|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
 Posted: Aug 01, 2004 1:51pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Now now mregit, let's not get too carried away! |
lol... okay, okay... I was going for the melodramatic there. :p |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 3:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree, we should probably close our borders, or at least close the holes in our borders.
But, will that really stop the problems? I take it by now most people have heard that there is specific intelligence of attacks on several US financial institutions? Now of course I hope nothing happens, but if it does, those attacks are not going to be done by guys who flew into the US last night, they are going to be by guys who have been living here for 10, 20, maybe even 30 years. So if we closed our borders down, 100% tomorrow, it wouldn't stop this potential attack, nor future attacks, the terrorists are already here. So what do we do? How exactly do you stop the enemy from attacking when they've already managed to infiltrate your society? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 6:20pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not entirely correct codemastr... You remember sept. 11? Not all of them had been living in america. Some of them, yes but some of the others flew in. So while it may not stop ALL danger, it would lessen that danger.
Life is not 100% safe or sure. Just drinking a glass of water has the potential to kill you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 7:18pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Not entirely correct codemastr... You remember sept. 11? Not all of them had been living in america. Some of them, yes but some of the others flew in. So while it may not stop ALL danger, it would lessen that danger. |
That was then, this is now. Why didn't we stop Sept 11? Because we didn't think they'd try anything new. We thought the attacks would be the usual truck bomb and the like. It wasn't. We can't say, "this is what they did before," any longer. They're not that stupid. They will change their tactics when they think we've caught on. My point wasn't that the attacks won't be carried out by foreigners, my point was that they don't *need* the foreigners to carry out the attacks. If we closed our borders completely, no one in, no one out, they'd still be able to attack us just as hard as they currently can. There'd be less terrorists, yes, but there would still be more than enough already here.
To use your glass of water analogy, imagine a glass of water has a million bacteria in it. I tell you I can kill 5 of them. Does that really make you any safer? Maybe it technically does, but not by much.
For a more apt example, it's like when the US destroys a nuclear weapon. The US has a nuclear arsenel large enough to destroy all life on Earth 7 times. When we destroy a single missile, does anyone feel safer? Yeah, there is one less missile, but, the missiles that still do exist are powerful enough to inflict the same amount of damage.
I'm not saying I'm against closing the borders, just that it's not really a solution, just a band-aid fix. To really solve the problems, you have to get rid of the terrorists that are already here, not simply prevent new ones from coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 8:58pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think its a band aid fix at all.
You know how they found out about the targets in NY? Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed was stopped at McAllen Miller International Airport on July 19 headed to New York. She was on a watch list. She was carrying a pair of wet jeans and her shoes had scrapes on them from thorns or barbed wire. It turns out she swam across the Rio Grande, and had entered the U.S. possibly as many as 250 times.
250 times. She's talking. Now we have guards at financial institutions in NY and NJ.
Sure, we have sleeper cells here, but they are NOT hard to find. Yahya Hendi, the Islamic chaplain who was chosen to give the benediction at the Democratic National Convention, testified as a character witness on behalf of Sami al-Arian— the U of Fl professor who gave anti-semetic hate speeches to his muslim students on campus and turned out to be the head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in North America. The founder of the American Muslim Council, Abdurahman Alamoudi, admitted being involved in a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. The founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR, the most prominant Islamic group in America, was just arrested along with several other members of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Islamic charity in this country, which provided more than $12.4 million to individuals and organizations linked to Hamas between 1995 and 2001. Ghassan Elashi was found guilty of illegally exporting goods to Syria and of money laundering. He is also awaiting trial on charges that he and four of his brothers (who together ran a computer company, InfoCom, that hosted many pro Islamist sites) had financial dealings with Musa Abu Marzuq, a Hamas leader and designated terrorist.
This is true. Really. Its TRUE. Haitham Maghawri was arrested last week for his involvement in terrorist activities. Maghawri sought asylum in the US, saying he was being persecuted for his religion in his own country. When he told the Immigration and Naturalization Service that he had been arrested several times in Lebanon, once for placing a car bomb, his asylum request was denied; he subsequently married a U.S. citizen and obtained permanent residency status.
