caputuring saddam has righted all the wrongs?

[spillmind]

hey Moi:

spare me your false sympathy. you sit here and chastise me for regrading other people's opinions, yet, the moderators rip me far worse than you caould have ever hoped i put you down, yet you make no mention of THAT being wrong. i'm pretty sure you'll miss that point too.

i gave up replying to any content in your posts, because you cannot respond to very simple questions.

as for you other guys:

deny it all you want. you won't find our dealings of the CIA on any of 'your' reputable sites. in fact, you won't even find much about that date i posted, either- why is that? don't be afraid of information. when the same story comes from distantly related sources, you are free to ignore the striking coincidence. i think it may have been eric who said the BBC wasn't even a good source! (i could be mistaken) ... but just because it doesn't fit into your agenda, doesn't make it NOT REAL. we don't like in 1984, though some of you may wish it so, if it kept the USA on top. where are you going to find a 'source' on the noriega thing? are you people saying THAT never happened either? amazing!

let's get this straight- this war is not about the "RIGHT THING"- it's about american global domination. at least have the wherewithal to admit it!

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by Spillmind
let's get this straight- this war is not about the "RIGHT THING"- it's about american global domination. at least have the wherewithal to admit it!
____________________ _____________________
You are an American yourself. The ninety percent of americans who have no such interests will always vote against this if it rears its head. Even Isreal's citizens struggle with the legitimacy of their miniscule settlements.

There was noone to vote against Saddam, and there is no nation to control Hamas. Now there will be a democratic government in Iraq, by our hands. That's one down.

 

[spillmind]

Now there will be a democratic government in Iraq

ahh an eternal optimist! first off, i am of the belief that if the majority of iraqis actually are allowed to vote (when will that be ) that they won't elect an american moderate! and if for some fluke an american sympathizer gets into office, he'll be assassinated!

when do *you* think there will be a legitamite democratic election in iraq?

 

[nbdysfu]

Um, ... june 2004?:

If I were an optimist I would have voted for Gore.

 

[nbdysfu]

The majority of Iraqis won't elect an American moderate, they'll elect an Iraqi moderate, probably a shiite. That's all guess work though. Chances are they may even be hostile against the U.S.. Again that's your optimistic guesswork.

 

[Annie]

Not sure where this quote originated,

The majority of Iraqis won't elect an American moderate, they'll elect an Iraqi moderate, probably a shiite. That's all guess work though. Chances are they may even be hostile against the U.S.

, but I figure it can't be much worse than the French....

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by spillmind
and if for some fluke an american sympathizer gets into office, he'll be assassinated!
_______________________ ______________________
My, my, my can everybody read this and see the desperation. Your optimism has truly become abhorrent, Spillmind.

 

[spillmind]

My, my, my can everybody read this and see the desperation.

is it really reaching that far? really?

we'll see what goes down in June 2004. i'm very anxious to see the reality of this 'democracy' you speak of.

 

[nbdysfu]

Yes it is reaching far on your part to hope that if a true iraqi democracy is created and the iraqis actually vote for a 'us sympathiser,' showing support for the us, someone will assassinate them.
I'm guessing the election time will probably be quite chaotic. The US and the rest of the coalition will probably have a major hand in keeping it civil. And I don't deny the possibility that later on when it succeeds we will be accused of picking the winner, just like we have been accused of inventing Saddam.

 

[spillmind]

Yes it is reaching far on your part to hope that if a true iraqi democracy is created and the iraqis actually vote for a 'us sympathiser,' showing support for the us, someone will assassinate them.

come on, man- i never said 'I HOPE' and if i wished death on anyone, i mean, really- do you think i would be the one standing against you all right now?!

i am only speculating on an environment that this type of thing is very condusive to. go ahead, think i wish death

inventing Saddam

...from never giving them any weapons or army munitions to not fight iran nor russia nor the turks nor did we have any hand in the shaping of the political arena of the middle east to no involment whatsoever in saddam coming to power- you must admit the 9-11 al qeada connection sounds rather comical!

