Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: loic2003
Who the hell is going to get upset about something put in a newspaper?Originally posted by: moshquerade
i agree with someone who said that our new agencies probably don't dare report this for fear of backlash.Originally posted by: BroeBo
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This forum is incredible. Someone posts the article from the Amnesty International site, and suddenly it's shens.
Some like to get more then one news source before believing something. No matter what source it comes from.
What?
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: loic2003
Who the hell is going to get upset about something put in a newspaper?Originally posted by: moshquerade
i agree with someone who said that our new agencies probably don't dare report this for fear of backlash.Originally posted by: BroeBo
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This forum is incredible. Someone posts the article from the Amnesty International site, and suddenly it's shens.
Some like to get more then one news source before believing something. No matter what source it comes from.
What?
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: mzkhadir
If Iran did not take this action then the parents/household or someone else would have killer her instead.
Let the campaign to invade Iran begin.
Another 30,000 civilians dead in the name of freedom? Why not? Actually, let's triple it; at least 90,000 dead, so Iran can be extra free.
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: loic2003
Who the hell is going to get upset about something put in a newspaper?Originally posted by: moshquerade
i agree with someone who said that our new agencies probably don't dare report this for fear of backlash.Originally posted by: BroeBo
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This forum is incredible. Someone posts the article from the Amnesty International site, and suddenly it's shens.
Some like to get more then one news source before believing something. No matter what source it comes from.
What?
It should be obvious, at least to 99% of all people older then 5.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: mzkhadir
If Iran did not take this action then the parents/household or someone else would have killer her instead.
Let the campaign to invade Iran begin.
Another 30,000 civilians dead in the name of freedom? Why not? Actually, let's triple it; at least 90,000 dead, so Iran can be extra free.
Name a basic human right or freedom that has been won without war and or violence?
Oppressors and tyrants NEVER give up their power without a fight.
Passive people are hilarious. Always the first to scream about human rights, yet never willing to do anything to effectively secure them.
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: loic2003
Who the hell is going to get upset about something put in a newspaper?Originally posted by: moshquerade
i agree with someone who said that our new agencies probably don't dare report this for fear of backlash.Originally posted by: BroeBo
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This forum is incredible. Someone posts the article from the Amnesty International site, and suddenly it's shens.
Some like to get more then one news source before believing something. No matter what source it comes from.
What?
It should be obvious, at least to 99% of all people older then 5.
i don't get it... what should be obvious?
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: mzkhadir
If Iran did not take this action then the parents/household or someone else would have killer her instead.
Let the campaign to invade Iran begin.
Another 30,000 civilians dead in the name of freedom? Why not? Actually, let's triple it; at least 90,000 dead, so Iran can be extra free.
Name a basic human right or freedom that has been won without war and or violence?
Oppressors and tyrants NEVER give up their power without a fight.
Passive people are hilarious. Always the first to scream about human rights, yet never willing to do anything to effectively secure them.
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: mzkhadir
If Iran did not take this action then the parents/household or someone else would have killer her instead.
Let the campaign to invade Iran begin.
Another 30,000 civilians dead in the name of freedom? Why not? Actually, let's triple it; at least 90,000 dead, so Iran can be extra free.
Name a basic human right or freedom that has been won without war and or violence?
Oppressors and tyrants NEVER give up their power without a fight.
Passive people are hilarious. Always the first to scream about human rights, yet never willing to do anything to effectively secure them.
Yup. Much better to let the tyrants and oppressors kill hundreds of thousands of their people over the years.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Aimster
This has nothing to do with Islam and last I checked nobody likes the govt. of Iran so there won't be any protest on the street.
Foxnews would be all over this. They always have something on the cover of their site about Iran.
Nothing to do with Islam??? Last time I checked the official name of the country is "Islamic Republic of Iran" and they claim to be governed by Islamic law. Theirs may be a minority view of Islam but they do claim they govern by it's laws and customs.
They can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't mean they are what they claim.
Sentencing a girl to death for stabbing a man can be linked to Islam how? In this case it was supposedly self-defense according to that site. If this is the case then Islamic Law would protect her.
That's like saying an attack on Iran would be an attack on the religion of Islam because their country is labeled "Islamic Republic".
A bunch of corrupt old bag mullahs run Iran.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: mzkhadir
If Iran did not take this action then the parents/household or someone else would have killer her instead.
Let the campaign to invade Iran begin.
Another 30,000 civilians dead in the name of freedom? Why not? Actually, let's triple it; at least 90,000 dead, so Iran can be extra free.
Name a basic human right or freedom that has been won without war and or violence?
Oppressors and tyrants NEVER give up their power without a fight.
Passive people are hilarious. Always the first to scream about human rights, yet never willing to do anything to effectively secure them.
I'm not passive. In fact I would love for the US to do a full-scale Iraq-style invasion of Sudan, because of the crisis in Darfur. Almost 200,000 dead, crimes against women, millions displaced, but ATOT would rather get riled up about one girl in Iran. Convenience, or just thinking along party lines?
On a completely unrelated note, the CIA World Factbook has Sudan's oil reserves pegged around 1.6 billion barrels, while Iran is closer to 131 billion barrels. Iraq is stated to have 113 billion barrels. Of course this has no relation to the US campaign against tyranny and oppression.
Originally posted by: Finality
jpeyton I take it your another one of our resident mulsims defending the cause right?
