Not Forgiven - The Taliban

John Creighton · 2006-10-09 12:00:09

So Mark Foley screws aroundm causes the Democrats to get elected as the media portrays the entire GOP as a bunch of homosexual pediphiles, and since the public doesn't want these Republicans anywhere near their children, ... and the Ossama gives credit to Mark Foley, of whom he says, "We're it not for him none of this would be possible." And the Islamic Radicals have victory parades in the streets of Bagdad and they proclaim Mark Foley Day as a national holiday.

If Mark Foley is the straw that gives the election to the democrats in away it is kind of poetic just after all the attacks on Bill Clinton and self righteously preaching about character and family values and let's not forget their their swift boat antics. If the Republican’s can win on the gay marriage issue, it only seems fair for the democrats to win because of Mark Foley. What goes around comes around. Now who do I really want to win….Is their a third option. lol. Please, give me either McCain or Lieberman for president. Well I don’t live in the US so I can’t vote.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-09 23:48:38

Mark Foley is sort of a spy, he is not who he pretended to be. You can't blame the Republicans for who Mark Foley was anymore than you can blame George Washington for who Benedict Arnold was. One can argue after all, George Washington should have known that Benedict Arnold was a traitor from the very moment he started consorting with the Loyalist Peggy Shippan. No doubt George Washington was guilty of covering up for Benedict Arnold, and that it was patently obvious that Arnold was a traitor, and so he shouldn't have place him in charge of the fortifications at West Point, because of that George Washington should have resigned and been replaced by Horatio Gates, a general who didn't like Benedict Arnold, so therefor Horation Gates would have made a better commander in chief of the Continental Army than George Washington, or so goes the Devils argument goes.

Mark Foley resigned as soon as he was found out, but the Press being not satisfied has conducted a witch hunt, saying senior republican leaders must have known, how could they not, they after all got spies and bugs everywere. No e-mail or instant message can ever get through without being monitored by the Speaker of the House. Now how difficult would it be for the Democratic Party or George Soros to get get somebody to commit perjury, and have somebody with glasses saying,

Former Page:"Oh thats right I got instant messages from Mark Foley, and he said he wanted to do such and such with me, and I got the instant messages printed out here on these sheets of paper."

The Press:"Oh how do we know those messages were sent by Mark Foley?"

Former Page:"Oh easy, because I said so, and I was a Boy Scout, so its Scouts Honor."

The Press:"Oh that does it, since you were a scout and scouts never lie, we must have some major scandal brewing here in the Republican Party, Oh never mind what North Korea is doing with the Bomb, the most important story is obviously this Instant message scandal! and Oh my gosh! He was a former Page and he was only 21 years old! Terrible terrible, a case of attempted statuatory rape with a minor it is, Oh theirs another one and another one, they all say they had sex with Mark Foley on their scouts honor, they must be telling the truth for sure. No former boy scout would lie about a thing like that would they?"

John Creighton · 2006-10-10 18:04:50

Mark Foley Folly admitted to needing help. I don’t think attacking the boys character is the right course of action.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-11 13:21:00

Mark Foley Folly admitted to needing help. I don’t think attacking the boys character is the right course of action.

I never wrote that, that is not a quote by me.

If it is one person's word against anothers, the accused has the right to a presumption of innocence. The Media should not undermine this principle by participating in a character assassination against all Republicans. We don't know who knew what about the Foley affair, all the Media is doing is asserting that the leadership must have know about it, but they offer no concrete evidence, that some person says its true is not evidence, their is no fingerprints, no anything, and as you know in this highly charged atmosphere, there is plenty of motivation for people to say damaging things. I can walk off the street and say Bill Clinton raped me, but my word should not be sufficient to cause a media circus. The Media wants to drive the Republicans out off office by affecting public perception. If its someone's word against another, they'll frame their reports as if the words of the witness was the word of God. Simple accusations by people shjouldn't be enough to drive people out of political office. I can type out plenty of e-mails and instant message supposedly from other people. I can type out an e-mail from Bill Clinton for example saying he planned to rob a bank, and I could show this printout to the Authorities, but that should't be enough for a seach warrent. I mean just because a piece of paper says its from Bill Clinton doesn't mean that it is. Likewise If I showed this paper I typed out myself to the Media, it shouldn't start a scandal. "Well I said it, so it must be true." Well just because the Media would like it to be true, doesn't mean that it is.

The same holds with regards to the Republican Congress, the News Media would like the Republicans to have known all about the Foley affair and have covered it up. The politicians would then react to the bad press, and act defensive, maybe resign to save the party or whatever, not necessarily because of any actual guilt. In politics public perception is all that matters. There is no jury system to decide whos right and whos wrong. The Media just finds some excuse to give someone bad press with inuendo and "he must have known" in order to drive the people they don't like out of office. So far I've seen no evidence that any crime has occured, Foley resigned because of he bad publicity and embarrasment, nothing more. Everyone he e-mailed to was over 18 years old with ther explicit messages, and he did not touch anyone, but still in order for it to be statuatory rape or an attempt at such, his victims have to be under 18 at the time. The Media is just pretending that something is a crime which is not, and making all the hay they can.

clark · 2006-10-12 06:06:10

Republicans are the party of morals and values. They are about integrity and apple pie.

