To have Infidel Soldiers occupying, desecrating, and destroying the Holy Land of Mecca, the Holiest Site of Islam, would have released total Hell world-wide.
“Hands-off” Saudia Arabia has little to do with being “in the Saudi’s Pockets…”
Mufasa
I didn’t know lixy was an arab muslim. That explains his use of the term zionist entity. I was going to say if he didn’t want to refer to the State of Israel as Israel why doesn’t he just say “The Jews”. If you are going to trash the jews at least have the balls to call them the jews instead of some punkass term like “the zionists”.
I had wrongly assumed he was another blond haired, blue eyed, jew hating bitch, like the ones who tried to kill my parents during the blitz. Instead he has more in common with the bitches who forced my parents to sleep on a concrete floor at Heathrow last night. Thanks for the headsup thunderbolt.
I have a lot of freinds who are Iraqi. Thanks to them I am under no illusions about Sadaam.
During the first gulf war my best freinds father would watch CNN and cheer every time a bomb went off in Baghdad. He was overjoyed thinking Sadaam was finally going to get took out and he could go back and see his family in the old country. All you guys who want to talk about how bad it was to remove Sadaam should talk to some people who actually lived under Sadaam.
Sadaam tried to assassinate President Bush. That was a direct attack upon the leadership of the United States. That is an act of war. Because president Clinton didn’t have the balls to do his duty and defend his office, the responsibility for dealing with Sadaam got passed on to Clintons successor.
Any world leader who would launch an assault upon the presidency of the United States, is a threat to the US that the US has the right to do something about.
It cost Alqaeda five hundred thousand dollars to pull of 9-11. Sadaam had billions of dollars in oil money and he held a grudge against the US over the gulf war. To say that Sadaam didn’t pose any danger to the US is a democrat fantasy used to motivate their base.
When Sadaam burned the Kuwaiti oil fields, the soot that was sent into the upper atmosphere affected weather patterns over the Indian Ocean. That year the Sri Lankan monsoon season was unusually severe and fifty thousand people died as a result.
Sadaam used WMD’s on the Kurds proving that he had them. On Charley Rose a few years ago they had an interesting discussion about the report by the Iraq study group. One of the things the study group determined is that Sadaams own people were telling him he had WMD’s. So even if America had an informer in the innermost circle of Sadaams government the information they would have learned is that Sadaam had WMD.
I realize that not finding WMD’s has become a liberal whining point, but they completely ignore the fact that Sadaam did nothing to dissuade people from thinking he had them.
Instead of whining people should be happy Sadaam didn’t use WMD’s and kill fifty thousand troops in first wave of the invasion.
The democrats and liberals have what is called a body bag mentality. They want us to do nothing until after we have taken a big hit.
We should remember that Howard Dean was a driving force behind this mentality in the democratic party.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I didn’t know lixy was an arab muslim. That explains his use of the term zionist entity. I was going to say if he didn’t want to refer to the State of Israel as Israel why doesn’t he just say “The Jews”. If you are going to trash the jews at least have the balls to call them the jews instead of some punkass term like “the zionists”. [/quote]
If it were the 80’s, I’d have referred to S.A. as the Apartheid regime. And were it the 30’s, I’d have referred to Germany as “Nazi Germany” or “the Third Reich”. Just like Iraq was “the Ba’athist regime” pre-2003 or the US were “Segregationist America” before the civil rights movement.
There is nothing derogatory (or as you so eloquently put it, “punkass”) in calling Israel a Zionist state. If you find it offending, it’s none of my business. Educate yourself on the matter instead of accusing me of trashing the Jews. You clearly don’t have a clue about Zionism. A couple of pointers: Orthodox Jews are against Zionism, and I consider Bush Jr. to be a Christian Zionist.
The State of Israel cannot in fact continue to exist unless it remains a Zionist State.
http://www.doingzionism.org.il/resources/view.asp?id=1365
Your shameless generalizations show your true colors.
Saddam was a monster. There’s no going around that.
What I have a problem with isn’t the toppling of the guy. I repeatedly hailed his removal as the one-good-thing that came out of the war). It gets trickier when you try to justify the deaths of so many innocents (on both sides!), or the haven that Iraq became for terrorists of all kind.