I knew two people on IRC who fell in love and got married. He lived in Vancouver, she lived in Los Angeles. They held the ceremony at her house, then went to Canada to collect his belongings, but they were stopped at the border when they tried to return. The US would not let him back in. It took him 2 YEARS to get permission to live with his wife. But we put out the red carpet for car bombers.
Back in 1993, an Imam in Jersey City was arrested for being part of the WTC bombing (this is the first bombing, where 6 people died), over a dozen members of his mosque were arrested, and searching the premises provided the FBI with information tying the group to Ramzi Yousef, al-Qaeda's master bombmaker, and they were able to close a major arms and weaponry dealer operating out of Summit NJ. Most of the people involved were here illegally or on expired visas.
We need to get serious. This is a war, and we are at war with people who are of a certain ethnic and religious affiliation. Did you know that it is against the law for the airlines to single out more than 2 Middle Easterners per flight? If 12 terrorist looking types board the plane, the government says they can't all be questioned, because thats racial profiling. Pick any 2. Let the other 10 go right on through. That's ridiculous. It makes SENSE to look very closely at anyone who fits the description of our enemy. The US government needs to stop being so darn PC, and recognize the fact that the largest muslim charitable and religious organizations have been PROVEN to be fronts for funding, recruiting, organizing, and arming terrorists, and STOP inviting them into the White House for dinners, and STOP inviting them into the DNC to give speeches. In the light of the terrorist agenda go BACK and take another look at the people we have let into this country. Send back any one who is here illegally or abuses the hospitality of the US, and for ALL our sakes, close the borders so terrorists on watch lists can't cross 250 times before they are caught. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 01, 2004 10:43pm Post subject: |
|
|
mregit, you seem to think I was speaking on political correctness. Yeah, I'm aware airlines have such rules. I also know that in NYC, I saw a group of nuns driving over a bridge pulled over and being searched by police (with machine guns drawn), at the same time, I saw several people who looked a hellovalot more suspicious cross with no trouble at all. We know that the terrorists attacking us are middle eastern. If the cops got a report that a blonde haired man robbed a bank, they wouldn't pull over brown haired women to be "politically correct," they'd pull over blonde haired men. I don't understand why it is "racial profiling" when the guy who commits the crime happens to be middle eastern. Yeah, if the cops beat a guy who is middle eastern, that's wrong, but I agree, if they look suspicious, check it out. I talked to someone who happened to be a NY police officer, he explained the nuns were pulled over because they randomly pick cars. But we all know, a group of 80 year old nuns is probably the last people who would blow up a building.
My argument is that doing this won't solve the problem. You listed a bunch of names. Some I've heard, some I haven't. But even assuming everything you said is true, you don't seem to know what a sleeper cell is.
A guy who is a character witness for a terrorist is not a sleeper agent. A sleeper agent is, "the guy next door." A sleeper agent is the guy who immigrated to the US 25 years ago at the age of 20. He enlisted in the Army where he rose to the rank of Lieutenant and received several commendations for bravery. He currently teaches American history at the local community college. He lives in a quiet suburb with his American born wife and their two children, pet dog and hamster. His son is a boyscout, and he is a troop leader. They enjoy going to baseball games and watching TV. What reason is there to suspect this guy? Well there is the part of his life we dont know. When he was 18, he was trained by Palestinian terrorists. He was taught how to assimilate into American culture. He was also told, that one day, many years from now, he would hear a phrase that would instruct him to blow up the local hospital. How do we find such a guy? Remember, 25 years ago, there were no computer databases, no satellite tracking systems, none of the tools we now use to track terrorists existed. So how do we find this guy? It's simple, we need to get lucky and stumble upon something. You can't just look at him and say "this one is a terrorist," because there is no indication whatsoever. How does closing our borders find him?
The guys you mentioned are not sleeper agents, they are ideologes. You mentioned one man who speaks out in favor of terrorists, and you mentioned three who provided money and supplies to terrorists. Those aren't sleeper agents. Sleeper agents are the guys who are going to walk into a train station and blow themselves up on a moment's notice. Yeah, we can trace the guys who finance stuff, and that's great, stopping the money hurts them, but you can't always find the sleeper agents. There may be NO trail at all.
