Al-Qaeda says Canada deserves bombing
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
That IS NOT true moghrabi. Saddam gassed his on people all the time maybe there were free education and health but that does not mean Saddam should not have gone
The people always had fears of war and everything like that. Saddam made enemies with his neighbors and the united states of america. They always had a fear of TOTAL WAR!
Now is the time Iraq will become a safe place to live and work
The people always had fears of war and everything like that. Saddam made enemies with his neighbors and the united states of america. They always had a fear of TOTAL WAR!
Now is the time Iraq will become a safe place to live and work
Saddam gassed his own people under the direction of the US. Remember Rumsfeld was there in Iraq to give him the Chemical Weapons. Saddam was a puppet for the US and they used him for the war against the kurds and Iran and now after they are done with him they removed him.
Remember what happened in Panama and Haiti. Noriaga was on the CIA payroll and Haiti's deposed leader was in US protected in the 1990's.
When the US need the people they turn the other way, once they are done with them they do whatever it taked to remove them regardless of how many innocent ppl die. That is Imperialism,
Remember what happened in Panama and Haiti. Noriaga was on the CIA payroll and Haiti's deposed leader was in US protected in the 1990's.
When the US need the people they turn the other way, once they are done with them they do whatever it taked to remove them regardless of how many innocent ppl die. That is Imperialism,
T. Rex said:
All the time? Where did you pick that up? He gassed some kurds during the Gulf Wars (1st and Second against Iran). Saddam was a bad dictator, after he was betrayed and stabged in the back. Koweit for example, was a legit war. Koweit was stealing oil from Iraqi reserves. After years of talks, nothing changed. What did you expect them to do? Sit back and drink some tea?
Your a hypocrite and an ignorant. You argue on an issue you know little about.
Agreed, TRex perhaps a visit to your local library will enlighten you. Before you can take a side you should research from an unbiased source. Almost sounds like you been listening to only bushes speaches.
I went to Iraq after the first Gulf war. This war is legitimate and Saddam had all the right to invade it for 2 reasons:
1) They were stealing oil freom him.
2) Kuwait is a part of Iraq. It was taken by the British and given to some nomads family that made a deal withh them to provide them with all the oil. If you look at history books, there was no Kuwait 50 years ago and just became a member of UN in the 70's
1) They were stealing oil freom him.
2) Kuwait is a part of Iraq. It was taken by the British and given to some nomads family that made a deal withh them to provide them with all the oil. If you look at history books, there was no Kuwait 50 years ago and just became a member of UN in the 70's
Stretch said:
Hi Stretch! Welcome back
Your suggestion is a possible outcome that could make a lot of sense, or at the very least, some facts could very well have been fabricated to incriminate Al Quada or Usama bin Laden.
I don't know if Al Quada is the US Administration, but I'm pretty sure some of it was let go on Sept 11 or that the attack on the pentagon was faked. Actually, I can say I know the attack on the Pentagon was faked since there's nothing to prove otherwise.
"It is too bad Canada was left out of Iraq because our coward prime minister Jean Chretien stood up against what is right for the world. Canada will be missing out on a bright future in the middle east now, but it's not too late. We must get responsable government to increase our ties with our friends and brothers of America and other countries around the world. Canada has to start making sense."
What the heck are you on .... some kind of American-induced crack?
What the heck are you on .... some kind of American-induced crack?
they wouldnt strike my small city, if they were going to. they would go for vancouver or toronto first...
andem you better move into my house
andem you better move into my house
That whole article is a bit scary, I always felt that we as Canadians were recognized as the Peacekeepers and that we were relatively safe. I mean, who wants to bomb a country with 50 year old helicopters in their military?
I am still thrilled that we didn't support Bush in his so called war on terror. Good for Canada. Sure we can be "friends" with the states, but that doesn't mean we always have to follow their lead. Individuality means sometimes making our own path.
I am still amazed that Bush in his brilliance of changing French Fries to Freedom Fries didn't change Canadian Bacon to something ridiculous as well. Like Congress Bacon, or Coersion Bacon, or Czarism Bacon...I could go on and on...
I am still thrilled that we didn't support Bush in his so called war on terror. Good for Canada. Sure we can be "friends" with the states, but that doesn't mean we always have to follow their lead. Individuality means sometimes making our own path.