Was it worth it? No fucking way!
P.S: You claim that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush, and that, in your opinion, represents a cassus belli. I’m yet to see hard evidence that it was orchestrated by Saddam. Better yet, should I remind you how many heads of states the US tried to get rid off in the last half century?
I had a Lebanese rooommate who used to bombard me daily with rants about the zionists. When I politely asked him do you mean the jews he had a fit. Why? Because in our circle of freinds it wouldn’t have made him too popular to be spouting racist ideology.
By substituting the term jew for zionist he was able to get away with talking a lot of trash about the jews without people thinking he was a nazi.
I don’t think my freind is a racist, but it is really hard to tell what his true feelings are on the jews, because he never really talked about the jews. Although he talked about the zionists daily, when none of our jewish freinds were around.
Substituting zionist entity for the state of Israel is a politically correct way of saying you don’t think the jews should have their own homeland. It’s a PC way of saying you want to go back to the good old days of the wandering jews, where the jews were stateless and unable to raise an army defend to themselves from pogroms.
I bet you can sit around with your freinds in Sweden talking all day about the zionists. But if you were a skinhead with a swastica tattooed in the middle of your forehead they would leave you alone. I don’t like skinheads but at least they are unambiguous about what they believe in.
So that is why I say zionist entity or the zionists is a punkass term. It’s a way of expressing a racist ideology without picking up the baggage that goes along with it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
So that is why I say zionist entity or the zionists is a punkass term. It’s a way of expressing a racist ideology without picking up the baggage that goes along with it. [/quote]
In fact a zionist would more or less be a racist Jew. You argument is basically that you cannot critisize a Jew or Israel without being antisemitic, which is nonsense.
To demand that an everyone plays Israelian word games and abides by Isrealian definitions when describing Israels actions is beyond stupid.
That schtick works in Germany and Austria and infuriates people anywhere else.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I had a Lebanese rooommate who used to bombard me daily with rants about the zionists. When I politely asked him do you mean the jews he had a fit. Why? Because in our circle of freinds it wouldn’t have made him too popular to be spouting racist ideology. [/quote]
Lebanese harbor a lot of hatred towards Israelis. Their country was invaded numerous times by Israel, wrecked by the Palestinian refugee problem that triggered the civil war, and worst of all, fell pray to Islamists.
As for me, I’m Moroccan. The Arab nation least affected by the conflict, and the friendliest towards Tel-Aviv.
I disagree. Your argument would hold if all the Jews were Zionists. But that is not the case.
Jews are not a race.
That’s a good point. I have absolutely nothing against the Jews having a state of their own. However, it’s much harder for me to defend expropriation of land and innocents being made refugees for that cause. I think it would have been fair to penalize Germany for the Holocaust NOT the Arabs of the M.E.
My use of the term “Zionist state” isn’t an attempt to obfuscate things. Everything I say about it applies to Israel.
If you find my discourse ambiguous, try asking specific and direct questions instead of throwing around accusations and names. It’s a lot more constructive.
???
The terms “Zionist regime” and “Israel” are interchangeable. The terms “Zionists” and “Jews” are not. Moreover, I don’t recall using either terms (i.e: “Zionist entity” or “Zionists”) in this thread.
I have no sympathy for anti-Semites (being of Semitic heritage myself), and am usually very harsh on the likes of JustTheFacts or OKLAHOMA STATE. I’ll therefore kindly ask you to refer me exactly to the post where you think I used the term to express a “racist ideology”.
Sifu,
Heads up regarding Lixy. He’s obsessed with Israel, jews, zionism,.
In his post to you he cites to be specific… Careful with that. When you catch him lying, or call him out on some of the bullshit claims he makes, it will upset him. He does not like his expertise on these issues challenged. You’ll get used to his Taquiya pretty quickly though.
Note how he’ll turn a thread about the Near London Bombings into a debate about whether jews are a race…
[quote]orion wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And as for him being below our principals, is it our duty to invade every nation with a government we don’t like? Will China be next? Shall we just spread ourselves all over the globe?
