its plausible. saddam liked to make Iraq look like a 1st world country as part of his ego complex. It reminds me of the argument that synthesis was making that these countries are better off with military strongmen. This picture seems to make the case for it. Also, if you've seen pictures of the Kurdish part of Iraq up north, it actually looks nice, which makes sense considering the war was fought in central and south Iraq. If you remember, the Kurds were reviled by Saddam, so I would guess the rest of Iraq would look as good as the Kurdish part if not better if Saddam were still around.
Geedee wrote:
Is this realz?
its plausible. saddam liked to make Iraq look like a 1st world country as part of his ego complex. It reminds me of the argument that synthesis was making that these countries are better off with military strongmen. This picture seems to make the case for it. Also, if you've seen pictures of the Kurdish part of Iraq up north, it actually looks nice, which makes sense considering the war was fought in central and south Iraq. If you remember, the Kurds were reviled by Saddam, so I would guess the rest of Iraq would look as good as the Kurdish part if not better if Saddam were still around.
Iraq was better off under Saddam. There was less violence and the political arena was much more stable. Considering the behaviour of quite a few people in the area which is subhuman and the fact they all want to kill each other anyway the only way to have relative peace between the fishies is to have a shark in the tank.
Iraq was better off under Saddam. There was less violence and the political arena was much more stable. Considering the behaviour of quite a few people in the area which is subhuman and the fact they all want to kill each other anyway the only way to have relative peace between the fishies is to have a shark in the tank.
[quote user=Beelzebub] Iraq was better off under Saddam. There was less violence and the political arena was much more stable. Considering the behaviour of quite a few people in the area which is subhuman and the fact they all want to kill each other anyway the only way to have relative peace between the fishies is to have a shark in the tank. [/quote]
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
Beelzebub wrote:
Iraq was better off under Saddam. There was less violence and the political arena was much more stable. Considering the behaviour of quite a few people in the area which is subhuman and the fact they all want to kill each other anyway the only way to have relative peace between the fishies is to have a shark in the tank.
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
[quote user=InSOmnIaC] Scout arguing why muslims can't be left to their own devices. [/quote]
Exactly my thoughts, just proves once again that Muslins can not handle democracy or any type of freedom. Well done scout you have further concreted my opinions on Islam.
InSOmnIaC wrote:
Scout arguing why muslims can't be left to their own devices.
Exactly my thoughts, just proves once again that Muslins can not handle democracy or any type of freedom. Well done scout you have further concreted my opinions on Islam.
[quote user=darkzevahc] [quote user=Beelzebub]Iraq was better off under Saddam. There was less violence and the political arena was much more stable. Considering the behaviour of quite a few people in the area which is subhuman and the fact they all want to kill each other anyway the only way to have relative peace between the fishies is to have a shark in the tank.[/quote]
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy. [/quote]
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
darkzevahc wrote:
Beelzebub wrote:
Iraq was better off under Saddam. There was less violence and the political arena was much more stable. Considering the behaviour of quite a few people in the area which is subhuman and the fact they all want to kill each other anyway the only way to have relative peace between the fishies is to have a shark in the tank.
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
[quote user=Beelzebub] [quote user=darkzevahc]One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.[/quote]
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence. [/quote]
energy security bishes. without the US oil prices would fluctuate so bad that there'd be a GFC every week.
Beelzebub wrote:
darkzevahc wrote:
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
energy security bishes. without the US oil prices would fluctuate so bad that there'd be a GFC every week.
[quote user=Beelzebub] [quote user=darkzevahc]One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.[/quote]
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence. [/quote]
yeah I killed people in Iraq?I am american I didn't do anything to Iraq so fuck you
Beelzebub wrote:
darkzevahc wrote:
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
yeah I killed people in Iraq?I am american I didn't do anything to Iraq so fuck you
^kinda retarded when people Generalize against you isn't it? you didn't seem to have a problem lumping millions of muslims together based on the actions of a few
^kinda retarded when people Generalize against you isn't it? you didn't seem to have a problem lumping millions of muslims together based on the actions of a few
[quote user=pimppapy] ^kinda retarded when people Generalize against you isn't it? you didn't seem to have a problem lumping millions of muslims together based on the actions of a few [/quote]
well Americans protest against the actions of the few, moderate Muslims stand idly by as the psychos hijack their skydaddy.
pimppapy wrote:
^kinda retarded when people Generalize against you isn't it? you didn't seem to have a problem lumping millions of muslims together based on the actions of a few
well Americans protest against the actions of the few, moderate Muslims stand idly by as the psychos hijack their skydaddy.