 

[nbdysfu]

al Queder t'mater, Saddam was supporting terrorism in Isreal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm
A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7938
Then there’s the question of Iraq. The last time the world saw Saddam Hussein, the now dethroned if not deceased Iraqi tyrant was sending $25,000 reward checks to the family of Hamas homicide bombers. Back then, the appeasers who opposed the liberation of Iraq shrugged off the Saddam–Hamas connection. It wasn’t of American concern, they said, as Hamas kills only Israelis (a claim that wasn’t even true then, and which, even if it were, hardly makes the organization any less malignant). Hussein might support Hamas’ cause, they argued, but he would have nothing to do with the likes of al Qaeda, our real enemy in the War on Terror. In fact, they insisted, Islamofascist tyrants like Hussein are the sworn enemies of Islamofascist fanatics like Osama bin Laden.

So went the rationalization.

But lo and behold, Hussein and bin Laden share more in common than the appeasers were willing to admit. The ideological purists in Hamas obviously see no conflict in dealing with both. Hamas, the group Saddam subsidized, is all too eager to do business with al Qaeda, the group that pulled off 9-11. So similar are their sensibilities, their means, and their objectives that the two can quite comfortably share their membership rolls—and sponsors.

The unseemly string of relationships is a microcosm of the greater tangled web that is the Islamofascist enterprise. The connections between all the players—the states that support terrorism and the organizations that carry it out—are sometimes murky, sometimes erratic, but always present. The factions may have their own special interests and pet peeves, but for now, they have a common enemy that puts them squarely on the same page. They’ll worry about killing off each other after they’ve killed off the rest of us first.

To use Time’s pop-business lingo, Hamas is but a subsidiary of Islamofascism, Inc.—and that company "went global" long, long ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Weinkopf is an editorial writer and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News. To read his weekly Daily News column, click here. E-mail him at [email protected].
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7938

 

[NightTrain]

deny it all you want. you won't find our dealings of the CIA on any of 'your' reputable sites. in fact, you won't even find much about that date i posted, either- why is that? don't be afraid of information. when the same story comes from distantly related sources, you are free to ignore the striking coincidence.

Ummm... the CIA stripped the internet of information pertaining to that magical date??



Ohhh dammit. My sides hurt.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

al Queder t'mater, Saddam was supporting terrorism in Isreal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/2846365.stm
A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article...cle.asp?ID=7938
Then there’s the question of Iraq. The last time the world saw Saddam Hussein, the now dethroned if not deceased Iraqi tyrant was sending $25,000 reward checks to the family of Hamas homicide bombers. Back then, the appeasers who opposed the liberation of Iraq shrugged off the Saddam–Hamas connection. It wasn’t of American concern, they said, as Hamas kills only Israelis (a claim that wasn’t even true then, and which, even if it were, hardly makes the organization any less malignant). Hussein might support Hamas’ cause, they argued, but he would have nothing to do with the likes of al Qaeda, our real enemy in the War on Terror. In fact, they insisted, Islamofascist tyrants like Hussein are the sworn enemies of Islamofascist fanatics like Osama bin Laden.

So went the rationalization.

But lo and behold, Hussein and bin Laden share more in common than the appeasers were willing to admit. The ideological purists in Hamas obviously see no conflict in dealing with both. Hamas, the group Saddam subsidized, is all too eager to do business with al Qaeda, the group that pulled off 9-11. So similar are their sensibilities, their means, and their objectives that the two can quite comfortably share their membership rolls—and sponsors.

The unseemly string of relationships is a microcosm of the greater tangled web that is the Islamofascist enterprise. The connections between all the players—the states that support terrorism and the organizations that carry it out—are sometimes murky, sometimes erratic, but always present. The factions may have their own special interests and pet peeves, but for now, they have a common enemy that puts them squarely on the same page. They’ll worry about killing off each other after they’ve killed off the rest of us first.

To use Time’s pop-business lingo, Hamas is but a subsidiary of Islamofascism, Inc.—and that company "went global" long, long ago.

