U.S. air strikes in Somalia

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-14 12:44:08

how can we allow the Armed Forces of the furemost Superpower in the World to be defeated by a band of Criminals?
It is the attempt to be a superpower that creates recruits for terrorism. The more you attempt to assert control, the more recruits will join their cause. Some recruits will earn money, others will be soldiers, both make them stronger.

So you say we should disarm and cease to be a superpower? Unfortunately, even though they say, the meek inherit the Earth, the truth is they generally get disinherited. Just look at what happened to Israel in the Roman Empire if you don't believe me, they weren't strong enough to resist the Romans so they got disinherited.

John Creighton · 2007-01-14 14:26:53

Who your friends are determine who you will become?
Citing a movie to make a point (and a bad movie at that)?
If you don't send in troops to shoot people, why give them guns?
Oh, and Tom is still a monkey.

Hey Clark,
I often wonder if Tom’s arguing does more to discredit his position then it does to strength it.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-14 15:41:37

Was the Confederate Army of the Confederate States of America a Criminal Organization?

There you go again acting like the Confederacy was evil and an enemy. The Confederacy was American states, following the principle of freedom and self determination. The Confederate army shouldn't have invaded Fort Sumter, and President Lincoln shouldn't have sent reinforcements from the north into that fort. Mistakes on both sides. If you want to continue to harp on about the Confederacy, please do so in Richmond or some place in Georgia.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-14 16:14:45

Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration.
At least you’re consistent. The Clinton administration was the first administration to say it is justified to use military action against nations that Harbour terrorist. I suppose that it is your opinion that war by proxy against the US is not a legitimate reason for self defence. Would you hold these views if nations were sponsoring and sheltering terrorists to attack Canada?

It's not war by proxy. There is no national government behind this. It's just a bunch of guys who got together over an issue they feel passionate about, and chose to take action. That means there is no country you can attack, because this isn't a country.

We in Canada have many people with passionate ideas, but Canadians are a bit more sane about political activism. You know: protests, carrying signs at a rally, speeches, newsletters, and lobbying politicians. In other parts of the world they're a lot more brutal, but that's partly because of the environment they live in. What do you expect when the Soviet Union invades to conquer their country, the United States stirs up some religious fanatics who had no influence before and gives them guns, and local citizens get killed over it all. It's ironic that the Mujahideen were created by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union, a proxy war that they deliberately intended to be a mirror of Vietnam. Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are off-shoots from Mujahideen, but al-Qaeda is bent on stopping all foreign involvement in any Islamic country. To ensure the Mujahideen would be an effective weapon against the Soviet Union, the U.S. deliberately promoted the value that dieing in a battle against your enemy is honourable, and such an "honourable" death is used to recruit more individuals into the cause. It created an effective guerrilla war against a superpower. Those values were created by Islamic warlords long before the U.S. was founded, but was actively promoted by the U.S. to create the Mujahideen. Now al-Qaeda is using those same values to fight the U.S. and any other foreigner who tries to assert influence in the Islamic world. The U.S. wanted a guerrilla force that could defeat a superpower; congratulations they succeeded, now the off-shot is fighting the U.S.

John Creighton · 2007-01-14 16:38:19

Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration.
At least you’re consistent. The Clinton administration was the first administration to say it is justified to use military action against nations that Harbour terrorist. I suppose that it is your opinion that war by proxy against the US is not a legitimate reason for self defence. Would you hold these views if nations were sponsoring and sheltering terrorists to attack Canada?
It's not war by proxy. There is no national government behind this. It's just a bunch of guys who got together over an issue they feel passionate about, and chose to take action. That means there is no country you can attack, because this isn't a country.
We in Canada have many people with passionate ideas, but Canadians are a bit more sane about political activism. You know: protests, carrying signs at a rally, speeches, newsletters, and lobbying politicians. In other parts of the world they're a lot more brutal, but that's partly because of the environment they live in. What do you expect when the Soviet Union invades to conquer their country, the United States stirs up some religious fanatics who had no influence before and gives them guns, and local citizens get killed over it all. It's ironic that the Mujahideen were created by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union, a proxy war that they deliberately intended to be a mirror of Vietnam. Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are off-shoots from Mujahideen, but al-Qaeda is bent on stopping all foreign involvement in any Islamic country. To ensure the Mujahideen would be an effective weapon against the Soviet Union, the U.S. deliberately promoted the value that dieing in a battle against your enemy is honourable, and such an "honourable" death is used to recruit more individuals into the cause. It created an effective guerrilla war against a superpower. Those values were created by Islamic warlords long before the U.S. was founded, but was actively promoted by the U.S. to create the Mujahideen. Now al-Qaeda is using those same values to fight the U.S. and any other foreigner who tries to assert influence in the Islamic world. The U.S. wanted a guerrilla force that could defeat a superpower; congratulations they succeeded, now the off-shot is fighting the U.S.

