Tricking Americans into supporting war - Zinn interview

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
JUST IN
[QUOTE]****NEWSFLASH- TALKIBAN WANTS KARLIM FOR A NEW LEADER****

With the proceeds of the last opium crop, and the mumbling azltimers that has effected the speech of Osama Ladin rendering it silly, the taliban sees that Karlim is doing such a grant job supporting it baby killing and propaganda efforts that they are considering him for a new leader, ditto with gopher the second runner up....
[/quote]

Those ridiculous qoutes are just political manouvering from those who are unable to contribute and make any sense of the situation of the Middle-East, so they spout of drivel to try to appear wise...in fact it is silly...and supprot the baby killing Jihad terrorists...
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Let pre-menopausal rule the world and everything will be fine, peace will reign. flowers will bloom, children will play and everyone will be happy, let post-menopausal women rule the world and it will be the same as what men have managed. At least we'll have someone different to blame.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

I've been with the same woman since I was 16.............that's over 35 years. She's gone from sweet, kind, and compliant to well.............as she says "When things bugged me before I used to burst into tears.....now I just want to kill some SOB"

Welcome to the wonderful world of testosterone.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
garfabbling

Yes, women get their periods, and "baby-killing" is certainly a theme that would put my charachter into dispute, but would I stoop so low to say that 'not spelling correctly' means you don't know what you are talking about? NO WAY!!! - I appreciate your comments colpy, good spelling or not.

So give me the same respect, and just reply to my thoughts and not accuse me of baby-killing instead.
On that theme, when my 2nd baby cried for his first 5 years due to reflux, I also wanted to kill something. Mostly, my wife, who would not stop smoking around the baby, which of course made his reflux worse, maybe the only factor that did that. Then, myself, because I was powerless to do anything about it other than use violence against that evil b1tch, but that would have left my son in HER hands, and I could not abandon him to that hell. Finally, the BABY!!! - just kill it and the whole matter resolves, we get silence and peace. Naw, no peace after you kill yourown offspring.....

Killing is not the answer. Moral behaviors are.
Get that into our thinking and the world will become a much better place.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Maybe if enough people took the time to listen...

December 10,2006

America Hears the truth
By Eric Margolis


“This week’s Iraq Study Group (ISG) report on Iraq turned out to be a bombshell that is shaking official and political Washington.
The report, prepared by a blue-ribbon panel of Republican and Democrat moderates, found the security situation in Iraq “grave and deteriorating.”
U.S. Iraq policy has failed. The panel flatly contradicted claims by President George Bush and VP Dick Cheney the war was going well. The Study Group sensibly called for total withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by March 2008. Less sensibly, it urged U.S. “advisers” be left behind to train and stiffen Iraqi forces. The U.S. tried the same thing in the Vietnam war. It didn’t work then; it won’t work now.
The ISG estimated the Iraq war’s total cost at over $1 trillion — twice the cost of the Vietnam War. The administration has laboured to conceal the mammoth costs of this absurd misadventure. In 2003, the Bush administration’s original cost estimate was $20-40 billion!
The Iraq Study Group achieved three important goals. First, it told Americans what they have not heard for the past six years: The truth. The war in Iraq is lost. It’s time to retreat from this debacle. Second, the ISG provided protective cover for legislators tooppose powerful special interests advocating continued occupation of Iraq, and war against Iran. Third, it made clear a fair solution must be found to the festering Israel-Palestine dispute which lies at the heart of Mideast tensions and terrorism.
The ISG report revived a politically explosive proposal: An Arab-Israeli settlement based on the 1967 UN Resolution 242. This historic resolution calls for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace based on Israel’s withdrawal to its pre-war 1967 borders. Which means Israel’s sharing Jerusalem and removing settlements from the West Bank, which, with Gaza, would become a new Palestinian state, and returning the Golan Heights to Syria. Israel’s expansionist rightwing parties and their American neoconservative allies, long and bitterly opposed 242. They found firm backing from George Bush, Dick Cheney, and America’s evangelical Christian far right.
In 2002, the Arab League adopted a long overdue Saudi-initiated plan to recognize Israel, end hostilities, and normalize relations based on 242. Israel’s right-wing government rebuffed the plan, though the proposal received cautious support from Israel’s centre and left. The panel urged Washington to engage with Syria and Iran.
Since the Bush administration has been threatening war against both nations, one wonders why they would help Bush out of the hole he dug in Iraq and free up his bogged-down troops.
The ISG report is coming under intense fire from neocons who still yearn for war against Iran, even though the war they engineered against Iraq is the worst disaster in modern U.S. history. Its ill-effects will be felt for a generation. This sensible, balanced report is America’s logical exit strategy from the raging inferno neocon arsonists ignited in Iraq. It gives Bush political cover — if he is wise enough to use it — to reverse his ruinous Iraq policies before Republicans again pay the price in 2008 presidential elections.
As for wretched Iraq, it must be left to sort out its own problems. A U.S. pullout would worsen the current bloodbath in the short term, but at least the U.S. will no longer be part of the problem and prisoner of Iraq’s run-amok factions. The world should demand Iran use its growing power in Iraq to halt ethnic cleansing and murderous rampages by Shia militias and death squads.
Arab league troops
The best solution: Short-term security mission by troops from the Arab League, Pakistan and India to replace American troops and try to maintain some sort of order until Iraq’s mind-numbing problems can be sorted out.
In the end, Iraqis, not the White House or congressmen from Alabama, must determine Iraq’s destiny. Left alone, Iraqis — and also Afghans — willeventually work out a modus vivendi. But their wounds will not begin to heal until foreign occupation troops depart.”
One has to wonder why the Coalition of the Willing continues to play the game that Pakistan our “ally” is exempt from the notion of “those offering aid and comfort to terrorists”… Bush’s rationale for the war against terrorism…. when Canadian and America servicemen have gone on record acknowledging that the Taliban offensive is often comprised of trainees from Pakistan taking up arms in Afghanistan.