So I guess you'll say that the U.S. is a supporter of terrorism. We give millions to the Saudis and a lot of it goes to terrorism. How can we forget the U.S. giving millions to the Taliban prior 9/11? And I remember the CIA training UBL and Friends.
Black and White, isn't it?

 

[spillmind]

no NT, i wouldn't be so niave to assume the WHOLE WEB has been scoured to get rid of any association, but you've got to admit, that the books that are out, and the many other sources- CNN or not, are not simply hype- especially with the same claims from different sources. how can you just deny our involvement around the world so adamantly? seriously?!!

great post, PJ- so very true, though the bushies here have managed selective ignorance that simply boggles the mind!

 

[NightTrain]

So I guess you'll say that the U.S. is a supporter of terrorism. We give millions to the Saudis and a lot of it goes to terrorism.

To my knowledge, we don't give the Saudis any aid. They're a very wealthy kingdom.

How can we forget the U.S. giving millions to the Taliban prior 9/11?

What we gave the Taliban was humanitarian aid to help their poverty stricken masses. This was done through the U.N.

And I remember the CIA training UBL and Friends.

So very true. However, that was during the Cold War, and it was done to prevent the Soviets from spreading Communism into that region. Our plan worked, and they finally gave up.

Unfortunately, Spillmind's Crystal Ball hadn't been invented yet, so there was no way to forsee that we would reap the whirlwind.

I suppose instead of training and arming the fighters in Afghanistan, we could have deployed our own troops there to fight the Soviets directly and started WWIII. Would you rather that would have happened?

The Soviets could reach anywhere on the planet with their nukes, and your home state of Kansas would have been easily reachable.

 

[NightTrain]

no NT, i wouldn't be so niave to assume the WHOLE WEB has been scoured to get rid of any association, but you've got to admit, that the books that are out, and the many other sources- CNN or not, are not simply hype- especially with the same claims from different sources. how can you just deny our involvement around the world so adamantly? seriously?!!

Spilly, pull your head out of your ass for a minute.

Do you seriously think for one minute that if there was a legit story here that every major news organization around the world wouldn't be all over it like Clinton on an intern?

Professional news journalists are ruthlessly competitive, and a story like this would make someone from a nobody to an Ace Reporter.

What you've got here is a book that was published by 'muslimedia' and the only coverage of this is by a few small sites (most of them personal Geocities sites) and there was a total of 12 hits from google when I searched "Mohamoud A Shaikh". Not very promising results or impressive for the author of a book that was written in 1997.

NOT ONE story by ANY news outfit in the world. Even the sleazy news outfits didn't touch this one.

Think about it.

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
So I guess you'll say that the U.S. is a supporter of terrorism. We give millions to the Saudis and a lot of it goes to terrorism. How can we forget the U.S. giving millions to the Taliban prior 9/11? And I remember the CIA training UBL and Friends.
Black and White, isn't it? [/QUOTE]
_________________ _____________________
only if you're blind.

Saddam's support went directly and with the intention of supporting suicide bombing. It was his intent to have such an effect.

If the Saudis have actually chosen to use u.s. donations for the purpose of terrorism, they did not do it with the approval of the US.

Yes the US trained ubl and his ilk to use stingers against the russians in Afghanistan in the 80s. No, we did not train or support them to become terrorists. After their success against the russians we backed away from them. The Saudis have been u.s. allies and u.s. enemies. They have been for and against terrorists. Of late they have been pretty active against terrorism.

In response to your gripe about money to the Taliban, please post links to that info as I haven't heard it and am interested, but honestly, what country don't we give some kind of aid to through either our government or citizen's charity organizations?

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by spillmind
great post, PJ- so very true, though the bushies here have managed selective ignorance that simply boggles the mind!

"Al Gore invented Nationbuilding. We should have voted for him all along."

"Anything But Bush" sounds like selective ignorance to me.

 

[spillmind]

WAAAAahahahahahahaaa!!! Classic Spilly-With-His-Head-Up-His-Ass

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

thanks for the memories!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

thanks for the memories!

The tinfoil hat wearers are rejoicing everywhere, their leader has returned!