^you mean the "We are the 99%" protests? those few protesters that were belittled by the rest of America? And what do your protests achieve by the way? . . . . apparently nothing other than to be another story on the news that will get skewed based on which outlet you're hearing it from.
^you mean the "We are the 99%" protests? those few protesters that were belittled by the rest of America? And what do your protests achieve by the way? . . . . apparently nothing other than to be another story on the news that will get skewed based on which outlet you're hearing it from.
[quote user=pimppapy] ^you mean the "We are the 99%" protests? those few protesters that were belittled by the rest of America? And what do your protests achieve by the way? . . . . apparently nothing other than to be another story on the news that will get skewed based on which outlet you're hearing it from.
[/quote]
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
pimppapy wrote:
^you mean the "We are the 99%" protests? those few protesters that were belittled by the rest of America? And what do your protests achieve by the way? . . . . apparently nothing other than to be another story on the news that will get skewed based on which outlet you're hearing it from.
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
[quote user=mac] so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it.. [/quote]
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
[quote user=mac] well Americans protest against the actions of the few [/quote]
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now. I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
mac wrote:
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
mac wrote:
well Americans protest against the actions of the few
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now. I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
[quote user=pimppapy] [quote user=mac]so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..[/quote]
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
[quote user=mac]well Americans protest against the actions of the few [/quote]
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now. I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done. [/quote]
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data? good links btw, i want to see one of arabs, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/
pimppapy wrote:
mac wrote:
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
mac wrote:
well Americans protest against the actions of the few
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now. I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data? good links btw, i want to see one of arabs, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/
[quote user=pimpappyslink] The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism.
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.[/quote]
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
pimpappyslink wrote:
The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism.
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.
[quote user=mac] [quote user=pimpappyslink]The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism.
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.[/quote]
thanks for finally agreeing with us. [/quote]
I'd invite those guys to christmas:D
mac wrote:
pimpappyslink wrote:
The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism.
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.
[quote user=mac] [quote user=pimpappyslink] fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world.
United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism[/quote]
thanks for finally agreeing with us. [/quote]
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
[quote user=mac]good links btw, i want to see one of arabs, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/ [/quote]
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
[quote user=pimppapy]Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done. [/quote]
[quote user=mac] wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data? [/quote]
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
mac wrote:
pimpappyslink wrote:
fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world.
United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
mac wrote:
good links btw, i want to see one of arabs, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
pimppapy wrote:
Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
mac wrote:
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data?
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
[quote user=pimppapy] [quote user=mac]thanks for finally agreeing with us. [/quote]
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
[quote user=mac], in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/[/quote]
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
[quote user=pimppapy]Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done. [/quote]
[quote user=mac]wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data? [/quote]
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
[/quote]
the anti war movement worked pretty well for the vietnam war, and if you noticed, mcain didn't get elected and there are no more US troops in eraak, with the ghan to be vacated in 2 years
oh this one:
" So far, the few Muslims who choose to speak up against militant extremist Islam have faced threats of violence and accusations of being anti-Islam. In effect, the message disseminated by radical Muslims is that merely discussing Islamic terrorism is to be construed as an attack on Islam.
More effectively, Muslim extremists have quelled criticism against them from peaceful Muslims by adopting popular Muslim and Arab causes. A case in point is the adoption of the Palestinian cause. The issue of Palestine and the suffering of the Palestinians is the single most important issue that unites the entire Muslim and Arab world. No issue evokes the passion of Muslims and Arabs as much as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so important to Arabs and Muslims that every extremist group from Morocco to Indonesia that seeks legitimacy and a following, places the "liberation" of Palestine at the forefront of their agenda. For example, recall that Saddam Hussein responded to the world's request that he leave Kuwait by insisting that Israel first evacuate the West Bank and Gaza. Osama Bin Laden also invoked the Palestinian issue to justify 9-11. Iran has made the Palestinian issue its most important foreign policy priority since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. "
If they care so much why do they do nothing to help refugees from the region?
pimppapy wrote:
mac wrote:
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
mac wrote:
, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
pimppapy wrote:
Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
mac wrote:
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data?
