Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 62
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,651

    who's a bigger threat to the world?

    Is the Bush Administration or Saddam Hussein a bigger threat to the world at this current time?

    some interesting articles below:

    US tested chemicals on its forces

    Bush twists facts to fit, analysts say

    Please post you're views or any links, which can help us decide.
    Coreix™ | your solution™ www.coreix.net - 08000226734 - ISO27001 Certified
    Dedicated Servers - Colocation - Secure Cages - Enterprise & Managed Solutions - Clustering - LoadBalancing - High Availability - Hosted Exchange 2007
    NEW Tier III London DC with power sourced from 100% renewable sources, N+N UPS, N+1 Chillers and CRAC units, Mist Fire Suppression, Biometric and Man Trap security to all data areas

  2. #2
    Bush.
    Get your web design questions answered: Web Design Forums at http://www.turtletips.com/forums/ ; vBulletin Board of the Month.

  3. #3
    http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?...=1032785967056

    and hes not hiding anything?

    and dont get me wrong, bush is just as mental, but that nutter likes us. forgive me for not pissing off the most powerful nation on the planet

    put basically, saddam surrendered and agreed to terms, he has then broken those terms. if you dont want to face terms dont surrender.
    Last edited by richy; 10-12-2002 at 11:34 AM.
    --
    Rich

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,299
    uh oh... I sense a large debate coming on.

  5. #5
    “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trial

  6. #6
    nice quote i wasnt posting that link to start a mass debate or prove anyone wrong, just something i'd found. now even i know theres a lot of propaganda in there. thats plain to see, but its a govt site, and there are solid facts in there, read the timeline about all the refusals etc.
    --
    Rich

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,991
    I'll play Devil's Advocate here...

    The U.S. has signed weapons agreements over the years, and openly broke them.

  8. #8
    Originally posted by richy
    but its a govt site, and there are solid facts in there, read the timeline about all the refusals etc.
    so, that simple, eh?
    Death penalty for refusal?
    I wonder how many times Bush could be shot for breaking international agreements?

    Weapons of mass destruction? Guess, who's the leader in production?

    Human rights abuses? hah, makes me cry and laugh at the same time.

    Welcome to the real world...

  9. #9
    heh calm down , im merely stating the position, not totally advocating it,
    http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf
    page 16 - and the yanks use weapons against their own people, so did iraq.
    why cant you debate without going over the edge, its people like you that spoil an open exchange of information for everyone.

    who mentioned death? i want to see sadam removed. i'd like to see iraq prosper and its people live well. id also like a shot at the same thing myself thats all.

    try not condemming everybody who you dont think agrees with your ramblings at the first glance.
    --
    Rich

  10. #10
    don't you worry. I'm calm. I'm driving V8 and need cheap gas too.

    Though, I wonder, how comes that all patriots suddenly have electrical cars?

    I guess they're really such a nice angels, and wanna make people of Iraq happy.

    yeah, that must be

    Now back to topic. Both, Bush and Saddam are dangerous maniacs and morons.

    Looks like evolution got scared of both and simply jumped over...

  11. #11
    heh good, i wasnt intending to provoke any arguments, i was just sharing a link.
    yes theyre both mental. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute. etc
    --
    Rich

  12. #12
    I don't know why so many Americans insist on being attacked before eliminating a threat. The cold war is over, and with it goes MAD. The basis of foreign policy is now pre-emptive action. When we see a threat, it will be disarmed. I fully support the Bush administration, as I don't want to sit he twidling my thumbs waiting for another September 11th, which will be exponitionally worse then the first time.
    Justin Heiser
    www.hostakron.com
    Affordable and reliable web hosting solutions

  13. #13
    why don't you go and shot neighbour's dog? He might bite you one day...

    Ahh, don't forget to beat the neighbor too, 'cause he might beat you 'couse you shot his doggie

  14. #14
    if the neighbours making nbc weapons in his garden you might have a case but your average next door neighbours not usually into nuclear weapons , unless the states got really bad recently
    --
    Rich

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Leesburg, VA
    Posts
    3,205
    Originally posted by HostAkron
    The basis of foreign policy is now pre-emptive action. When we see a threat, it will be disarmed. I fully support the Bush administration, as I don't want to sit he twidling my thumbs waiting for another September 11th, which will be exponitionally worse then the first time.
    How very Borg of you .