I am still amazed that Bush in his brilliance of changing French Fries to Freedom Fries didn't change Canadian Bacon to something ridiculous as well. Like Congress Bacon, or Coersion Bacon, or Czarism Bacon...I could go on and on...
I agree with much of what you said, though in fairness, it wasn't Bush who decided to rename frnch fries or annything else.
There' splenty to be critical of without going over the top.
There' splenty to be critical of without going over the top.
Debunking a myth.
Poverty fuels terrorism. That's not true because if it was the case, there would be more Haitian terrorists than Afghan or Saudi terrorists.
North York in Toronto would have to be the birthplace of Canadian terrorism, but this is contrary to the truth.
Only fanatism generates terrorism. Terrorists are first and foremost manipulated people.
The ultimate way to fight terrorism is to promote democracy within our own society and identify what you are really up against.
Unfortunaly, some people of the power elite were eager to accuse some groups and to choose radical options.
So they lied, scared and misinformed the population and they manipulated the citizens.
Poverty fuels terrorism. That's not true because if it was the case, there would be more Haitian terrorists than Afghan or Saudi terrorists.
North York in Toronto would have to be the birthplace of Canadian terrorism, but this is contrary to the truth.
Only fanatism generates terrorism. Terrorists are first and foremost manipulated people.
The ultimate way to fight terrorism is to promote democracy within our own society and identify what you are really up against.
Unfortunaly, some people of the power elite were eager to accuse some groups and to choose radical options.
So they lied, scared and misinformed the population and they manipulated the citizens.
Poverty itself does not fuel terrorism. Oppression does fuel terrorism though and poverty, especially as expressed by imperialism, is a form of oppression.
If you want an example closer to home, one that gets rid of the difference in religious belief, look at the militia movement in the US. It grew largely out of the agricultural policies of the Reagan administration. As the farm crisis grew, the militia movement picked up steam.
I know one man from Oklahoma who told me that if Willie Nelson would have called for an insurrection at the televised Farm Aid concert he could have started a civil war. People were that marginalised.
Willie Nelson is not a violent man though. He did not want a war, he wanted peace. There were/are no other common "Mullahs" and Nelson isn't really part of the militia movement. Incidents of violence in the American Militia Movement were relatively rare and, like Ruby Ridge, usually initiated by the authorites, not the militia members.
Some tried to take ity up a level though. Until 9-11 the biggest terrorist action on US soil was the Oklahoma City bombing. Timmy McVeigh, a member of the militia movement (but not a part of the Farm-Aid crowd), was behind that. They just decided not to kill his little helper a few days ago.
Now if that can happen to Americans in the United States, imagine how it must feel to be in a foreign country, one where the people have little or nothing but the US-backed leaders have everything. Now imagine that the local version of Willie Nelson comes along and asks you to go to war.
We, as humans, create our own monsters. Osama is one that the US created. Saddam is another. The next one to gain world attention is likely going to be Islam Karimov. Make no mistakes, these men are all much like Timmy McVeigh. They all got their start with the help of the US government and gleaned followers when they turned against that government. The US government never learns though...they are funding and propping up Islam Karimov as I write this.
If you want an example closer to home, one that gets rid of the difference in religious belief, look at the militia movement in the US. It grew largely out of the agricultural policies of the Reagan administration. As the farm crisis grew, the militia movement picked up steam.
I know one man from Oklahoma who told me that if Willie Nelson would have called for an insurrection at the televised Farm Aid concert he could have started a civil war. People were that marginalised.
Willie Nelson is not a violent man though. He did not want a war, he wanted peace. There were/are no other common "Mullahs" and Nelson isn't really part of the militia movement. Incidents of violence in the American Militia Movement were relatively rare and, like Ruby Ridge, usually initiated by the authorites, not the militia members.
Some tried to take ity up a level though. Until 9-11 the biggest terrorist action on US soil was the Oklahoma City bombing. Timmy McVeigh, a member of the militia movement (but not a part of the Farm-Aid crowd), was behind that. They just decided not to kill his little helper a few days ago.
Now if that can happen to Americans in the United States, imagine how it must feel to be in a foreign country, one where the people have little or nothing but the US-backed leaders have everything. Now imagine that the local version of Willie Nelson comes along and asks you to go to war.
We, as humans, create our own monsters. Osama is one that the US created. Saddam is another. The next one to gain world attention is likely going to be Islam Karimov. Make no mistakes, these men are all much like Timmy McVeigh. They all got their start with the help of the US government and gleaned followers when they turned against that government. The US government never learns though...they are funding and propping up Islam Karimov as I write this.
