Osama and Sadam, the Hitler and Musolini of our times.

welsh said:
Kharn- what exactly is wrong with the free masons?
Click to expand...

Ehehehe, how did I know you'd pick at that?

I have nothing against the freemasons, really, it just jumped into my mind.

Though, in reality, the freemasons are in essence just an overgrown boy-in-treehut thing, it's kind of juvenile, anti-feminist and asocial. But who's to care?
 
If King keeps posting his ideas and political beliefs here, I'm gonna have to start doing this...

stopcomputervirus.jpg


You can never be too safe when it comes to filtering out the spam that might infect your computer.
 
And finally, Sander. Let me ask you this. Let's say your country was under a dictatorship, whether foreign or not. Wouldn't you want for someone to help? I would be willing to give up my backyard to oil digging to America, instead of giving my life to a evil man who thinks he is a prophet/God/messiah.
Click to expand...
And again: I DO NOT THINK IT IS WORTH IT!
 
King said:
Look at Serbia, remember that dictator there? Everyone feared him, until the Balkan War. Then, he was overthrown. It took an invasion, but it helped.
Click to expand...

His name is MILOSHEVICH. Uh, just who feared him? I don't know anyone who did. And what is this "Balkan War"? I've been living there all my life and I don't remember that one. And where did you hear that he was overthrown in an invasion? Serbia was never invaded, and Miloshevich lost the presidential election in 2000.

King, do you always discuss things you know nothing about? Worse yet, do you always back up your statements with false arguments?
 
I meant Bosnia. The Balkan War was when NATO went into Bosnia and I also thought it was Serbia in the late 90's. And it wasn't he a war criminal for what he did to muslims?
 
Yeah, he is is a war criminal and he is currently being trialed for his crimes in Den Haag. And it's quite an interesting trial. A lot of interesting facts that have been known for years were spoken out loud for the first time. Facts that show nothing was black and white in the wars that happened in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, and Miloshevich isn't the only leader with blood on his hands.
 
King, it's not only Muslims. It's basically anybody who isn't Serbian.

It's like saying that Hitler did bad things to Jews. He also killed gays, political opponents, scholars who opposed his views, etc.
 
Ratty said:
Yeah, he is is a war criminal and he is currently being trialed for his crimes in Den Haag. And it's quite an interesting trial. A lot of interesting facts that have been known for years were spoken out loud for the first time. Facts that show nothing was black and white in the wars that happened in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, and Miloshevich isn't the only leader with blood on his hands.
Click to expand...

Actually, the trial hasn't been going to well. Raising evidence against a murdered is hard enough, raising evidence against someone who gave the command the commit murders is harder.

And a stack of other criminals are being excused if they testify against Millie. It's sickening.

Still, he'll get his in the end, and it's better than nothing, which is the usual international response
 
Yeah, well, it'll all be worth it. I hope he gets sentenced to some kind of rat-infested hole and rots there for the rest of his life. The bastard deserves a lot worse fate, but unfortunately torturing prisoners is a violation of a couple of international conventions. I'm also sorry Tudjman (bastard no.2) isn't around any longer, otherwise he'd wind up rotting in the same rat-infested hole. Two dictators of two warring countries, seemingly sworn enemies, actually secret allies in their bloody plan to butcher Bosnia, become cell-mates... now that would be ironic.
 
Two dictators of two warring countries, seemingly sworn enemies, actually secret allies in their bloody plan to butcher Bosnia, become cell-mates... now that would be ironic.
Click to expand...

Going a little bit off topic, I'd like to describe a book that dealt with a similar situation.

After WW2, when the red army "liberated" Warsaw, it imprisoned all the german soldiers/officers (of course) and all the polish organized resistance troops. The book's author was a partisan, and he was assigned to a cell which he shared with J.Stroop, the nazi officer which commanded the elimination of the warsaw ghetto. The book consists mainly of dialogues, so it's pretty easy to read. It's also an interesting insight on the roots of the nazi ideology and the "thinking" mechanisms of those that really believed all that crap.
 