Oh yeah, they also cover for a gay Republican who has a penchant for pages working in the employ of the US federal government, all for political expediency and to assure majority status in Congress.

Sure sounds like Republicans stick to their principals. I wondered why most Americans were takin it in the a*s for so long. Now it seems obvious.

To Republicans, we're all pages.

Oh yeah, I know it is true cause I heard i read it on the internet, and Big media doesn't control that *yet*.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-12 10:05:06

These are very bigoted statements when you combine singular with plural.

Republicans are the party of morals and values. They are about integrity and apple pie.

Every single one of them? Not a chance. And I figure that Mark Foley is not a real Republican anyway, perhaps he was a democratic spy planeted by the Democrats within Republican ranks.

Oh yeah, they also cover for a gay Republican who has a penchant for pages working in the employ of the US federal government, all for political expediency and to assure majority status in Congress.

Oh yeah, as you know all Republicans are gay or cross dressers, that is why so many gay people join the Republican party, because the Democrats are bigoted homophobes. And you are missing out on the fact that these were ex-pages and consenting adults, no statuatory rape has been proven to have occured. Can't the Democrats win on the issues rather than on just dirty tricks and media smear campaigns? What they don't want the electorate to pay attention to is the fact that they'll raise taxes and lose the War in Iraq, but all the voters are concerned about is what congressmen do to pages, they certainly aren't interested in any issues that affect them directly.

clark · 2006-10-12 10:48:43

Oh man, I can't believe how a Republican party would support a gay guy like Folely. i mean, the republicans are just crawling with gays. Like the VP's daughter- totaly gay, and we're supposed to believe that the republicans are the anti-gay party? no way! That is obviosuly a lie by big media and the democrats who play dirty tricks. I totally see it. I just feel bad for those poor chrisitan voters who are so god fearing and good, ya know, the ones that blow up doctors office and spread the good word about not being related to monkies. I mean, they have been bamboozled by the mighty Pink Elephant of the gay wing of the republican party.

I think the democrats won't lose the war because the republicans have been running it so far, and I think I know why they have done such a poor job- they keep lusting after our men in uniform! Oh-my-god, it totally makes sense now. If we don't let the republicans continue with their man-boy love, the terroists like totally win.

Bush is a cowboy right? I saw broke back mountain- coincedence? No way. Cowbays are gay. bush is a cowboy. Ergo... we better interview the male pages working for Bush.

Rxke · 2006-10-12 11:25:25

These are very bigoted statements when you combine singular with plural.

Coming from you that is quite a funny remark

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-12 17:05:36

These are very bigoted statements when you combine singular with plural.

Coming from you that is quite a funny remark

Naw, I just don't like terrorists who try to blow me up.
How well would you get along with terrorists trying to blow you up?
Would you sit down and have tea with them while they try to blow you up?
Would you want to share the same bus with terrorists who are trying to blow you up?
Would you negotiate with terrorists who are trying to blow you up?
Of all the colors and creeds of people, terrorists who try to blow me up is the one ethnic group I am most intollerant of, call it a character flaw if you like, but terrorists who try to blow me up and terrorists who attack my country are the groups I get along with the least.

John Creighton · 2006-10-12 19:12:03

These are very bigoted statements when you combine singular with plural.

Coming from you that is quite a funny remark
Naw, I just don't like terrorists who try to blow me up.
How well would you get along with terrorists trying to blow you up?
Would you sit down and have tea with them while they try to blow you up?
Would you want to share the same bus with terrorists who are trying to blow you up?
Would you negotiate with terrorists who are trying to blow you up?
Of all the colors and creeds of people, terrorists who try to blow me up is the one ethnic group I am most intollerant of, call it a character flaw if you like, but terrorists who try to blow me up and terrorists who attack my country are the groups I get along with the least.

You could Chat about the president of Iran’s fashion over msn. lol Or what kind of head dress Muslim woman look best in. I think red is the hottest. lol

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 01:30:16

Imagine trying to sit down at the negotiating table with a man who is trying to kill you with a machine gun.
What if we send Condaleeza Rice over and the Iranians simply take her hostage just like they did with a bunch of other American diplomats in 1979 as was Iranian tradition?
What if we are just sending our diplomats to their deaths by having them meet Iranians who shoot them as soon as they arrive?
Iran has already established that they do not respect diplomatic protocol with their 1979 hostage taking at the US Embassy. At least we might wise up a little and not send more diplomats over when they did not respect the first bunch. There are consequences to burning bridges after all.

