Peanuts kill more Americans than AL-Qaeda..that is a zionist invention.

Werbung:
Your continued posts of just links with no opinion or thought of your own is against forum policy, and future posts of this nature will be removed unless you offer your own insights etc in each post.

Israeli snipers killing US troops in Iraq (CNN report)
US Liberty Boat
Bieruth ,US MARINES
Lavon affair in Egypt.US AND BRITISH killed by mossad
men dressed as muslims
just to name some.
 
I have an issue with the article used to justify this thread, but I do want to address the intended purpose (I think) of this article was, the extreme focus on the "terror threat" of Al-Qaeda.

First of all, I will disagree that Al-Qaeda does not exist. The idea that there is a Muslim "fundamentalist" group that wants to perform their own version of jihad against the world is not something the media thought up for ratings.

That being said, there is a media "spin" on the topic, which is what your comments are really criticizing. Al-Qaeda has become the new "scary monster under the bed". We know that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and that there was a massive cover-up to hide that fact as well as keep that lie going. Even when that lie was discovered, America still kept its fight against "terror". Whether or not, you disagree with the "war on terror", it has led to many casualties and paranoia on every side. That paranoia has escalated into violence against Americans of Muslims descent as well as Americans in predominantly Muslim countries, many of whom had nothing to do with the "war on terror'.
 
Saddam didn't have WMD? Then how did all those Iranians, Kurds and Shiites die?
 
Saddam didn't have WMD? Then how did all those Iranians, Kurds and Shiites die?
I don't deny that Saddam Hussein had weapons that could cause great harm. I also don't deny that Saddam Hussein did not inflict a number of absolutely heinous crimes against humanity for which he should have been brought to justice.

What I do assert is that Hussein was not the person the "war of terror" intended to go after. America's mission after 9/11 was to go after the people who were involved in that plot.

http://www.911memorial.org/faq-about-911
 
I don't deny that Saddam Hussein had weapons that could cause great harm. I also don't deny that Saddam Hussein did not inflict a number of absolutely heinous crimes against humanity for which he should have been brought to justice.

What I do assert is that Hussein was not the person the "war of terror" intended to go after. America's mission after 9/11 was to go after the people who were involved in that plot.

http://www.911memorial.org/faq-about-911

I agree that we should of held off on Saddam, but I think it was inevitable that we eventually would have, especially with his two crazy sons coming up in the ranks.

The Clinton administration started the anti Saddam drum beat. Bush one had a war with Saddam over his attack on Kuwait, and we should have finished him off then. We flew sorties every day over the two no fly zones, protecting the Kurds in the North and the Shiite in the South. I also suspect there was an Iraqi connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

What everyone forgets too, after 911 we had an anthrax attack, something Saddam was believed to have weaponized.
 
I agree that we should of held off on Saddam, but I think it was inevitable that we eventually would have, especially with his two crazy sons coming up in the ranks.

The Clinton administration started the anti Saddam drum beat. Bush one had a war with Saddam over his attack on Kuwait, and we should have finished him off then. We flew sorties every day over the two no fly zones, protecting the Kurds in the North and the Shiite in the South. I also suspect there was an Iraqi connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

What everyone forgets too, after 911 we had an anthrax attack, something Saddam was believed to have weaponized.
I will agree with that, Cruella, we would have have eventually run into Saddam at some point between American interests and Saddam's. I did not know about the anthrax attack connection, but I wouldn't be surprised. Saddam Hussein was not a person who felt any qualms about using any means to gain and hold onto power.

It's just sadness, evil, and suffering all mixed up in the world that keeps the machine that is war and terror going.
 
It's just sadness, evil, and suffering all mixed up in the world that keeps the machine that is war and terror going.

Who knows what the right thing to do is. What I don't get is why all those countries in the ME aren't forming their own coalition and getting rid of ISIS. They've grown, they are spreading from country to country and murdering innocents by the thousands, not to mention the millions of people who have become literal refugees in their own homelands.

We ignored Hitler's genocide of millions, is the world just going to sit and ignore ISIS because they don't want to go to war? While I don't want to go to war, I do think it's our responsibility to wipe ISIS out, as best we can, even if it's on a total voluntary basis.

The cities in Iraq are spread out. I wonder why we aren't cutting off their supplies, electricity and water. Give them an ultimatum. Surrender or get annihilated.
 
Who knows what the right thing to do is. What I don't get is why all those countries in the ME aren't forming their own coalition and getting rid of ISIS. They've grown, they are spreading from country to country and murdering innocents by the thousands, not to mention the millions of people who have become literal refugees in their own homelands.

We ignored Hitler's genocide of millions, is the world just going to sit and ignore ISIS because they don't want to go to war? While I don't want to go to war, I do think it's our responsibility to wipe ISIS out, as best we can, even if it's on a total voluntary basis.

The cities in Iraq are spread out. I wonder why we aren't cutting off their supplies, electricity and water. Give them an ultimatum. Surrender or get annihilated.
You bring up some very good points!
1. Other countries can and should be involved.
2. We've seen this pattern before in history, unfortunately) several times.
3. We have stronger resources (even stronger, if the more nations joined) that could cut off the supply of supplies and resources to ISIS. (I would prefer this option.)

Thanks for contributing to this thread! You brought up some very good points that I wish our media and politicians would consider instead of mud-slinging.
 
I have an issue with the article used to justify this thread, but I do want to address the intended purpose (I think) of this article was, the extreme focus on the "terror threat" of Al-Qaeda.

First of all, I will disagree that Al-Qaeda does not exist. The idea that there is a Muslim "fundamentalist" group that wants to perform their own version of jihad against the world is not something the media thought up for ratings.

That being said, there is a media "spin" on the topic, which is what your comments are really criticizing. Al-Qaeda has become the new "scary monster under the bed". We know that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and that there was a massive cover-up to hide that fact as well as keep that lie going. Even when that lie was discovered, America still kept its fight against "terror". Whether or not, you disagree with the "war on terror", it has led to many casualties and paranoia on every side. That paranoia has escalated into violence against Americans of Muslims descent as well as Americans in predominantly Muslim countries, many of whom had nothing to do with the "war on terror'.

just a hint since your new, when people make claims such as al Qaeda does not exist....its 100% pointless to debate with them. Facts will hold no sway and logic is wasted on them. Also anytime they start to just randomly blame jews for them as well...

And I say that as someone who is no friend of Israel.. but you can't debate conspiracy theories with the guy on the side of the road with a foil hat on....
 
A lot of these radical people hate the US. Given that fact, why wouldn't they launch nuclear and germ warfare against US cities? :mad: If you can prove these radical people don't want to totally destroy the US, then feel free to post proof. :whistle: Maybe people are beginning to doubt Al Queda cause no major terror incident has happened lately. However, then again, maybe no terror stuff has come about, because :rolleyes: we are fighting terrorism.
 
A lot of these radical people hate the US. Given that fact, why wouldn't they launch nuclear and germ warfare against US cities? :mad: If you can prove these radical people don't want to totally destroy the US, then feel free to post proof. :whistle: Maybe people are beginning to doubt Al Queda cause no major terror incident has happened lately. However, then again, maybe no terror stuff has come about, because :rolleyes: we are fighting terrorism.
and luck, don't forget luck.
 
Werbung:
The problem is that ISIS has trained many British, Americans and Australians to kill, If ISIS is defeated in the Middle East will they return home to kill?
 
Back
Top