Closing our borders would do NOTHING to stop sleeper agents. And we probably will not be able to capture many of them unless we get some very good intelligence. I agree, closing our borders would reduce the threat, but it would not eliminate the threat. As you said, "look at the people we have let into this country." That implies that they are already here, not that they will be here tomorrow. My point was simply that people say "close the borders and we'll be safe," and this is not true. There are many terrorists already here, and they will try to attack us at some point, we just have to hope that we catch them before they do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Aug 02, 2004 7:38am Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | mregit, you seem to think I was speaking on political correctness. |
Its more complicated than political correctness, but I believe misguided pandering to the Islamic Fifth Column and the US government's refusal to acknowledge the true face of the enemy has put the country in a dangerous situation.
| Quote: | | My argument is that doing this won't solve the problem. You listed a bunch of names. Some I've heard, some I haven't. But even assuming everything you said is true, you don't seem to know what a sleeper cell is. |
Run the names through Google... you can read the news stories and judge for yourself.
Sleeper cells are groups of enemy combatants that have blended in to society. The most worrisome are here to carry out violent physical attacks, but recruitment, fundraising, public relations, and legal and polictical activism are important to their goals too.
The Lackawana Seven were American citizens, the sons of Yemeni immigrants. They went to high school and college in NY State. They WERE the kids next door - until they were recruited through their local Mosque to attend an Afgan al-Qaeda training camp. Upon their return home, they were tagged a sleeper cell that was in communication with al-Qaeda and willing to help the cause in whatever way was needed.
Wahhabists are active in this country's jails, recruiting large numbers of black and hispanic prisoners to Islam. The Muslim Students Association recruits and indoctrinates young Americans to join a radical and violent sect. Others come into the country specifically blend in, living as legal immigrants working regular jobs, or as students.
We need to look behind the soldiers. The recruiters wouldn't go far unless there were organizations to fund their movement and provide legitimacy to their activities. These organizations - a loose knit group of charities, mosques, activists, and public relations groups, with the help of Saudi funding, are known as the Islamic Fifth Column. Their declared purpose is replacing the US government with an Islamic theocracy through both legal means and violent acts. The list of names I gave in a previous post were all significant members of that Fifth Column.
Please, don't fool yourself into thinking they ONLY want to blow buildings up, or that these acts are to "punish" us for stationing troops in their holy lands. There is a bigger goal here. Abdurahman Alamoudi, who recently struck a plea bargain with the FBI, said: “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.”
Codemastr, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take the time to read this through -
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11209
It won't just open your eyes, they will be popping out of your head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 02, 2004 11:37am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Its more complicated than political correctness, but I believe misguided pandering to the Islamic Fifth Column and the US government's refusal to acknowledge the true face of the enemy has put the country in a dangerous situation. |
No, it's not. I said about 3-4 times now, my reasoning for saying closing the borders will do no good has NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANYTHING even remotely related to political correctness. You directed your comments at me, as though you were stating you knew what I believed. I am telling you, you most certainly do not.
| Quote: | | Sleeper cells are groups of enemy combatants that have blended in to society. The most worrisome are here to carry out violent physical attacks, but recruitment, fundraising, public relations, and legal and polictical activism are important to their goals too. |
Indeed they are, but you once again missed my point. I said catching the fundraisers and activists is good, but I also said it is *easy*. When a guy stands up in front of a room of people and says that America is getting what it deserves, he isn't exactly blending into society. He is making his beliefs clear. He will be watched. However, the guy next door won't be watched because there is no reason to suspect him. Plus, most of the money comes from people who have no operational knowledge. Meaning, when we catch someone sending money to Syria, he just says he was supporting the cause, he has no idea who the money goes to, for what attacks it is used, etc. There is an old saying in FBI investigations, "follow the money." They don't say that because following money is hard, they say it because it is one of the easiest ways to track people. So yeah, they catch these guys, but the guys who are willing to actually kill us are not so easy to catch.
| Quote: | | The Lackawana Seven were American citizens |
There is a keyword there, "seven." They estimate that there are at least 100 Al Qaeda operatives in the US. And remember, Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there. Catching seven is helpful, indeed, but catching seven won't prevent the next attack, you need to capture all 100. Plain and simple, they got lucky with the Lackawana seven.
| Quote: | | It won't just open your eyes, they will be popping out of your head. |
I read it, it didn't open my eyes at all because it's nothing new to me. All it did was confirm my belief that closing our borders does not solve the problem because THEY ARE ALREADY HERE.