Yes, Stretch has it right.
The article speaks of "The Al-Qaeda terror network".
There is not and never was an "al-qaeda network".
There are always has been and will be 2-bit terrorists. Right now any disgruntled and disillussioned individual, any small-time "terrorist" uses this moniker to exagerate their threat -- they claim to be "al-qaeda".
The US desparately, NEEDS al-qaeda and promotes them whenever possible.
The latest beheading of the South-Korean was by "al-qeada." Where the Nick Berg decapitation was a sloppy US black operation I am not saying that of this - just that the al-qeada moniker suits everyone just fine. It serves the purpose of both parties.
The holes and tunnels in my lawn up north were done by "al-qeada" (not the chipmunks I see surrying around). Everything bad in this world in because of bin-Laden and his network of thousands.
The article speaks of "The Al-Qaeda terror network".
There is not and never was an "al-qaeda network".
There are always has been and will be 2-bit terrorists. Right now any disgruntled and disillussioned individual, any small-time "terrorist" uses this moniker to exagerate their threat -- they claim to be "al-qaeda".
The US desparately, NEEDS al-qaeda and promotes them whenever possible.
The latest beheading of the South-Korean was by "al-qeada." Where the Nick Berg decapitation was a sloppy US black operation I am not saying that of this - just that the al-qeada moniker suits everyone just fine. It serves the purpose of both parties.
The holes and tunnels in my lawn up north were done by "al-qeada" (not the chipmunks I see surrying around). Everything bad in this world in because of bin-Laden and his network of thousands.
Yet, the central question, "will al-qaeda attack us?"
As I posted before (referring to the Madrid terror attacks), "U.S. Ambassador Celluci warns Canada: They could be next on the list for terror attacks -- When it comes to terrorism, ordinary Canadians are not as concerned as they should be, he said. The RCMP, CSIS and the military "get it" about terrorism, but the Canadian public has been less concerned, Mr. Cellucci said.
Will intelligence agencies orchestrate a 'terror' attack on Canadian soil to get the public 'on-side' on the 'war on terror'?
http://www.newsgateway.ca/Madrid_terrorist_attacks.htm
Today's news...
Madrid bombers had links to Spanish security service
Michel Chossudovsky, 22 June 2004: "The Spanish investigation has revealed that two individuals involved in allegedly supplying explosives to the alleged 3/11 Madrid terrorists were police informers. More specifically Rafa Zouhier, was a police informer to an elite unit of the Guardia Civil known as Unidad Central de Operaciones, UCO). The second individual, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras, was an inforrmer to the National Police Corps, more specifically the narcotics brigade of Aviles (Cuerpo Nacional de Policia del jefe de la Brigada de Estupefacientes de Aviles).
Deafening silence of the Western media: The few press reports (outside of Spain), while acknowledging the names of the individuals, fail to mention the links of these individuals to the Spanish police.
The wife of Trashorras had in his possession the telephone number of the Head of Tedax, Juan Jesus Sanchez Manzano. Tedax is Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad , a very specialized division of the the Spanish police. A official of the this special unit was in fact involved in the deactivation of one of the bombs which was to be placed in the train.
In a related development, the three Moroccans accused of the 3/11 attacks were released. The latter had been arrested following the death of seven prime suspects, who allegedly "blew themselves up in a suburban flat rather than surrender."
As I posted before (referring to the Madrid terror attacks), "U.S. Ambassador Celluci warns Canada: They could be next on the list for terror attacks -- When it comes to terrorism, ordinary Canadians are not as concerned as they should be, he said. The RCMP, CSIS and the military "get it" about terrorism, but the Canadian public has been less concerned, Mr. Cellucci said.
Will intelligence agencies orchestrate a 'terror' attack on Canadian soil to get the public 'on-side' on the 'war on terror'?
http://www.newsgateway.ca/Madrid_terrorist_attacks.htm
Today's news...
Madrid bombers had links to Spanish security service
Michel Chossudovsky, 22 June 2004: "The Spanish investigation has revealed that two individuals involved in allegedly supplying explosives to the alleged 3/11 Madrid terrorists were police informers. More specifically Rafa Zouhier, was a police informer to an elite unit of the Guardia Civil known as Unidad Central de Operaciones, UCO). The second individual, Jose Emilio Suarez Trashorras, was an inforrmer to the National Police Corps, more specifically the narcotics brigade of Aviles (Cuerpo Nacional de Policia del jefe de la Brigada de Estupefacientes de Aviles).
