leaders, we could still have removed Saddam, but left the country with a means to defend themselves. A quick defeat of Saddam followed by a warning to the Baathists that so long as they behaved themselves there wouild be no repercussions would have been effective.

So does the John Birch society. Neoconservatism has roots in Trotskyite Marxism. Did you vote for Bush? That must mean you're a communist. :laugh:


Barbarian observes:
But instead the fools set up a perfect base for terrorists, and a quagmire for American soldiers.

If you voted for Bush, you're farther left than I am. "Conservative" is not a synonym for "stupid."

The guys we let lose in Iraq have the same agenda. They are doing it, too. And we made it possible.

Really? I don't know anybody like that. But then I don't know the people you know.

There was no terrorism in Iraq under Saddam. He was a ruthless dictator who killed anyone who made trouble of any kind. It's why Osama wanted him dead. It's completely hypocritical of you to bemoan the atrocities under Saddam, but tolerrate the atrocities that resulted when we destroyed the political structure of Iraq. My point is, there was a way to avoid the killing both ways. But we blew it.


Barbarian on atrocities committed by American troops:
Now, we see that some of them, in impossible situations, have tortured and killed Iraqi civilians.

Sounds like "you can't make an omlet without breaking eggs" (the excuse leftists used for the atrocities of Stalin) There is no excuse. None.

Most of them do. Most of them did in Vietnam, too. But My Lai still happened. And now this. It's the consequences of wars of conquest.


Barbarian observes:
Like Vietnam, such atrocities are the work of a minority. And the vast majority of troops fight (and sometimes die) doing their duty honorably.

Amen. Quote:
Barbarian observes:
The shame is on the people who inflicted all this evil on Iraq and America, not the men and women who serve.

Wrong. The rot starts at the top. Now we hear Bush has decided to "relax" the Geneva convention a little. The State Department is furious, because violating the Geneva convention will be an excuse for our enemies to abuse American captives.

Yes, they did. Ike and LBJ come closest to the same thing, to their everlasting discredit.

That is absurd, and an insult to Amercans serving in all wars. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

The Galatian answered the first question. Think I'll have a go at the second.

After WWII ended in 1945, victorious Russian and American intelligence teams began a treasure hunt throughout occupied Germany for military and scientific booty. They were looking for things like new rocket and aircraft designs, medicines, and electronics. But they were also hunting down the most precious "spoils" of all: the scientists whose work had nearly won the war for Germany. The engineers and intelligence officers of the Nazi War Machine.

The U.S. Military rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America. It had originally intended merely to debrief them and send them back to Germany. But when it realized the extent of the scientists knowledge and expertise, the War Department decided it would be a waste to send the scientists home. Following the discovery of flying discs (foo fighters), particle/laser beam weaponry in German military bases, the War Department decided that NASA and the CIA must control this technology, and the Nazi engineers that had worked on this technology.

There was only one problem: it was illegal. U.S. law explicitly prohibited Nazi officials from immigrating to America--and as many as three-quarters of the scientists in question had been committed Nazis.

<snip>

When the JIOA formed to investigate the backgrounds and form dossiers on the Nazis, the Nazi Intelligence leader Reinhard Gehlen met with the CIA director Allen Dulles. Dulles and Gehlen hit it off immediatly. Gehlen was a master spy for the Nazis and had infilitrated Russia with his vast Nazi Intelligence network. Dulles promised Gehlen that his Intelligence unit was safe in the CIA.

Apparently, Wev decided to sidestep the problem. Dulles had the scientists dossier's re-written to eliminate incriminating evidence. As promised, Allen Dulles delivered the Nazi Intelligence unit to the CIA, which later opened many umbrella projects stemming from Nazi mad research. (MK-ULTRA / ARTICHOKE, OPERATION MIDNIGHT CLIMAX)

Military Intelligence "cleansed" the files of Nazi refrences. By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had been granted citizenship in the U.S. and given prominent positions in the American scientific community. Many had been longtime members of the Nazi party and the Gestapo, had conducted experiments on humans at concentration camps, had used slave labor, and had comitted other war crimes.


SOURCE

I know, I know you hate it when I continually mess up meaningful discussions by continually horning in and trying to put things in their proper context. :smilewinkgrin:

BTW way you are aware that combining business and government is fascism right? A fascist regime doesn't always have to look like a Nazi dictatorship to be qualified as a fascist regime.