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Leesburg, VA
    Posts
    3,205
    Originally posted by richy
    if the neighbours making nbc weapons in his garden you might have a case but your average next door neighbours not usually into nuclear weapons , unless the states got really bad recently
    India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons...why don't we bomb them? China has nuclear weapons and they really don't like us, why don't we bomb them...oh yea, they could probably kick our butts. First rule of bullydom, only pick fights with kids you can beat.

  17. #17
    Allan you forgot North Korea . The reason we don't attack them is because pakistan helped the U.S. Take care of Afghanistan, and the reason we don't fight India is because we have agreements with them, also same thing for pakistan. But IRAQ the U.S. is going to need oil sooner or later also they know oil is money. There basicly turning the world into an monopoly game. You take the money you take control. Thats how I look at it, and I'm not really sure if the U.S. Should attack iraq or not, although we defiently don't want to wait untill they do more damage then they would have if we prevented the thing at a earlier stage.

    *Drum rolls*

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Leesburg, VA
    Posts
    3,205
    Originally posted by ChickenSteak
    Thats how I look at it, and I'm not really sure if the U.S. Should attack iraq or not, although we defiently don't want to wait untill they do more damage then they would have if we prevented the thing at a earlier stage.

    I agree completely, except that by starting a war with them we might be provoking Iraq into using weapons that they would not have used if we left them alone...

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Kalamazoo
    Posts
    33,190
    Is ned starting threads under different names?





    Now back to your regularly scheduled programming . . . .
    There is no best host. There is only the host that's best for you.

  20. #20
    india and pakistan arent headcases who have been banned from developing them under terms of a surrender. saddam has lost it completely. thats if he ever had it. now your cowboy president may be a picknick short of a sandwich but better the devil you know.
    --
    Rich

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,651
    All I goto add to this, is when the US are making the point that Saddam broke 16 UN resolutions, WHY???

    Dont they look at Israel that has broken 226 UN Resolutions, all I goto say is DOUBLE STANDARDS...

    Until the Israel issue is not resolved the middle east will never be in peace, Israel is the cause of all current problems, when ever an issue arrises in the Middle East, the first thing that is asked for is Israel to leave the occupied land, and to full fill the 226 UN resolutions.

    What does Bush think, Sadaam will not react to a war, the first thing he will do is drop everything he's got on Israel, the US is provoking a sleeping giant, to start WW3.


    By the way, if you're posting then please, advise who you think is the bigger threat, Bush or Sadaam
    Coreix™ | your solution™ www.coreix.net - 08000226734 - ISO27001 Certified
    Dedicated Servers - Colocation - Secure Cages - Enterprise & Managed Solutions - Clustering - LoadBalancing - High Availability - Hosted Exchange 2007
    NEW Tier III London DC with power sourced from 100% renewable sources, N+N UPS, N+1 Chillers and CRAC units, Mist Fire Suppression, Biometric and Man Trap security to all data areas

  22. #22
    Originally posted by richy
    ...but better the devil you know.
    ...until he accuses me of being a comunist because I don't agree with him, whilst his liver is falling apart from too much russian vodka, and his teeth are yellow from chewing too many cuban cigars...

    As it looks like, he'll always find the reason for having a war. But soon or later we'll run out of evil states worth attacking them and then whole thing will turn into a nightmare.

    Hopefully I'll find some wisdom until then and stop paying taxes. The guy is wasting way too much money. Travel expenses for few tough guys and $5 bullet should do the trick.

    Don't see any reason to spend in excess of 200 billions just to remove one bad guy...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    298
    http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html

    How about a timeline of chemical tests on US civilian and military human subjects.

    1931-1997

    I'm sure the rest is classified and continues to this day.
    eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwww it's broke

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    604
    Saddam *will* be a bigger problem *if* he does what Bush is 'setting us up for'.