However, I must say, you are the reason why such "racial profiling" issues come up. Most people draw a line somewhere, you don't. From what you are saying, "Muslim" and "terrorist" are equivilent. That may not be what you believe, but it is how you come across. The terrorists are a subset of Muslims, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, not all of them are terrorists, in fact most aren't. Plus, don't forget, we sometimes get clouded by the fact that the terrorists who attack us are Muslim, there are other radical groups out there. You have the Columbian FARC and the Irish IRA which are both listed on the US State Dept. terrorist list.
My point is, most Americans would agree, if 10 suspicious looking Middle Eastern men board a plane, they should be questioned. However, that doesn't mean we now round up every Muslim living in the US and kick them out. From what you've said, it seems as though you're much closer to the latter idea. And hence why such stupid anti-racial profiling rules exist, once you start a small-scale discrimination, it's very easy for people to begin to suggest large-scale discrimination. As I said, I agree we should question anyone who looks suspicious for any reason. But that doesn't mean that we should assume all Muslims are guilty of terrorism, which is what you seem to believe. I could be totally wrong, but that is certainly how you come off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Howard
none
Joined: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Aug 03, 2004 11:03am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pierce wrote: | Okay, the last time i checked the definition of what superpower was, is anybody with Nuclear capability,
that would include
USA,
Britain,
France,
Germany,
And Russia
AKA the big 5. (Nuclear capability, as in the ability to launch Nuclear weapons) |
Add India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and China to the list, and be ready to add North Korea Real Soon Now.
And you want to hand *them* control over your destiny, and that of all your kin? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mary
SearchIRC Admin
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 692
|
| Posted: Aug 03, 2004 5:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, it's not. I said about 3-4 times now, my reasoning for saying closing the borders will do no good has NOTHING AT ALL to do with ANYTHING even remotely related to political correctness. |
I am not arguing that YOUR reasoning has anything at all to do with political correctness. I am saying the GOVERNMENT'S reasoning has EVERYTHING to do with political correctness.
| Quote: | | I said catching the fundraisers and activists is good, but I also said it is *easy*. |
Codemastr, let me give you a very real example showing that its NOT easy to bring them to justice - and WHY.
Sami al-Arian came to the US as a student, and in 1986 became professor of Computer Science at the University of Florida's Tampa campus. He has been openly active in terrorist activities since 1988.Timeline on http://news.tbo.com/news/MGAYFFONFCD.html He was watched by law enforcement, and in 1995 President Clinton signed off on an investigation into Islamic Charities.
By 1995, Islamic operatives had infiltrated the US government to the highest levels, and Sami al Arian has influence - http://www.freeman.org/m_online/symlinks/sep96/emerson.htm - and some of these "charities" under investigation had funneled substantial amounts from the Saudis to Clinton's campaign...
"The Clinton administration shut down a 1995 investigation of Islamic charities, concerned that a public probe would expose Saudi Arabia's suspected ties to a global money-laundering operation that raised millions for anti-Israel terrorists, federal officials told The Washington Times."
"The Loftus suit, filed March 20 under the Florida Consumer Protection Act, accuses the Saudi government in a massive scheme involving charities in Virginia and Florida that routed cash to terrorists.
The suit's main target is Sami Al-Arian..."
...it didn't MATTER that mainstream Islamic charities whose leaders held important US government positions were facilitating terrorist activities, including the first attack on the WTC in 1993, slam bang the lid is shut on that investigation because the Clinton's didn't want it revealed they were getting laundered Saudi money, right before the 1996 election.
Covering both sides, al-Arian's close friend and head of the American Muslim Council Abrurahman Almoudi, brings him into the White House in 2000 to help the Gore campaign -- while Khaled Saffuri, George W. Bush's presidential campaign’s National Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs, promises Karl Rove that Sami will deliver the South Florida muslim vote in return for Bush's pledge that if elected, he will prohibit the use of "secret evidence", sensitive intelligence information protected under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act that allows prosecutors to withhold the source of evidence used in terrorist trials.