Well, in Polish it's called "Rozmowy z Katem" which basically translates into "Dialogues with the butcher" or "conversations with the butcher". Anyways it's written by K. Moczarski, and I'm pretty sure it's been translated into several languages.

Since the author didn't write many more books (he was a journalist, that's why he was able to remember long prison dialogues and write them in a sensible way) it's relatively easy to find.
 
The harboring terror proof is hardly proof at all. It's just some guy saying some things, no sources, no nothing. Furthermore, it says that there was ONE terrorist(not counting Saddam) being harbored. Whoa. Talk about links to terrorist organisations.

And about the weekly standard thingie, if it is all true, then why have I not heard about it ANYWHERE else? Although this one does seem to have some good sources.

What's also interesting is that the article turns very anti anti-war-people at the end.
 
The guy that did the news report wrote:
training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction
Click to expand...

???

"Hey Saddam, I need to improve my thermonuclear warhead detonation skills. Can I borrow a little bit of desert?"

please.

In any case, a war just makes the transport and spreading of weapons throughout the place easier. I'd even say starting a full scale war is probably the most stupid thing to do in such a situation: Terrorist groups that previously were rivals or were fighting, unite for a common cause. Which is kicking the "infidel agressor"s ass, actually increasing the risk of terrorist attacks.

Dunno, last I checked, you can't put a fire out with gasoline.
 
How does starting a war create a bigger, easier way for terrorists, or any enemy to do their business? This is only the beginning. Things are going to be a little bumby. If you don't like the ride, then don't get on, and don't say it's stupid just because you are afraid of it. Terrorists had COMPLETE freedom, at least Al Quaida, in Iraq. Now, they must fight to do business, which presents them with competition, troubles, and losses. Unless you would have them move completely untouched. And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Osama had no real rival with other terrorists. And what terrorist organization has he allied with against the US that he didn't create himself? In Iraq that is, since that is what we are talking about. The bathists? They are a political party, not a terrorist org. So who may I ask have they allied with against us in Iraq?
 
How does starting a war create a bigger, easier way for terrorists, or any enemy to do their business? This is only the beginning. Things are going to be a little bumby. If you don't like the ride, then don't get on, and don't say it's stupid just because you are afraid of it. Terrorists had COMPLETE freedom, at least Al Quaida, in Iraq.
Click to expand...
No, that's your opinion, that's not a fact. What's more, still no proof, or mention of anything besides that one article you found.

Now, they must fight to do business, which presents them with competition, troubles, and losses.
Click to expand...
Competition? What, are the groups of terrorists competing for support?
Troubles? Right, they were completely legal and unpersecuted before.
Losses. Wow, I thought the point of suicide bombers was to die. I don't know about that, though.

And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Osama had no real rival with other terrorists. And what terrorist organization has he allied with against the US that he didn't create himself?
Click to expand...
And you're trying to say what?

In Iraq that is, since that is what we are talking about. The bathists? They are a political party, not a terrorist org. So who may I ask have they allied with against us in Iraq?
Click to expand...
Aha. Ba'athists are a political party and can therefore never be terorists. Yeppers.
And ehmm, WHAT are you trying to say, King?

Also, you seem to be missing the point that because there are terrorists active NOW that doesn't mean that they were active THEN.

What's more, do you really think that invading Iraq did NOT make it easier for the terrorists to reach their targets, and that it did NOT give them more excuses to attack?
 
Well, let's think about this political party/terrorist thing a second.

The IRA has a political arm. I believe the ETA also has a party in front of it. Columbia's FARC had a political party before they got creamed by right wing death squads.

As I recall the Nazi party had a terrorist wing. The African National Congress used violence and terrorism in their campaign against South Africa.

Thus political parties can either directly or indirectly engage in terrorism.
 
In case this was directed at me, welsh. I was being sarcastic. In case it isn't directed at me, I agree. Weeee.....
 
I have heard about this weekly standard thingie. The report is based on what has been said by questioned Iraqi offisers who worked for Saddam before the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top