  25. #25
    Originally posted by cabalstudios
    By the way, if you're posting then please, advise who you think is the bigger threat, Bush or Sadaam
    well, one monkey is playing with thousands of warheads and the biggest army in the world, the other monkey wishes to have all those nukes and power... So which one is the bigger threat?

    We should throw few bananas in the arena. At least, monkeys would have legitimate reason to fight

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    298
    What I find even more interesting is the first thing to pop up here was Anthrax in the US Mail and to date where has it misterasly disapperaered too. Oh the next thing to spead like wildfire was West Nile Virus.

    Excerpt from my above link

    (Anthrax)

    1968 CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.

    (West Nile)

    1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.


    We as Americans are so blind to think the US government would never do wrong. I really people would open their f'n eye's.

    We the people of the United States have failed to keep corruption out of the government.

    "The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wyche, 1809.

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the
    right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
    to protect against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

    "Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin,
    eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwww it's broke

  27. #27
    If the a**holes that START the wars had to FIGHT the wars...there would be a whole lot less wars.

    Bush scares me more than Saddam...but I am sure there are people in Iraq that fear Saddam more than Bush.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,067
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the
    right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
    to protect against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson
    We citizens of the US are the General Militia, it is our duty and our obligation to control our leaders, not just by voting but by forced removal if necessary.

    Unfortunately we've gone so far astray from our original basics that we, the General Militia have absolutely no idea what is truth and what is fiction. We've been forced into a state of ignorance and dependence. We live stupidly, happily, and "let this guys in the know take care of business." We promote gun control laws like they are a good thing and give up our rights to protect our individual selves in favor of laziness because now that we can't have guns I don't have to teach my son the respect and responsibility required to exist and live a good life.

    I grew up pampered and sheltered from the rest of the worlds problems because it was "being handled by the guys who know." and now I can't friggin carry a gun without going through this huge beuarocratic B.S. process that was meant to keep the guns away from criminals? News flash, criminals commit crimes and are not bloody likely to be buying a gun "legally."

    That said, in all my ignorance and probable misinformation the best conclusion I can draw is that Sadam has had too much time to build his arsenal and we're doing too little too late. But I also feel that we have to do something.

    Wouldn't it have been fun to see the requested "Duel" take place? Lay the feud between Saddam and Mr. Bush on the line and let them duke it out TEXAS style. It would probably suck to say byebye to Mr. Bush, and then we'd have Cheney as our Acting President, but I'll bet the Pepsi commercial during the half-time intermission would be grand.

    In the end, I'm just a confused citizen who used to have an opinion but now doesn't know which way is up. The majority of our politial leaders are lying to us or are not at liberty to say, so how can I possibly draw an accurate conclusion based on my own principles that reflect the situation as it really is? I can't. I'm ignorant, and I really wish McCain was our president right now.
    <!-- boo! -->

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,136
    Sadaam is a bigger threat to the world because he has shown the world his true defiance of the UN inspectors. If he simply would have allowed the inspectors to do their jobs without interfering so may times, this would not even be an issue. All he has to do is open his doors and let the world check to see his arsenal as that is all they want to do. I draw parallels between Sadaam and the little trouble maker kid in 1st grade who always wants to rebel and try to get noticed. All he wants to do is cause trouble, like the idiot that he is. Sadaam is the one who is prevoking the US into war, and my hat goes off the President Bush for taking such a proactive role in this matter, instead of being a pacifist like Clinton, who should have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance.

    -Steven
    http://www.insiderhosting.com
    BGP Blend of Telia, GTT, Zayo, and Cogent in One Wilshire, Los Angeles!
    True Definition of Managed Hosting
    Proudly Offering Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers, and Co-location

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    298
    DizixCom,

    Very True, but the GOVERNMENT is taking over the milita. Here's the Laws in Missouri. YES if you form a Milita in Missouri, you are under the control of the state government.

    Missouri Revised Statutes
    TITLE V
    MILITARY AFFAIRS AND POLICE
    August 28, 1999


    41.050. The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, who, in the case of the unorganized militia and the Missouri reserve military force, shall be more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-four, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enrolled or commissioned therein, and who, in the case of the organized militia, shall be within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the armed forces of the United States, except that this section shall not be construed to require militia service of any persons specifically exempted by the laws of the United States or the state of Missouri.