America shouldn’t be prosecuting a war of any kind in Afghanistan or Iraq and the toll this war has taken and the climate of tension it’s produced around the world can justly be placed at the foot of America’s neo-conservative imperialist regime.

Canada has no business killing anyone in Afghanistan whether legitimized as “duty” to NATO or in support of fighting America’s “War on Terrorism”.

It’s all a lie and like Mr. Margolis says, “The U.S. tried the same thing in the Vietnam war. It didn’t work then; it won’t work now.”

Bush et al. should be indicted for crimes against humanity, impeached and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

Maybe Gittmo needs a Santa Claus…






 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
HUGE Majority of Americans Oppose Bush's War

the new numbers are in:


http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=4844505


Bush Suffers Record-Low Job Approval, Iraq War Numbers





(12/12/06 -- WASHINGTON, DC) - A near record, 62 percent of Americans, disapprove of President Bush's job performance overall, a new high of 70 percent disapprove specifically of his handling of the situation in Iraq, and - at the root of his troubles - six in 10 now say the war there was not worth fighting.
As Bush, pushed by last week's Iraq Study Group recommendations, struggles to find a new way forward in Iraq, the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll underscores the depth of his difficulties. Just 36 percent approve of Bush's job performance overall, the second lowest approval rating of his career. He bottomed out at 33 percent approval in May.
Not only do 62 percent of Americans disapprove of his work in office overall, but 49 percent strongly disapprove - a new high - while a mere 18 percent strongly approve.
On Iraq the president does even worse.
A new high, 70 percent, disapprove of his handling of the war, and 57 percent strongly disapprove. Only 28 percent approve of the way Bush is handling the situation there.
These ratings are fueled by the public's sour views on the war in Iraq itself - the same views that led to the Democratic takeover of Congress last month. Sixty-one percent of Americans now say the war was not worth fighting. This has exceeded six in 10 only two other times in ABC News/Washington Post polls.
It's these negative views of the war that are driving Bush's problems: His overall approval rating has closely tracked views of whether, in terms of its costs versus benefits, the war was worth fighting; the two correlate nearly perfectly.
Bush's base supporters have not deserted him this month.
On balance, 69 percent of Republicans still believe the Iraq war was worth fighting. But 65 percent of independents and 81 percent of Democrats say the war was not worth it.
Bush has maintained high approval rating from Republicans for his overall job performance and his performance on Iraq. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans approve of his job, and 65 percent approve of his work on Iraq, with his ratings far lower among independents and Democrats.
Bush's approval rating compares negatively to both President Clinton's and President Reagan's approval ratings after their second midterm congressional elections - a healthy 64 percent approval for Clinton in December 1998 (despite his pending impeachment) and 49 percent approval for Reagan in December 1986, shortly after the Iran-Contra story broke.
Strong disapproval of Bush is even nearer its worst of his career, 48 percent in June.

Is the Iraq War Worth Fighting?
Title Title
Yes No All 36 Percent 61 Democrats 17 81 Republicans 69 29 Independents 32 65


Bush Job Performance



Approve Disapprove All 36 Percent 62 Democrats 12 86 Republicans 77 21 Independents 30 67
Bush Handling of Iraq



Approve Disapprove All 28 Percent 70 Democrats 7 92 Republicans 65 33 Independents 23 76



IT'S TIME FOR WITHDRAWAL & IMPEACHMENT!
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Killing is not the answer. Moral behaviors are.
Get that into our thinking and the world will become a much better place.






If the Prince of Peace was here today, that's exactly what He would say.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
sure..and this from the stoker of the flames of hatred, me-oh-my you are a comedian Goph..

anyway back in the real world...

President Bush is walking the tightrope woven around the different rivals of warmongering, and in the confusing issues l will try to bring forth the relivant truths and issues-

1. Iranian Prez. is continuing to be a shame to the Middle-East by his Holocost Conference, in which to his chagrin, his guests cheered and appauded the French deligate who told them and the world that it is a shameless insult to the world and a crime to even pretend it didn't happen.AMEANJIHAB [or whatever, l think l mispelt his name, but who cares, he is dis-repectful to the world and is a pologamist creep}reportably shrunk a few more inches and it has been theorised he is in fact a child dressed as a man.

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- A gathering of Holocaust deniers in Iran touched off indignation across Europe Tuesday, where many countries have made it a crime to publicly disavow the Nazis' systematic extermination of 6 million Jews.

The EU's top justice official condemned the conference as "an unacceptable affront" to victims of the World War II genocide. British Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced it as "shocking beyond belief" and proof of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's extremism.

"I think it is such a symbol of sectarianism and hatred toward people of another religion. I find it just unbelievable, really," Blair said.

"I mean to go and invite the former head of the Ku Klux Klan to a conference in Tehran which disputes the millions of people who died in the Holocaust ... what further evidence do you need that this regime is extreme?" he added.

David Duke, a former leader of the U.S. white supremacist group, was among those who attended the two-day conference. {KKK]

Although organizers touted it as a scholarly gathering, the meeting angered many in countries such as Austria, Germany and France, where it is illegal to deny aspects of the Nazis' "Final Solution."
The conference drew especially sharp condemnation in Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel said her country repudiated it "with all our strength."

"We absolutely reject this. Germany will never accept this and will act against it with all the means that we have," Merkel told a news conference. She stood alongside visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who denounced the meeting as "unacceptable" and a "danger" to the Western world.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy was interrupted by applause from lawmakers when he told parliament in Paris that the conference showed a resurgence of "revisionist" theories "which are quite simply not acceptable."


So this is what our representatives are dealing with, countries who are linking up with the KKK and holding meetings whick are "denounced ...as UNACCEPTABLE and a DANGER to the western world" to qoute PM
Olmert.

