The Christians in Mid-east

US said Saddam was a dictator and activated a war on Iraq. As a result, Islamic extremists control Iraq and Iraq Christian suffered severe persecution. They escaped to Syria. Now US says Assad is a dictator and ..... Poor Christians, where will they go this time?
----------------------

Quote:

---

The price of regime change
By David Warren, Ottawa Citizen

There are millions of Christians in Syria, who probably have the Russians and Chinese to thank that they may live there a little longer. The Security Council vetoes, a fortnight ago, on a resolution calling upon Syria's dictator to step down, and supporting an Arab-sponsored plan to "end the violence," put paid to any immediate prospect of western intervention.

The outrage expressed by Hillary Clinton, William Hague, and other western foreign ministers, probably concealed a little relief, for the vetoes provided the excuse they needed to avoid the issue, while continuing to posture about "humanitarianism" and "democracy."
…….


Christians were as common in Syria as in Egypt, before their numbers were immensely swelled by refugees from Iraq - well over a million fleeing up the Euphrates River valley, from anti-Christian persecution by Iraq's Islamists. By now, there could be more than four million Christians within Syria's borders.

When the Assad regime falls, it will be open season on them, on the Alawites, and all the other minorities. Granted, Assad is a monster who has earned an ugly fate. But at what expense should we indulge the fleeting satisfaction of deposing him?

---

I get the feeling you pronounce it "eye-rack".

For the record, I find Russia and China's vetoes of said UN resolution deplorable.

I fail to see your logic. Could you be more explicit as to how Christians would be persecuted if a mass murderer is removed from power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I fail to see your logic. Could you be more explicit as to how Christians would be persecuted if a mass murderer is removed from power?

---

If that's what you wanted. When Saddam was removed, the Christians in Iraq:

Quote:

---

Iraq: Worse for Christians Now Than under Saddam Hussein

Michael Ireland, Chief Correspondent, ASSIST News Service
Tuesday, July 01, 2008

July 2, 2008

BAGHDAD (ANS) -- The Reverend Canon Andrew White, affectionately known as The Vicar of Baghdad, says the situation for Christians in Iraq is "clearly worse" than under the Saddam Hussein regime, toppled by US and Coalition forces in 2003.

In a segment of the CBS news program 60 Minutes, originally broadcast on Dec. 2, 2007, updated June 26 and aired on June 29, 2008, correspondent Scott Pelley asked Canon White: "You were here during Saddam’s reign. And now after. Which was better? Which was worse?"

"The situation now is clearly worse” than under Saddam, White replied.

"There’s no comparison between Iraq now and then," he told Pelley. "Things are the most difficult they have ever been for Christians. Probably ever in history. They’ve never known it like now."

Iraq: Worse for Christians Now Than under Saddam Hussein - Christian News Articles

---

Quote:

---

Raymond Ibrahim: "Christian life in Iraq has been a living hell ever since U.S. forces ousted the late Saddam Hussein in 2003"

In "The Silent Extermination of Iraq's 'Christian Dogs,'" our friend Raymond Ibrahim in FrontPage (via RaymondIbrahim.com), April 19, discusses the rapid deterioration of the situation of Christians in Iraq -- while the world yawns:

Last week an Iraqi Muslim scholar issued a fatwa that, among other barbarities, asserts that "it is permissible to spill the blood of Iraqi Christians." Inciting as the fatwa is, it is also redundant. While last October's Baghdad church attack which killed some sixty Christians is widely known—actually receiving some MSM coverage—the fact is, Christian life in Iraq has been a living hell ever since U.S. forces ousted the late Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Raymond Ibrahim: "Christian life in Iraq has been a living hell ever since U.S. forces ousted the late Saddam Hussein in 2003" - Jihad Watch

---

That doesn't answer my question. That's some guy saying christians are worse off without Saddam Hussein. You implied Assad was helping christians. To use that evidence alone to claim that the man indiscriminately killing thousands of his own people right now is good for christians would be fallacy. What are you actually trying to argue? That muslims need a vicious dictator in power to stop them from persecuting christians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That doesn't answer my question. That's some guy saying christians are worse off without Saddam Hussein. You implied Assad was helping christians. To use that evidence alone to claim that the man indiscriminately killing thousands of his own people right now is good for christians would be fallacy. What are you actually trying to argue? That muslims need a vicious dictator in power to stop them from persecuting christians?

---

US and its allies started war in Mid-east in the name of "democracy" and "regime change of dictators". The purpose is for the control of the oil resource and set up a rule of NWO. Anyoen who criticize it beocmes stand with "dictators". As a matter of fact, US is worse than the "dictators". The Christians in Mid-east are only one evidence.

You accuse dictator killed thousands of people. The war activated by US killed much more: Most of them were Muslim. So don't meddle water with Christians only.

Quote:

---

the official tally is eight years, eight months, and 25 days. As a start date, The Washington Post points to March 20, 2003, when an airstrike was launched in southern Baghdad where Saddam Hussein was presumed to be hiding.

SEE MORE: Is America getting 'kicked out' of Iraq?

More than 1 million
Number of U.S. troops who have served in Iraq since 2003

104,080 to 113,728
Estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed during the mission, according to Iraq Body Count

Sources: AP, CNN, Iraq Body Count, UN Dispatch, Wash. Post

The Iraq War's 'quiet' end: By the numbers - Yahoo! News

---

Of course the US is a bigger terrorist than radical Islam, I'm not debating that.

I'm asking you why you think it's justifiable to let Assad continuing slaughtering thousands of his own people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Of course the US is a bigger terrorist than radical Islam, I'm not debating that.

I'm asking you why you think it's justifiable to let Assad continuing slaughtering thousands of his own people.

---

Pretty simple - to avoid a bigger slaughter caused by the rebel (or resistance as so called) which is supported by the US and its allies.

Quote:

---

SYRIA: US-NATO Supported "Opposition" Commits Extensive War Crimes
by Devon DB
Global Research, March 20, 2012

Finally, it should be noted that there are many similarities between the Syrian rebels and the Libyan rebels. The Libyan rebels launched a media propaganda war against Gaddafi, must like how Al Jazeera has lied about the ongoing events in Syria. In addition to this, much like the Syrian rebels, the Libyan rebels also committed war crimes.

While there are those who may be pushing for intervention into Syria, they may want to rethink it the situation in light of this new information. The situation may end up much worse as the Libyan rebels were linked to Al Qaeda and the NTC is now going to enact Sharia law. We should not want the same fate for the people of Syria.

SYRIA: US-NATO Supported "Opposition" Commits Extensive War Crimes

---

Quite different from what US government told us.

Quote:

---

Syria: anti-government groups committed Houla massacre

Reuters – 1 hr 6 mins ago

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syria said on Thursday a preliminary investigation showed that anti-government armed groups committed a massacre last week in Houla, in which 108 people were killed, with the aim of encouraging foreign military intervention against the Syrian government.

Brigadier General Qassem Jamal Suleiman, head of the investigation committee formed by the government, said the victims were families "who refused to oppose the government and were at odds with the armed groups".