I suppose you would of rather the Russian’s won. The world has missed a golden opportunity to make this world safer after the end of the cold war. Europe is as much to blame as Bush. The free world is more interested in bickering amongst one another then standing for freedom and human rights. There may not be a leader capable of uniting the free world any time soon like Bill Clinton could.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-15 00:47:19

The cold war ended when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992. There's no more need for covert actions and military intervention. The invasion of Kuwait was handled by the UN, and it was over when the UN declared the war was over in 1991. But there's been continuing intervention throughout the world. I saw a saying on a billboard several years ago: when you're up to your chin a shit, you keep your mouth closed. Well, after all the wars by proxy during the cold war, the U.S. should have realized they're up to their chin in shit; but they didn't keep their mouth closed. They just had to intervene, and those with whom they were in shit took action. I disagree with that action, but not surprised. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Last week the newspaper covered a story of an incident here in Winnipeg. A security guard was driving and had his car rear-ended. He got out and beat the driver of the car that hit him. Beat him into unconsciousness. It turned out the car was stolen; the guy beaten was a car thief. In the guard's car was his supervisor from work. The supervisor didn't intervene. A lot of people wrote letters to the editor praising the guard, but again at the time he didn't know the driver was a thief. That thief is not in hospital in a medically induced coma. A lot of people in Winnipeg have a lot of rage over car theft, the car theft rate tripled just before 1990. But what if the driver wasn't a thief? At the time the guard beat him, he didn't know the driver was a thief. Roads are slippery, it was unusually warm until last week, but now it's cold January weather. That has resulted in polished ice on the roads. I feel citizens need to act directly and stop crime, but the guard didn't know the driver who hit him was a criminal; it could have been an accident. Beating some driver into unconsciousness in that circumstance is not acceptable.

I can give an example where violent action was justified. A friend of mine a month ago was the victim of an attempted car jacking. He delivers newspapers, a thief put a knife up to his throat through the window and said "get out". My friend used to be a security guard. He grabbed the thief's wrist, pushing the knife away from his throat, and got out of the car without letting the thief go. The thief attempted to run away, but my friend slammed him against the car and said "stop moving". The thief kept struggling, my friend threw him violently to the pavement several times. Finally the thief gave up, pushed against the car with my friend's hand on his throat. My friend went into his house and called the police. The police examined the scene and found 4 more knives on the ground; this guy had been packing. My friend didn't kill him, didn't beat him to unconsciousness, just threw him around until he stopped struggling then called the police. That's the correct action.

I still think convenience stores should all have a baseball bat behind the counter. If a thief attempts to rob the store, the worker can defend himself and beat the thief until he surrenders. But you can't kill a thief; deadly force gets you in a lot of trouble here in Canada, you would be charged. And that's as it should be, mistakes happen, courts are there to sort out mistakes and false accusations.

Terrorist conflicts are the same sort of criminal but on a larger scale. When you shoot people, more innocent people die than criminals. Then the families of those innocent victims have to come after you. When you die, a number of innocent bystanders will die with you. Then their families will seek revenge. It goes on and on. Besides, even if innocent bystanders weren't killed, the families of those targeted will believe the attacker is a criminal and come after him anyway. It's a vicious cycle. Justice is the only way to end the cycle, and that requires a trial.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-15 10:58:18

Was the Confederate Army of the Confederate States of America a Criminal Organization?
There you go again acting like the Confederacy was evil and an enemy. The Confederacy was American states, following the principle of freedom and self determination. The Confederate army shouldn't have invaded Fort Sumter, and President Lincoln shouldn't have sent reinforcements from the north into that fort. Mistakes on both sides. If you want to continue to harp on about the Confederacy, please do so in Richmond or some place in Georgia.

Splah! (spitting out the words out you stuck in my mouth) When did I say the Confederates were evil? I merely said their government and armed forces were illegal. Slavery is evil of course, and the cause they were fighting for was not good. Most people in George and Richmond don't believe is slavery. I suppose your willing to live with it considering all the dictators you like.