Frantisek Banyai, the head of Prague's Jewish community -- which was decimated during WWII from 120,000 people to just a few thousand today -- decried the meeting as "aggressive, wrong and disgusting."

"It's immoral. It insults me and it insults each member of the Jewish community, because we lost members of our families," he said. "It's a slap in the face of those decent people who know the history and want to learn a lesson from it."

At the European Union's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini condemned Iran for hosting the gathering.

The conference was initiated by Ahmadinejad, who considers the Holocaust a "myth" and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"I want to state my firm condemnation of any attempt to deny, trivialize or minimize the Shoah, war crimes and crimes against humanity," Frattini said in a statement. "Anti-Semitism has no place in Europe; nor should it in any other part of the world."

The Vatican called the Holocaust an "immense tragedy" and warned the world not to react with indifference to those who challenge its existence.

"The memory of those horrible events must remain as a warning for people's consciences, to eliminate conflicts, respect the rights of all peoples, exhort for peace, truth and justice," the Holy See said in a statement.
Olmert told Italy's La Repubblica newspaper he considers Ahmadinejad the embodiment of "the purest, worst form of anti-Semitism."

"There is only one way to deal with him: We must stop him. No tolerance, no patience," the Israeli leader said.
In Sweden, the daily Goteborgs-Posten said the conference attendees "have a lot of explaining to do."

"If the Holocaust did not take place, then where did 6 million of Europe's Jews go?" it said in an editorial. "That's something Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should think about. ... President Ahmadinejad is an insult."
--source newswire


This is just another of the People that are causing the Middle-East Conflict. Iran is ruled by Islamic Fundementalists that have sponsered and harboured the terrorists, who teach children in school to hat Jews, Christians and Infidels, and who financed Hezzbollah to work diligently against any opportunities of peace.

Iran has a lot to gain from destroying countries like Iraq. Iraq has wealth in OIL, as well as in real estate and other international investments, they have a lot to gain from undermining any efforts at peace. Currently however, in the short term, they are breaking the international treaty agreement wherein they promised not to build a nuclear weapon. They gained in return many things like contracts for oil. Now they have outright admitted to having not one but many bombs, and helped by China they have vowed to "wipe Israel off of the face of the earth", as well as swearing to get back at the U.S. and it's allies.

Curently they have abandoned Hezzbollah, who they funded, because the criminal group is not needed. It is currently good for Iran to smilingly make peace with Syria and usher U.S. troops out the door. In the meantime, the WMD are being built and the threat of Quranic Satanic Verses are being fanatically pursued.

This is just one of the players in the Middle-East that is creating a sinister evil threat...and our representative lies in BUSH because Harper is hiding under his bed.

Bush is doing a magnificant job.
 

Northboy

Electoral Member
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/24/1442258

After reading that interview with historian Howard Zinn, even printing it out so I could highlight some phrases, I felt I needed to share some quotes and my thoughts on the ideas in it. I hope that some of you might print this article out at home, read it carefull, and then leave copies laying in public places... our "free press" will never print it for the newspapers, or interview Zinn on television, so we the people have to do it.

-------------------

"Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for being un-patriotic". That was the stated tactic that Goering confessed to at Nuremburg trials after WW2.

Bush recently used this 'public trickery' also, and upped the ante from not just the threat of terrorist attacks, but also 'weapons of mass destruction', and even the spectre of 'mushroom clouds' to raise the fear levels of the American public. Bush also said that the opponents of his invasion of foreign nations were "un-patriotic".

How predictable!! Its a playbook the Nazis used ; Bush and the global Elite loves it. If only we could have a clear view of history, of these tactics, then the public would catch on to these tactics being used on them and stop supporting the warmongering Elites that we give power to.

History can show us many examples of these tactics being used to propogate wars. All the way back to the American Civil war it happened - the public had to be 'convinced' to fight, sometimes it took mass executions to get them to do it, and even then they only joined up as a way to survive. Thats the furthest thing from "patriotic duty", but we still honour their patriotism in history books. It was not a united and free nation doing what is good. No, it was and still is today just a way of concentrating power and control by a Elite group of people by tricking, cajoling, or threatening the working class to join the army and to show support for the war machine.

So WW2, and the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq/Afghanistan, plus all those forays into South America and the Phillipines, etc., and the entire "cold war', were all just contrived. They were 'arranged' so that the war machine could continue to divert billions and trillions of dollars into the hands of a few Elites so that they could continue their domination by the power that wealth gives them. The 'average people' who make up the majority could have made much better use of the nation's wealth that truly should belong to them.

Democracy is another area of total cynisism. Elections are great until they go the wrong way and elect a socialist. Even the 70% of public support that Chavez gets from Venezuelans does not get approval from Washington - they would rather see him DEAD!! [and have apparently tried to kill him thru the CIA]. America itself only has two choices, Dems and Reps, both on the same side, so there is no real "choice".

Nothing is sacred to these warmongers, these Elites who have wrangled control of everything. Religion is used to bolster the patriotic sentiments that are so essential for making war. The stable climate we were enjoying has been disrupted - what is a bigger crime against humanity and nature [and god too, for you believers!] than that?

So now terrorism has supplanted communism as the great threat created to frighten Americans, and to deplete the nation's wealth for the purposes of war and the enrichment of the Elites.

What is different at this time, late into 2006, is that people are starting to catch on!! The fear is wearing off. We are starting to hear familiar refrains coming from a desperate war machine and we have grown weary of the lies. "Enriching Urainium" in Iran is the latest "threat" that Bush has foisted upon Americans, but the ridiculousness of the Iranian nuclear threat to America has burst some bubbles - the USA has 10,000 nukes ready to use, Iran needs another 5 or 10 years to make just ONE nuke. Bush has relied on the 'created fear war formula' once too often.

conclusion:
We managed to abolish slavery, now it is time to abolish war, especially where an invasion of another nation is carried out - that will absolutely ensure that no major wars can begin, and that any 'attacks' can be dealt with in a sane and resonable manner. The persistant 'over-reaction' must end where 2500 people are killed and the response leaves a million dead and some foreign nation under direct American control, as has happened so often in their history. The United Nations had made a declaration at some point after WW2 "to not allow another invasion of soveriegn nations and pre-emptive war tactics", now we need to be able to enforce it.