He said many of the victims were relatives of a member of the Syrian parliament.
(Reporting by Mariam Karouny; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Syria: anti-government groups committed Houla massacre - Yahoo! News

---

Houla massacre carried out by Free Syrian Army, according to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

By Chris Marsden
13 June 2012

The May 25 Houla massacre was perpetrated by opposition forces aligned with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), according to Germany’s leading daily newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

The report refutes the official account by the United States and other major powers and presented uncritically by the media. The massacre was attributed to pro-government forces and used to step up the propaganda offensive for military intervention against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Without providing any serious evidence, the US and its allies claimed that either the Syrian Army or pro-government Shabiha militas carried out the mass killing of over 100 people.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on June 7 published a report from Damascus by Rainer Hermann, who based his article on investigations by oppositionists who visited the area and took eye-witness testimony. They largely confirm the account of the events in Houla given by the Assad government.

Houla massacre carried out by Free Syrian Army, according to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

There were churches in Afghan before US invasion. None is left 10 years after US occupied Afghan. Be noticed that this news indirectly(may be the news agency is afraid of being called "unpatriot"?) related this to US foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan, Says State Department

By Edwin Mora
October 10, 2011
Subscribe to Edwin Mora's posts


(CNSNews.com) -- There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.

This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.

In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.

The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the State Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report.

---

Syrian Christians worry about life after Bashar Assad

They fear civil war and revenge attacks if President Bashar Assad falls, an anxiety fed by the sectarian violence seen in Egypt and Iraq.

Ignatius IV, patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, described Syria as an oasis of religious tolerance where Christians can worship freely, build sanctuaries and run schools, activities that are restricted by varying degrees in a number of Middle Eastern countries.

Christian clerics are frequently shown on television taking part in joint prayer services with their Muslim counterparts. The defense minister is a Christian, as are other senior members of the government and security forces.

"Wherever you go, you find Christians and Muslims," said the patriarch, who has a photograph of himself with Assad displayed on his office wall. "There is no distinction."

Syria Christians worry about life after President Bashar Assad - chicagotribune.com

Patriarch al-Rahi: Syria is Closest to Democracy in Arab World, Needs the Reforms Announced by President al-Assad
Mar 04, 2012

He regretted the violence and destruction taking place in Syria, saying that there are destructive plans in world politics and that the people don't want the extremists who are receiving financial, military and political support from certain countries.

"How can the Arab Spring be a spring when people are killed every day? They talk about Iraq and democracy while a million Christians out of one and a half million were forced to leave Iraq… where is democracy in Iraq?" he asked, saying that this so-called spring is closer to a winter of war, destruction and killing.

"What good is democracy if it wants to kill people and throw away stability?" Patriarch al-Rahi wondered.

http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2012/03/04/404155.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Of course the US is a bigger terrorist than radical Islam, I'm not debating that.

I'm asking you why you think it's justifiable to let Assad continuing slaughtering thousands of his own people.

---

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media

Assad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war

Jonathan Steele guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 January 2012

The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders.

Most Syrians back President Assad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

US and its allies started war in Mid-east in the name of "democracy" and "regime change of dictators". The purpose is for the control of the oil resource and set up a rule of NWO. Anyoen who criticize it beocmes stand with "dictators". As a matter of fact, US is worse than the "dictators". The Christians in Mid-east are only one evidence.

You accuse dictator killed thousands of people. The war activated by US killed much more: Most of them were Muslim. So don't meddle water with Christians only.

---

Refusing to comply with a ceasefire does not qualify as starting a war? The country that holds the record in liberation and the giving of foreign aid is worse than dictators? What's wrong with killing terrorists who are fighting us to prevent democracy from existing? Can you prove your oil and NWO claims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Of course the US is a bigger terrorist than radical Islam, I'm not debating that.

I'm asking you why you think it's justifiable to let Assad continuing slaughtering thousands of his own people.

---

every body in this world has taken the wrong idea about islam,because of some people that aren't even muslims,they don't even deserve to be called muslims,i mean,if you disobey your holy book how can you call yourself a muslim,yes they are,they as we all know want to make the whole world muslim............etc,etc,i 'am talking about what you like to call "terrorists"
islam never was "radical" as you said,let me explain
Allah said: (لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ)

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim".

There are certain verses in the Quran, which convey injunctions similar to the following:

‘Kill them wherever you find them.’ (2:191)

Referring to such verses, there are some who attempt to give the impression that Islam is a religion of war and violence. This is totally untrue. Such verses relate in a restricted sense, to those who have unilaterally attacked the Muslims. The above verse does not convey the general command of Islam.

The truth of the matter is that the Quran was not revealed in the complete form in which it exists today. It was revealed from time to time, according to the circumstances, over a time span of 23 years. If this is divided into years of war and peace, the period of peace amounts to 20 years, while that of war amounts only to 3 years. The revelations during these 20 peaceful years were the peaceful teachings of Islam as are conveyed in the verses regarding the realization of God, worship, morality, justice, etc.

This division of commands into different categories is a natural one and is found in all religious books. For instance, the Gita, the holy book of the Hindus, pertains to wisdom and moral values. Yet along with this is the exhortation of Krishna to Arjun, encouraging him to fight. (3:30) This does not mean that believers in the Gita should wage wars all the time. Gandhiji, after all, derived his philosophy of non-violence from the same Gita. The exhortation to wage war in the Gita applies only to exceptional cases where circumstances leave no choice. But for general day-to-day existence it gives the same peaceful commands as derived from it by Mahatma Gandhi.

Similarly, Jesus Christ said: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew, Chapter 10)

It would not be right to conclude that the religion preached by Christ was one of war and violence, for such utterances relate purely to particular occasions. So far as general life is concerned, Christ taught peaceful values, such as the building up of a good character, loving each other, helping the poor and needy, etc.

The same is true of the Quran. When the Prophet of Islam emigrated from Mecca to Medina, the idolatrous tribes were aggressive towards him. But the Prophet always averted their attacks by the exercise of patience and the strategy of avoidance. However on certain occasions no other options existed, save that of retaliation. Therefore, he had do battle on certain occasions. It was these circumstances, which occasioned those revelations relating to war. These commands, being specific to certain circumstances, had no general application. They were not meant to be valid for all time to come. That is why; the permanent status of the Prophet has been termed a ‘mercy for all mankind.’ (21:107)

Islam is a religion of peace in the fullest sense of the word. The Qur’an calls its way ‘the paths of peace’ (5:16). It describes reconciliation as the best policy (4:128), and states that God abhors any disturbance of the peace (2:205). We can say that:“It is no exaggeration to say that Islam and violence are contradictory to each other. The concept of Islamic violence is so obviously unfounded that prima facie it stands rejected. The fact that violence is not sustainable in the present world is sufficient indication that violence as a principle is quite alien to the scheme of things in Islam. Islam claims to be an eternal religion and, as such, could never afford to uphold any principle, which could not stand up to the test of time. Any attempt to bracket violence with Islam amounts, therefore, to casting doubt upon the very eternity of the Islamic religion. Islamic terrorism is a contradiction in terms, much like ‘pacifist’ terrorism. And the truth of the matter is that, all the teachings of Islam are based directly or indirectly on the principle of peace.”

now,we can clearly see that those terrorists that dare to call themselves muslims,are actually,not muslims!!!as they are disobeying the will of allah and his prophet mohammed.
so please,just because those terrorists grow beards and say "allah akaber",doesn't mean they are muslims,nor it means that they represent islam,it's them that are radical,not islam,they only represent themselves.