    41.070. 1. The militia of the state is divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

    2. The organized militia shall consist of the following:

    (1) Such elements of the land and air forces of the National Guard of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of Army or Air, and accepted by the state, hereinafter to be known as the national guard and the air national guard;

    (2) Such elements of the reserve naval forces of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of the Navy, and accepted by the state, hereinafter called the naval militia; and the

    (3) Missouri reserve military force, when organized.

    3. The unorganized militia shall consist of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia.

    41.120. The governor of the state, by virtue of his office, is the commander in chief of the militia of the state, except such portion thereof as may at times be in the service of the United States.

    41.490. The governor shall have the power to organize from the unorganized militia of Missouri a reserve military force for duty within or without the state to supplement the Missouri national guard or replace it when it is mobilized in federal service. The Missouri reserve military force may be used to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, repel invasion, suppress lawlessness, and provide emergency relief to distressed areas in the event of earthquake, flood, tornado, or actual or threatened enemy attack or public catastrophe creating conditions of distress or hazard to public health and safety beyond the capacity of local or established agencies. The force shall consist of such organized troops, auxiliary troops, staff corps and departments as the governor deems necessary. The governor shall prescribe the strength and composition of the various units of the same, uniform and insignia and the qualifications of its members, and shall have the power to grant a discharge therefrom for any reason deemed by him sufficient.

    Sorry for taking this kind of off topic, but I feel as though our government has, is, and will continue to overstep it's bounds in the international, state, federal levels.

    Just like the rise and fall of many other forms of government ours will fall like the rest with this continued path of domination.
    eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwww it's broke

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Nahariya, Israel
    Posts
    170
    All I goto add to this, is when the US are making the point that Saddam broke 16 UN resolutions, WHY???

    Dont they look at Israel that has broken 226 UN Resolutions, all I goto say is DOUBLE STANDARDS...
    You are obfuscating facts here.
    We are talking about Security Council resolutions, and not regular General Assembly resolutions.
    In the case Israel broke about 35, and the 16 of Saddam stands still.
    In any case, have you ever looked at the resolutions Israel broke? Ever thought about what you would do if you were Israel?
    The only double standard here is that Israel is getting slammed by the UN for nothing, so kudos for the US ignoring the resolutions Israel broke.

    Also, Israel is not a threat and not an enemy of the united states, so it is actually the opposit of double standard not to attack Israel.
    It is doing what's best for your interests.
    What are the chances that Israel will launch a nuke on the united states, or any other western nation?
    If anything, Israel is like a target that concentrates most of the Islamic Fundementalists, something that draws a lot of attention from the "Evilness" of the United States and Europe, as western cultures.

    Until the Israel issue is not resolved the middle east will never be in peace, Israel is the cause of all current problems, when ever an issue arrises in the Middle East, the first thing that is asked for is Israel to leave the occupied land, and to full fill the 226 UN resolutions.
    Wait... Because Israel was attacked on the first day it was proposed a land, Israel is the cause of the problems?
    I thought it was all those Isalmic Dictatorships and never keep their hands off from funding terror organizations around it that are the problem.

    The entire cause for the occupied territories conflict is the build up of Arab armies around Israel's borders in May 1967, before the June war.
    Let me count... hmm... I remember 6 and a half Egyptian divisions in the Sinai alone.
    And what is this entire double standard you are showing?
    Count the number of resolutions the UN Slammed on Egypt and Jordan when they occupied those territories. NIL. One big, fat, ZERO.
    That's not double standard?
    How about Syria, one of the top Human Rights violators in this world, AND a nation who treats the Palestinian refugees more badly than Israel, being the president of the Security council?
    Wait... How about SUDAN, the CAPITAL of slavery, being the President of the UN Human Rights comittee? And THAT'S not double standard?