Meanwhile, al-Arian is free to manage terrorist activities that caused the deaths of 99 innocent people in suicide bombings, he recruited students for terrorist activities, and he brought terrorists into the country, all from his office in Tampa, and not only did law enforcement know about it, dozens of reporters wrote about it as early as 1995. Yet, according to the programs of the 2000 and 2001 American Muslim Committee conferences, Al-Arian was the lobbying coordinator at the AMC conventions, working to organize efforts on Capitol Hill to weaken U.S. antiterrorism laws.
Shortly after 9/11/01, Bill O'Reilly got al-Arian on his show under the ruse of asking him about Arab response to the attacks, and exposed his activities to a nationwide audience. The public was outraged. Within a week, al-Arian was arrested:
"Al-Arian’s arrest was made possible by the USA-PATRIOT Act. With this legislation’s enactment after 9/11, it became possible for the first time in decades, for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share sensitive information – such as the voluminous wiretaps of Sami al-Arian coordinating Palestinian Islamic Jihad operations from his professor’s office in Tampa."
He is now awaiting trial on 50 counts of racketeering and conspiracy to commit murder, and dozens of other leaders of prominant "moderate" muslim operations are in jail - while the organizations, still firmly entrenched in the White House, the political parties, and even the military, are SCREAMING that the arrests are nothing more than unfounded racist attacks against muslims by prejudiced law enforcement agencies. Their influence remains.
"Alex Alexiev, an expert witness for Sen. Jon Kyl's (R-Ariz.) Senate subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, warns that U.S. intelligence and security analysts are not looking at the whole picture, and are identifying al-Qaeda as a problem instead of a symptom of a far larger danger. Such an approach, combined with growing political correctness within the FBI and an element there that critics say has pandered to favored electoral constituencies of White House campaign strategists, frustrates what promises to be a generations-long war on terrorism."
AS LONG as these groups can carry out terrorist activities while thumbing their nose at law enforcement FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, no matter WHO is in power, we have a BIG problem.
| Quote: | | So yeah, they catch these guys, but the guys who are willing to actually kill us are not so easy to catch. |
Its important to find and arrest members of the sleeper cells, but without funding, the cells are neutered even if we don't find them. In order to stop the machinery that churns out an endless parade of young men and women willing to commit terrorist attacks, you MUST cut off the money that recruits them, trains them, and allows them to operate as sleepers.
| Quote: | | And remember, Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist group out there. |
Terrorism is a method employed by many diverse groups with political agendas. Its very effective. But see quote from Alex Alexiev above. Al-Qaeda is not The problem, it is a symptom of a greater problem.
| Quote: | | All it did was confirm my belief that closing our borders does not solve the problem because THEY ARE ALREADY HERE. |
Yes, some are. But that should not stop us from preventing MORE from entering the country.
Why would a woman with a fake South African passport fly to Mexico, make her way to the US border, and then swim across the Rio Grande, if "they" are all already here? Clearly, they needed ONE MORE.
We're letting in car bombers and giving political asylum to Iraqi Republican Guard intelligence agents - who are then (surprise!) arrested a year or two later for terrorist activities.
That needs to stop.
| Quote: | | However, I must say, you are the reason why such "racial profiling" issues come up. Most people draw a line somewhere, you don't. |
LOL... whats this, you aren't a liberal! Their knee jerk reaction is to yell "racism" where none exists.
In Islam the Koran and Hadith sets down laws that cover every aspect of life. There is no distinction between religion and government - the theological and the jurisprudential is one and the same. Islamist Abdul-Karim Abdullah said "Sharia is the law every Muslim is guided on. It is a rule, a regulation, a binding, every Muslim, wherever he is."
As Islam spreads around the world, so too does Sharia law. Attempting to have Sharia Law declared the law of the land in Iraq, attorney Kadhim Jubori stated, "Sharia is from God, the law is man-made, and sharia is better because what comes from Allah is fixed."