Areyoume, aren't there 109 verses in the Koran that demand the killing of infidels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Areyoume, aren't there 109 verses in the Koran that demand the killing of infidels?

---

n the Name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

Dear Brother,

The short answer is no.

The Qur'an does not teach that "infidels" should be killed, taxed, or converted as a matter of principle.

The answer to your next question is also no. Actually, this is a saying, or hadith, attributed to the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace. Scholars differ over the interpretation of this saying. However, the best method of understanding this hadith is to look at the biography of the Prophet, peace be upon him. When he established the first Islamic state in Medina, he regarded the Jews as allies, and concluded a treaty with them. Only when they violated the treaty and sided with the Muslims' enemies did the Prophet change his policy toward them. It is possible that this hadith is a reflection of the tensions between Muslims and Jews in Medina. However, bear in mind that Islam accords special status to both Christians and Jews, as we will see later.

First, let's look at where these statements come from. These are common stereotypes about Islam. People who don't understand the religion like to toss around the accusation that the Qur'an teaches violence and anti-semitism. Unfortunately, a lot of people who buy into these misconceptions have distinctly Islamophobic agendas that preclude them from having any positive views of Islam.

Islam is a fourteen-hundred years old way of life. One simply can't take the scripture of Islam, which is the Qur'an (also spelled Koran), and make sweeping generalizations about the religion, particularly when one lacks the qualifications to interpret the Qur'an.

The Qur'an makes reference to different groups of non-Muslims. First, the Qur'an recognizes the natural diversity of humanity, "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Qu'ran, 49:13)

There is also the recognition that human beings are religiously and ethnically diverse, "For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!" (Qur'an, 16:93)

What then does the Qur'an say about "infidels?" First, what does the term infidel mean? It is not a Qur'anic term. It is a term that Christians have historically applied to non-Christians, particularly Muslims. Christian doctrine simply did not recognize the legitimacy of Islam. Hence, Muslims were "infidels," and usually placed in the same category as "pagans" and "savages."

The Qur'an speaks of "kuffar," or those who disbelieve, or cover up the truth, or deny the truth of God and His messengers. However, it is incorrect to translate "kafir" as infidel. The Qur'an also does not label all non-Muslims as kuffar, or unbelievers.

The Qur'an talks about a group of non-Muslims called "Ahl al-Kitab," or People of Scripture. These are people who have received divine revelation, particularly Christians and Jews. Therefore, the Qur'an automatically recognizes previous Abrahamic faiths and accords special status to the adherents of Christianity and Judaism. What is ironic is that Christian and Jewish doctrine makes no provision for the recognition of Islam; however, Islam recognizes both Christianity and Judaism as divinely-revealed religions. But it is Islam that is always accused of intolerance!

The Qur'an is the culmination of the Abrahamic tradition. Thus, Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the completion of God's message to humanity. Muslims also believe that the Qur'an has been preserved in its original form since its revelation over 1400 years ago. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has not been altered by human hands. For Muslims, this is a miracle and proof of God's concern for humanity.

Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."

Most people usually only quote the first part.

Here's the entire passage:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)

Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)

The first battles the Muslims waged were in self-defense. They were disciplined and adhered to strict codes of conduct. Noncombatants, including women and children were not targeted. Furthermore, the Muslims avoided destroying property, livestock, and trees.

Even as Islam spread beyond the borders of Arabia into the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires (Syria and Persia), non-Muslims were accorded certain rights. If they accepted the authority of the new Islamic government, then treaties were concluded and the non-Muslims paid a special tax, called a jizya. The options were not convert, die, or pay the tax. Instead, non-Muslims were allowed to practice their own religions and maintain their own institutions. In lieu of converting to Islam, they paid the jizya, or poll tax. This tax exempted them from military service and gave them special status under the Islamic system. Many non-Muslims actually welcomed Muslim rule, knowing that they had certain rights under the new system. In fact, some Muslim rulers actually discouraged conversion, because they preferred collecting the poll tax. This tribute system was very compatible with the political economy of the premodern world.

Islam could not have had the huge appeal it did if Muslims' first response was to kill "infidels." Within one hundred years of the Prophet's death, Islam had spread from Spain in the West to China in the East. Islam's initial spread was through political-military means. However, Muslim rulers usually insured that local populations could practice their own religions and have their own institutions, provided they accepted Muslim rule and paid their taxes. Muslims ruled places like the Indian subcontinent for centuries and did not forcibly convert the population. In fact, India remained majority Hindu under Muslim rule.

The Ottomans created a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic millet system where Muslims, Christian, and Jews lived together in peace. In fact, the Ottomans' elite military corp, the Janissaries, were predominantly Christian.

Islam's tolerance, and indeed welcoming, of other religions flourished in places like Spain, where Muslims cultivated an atmosphere of learning, scholarship, and art. Christians flocked to study in the universities of Muslim Spain.

Consider this:

In the Catholic Reconquista of Muslim Spain, Muslim and Spanish Jews were generally ordered to convert to Christianity, be expelled, or die.

When the Spanish Jews fled the Catholics, where did they go? They sought refuge with the Ottoman Muslims in Istanbul. This was in the 15th century. To this day, there is a Jewish quarter in Istanbul where the people still speak Spanish, descendants of the Spanish Jews who found a home with the Muslims!

Let's go back to the Qur'an:

The Qur'an says, "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah (God) and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Qur'an, 2:62)

And, the Qur'an also states, "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (Qur'an, 2:256)

Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Today, as yesterday, and in centuries past, Islam speaks to people's hearts with the beautiful message that There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger.

This is a message that has inspired countless believers from all walks of life, a religion followed by over 1.5 billion human beings the world over, including my own family, who were raised as Christians, but discovered the beauty of Islam over three decades ago.

May Allah guide us all.

And Allah knows best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Refusing to comply with a ceasefire does not qualify as starting a war? The country that holds the record in liberation and the giving of foreign aid is worse than dictators? What's wrong with killing terrorists who are fighting us to prevent democracy from existing? Can you prove your oil and NWO claims?

---

This is the result of your "liberation war" - Iraq the world’s fourth-most-corrupt country and by far the worst in the Middle East. That's what an US asset politician in Iraq says.

Quote:

---

How the U.S. and the world can help Iraq
By Ayad Allawi, Published: August 31



“More than eight years after Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown, basic services are in a woeful state: Most of the country has only a few hours of electricity a day. Blackouts were increasingly common this summer.