Originally posted by: hjo3
hahahaOriginally posted by: Syringer
Worst part..
Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls? boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: AMDZen
Originally posted by: loic2003
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: loic2003
Who the hell is going to get upset about something put in a newspaper?Originally posted by: moshquerade
i agree with someone who said that our new agencies probably don't dare report this for fear of backlash.Originally posted by: BroeBo
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
This forum is incredible. Someone posts the article from the Amnesty International site, and suddenly it's shens.
Some like to get more then one news source before believing something. No matter what source it comes from.
What?
It should be obvious, at least to 99% of all people older then 5.
i don't get it... what should be obvious?
you are either a troll or just retarded not sure wich.
Originally posted by: Finality
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Aimster
This has nothing to do with Islam and last I checked nobody likes the govt. of Iran so there won't be any protest on the street.
Foxnews would be all over this. They always have something on the cover of their site about Iran.
Nothing to do with Islam??? Last time I checked the official name of the country is "Islamic Republic of Iran" and they claim to be governed by Islamic law. Theirs may be a minority view of Islam but they do claim they govern by it's laws and customs.
They can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't mean they are what they claim.
Sentencing a girl to death for stabbing a man can be linked to Islam how? In this case it was supposedly self-defense according to that site. If this is the case then Islamic Law would protect her.
That's like saying an attack on Iran would be an attack on the religion of Islam because their country is labeled "Islamic Republic".
A bunch of corrupt old bag mullahs run Iran.
Vs a corrup bunch of mullahs that run Saudi Arabia, or was it a corrupt bunch of mullahs that ran Afghanistan? Please tell me at what point you stop making excuses, just give me a numer of dead civilians and I'll get back to you then.
The muslim world is full of honor killings you know it your muslim stop denying it. Afghan is filled with cases of it and rape cases is Saudi rarely get heard.
By muslim law it takes two womens testimony to equal that of a man and women are rarely believed anyway.
jpeyton I take it your another one of our resident mulsims defending the cause right?
Originally posted by: Amused
If human rights and freedom are won over oppression, who the fsck cares if there is an ulterior motive?
The world is not, never has been, and never will be altruistic. Get used to that. The sooner you accept that the less you'll waste your time on idealism and wishful thinking.
And if you cannot see the common sense in stabilizing the ME your idealism has won over your ability to think clearly.
who lied?Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Amused
If human rights and freedom are won over oppression, who the fsck cares if there is an ulterior motive?
The world is not, never has been, and never will be altruistic. Get used to that. The sooner you accept that the less you'll waste your time on idealism and wishful thinking.
And if you cannot see the common sense in stabilizing the ME your idealism has won over your ability to think clearly.
So lying to go to war is okay?
Originally posted by: moshquerade
who lied?Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Amused
If human rights and freedom are won over oppression, who the fsck cares if there is an ulterior motive?
The world is not, never has been, and never will be altruistic. Get used to that. The sooner you accept that the less you'll waste your time on idealism and wishful thinking.
And if you cannot see the common sense in stabilizing the ME your idealism has won over your ability to think clearly.
So lying to go to war is okay?
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: moshquerade
who lied?Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Amused
If human rights and freedom are won over oppression, who the fsck cares if there is an ulterior motive?
The world is not, never has been, and never will be altruistic. Get used to that. The sooner you accept that the less you'll waste your time on idealism and wishful thinking.
And if you cannot see the common sense in stabilizing the ME your idealism has won over your ability to think clearly.
So lying to go to war is okay?
Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."
George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George "aWol" Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then ?it remains a surprise to me now ?that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Amused
If human rights and freedom are won over oppression, who the fsck cares if there is an ulterior motive?
The world is not, never has been, and never will be altruistic. Get used to that. The sooner you accept that the less you'll waste your time on idealism and wishful thinking.
And if you cannot see the common sense in stabilizing the ME your idealism has won over your ability to think clearly.
So lying to go to war is okay?
In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: moshquerade
who lied?Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Amused
If human rights and freedom are won over oppression, who the fsck cares if there is an ulterior motive?
The world is not, never has been, and never will be altruistic. Get used to that. The sooner you accept that the less you'll waste your time on idealism and wishful thinking.
And if you cannot see the common sense in stabilizing the ME your idealism has won over your ability to think clearly.
So lying to go to war is okay?
Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."
George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George "aWol" Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then ?it remains a surprise to me now ?that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
Of course, this little attempt at painting only republicans as liars omits the fact that the brits, and the russions were just as sure. It also omits the fact that Clinton and many on the left were just as sure.
These aren't lies, they are mistakes. The same mistake EVERY CREDIBLE INTELIGENCE AGENCY ON THE PLANET MADE, along with the previous administration.
Saddam did everything he could to make the world believe he had WMDs and, quite possibly, did have them and used the months of bickering among the allies to ship them to Syria.
So, again, who lied?
Originally posted by: krmarks
I really don't care what reason they gave the public as to why we went to war.
Fact is we needed to be there
Nor do I care that oil is there or not.
Originally posted by: Chadder007
If someone is raped over there it seems they are doomed. If they try to do something to the person raping them, they get sentenced to death. If they get raped anyway and are found out to have been raped, they get stoned to death. Islam is NOT a "peaceful" religion.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Shhh!!! The whole big lie thing is central to their world view.