Finally, this quote: "The Master Class has allways started the wars ; the Working Class has allways fought those wars" This ugly truth should have alerted the public long ago to the problem of warmaking by the Elites, and it is troubling that it didn't. It is troubling that the warmongers get elected in the USA, Britian, and in Canada now too.

Maybe there is a ray of hope for more public awareness of this conspiracy in the turfing of Republicans [mid-term elections]in mid-war, and in that the 'created fear' is wearing thin, and in the South American socialist movement, and in acceptance of global warming from fossil fuels emissions. We might yet move to the kind of world we know we want, and that we can have. Prosperity, peace, clean energy, and actual democracy are all waiting for us to reach out and take them, if we can break free of the chains that the Elites have put on us.


My prayers go with you in this noble work..

G.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
HA...The only thing noble about that piece of work is that it nobley serves the Terrorists. If you stick to the facts, the war was declared on NATO aligned countires, and the world agreed that the heindonous INTERNATIONAL attacks that were perpentrated on behalf of ALLAH, needed to be addressed. It is all so good to sweep the facts under the table and utter peaceful words of TOLERANCE, but all this does is support the myth that if we turn our backs on it , it will all disappear. How convenient for you peaceniks and haters of Bush to grind political axes in the face of the inhuman violent acts of murder done on behalf of ALLAH.

Have you so easily forgotten these events-

Be'er Sheva bus bombings, the suicide bombing in Moscow, the terrorist acts against Russian aircraft, the Beslan Russia school atrocities, and the Nepalese beheadings in Iraq

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/go.aspx?z=http://straitstimes.com/latest/story/0,4390,269529,00.html?
Militant Group Claims Downing of Russian Planes
CAIRO - A claim of responsibility for the downing of two Russian planes appeared on a website known for militant Muslim comment on Friday.
The statement, which accused Russians of killing Muslims in Chechnya, was signed 'The Islambouli Brigades'. A group with a similar name has claimed at least one previous attack, but the legitimacy of the group and the authenticity of such statements could not be verified.
Russian officials have said terrorism was the most likely cause of Tuesday's plane crashes, which killed a total of 89 people.
'We in the Islambouli Brigades announce that our holy warriors managed to hijack two Russian planes and were crowned with success though they faced problems at the beginning', the statement said without elaborating on the problems.
A July 31 web statement signed the 'Islambouli Brigades of Al-Qaeda' claimed responsibility for the attempt to assassinate Mr Shaukat Aziz, Pakistan's Prime Minister-designate. Friday's claim did not refer to Al-Qaeda, the international terror network led by Osama bin Laden.
Lieutenant Khaled Islambouli was the leader of the group of soldiers who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat during a military parade in Cairo in 1981.
 
Last edited:

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
The terrorists have attacked Non- Muslims in communities...and international attack in the name of Allah...they are BABY KILLERS.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/go.asp.../2004/09/05/international/europe/05scene.html
52 Hours of Horror and Death for Captives at Russian School
BESLAN, Russia, Sept. 4 - Long before the first bombs exploded in Middle School No. 1, marking the beginning of a ferocious battle that left hundreds of schoolchildren and their parents and teachers dead, the hostages had descended to near despair.
"At first I thought it was a joke," said one survivor, Emma Gagiyeva, 13, who sat numbly on a couch on Saturday, as the death toll climbed relentlessly, to 330, with many children still missing. "Then they started to shoot the windows, and glass fell on the people. They were shooting above our heads and they killed a few people, and I knew it was real."
She and other survivors and their families began to give a coherent account of the 52 hours of killings and captivity at the hands of masked gunmen that erupted in a catastrophic chain of events on Friday, when two large explosions set off battles between the captors and Russian forces.
At least 1,200 people had been crammed into the school gymnasium, with no food and little water, and with a frightening network of bombs laced overhead.
Temperatures had become stifling, survivors and their families said Saturday, and some students were so hungry they had taken to eating the wilted bouquets they had carried to school. One boy said he was hoping for a bomb to go off, so the crisis might end. The terrorists teased their child captives, and shot at least one man to demonstrate the penalty for breaking their rules.
Even as Beslan was consumed by agonizing worry and grief, interviews with the survivors told of a moment when the first day of school became the opening of an ordeal.
The day began with an assembly in the schoolyard, with children streaming in with parents and brothers and sisters to open the school year. It was like years past, until the moment when the newly arriving first graders were to be introduced. It had always been a tender moment in years past. This year, people heard shouts, and saw something alarming: a line of masked gunmen advancing through the yard.
"The terrorists ran in yelling, 'Allahu Akhbar,'" said Asamaz Bekoyev, 11, who escaped with his mother and brother and lay in his bed Saturday at his grandmother's house, being treated for cuts and minor burns.
A brief gun battle ensued, as the terrorists overwhelmed the few police officers at the ceremony, who had been caught unaware.
With shouts and threats, the entire school assembly was herded into the gymnasium and told to sit down on the floor. The terrorists knew how to force the group to submit. The captives would soon learn that being told to sit meant just that.
Asamaz's older brother, Azamat, 14, said one of the hostages, an Ossetian man, tried to stand but as he rose to his feet a terrorist shot him in the forehead. The man fell straight to the floor, dead. "I saw this with my eyes," the boy said.
Another man tried to run out the back door to freedom, but a terrorist followed him, calmly sighted him through the rifle and shot him in the back. The man's body was then dragged through the gymnasium by the feet, leaving a long trail of blood.
The cruel rules of the siege were now established: Obey or die.
Details followed: The hostages were allowed to speak only in Russian, so the captors could understand every word. They were told that they must remain in their places. They were told to hand in their cellphones.
"They said, 'If we hear somebody's telephone ringing, 20 people around you will be killed,'" said Serafima Bekoyeva, 44, the mother of the two boys.
An order of business was soon under way. As hundreds of students huddled together, the terrorists gathered about 10 of the adult male hostages and enlisted them to help place bombs throughout the gym.
First they produced their makeshift bombs. Some were large plastic beer bottles packed with explosives, others rectangular, bricklike packets, wrapped tightly in brown tape, the survivors said.
The captors strung rope between the two basketball rims, and hung a line of these explosives overhead. The basketball nets themselves were tied shut, forming mesh baskets, into which more bombs were placed. Other bombs were arrayed along the floor and walls; the hostages estimated 20 in all, strung together with remarkable speed and skill.
The entire assembly was connected by blue and red wires, and at all times one of the terrorists held a small black box with which the bombs could be made to explode. "They told us that one press of a button was enough to detonate everything," Ms. Bekoyeva said.
Another group of hostages, about 10 or 15 boys, were ordered into the adjacent school building, where they served as a labor pool, stacking desks against doors and windows as a barricade for their captors' protection from Russian gunfire or advance.
Through the gymnasium drifted two female suicide bombers, wearing running shoes and black clothes. Black scarves obscured their faces, leaving only a slit for their eyes. Each had an explosive belt. Each was armed the same way: in one hand, a button for self-detonation, and in the other, a pistol.
The terrifying waiting began. Sometimes, the hostages said, they were taunted by both word and deed.
On the first day, they were given buckets of water and cups, but not enough, and people grew parched with thirst. The captors took clothes, soaked them in water and threw them to the crowd, who clutched them and wrung them above their open mouths, drinking the drops.
Emma said she was caring for Regina Sonakoyeva, a 3-year-old girl who kept crying out in thirst. "I held her and kept telling her, 'They will bring some, they will bring some,' " Emma said.
But their cage grew hotter.
One woman asked for water, the hostages said, and a terrorist held a pistol to her head, which she pushed away in indignation. "I cannot even ask for water?" she said. The terrorists then posted one of the women with a suicide bomb belt beside her.
"They said, 'If she says anything more, kill her,' " Azamat said. The woman sat quietly after that.
The rules became crueler still. Ms. Bekoyeva and her sons, and three other survivors, said that after the terrorists grew irritated by the children's continued crying, they pulled two men from the crowd, ordered them to hold their hands behind their heads, and addressed the room.
"They said, 'If you don't stop this noise, we will kill them,' " Emma said.
(One of the men was Batras Tuganov, Emma's uncle, who in the end was not shot because of the noise level, but who has not been found after the battle, and is feared dead.)
People did whatever they could to take care of themselves, shedding clothes to cool down, and tearing apart school textbooks to use as fans. "For two days I was continually waving my arm to fan my children," Ms. Bekoyeva said. "They kept asking for more."
The terrorists also gradually restricted access to the bathroom, first allowing five hostages at a time to use the toilets, then three. With little chance for their turn, the younger children could not hold back and relieved themselves in the crowd's midst. "We had them urinate into bundles of cloth," Emma said.
The air grew steaming hot and foul-smelling with worry, urine and sweat. Eventually the terrorists shot out the top windows, the survivors said, so that a bit of air could move through the enclosed space.
The survivors also noted that their captors seemed to be students of past failures: they carried gas masks, apparently having learned from the fate of the terrorists who seized a theater in Moscow in 2002, and succumbed to a gas attack.
Sometimes the captors simply fired into the gym's ceiling.
Azamat recalled one terrorist, a man with a short beard whom the others called Ali, saying, "Have you ever seen such kind terrorists?"
Azamat and Emma said that a woman offered the hostages all of the town's money, but one of their captors said, "We don't need money. We have come here to die."
As the interactions with their captors deepened, the hostages began to develop a sense of who held their fates. They estimated the terrorists number at 30. With the temperature rising, many of the gunmen removed their masks, displaying thick beards. They spoke Russian and a language the Ossetians said they did not understand, but was probably Chechen.
The hostages said they were unable to tell whether Arabs were among their captors, as the Russian government has asserted, without providing evidence as yet.
One hostage taker spoke of normal life, even as his own fate seemed sealed. "He said he himself had a wife and five children at home," Emma said.
The hostages heard through rumors shared quietly from captive to captive that at least one of the women with the bomb belts detonated herself in the school library on Wednesday.
"After the first day, we did not see the women again," Ms. Bekoyeva said.
The terrorists also spoke of politics, saying that they wanted the release of six Ingush who had been detained after an insurgent raid in June left nearly 100 dead, and that they wanted to extend the war between Russia and its breakaway republic of Chechnya.
They also showed strange signs of fastidiousness, considering their evident determination to die. Several terrorists, three hostages said, carried toothbrushes, razors and toothpaste, tucked beside their ammunition on their camouflage-clad chests.
By late Friday morning, as the temperature soared anew in the crowded gymnasium, the hostages were becoming weaker by the hour. "People were almost losing consciousness," Azamat said. "We had not eaten or had water in almost three days."
Another boy who survived, Atsomaz Ktsoyev, 14, said the hostages were so hungry they ate the floral bouquets they had brought to school for the first day of class. "I never thought in my life I'd be eating flowers," he said.
He added, "It didn't help."
Then came the end, at shortly after 1 p.m. Five or so terrorists had checked on the explosives, the survivors said, and a few minutes later, the hall shook from an unexpected blast.
The first bomb blew out the windows and filled the room with smoke and falling bits of plaster. Some hostages near the broken frames began to pour through them. Dashes for freedom began.
Others who survived dived for shelter, pressing flat. Emma said Azamat fell atop her and his younger brother, trying to cover their bodies and hold them to the gymnasium's floor. "He said to me, 'Don't be afraid,' " she said.
Then came the second blast. Their small group rose through the acrid smell of the detonated explosives, and scrambled out the window, too.
Life and death seemed to have been left to the whims of the seating arrangement. In the densely packed crowd, those nearest the bombs absorbed much of the shrapnel and force, and were killed.
Those away from them, and near the now vanished windows, had a chance.
Emma said she ran wildly, as the terrorists opened fire. A boy who was running with his sister was struck, and the girl stopped to help him. Emma continued on. "I didn't see what happened to them," she said.
Ms. Bekoyeva said she handed six or seven children out the window, as older children scrambled past.
Then she went out herself.
She and her two sons ran to a shed, took shelter in it as the bullets flew by, and then Azamat punched out the back window, and they scrambled through it. After another sprint they came to the Russian police officers and soldiers. Most of them realized they were safe, but all did not. Seeing the police, Emma was confused.
"I got scared and thought they were other terrorists,' she said. "But one embraced me and said, 'Do not be afraid.' "
Asamaz stopped when he reached a covered place near the police, and as the battle raged only a few yards behind them, he snatched fistfuls of grapes from the trellises, and, handing them out to the children with him - the first food they had had in more than two days.
Now lying in bed, he winced as his aunt Zalina Basiyeva put a traditional medicine on his burns.
Outside their window, people clustered in the courtyard, waiting for news. Everything the people of Beslan thought they knew about living, his aunt said, had changed. She rubbed bits of the filament of eggshell onto the boy's blisters and burns, and said the lesson was indelible: "We never knew how happy we were."
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
more evidence of lies