“Oil exports, still Iraq’s only source of income, are barely more than they were when Hussein was toppled. The government has squandered the boon of high oil prices and failed to create real and sustainable job growth. Iraq’s economy has become an ever more dysfunctional mix of cronyism and mismanagement, with high unemployment and endemic corruption.
“Transparency International ranks Iraq the world’s fourth-most-corrupt country and by far the worst in the Middle East. The promise of improved security has been empty, with sectarianism on the rise.”

False Promises

Allawi also cites the false promises of democracy:

“Despite failing to win the most seats in last year’s elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki clung to power through a combination of Iranian support and U.S. compliance. He now shows an alarming disregard for democratic principles and the rule of law.

“Vital independent institutions such as the election commission, the transparency commission and Iraq’s central bank have been ordered to report directly to the office of the prime minister. Meanwhile, Maliki refuses to appoint consensus candidates as defense and interior ministers, as per last year’s power-sharing agreement.

“The government is using blatant dictatorial tactics and intimidation to quell opposition, ignoring the most basic human rights. Human Rights Watch reported in February on secret torture prisons under Maliki’s authority.

“In June, it exposed the government’s use of hired thugs to beat, stab and even sexually assault peaceful demonstrators in Baghdad who were complaining about corruption and poor services. These horrors are reminiscent of autocratic responses to demonstrations by failing regimes elsewhere in the region, and a far cry from the freedom and democracy promised in the new Iraq.

“Is this really what the United States sacrificed more than 4,000 young men and women, and hundreds of billions of dollars, to build? The trend of failure is becoming irreversible.”
So what is going on here? How can the U.S. media hail Petraeus’s “successful surge” and write about “victory at last” in Iraq when it appears that the Bush-Cheney-neocon intervention has created what amounts to a failed state in Iraq?


How the U.S. and the world can help Iraq - The Washington Post

---

‘US, Israel behind terrorism and social unrest in Syria’
Apr 29, 2012

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March 2011 and many people, including members of the security forces, have been killed in the turmoil.

Damascus blames armed terrorist groups for the country’s year-long unrest, asserting that violent acts are being orchestrated from abroad.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Paul Sheldon Foote, professor at the California State University, Irvine, to further discuss the issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Professor, how would you explain Russia’s stance and position towards Syria?

Foote: I think it’s time that someone started telling the truth about it. It’s very obvious that America, Israel and some Arab countries are behind this terrorism in Syria.

PressTV - ‘US, Israel behind terrorism and social unrest in Syria’

Obviously, US and Al Qaeda have common interest in Syria.

Quote:

---

Al Qaeda leader urges support for ousting Syria's Assad
Reuters – Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri has called on all Muslims to back the rebels in Syria, saying the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad would bring them closer to the ultimate goal of defeating Israel, according to an audio recording posted on the Internet on Thursday.

Al Qaeda leader urges support for ousting Syria's Assad - Yahoo! News

---

US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have plotted bloodbath for years.

Image: Real genocidal atrocities during the "Arab Spring" occurred at the hands of NATO and its proxy sectarian terrorists. Pictured is Sirte, Libya, after NATO-armed rebels surrounded it, cut off power, water, food, and emergency aid, and allowed NATO to bombard it with daily airstrikes before a final orgy of death and destruction left its streets and facades crumbling. This is the "civilian protection" the UN and its enforcement arm NATO plan on bringing to Syria.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/US%2C...38/38/Y/M.html

Christians 'emptied from Middle East'

Rowan Callick

October 06, 2012

THE mother superior of a 1500-year-old monastery in Syria warned yesterday during a visit to Australia that the uprising against Bashar al-Assad has been hijacked by foreign Islamist mercenaries, with strong support from Western countries.

Mother Agnes-Mariam de la Croix was forced to flee to neighbouring Lebanon in June when she was warned of a plot to abduct her, after she revealed that about 80,000 Christians had been "cleared" by rebel forces from their homes in Homs province.

She described on the website of the Greek-Melkite Catholic monastery of St James, the church she rebuilt 18 years ago after discovering it in ruins, how Islamist rebels had gathered Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in Khalidiya in Homs. Then they blew it up with dynamite and attributed the act to the regular army.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

This is the result of your "liberation war" - Iraq the world’s fourth-most-corrupt country and by far the worst in the Middle East. That's what an US asset politician in Iraq says.

---

A lot of improvement is needed, but compare things now to what they had when the Hussein regime was in power. That was a lot like Nazi Germany. The fucked up state of Iraq now is why we are still there, but it is a lot better than it was.
Now, I have had major second thoughts about whether it was worth going there, but I do think a lot of improvements have come about. Was it all worth it? Probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

US and its allies started war in Mid-east in the name of "democracy" and "regime change of dictators". The purpose is for the control of the oil resource and set up a rule of NWO. Anyoen who criticize it beocmes stand with "dictators". As a matter of fact, US is worse than the "dictators". The Christians in Mid-east are only one evidence.

You accuse dictator killed thousands of people. The war activated by US killed much more: Most of them were Muslim. So don't meddle water with Christians only.

---

Scum that is killing in an effort to end democracy in Iraq is not the same as innocent people living in Syria. Those are two very different walks of life. The former deserve to die. The latter do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Scum that is killing in an effort to end democracy in Iraq is not the same as innocent people living in Syria. Those are two very different walks of life. The former deserve to die. The latter do not.

---

What is the former what is the later? Please make it clear.

Quote:

---

Western-Backed Rebels Move Against Syria’s Christian Minority

Churches in Homs Under Constant Attack

by Jason Ditz, October 14, 2012

Militant factions in rebel-held cities like Homs see Christian communities as easy targets for extortion, and the more Islamist blocs regularly target their churches, damaging many and destroying others.

Christians and other minorities have tried to form militias to protect their neighborhoods, but with the rebels awash in Western money and arms, they are simply out-manned and outgunned. As the fight continues to escalate, the groups are facing a tougher and tougher choice about whether to try to stay or to flee abroad.

Western-Backed Rebels Move Against Syria’s Christian Minority -- News from Antiwar.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

What is the former what is the later? Please make it clear.

---

The "former" are the first group I described, the Iraqi insurgents. They deserve to die. The "latter" are the second group I described, innocent Syrians. They don't deserve to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The "former" are the first group I described, the Iraqi insurgents. They deserve to die. The "latter" are the second group I described, innocent Syrians. They don't deserve to die.

---

You still made it vague. Innocent Serians = people or insurgents?

The plight of Syria's Christians: 'We left Homs because they were trying to kill us'


In the civil war, they have tried to stay neutral. But despite this, many are now facing persecution and death


Kim Sengupta


Al-Qaa, Lebanon Friday 02 November 2012

The car may have been the reason why the 23-year-old student was ambushed and taken hostage, along with a female friend, as they were travelling to a shopping complex. The revolutionary fighters with Kalashnikovs who led them away subjected Mr Bedrosian – blindfolded and tied up – to savage beatings and threats of execution before the pair was finally freed in exchange for a ransom.

Or there may have been a different reason for the attack: they were targeted by the Sunni Muslim rebels because they were Christians. Mr Bedrosian did not wait long to find out, leaving – along with his brother – for Lebanon. Others from the Syrian Armenian community followed, abandoning their homes.