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 06:47:06

Hey Tom i have never said this to anyone to this forum even though i came close to so many times in heated debate.

But your the biggest idiot ever in my opinion.

Turn Iraq into Kurdistan? Move Sunnis and Shiis from there. Adjust the borders of Iraq. Jesus Christ your an idiot.

Right now the only reason why USA is still in Iraq is because only a few sunnis and Shiites are at war. If Bush ever thought of doing what you suggest (seriously though are you 12 or something?). Not only would Iraqis stop targeting each other. They would attack US soldiers more often,they would get support from ALL of their neighboring countries and the EU would be forced to take a step to stop USA.

You seem to focus on the fact that they hate and attacked USA. How come you don't mention the things USA and US supported Allies did BEFORE 9/11. OMG SHOCK HORROR!!!!! Yes there was violence in the middle east before 9/11. I'm not just talking about Israel here. Things like Clinton attacking a medicine factory just because he got caught having sex with an intern. Guess who died? Just innocent Muslims who needed medicine.

Guess how many died in Iraq? Even by Bushes estimates thats 10 times more then those who died in 9/11.

Your the embodiment of why people around the world hate America. I'm sure most Americans are nice (not counting those conservative rednecks). But that is little comfort to being who are dead because of USA actions. USA is worse then Bin Laden because atlest Bin Laden acknowledges what he does.

We wouldn't even know about Abu Ghraib,CIA renditions and Guantanomo Bay if there weren't press leaks. Thinking of how many other secret US prisons out there makes me shiver.

I forgot to mention. Has soon has USA is forced to leave Iraq. The first people to face the chopping block will be the Kurds. Then the Shiis. The Sunni might be the smallest of the big three groups in Iraq but they have a lot of support. Just because the Kurds used Israelies to train their troops (an act that will solidfy the anti kurd feeling in Iraq) doesn't mean they can take on the sunnis. Lebanon should be a lesson. When Hezbollah got rid of Israel and the Christian army in South Lebanon.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 11:09:26

Hey Tom i have never said this to anyone to this forum even though i came close to so many times in heated debate.
But your the biggest idiot ever in my opinion.
Turn Iraq into Kurdistan? Move Sunnis and Shiis from there. Adjust the borders of Iraq. Jesus Christ your an idiot.

And what's your solution? I haven't seen you offer any. At least I offered a solution what would end the conflict.

Right now the only reason why USA is still in Iraq is because only a few sunnis and Shiites are at war. If Bush ever thought of doing what you suggest (seriously though are you 12 or something?). Not only would Iraqis stop targeting each other. They would attack US soldiers more often,they would get support from ALL of their neighboring countries and the EU would be forced to take a step to stop USA.

For your information, I have been frusterated with the Middle East for longer than you have been alive. I see from your posting that you are 18 years old, and already you think you know everything. Well, I was 18 years old in 1985, I was more optimistic in those days, I believed peace was a two way street, I still do in fact, but for 22 years, I've seen the violence go on and on, and I lose my patience with it. Tinkering around the edges, I see hasn't solved anything. I'd like to get this problem off the table so we can concentrate our resources on more worthy things like space exploration. Oh yes, when I was in high school, I was taught that Islam was a peaceful religion, all the Islamic violence since then and the 9/11 attacks have convinced my that this was all propaganda, that we were dumbly supposed to swallow. I look high and low for all the peaceful Muslims that supposedly exist, but tell me this, if they are so peaceful, how come we have to be so careful about offending them or even criticising them, they take offense so easily at the slightest cartoon or pronouncement of the Pope, and they respond with violence, even when they are criticised for their violent behavior. I'm sick of this B.S. I have a finite lifespan and it is already half over, I'd like to see this Middle East problem in my lifetime, it is a waste of our resources trying to deal with it, and it takes away from our ability to properly explore space and colonize the Solar System. We have to pay attention to this fanatical religious garbage instead. I'm tired of US soldiers getting killed by these fools, who don't even value their own lives. My ultimatum is that they should bring their own house into order, or we shall bring their house into order in a way they don't like. I've lost my patience with these murderous fanatical fools and the public that supports them. If they are going to murder our young men, some of them about your age, then I find it fitting that they should pay a grievious price for doing so. We should not reward them and make future generations of our enemies think that killing American Soldiers is a good idea. We have spent billions of dollars on these people, either they start bringing their country into a democratic order, or perhaps maybe we should scatter them. The Kurds so far seem to be the only ones to appreciate our efforts to bring democracy to this part of the world. The other factions seem to want dictators of one stripe or another. I feel that if they want to live under dictators, they can live under dictators in another part of the world, a part that we did not liberate. Our soldiers did not fight to create kingdoms for petty tyrants and religious magogs. If the people will not support democratic rule, then they are the problem. People who would rule by terror over their neighbors should be kicked out of the country and not get any of the land we liberated.

