constitutional rights for terrorists? ..no way!

[DeeJayH]

One(Main Reason) -"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

Two-"Despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation."

Three-"If the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there."


Duke

LOL
is that really the twisted tripe coming out of bin Ladens mouth
we really need to kill him and his kind, not give them lawyers or appeasement

 

[Duke]

Duke,

Ok, good. Now, two of the three are related to perceived grievances over Iraq, either directly or indirectly. bin Laden's fatwa is dated February '98. What conclusions would you draw from those two facts?

Gulf War, Round One.


Duke

 

[Duke]

LOL
is that really the twisted tripe coming out of bin Ladens mouth
we really need to kill him and his kind, not give them lawyers or appeasement

So now you think it's funny?

Wouldn't that be nice, Dee Jay H.


Duke

 

[Navy Pride]

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

That is the aforementioned fatwa.

Do you know why we had troops in the Middle East before 9/11?


Duke

Funny were those troops in SA under Clinton?:roll: Are there any there now?

 

[Duke]

Funny were those troops in SA under Clinton?:roll: Are there any there now?

Did you know that Clinton was the president of the USA? Just reminding you.

Yes, there are actually thousands of troops there now, and under Bush.


duke

 

[Navy Pride]

Did you know that Clinton was the president of the USA? Just reminding you.

Yes, there are actually thousands of troops there now, and under Bush.


duke

Oh I thought President Bush was the only president to put troops in SA.:roll:

You need to do your homework..There are no U.S, troops in SA now......

 

[shuamort]

Oh I thought President Bush was the only president to put troops in SA.:roll:

You need to do your homework..There are no U.S, troops in SA now......

That would make sense since Saudi Arabia is where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from. I can see why Bush would remove the troops.

 

[oldreliable67]

Gulf War, Round One.

Ah, but the fatwa was issued in February '98, long after the first Gulf War. What, if any, events come to mind following the issuance of the fatwa?

 

[DivineComedy]

That would make sense since Saudi Arabia is where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from. I can see why Bush would remove the troops.

I would like to say that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard anybody say, but I have heard it before.

 

[Duke]

Oh I thought President Bush was the only president to put troops in SA.:roll:

You need to do your homework..There are no U.S, troops in SA now......

Did I ever say there were any US troops in Saudia Ariabia?

Do your homework.:roll: Read the thread? There are quite a number of US troops in the Middle East. Where did you get Saudia Arabia?


Duke

 

[Duke]

Ah, but the fatwa was issued in February '98, long after the first Gulf War. What, if any, events come to mind following the issuance of the fatwa?

An explanation of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks that were being planned.


Duke

 

[shuamort]

I would like to say that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard anybody say, but I have heard it before.

I was being facetious, do keep up.

 

[DivineComedy]

I was being facetious, do keep up.

Like I said, I have heard it before. Cousin Bubba down in the beer drinking swamp has “sand nigger” and “spear chucker” in his vocabulary, and they make flashy commercials and music videos for the city dwelling equivalent that can’t stand still, for that nose piercing bone in the nose attention span is quite common. The mob is common. Even if we found a totally clean replacement for fossil fuels, which would allow us to stop this strategically dangerous amber trade, we must try to win friends and influence people that visit Mecca. Hopefully Muslims can forgive us for freedom and enfranchisement ending the lukewarm “liberal” arts of warmongering containment that made the slaves work for food. Otherwise, if there is an inevitable nuking of a beloved city, by whatever Islamic terrorist, a poll watching Truman might not target a state sponsor of terror that is currently supporting terrorism in violation of a cease-fire, but might turn Mecca into a glass pit instead at the request of an angry mob. Then you can say you were being facetious.

 

[shuamort]

Like I said, I have heard it before. Cousin Bubba down in the beer drinking swamp has “sand nigger” and “spear chucker” in his vocabulary, and they make flashy commercials and music videos for the city dwelling equivalent that can’t stand still, for that nose piercing bone in the nose attention span is quite common. The mob is common. Even if we found a totally clean replacement for fossil fuels, which would allow us to stop this strategically dangerous amber trade, we must try to win friends and influence people that visit Mecca. Hopefully Muslims can forgive us for freedom and enfranchisement ending the lukewarm “liberal” arts of warmongering containment that made the slaves work for food. Otherwise, if there is an inevitable nuking of a beloved city, by whatever Islamic terrorist, a poll watching Truman might not target a state sponsor of terror that is currently supporting terrorism in violation of a cease-fire, but might turn Mecca into a glass pit instead at the request of an angry mob. Then you can say you were being facetious.