The plight of Syria's Christians: 'We left Homs because they were trying to kill us' - Middle East - World - The Independent

I am talking about Iraqi insurgents and Syrian non-insurgents. I can understand lashing out against the Syrian government, but kidnapping the innocent and making them face death is not justifiable.

My point earlier was that Iraqi insurgents deserve to die. I keep seeing comments on the internet about all of the Iraqis we have killed. The Iraqis we have been targetting have been total scum that target the innocent and are working to bring down the democratic government. Killing them on purpose does not make us evil. If we killed every last one of those horrible pieces of garbage, I would consider it a great thing.

Quote:

---

My point earlier was that Iraqi insurgents deserve to die.

---

Iraq insurgents mainly are Sunni Muslims. That's the conflict of two different religion parties. US invasion broke the balance and caused conflict. Who is to blame?

Quote:

---

Who Are the Insurgents? Sunni Arab Rebels in Iraq

May 2005 | Special Report by Amatzia Baram

Who Are the Insurgents? Sunni Arab Rebels in Iraq | United States Institute of Peace

---

Quote:

---

Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here’


By Global Research News

Global Research, December 01, 2012

I sat in on a lecture, given in English, to maybe fifty or more young men and women at a college in Ramadi.

Then a young man in the front row only a couple of feet from me said in a quiet voice “We have nothing to say. The last years have been only sad ones.” Again there was silence.

Sami, my host from Najaf and part of the Muslim Peacemaker Team, stood and shared. He told the story of how, after the U.S. bombing assaults on Fallujah, he and others came from the Shia cities of Najaf and Karbala, to carry out a symbolic act of cleaning up rubble and trash in the streets of Fallujah. This gesture, he said, melted hearts and healed some of the brokenness between Sunni and Shia. He
spoke of the delegation of peacemakers from the United States who were just in Najaf for twelve days, of the work to build bridges and seek reconciliation.

An impassioned young woman from the middle of the lecture hall spoke up. It was obviously not easy for her. “It is not,” she said, “about lack of water and electricity [something I had mentioned]. You have destroyed everything. You have destroyed our country. You have destroyed what is inside of us! You have destroyed our ancient civilization. You have taken our smiles from us. You have
taken our dreams!”

Someone asked, “Why did you this? What did we do to you that you would do this to us?”

“Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here,” said another. “They destroyed the childhood. You don’t destroy everything and then say ‘We’re sorry.’ “You don’t commit crimes and then say ‘Sorry.’”

“To bomb us and then send teams to do investigations on the effects of the bombs…No, it will not be forgotten. It is not written on our hearts, it is carved in our hearts.”

‘Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here

---

Petagon got fat budget. Americans harvest hatred.

Who is to blame for insurgents killing U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis? The insurgents are to blame.

I no longer believe that invading Iraq was the thing to do, but I do recognize the positive results of it. Iraqis can elect their own leaders now, and the people have ultimate authority over the government. The good Iraqis are appreciative of at least that aspect of the situation. Also, I have talked to Iraqis and Afghans who are extremely thankful that they were liberated from tyrannical governments. Bush is actually a hero to a substantial portion of the people in both countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Who is to blame for insurgents killing U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis? The insurgents are to blame.

.

---

Someone intrudes into your home armed with guns, you shoot him. That's self defense in US. When you intrude into others homeland, killing and raping, what is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

Someone intrudes into your home armed with guns, you shoot him. That's self defense in US. When you intrude into others homeland, killing and raping, what is it?

---

We invaded their "home" because the person who rule their home with absolute authority, oppression, and genocide had taken over another home, failed to comply with the deal we made when we drove him out of the other home, and was a threat to our home and others. If I am ever in such a home, I will thank the people who came to take out my oppressor and give my home a much fairer and more humane way of running the home. I will not kill them. Would you kill them?

The insurgents are killing U.S. soldiers because the insurgents detest freedom and want to take away the people's power over their government. The insurgents do not have my sympathy. They are the bad guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We invaded their "home" because the person who rule their home with absolute authority, oppression, and genocide had taken over another home, failed to comply with the deal we made when we drove him out of the other home, and was a threat to our home and others. If I am ever in such a home, I will thank the people who came to take out my oppressor and give my home a much fairer and more humane way of running the home. I will not kill them. Would you kill them?

The insurgents are killing U.S. soldiers because the insurgents detest freedom and want to take away the people's power over their government. The insurgents do not have my sympathy. They are the bad guys.

---

Most shameless boast to cover up the war crimes committed by the US aggressors. Is that your glorious tradition by slaughtering American Indians by your guns against their arrows and bows then blame they were "savages".

American Soldiers Are WAKING UP!! SUPPORT OF TAKING AMERICA BACK!!! (StopTheRobbery2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUQ...layer_embedded

I don't honor the killings of innocent native Americans at all. It was terrible, and I am part native American. What U.S. troops have been doing in Iraq is not the same. They have been trying to preserve freedom for the Iraqis. The insurgents have been trying to violently bring an end to the Iraqi people's freedom. The insurgents are evil scum.

Bandit intrude into other's home, killing and occupied their land, than said they brough civil to those "savages". That's how those white people did to the Indians. Now the "native Americans" say they are "trying to preserve freedom" to Iraqis, you really are as shameless as your ancestors. Did Iraqis invite you there?

The native Americans (my ancestors) were not living under totalitarian rule by a genocidal terrorist. They were not liberated. Do you see the huge difference there?

Are you at all happy about any of the freedoms the Iraqis gained from the liberation? Do you have even the first thing positive to say about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVeUEABXDfg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The native Americans (my ancestors) were not living under totalitarian rule by a genocidal terrorist. They were not liberated. Do you see the huge difference there?

Are you at all happy about any of the freedoms the Iraqis gained from the liberation? Do you have even the first thing positive to say about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVeUEABXDfg

---

That's even worse. You lost the justification of "liberation", "for freedom". It became a pure loot, rob, plunder and occupying. Shamless people like you still boast on "Freedom", and show picture of some puppets' action. But even puppet tell the truth that US bring them - A failed war - Iraq the world’s fourth-most-corrupt country and by far the worst in the Middle East. That's what an US asset politician in Iraq says.

Quote:

---

How the U.S. and the world can help Iraq
By Ayad Allawi, Published: August 31



“More than eight years after Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown, basic services are in a woeful state: Most of the country has only a few hours of electricity a day. Blackouts were increasingly common this summer.

“Oil exports, still Iraq’s only source of income, are barely more than they were when Hussein was toppled. The government has squandered the boon of high oil prices and failed to create real and sustainable job growth. Iraq’s economy has become an ever more dysfunctional mix of cronyism and mismanagement, with high unemployment and endemic corruption.
“Transparency International ranks Iraq the world’s fourth-most-corrupt country and by far the worst in the Middle East. The promise of improved security has been empty, with sectarianism on the rise.”

False Promises

Allawi also cites the false promises of democracy:

“Despite failing to win the most seats in last year’s elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki clung to power through a combination of Iranian support and U.S. compliance. He now shows an alarming disregard for democratic principles and the rule of law.