The Confederate Army was an illegal army, they had no right to disobey the law, and in a democracy all citizens must adhere to majority rule, the Constitution states clearly that Congress and the Senate have the right to make Federal Law and Federal Law supercedes state law. The soldiers in the Confederate Army were not foreign nationals but US citizens according to the laws of the United States. Rebellion is by definition illegal, therefore everybody who paid taxes to the Confederate government instead of the Federal government is guilty of tax evasion. Confederate Army soldiers who shot police officers who tried to arrest them are guilty of murder. Union soldiers who are held in Confederate POW camps are kidnapped etc. Legally Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson had to pardon all the Confederates of these crimes before we could get over the war, these are all legal matters if you want to nit pick about them. You want to nit pick about terrorists that we are fighting, all I'm saying is that the Confederates we fought in the Civil War establishes the precident of how to deal with domestic enemies. in other words you don't charge them all with crimes and put them on trial, you fight them and defeat them instead.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-15 11:03:05

Who your friends are determine who you will become?
Citing a movie to make a point (and a bad movie at that)?
If you don't send in troops to shoot people, why give them guns?
Oh, and Tom is still a monkey.
Hey Clark,
I often wonder if Tom’s arguing does more to discredit his position then it does to strength it.

Why do you wonder that? Have I made any flawed arguments?

I don't know who Clark was responding too. He says he wasn't responding to anything that I said, but he did mention my name. I did not mention any movie. So who the heck is he responding to, voices in his head? Calling me a monkey is rather immature and childish.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-15 11:10:21

Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration.
At least you’re consistent. The Clinton administration was the first administration to say it is justified to use military action against nations that Harbour terrorist. I suppose that it is your opinion that war by proxy against the US is not a legitimate reason for self defence. Would you hold these views if nations were sponsoring and sheltering terrorists to attack Canada?
It's not war by proxy. There is no national government behind this. It's just a bunch of guys who got together over an issue they feel passionate about, and chose to take action. That means there is no country you can attack, because this isn't a country.
We in Canada have many people with passionate ideas, but Canadians are a bit more sane about political activism. You know: protests, carrying signs at a rally, speeches, newsletters, and lobbying politicians.

You mean yelling and screaming, blocking traffic, staging sitins getting arrested, disturbing the peace, attacking police officers and yelling at the top of your lungs to drown out anyone who may disagree with you is more sane and rational than presenting logical arguments? Too bad you can't do those things on the Web, though you have Clark calling me a Monkey, but he can't attack me physically like he could if he met me on the street and I presented an opinon he disagreed with. Tsk tsk tsk. Those 60s retreads really enjoyed the physical confrontation, the screaming, attacking police officers and going to jail didn't they. Too bad the Internet doesn't provide them the opportinity for them to engage in their favorite activities here. Here we must be logical or reasonable, since I can't hear you shout and scream! You don't know where I live, so you can't block my street or stage a sit-in or protest in front of my house. Oh too bad.

In other parts of the world they're a lot more brutal, but that's partly because of the environment they live in. What do you expect when the Soviet Union invades to conquer their country, the United States stirs up some religious fanatics who had no influence before and gives them guns, and local citizens get killed over it all. It's ironic that the Mujahideen were created by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union, a proxy war that they deliberately intended to be a mirror of Vietnam. Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are off-shoots from Mujahideen, but al-Qaeda is bent on stopping all foreign involvement in any Islamic country. To ensure the Mujahideen would be an effective weapon against the Soviet Union, the U.S. deliberately promoted the value that dieing in a battle against your enemy is honourable, and such an "honourable" death is used to recruit more individuals into the cause. It created an effective guerrilla war against a superpower. Those values were created by Islamic warlords long before the U.S. was founded, but was actively promoted by the U.S. to create the Mujahideen. Now al-Qaeda is using those same values to fight the U.S. and any other foreigner who tries to assert influence in the Islamic world. The U.S. wanted a guerrilla force that could defeat a superpower; congratulations they succeeded, now the off-shot is fighting the U.S.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-15 11:11:14

Tom, I've harped on about this since the Clinton administration.
At least you’re consistent. The Clinton administration was the first administration to say it is justified to use military action against nations that Harbour terrorist. I suppose that it is your opinion that war by proxy against the US is not a legitimate reason for self defence. Would you hold these views if nations were sponsoring and sheltering terrorists to attack Canada?
It's not war by proxy. There is no national government behind this. It's just a bunch of guys who got together over an issue they feel passionate about, and chose to take action. That means there is no country you can attack, because this isn't a country.
We in Canada have many people with passionate ideas, but Canadians are a bit more sane about political activism. You know: protests, carrying signs at a rally, speeches, newsletters, and lobbying politicians.