    What does Bush think, Sadaam will not react to a war, the first thing he will do is drop everything he's got on Israel, the US is provoking a sleeping giant, to start WW3.
    Saddam is not a giant, yet. But he will be once he gets his hands on a functioning Nuclear Weapon.
    It's better to handle the problem before it does become serious.
    Israel has the right to respond to Saddam, that is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam needs to be replaced and his Weapons abolished before he can blackmail western powers AND Israel with nuclear weapons.
    If England would attack Germany before Hitler's army got real strong, that would also cause WW2.
    But they didn't, because of that appeasement policy you are so prowd of, and guess what that caused.
    6 Million dead Jews, 5 million other minorities and 49 Million dead Chinese, English, Germans, Americans, Japanese and others.
    Now, when you preffer to wait for Saddam to get a nuke that he can detonate, the result will be the same if we follow your advice.


    By the way, if you're posting then please, advise who you think is the bigger threat, Bush or Sadaam
    Hmm, without being the righteous hypocrit I'll say Saddam.
    Your revisionist news sources and self-righteous hypocritic attitude does not effect my common sense.

  32. #32
    and you say 35 is nothing? hypocrite
    most UN resolutions to Israel still stand, or maybe they've been <removed>, and got them waived.

    What about when Israel bombed a refugee camp and killed hundreds, a UN security resolution was passed to allow UN inspectors, to check the site, but NOOOOOO <removed>, told the UN to ****off, so what was there to hide? why did the UN not use force at that time?

    You talk about being Israel, there is no Israel, its occupied land, and <removed>?

    You say Israel is no threat, like US said Saddam was no threat, when they supplied him with all his weapons and knowledge to fight the cold war with Iran, what happened there?

    You're just two faced, doing everything for money and power, and dont forget OIL, when it best suits the US.

    Why would Israel want to attack any western country, with nukes and weapons, when it can do it without getting noticed, Sept 11, may I recall, all Israeli <removed> were off work the day the attack happened, hold on I think that was a coincidence, as it happens to be I lost someone in that attack, <removed>.

    Who says to you that Saddam is going to fire his nukes? let me guess maybe the Bush Administration told you that, the US is the ONLY country to fire any nukes to this current date, and you call Saddam a threat, lol

    You and common sense, lol, its what is feeded into you're mind, that makes you talk like that, not you're fault, you're all like that.

    EDIT: who killed the chinese, the americans did, called a nuclear bomb.

    EDIT: Another thing Israel has no right to respond to anyone, <removed>.
    Last edited by Chicken; 10-13-2002 at 12:18 PM.

  33. #33
    Originally posted by insiderhosting
    Sadaam is a bigger threat to the world because he has shown the world his true defiance of the UN inspectors. If he simply would have allowed the inspectors to do their jobs without interfering so may times, this would not even be an issue. All he has to do is open his doors and let the world check to see his arsenal as that is all they want to do. I draw parallels between Sadaam and the little trouble maker kid in 1st grade who always wants to rebel and try to get noticed. All he wants to do is cause trouble, like the idiot that he is. Sadaam is the one who is prevoking the US into war, and my hat goes off the President Bush for taking such a proactive role in this matter, instead of being a pacifist like Clinton, who should have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
    -Steven
    Steven,

    Iraq, isnt the only country to defy UN resolutions, Israel has defied more, and a lot more recently than Iraq.

    Iraqs resoultions are 8 years old, only recently was there a UN Security Resolution passed against Israel to allow UN Inspectors to visit a bombed refugee camp, and the Israel told the UN to ****off, and nothing has been done since.

    Saddam has said he will allow inspectors back in, why the **** dosent US understand that? and you're saying Saddam wants a war, lol

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Nahariya, Israel
    Posts
    170
    and you say 35 is nothing? hypocrite
    most UN resolutions to Israel still stand, <removed>, and got them waived.
    Practice some in reading. I never said they are nothing.
    <removed: reply to above>

    What about when Israel bombed a refugee camp and killed hundreds, a UN security resolution was passed to allow UN inspectors, to check the site, but NOOOOOO <removed>, told the UN to ****off, so what was there to hide? why did the UN not use force at that time?
    Israel never bombed a refugee camp, <removed>.
    After more than 50 Israelis died in passover due to Suicide Bombings, Israel decided to conduct an extensive operation to eliminate terrorist sources inside refugee camps.
    First, let's open with the fact that if terrorists would not use refugee camps as their bases this entire thing would not happen.
    Second of all, during the operation Palestinian sources and biased UN and Press reporters said Israel is "massacaring" hundreds inside those refugee camps.
    All those claims were proved to be false when the operation ended, and the Palestinain Authority declared that no more then 50 Palestinians died, and most of them were militants.
    Actually, an operation which was carefull taken was notorious as a massacre due to lousy press.