“Vital independent institutions such as the election commission, the transparency commission and Iraq’s central bank have been ordered to report directly to the office of the prime minister. Meanwhile, Maliki refuses to appoint consensus candidates as defense and interior ministers, as per last year’s power-sharing agreement.

“The government is using blatant dictatorial tactics and intimidation to quell opposition, ignoring the most basic human rights. Human Rights Watch reported in February on secret torture prisons under Maliki’s authority.

“In June, it exposed the government’s use of hired thugs to beat, stab and even sexually assault peaceful demonstrators in Baghdad who were complaining about corruption and poor services. These horrors are reminiscent of autocratic responses to demonstrations by failing regimes elsewhere in the region, and a far cry from the freedom and democracy promised in the new Iraq.

“Is this really what the United States sacrificed more than 4,000 young men and women, and hundreds of billions of dollars, to build? The trend of failure is becoming irreversible.”
So what is going on here? How can the U.S. media hail Petraeus’s “successful surge” and write about “victory at last” in Iraq when it appears that the Bush-Cheney-neocon intervention has created what amounts to a failed state in Iraq?


How the U.S. and the world can help Iraq - The Washington Post

---

Congratulations on finding some bullshit propaganda. Unfortunately for you, the article discusses financial struggles and power outages plus some absolutely ridiculous claims. The mass killing of innocent people by the Iraqi government is over. People aren't terrified of being tortured to death for breathing the wrong way. The people DO have the ultimate authority over their government because they vote on their leaders. The government is no longer a dictatorship.

I think I said earlier that I no longer believe we should have gone through with all of the madness of liberating a weak population that doesn't want freedom bad enough overall, but I still oppose the false arguments against it, and I do recognize the good that exists in the picture. You have yet to acknowledge even one detail of that. Why??? I flat out asked you if you see any good in the picture. You dodged the question. So I will ask you the question again. Do you have anything positive to say about the freedoms the Iraqi people have gained as a result of the overthrow of the Hussein regime and the creation of a democratic government? Anything at all? Anything? Don't dodge this time.

The war in Iraq according to JustForeignPolicy.org, claims 1.455.590 victims as of January 2011, I would be putting this into the category of genocide personally.

Crimes against Humanity: The Children of Iraq, Killed and Maimed Twice | Global Research

Those that told us it was a good idea to start a war in Iraq, (people like the above poster) why would we trust or give them any credibility now? Their judgement after the fact, after they have change their view on it, is irrelevant. They obviously don't have a clue what is going on, and that's why they couldn't understand why invading Iraq was a bad idea in the first place. They were easily deceived simply trusting what they assumed to be correct.

Many of us knew and said from the start that the information to go into this war was not correct. People like myself and others, who you should be listening to because we have a track record of consistency in our views and can see past the lies before people die, not after.

Those are some interesting insults from somebody who said in another post that matter is not material. We have had a policy against targeting civilians the entire time, though a few rogue soldiers have probably gone against orders. The insurgents have not had that policy. Our "victims" have generally been insurgent terrorists. Go get yourself a tissue over that. My former support for the Iraq War was based on a great deal of reasoning, and it is still posted on this site if you would like to take the time to read some of it before you make another asinine statement.

They had 1 1/2 million insurgent terrorists? Wow!

I don't trust that biased source for two seconds, but that doesn't mean it's automatically incorrect. I think part of the idea involved in the Iraq War was to set up a fly trap for terrorists. Considering the fact that they came to Iraq from many countries to fight our military, there might have been that many. Do you think we would have targeted that many civilians? What would the goal in that have been? Their new government was on our side, so that would be pretty bizarre and irrational. What do you think?

Well we have to think about all the deaths do to depleted uranium left purposefully since the first gulf war as well as all the new depleted uranium that was left this past war. That has been the source of many many civilian deaths. The depleted Uranium was left just for that purpose. What other purpose would there be for littering uranium all over the country? Why even bring uranium there? Maybe as an experiment? "We need to get rid of this uranium. Let's see what happens if we leave it all laying around Iraq."

I don't know why the military would want to leave masses of civilians dead during the war or after it. The goal was to give them a new government and preserve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Those are some interesting insults from somebody who said in another post that matter is not material. We have had a policy against targeting civilians the entire time, though a few rogue soldiers have probably gone against orders. The insurgents have not had that policy. Our "victims" have generally been insurgent terrorists. Go get yourself a tissue over that. My former support for the Iraq War was based on a great deal of reasoning, and it is still posted on this site if you would like to take the time to read some of it before you make another asinine statement.

---

Over 1 million 'insurgent terrorist' half of which include children under 6? Get real.....All the innocent children killed for one thing can't be considered insurgent terrorist.
And yeah I will get myself a tissue over all the families of the children killed and how their arms and things were blown off by the thousands, because you couldn't reason or think properly and supported a mistake that cost thousands of lives for no other reason than the false logic made up by those wanting to profit from the bloodshed. We can only hope that they haven't died in vain and it could contribute to getting you some sense or humanity? Maybe you should watch some actual footage of the war, or what little footage there is of it, that shows what I'm talking about.

You should consider life especially precious since you are an atheist. But for some reason my value of human life takes priority here over yours apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't know why the military would want to leave masses of civilians dead during the war or after it. The goal was to give them a new government and preserve it.

---

Well there is mass graves and all those deaths were no overnight. The 'democracy' goal was after they invaded and were there for a long time. Ofcourse when you make a country unstable you can't just leave it in chaos. What was the goal before they invaded? Weapons of mass destruction? See how any morality reasoned in the face of no credibility makes you look especially foolish at this time.

Also it's a bit of a co-incidence how the heroin supply had dried up in the US at that time, and suddenly there is a war with all these US troops guarding the poppy fields, and the heroin supply comes back in. Would the drug war also be part of your 'democracy' ideal to give US drug smugglers a fair chance?

oh wait drug trafficking/smuggling is illegal.....So you can't use that as an excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knight31

Over 1 million 'insurgent terrorist' half of which include children under 6? Get real.....All the innocent children killed for one thing can't be considered insurgent terrorist.
And yeah I will get myself a tissue over all the families of the children killed and how their arms and things were blown off by the thousands, because you couldn't reason or think properly and supported a mistake that cost thousands of lives for no other reason than the false logic made up by those wanting to profit from the bloodshed. We can only hope that they haven't died in vain and it could contribute to getting you some sense or humanity? Maybe you should watch some actual footage of the war, or what little footage there is of it, that shows what I'm talking about.

You should consider life especially precious since you are an atheist. But for some reason my value of human life takes priority here over yours apparently.

---

You self-righteous little dipshit, you don't strike me as the king of compassion. This is not about compassion for you. It is about excuses to feel superior, so get off the high horse. You're just another prick on the internet.

Insurgent terrorists have been targeting innocents. We have not, except in maybe a few cases of disobeyed orders. Explain in plain English why the U.S. government would want to kill more than 500,000 children under the age of 6 while trying to create and maintain a democracy for them. Explain it. The mass starvation was deliberately caused by Hussein.