You mean yelling and screaming, blocking traffic, staging sitins getting arrested, disturbing the peace, attacking police officers and yelling at the top of your lungs to drown out anyone who may disagree with you is more sane and rational than presenting logical arguments? Too bad you can't do those things on the Web, though there is Clark calling me a Monkey, but he can't attack me physically like he could if he met me on the street and I presented an opinon he disagreed with. Tsk tsk tsk. Those 60s retreads really enjoyed the physical confrontation, the screaming, attacking police officers and going to jail didn't they. Too bad the Internet doesn't provide them the opportinity for them to engage in their favorite activities here. Here we must be logical or reasonable, since I can't hear you shout and scream! You don't know where I live, so you can't block my street or stage a sit-in or protest in front of my house. Oh too bad.

In other parts of the world they're a lot more brutal, but that's partly because of the environment they live in. What do you expect when the Soviet Union invades to conquer their country, the United States stirs up some religious fanatics who had no influence before and gives them guns, and local citizens get killed over it all. It's ironic that the Mujahideen were created by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union, a proxy war that they deliberately intended to be a mirror of Vietnam.

Hardly, we didn't make them into fanatics, they did it themselves. They wanted to fight the Soviet invaders, so we provided them with weapons. Would you prefer we sent the US army instead into Afghanistan and attacked the Soviets directly? Perhaps we could have bombed Moscow, blown up highways, bridges, railroad tracks supplying the Soviets in Afghanistan. Gee Robert, I didn't know you were such a gung ho militarist!

Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda are off-shoots from Mujahideen, but al-Qaeda is bent on stopping all foreign involvement in any Islamic country. To ensure the Mujahideen would be an effective weapon against the Soviet Union, the U.S. deliberately promoted the value that dieing in a battle against your enemy is honourable, and such an "honourable" death is used to recruit more individuals into the cause.

Oh sure, we trained them to attack us! we sent them to Madrassas and taught them to kill Americans! How dumb do you suppose we are? They are not a bunch of robots misprogrammed and then turning around to attack their creators like some cheezy 1950s science fiction movie.

It created an effective guerrilla war against a superpower. Those values were created by Islamic warlords long before the U.S. was founded, but was actively promoted by the U.S. to create the Mujahideen. Now al-Qaeda is using those same values to fight the U.S. and any other foreigner who tries to assert influence in the Islamic world. The U.S. wanted a guerrilla force that could defeat a superpower; congratulations they succeeded, now the off-shot is fighting the U.S.

You love those gorillas, don't you? To tell you the truth, i think they belong in cages and should be displayed at the Baghdad Zoo.

RobertDyck · 2007-01-15 11:42:36

You mean yelling and screaming, blocking traffic, staging sitins getting arrested, disturbing the peace, attacking police officers and yelling at the top of your lungs to drown out anyone who may disagree with you is more sane and rational than presenting logical arguments? Too bad you can't do those things on the Web, though you have Clark calling me a Monkey, but he can't attack me physically like he could if he met me on the street and I presented an opinon he disagreed with. Tsk tsk tsk. Those 60s retreads really enjoyed the physical confrontation, the screaming, attacking police officers and going to jail didn't they. Too bad the Internet doesn't provide them the opportinity for them to engage in their favorite activities here. Here we must be logical or reasonable, since I can't hear you shout and scream! You don't know where I live, so you can't block my street or stage a sit-in or protest in front of my house. Oh too bad.

All of that is a lot more sane than shooting people, truck bombs, launching rockets from some stranger's back yard, or a suicide airplane hijacking. The peace rallies I've attended have been gatherings in a park, a march with an official parade permit and police escort down the street, then people making speeches and waving signs either on the lawn of the provincial legislature (early 1980s) or recently on the square at city hall. I'm not sure what to call it, there's a pedestrian square with a fountain between the city administration building and city council building. During the peace protests last summer, we even had one group hold a rally on that square to protest Israel's invasion of Lebanon, while another group protested on the sidewalk in support of Israel. There was a hundred yards or so between the groups despite the fact they were protesting on opposite sides of the issue, but no scuffle broke out.