Deafening silence of the Western media: The few press reports (outside of Spain), while acknowledging the names of the individuals, fail to mention the links of these individuals to the Spanish police.
The wife of Trashorras had in his possession the telephone number of the Head of Tedax, Juan Jesus Sanchez Manzano. Tedax is Spain’s Civil Guard bomb squad , a very specialized division of the the Spanish police. A official of the this special unit was in fact involved in the deactivation of one of the bombs which was to be placed in the train.
In a related development, the three Moroccans accused of the 3/11 attacks were released. The latter had been arrested following the death of seven prime suspects, who allegedly "blew themselves up in a suburban flat rather than surrender."
I live in Columbus, Ohio. There, cat's out of the bag. Last week, the big headline in our local rag was that a Somali national--we have an expat colony of 50,000 Somalis here (lovely people, terrible drivers)--had been in federal custody for some time, and was being considered for indictment on grounds that he is Al-Qaida.
It was reported that a plot had been uncovered to do the nasty at a shopping mall here. They didn't name which one. I will give you my best guess, and it is a credible plot, if at all real. Downtown we have a three-level shopping mall built over an underground parking garage. It was originally designed to have two levels, but once under way, our hot-dog drunken mayor, looking over his shoulder at our racketeering redneck governor, gave the green-light to have a third level built. About four years after it opened, the columns in the basement began to show signs of sheer, and needed to be reinforced with steel belts. It doesn't matter now, because the whole place is nearly one-third unoccupied. Anyway, if someone were to park a substantial car-bomb in the basement parking garage, the whole thing would collapse like a proverbial house of cards. It's called the Columbus City Center.
Just thought I'd throw that out there. Since our one local Brooks Brothers store moved up to Polaris, I never go down there anyway.
It was reported that a plot had been uncovered to do the nasty at a shopping mall here. They didn't name which one. I will give you my best guess, and it is a credible plot, if at all real. Downtown we have a three-level shopping mall built over an underground parking garage. It was originally designed to have two levels, but once under way, our hot-dog drunken mayor, looking over his shoulder at our racketeering redneck governor, gave the green-light to have a third level built. About four years after it opened, the columns in the basement began to show signs of sheer, and needed to be reinforced with steel belts. It doesn't matter now, because the whole place is nearly one-third unoccupied. Anyway, if someone were to park a substantial car-bomb in the basement parking garage, the whole thing would collapse like a proverbial house of cards. It's called the Columbus City Center.
Just thought I'd throw that out there. Since our one local Brooks Brothers store moved up to Polaris, I never go down there anyway.
To say oppression breeds terror as opposed to fanatacism is too simplistic, I think.
Terror is bred by vicious, violent people who carefully cultivate a climate that breeds terror.
The Palestinians are a good example. Yes, they are under occupation. Nevertheless, from a historical perspective, they are under the most benign occupation in history, from the perspective of 'occupation'.
Notwithstanding the current situation, some facts are indisputable. After 1967, it was the Israelis who provided everything from electricty and healthcare, education, sanitation and almost all of the basic infrastructure-- all this 20 years prior to any real settlement movement.
All this during a time when Israel offered land for peace (land won in a war that her Arab neighbors wanted. Egypt kicked out UN peacekeepers, massed troops along Israel's borders along with Syria and Jordan. The Gulf of Aqaba was blockaded Israel was promised 'streets running knee deep in blood') and was turned down by the Khartoum Declaration enshrined in 1968.
Now, I'm not blaming Palestinians for demanding their right to a sovereign state-- just the opposite, I support it- and Israel certainly shares the burden of putting the Palestinians in the predicament they find themselves. But realistically, the Palestinians have been used by many to support and buttress their own agendas.
Arafat has stolen billions, literally. Neighboring Arab regimes fear a peace treaty-- as long as these regimes can keep the anger and frustration outward, they don't have to deal with the backwardness they've allowed their people to wallow in. They will do anything to keep that rage focused outward. They cannot survive a population's outrage. As always, the Palestinians pay. They kept the Palestinians in a state of poverty and despair.