 

And Mr. Bush keeps trying to convince us that the Muslim religion is peaceful...For a religion that is so peaceful, we've heard a lot about Muslim on Muslim violence....

I know we need to "win the war" (I'm not going to use the words "ON TERROR, as I think it should be called what it is....Islamist Extremism!), but, I can see many advantages to leaving. It's supposed to be "their country" now...and they're supposed to be a "sovereign nation" now....this out of Bush's own mouth....let them have their country...settle their own problems, and if need be, have their own Civil war. I don't believe that Iraq is our biggest worry at this point in time.

 

Read my reply again, carefully. If you still can't understand what it says, let me know, and I will attempt to make more simple. Here, I'll paste your question, and my answer to it:

In the LA riots, who caused the riots?

The trial verdict or the rioters?

Barbarian replies:
Both. The acquittal of the criminals was a travesty, which some people used as an excuse to riot. None of it was justified.

I bolded the part you should read most carefully. Any further questions?

 

Look out! Joseph will probably label you as a coward.:laugh:

 

I'm going to agree with AVL. I believed we needed to go to Iraq when we went---I also believe we needed to come home about 6 months ago. Iraq needs to take care of their own system now. Democracy will have a hard time surviving over there---it doesn't in any other Muslim country. I would never go as far as some and say that it was all for nothing or our military died for nothing. I just feel it is time to come home.

Bro Tony

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 03:00 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

I agree about Iraq probably not surviving as a democracy. But there are democracies(or at least democratic elements) with majority(or near majority) Muslim populations:


"The following list indicates those countries which are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and are either generally considered to be democratic or have substantial democratic elements in their system of government. For example, Iran has popular elections, but the candidates are selected by the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts. Furthermore, the political climate in some of these countries has varied greatly in recent years, while in some of the countries there have been accusations of vote-rigging.

The percentage of Muslims in each country is sourced from CIA FactBook:

• Albania (Europe) (70% Muslim)
• Algeria (North Africa) (99%)
• Bangladesh (South Asia) (83%)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (Europe) (40%)
• Burkina Faso (West Africa) (50%)
• Comoros (South eastern Africa) (98%)
• Guinea-Bissau (West Africa) (45%)
• Indonesia (South-East Asia) (88%)
• Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia) (75%)
• Lebanon (Middle-East) (59.7%)
• Malaysia (South-East Asia)
• Mali (West Africa) (90%)
• Morocco (North Africa) (98.7%)
• Niger (West Africa) (80%)
• Nigeria (West Africa) (50%)
• Senegal (West Africa) (94%)
• Sierra Leone (West Africa) (60%)
• Turkey (Europe / Asia) (99.8%)
• Yemen (Arabian peninsula - Asia) (+90%)"

- Source

 

Answer

Please review the post written above listing all of the countries that have the Muslim faith. Saying that all Muslims or even a large group of Muslims are terrorists would be the same as judging Christianity on David Koresh or Jim Jones--and don't think that it hasn't happened.

Right now we are training Iraqi soldiers to the same level as our "Rangers". They are not given any special treatment, they must meet the same level that our military does. This is a major step towards peace in Iraq. A strong internal police force and military to protect their freedom is just as important as it has been to the United States in its history. Can this be abused? Yes, but hopefully if we do our homework properly, the new government will maintain its freedom. The foundation has to be set up now and if we were to move out now, that foundation could easily fall causing Iraq to spiral into another evil empire.

By the way, Poncho, where did you get information that Germany had beam particle weapons? The reason I ask is that certain technologies were not available in the forties such as "super-conductors", a primary requirement for beam-particle weaponry. I do know that we were shocked at the level of design in much of the German (and Japanese) aircraft, missiles and other ammunition, but beam-particle?

 

Muslim a peaceful religion?