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
the anti war movement worked pretty well for the vietnam war, and if you noticed, mcain didn't get elected and there are no more US troops in eraak, with the ghan to be vacated in 2 years
oh this one:
" So far, the few Muslims who choose to speak up against militant extremist Islam have faced threats of violence and accusations of being anti-Islam. In effect, the message disseminated by radical Muslims is that merely discussing Islamic terrorism is to be construed as an attack on Islam.
More effectively, Muslim extremists have quelled criticism against them from peaceful Muslims by adopting popular Muslim and Arab causes. A case in point is the adoption of the Palestinian cause. The issue of Palestine and the suffering of the Palestinians is the single most important issue that unites the entire Muslim and Arab world. No issue evokes the passion of Muslims and Arabs as much as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so important to Arabs and Muslims that every extremist group from Morocco to Indonesia that seeks legitimacy and a following, places the "liberation" of Palestine at the forefront of their agenda. For example, recall that Saddam Hussein responded to the world's request that he leave Kuwait by insisting that Israel first evacuate the West Bank and Gaza. Osama Bin Laden also invoked the Palestinian issue to justify 9-11. Iran has made the Palestinian issue its most important foreign policy priority since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. "
If they care so much why do they do nothing to help refugees from the region?
you forget that they're all run by dictators who's rise to power was through force. Apart from the Gulf countries, all Arab ones are secular governments who's interests don't run parallel with their citizen's. Syria let all the Iraqi's in after the invasion. But when they began running out of money some of the refugee's began to resort to crimes and Syria started deporting them.
but you see now how easy it is for any terrorist organization to achieve legitimacy when all they have to do is point fingers at Israeli Terrorism. The Israeli situation is fucked up on many levels. If Israel calls itself a democracy yet treats the Palestinians (Who are all Arabs and mostly Muslim) in such a manner. Then why would they protest against the only people who fight against the greatest supporter (The USA) of said Terrorism? Iraqi civilians were getting killed daily, for no damn reason. They called it collateral damage, like they were sub-human. To them, you are the terrorist. There still is no correlation between 9/11 and Iraq. But Iraq still happened and no proper reason was given yet.
The situation for them is comparable to when Bush stated. "You are with us, or against us!" even Non-allied/indifferent countries scrambled to kiss ass after that statement. (Except Hugo Chavez i think?)
you forget that they're all run by dictators who's rise to power was through force. Apart from the Gulf countries, all Arab ones are secular governments who's interests don't run parallel with their citizen's. Syria let all the Iraqi's in after the invasion. But when they began running out of money some of the refugee's began to resort to crimes and Syria started deporting them.
but you see now how easy it is for any terrorist organization to achieve legitimacy when all they have to do is point fingers at Israeli Terrorism. The Israeli situation is fucked up on many levels. If Israel calls itself a democracy yet treats the Palestinians (Who are all Arabs and mostly Muslim) in such a manner. Then why would they protest against the only people who fight against the greatest supporter (The USA) of said Terrorism? Iraqi civilians were getting killed daily, for no damn reason. They called it collateral damage, like they were sub-human. To them, you are the terrorist. There still is no correlation between 9/11 and Iraq. But Iraq still happened and no proper reason was given yet.
The situation for them is comparable to when Bush stated. "You are with us, or against us!" even Non-allied/indifferent countries scrambled to kiss ass after that statement. (Except Hugo Chavez i think?)
32
| 225 views
| 480x417
| 33KB
[/quote]
its plausible. saddam liked to make Iraq look like a 1st world country as part of his ego complex. It reminds me of the argument that synthesis was making that these countries are better off with military strongmen. This picture seems to make the case for it. Also, if you've seen pictures of the Kurdish part of Iraq up north, it actually looks nice, which makes sense considering the war was fought in central and south Iraq. If you remember, the Kurds were reviled by Saddam, so I would guess the rest of Iraq would look as good as the Kurdish part if not better if Saddam were still around.
its plausible. saddam liked to make Iraq look like a 1st world country as part of his ego complex. It reminds me of the argument that synthesis was making that these countries are better off with military strongmen. This picture seems to make the case for it. Also, if you've seen pictures of the Kurdish part of Iraq up north, it actually looks nice, which makes sense considering the war was fought in central and south Iraq. If you remember, the Kurds were reviled by Saddam, so I would guess the rest of Iraq would look as good as the Kurdish part if not better if Saddam were still around.