No matter how the war was handled, the reasons for it were very understandable, though I see the failures and no longer think it was a good idea. Here are some facts.

1. The Hussein regime was an Islamofascist terrorist government that used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds and that trained and funded Islamofascist terrorist groups.
2. The Hussein regime took over Kuwait, and we liberated Kuwait. Instead of overthrowing the Hussein regime then, we formed a ceasefire. The Hussein regime violated the ceasefire on terrorist grounds for 12 years.
3. After successful missions to stop the Hussein regime from developing WMD's, we received information from our CIA and six foreign governments that the Hussein regime was in possession of WMD's.
4. The Hussein regime was a genocidal dictatorship that was guilty of a long list of human rights abuses against the people of Iraq.
5. It was in U.S. interest to spread democracy in the Middle East to change the backward cultural and educational landscape.

Continuing the 1991 war on those grounds was understandable. Supporting it did not involve a lack of reasoning ability. It involved lacking foresight of the weaknesses of the Iraqi population. I can't believe we are debating this after I told you that I no longer think continuing the war was the right path. You should be more open-minded and compassionate. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knight31

Well there is mass graves and all those deaths were no overnight. The 'democracy' goal was after they invaded and were there for a long time. Ofcourse when you make a country unstable you can't just leave it in chaos. What was the goal before they invaded? Weapons of mass destruction? See how any morality reasoned in the face of no credibility makes you look especially foolish at this time.

Also it's a bit of a co-incidence how the heroin supply had dried up in the US at that time, and suddenly there is a war with all these US troops guarding the poppy fields, and the heroin supply comes back in. Would the drug war also be part of your 'democracy' ideal to give US drug smugglers a fair chance?

oh wait drug trafficking/smuggling is illegal.....So you can't use that as an excuse.

---

No, the democracy goal was part of the mission. I remember it. I was an adult when the invasion happened. Were you? Are you now? If you think the war was a heroin conspiracy, you are the first I have heard suggest it. The heroin suppy was alive and well in 2003. The war on drugs is insane and corrupt, but you don't have good evidence that the war in Iraq was fought on behalf of heroin dealers. The fact that the war was an advantage for heroin dealers does not prove that creating the advantage was the primary mission of the war.

I wonder why people don't notice the obvious and conclude that the war in Iraq was about sand. Did you know that Biloxi, Mississippi Beach has the largest amount of shipped in sand of any beach in the world? Did you know that Mississippi's last governor used to be the head of the Republican National Committee? Florida has a great deal of shipped in sand at its resort towns, and George W. Bush's brother used to be the governor of Florida. Hmmm.... :shock:

It is about compassion because I don't like needless war. The drug part of it is only one aspect not the full story. The Hussein regime was created not by Sadam but by his links to resources in the US which allowed him to build up his power structure! What does that tell you about the supposed Nobel goal of democracy? The very people who put Hussein out of power were the ones to put him in power in the first place and were the first one to declare war and kill an entire population of that country when it suited them. You are completely delusional.

Citizens of Iraq were willing to give everything over to the US. Intelligence information, resources, anything the US could shamefully demand they were willing to co-operate. They were willing to have their entire country and wealth gutted to prevent a war, there had no weapons of mass destruction, that was a lie. the US badly wanted the conflict to go ahead, just like the want to do Iran next. Osama through his CIA links cooperated in organizing the hijacking, and elements within the united states protected the operation to make sure 911 would go ahead as an excuse for the war. Larry insured the towers and put himself and his family out of harms way on the day so he could profit billions from the event.

You really have no idea what is going on.

We killed an entire population? Oh, all right. Try answering my question about that when you get around to it. I guess we have gone through so much trouble to build and preserve a democracy for a ghost country.

The Hussein regime was an ally gone bad. We used them to take on Iran, and the whole thing blew up on us. I never thought we should have pulled such a stunt.

The rest of what you are saying is just bizarre conspiracy insanity that you need to back up with something. This is like discussing Christianity with a Charismatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We killed an entire population? Oh, all right. Try answering my question about that when you get around to it. I guess we have gone through so much trouble to build and preserve a democracy for a ghost country.

The Hussein regime was an ally gone bad. We used them to take on Iran, and the whole thing blew up on us. I never thought we should have pulled such a stunt.

The rest of what you are saying is just bizarre conspiracy insanity that you need to back up with something. This is like discussing Christianity with a Charismatic.

---

I admit America has some freedoms and was built on a very intelligent constitution that was designed to protect people from tyranny. But that is only as good as peoples desire to use that to defend themselves. Many people don't understand how to claim their rights which is unfortunate. Osama's CIA links are verifiable. Larry did insure the towers before they were brought down, did take a day off work that day, as well as his family. That's all fact which you can easily verify yourself. The hussein regime was empowered by US not just an ally. The reason for war is not justifiable or clear under your precept. If democracy in the country was the goal, they should have set up a democracy instead of the hussein regime.

There is currently a lot of propaganda floating around about Iran now too, because that's the next target on the list to manipulate and use. If you think you are being told the full story by CNN than you are mislead. CNN takes blood money from middle eastern regimes that are it's customers as uncovered by Amber Lyon. You look at these kinds of news institutions and you believe that they are not bias and then you take their propaganda and repeat it to others, because you can't discern the other side of the story that is not being broadcast.

http://www.dreamviews.com/extended-d...epression.html
Something to add here as well.
The Economic Collapse and The End Of Our Liberty [HQ movie] - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knight31

I admit America has some freedoms and was built on a very intelligent constitution that was designed to protect people from tyranny. But that is only as good as peoples desire to use that to defend themselves. Many people don't understand how to claim their rights which is unfortunate. Osama's CIA links are verifiable. Larry did insure the towers before they were brought down, did take a day off work that day, as well as his family. That's all fact which you can easily verify yourself. The hussein regime was empowered by US not just an ally. The reason for war is not justifiable or clear under your precept. If democracy in the country was the goal, they should have set up a democracy instead of the hussein regime.

There is currently a lot of propaganda floating around about Iran now too, because that's the next target on the list to manipulate and use. If you think you are being told the full story by CNN than you are mislead. CNN takes blood money from middle eastern regimes that are it's customers as uncovered by Amber Lyon. You look at these kinds of news institutions and you believe that they are not bias and then you take their propaganda and repeat it to others, because you can't discern the other side of the story that is not being broadcast.

---

Osama's CIA link is that he was a high ranking member of the Mujahideen, the Afghan group the CIA trained to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. We did not know that they would evolve into Al Qaeda and attack us like the ungrateful scum that they are. Who is Larry?

We tend to empower our allies. I'm sure you understand why that would seem like a reasonable policy. Setting up a democracy would have been much more difficult than just putting Hussein in power. You know what we have been through over the past decade in trying to maintain a democracy in Iraq.

I don't get my news from any one news organization. I get it from lots of them. Where do you get your news?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Osama's CIA link is that he was a high ranking member of the Mujahideen, the Afghan group the CIA trained to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. We did not know that they would evolve into Al Qaeda and attack us like the ungrateful scum that they are. Who is Larry?