Sumtin' tells me you still misread my quote. I was not advocating placing US troops in SA. They've got their wacky mythology there and it would be detrimental to have "infidels" on their "holy land".

 

[oldreliable67]

An explanation of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks that were being planned.

Yes, indeed. Not only planned, but carried out. As in the bombings of US embassys in Africa in August 1998 and the USS Cole on Oct 12, 2000. And of course, the 9/11 attacks.

My point here (finally!) is to wonder at the logic of those who have criticized Bush for asking if there is not a connection between bin Laden and Saddam following 9/11. Later intel suggested that there was no "operational or collaborative" relationship (thank you, Simon), but that was later.

Immediately following 9/11, and given bin Laden's fatwa heavily citing Iraq, wasn't it logical to question whether or not there was a connection between Saddam, bin Laden and 9/11? Wouldn't it have been strange to not do so at the time?

 

[Navy Pride]

Did I ever say there were any US troops in Saudia Ariabia?

Do your homework.:roll: Read the thread? There are quite a number of US troops in the Middle East. Where did you get Saudia Arabia?


Duke

Yeah you did..here.......

[Yes, there are actually thousands of troops there now, and under Bush.
/QUOTE]

 

[DeeJayH]

Yeah you did..here.......

Yes, there are actually thousands of troops there now, and under Bush.

oops :3oops:
the claim will be typo or vague word usage

 

[DivineComedy]

Sumtin' tells me you still misread my quote. I was not advocating placing US troops in SA. They've got their wacky mythology there and it would be detrimental to have "infidels" on their "holy land".

I understand exactly what you meant. It just irritates me to no end. Those people that constantly bring up Iran as being worse than Iraq never had any intention of doing anything warlike with them either, just like they didn’t when I was a young man sitting in the barracks twiddling my thumbs during the 444 days of glory in Iran. I went to damn electronics school in Memphis when Iranians were are friends, and empathized and sweated right along with one of their officers that just failed a test I had just taken.

I had read the 1998 Patterns of Global Terrorism report before 911, and knew about the February 23, 1998 fatwa from a simple search, because in August 2001 I was in a debate on a local message board with a muslim that came on the board out of nowhere to defend the Taliban. So I searched everything that had to do with the Taliban! That muslim had Orlando Florida as their IP location, go figure, they never finished answering my questions.

In August 2001 I looked, and I looked, to try and find out “why is this man really wanted? Let's uncover the truth. Together:”

http://www.geocities.com/weneedallah/index.html

The bloody “mujahideen” wasn’t there in August 2001. I managed to get the link (www.Azzam.com) to work though. And I found them talking by looking for the phase that pops up when the cursor hits the bloody “mujahideen” link. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ct/Press2004/20040806.html

Constitutional rights…they use them, and then they abuse them while wearing civilian clothes.

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

 

[Duke]

Yeah you did..here.......

[Yes, there are actually thousands of troops there now, and under Bush.
/QUOTE]

I was referring to the Middle East, as in, "there". I don't know why you brought up Saudia Arabia.


Duke

 

[Duke]

Yes, indeed. Not only planned, but carried out. As in the bombings of US embassys in Africa in August 1998 and the USS Cole on Oct 12, 2000. And of course, the 9/11 attacks.

My point here (finally!) is to wonder at the logic of those who have criticized Bush for asking if there is not a connection between bin Laden and Saddam following 9/11. Later intel suggested that there was no "operational or collaborative" relationship (thank you, Simon), but that was later.

Immediately following 9/11, and given bin Laden's fatwa heavily citing Iraq, wasn't it logical to question whether or not there was a connection between Saddam, bin Laden and 9/11? Wouldn't it have been strange to not do so at the time?

I don't know about others, but I believe that the goverment should have been investigating damn near everyone after 9/11. You never know what you could turn up.


Duke