[/quote]
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
[/quote]
Exactly my thoughts, just proves once again that Muslins can not handle democracy or any type of freedom. Well done scout you have further concreted my opinions on Islam.
Exactly my thoughts, just proves once again that Muslins can not handle democracy or any type of freedom. Well done scout you have further concreted my opinions on Islam.
[/quote]
this is a historic day
this is a historic day
I guess it whooshed right over all your heads like this plane here
I guess it whooshed right over all your heads like this plane here
[/quote]
damn dude, that sucks, why you trying to get with a goat though?
damn dude, that sucks, why you trying to get with a goat though?
[/quote]
lol racist piece of shit
lol racist piece of shit
[/quote]
agreed
agreed
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
[/quote]
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
I don't know if Iraq itself was better off, the stability they had was fake, since they were only stable because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. The problem was the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the US completely mishandled it and thats why some areas of Iraq are worse off.
One thing I can tell you is the US and the West in general were better off with Saddam in power, since he held Iran in check and other muslim nations just thought he was crazy.
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
[/quote]
energy security bishes. without the US oil prices would fluctuate so bad that there'd be a GFC every week.
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
energy security bishes. without the US oil prices would fluctuate so bad that there'd be a GFC every week.
[quote user=darkzevahc]since he held Iran in check
[/quote]
After the 1980-88 war... lol
After the 1980-88 war... lol
[/quote]
Speak for yourself
Speak for yourself
Speak for yourself
[/quote]
i am
and others. '
\
Speak for yourself
i am
and others. '
\
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
[/quote]
yeah I killed people in Iraq?I am american I didn't do anything to Iraq so fuck you
It was better. There was less violence and bloodshed and the streets were safer. People had jobs and employment and everything worked relatively well. The Shiites and Sunni and kurds have always hated each other and use any excuse to butcher each other. Saddam stopped that from happening cause he was the big boss. There is no way Iraq can ever provide a decent living standard as anything other than a iron fisted dictatorship cause the factions will always start to slaughter each other at every opportunity.
Fucking America came in and had to 'Fix' Iraq and ended up killing more citizens during the war than Saddam did his whole life and then left a massive power vacuum that promotes violence.
yeah I killed people in Iraq?I am american I didn't do anything to Iraq so fuck you
[/quote]
well Americans protest against the actions of the few, moderate Muslims stand idly by as the psychos hijack their skydaddy.
well Americans protest against the actions of the few, moderate Muslims stand idly by as the psychos hijack their skydaddy.
[/quote]
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
[/quote]
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
[quote user=mac]
well Americans protest against the actions of the few
[/quote]
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now.
I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
so why don't you ever here about muslims speaking out.. here's an idea pimp... start posting stories about it..
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
well Americans protest against the actions of the few
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now.
I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
[quote user=mac]well Americans protest against the actions of the few [/quote]
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now.
I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
[/quote]
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data? good links btw, i want to see one of arabs, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/
you don't hear about it cuz you get all your info from Anti-Islamic sources. Great idea btw. I just DID, but it was you who started by saying
so go ahead, the ball is in your field now.
I said protests don't do shit. Egyptians protested and got killed by the hundreds. Same for syria. They're getting shit done by trying to remove the dictators (one of which was US backed btw). Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data? good links btw, i want to see one of arabs, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.[/quote]
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.[/quote]
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
[/quote]
I'd invite those guys to christmas:D
The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent.
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
I'd invite those guys to christmas:D
United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism [/quote]
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
[/quote]
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
[quote user=mac]good links btw, i want to see one of arabs, in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/
[/quote]
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
[quote user=pimppapy]Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done.
[/quote]
[quote user=mac]
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data?
[/quote]
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism
thanks for finally agreeing with us.
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data?
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
[quote user=mac], in arabia telling other arabs not to terrorist/[/quote]
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
[quote user=pimppapy]Show me which one of your "American Protests" gets anything REAL done. [/quote]
[quote user=mac]wait so you want me to google an anti war protest in the US? can TAN hold that much data? [/quote]
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
[/quote]
the anti war movement worked pretty well for the vietnam war, and if you noticed, mcain didn't get elected and there are no more US troops in eraak, with the ghan to be vacated in 2 years
oh this one:
" So far, the few Muslims who choose to speak up against militant extremist Islam have faced threats of violence and accusations of being anti-Islam. In effect, the message disseminated by radical Muslims is that merely discussing Islamic terrorism is to be construed as an attack on Islam.
