The Next Target in the War on Terrorism Should Be...

After Fox's recent (ahem Geraldo you suck!! ahem) truthfullness and posterity, I would imagine any network would play that tape simply because we would watch it.

CNN, NBC, ABC ??? FOX?? They would love to get it....

Hell the Oprah, O'Reilly, Couric, Stone, Barbara Walters and the rest would pay terrorists and Osama bin Laden himself millions for an interview.

If Mullah Omar is exonerated for some strange, bizarre, inhumane reason and John Walker Lindh, NBC, ABC, CBS etc. those savages will be ramming down their door with briefcases of money to interview them on television.

 

Al Jazerra has a bad rep here in the US because all we see from them is Bin Laden information. However, they do play US "propoganda" on their airwaves as well - the same stuff you see on our news outlets.

They just have no reason to play those portions of Al-Jazerra here because, really, who wants to see the same things over and over? Even Middle Easterners and Bin Laden supporters have blasted the network for giving both sides due face time.

 

Oh don't worry they did destroy Al Jazeera facilities in Kabul remember?

And Al Jazeera does the same thing American media outlets do. They do whatever they have to do to make money. They do the same thing FOX does except they appeal towards Arab folk not right winged facist fanatics.

 

Let me guess, boy....you're NOT Republican?

 

boy is a Hamas supporter, Blastoff. Definitely not a Republican.

 

and treeman is nazi who wants to kill iraqi kids

 

I want to remove Saddam and let the Iraqis decide what sort of government they want. In the long run, that will save alot more Iraqi kids than it will kill. You want to keep Saddam there, lift the sanctions, and allow him to develop his WMD. How many Iraqi kids do you think will be killed when the US retaliates for an Iraqi nuclear terrorism attack against US cities? Dumbass.

Nazi? Please provide some basis for that accusation. Be specific.

Here’s a link where you said that you supported the HLF:

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25884&perpage=30&pagenumber=4

The HLF, as everyone of course knows, has been shut down because of its financial support to Hamas. Are you going to tell me that you didn’t give them any money?

I also remember that you said that you thought that Hizbollah should be a legal entity. I could probably find that one, too…

You are a Hamas supporter. You have apparently given money to an organization that represents their primary fundraising effort in the US. Are you now going to tell me that you didn’t know that that’s what the HLF did? Somehow, considering your sympathies, I doubt that.

Oh yeah, the charges against the HLF are just BS. Right.

 

Actually I did not know HLF was accused of supporting Hamas and I do believe thats bs...I still like the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' part of the legal process.

I do believe Hizbullah should be a legit entity because in practically it is the only military that Lebanon has.

And Hamas is a product of its society. Don't expect kids who grow up in refugee camps to be intellectuals.

 

boy,

Then who did you think used the money that the HLF collected? I have never heard of HLF doing things in Palestine, just fundraising in the US. If they were letting the PRCS distribute, don't you think they would have announced that?

What do you think the name of fundraising arm of Hamas is called?


Mango

 

boy:

Innocent until proven guilty, fine. But I'm glad they're shut down in the meantime.

Does the possibility (almost certainty) that they were providing funds to Hamas even really bother you, though? Assuming that you didn't know before, does it bother you now? Does it bother you that they're using your money to provide for the families of suicide bombers - while paying for the bombs they commit suicide with? Not to mention all of the Israeli teenagers they've killed in the past month... But you want them to die anyway. That's why you gave Hamas money, isn't it?

Tell me, which border do you prefer: the 1948 border or the 1967 border?

As for Hizbollah and Lebanon - Lebanon has its own national army. It ain't much, but... Hizbollah is not Lebanon's army, it is a tool of the Iranian and Syrian governments. It's a terrorist organization, not Lebanon's army. BTW, Lebanon wouldn't need much of an army if the Arabs and Persians would stop striving for Israel's destruction.

Hizbollah is as much Lebanon's army as the Druze are.

The IDF is a product of over 50 years of Arab attack. Don't expect kids who grow up in a warzone to become intellectuals.

 

treeman:

Do you still really believe that sanctions will save more Iraqi kids in the long-run? Maybe you could make a case for that a few years ago, but I have trouble believing that now. It just hasn't weakened Saddam, and the level of human suffering is enormous...

 

haven:

When have I ever said that I think sanctions will do the trick? I have repeatedly said that they won't, and that the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of Saddam. Look, the sanctions can't be lifted until Iraq is certified WMD-free, and Saddam will never let inspectors back in. If he doesn't then he's in violation of the ceasefire, and is subject to military action according to UN resolution 687.

Take him out and lift the sanctions, problem solved. But again, not once have I said that I think the sanctions will solve the problem - that is Powell's position, and it has obviously been a dismal failure.

 

I Very much agree that Sadamm needs to be taken out simply because there is too much bad blood and he wants revenge on the US and it seems to me that he will sacrifice the future of his own country to quench his thirst for revenge.

The sad part is that pre 1990's Saddam Hussein was a moderate leader in Iraq. They were against extremism, had a strong, energy-oil based economy and were making progress.

Why he invaded Kuwait is still a mystery to me. Though Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq does not matter in that all lands used to be under a different ruler.

I still feel though that Saddam was set up to be taken out by the US. I feel that after the U.S's policy of looking the other way in the Iran-Iraq conflict, they would continue to and I've read reports stating that the US agreed, but after he attacked, had operation:desert Shield to Protect Saudi Arabia.

Though I don't believe he ever had any intentions of attacking Saudi Arabia, the US used that to their advantage to bring bases and weapons to Saudi. Then they changed conveniently from a "protect" Saudi to a free Kuwait : Desert Storm.

Maybe the US and their allies in the region (Israel), felt Iraq was getting a little too strong and its ties with Russia and China did not help either. And manipulated them into a situation where it would be positive for public sentiment to take out Iraq. Literally that country is a toilet now. They have little to no exports, millions have died as a result of clean water and food, and they are helpless to rectify the situation. AND Now their leader more worried about revenge instead of reorganization.

Its a sad tale of a country's demise

 

Khan:

I am actually very optimistic about Iraq's future, but only if Saddam is removed. They are relatively secular and a democracy would probably work there, but nothing can improve until Saddam is gone - sanctions or no sanctions. But the sanctions could be lifted as soon as Saddam is gone - assuming that the successor regime renounced WMD and let inspectors do their job, which presumably it would...

He invaded Kuwait to repay war debts to the Gulf emirates accumulated during the Iran-Iraq conflict, and he used slant-drilling accusations and made up a myth that Kuwait was the "19th province of Iraq" to justify it. That, and he has always wanted to become master of the Arab world (that is, after all, the goal of the pan-Arab Baathist party).

But remember that Russia and China (who abstained, which is cooperation for them) cooperated with and sided with the UN/US in Desert Shield/Storm. No one - no one in the world - wanted Saddam to control 25% of the world's oil supply, much less close to 50% had he taken Saudi (as I said, he has always wanted to rule the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia).

Contrary to popular conspiracy theories, we did not "trick" Saddam into invading Kuwait, but Galespie (US ambassador) did send a mixed message: she said that it wasn't our concern, and that she hoped Saddam could solve the problem peacefully. She was later chastised for this gross mistake by the Bush administration, and her diplomatic career was effectively kaput because of it. It was a mistake, not a trap...

 

I've got a good target:

<img src="http://www.saveourrockets.com/carrottop.gif">

Oh, and whoever hired him for those commercials too!