I was a child in the 60s, too young to participate in any of that but I did see it. Don't call me a retread. I didn't get Clark to do anything, that's all your own doing, but if you don't like being called a monkey then don't call me a retread. The "flower power" peace movement was all about democracy, people taking control of their own government peacefully, non-violently. The U.S. constitution grants the right of people to assemble. Protests are a means to tell politicians what they the voters want. The more intrusive measures, called civil disobedience, is only necessary when politicians take extreme measures in contravention to the will of the voters. Things like drafting people to fight a war that they strenuously disagree with. If George W. reinstituted the draft for Iraq, you could expect to see that same civil disobedience.

clark · 2007-01-16 07:06:33

I was wrong!

Tom is not a monkey!

He is a Turtle!

Oh what a fragile shell it is,
This Confederacy of his!

You realize of course that Tom is ever mindful to draw on historical precedents that are neither apt, or must be viewed in a very speific manner in order to establish and strengthen his view point on contemporary matters. It is a cheap ploy, making the actual argument about history, instead of about the actual point of debate.

I love you Tom!

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-17 10:00:03

You mean yelling and screaming, blocking traffic, staging sitins getting arrested, disturbing the peace, attacking police officers and yelling at the top of your lungs to drown out anyone who may disagree with you is more sane and rational than presenting logical arguments? Too bad you can't do those things on the Web, though you have Clark calling me a Monkey, but he can't attack me physically like he could if he met me on the street and I presented an opinon he disagreed with. Tsk tsk tsk. Those 60s retreads really enjoyed the physical confrontation, the screaming, attacking police officers and going to jail didn't they. Too bad the Internet doesn't provide them the opportinity for them to engage in their favorite activities here. Here we must be logical or reasonable, since I can't hear you shout and scream! You don't know where I live, so you can't block my street or stage a sit-in or protest in front of my house. Oh too bad.
All of that is a lot more sane than shooting people, truck bombs, launching rockets from some stranger's back yard, or a suicide airplane hijacking. The peace rallies I've attended have been gatherings in a park, a march with an official parade permit and police escort down the street, then people making speeches and waving signs either on the lawn of the provincial legislature (early 1980s) or recently on the square at city hall. I'm not sure what to call it, there's a pedestrian square with a fountain between the city administration building and city council building. During the peace protests last summer, we even had one group hold a rally on that square to protest Israel's invasion of Lebanon, while another group protested on the sidewalk in support of Israel. There was a hundred yards or so between the groups despite the fact they were protesting on opposite sides of the issue, but no scuffle broke out.
I was a child in the 60s, too young to participate in any of that but I did see it. Don't call me a retread. I didn't get Clark to do anything, that's all your own doing, but if you don't like being called a monkey then don't call me a retread. The "flower power" peace movement was all about democracy, people taking control of their own government peacefully, non-violently. The U.S. constitution grants the right of people to assemble. Protests are a means to tell politicians what they the voters want. The more intrusive measures, called civil disobedience, is only necessary when politicians take extreme measures in contravention to the will of the voters. Things like drafting people to fight a war that they strenuously disagree with. If George W. reinstituted the draft for Iraq, you could expect to see that same civil disobedience.

did you ever see the movie The Gangs of New York? Part of that story involved an antiwar movement. The peace protestors in that exercise of civil disobedience attacked black children in the streets and murdered them, the War they were protesting was the American Civil War, they protested the draft, and those protests were quite violent, bigoted and racist and included numerous lynchings of black people in New York City, its Ironic when peace movements become violent isn't it? Yet the protests in the Streets of New York were a bonifide peace movement in every respect that the protests in the 1960s and 1970s were. The 1860s peace activists felt that black people were inferior and not worth sacrificing their sons over, and they protested the draft as well, and wost of all many blamed black people for the Civil War.

People criticise me for drawing examples from the Civil War, yet I have also used World War II for comparisons and the American Revolutionary War. World War II, the Civil War and the American Revolutionary War were probably the three most important wars in American history. The Revolutionary War established this country, the Civil War preserved it, and World War II saved the World for Democracies, I don't know what other example's you'd have me use. The Civil War was an apt comparison in that it was an unpopular War with most Americans during most of the years that it was fought. Lincoln was an unpopular President during most of the time he served as President, but did he listen to the "throw in the towel" people who by the way were also Democrats? I think one of the things the Congress didn't try to do at the time was to defund the American Civil War, they didn't try to take control of the armed forces away from the President or to direct military movements the way the present Congress seems to be trying to do.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-17 10:09:39

I was wrong!
Tom is not a monkey!
He is a Turtle!
Oh what a fragile shell it is,
This Confederacy of his!