You seem to focus on the fact that they hate and attacked USA. How come you don't mention the things USA and US supported Allies did BEFORE 9/11. OMG SHOCK HORROR!!!!! Yes there was violence in the middle east before 9/11. I'm not just talking about Israel here. Things like Clinton attacking a medicine factory just because he got caught having sex with an intern. Guess who died? Just innocent Muslims who needed medicine.

You are so young and naive. Young people think they got all the answers. Some of those answers have been pretty disasterous for world civilization. I remember for instance that it was college students that took over the US embassy in Iran, you probably only read about this in your history books, but I remember this personally, I saw it on television as it happened and you weren't even born yet.
I was around way before 9/11, you mostly read about those times in your history books, well I lived them, so there's no need to lecture me with your high school education. Its not your fault for being young, we all take our turns at it, and someday you'll be as old as I am now, perhaps then, you'll better understand the frustration I have.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 12:34:06

Your the embodiment of why people around the world hate America. I'm sure most Americans are nice (not counting those conservative rednecks). But that is little comfort to being who are dead because of USA actions. USA is worse then Bin Laden because atlest Bin Laden acknowledges what he does.

That is the extremism of youth talking. Historically, young people have often fallen prey to radical ideas, who do you think the people who overthrew the Czar and installed the Bolsheviks were in Russia. People without much life experience, didn't know how the World works, they impose their hastily thought out solutions on others, usually guided by a much older person who stays out of the fray and orders young people to their deaths for his radical ideas. Your right, I don't like to overturn society, so I am a Conservative. I think new ideas that young people find cool aren't always the best for society. I can do without all the violent revolutions that young people often support too, they tend to reduce my life expectancy. Bin Laden is evil, make no mistake about that. Don't let your history professor confuse you over what's what. We saved your country in the 1940s from Nazi Germany, we didn't have to. We could have given peace a chance and negotiated with Hitler, the Japs would have left us alone if we allowed them a free hand in Asia. This America is Evil fashion is the latest in vogue thing with foreign youth. All these people who've come into adulthood recently don't appreciate America's role in the world, and how it might have affected them. We've had ample opportunity to murder many innocent civilians. Do you think if we were Bin Lauden we would have liberated Europe rather than taken it for ourselves? That was a very rash statement you just made their, so don't be quick to condemn me when I may make some heated emotional statements from time to time, reflecting my frusterations from time to time, I'm not the only one who makes them, Mr. High and Mighty.

We wouldn't even know about Abu Ghraib,CIA renditions and Guantanomo Bay if there weren't press leaks. Thinking of how many other secret US prisons out there makes me shiver.

What's wrong, afraid you might end up in one of them? Do you plan on making attacks on American citizens? We don't have enough space in our prisons to arrest all the innocent as well as the guilty.

I forgot to mention. Has soon has USA is forced to leave Iraq. The first people to face the chopping block will be the Kurds. Then the Shiis. The Sunni might be the smallest of the big three groups in Iraq but they have a lot of support. Just because the Kurds used Israelies to train their troops (an act that will solidfy the anti kurd feeling in Iraq) doesn't mean they can take on the sunnis. Lebanon should be a lesson. When Hezbollah got rid of Israel and the Christian army in South Lebanon.

Oh I forget, the Sunnis are from the planet Krypton. The Kurds have alot of support to, and who are the bigger powers in the region, the Arabs who we buy oil from or ourselves? Sorry, I don't believe in your Super-Sunnis. as far as I'm concerned, both the Shiites and the Sunnis have American blood on their hands, I don't distinguish between them because they are both violent, and they murder each other and sometimes us over trivia in their holy book the Koran about things that happened 1300 years ago.

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 15:08:10

For your information, I have been frusterated with the Middle East for longer than you have been alive. I see from your posting that you are 18 years old, and already you think you know everything. Well, I was 18 years old in 1985,

Then you must be going senile. Just because your older (i don't attempt to hide my age by the way. I put has march 88. Whats to hide?) does not mean that your wiser.

I still do in fact, but for 22 years, I've seen the violence go on and on, and I lose my patience with it. Tinkering around the edges, I see hasn't solved anything. I'd like to get this problem off the table so we can concentrate our resources on more worthy things like space exploration.

I'm just goign to go an put an idea forward that could stop most of the violence in the middle east but upset you.

How about stop trying to shape middle east the way you want by supporting regimes and pressuring/attacking governments because they don't either like you or fit your profile of a "good government" ( government that isn't pro USA).

Oh yes, when I was in high school, I was taught that Islam was a peaceful religion, all the Islamic violence since then and the 9/11 attacks have convinced my that this was all propaganda, that we were dumbly supposed to swallow.