I cannot seem to convince many posters here that the Iraq war is a big sham, than the reasons told to us are not the real reasons for Bush wanting to be in iraq.

Now, however, I give you the testimony of Carne Ross , a British civil servant who resigned his job over the lies he was hearing, and has just this week given testimony to the Butler hearings in England.

Diplomat's Supressed Document lays bare the lies:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece

Full transcript of the testimony:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076142.ece

Whistleblowers got Muzzled:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076163.ece


Furthermore, it came out in this testimony that CHAOS would result if Saddam was ousted - the mess in Iraq now was predictable. Even I said "quagmire" when I first heard of the plan. So this mess cannot be said to be a surpise, but indeed Bush Blair Elites think it is worth it to achieve Bush agenda goals. [so what if the have civil war, we just want the oil].

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."


HA!!! told ya so -
Karlin
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
Karlin, LOL!!!!gosh l hate to blow your muslim-lovin' bubble but this fellow has been canned and this is not factual now, there, there...here is a little snippet of the situation...

http://www.israel-wat.com/show12.jpg

oops, and some more of the TRUTH complete with actual facts, not opinions...

[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]
[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman][FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]In his dramatic speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush declared that Iraq must comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions and with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, or face the consequences. Vowing that the United States will not “stand by and do nothing while dangers gather,” he urged that the terms of the Security Council’s previous resolutions against Iraq be enforced — and with them “the just demands of peace and security.” Recalling the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations, the President emphasized that the Security Council framework was established precisely so that UN “deliberations would be more than talk,” and Security Council resolutions not be “cast aside without consequence.” The President catalogued the major actions taken by the Security Council following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and chronicled Iraq’s notorious and continuing non-compliance. He argued forcefully that Iraq’s actions are more than “a threat to peace,” they are a threat to the very “authority of the United Nations” itself. [/FONT]
[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]In the widening international and domestic debate over Iraq, some insist that US or coalition military action against Iraq today would be unlawful unless once again explicitly authorized by the Security Council. As a matter of international law, this clearly is not the case. A renewed Security Council mandate may be useful or desirable, but it is not necessary. The Security Council previously has authorized the use of force against Iraq, the Council has not rescinded but rather reaffirmed its position on numerous occasions since, and the circumstances justifying the Council’s conclusion that Iraq is a threat to international peace and the security of the Middle East region remain unchanged. The UN Charter contemplates that the Security Council may — as it has with respect to Iraq — authorize the use of force to remove threats to international peace and security. The Charter also recognizes that, in response to acts of aggression, states — such as the US and its coalition partners — have an inherent right to act individually and collectively in their defense. Further military action against Iraq may, we believe, be justified on either or both grounds. [/FONT]
This paper will review briefly the framework in which the Security Council operates, the legal nature of its actions generally with respect to the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security, and the right to self-defense enshrined in the United Nations Charter. It then will analyze the succession of resolutions that the Security Council has adopted with respect to Iraq since 1990, and highlight the strong and continuing legal sanction they provide for military action by the US and other nations against Iraq. I
[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]. The Use of Force, the Role of the United Nations Security Council and the Right of Self-Defense [/FONT]


[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]The Charter of the United Nations has governed the use of force by states since 1945. The Preamble to the Charter leaves no question as to the UN’s fundamental purpose: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The delegates that gathered in San Francisco in the closing days of World War Two envisioned a system of collective security that would [/FONT]
operate “to maintain international peace and security.” In this system, members of the international community would consider an attack on one state to be an attack upon all, and would cooperate to remove threats to the peace and suppress acts of aggression. Thus, Article 2 of the UN Charter provides that “[a]ll Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” It further provides that “[a]ll members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In this manner, the UN Charter deprives states of any right they may have to use military force to resolve international disputes, subject to two broad exceptions: first, when force is authorized by the Security Council under its Chapter VII authorities; and second, when force is used in self-defense.
[/FONT]
--Legal Reasons Iraq vs NATO
[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]
the report is something that everyone should read before supporting the terrorists.
it also raises the FACTUAL information about what has brought about the situation that the US and NATO coutnries responded to. The fact is that the US did NOT invade IRAQ. Iraq declared war on the UN, NATO and all non-Muslims in true Islamic Fashion. NATO merely responded.
Traitors to their country are those who attack it in words, so it amazes me that these Yankees come on a Canadian forum and dump all the garbage they are afraid to dump on a US forum.
Why would they do this? Because if they did it with a US forum they would be deemed as traitors. So chicken $hyte they aim for Canada to dump their crappola.
the US acted legally and furthermore did not invade, they answered the illegal actions of a warmongering countries threats, the same country that was assisting the terror organization that actively and literally declared war and celebrated in great jubilation the deaths of thousands of mothers and fathers who went to work never to return home again.
Yes, coming on a Canadian forum and being a traitor is probably the lowest form of decieving your country while enjoying the fruits of the country. Yet, by Islamic standards this is okay because it is considered AL TAQUIYYA...
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

Northboy

Electoral Member
HA...The only thing noble about that piece of work is that it nobley serves the Terrorists. If you stick to the facts, the war was declared on NATO aligned countires, and the world agreed that the heindonous INTERNATIONAL attacks that were perpentrated on behalf of ALLAH, needed to be addressed. It is all so good to sweep the facts under the table and utter peaceful words of TOLERANCE, but all this does is support the myth that if we turn our backs on it , it will all disappear. How convenient for you peaceniks and haters of Bush to grind political axes in the face of the inhuman violent acts of murder done on behalf of ALLAH.

Have you so easily forgotten these events-

Be'er Sheva bus bombings, the suicide bombing in Moscow, the terrorist acts against Russian aircraft, the Beslan Russia school atrocities, and the Nepalese beheadings in Iraq

What exactly are you on about, in twenty words of less..

G.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
"what are you on..."blah,blah,blah:evil3: ...

and this from someone who professes to be from the land of the hooters...where are those moderators when you need them...

anyway...here is alittle more on the Iraq situation and how they created so many violations, so many threats and finally backing terrorist organization that called NATO countries to war by declaring a Holy WAR in the name of ALLAH...

[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]
[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]The Charter grants the Security Council wide discretion in carrying out this responsibility. For example, the Security Council has the responsibility, under Article 39 of Chapter VII, to determine “the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” After making such a determination, the Security Council may make recommendations or it may “decide” to take measures “in accordance with Articles 41 [non-force measures] and 42 [military force], to maintain international peace and security.”2 With respect to authorizing the use of military forces, the Security Council may choose to deploy national forces under UN command and control (as in the Korean conflict), or it may authorize a regional organization to lead an enforcement action (as with NATO in the Balkans), or it may recognize the right of member states to use force individually or collectively (as in the Gulf War with respect to Iraq).3

[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]When the Security Council acts “to restore international peace and security,” its pronouncements are determinative. By providing explicit legal authorization that is binding on all member states, the Security Council ratifies the pre-existing right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense. At the same time, it brands the aggressor as an international outlaw. [/FONT]
[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]The Security Council’s determinations thus typically resolve two questions: Has an armed attack occurred that gives rise to a right of self-defense? Who is the aggressor? Following its invasion and occupation of Kuwait, Iraq cited long-standing claims to sovereignty over Kuwaiti territory as a legal justification for its forceful annexation of that nation. On August 2, 1990, in Resolution 660, the Council promptly determined that the Iraqi invasion was “a breach of international peace and security,” repudiated the Iraqi claim, and thereby effectively foreclosed debate over the legitimacy of the coalition’s military response. Four days later, the [/FONT]

[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]
[/FONT]

2 [FONT='GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold']The Right of Self-Defense [FONT='GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold'][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]The second exception to the general prohibition on the use of military force concerns the right of self-defense against an armed attack. The Charter, in this regard, has preserved and carried forward a right to use force in individual or collective self-defense that clearly existed under customary international law before the founding of the UN. Article 51 of the Charter.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
if you have a point to make or any contribution from Hooterville {duh...}...in the meantime for the intelligent population here is some more issues with IRAQ who has commited lots and lots of war crimes, then we can visit, Palestine, Syria, and Iran...

The intentional commingling of Iraqi military forces among the civilian population of Baghdad or other population centers for the purpose of threatening mass civilian casualties and deterring attacking forces properly fearful of collateral damage – the spectre of urban warfare deliberately staged by defending Iraqi forces to create casualties among their own civilians – would constitute a horrific crime of war.
---http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/brief-pow.html

[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]The Security Council’s Response to Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]

[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]The Security Council’s Coercive Measures



Within hours of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the Security Council passed Resolution 660 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]— the first of some fifty-seven resolutions that it has adopted concerning Iraq over the past twelve years. The Security Council determined that the invasion constituted a “breach of international peace and security” and, “[a]cting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter,” the Security Council condemned the invasion, demanded that Iraq withdraw, and called upon the parties to negotiate an end to the conflict. As noted above, the Security Council’s determination that Iraq’s invasion constituted a breach of the peace decisively answered the question of the legality of Iraq’s actions.


[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]Iraq defied the Security Council’s demand that it withdraw from Kuwait. As a result, on August 6, the Security Council adopted Resolution 661[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman], in which it affirmed “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence” and, “acting under Chapter VII,” enacted a comprehensive economic embargo. The embargo prohibited states from importing commodities from Iraq or occupied Kuwait, or exporting commodities to Iraq or Kuwait (with the exception of medical supplies and humanitarian foodstuffs). At that time, the Security Council stated that the purpose of the embargo was to “secure [the] compliance of Iraq with paragraph 2 of resolution 660 (1990) and to restore the authority of the legitimate Government of Kuwait.” Thus, the Security Council initially limited its objectives — and the Chapter VII measures enacted to achieve those objectives — to an Iraqi withdrawal and the restoration of the Kuwaiti government. Not long thereafter, however, the Council dramatically expanded its objectives.


Because Iraq openly defied the embargo, the Security Council passed Resolution 665 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]on August 25, 1990, which called upon the US-led coalition to use naval forces to interdict maritime shipping to ensure compliance with the sanctions enacted in Resolution 661. In so doing, the Security Council arguably crossed a threshold from Article 41 measures (which include economic sanctions) to Article 42 measures (which include such uses of military force as a blockade). However, the Security Council’s resolutions refer to neither of these articles; rather, the resolutions are rooted more generally under Chapter VII (which includes Article 51). This fact, taken together with the Security Council’s recognition of the right of self-defense in Resolution 661, makes it clear that the Security Council acted to delegate enforcement of its resolutions to those states acting in collective self-defense with Kuwait.10

[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman]Iraq[FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman] remained obdurate, so the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, adopted the following additional resolutions:


• Resolution 662 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman](Aug. 9, 1990) declared Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait “null and void.” [/FONT]


* Resolutions 664 and 666 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman](Aug. 18 and Sep. 13, 1990) demanded the protection and release of third-state nationals and compliance with international humanitarian law. [/FONT]

• Resolution 667 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman](Sep. 16, 1990) condemned Iraq’s “aggressive acts” and violations of international law, including “acts of violence against diplomatic missions and their personnel,” and demanded the immediate release of foreign nationals and respect for Security Council decisions. [/FONT]

• Resolution 669 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman](Sep. 24, 1990) addressed the issue of assisting countries harmed by the sanctions regime. [/FONT]

• Resolution 670 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman](Sep. 25, 1990) condemned Iraq’s “flagrant violation … of international humanitarian law,” reminded Iraq that those individuals who order or commit grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions may be prosecuted, and strengthened the sanctions regime by banning most flights to and from Iraq and Kuwait. [/FONT]

• Resolution 674 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman](Oct. 29, 1990) again condemned Iraq’s treatment of third-state nations and reminded Iraq of its obligation under international law to pay reparations for the “invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait.” [/FONT]

• Resolution 677 [FONT=GGIFJP+TimesNewRoman](Nov. 28, 1990) condemned Iraq’s attempt to alter the demographic composition of the Kuwaiti population. [/FONT]

Between August and November 1990, while coalition military forces were massing in the Saudi Arabian desert near the border with Iraq, the Security Council, through these and other actions, sought to secure Iraq’s prompt withdrawal from Kuwait and otherwise to make it conform its conduct to the requirements of international law. In this regard, the Security Council may be said to have acted as its founders intended — by resorting to ever more stringent and coercive measures in an effort to restore international peace and security without the use of military force. This effort was unavailing. Iraq’s utter defiance of its demands compelled the Security Council to give its explicit authorization to the use of force against Iraq.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]


I hope this continues to help understand a few of the many issues that are involved witht he Terrorist funded propaganda war towards those who freed the people of this country and contributed generously to the the stabilization and rebuilding of the new democratic government of today.
What continues to amaze me is the utter lack of gratitude these countries have when they have recieved and yet demand they need more and more. The underlying problem is a religious fanatistm that refuses a peaceful future, and a feeling of entitlement to take from the western world, claiming peverty, yet being unwilling to contribute to becoming independant.
An example of this is when millions of humanitarian aid pour into the 'poor' country and then a reward for thousands and thousands of dollars is offered for an Israeli or U.S. person to be kidnapped. Or thousands and thousands of dollars paid for suicide bombers families.
It is time for the US and Canada to cut off money to the middle -east . Our vehicles and use of oil is in fact funding terrorism, to the tune of half a billion a week. Opium, cocaine, heroine, is a huge epidemic problem that again funds terrorist activities. We break off the pipe line of money and we will have a audience who might, just might, give up the fanatic lunacy of the teachings of the first world's terrorist- Muhammad, and they might then be ready for peace.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

Northboy

Electoral Member
if you have a point to make or any contribution from Hooterville {duh...}...in the meantime for the intelligent population here is some more issues with IRAQ who has commited lots and lots of war crimes, then we can visit, Palestine, Syria, and Iran...

---http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/brief-pow.html

[FONT=GGIFMB+TimesNewRoman,Bold]


I hope this continues to help understand a few of the many issues that are involved witht he Terrorist funded propaganda war towards those who freed the people of this country and contributed generously to the the stabilization and rebuilding of the new democratic government of today.
What continues to amaze me is the utter lack of gratitude these countries have when they have recieved and yet demand they need more and more. The underlying problem is a religious fanatistm that refuses a peaceful future, and a feeling of entitlement to take from the western world, claiming peverty, yet being unwilling to contribute to becoming independant.
An example of this is when millions of humanitarian aid pour into the 'poor' country and then a reward for thousands and thousands of dollars is offered for an Israeli or U.S. person to be kidnapped. Or thousands and thousands of dollars paid for suicide bombers families.
It is time for the US and Canada to cut off money to the middle -east . Our vehicles and use of oil is in fact funding terrorism, to the tune of half a billion a week. Opium, cocaine, heroine, is a huge epidemic problem that again funds terrorist activities. We break off the pipe line of money and we will have a audience who might, just might, give up the fanatic lunacy of the teachings of the first world's terrorist- Muhammad, and they might then be ready for peace.

[/FONT]

Ok, now I get it, you want Canada to commit its assets and blood to support the US in Iraq.

A king needs to weigh the costs before going to war. If he can't afford it, he must make peace.

The answer is no.....

Graham.
 

northstar

Electoral Member
Oct 9, 2006
560
0
16
Hooterville guy, l am glad l am able to help educate you, while you are not my intended audience, l haven't mentioned anything about Canada, l am merely explaining the situation in regard to the legal aspects of the Iraqi war.

This is about the war, okay, pick another thread if you wish to discuss something that makes sense cuz currently l see no contribution from you...