ADN

bm. of course i think killing someone because of cartoons is extreme.

for the record: I DO NOT BACK THESE THUGS WHO WILL KILL ANYONE. (nor do I back the notion of "pre-emptive strike" or a fucking war because of false reasons)


so, I just challenge the opinion the West has on what is happening. We act as if we are all righteous. I even started reading "the enemy" here and there. We - the complete world - is polarizing and we are feeling hatred and are waging war instead of discussing.

I just am not able to understand how a person can have such a one-sided view on what is happening. It is NOT "them vs us"; it is us all living in peace vs us all being at war. I understand your frustration's with what is happening - 9/11, Madrid, London, Iraq, +2500 soldiers killed etc - AND I understand the other parties as well! If this conflict is to be resolved "resolve" into violently pursuing OUR take on this is just not the answer! DIALOGUE is. NEGOTIATION is. And what do I read time and again: the US does NOT want to discuss. WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT WANT THEN? that Iran indeed builds bombs? That Korea goes on with its missile test? That Al Quaeda does succeed in another attack? WHAT?

Brains,

Have you not lived long enough to understand some people don't break their word?

for example, you keep mentioning the "cease-fire" HAMAS had for a Year and a half. A cease fire is a mutual agreement. Israel never agreed to the terms, nor offered any of its own, and continued to arrest suspects.

So, it's not a cease fire, what is it?

Well, its not a cease-fire. It's a hudna. Look that word up, if you do not know what it is. and not on political sites,

HISTORICAL ONES.

The Hudna is agreement upon so Mohammed and his ranks could visit Mecca without bloodshed,.. and he used the time so he could grow his ranks from rallying others and converting locals. No blood would be shed in Mecca. That was the agreement. Then he saw his Muslims had grown strong enough in numbers and influence to where he could go forward, hack apart the leaders, and claim Mecca for Islam, though it's Chakravanti Sivate origins are even seen this day even in the inscriptions on the , where the common customs were kept, but not the local Gods,.. much like the Christians and the Early Europeans. Saladin did the same with Jesrusalem.

It is not a cease fire it is a nonviolent religious campaign to , it is a "we will not shed blood on holy ground", and per their agreement, they had a three month hudna, that was interrupted a month later by a series of bus bombings, one of which HAMAS took responsiblity for, and claimed as a noble deed.

The problem is historically Muslims always record a point where the Hudna is *justly* ended when Islam has become so prominent, it can easily overtake the last non-Islamic elements. Hudna is a propoganda campaign in itself, and history speaks to effectiveness of this same technique, used by the Buddhists in China, the missionaries in America, and elsewhere.

The two most famous Hudna were the Hudna that enabled Mohammed to conquer Mecca, and the Hudna that enabled Saladin to conquer Jerusalem. Both accepted Jews and Christians as subordinates and killed all others.

My honest suspicion is you don't really understand them, as a whole, and thus you do not really understand the threat becuase you tend to take them at face value, which they regard as the ultimate weakness.

If you have never went shopping in the middle east, you have no clue what their culture is like. nuff said.

Brains, I don't know what country your from but I'm sure that the United States saved/or defeated it on the field of battle. The US promotes peace, Terrorists attacked us on 9/11,not the other way around as you would like to think. You are a terrorist enabler, for that, you are considered an Enemy of the State. The next time you guys need help, don't call us, call the French.

Last thing I would want is to become an Enemy Of The State and aid terrorists by posting pro-turrism drivel here. I do seem to recall that Clear and Present Danger was used when describing the situation. I read the article RAUM posted, but then I find shit like this:
CIA's final report: no WMDs found in Iraq

Saddam had "intent" ?

No WMDs found still

I do see these are dated, about 2 years. does that mean these were usable 2 years ago?, or were they in this state for way longer?. It just seems that it took a little while to find caches of weapons that were labeled as "ready to go", years ago.

You failed to see the point, Saddam said ALL weapons have been destoryed. Now if it was just one shell, I could see your point. Also, if you didn't know, there is tons of evidence sitting around waiting to be translated and reviewed. It's too early in the game to go around saying that the Bush Adminstration has lied about WMD's when the entire world thought the same thing. The truth will be out soon and alot of people will be eating crow.

bm. much like raum got fed up with my "veiled insults" (although raum called me a fool quite directly as well) i am getting fed up with yours as well. understand.

i said it before and I will say it again: BRAINS DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE TERRORIST APPROACH. Print that and hang it somewhere around your monitor before you accuse me of being a "terrorist enabler", okay?

i'll make it easy for you. you can print as well: BRAINS DOES THINK THE MINI-COALITION ATTACKED A COUNTRY. Since, the US showed quite a lot of "evidence" in the months before the way. Remember Powell showing sattelite images? Doing all that poo-hah about how Iraq was VERY VERY CLOSE to being able to launch missiles towards the states? Remember the notion of "pre-emptive strike"? No matter how much documents are still to be translated, it is at this moment crystal clear that none of that were true. Where the hell do you get that "entire world" from? If it really was the "entire world", the UN surely would have voted in favor of intervention, now, wouldn't it? At this moment it was a mini-coalition who agreed (or felt forced to agree) with the US. CERTAINLY NOT THE ENTIRE WORLD, since NEVER has a war had so much protest against it!

raum: thanks for the hudna idea. did not know. I accept it indeed might be a possible explanation. Yet - on the other hand - to me it does not mean that Israel can proceed the way it does.

Well let's see, we have the French, Russians, Israel, England, China, Greece, Italy and the list goes on and on. Pre-war intel was based on a properganda program being put on by Saddam. He, Saddam wanted the entire world to believe he had these very weapons, so he could be a factor within the middle East. Saddam had personal assurances from France, Russia and China that the United States could be controlled within the Security Councial. Now, with being said, the Bush adminstration knew damn well he could sell them to some group that could end up setting it off in the United States. Now, you have to ask yourself, "Are you willing to take that chance?"Also if the weapons did exist and we did nothing to stop it, everybody would be bitching that Bush didn't do shit to stop it thus allowing Russia, France and China to still be making money by both getting oil on the cheap and selling weapons to Iraq. These are the very same countries that voted against us in the vote, no matter the 12 years of violations which were already backed up by 'Use of Force" if you don't believe me, look it up. Why don't use your energy on saving the Sudan, or getting those UN Peacekeepers Convicted for all those rapes that they commited in Africa. That should keep you busy for a while.

Definitions of WMD must have seriously degraded if pesticides in some unspecified quantity in weaponry are now labled with the same brush as nuclear weapons! It's left (probably intentionally) vague in the article just what type of weaponry was fond to be contaminated, what state this weaponry was in, and how much sarin was present. As far as facts go the report is a little scarse.

The intel which was presented to the public pre-war has for the most part been systematically disproved, or undermined. From knowing where the WMDs were, to the satellite photography supposedly proving the existence of mobile laboratories, through to WMDs launched in 30mins and Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. Very little of the initial "proof" remains intact. In fact Blair, and I believe Bush, has officially admitted we are unlikely to ever find WMD in Iraq.

Try reading the entire thread before mouthing off, your little rant has already been covered.