Well i think your a bigger idiot in beleivng that 1.4 billion people want to kill you.

I look high and low for all the peaceful Muslims that supposedly exist, but tell me this, if they are so peaceful, how come we have to be so careful about offending them or even criticising them, they take offense so easily at the slightest cartoon or pronouncement of the Pope, and they respond with violence, even when they are criticised for their violent behavior.

Soo erm your angry because you can't criticizes Islam? lol. Thats just sad.

I'm sick of this B.S. I have a finite lifespan and it is already half over, I'd like to see this Middle East problem in my lifetime, it is a waste of our resources trying to deal with it,

WHO IS ASKING YOU TO DEAL WITH IT?

USA is in the middle east because IT and IT alone wants to be there. So that the oil is in friendly pro USA hands. They try to shape the middle east into countries that they want. They pressured Syria to leave Lebanon (ignoring their illegal occupation of Iraq and the illegal occupation of Palestine). They congratuled the lebanese. They told them that it was a new beginning for them. What did the USA do when Lebanon was vicously attacked by Israel even parts that didn't have any Hezbollah supporters? They supplied Israel with cluster bombs. Most were dropped during the last 72 hours when Israel knew they had to stop fighthing. They also blocked earlier attempts to stop the fighting. How can USA then have the audacity to say that they have the best intrest of Lebanon in mind? How can they say that to them when they backstabbed them so hard. Thats what you need to think about so get your head out of your ass.

and it takes away from our ability to properly explore space and colonize the Solar System.

OK. Your older then me. Then you should know. That Science. Espeically Space Exploration has little regard in the budget room. When USA wasn't in a major war and the realtions with the SSSR was good. Why did Reagon spend more then a trillion on the army? I'm sure if he took that money and spent it on research space exploration would have gone far. But i doubt it. The money would have probably been spent on something else. Also the $300 billion budget could have come really handy to NASA. They could have probably funded Mars Expidtions. But it will never happen. The only thing space is to politicians is a publicity act. Thats it. They don't care.

We have to pay attention to this fanatical religious garbage instead. I'm tired of US soldiers getting killed by these fools,

Well i'm tired of my muslim brothers getting killed by YOUR troops. What am i supposed to do it? Go and defend them? Oh wait then i would be a terrorist even though i would be their to fight an illegal occupation.

My ultimatum is that they should bring their own house into order, or we shall bring their house into order in a way they don't like.

How about bringing YOUR house in order. Every day 200,000 homeless veterans sleep rough. Why don't you take care of the people who answered the call to arms? Before you kill innocent people?

I've lost my patience with these murderous fanatical fools and the public that supports them. If they are going to murder our young men, some of them about your age,

WTF? MORE IRAQIS ARE DYING THEN DUMBASS TROOPS.

Those troops when they joined the army. They KNEW what they were getting themself into. I doubt the Iraqis signed an army enlistment. Yet they get slaughtherd and you don't care. I bet you cared when Katrina caused the flood in New Orleans. When people who should have left the city when they were warned to were flooded. I bet you cared for those not "victims". But nothing for the iraqis? What about the palestinians?

We should not reward them and make future generations of our enemies think that killing American Soldiers is a good idea.

There is no other way. Don't ask my why but Americans have penchant to vote for idiots. These idiots will only understand the consequence of war. If american soldiers die. I'm sorry but the best way for the Iraq situation to be over is for a lot of soldiers to die. That way Bush or the next idiot who you guys vote for will be forced to withdraw. Iraq won't gain freedom from helping the USA.

The Kurds so far seem to be the only ones to appreciate our efforts to bring democracy to this part of the world.

Which is why they will suffer the consequence later one. For allying themself with USA and Israel. The Arabs have been accusing them of this for years. What do they do when they get the chance for self rule? Ally with Israel.

The other factions seem to want dictators of one stripe or another. I feel that if they want to live under dictators, they can live under dictators in another part of the world, a part that we did not liberate. Our soldiers did not fight to create kingdoms for petty tyrants and religious magogs. If the people will not support democratic rule, then they are the problem. People who would rule by terror over their neighbors should be kicked out of the country and not get any of the land we liberated.

This is stupid. It's their land. They have the right to liver under what ever government they want. If they want to live under a dictator ship then they can do so. It's you guys who is at fault here. No one asked you guys to liberated Iraq. The Shiis didn't. The Sunnis didn't. The Backstabbing Kurds only wanted their own land.

You are so young and naive. Young people think they got all the answers. Some of those answers have been pretty disasterous for world civilization. I remember for instance that it was college students that took over the US embassy in Iran, you probably only read about this in your history books, but I remember this personally, I saw it on television as it happened and you weren't even born yet.
I was around way before 9/11, you mostly read about those times in your history books, well I lived them, so there's no need to lecture me with your high school education. Its not your fault for being young, we all take our turns at it, and someday you'll be as old as I am now, perhaps then, you'll better understand the frustration I have.