    You talk about being Israel, there is no Israel, its occupied land, <removed>
    Most of Israel's lands were British Mandate lands or Jewish Bought lands.
    Soem of it is a result of wars the Israelis didn't start.
    And the rest of it was never appended, such as the West Bank and Gaza.

    You say Israel is no threat, like US said Saddam was no threat, when they supplied him with all his weapons and knowledge to fight the cold war with Iran, what happened there?
    Not being an idiot, I guess he changed from not being a threat to being a threat.
    In the same way Bin Laden changed.
    Iraq was never friendly to the United States, nor was Bin Laden, but their fights were good for Anti-communist and Anti-Suni US interests.
    Things change, and now they are a threat. Saying that does not make you a hypocrit, it makes you a person who knows to learn from his mistakes.

    You're just two faced, doing everything for money and power, and dont forget OIL, when it best suits the US.
    I don't understand what Oil has to do with the issue.
    Free Oil Trade is already ensured for some time, and if the US wanted to invade for Oil, it would better suit invading or occupying a failing african country. More friendly population there, and more enriched oil sources.

    Why would Israel want to attack any western country, with nukes and weapons, when it can do it without getting noticed, Sept 11, may I recall, all Israeli <removed> were off work the day the attack happened, hold on I think that was a coincidence, as it happens to be I lost someone in that attack, <removed>
    <removed: reply to above>
    I am Jewish, and I lost someone I know in that incident.
    Jews were in September 11 as well as Christians and Muslims, and whoever was brain washing you you should snap out of it.
    Racism hurts.

    Who says to you that Saddam is going to fire his nukes? let me guess maybe the Bush Administration told you that, the US is the ONLY country to fire any nukes to this current date, and you call Saddam a threat, lol

    You better wake up from any dream you are in, boy.
    Saddam is a threat, he is a proven maniac with proven agression and documented megalomania.

    You and common sense, lol, its what is feeded into you're mind, that makes you talk like that, not you're fault, you're all like that.
    I'm not feeded with anything, nor do I wish to be, thank you.

    EDIT: who killed the chinese, the americans did, called a nuclear bomb.
    It was the Japanese who killed the Chinese, and the Americans who killed some of the Japanese. Ignorant
    Last edited by Chicken; 10-13-2002 at 12:24 PM.

  35. #35
    who killed the chinese, the americans did, called a nuclear bomb.
    did you go to school?
    unless heroshima and nagasaki were subject to some serious landslides theyre in JAPAN not china. before you open your mouth check your facts.
    --
    Rich

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,121
    Let me make something clear. If you (you being members who post in this thread), choose to post racist remarks, you will be banned, no warnings. Discussion is one thing, racist dribble is another, and those who cannot control themselves will be banned.
    HostHideout.com - Where professionals discuss web hosting.

    • Chicken

  37. #37
    sorry Chicken.

    Richy, woops they all look the same to me

    IceBlaZe: what different are you from the terrorists? you do exactly what they do? you have defined the word "terrorist" you suit you're own needs, the real terrorists are the ones that get away with it in public.

    You got some guts to say Israel never bombed a refugee camp, as it happens to be thats exactly what they did.

    It just happens to be that Yasser ArreFART has been bought out by the Israelis, and is playing the game that the Israelis want him to, he not realising that all it does it make him look even worse. (silly fool)



    Lets add onto this topic, how can anyone go into anyones country and change the leadership, what gives them the right to do that?