I think not.

watch this video from the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/azzam/akaazzam.mpg

TRANSSCRIPT:

[SIZE=-1]Interviewer:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"You are an American who has joined a movement for waging war on America and killing large numbers of Americans. Don't you in any way feel you are betraying your people and country?" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Mujahid 'Azzam, the American:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"First of all, the allegiance and loyalty of a Muslim is to Allah, his Messenger, his religion and his fellow believers before anyone and anything else. So, if there is a conflict between his religion and his nation and family, then he must choose the religion every time. In fact, to side with the unbelievers against Islam and Muslims is one of the acts that nullifies one's Islamic faith and there's a verse in the Qur'an (recites a verse from the Qur'an in Arabic) you will not find any people who believe in Allah in the last day loving, loving those who resist Allah and his Messenger. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Even if they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred or their clan. As such he has written faith in their hearts and strengthens them with spirit from himself. So, some of the early Muslims fought and killed their closest relatives during battle, prompting the revelation of this verse. And, even our Prophet Mohammed, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, er, fought, uh, and after a lot of defeat the Quraish tribe, to which he belonged. when it fought to impede Islam's propagation, sought to impede the message of Islam, rejected the message of Islam, and sought to impede its propagation. And some of the staunchest enemies of Islam were from among his closest cousins like Abu Jahl. Thus, Allah's religion takes precedence over all else: Wealth, status, family and nationality." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Interviewer:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"OK, how do you respond to the Muslim clerics and governments around the world who say that you are a small fringe group of extremists, unrepres" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Mujahid 'Azzam, the American:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? These Crusader pawns are the ones who don't represent Islam and Muslims, despite their claims to the contrary. And they know very well that the Mujahidin stature has increased substantially among the Muslims after September 11, and the events that followed, which poses a direct threat to their continuing hold on power. This argument of theirs is especially well liked by their masters in the White House and 10 Downing Street, who apply it not just to us, but to all Muslims who reject Crusader domination. Uh, but the truth in evidence is on our side. Open the Qur'an, open the books of Sirah, the prophetic biography, and Ahadith, the prophetic teachings. Open the books of Fiqh, jurisprudence, both modern and ancient and you will find our position well supported. Jihad isn't something that al-Qa’ida made up. Ruling by Islam law wasn't started by the Taliban. Hamas didn't invent the concept of martyrdom. Uh, where we differ from these defeatists and hypocrites is that we don't believe that these divine orders and principles are open to negotiation and compromise. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"I'd like to tell these people, this is our religion. If you don't like it, that's your problem. But don't tell me that you're the true Muslim and I'm the extremist. You know, the same clerics and people who call us violent extremists and outcasts and endlessly repeat that Islam is a peaceful faith, permit or even encourage their followers to join the American and European militaries and intelligence agencies and the armies of the idle kings in the Muslim world and take part in the killing of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. So in effect, they're saying that for the Muslim to kill unbelievers in defense of Islam and Muslims is unacceptable, and if he does so, he's an extremist. While for the same Muslim to kill fellow Muslims in the name of America and so-called freedom and the supposedly civilized world is just fine and dandy and he will be practicing moderation. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Look at this logic. These are evil, uneducated, ignorant, backwards people who should not be speaking on behalf of Muslims, much less talking about what is true Islam and what is not and accusing others. We are defending those who have no defender. We are holding fast to genuine Islam at a time when it's under siege from all sides. And we're standing up to confront an enemy that has intimidated governments and international organizations with fear. It's only natural that the governments and individuals who stand the most to lose from the defeat of the crusaders and Zionists will seek to hide our true nature and goals from the Muslim majority that is desperately looking for a way out of the nightmare that these traitors have imposed upon them for decades. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"We have strong support from within all sectors of Muslim society and from within all Islamic groups. This is what terrifies the enemies of truth and causes them to resort to this sort of accusation. It's wishful thinking on their part. It's like they're telling themselves, 'Maybe if we repeat the lie often enough, it will come true.'"[/SIZE]

now that my friend is NOT a peaceful religion.

 

Muslim

Please understand that this is the interview of one person. That person is a fundamentalist, radical muslim. This would be very much like interviewing David Koresh on the radio and assuming that all Christians must follow his interpretation of the Bible.

I am NOT saying that there are not a lot of these fundamentalist, radical groups out there. You will find most of them in the Arab and Persian Cultures; but, in reality you will also find millions upon millions of Muslims who do not buy into the fact that they are to kill those who do not agree with their faith.

My only point is the majority of today's Muslims are peace loving people. Muslim religion has a rocky past, showing how they invaded cities to convert them. But, if you look at history, Christianity also has its radical groups who have killed for the purpose of Christianity. Does this make it right? Absolutely not. Does this mean that we accept the Muslim faith? Absolutely not. But, to stereotype all Muslims as Jihad warriors is not fair to those who do not buy into this interpretation of the Koran.

 

Closed per previous warning.

LE