Well it looks like you do need to be lectured. You can only seem to grasp subtle information. "Them hate USA them bad." "Them Like USA them good"

We saved your country in the 1940s from Nazi Germany, we didn't have to.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Don't ask me why a Somalian immigrant is defending the honour of UK. But i feel it is my duty has citizen to do so.

UK WAS NEVER SAVED BY USA.

America joined the war in 1942. Before that Germany tried to invade UK. We stopped them. Undermanned,Overwhelmed. We fought them Nazis for 3 years. Alone. Just US and our colonies. The fate of the free world was in our hands not yours. America only joined AFTER the soviet union joined. Which is 1942. The year when the war turned against the Nazis. Before that. We held them at bay for years. Granted we could defeat them because they were using the submarines to take out our supplies so we could only keep them away from us. But we never needed help defening our self. We just needed help in taking them out and it was the SSSR who took them out.

What's wrong, afraid you might end up in one of them? Do you plan on making attacks on American citizens? We don't have enough space in our prisons to arrest all the innocent as well as the guilty.

Are you taunting me? Because dude that's just sick humor. Espeically when you force good muslim men to engage in homosexual acts.

Oh I forget, the Sunnis are from the planet Krypton. The Kurds have alot of support to, and who are the bigger powers in the region, the Arabs who we buy oil from or ourselves? Sorry, I don't believe in your Super-Sunnis. as far as I'm concerned, both the Shiites and the Sunnis have American blood on their hands, I don't distinguish between them because they are both violent, and they murder each other and sometimes us over trivia in their holy book the Koran about things that happened 1300 years ago.

What about innocent Iraqi blood on american hands? What about Haditha? What about the women raped in iraq and then got burnt?

Palomar · 2006-10-14 15:27:29

Espeically when you force good muslim men to engage in homosexual acts...What about the women raped in iraq and then got burnt?

Those acts were wrong. Completely wrong. The U.S. tracked those soldiers down, court martialed and threw them in prison.

Give us a bit of credit, huh?

I'm currently also thinking of all the innocent victims of Saddam Hussein. You know: People he poisoned, tortured, women his sons raped for sport, etc.

Let's hope the Iraqis soon have a better future. All Iraqis, not just certain sects.

John Creighton · 2006-10-14 16:01:51

If Muslims want the Americans to leave Iraq wouldn’t it make more sense to help them build a stable government. The Iraq’s may or may not like the Americans but they definitely didn’t like Sadam Hussein. I think a lot of the insurgencies are more interested in punishing and embarrassing America then they are in the future of Iraq.

noosfractal · 2006-10-14 16:54:43

Iraq has 200+ billion barrels of oil. At $50/barrel that's $10+ trillion. The different groups are fighting to gain as large a share as possible of that wealth. Embarrassing the US is a secondary goal at best.

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 19:08:20

Espeically when you force good muslim men to engage in homosexual acts...What about the women raped in iraq and then got burnt?
Those acts were wrong. Completely wrong. The U.S. tracked those soldiers down, court martialed and threw them in prison.
Give us a bit of credit, huh?
I'm currently also thinking of all the innocent victims of Saddam Hussein. You know: People he poisoned, tortured, women his sons raped for sport, etc.
Let's hope the Iraqis soon have a better future. All Iraqis, not just certain sects.

Kind of hard when your government won't let anyone see or talk to the people in Guntanomo Bay without supervision,has secret prisons where they break all sorts of human rights and when they keep suppressing the rest of the Abu Ghraib pictures.

The diffrence between the victims of Saddam and the victims in the occupation is that. Most of the victims pissed off Saddam in one way or another. For example the gas attack of the Kurds. The kurds in that city which got gassed helped the Iranian troops. In todays occupation. You can die simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. There were a group of people in a post office. They all got kidnapped tortured,killed and had their bodies throwned in the street. For being in a post office. Saddam never did that.

If Muslims want the Americans to leave Iraq wouldn’t it make more sense to help them build a stable government. The Iraq’s may or may not like the Americans but they definitely didn’t like Sadam Hussein. I think a lot of the insurgencies are more interested in punishing and embarrassing America then they are in the future of Iraq.

It's a bit to late for that. If america wanted Iraq to have a stable government then they shouldn't have invaded. Yes Iraqis did hate their president. But if there is one person that they hated even more then Saddam is USA. If CIA actually did a detailed study. They would have known the obvious. How did USA ever think that after punishing the Iraqi people for so many years and after burning to death thousands of soldiers and civilians (who were complying with the UN so technically america commited a war crime). USA is hated more then Saddam by Shiis and Sunnis. Except by the Kurds who want to use USA to get their "homeland".