In his address to a joint session of Congress and the American People immediately after 9/11, the President said, "Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere." Those "beliefs" are Sharia Law, which sharply conflicts with democracy. According to Diane West, "Equal rights before the law do not exist under Islamic law. One citizen, one vote does not exist under Islamic law. Freedom of worship does not exist under Islamic law. Minorities -- that is, non-Muslims -- enjoy rights and protections at the pleasure of the Muslim community that are ever-subject to the capriciousness of a rights-canceling fatwa. Indeed, Islamic law is not the basis of a religion, as the Judeo-Christian world understands religion, but is rather the basis of a controlling ideology that is nothing short of totalitarian."
al-Qaeda is one "symptom" then Islamic charitable organizations are another. FBI director Robert Mueller described the American Muslim Council as “the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.” Their Executive Director recently pled guilty to numerous terrorist related crimes. The Council on American-Islamic Relations was so trusted it was chosen to select ALL of the muslim clerics in the US military, and run the FBI's Muslim sensitivity classes in Quantico. The FBI now says CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and to convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. Five CAIR staffers and board members have been accused or convicted of terrorism-related charges. The same has happened with leaders of prominant organizations, the Islamic Center of Greater Cleveland, Holy Land Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation, and the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom.
According to Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 1776, "Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites...this is the true extent of toleration."
It is quite clear that Islam is a totalitarian movement, and as such, "ought not to be permitted" the rights afforded a religion. No matter how honorable and upstanding an individual muslim might be, membership in a movement that wishes to subjugate the entirety of humanity, paints them suspect.
| Quote: | | My point is, most Americans would agree, if 10 suspicious looking Middle Eastern men board a plane, they should be questioned. However, that doesn't mean we now round up every Muslim living in the US and kick them out. From what you've said, it seems as though you're much closer to the latter idea. |
If you respect the right of all people to live in equality, if you believe that you are no better or worse than any other person, and we all have a right to determine our laws and worship our own god(s) or none at all, then welcome, whoever you are. Be my neighbor, sit at my dinner table, marry my daughter. If you are an Islamist who wants to overthrow consitututional governments, including the US government, and replace it with your theocracy that oppresses women and reduces all other religions to a state of dhimmitude, then f you and the Arabian horse you rode in on. I will not tolerate the intolerant. Get out now, and close the door so no more of your kind can get in.
| Quote: | | And hence why such stupid anti-racial profiling rules exist, once you start a small-scale discrimination, it's very easy for people to begin to suggest large-scale discrimination. As I said, I agree we should question anyone who looks suspicious for any reason. But that doesn't mean that we should assume all Muslims are guilty of terrorism, which is what you seem to believe. I could be totally wrong, but that is certainly how you come off. |
I don't assume all Muslims are guilty of terrorism, any more than I believe all "fill in ridiculous assumption here". However, there is no question that a growing body of evidence is exposing the involvement of the majority of established Muslim organizations and mosques, and the people who run them, in providing material aid and comfort to known terrorist groups. It would be foolish to ignore that.
I do not believe everyone on earth has the RIGHT to immigrate to America. Citizens of countries or members of groups that have declared war on my country should not be allowed in, even to visit. Instead, why don't we go to Nigeria and save the woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for a sexual indescretion? Why don't we go to Pakistan and save the four people who converted to Christianity and are now sentenced to death for apostacy? Why don't we go into the Sudan and airlift a few planeloads of starving black muslims who have had their homes seized, their women raped, their daughters sold into slavery, and offer THEM the sanctuary of our free country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Aug 03, 2004 6:17pm Post subject: |
|
|
My stance on this war is neutral. Why? Because I'm not for the war, and for another, I'm not against the war.
I strongly believe Iraq should be free from a monarchy and give its people a chance to vote for a democratic government, but not force them to become democratic. The US did a good thing by taking out Hussein, because he did not give the civilians any freedom, and he also committed crimes against humanity. What I don't agree with is the politics of it. For example, in one of US President Bush's speaches, he says this:
| Quote: | | You are either with me, or against me. |
Okay. So if the world doesn't go to Iraq and help the Americans free Iraq from a bad guy, those countries that didn't fight are now against the US? No. I don't think so. And for US President Bush to say this, it proves he has poor leadership qualities. Yes, there is such thing as neutral. Canada quietly sent soldiers to Iraq to help the US, without officially saying it would support the war. Technically, from what US President Bush said, we were "against him" for not officially supporting his coalition. As for me, I support his idea by freeing Iraq from Hussein, but I do not agree with him using his troops to blow up buildings to find "weapons of mass destruction", and therefore I remain neutral.