Um, you have spread yourselves all over the globe…
[/quote]
It was a ‘kidding-on-the-square’ type of sarcasm. I was seriously asking, but at the same time being sarcastic, if that makes any sense.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
But, if you wanted to invade somewhere to ‘fight a war on terror’, Saudia Arabia would have been the place to be pre-Iraq war Post-9/11. It would have been stupid and childish, but it would have been more logical than a nation that had NOTHING to do with the attacks.
Though I am against the war on Iraq, I think it had something to do with Iraq having WMD’s and not cooperating with the UN more than it had to do with 9-11.
The war in Afghanistan was because of 9-11.
As far as invading Saudi Arabia goes…you think we are creating more terrorists because we are in Iraq, maybe Lixy could tell us what would happen if we invaded Saudi Arabia.
Bush is too much in bed with the Saudi royal family to ever have attacked there.
I think we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan and then went after al-qaeda into Pakistan. But, then you’d have people burning the flag and protesting like they did during Viet Nam when we chased the Commies into Cambodia. [/quote]
First of all I wasn’t actually advocating going into Saudi Arabia. I’m not retarded.
Secondly, I wouldn’t have been one of the flag burning protesters.
Chasing terrorists into a nation and invading a nation are different things.
And please, what WMD’s are you talking about? The one’s we didn’t find, or the one’s we sold to him?
[quote]lixy wrote:
The same crap as always.[/quote]
Tell me lixy, with all these rantings about politics, and only politics… do you ever set foot in a gym?
You ARE on a bodybuilding site after all.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
First of all I wasn’t actually advocating going into Saudi Arabia. I’m not retarded
Secondly, I wouldn’t have been one of the flag burning protesters.
Chasing terrorists into a nation and invading a nation are different things.
And please, what WMD’s are you talking about? The one’s we didn’t find, or the one’s we sold to him?[/quote]
I’m glad you’re not retarted.
Do you know anything about the Viet Nam war? If we chased terrorists into Pakistan, like we bombed Cambodia during Viet Nam, you’d be complaining we dragged another country into the war. It is a fact that Iran backs terrorism. Do you think we should attack them? If not, why support an attack on Pakistan?
About the WMD’s. What is your take? Did Saddam have them or not? Did we sell them to him or not? If we did, and he did, where are they? Can you still say we sold them to him if we didn’t find any?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Right. The Iranians dared emancipate themselves from a US backed dictatorship.
[/quote]
You say Iraq was better under Saddam because he was Pro-western and anti-islamist…well, we backed the Shah because he was Pro-western and anti-islamist.
Why is this right in one case and wrong in the other?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“Hands-off” Saudia Arabia has little to do with being “in the Saudi’s Pockets…”
Mufasa[/quote]
I don’t know. Read this:
[quote]lixy wrote:
While something had to be done, many things have gone wrong in NATO’s handling of the war. I would have preferred involving the UNSC. I also don’t think depleted uranium and cluster bombs were necessary.
[/quote]
Begars can’t be choosers…
But maybe you’re right. We could have used car bombs filled with shrapnel, kidnapped and beheaded innocent journalists and then attacked Serb churches with suicide bombers, all this while hiding among civilians.
You know, the “honorable” way to fight.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You say Iraq was better under Saddam because he was Pro-western and anti-islamist…well, we backed the Shah because he was Pro-western and anti-islamist.
Why is this right in one case and wrong in the other?[/quote]
That’s quite a strawman you got there. But I’ll play along…
Saddam pro-Western? Where the hell did you get that notion? Saddam was as secular a leader come in the middle east. Twisting that into “anti-Islamist” is quite a long shot.
That aside, Iran is entirely different. First, Mossadeq was democratically elected. Secondly, you actively supported the Shah in Iran. All I (and the majority of people on Earth) asked for in 2002/2003, is that you refrain from waging an unnecessary war that caused so many deaths. That is, we didn’t say “support Saddam”, we said “don’t bomb Iraqi kids and create a safe haven for terrorists”.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Begars can’t be choosers…[/quote]
Any chance you can put this in plain English?
Where would you come up with suicide bombers? Why would you use archaic car bombs when you got F-16’s? How can you talk about beheading innocent journalists when you actually blew up the headquarters of Serbian television killing at least 14 people?