More effectively, Muslim extremists have quelled criticism against them from peaceful Muslims by adopting popular Muslim and Arab causes. A case in point is the adoption of the Palestinian cause. The issue of Palestine and the suffering of the Palestinians is the single most important issue that unites the entire Muslim and Arab world. No issue evokes the passion of Muslims and Arabs as much as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so important to Arabs and Muslims that every extremist group from Morocco to Indonesia that seeks legitimacy and a following, places the "liberation" of Palestine at the forefront of their agenda. For example, recall that Saddam Hussein responded to the world's request that he leave Kuwait by insisting that Israel first evacuate the West Bank and Gaza. Osama Bin Laden also invoked the Palestinian issue to justify 9-11. Iran has made the Palestinian issue its most important foreign policy priority since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. "
If they care so much why do they do nothing to help refugees from the region?
if you'd like to put on your reading glasses. You'd notice that I've always been against terrorism. What I've been arguing all this time is YOUR definition of terrorism. When the US commits acts of Terrorism, You and yours call it collateral damage all the while talking as if all the 1 billion muslims are fundamentalist islamists. So once again my position hasn't changed one bit.
glad to see that you've actually read the link. Now.. . . there's more in there that i'd like you to quote from that site. . . . your smart enough to know what i'm pointing at.
No. Just show me one that actually made a difference.
the anti war movement worked pretty well for the vietnam war, and if you noticed, mcain didn't get elected and there are no more US troops in eraak, with the ghan to be vacated in 2 years
oh this one:
" So far, the few Muslims who choose to speak up against militant extremist Islam have faced threats of violence and accusations of being anti-Islam. In effect, the message disseminated by radical Muslims is that merely discussing Islamic terrorism is to be construed as an attack on Islam.
More effectively, Muslim extremists have quelled criticism against them from peaceful Muslims by adopting popular Muslim and Arab causes. A case in point is the adoption of the Palestinian cause. The issue of Palestine and the suffering of the Palestinians is the single most important issue that unites the entire Muslim and Arab world. No issue evokes the passion of Muslims and Arabs as much as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so important to Arabs and Muslims that every extremist group from Morocco to Indonesia that seeks legitimacy and a following, places the "liberation" of Palestine at the forefront of their agenda. For example, recall that Saddam Hussein responded to the world's request that he leave Kuwait by insisting that Israel first evacuate the West Bank and Gaza. Osama Bin Laden also invoked the Palestinian issue to justify 9-11. Iran has made the Palestinian issue its most important foreign policy priority since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. "
If they care so much why do they do nothing to help refugees from the region?
but you see now how easy it is for any terrorist organization to achieve legitimacy when all they have to do is point fingers at Israeli Terrorism. The Israeli situation is fucked up on many levels. If Israel calls itself a democracy yet treats the Palestinians (Who are all Arabs and mostly Muslim) in such a manner. Then why would they protest against the only people who fight against the greatest supporter (The USA) of said Terrorism? Iraqi civilians were getting killed daily, for no damn reason. They called it collateral damage, like they were sub-human. To them, you are the terrorist. There still is no correlation between 9/11 and Iraq. But Iraq still happened and no proper reason was given yet.
The situation for them is comparable to when Bush stated. "You are with us, or against us!" even Non-allied/indifferent countries scrambled to kiss ass after that statement. (Except Hugo Chavez i think?)
but you see now how easy it is for any terrorist organization to achieve legitimacy when all they have to do is point fingers at Israeli Terrorism. The Israeli situation is fucked up on many levels. If Israel calls itself a democracy yet treats the Palestinians (Who are all Arabs and mostly Muslim) in such a manner. Then why would they protest against the only people who fight against the greatest supporter (The USA) of said Terrorism? Iraqi civilians were getting killed daily, for no damn reason. They called it collateral damage, like they were sub-human. To them, you are the terrorist. There still is no correlation between 9/11 and Iraq. But Iraq still happened and no proper reason was given yet.
The situation for them is comparable to when Bush stated. "You are with us, or against us!" even Non-allied/indifferent countries scrambled to kiss ass after that statement. (Except Hugo Chavez i think?)