In this climate, Arafat, who has never been held accountable for his own and PA corruption (the instances are legendary-- even now 'cement gate', the unfolding story of how PA ministers own companies sold concrete to build Israeli settlements is unfolding in Palestinian/Arab media), allowed radicals with a very different agenda than his (he is a secularist), to flourish so as to keep the pressure on Israel and to have these organizations spend their own monies on providing the services he can't/won't.
So into this melange, come the radicals who have a very different agenda. Arafat thought (as it turns out, like the Saudis), that he could control the genie he let out of the bottle.
I'm being abrupt here, because most of the readers of this forum, whether in agreement or not, can obviously see where I'm going with this.
The problem with terror as we see it now, is that it has become an acceptable form of political expression. No society can tolerate that and claim to want freedoms and rights, or to represent their 'constituants'. The constant threat or hint of the use of terror as a legitimate form of expression against anyone who has a differeing opinion portends a dark and gloomy society.
The insigators and purveyors have a very different agenda than their publicly proclaimed intentions. Remeber Pol Pot, Stalin, et al?
I do want to make it clear-- I am not beating up on the Palestinians. In my mind, as I said earlier, they have been the victims in stereo-- by Israel, a mature, functioning country who unrealistically demands and expects a level of stability from the PA, a wholly corrupt institition and other Arab countries, who seek only to extend the conflict so as to keep their own autocratic regimes for as long as possible.
The Israelis and Palestinians deserve better-- from themselves and from each other.
OK, helmet is on.
Terror is bred by vicious, violent people who carefully cultivate a climate that breeds terror.
The Palestinians are a good example. Yes, they are under occupation. Nevertheless, from a historical perspective, they are under the most benign occupation in history, from the perspective of 'occupation'.
Notwithstanding the current situation, some facts are indisputable. After 1967, it was the Israelis who provided everything from electricty and healthcare, education, sanitation and almost all of the basic infrastructure-- all this 20 years prior to any real settlement movement.
All this during a time when Israel offered land for peace (land won in a war that her Arab neighbors wanted. Egypt kicked out UN peacekeepers, massed troops along Israel's borders along with Syria and Jordan. The Gulf of Aqaba was blockaded Israel was promised 'streets running knee deep in blood') and was turned down by the Khartoum Declaration enshrined in 1968.
Now, I'm not blaming Palestinians for demanding their right to a sovereign state-- just the opposite, I support it- and Israel certainly shares the burden of putting the Palestinians in the predicament they find themselves. But realistically, the Palestinians have been used by many to support and buttress their own agendas.
Arafat has stolen billions, literally. Neighboring Arab regimes fear a peace treaty-- as long as these regimes can keep the anger and frustration outward, they don't have to deal with the backwardness they've allowed their people to wallow in. They will do anything to keep that rage focused outward. They cannot survive a population's outrage. As always, the Palestinians pay. They kept the Palestinians in a state of poverty and despair.
In this climate, Arafat, who has never been held accountable for his own and PA corruption (the instances are legendary-- even now 'cement gate', the unfolding story of how PA ministers own companies sold concrete to build Israeli settlements is unfolding in Palestinian/Arab media), allowed radicals with a very different agenda than his (he is a secularist), to flourish so as to keep the pressure on Israel and to have these organizations spend their own monies on providing the services he can't/won't.
So into this melange, come the radicals who have a very different agenda. Arafat thought (as it turns out, like the Saudis), that he could control the genie he let out of the bottle.
I'm being abrupt here, because most of the readers of this forum, whether in agreement or not, can obviously see where I'm going with this.
The problem with terror as we see it now, is that it has become an acceptable form of political expression. No society can tolerate that and claim to want freedoms and rights, or to represent their 'constituants'. The constant threat or hint of the use of terror as a legitimate form of expression against anyone who has a differeing opinion portends a dark and gloomy society.
The insigators and purveyors have a very different agenda than their publicly proclaimed intentions. Remeber Pol Pot, Stalin, et al?
I do want to make it clear-- I am not beating up on the Palestinians. In my mind, as I said earlier, they have been the victims in stereo-- by Israel, a mature, functioning country who unrealistically demands and expects a level of stability from the PA, a wholly corrupt institition and other Arab countries, who seek only to extend the conflict so as to keep their own autocratic regimes for as long as possible.
The Israelis and Palestinians deserve better-- from themselves and from each other.
OK, helmet is on.