Thats why most of the insurgent aren't what Fox News tells you. Jihadists who want to fight americans. Just ordinary Iraqis and former army members who want to free their homeland from occupation.

Iraq has 200+ billion barrels of oil. At $50/barrel that's $10+ trillion. The different groups are fighting to gain as large a share as possible of that wealth. Embarrassing the US is a secondary goal at best.

The Oil action is secondary. You don't see insurgents fighting for Oil. The way they see it is that the Oil is Iraqi and USA shouldn't benifit from it. There is illicit smuggling of Oil in Iraq. But it isn't insurgents who are doing it. It is the collaborators and forigeners. The americans didn't bother to fix the meters even they they have to. So that the amount of oil that is missing is incaculateble. The insurgents are attacking Oil pipes and sabotaging has much has they can to stop Oil from being sold. They are not buying it nor trying to control it. If they wanted they could go Nigerian and steal the Oil instead of attacking the the stations and causing the increase of security forces.

noosfractal · 2006-10-14 20:32:12

You don't see insurgents fighting for Oil.

The "insurgents" are the Sunnis who used to control all of Iraq's oil. Now they are fighting to retain control of some small portion of it.

There is illicit smuggling of Oil in Iraq. But it isn't insurgents who are doing it. It is the collaborators and forigeners. The americans didn't bother to fix the meters even they they have to. So that the amount of oil that is missing is incaculateble.

The "collaborators" are the Shiites who have indeed benefited from the invasion. The "smuggling" is 1.2 million barrels per day, about 50% of 2003 production. The amount exported is closely tracked because it has a direct effect on world oil prices.

The insurgents are attacking Oil pipes and sabotaging has much has they can to stop Oil from being sold. They are not buying it nor trying to control it.

They are, by definition, trying to control it by preventing it from being exported. Their hope is that they will gain control of a higher proportion of the oil before full production is restored.

If they wanted they could go Nigerian and steal the Oil.

Not only have they no chance of doing this, but they wouldn't, at least because Sunnis in other countries, in particular Saudi Arabia, would stop them lest anyone get the idea that oil can be stolen.

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 21:13:43

The "insurgents" are the Sunnis who used to control all of Iraq's oil. Now they are fighting to retain control of some small portion of it.

It's not just Sunnis. It's also Shii. It's the general Iraqi who is angry about the occupation. You would think the Shii the ones who would have the most to benift would stay out of it. British troops hiding in their barracks is an evidence that it isn't true. Helicopters RPGed is another piece of evidence. Rioting against the british and attacking them is another peice of evidence. The only ones who aren't involved are the slimy back stabbing kurds who allied themself with Israel.

The "collaborators" are the Shiites who have indeed benefited from the invasion. The "smuggling" is 1.2 million barrels per day, about 50% of 2003 production. The amount exported is closely tracked because it has a direct effect on world oil prices.

Also Kurds. You can't forget the kurds. Biggest collaborators of all. At least the Shii are fighting the americans and getting help from Hezbollah via Iran. The Kurds are having their troops trained by Israel.

They are, by definition, trying to control it by preventing it from being exported. Their hope is that they will gain control of a higher proportion of the oil before full production is restored.

If control you mean stop it. Then your right

Not only have they no chance of doing this, but they wouldn't, at least because Sunnis in other countries, in particular Saudi Arabia, would stop them lest anyone get the idea that oil can be stolen.

The point of black markets is that it is secret. Saddam had a black market for years and no one knew until the Invasion was over. Beside the LAST COUNTRY that could control the Insurgent is the biggest Benedict Arnorld of the muslim world. Because
a) Saudi Arabia has no power over the insurgents.
b) Insurgents hate them and the Saudis are terrified that Islamsits will over throw them and they will lose their pampered luxiours lifestyle.
c) USA would stop the insurgents no Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a joke.

John Creighton · 2006-10-14 21:29:26

The "insurgents" are the Sunnis who used to control all of Iraq's oil. Now they are fighting to retain control of some small portion of it.

It's not just Sunnis. It's also Shii. It's the general Iraqi who is angry about the occupation. You would think the Shii the ones who would have the most to benift would stay out of it. British troops hiding in their barracks is an evidence that it isn't true. Helicopters RPGed is another piece of evidence. Rioting against the british and attacking them is another peice of evidence. The only ones who aren't involved are the slimy back stabbing kurds who allied themself with Israel.

Let’s clarify. It is the uneducated Shia mainly responsible for the violence because of radical clerics who preach against democracy because they want power. The educated Iraqi shia follow Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who believes in democracy and preaches against violence.