Right now, the US should focus on the terrorists inside their own country and nevermind the potential "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. There probably are "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, but they may be very hard to find. Close the US borders for one thing. Ever hear of the saying "if you want to catch a horse, then chase it away and it will come back"? Well the US should try that. Wait until some suspicious thing pops up and investigate it. If the borders are closed, and the US is spying on the eastern world, they may be able to find the "weapons of mass destruction" when the terrorists take them out of their hiding places, and then destroy them. Why do so much work when it's almost impossible? Just wait until the bad guy is ready to kill. These "weapons of mass destruction" could be hidden anywhere. The terrorists may be just trying to distract the US with Iraq, meanwhile they are getting ready for the big one inside the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 03, 2004 10:36pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | You are either with me, or against me.
Okay. So if the world doesn't go to Iraq and help the Americans free Iraq from a bad guy, those countries that didn't fight are now against the US? |
al5001, don't take things out of context! Bush NEVER said this had ANYTHING to do with joining the coalition. He said if you refuse to fight terrorism, you are just as bad as the terrorists. He never said if you don't go fight in Iraq, you're our enemy. You just made that whole thing up.
| Quote: | | And for US President Bush to say this, it proves he has poor leadership qualities. |
Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. Are you aware, right after saying this, Bush was supported by about 90% of the American people? Sounds like the people did consider that statement to be a good leadership characteristic. In fact, it's a *perfect* characteristic of a leader. He said, we're not going to take the usual "we're an American ally, but we're gonna harbor terrorists behind your back" that we used to accept. It means if you don't want to fight terrorists, and instead want to protect them, you are a terrorist and you will be dealt with as such. This is exactly what EVERY world leader should be saying. Plus, I don't think you know what a leader is. A leader leads, that means there are people who follow. Last I checked, Canada is not part of the US. So whether the people there agree with us, I couldn't care less. The people of the US are the people Bush leads. If Bush says something that Americans agree with, and the world does not, I really don't care. Canada doesn't have America's best interest in mind, France doesn't have America's best interest in mind, Germany doesn't have America's best interest in mind, no one has America's best interest in mind except America. So if the rest of the world does not like what the AMERICAN president is doing, too bad. When Bush criticized Chirac for not wanting Turkey in the EU, Chirac said it's not Bush's place to say what France does. So why is it France, or any other country's place to say how the US does things? IT ISN'T.
| Quote: | | As for me, I support his idea by freeing Iraq from Hussein, but I do not agree with him using his troops to blow up buildings to find "weapons of mass destruction", and therefore I remain neutral. |
Umm that statement is so wrong! They wouldn't blow up a building to find WMD! Causing an explosion of certain chemical bombs could cause the chemicals to be released. They would *never* do what you are suggesting. I defy you to find me one example where a headline reads "US blows up building to find out if it has WMD inside."
Though you claim to be "neutral" you clearly aren't. Everything you've said is either totally wrong, or highly biased. Just because you say you're neutral doesn't make it true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Aug 04, 2004 5:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
The main reason I say I am neutral is because of the media. For example, CBC says one thing while the Toronto Sun says another. Some media broadcastings even contradict one another. I am 99.9% supportive of US President Bush's descisions, however the other 0.1% has to do with the misinforming media.
| Quote: | | So why is it France, or any other country's place to say how the US does things? |
Why is it the US's place to say how the eastern countries do things? Not everyone wants to be controlled by the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 04, 2004 9:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why is it the US's place to say how the eastern countries do things? Not everyone wants to be controlled by the US. |
How about because they declared war on us? How about because they flew a building into a CIVILIAN target and killed over a thousand INNOCENT people? THEY started the war with us, not the other way around. Get your facts straight. The US didn't impose anything on anyone. Afghanistan harbored Osama Bin Laden. We told the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden and we'd leave them alone. They said no. We told them if they would not hand him over we'd attack, they still said no. We attacked. They harbored a man who committed an act of war on the United States. That makes them the enemy. Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate a US president, an act of war. Hussein refused to honor the treaties he signed, an act of aggression. Saddam Hussein was told to comply BY THE UN, NOT THE US. Hussein refused. The US then told Hussein that if he and his sons left, there would be no war. They refused. The US went to war.