Your logic is astoundingly feeble. Your attempts at being sarcastic are even worse.
For over a year I was bombarded by a daily stream of paranoid stories from rense.com about how the zionists are plotting to take over the world. Much of what I was bombarded with was lifted straight from the protocols of the elders of zion.
I don’t know if you have ever heard of rense but they present a point of view that every bit of trouble in the world has the zionists behind it. Alqaeda is zionists, George Bush beating John Kerry the zionists, the London bombings the zionists, the cold war the zionists did it, 9/11 the zionists it goes on and on and on.
This is why I am attacking the use of the term zionist. The misuse and abuse of the term has taken on a life of it’s own. There are entire conspiracy sites dedicated to the zionists and their evil plots to take over the world.
If you want to criticise the Jews or the Israelis go ahead, freedom of speech is very important. Just don’t go using code words that have ambiguous and extended meanings.
I have freinds who are Palestinian, so I do have sympathy for their plight. However I also realize that there have been a lot of bigots who have manipulated the situation to persue their predjudice. There is a lot the arab world could have done to make the situation easier for everybody.
Instead they have done everything they can to attack the Jews, while at the same time doing everything they can to keep the Palestinians in a fucked up situation. Just so they can say look at how awful the Jews are for what has happened to the Palestinians.
The Arab world covers an area that is bigger than the United States. But because a bunch of Arab muslim bigots can’t let the Jews live in peace in an area the size of Delaware, we almost had world war three between the US and the USSR in 1973. The entire human race was been endangered because of this.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
I don’t know if you have ever heard of rense but they present a point of view that every bit of trouble in the world has the zionists behind it. Alqaeda is zionists, George Bush beating John Kerry the zionists, the London bombings the zionists, the cold war the zionists did it, 9/11 the zionists it goes on and on and on. [/quote]
Never heard of that rense before. I understand what you mean though. The term has indeed been misused to shady ends. But don’t you take it out on me. I didn’t make the Zionist ideology up. It’s a dreadful one that forces the hand of destiny and justifies racism.
You actually attacked me, not my use of the term. Matter of fact, you didn’t even bother to reference the passage in which you thought my use of the term was ambiguous.
So…? What’s that gotta do with me?
We’ll have to disagree on this one. I reserve the right to refer to Israel as the “Zionist state” if I want to. It’s not a code word or an attempt to be ambiguous. It’s calling a spade a spade!
[quote]I have freinds who are Palestinian, so I do have sympathy for their plight. However I also realize that there have been a lot of bigots who have manipulated the situation to persue their predjudice. There is a lot the arab world could have done to make the situation easier for everybody.
Instead they have done everything they can to attack the Jews, while at the same time doing everything they can to keep the Palestinians in a fucked up situation. [/quote]
Absolutely. Arab leaders didn’t give a damn about the plight of the Palestinians. They just used it to further their own interests.
It’s much more complex than you make it seem. I’ll let you with a quote from a most famous Israeli.
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” – David Ben-Gurion
[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Saddam was primarily a Soviet client:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
And Saddam was used to hold Iran in check.
But this is old news. What I find odd is that if we take it on face value that dealing with Saddam was wrong, wouldn’t it be a good idea to correct the mistake?
Saddam was used to keep Iran in check?
The Iran that the US helped create by overthrowing the democratically elected government and backing a rather unplesant Monarch?
That Iran?
There is nothing in this old news worth thinking about before stirring shit up in that region?
Will you back Syria next to keep Iraq in check?
Or the Turkish military that is not at all happy that a new Kurdish nation is forming as their neighbour because so far they do not even acknowledge that Kurds even exist and might have their own language…
[/quote]
See Thunderbolt, it is allready beginning…
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/08/europe/08turkey.php
Which side will the US HAVE to be on in this conflict?
Out of pure necessity of course, not that the US had anything to do with creating it?
[quote]unbending wrote:
lixy wrote:
The same crap as always.
Tell me lixy, with all these rantings about politics, and only politics… do you ever set foot in a gym?
You ARE on a bodybuilding site after all.[/quote]
Actually, unbending, it would please you greatly to find out he follows a Waterbury TBT regimen. So you two have a great thing in common.
TBT… LOL