Sistani's edicts and rulings have provided many Iraqi Shia religious backing for participating in the January 2005 elections -- he urged, in a statement on October 1, 2004, that the people should realize that this was an "important matter" and he also hoped that the elections would be "free and fair . . . with the participation of all Iraqis". While some radical Islamists argue that democracy is "non-Islamic" because it holds that power derives not from Allah but from the people, Sistani's message is that Shiites have a religious obligation to vote. He has consistently urged the Iraqi Shia not to respond in kind to attacks from Sunni Salafists, which have become common in Sunni-dominated regions of Iraq like the area known as the "triangle of death," south of Baghdad. This insistence on non-violence earned him a nomination for the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ayat … al-Sistani

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 21:38:18

The "insurgents" are the Sunnis who used to control all of Iraq's oil. Now they are fighting to retain control of some small portion of it.

It's not just Sunnis. It's also Shii. It's the general Iraqi who is angry about the occupation. You would think the Shii the ones who would have the most to benift would stay out of it. British troops hiding in their barracks is an evidence that it isn't true. Helicopters RPGed is another piece of evidence. Rioting against the british and attacking them is another peice of evidence. The only ones who aren't involved are the slimy back stabbing kurds who allied themself with Israel.
Let’s clarify. It is the uneducated Shia mainly responsible for the violence because of radical clerics who preach against democracy because they want power. The educated Iraqi shia follow Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who believes in democracy and preaches against violence.

There was only one power grab attempt by Al-Sadr. After that he gave up and went into politics. His troops are busy killing Sunnis to fight the british or Al Sistani

John Creighton · 2006-10-14 21:42:10

There was only one power grab attempt by Al-Sadr. After that he gave up and went into politics. His troops are busy killing Sunnis to fight the british or Al Sistani

So Al-sadr’s troops are even attacking fellow Shia? What a great guy.

John Creighton · 2006-10-14 22:17:14

Relations with al-Sistani
Relations with the most powerful cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have also been tense. Al-Sistani's more conservative clerical leadership is often in conflict with the radical young al-Sadr. Al-Sistani is said by observers to draw support from established, property-owning Shi'ites, while Muqtada al-Sadr's support is strongest among the urban poor, many of whom see him as their champion. Additionally the murder of al-Khoei, the son of al-Sistani's mentor, may be a source of tension.
The conflict is more about temporal than spiritual matters; al-Sistani controls donations from pilgrims and wealthy donors, which al-Sadr also apparently covets. His followers attempted to seize control of the al-Sistani-controlled holy sites in Karbala in October 2003 but were repulsed, with dozens of people killed and injured. Armed clashes between al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army and the Badr Army have broken out with significant bloodshed resulting. However, Sistani has thus far refused to publicly chastise Sadr for the spring uprising against the US led coalition, instead decreeing that both sides should avoid incitement to violence and condemning the coalition for its tactics.

Seems you are right about clashes between shia. And interestingly enough Al-Sadir doesn’t even have the same religious authority. For instace he does not have the authority ti issue edicts.

Honorific titles
His name is formally given as Hojatoleslam Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadir. the prefixed title Hojatoleslam literally means Authority on, or Scholar of, Islam and is an academic title indicating a middle-ranking Shia cleric. (The equivalent of a Ph.D. candidate if Ayatollah is taken as the equivalent of Professor. This rank does not convey the authority of ijtihad or interpretation of the Quran nor does it convey the authority to issue religious edicts of Fatwas. Sayyid is generally used among the Shia to denote persons descending directly from the prophet Mohammad). The Al-Sadr family have a clear and distinct lineage that can be traced directly to the Prophet Muhammad. The lineage is traced through Imam Jafar al-Sadiq and his son Imam Musa al-Kahdim the sixth and seventh Shia Imams respectively. This direct and meticulously documented lineage is unprecedented even among the illustrious families in the Islamic world who claim such lineage. The Shia Muslims consider themselves the followers of Prophet Muhammad's bloodline, thus a great deal of respect and reverence is paid to the Sayyids throughout society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moqtada_Sadr

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-10-09 12:00:09

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#27 2006-10-09 23:48:38

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#28 2006-10-10 18:04:50

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#29 2006-10-11 13:21:00

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#30 2006-10-12 06:06:10

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#31 2006-10-12 10:05:06

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#32 2006-10-12 10:48:43

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#33 2006-10-12 11:25:25

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#34 2006-10-12 17:05:36

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#35 2006-10-12 19:12:03

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#36 2006-10-14 01:30:16

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#37 2006-10-14 06:47:06

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#38 2006-10-14 11:09:26

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#39 2006-10-14 12:34:06

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#40 2006-10-14 15:08:10

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#41 2006-10-14 15:27:29

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#42 2006-10-14 16:01:51

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#43 2006-10-14 16:54:43

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#44 2006-10-14 19:08:20

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#45 2006-10-14 20:32:12

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#46 2006-10-14 21:13:43

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#47 2006-10-14 21:29:26

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#48 2006-10-14 21:38:18

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#49 2006-10-14 21:42:10

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

#50 2006-10-14 22:17:14

Re: Not Forgiven - The Taliban

Board footer