NONE of these actions were because the US decided to get involved with Middle Eastern Affairs. The reason they happened is because the Middle East decided to get involved with American affairs. They attacked us, they threatened us, they declared war on us, they committed acts of war, they committed acts of aggression, they received the proper reaction. Note, REACTION, not action. Had they just left us alone, we would never have bothered with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Aug 05, 2004 11:03am Post subject: |
|
|
I see. So two kids play in a sandbox. Kid #1 has more money than kid #2. Kid #2 knocks down kid #1's sand-castle and steals some money from him. Kid #2 hides. Kid #1 threatens kid #2's friends to get them to tell kid #1 where kid #2 is. They say no. Kid #1 shoots kid #2's friends, then searches for kid #2 and kills him. Kid #1 becomes the hero.
| Quote: | | ... Middle East decided to get involved with American affairs ... |
So it was the Middle East that asked the US to come to their countries and put their kids into child labour? Oh, this is too good. If you haven't realised, big corporations like Nike have small children operating machinery in third world countries for dirt money, and you are going to tell me that the Middle East decided to get involved in American affairs? I don't think so. First, the Americans went over to the third world countries and started pissing on every roadblock, putting up big factories and hiring young kids for cheap money/free labour. Don't tell me the Middle East started out as the bad guy, when it was the Americans that went into the Middle East's affairs to begin with.
How is this related to terrorist attacks? Well, think about it. If an American boss with fancy clothing came up to you while you were wearing a piece of cloth over your family jewels, would you want to look up to him every day? Or would you want to be rich like him? He exploits you, makes tons of profit from you, and pays you a few pennies. How would you like this? Wouldn't you get pissed off after a while? Well, why do you think so many Middle Eastern people seem to dislike Americans? Here's your answer. And to think that there are so few terrorists compared to the many people living in the Middle East. Our society has turned these people from poor people to dirt farmers to pissed off ogres.
Do you even know what it's like to be poor? How about having to use cow dung to make a fire every morning just to cook food? No, you probably have an electric stove. Get realistic here. You live the good life compared to Middle Easterners.
| Quote: | | Do unto others as you would have them do unto you |
Have your parents ever told you this before?
Would you want to be a kid living in the Middle East, wearing rags, and working for a rich American boss? Well, treat others as you want them to treat you. For example, at least pay these poor kids more money, like minimum wage at least.
Oh, if you want another piece of my mind, let's get into patents+the Middle East.
Okay, so here goes.
http://pd.cpim.org/2004/0229/02292004_varadarajan.htm
| Quote: | | The patents give the US multinational company exclusive ownership over ‘Naphal’, a strain of wheat whose gene-sequence makes it particularly suited to crisp breads. Another patent filed in Europe gives Monsanto rights over the use of “Naphal” wheat to make Chapatis, which consists of flour, water and salt. |
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Monsanto-India-Wheat28jan04.htm
| Quote: | | International non-government organisation (NGO), Greenpeace along with the Indian organisations like the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) and Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS) on Tuesday filed a petition at the European Patent Office (EPO), Munich challenging the patent rights given to Monsanto on Indian landrace of wheat, Nap Hal. |
An american company called Monsanto put a patent on certain natural seeds in India. Don't believe me? Then search Google; it's all over google.. you'll get thousands of pages explaining it. All of a sudden, farmers have to pay a royalty to this American company. These farmers in India don't make much money, so they would have to give up farming. Nope. They didn't. They signed petitions against the petty patents. Come on people! I cannot believe Americans would do this to make money off poor innocent people. Some other American company also tried to put a patent on water for goodness sake. LEAVE THE GODDAMN MIDDLE EAST ALONE.
http://www.teri.res.in/teriin/terragreen/issue8/news.htm#hands
| Quote: | | The laws of the land also need some correction. In Rajasthan, for instance, the law forbids private citizens from constructing any structure to collect rainwater and restore ground water. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