We tend to empower our allies. I'm sure you understand why that would seem like a reasonable policy. Setting up a democracy would have been much more difficult than just putting Hussein in power. You know what we have been through over the past decade in trying to maintain a democracy in Iraq.

I don't get my news from any one news organization. I get it from lots of them. Where do you get your news?

---

It would have being obvious to high level intelligence that Osama was a wealthy resourceful individual with links to potential terrorist activity. And not just a cavemen with a gun like the propaganda wanted to depict. That's why they used him and gave him a identity known as Tim Osman. They had drills and operations with his face on it also, ofcourse they knew about it. And you forgot to mention his touring of US bases for weapons instructions and tutorials lol. It's not like they were not involved with him from the beginning.

Larry A. Silverstein was the owner of the twin towers. They did have an owner....they were not just randomly built structures from robots of a parallel universe (your suggestion for the creation of matter in the other thread).

The security of Americas airspace is well capable of defending the towers if that is the goal and order desired. Unfortunately the order was to stand down and let the planes hit the building. Silverstein had not long insured it from that type of attack merely days before. What a lucky fellow hey? And also lucky out of all the days he choose the day of attack, to take a break from work. And lucky that his entire family also stayed away from working at the towers that day. So he escaped without harm and profited a great deal all by chance without his knowledge yeah?

Lets just call everything a co-incidence and the spaghetti monster can explain most of those anomalies.

In regards to the Hussein regime is it wise to support and foster a dictatorship if your goal is democracy? If they did nothing to put Hussein in power it would not have been nearly as difficult to change it back again. Obviously they are not that incompetent, and the motive was to create that instability all along to control the region.

You sound like you get your news from CNN. I get my news from the internet that is connected to thousands of impartial proper journalist that have the ability to report to me a overall balanced view. Without worrying about private, corporate, and governmental funding distorting what information gets through.

Yes, the CIA saw Bin Laden as a great leader and trained the Hell out of him. That does not prove that 9/11 was forseeable during the Cold War.

My robot analogy was satire. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

So the owner of a building that got destroyed had recently started an insurance policy, and he and his family weren't there during the attacks. Wow, let's just go ahead and lock Bush up on that alone. Are you telling me that what were at one time the two tallest buildings in the world were not insured at all until right before 9/11 and never had been?

The last few days I didn't realize anything, let alone your satire, I was completely loopy.

The towers probably were insured in some way all along. On the 23rd July, 2001 was suppose to be some kind of insurance deal was made. He wanted 7.2 billion out of it but he is unlikely to get the full amount anyway.

Osama must have used his resources his was given and became a traitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the CIA saw Bin Laden as a great leader and trained the Hell out of him. That does not prove that 9/11 was forseeable during the Cold War.

My robot analogy was satire. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

So the owner of a building that got destroyed had recently started an insurance policy, and he and his family weren't there during the attacks. Wow, let's just go ahead and lock Bush up on that alone. Are you telling me that what were at one time the two tallest buildings in the world were not insured at all until right before 9/11 and never had been?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knight31

The last few days I didn't realize anything, let alone your satire, I was completely loopy.

The towers probably were insured in some way all along. On the 23rd July, 2001 was suppose to be some kind of insurance deal was made. He wanted 7.2 billion out of it but he is unlikely to get the full amount anyway.

Osama must have used his resources his was given and became a traitor.

---

I recommend these videos if you want more answers.
CIA Insider Tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view, America! - YouTube

9/11 EXPOSED, Researched facts and analysis- Full Documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFx1WaK54Vo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the CIA saw Bin Laden as a great leader and trained the Hell out of him. That does not prove that 9/11 was forseeable during the Cold War.

My robot analogy was satire. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

So the owner of a building that got destroyed had recently started an insurance policy, and he and his family weren't there during the attacks. Wow, let's just go ahead and lock Bush up on that alone. Are you telling me that what were at one time the two tallest buildings in the world were not insured at all until right before 9/11 and never had been?

---

WTC 1 and 2 were hot potatoes in real estate market. The insulator was asbestoes that hurt health and was banned to be used in construction. The problem was to tear down the buildings cost too much, (as much as to build a new one) So they were chosen to be pulled down in a "terror attack". They let the insurance company to pay it. (Finally, it's the ordinary people paid it because they have to pay more fee to the insurance company)Silverstein took over the WTC 1 and 2 in July, two months later 911 took place, what an efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knight31

You sound like you get your news from CNN. I get my news from the internet that is connected to thousands of impartial proper journalist that have the ability to report to me a overall balanced view. Without worrying about private, corporate, and governmental funding distorting what information gets through.

---

There are far easier ways to just come out and say "infowars" and "prisonplanet," you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

WTC 1 and 2 were hot potatoes in real estate market. The insulator was asbestoes that hurt health and was banned to be used in construction. The problem was to tear down the buildings cost too much, (as much as to build a new one) So they were chosen to be pulled down in a "terror attack". They let the insurance company to pay it. (Finally, it's the ordinary people paid it because they have to pay more fee to the insurance company)Silverstein took over the WTC 1 and 2 in July, two months later 911 took place, what an efficiency.

---

But you don't know what the queers are doing to the soil.

Syrian rebels burn and plunder religious sites – Human Rights Watch.

RT.com
23 January, 2013, 19:49

Syrian rebels have looted and burned minority religious sites in Northern Syria, US-based Human Rights Watch says. The attacks highlight the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict as the bloodshed continues unabated.

The three incidents took place in November and December of last year in religiously mixed areas.

Rebels looted two Christian churches in separate villages in the relatively peaceful western governorate of Latakia, local witnesses told the rights watchdog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But you don't know what the queers are doing to the soil.

---

I like you, Stuart...you're not like the other people, here...

It's US behind these killings.

Ben Swann Full Disclosure: US Funding Al Qaeda in Syria. The Story You Haven’t Heard

Full Disclosure: Al Qaeda in Syria, the Story You Haven't Heard? - YouTube

Only 57 Churches Left In Iraq; From 300 In 2003

Christian News, The Christian Post


Iraq had 300 churches and 1.4 million Christians in 2003, but now only 57 churches and about half a million Christians remain with members of the minority fleeing Islamist attacks, according to local reports.

Church leader urges Iraqi Christians to quit country


A senior Iraqi Christian has called on believers to quit the country, after gunmen targeted a church in Baghdad.

BBC News - Church leader urges Iraqi Christians to quit country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

Church leader urges Iraqi Christians to quit country


A senior Iraqi Christian has called on believers to quit the country, after gunmen targeted a church in Baghdad.

BBC News - Church leader urges Iraqi Christians to quit country

---

What is your opinion of the gunmen in Baghdad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What is your opinion of the gunmen in Baghdad?

---

Are you an opinion detector work for the Feds to monitor the Internet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katsung47

Are you an opinion detector work for the Feds to monitor the Internet?

---

That might be the strangest response I have ever gotten to a question I asked on the internet, but I can't say it qualifies as an answer.

Any way, yes. You guessed my occupation. Way to go! :clap: