View Full Version : The Newsmakers
1stFlight
11-23-03, 04:37 PM
Highly unlikely that this page is safe for work.
http://www.maktab-al-jihad.com/videos/videos2.htm
Only the videos towards the bottom of the page work. Discuss.
vampireuk
11-23-03, 04:42 PM
Definately not safe for work, although the Russian soldier was killed by Chechyen rebels.
Edit: Rather blatant and also stupid propaganda for the Israli videos. Anyone else happen to notice one soldier been chased by a whole group of people throwing rocks at him back to his armoured jeep?
I don't understand the point of this post. If you are pointing that Islam is a religion of death then maybe you have a point.
ih8mblogins
11-23-03, 06:32 PM
The here and now getting ugly: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/23/sprj.irq.main/index.html
1stFlight
11-23-03, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by UDawg
I don't understand the point of this post. If you are pointing that Islam is a religion of death then maybe you have a point.
How do you derive that Islam is a religion of death when we as a majority Christian nation just waged an illegal war killing thousands of innocents?
Btw, the overall point of this post was to show the news CNN and Fox don't.
Wait a minute in earlier posts you and the left say we are not a Christian nation. I'm confused now.
BTW your logic is silly. What you said is a point of view not fact.
It's a difference between a nation being funded on a certain religion and whether said nation consists of a majority of a certain religion.
1stFlight
11-23-03, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by UDawg
Wait a minute in earlier posts you and the left say we are not a Christian nation. I'm confused now.
BTW your logic is silly. What you said is a point of view not fact.
Nope, no point of view ...it's fact. Since Iraq was no threat to us, nor was it going to be in the immediate future. We cannot justify going to war with them. Care to debate that?
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Nope, no point of view ...it's fact. Since Iraq was no threat to us, nor was it going to be in the immediate future. We cannot justify going to war with them. Care to debate that?
We have debated that to death. That issue is an impass.
BTW we still have that memo that the CIA backed up as being truthfull. There is more to the whole war on terrorism than you and I know at this point. Your conclusions are short sighted and ill-informed. Unless you have access to the CIA, DOD, NSA and other forgein intelligence agencies I would wait to see how it all plays out.
Originally posted by Humus
It's a difference between a nation being funded on a certain religion and whether said nation consists of a majority of a certain religion.
Oh no you don't get off that easy. People on this forum flatly deny this is a Christian nation.
Originally posted by UDawg
We have debated that to death. That issue is an impass.
BTW we still have that memo that the CIA backed up as being truthfull.
I thought it was shown that the CIA and the pentagon both give little credence to the memo... :confused:
when did the CIA decide to endorse it ? their own report contained nothing of note other than this could have been done... he could have been doing this... he may have thought about asking his friends neighbor about that and the same...
No one ever said it was false info. The DOD gave a blanket statement that didn't say much.
You might have info I don't but as it stands for me. I am not sure what to make of that memo. I don't think it is concrete and I don't discount it either.
Originally posted by UDawg
No one ever said it was false info. The DOD gave a blanket statement that didn't say much.
You might have info I don't but as it stands for me. I am not sure what to make of that memo. I don't think it is concrete and I don't discount it either.
you obviously think its true for whatever reasons and believe it paints Iraq as being exactly what bush would like it to be...
the feith report has not been supported by the pentagon... they press release I saw on the news stated they did not believe the report was accurate... the CIA itself also said much the same...
I think it has leads and what not but it is a clear case of taking some information and packaging it to make it look a lot like things were as said all along...
So what was said all along was a lie?
I said i am not sure but from what I read it is in line with what we knew about Iraq from at least 5 years ago.
Originally posted by UDawg
So what was said all along was a lie?
I said i am not sure but from what I read it is in line with what we knew about Iraq from at least 5 years ago.
if what we knew about iraq was wholly true... we would not be having to second guess decisions...
there are problems with the report... some facts and rumours are interspersed with so much innuendo it renders the report a little off-kilter IMO...
if it did not have such a specific agenda and was more factually based... I would have no problems with it...
They said the problem with the memo was that it was raw data. It seems you are just wanting to discredit it because it does not fit your agenda. You are doing the same thing you accused me of. I am at least open to the possibility that it is false.
BTW there are people who second guess WWII. ;)
Originally posted by UDawg
They said the problem with the memo was that it was raw data. It seems you are just wanting to discredit it because it does not fit your agenda. You are doing the same thing you accused me of. I am at least open to the possibility that it is false.
BTW there are people who second guess WWII. ;)
I am discrediting the report for its agenda... the CIA report at least was not put forward with as much emphasis to how factually representative it was... it was discussed as such but not dismissed...
I am open to the possibility the report is correct... however I am not partial to the way the feith report was presented...
1stFlight
11-24-03, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by UDawg
We have debated that to death. That issue is an impass.
BTW we still have that memo that the CIA backed up as being truthfull. There is more to the whole war on terrorism than you and I know at this point. Your conclusions are short sighted and ill-informed. Unless you have access to the CIA, DOD, NSA and other forgein intelligence agencies I would wait to see how it all plays out.
You're trying to justify the deaths of thousands, billions of dollars in debt, compete loss of face in front of the world ..based solely on a memo????
:scarey:
Iraq was a threat to our Allies in the region. A threat to our allies is a threat to us. The war was certainly justified. I just hope that the weak stomach of your average American does not prompt an early withdrawl from the region and undermine the task at hand.
Iraq was asking for it. I think Saudi Arabia is too... and Syria... and Iran. Hopefully we use our occupation of Iraq to build and ICBM silo.
Originally posted by DaveW
Iraq was asking for it. I think Saudi Arabia is too... and Syria... and Iran. Hopefully we use our occupation of Iraq to build and ICBM silo.
That is dumb. We should just air mail the ICBMs to them. ;)
1stFlight
11-25-03, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by bknblk
Iraq was a threat to our Allies in the region. A threat to our allies is a threat to us. The war was certainly justified. I just hope that the weak stomach of your average American does not prompt an early withdrawl from the region and undermine the task at hand.
Really? Which ally did Iraq directly attack? Moreover if they were attacked why didn't they ask us publically for assistance? Every nation in that region has their own defense forces, why didn't they repsond? Why wasn't the UN asked for assistance? American soldiers shouldn't die for any other country but our own.
In WW2 we were directly attacked by Japan and Germany, Iraq had done no such things.
sytaylor
11-25-03, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Really? Which ally did Iraq directly attack? Moreover if they were attacked why didn't they ask us publically for assistance? Every nation in that region has their own defense forces, why didn't they repsond? Why wasn't the UN asked for assistance? American soldiers shouldn't die for any other country but our own.
The UN wasn't asked because their disputes are something they want to let simmer until the worlds eye is turned away. Much like mugabč they pick their times for doing things. Yeah they have defence force, but can you imagine the repercussions for the side that struck/ was stricken first?! :eek:
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Really? Which ally did Iraq directly attack?
israel..
:cool:
you never specified when they attacked :D
Originally posted by bknblk
I just hope that the weak stomach of your average American does not prompt an early withdrawl from the region and undermine the task at hand.
I am sure that an early withdrawal will take place regardless of what happens... specially with all the accelerated plans in the works and the timetables being pushed up..
saddam was removed but we just painted a bigger bullseye on us and our allies...
as far as being a threat to our allies... that was not quite the impression one would get looking @ the situation... it started off as threat to US national security and concurrently global peace due to wmd's and expanded to include a humanitarian goal...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.