Whoever said it was my Confederacy? The comparisons I was drawing is that both the Confederate Army and terrorists were operating in the United States. If you are going to extend civil rights to terrorists operating in the USA, then you must also extend those same right to Confederate Soldiers operating in the USA which was just about everywhere they operated in any case with the possible exception of the Confederate Navy.

You realize of course that Tom is ever mindful to draw on historical precedents that are neither apt, or must be viewed in a very speific manner in order to establish and strengthen his view point on contemporary matters. It is a cheap ploy, making the actual argument about history, instead of about the actual point of debate.

I see you don't believe in drawing lessons from history, you'd rather just make the same mistakes over and over again.

clark · 2007-01-17 10:52:17

On the contrary, I do believe in learning from history. I leave it to you to understand how I mean that.

I find it rather revealing that you draw the largest lessons, or choose to rather, from episodes in American history in which you have no direct experience. I also find it revealing that your viewpoint on these so-called "defining" moments in American history are one sided and shallow.

We can quibble, but what is the point? Like most American's, you focus on these particular moments in american history because there is so much information related to the "big" wins. It is realtively simple for any intellectual light weight to find something by which to use as a springboard for their own personal crack pot theories.

Or as the wise man once said, even a blind squirrel finds a nut in the forest once in a while.

Now go back to watching the history channel, as it seems to be doing you a world fo good.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-03 22:02:14

I always thought they should have dropped more funny moohammad cartoons and less bombs but some people were afraid of offending islamism and afraid of offending a pedophile terrorist from 600 AD an inbred Quraysh tribe Arab political jihadi legal judge or warlord leader whom some idiotic people even today believe a 'prophet'? This moohammad could not read or write but some other people perhpas under threat of death were forced to write down his words, we assume writings are accurate as islamism threatens to behead anyone who disrespects their terrorism. This so called prophet he had terrible names for Black Africans or writings in their so called holy texts like the Quran or Koran call Black Africans 'Pug Nosed Slaves' and 'Raisin Heads'. A Somali is a Pug Nosed Slave or Raisin Head which makes it even more strange as to why any Black African would follow islam, perhaps they are Low IQ illiterates like the founder of islam or maybe they know islam hates African Blacks but they are happy with the parts of the book that says you can do terrorism or steal women as war booty?

These quotes are there for anyone on Earth to check out, the quotes are translated into other languages like English can be found in Sahih Moslem vol. 9 and al-Bukhari vol 1 and other mainstream islamo books. These normal jihad writings they say the pedophile Babylon Vedic Pagan Arab Moongod called al-Lah stroked his left shoulder and took out a black race as if they were coals. Then this pedophile terrorist Moongod al-Lah said to those who were on his left shoulder: 'Towards Hell and I don't care'. The guy muslims believe a prophet moohammad had a black slave boy named Mid’am, moohammad also liked to suck on the tongues of young boys, he also married a 6 yr old girl named Aisha, the pedo terrorist moohammad seems to hate most musical instruments and seen them as taboo or sinful, there are a number of writings against dancing or music instruments which he sees as sinful or taboo or but you are allowed wail and screech out jihadi cries from some mosque but unless you screech out wails of jihad against other civilisation the general view in Islam is that music is not allowed or 'Haram' or Forbidden by Sharia Law and legal scholars have debated this based on Quran or Koran, Sunnah writing, al-Bukhari and the Hadith, this pedophile terrorist moohammad he liked a 'war drum' and a black slave girl played a drum for moohammad’s entertainment, he used two of his black slaves to purchase another slave from a different Race or Ethnic group.

U.S. military says it killed al-Shabaab leader in Somali air strike
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/so … 022-10-03/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-10-03 22:11:11)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-02-21 04:39:42

At least 24 dead in Somaliland fighting

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ … ghting?amp

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-01-14 12:44:08

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#27 2007-01-14 14:26:53

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#28 2007-01-14 15:41:37

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#29 2007-01-14 16:14:45

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#30 2007-01-14 16:38:19

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#31 2007-01-15 00:47:19

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#32 2007-01-15 10:58:18

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#33 2007-01-15 11:03:05

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#34 2007-01-15 11:10:21

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#35 2007-01-15 11:11:14

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#36 2007-01-15 11:42:36

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#37 2007-01-16 07:06:33

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#38 2007-01-17 10:00:03

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#39 2007-01-17 10:09:39

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#40 2007-01-17 10:52:17

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#41 2022-10-03 22:02:14

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

#42 2023-02-21 04:39:42

Re: U.S. air strikes in Somalia

Board footer