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Kelowna B.C.
    Posts
    1,687
    Hey Jedito - do we dare enter the fray??
    Hosting.Express | Affordable Web and Email Hosting
    Shared | Reseller | 24/7 Support | NSA Free
    SPECIAL OFFER - domain name, email and cPanel web hosting = $3.73 per month | Contact Us: 1-800-861-1888

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Nahariya, Israel
    Posts
    170
    IceBlaZe: what different are you from the terrorists? you do exactly what they do? you have defined the word "terrorist" you suit you're own needs, the real terrorists are the ones that get away with it in public.
    If I did what they do, I'd be already dead, and as much a much bigger amount of Palestinians.

    You should snap out of whatever brainwashed you and realize that as a matter of fact Israel is showing restraint.
    How many Israeli "Operations" do you hear of, despite the fact that the a priori target of the Palestinians are civilians?
    Look at a breakdown of the Palestinian casualties, over 70% of them are Militants.

    Look at a breakdown of the Israeli casualties, over 70% of them are innocent civilians.
    So where do you get the right to compare the moral relevancy of the two sides?
    Last time I heard an M-16 works against a soldier aswell as it works against a Civilian. Yet most of the Israeli targets are civilians.
    Can you say the same about the Palestinian side? Most of their casualties are civilians?

    The real terrorists are those who butcher civilians in purpose.
    Not the ones trying to survive suicide bombings.

    You got some guts to say Israel never bombed a refugee camp, as it happens to be thats exactly what they did.
    ...UN report quashed Jenin massacre theories
    August 2 2002





    Jerusalem: Israel said today that a UN report on the battle it fought with Palestinian forces in the West Bank refugee camp of Jenin buried Palestinian allegations of a "massacre".

    Senior foreign ministry official Dabiel Taub said the report, released today, also pointed the finger at the Palestinian Authority for allowing hardline militant groups to operate out of areas under its control.

    "This report, like a lot of other initiatives in the United Nations, was a response to these allegations of a massacre that had taken place in Jenin, and the report is absolutely categorical that there was no such thing," Taub told AFP.

    Palestinian minister Saeb Erakat had charged during the battle, when Israel sealed off the entire town and fought its way through the narrow streets of the camp, that around 500 people had been killed.

    Details of the report leaked in advance indicated that 52 Palestinians and 23 Israeli troops were killed in the nine-day fight. Around half of the Palestinians were civilians.




    advertisement

    advertisement
    Palestinians based their charges on the Israeli army's use of helicopter gunships, tanks and military bulldozers which reduced a large part of the refugee camp to ruins.

    Israel said the Palestinian fighters from hardline factions had used the camp as a launching pad for suicide bombers who have caused devastation in Israel and had booby-trapped the town to hinder their advance.

    "The report is decisively clear on the international legal obligations of the Palestinian Authority to not only not engage in terrorist acts itself but to prevent any acts of terrorism emanating from areas under its control against Israelis," said Taub.

    "For us those are two crucial findings not just to clear up what happened in Jenin, but to pave the way for how we proceed in the future," he said.

    The report also criticises Israel for hindering relief services trying to enter the camp during and after the fighting.

    Taub admitted there were lessons to be learned from the fighting in early April, but also blamed Palestinian hardliners for allegedly using ambulances to smuggle weapons and fighters.

    AFP ...


    There you go. No need to say thank you

    It just happens to be that Yasser ArreFART has been bought out by the Israelis, and is playing the game that the Israelis want him to, he not realising that all it does it make him look even worse. (silly fool)
    Arafat has been bought by the Israelis?
    That's the most ridicolous claim I have heard in my life.
    Where do you get your information from, Al Jazeera? Arabnet?

    Did it ever come to your head that, not arguing the fact Arafat founded the PLO, a terrorist organization, he is a terrorist himself?
    That he doesn't want to see Israel exist, as much as he hates to admit it?

    No, no way. It must be the bad jews, excuse me, Israelis, that "Bought" Arafat.

    You sure can twist around and stretch logic only so the Jews/Israelis fit your racialist and prejudice opinion.

    But whatever. I guess common sense still haven't reached your mind

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    544
    I think that stupid people and those who think the world owes them something (both in the same group, maybe) are the most dangerous.

    Ignorance is only bliss to the point where you have nothing left but the chains that bind you.
    Feelings are not tools for rational thought.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •