| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?4pi6IC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuwrc6KsKowqgqOsK3LiAg4pmlIFdvcmxkIFdhciBJSUkgMjAwNywgVGhlIExhc3QgMjAwMCBEYXlzLi4uSE9PUk9PICEgIC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuIOKZpeKYusKpwq7ihKI=?=" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2007 09:39:38 PM |
| Object: |
Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17/c=
ontent_5614757.htm
Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103
www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-17 05:11:02
Special report: Tension escalates in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- A series of deadly attacks in Baghdad
killed at least 103 people and injured more that 240 on Tuesday,
casting shadows on security operation between the Iraqi government and
U=2ES. forces to curb violence.
Two car bombs and a suicide bomber killed 65 people and wounded132
near a university in eastern Baghdad, a well-informed Interior Ministry
official told Xinhua.
The blasts occurred at around 4:00 p.m. (1300 GMT) while many
students and employees in Al-Mustansriyah University, who finished
their courses and work, were waiting at an entrance for minibuses and
cars to take them home, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Two explosive-laden cars went off in short succession, killing
dozens of people. While many scared people were fleeing the scene,a
suicide bomber blew himself up, causing heavy casualties, the official
added.
Meanwhile, gunmen in a minivan and on two motorcycles sprayed
shoppers at a market in eastern Baghdad with automatic gunfire, killing
15 people and injuring 20, a police source told Xinhua.
Early in the morning, a roadside bomb went off near a police patrol
in central Baghdad, leaving four people dead and 10 others wounded.
At around midday, twin blasts near a Sunni mosque in Bab al-Sheikh
neighborhood in central Baghdad killed 15 people and injured 70 others.
Two hours later, a bomb-rigged minibus went off in Sadr City in
eastern Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 10 others.
The attacks coincided with a report released by the United Nations
that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year.
"The situation is particularly grave in Baghdad, where most
casualties and unidentified bodies that are daily recorded also bear
signs of torture," Gianni Magazzeni, the UN human rights chief in Iraq,
told reporters on Tuesday.
Magazzeni said the UN figures were compiled from information
obtained from the Iraqi Health Ministry, operation centers at hospitals
across the country and other agencies.
He rapped the Iraqi government for failing to curb violence and
blamed some militias, active inside police and army, for killings and
sectarian attacks.
"Without significant progress in the rule of law, sectarian
violence will continue indefinitely and eventually spiral out of
control," Magazzeni warned.
The latest carnage came days before Iraqi authorities and U.S.
forces are going to carry out a new security plan in Baghdad to crack
down on illegal militants from all sectors.
U.S. President George W. Bush also pledged to send additional
21,500 soldiers to Iraq, most of them to Baghdad. However, many doubt
if it will work.
Related:
UN: More than 34,000 Iraqis killed in 2006
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations said Tuesday that
more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed and about 35,600 people wounded in
2006.
The UN human rights report released here Tuesday said that last
year at least 34,452 Iraqis were killed and 35,685 people were wounded
in daily acts of violence across Iraq.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Center for Research on Globalization or your
dear old Uncle Wally for that matter.....HOOROO !
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3D2007011=
5&articleId=3D4462
Bush=E2=80=99s New Plan: More Troops, More Death, More =E2=80=93 and Wider =
=E2=80=93 War
Global Research, January 15, 2007
rwor.org
In the face of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, tens of thousands
of U.S. military casualties, mounting difficulties in Iraq and the
Middle East, deepening divisions in the ruling class, and growing
anti-war opposition, last night Bush outlined his long-awaited =E2=80=9Cnew
plan.=E2=80=9D Escalation: more, potentially much more, of the same: more
troops, more death, more crimes, and more war =E2=80=93 possibly much more
and much wider war involving Iran and Syria. It means escalating and
intensifying the current, horrific dynamic between imperialist
McWorld/McCrusade on one hand and Islamic fundamentalist jihad on the
other. None of it is in the interests of the people =E2=80=93 in Iraq, in t=
he
U=2ES., or in the world.
While making a show of admitting certain mistakes and failures, and
appealing for bipartisan unity (on his terms) among the U.S. rulers,
Bush threw down a gauntlet of more death and sacrifice to those who
oppose the war: =E2=80=9CThe year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice
and resolve.=E2=80=9D
The New York Times (Jan 11) called it a huge presidential political
gamble: =E2=80=9CNot since Richard M. Nixon ordered American troops in
Vietnam to invade Cambodia in 1970 has a president taken such a risk
with an increasingly unpopular war.=E2=80=9D What makes Bush think he can g=
et
away with this? =E2=80=9CBush is taking a calculated gamble that no matter
how much hue and cry his new strategy may provoke,=E2=80=9D another New York
Times analysis noted, =E2=80=9Cin the end the American people will give him
more time to turn around the war in Iraq and Congress will not have the
political nerve to thwart him by cutting off money for the war.=E2=80=9D
So the question =E2=80=93 and the challenge =E2=80=93 is this: what are the=
people
going to do now? Our answer =E2=80=93 delivered by millions =E2=80=93 must =
be like
what millions did following the invasion of Cambodia: a resounding No!
An outpouring demanding this war stop =E2=80=93 now! And repudiating the
whole Bush program and demanding this criminal regime be driven from
power.
Much of Bush=E2=80=99s actual plan was left intentionally =E2=80=93 and omi=
nously
=E2=80=93 vague. He said another 21,500 troops would be sent to Iraq to
=E2=80=9Cstabilize=E2=80=9D Baghdad and step up attacks on anti-occupation =
Sunnis
in Anbar province. He claimed the Iraqi government would take steps
with the U.S. to halt sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias and
achieve =E2=80=9Cbenchmarks=E2=80=9D of stability, rebuilding and economic
development. He said this plan would succeed where previous plans had
failed. And he also made new threats against Iran and Syria.
This whole plan promises more bloody escalation =E2=80=93 in Iraq and beyon=
d=2E
With the torture of Abu Ghraib and the leveling of cities like Fallujah
in mind, it was chilling to hear Bush complain there had been =E2=80=9Ctoo
many restrictions=E2=80=9D on the actions of U.S. forces in the past. With
images of thousands of Iraqis rounded up and detained, innocent
civilians murdered at U.S. or Iraqi government checkpoints, and bodies
murdered in sectarian violence littering Baghdad streets, often
murdered by Iraqi death squads operating out of the police and
military, it was chilling to hear Bush promise: =E2=80=9CIraqi forces will
operate from local police stations; conducting patrols, setting up
checkpoints, and going door- to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad
residents.=E2=80=9D Bush=E2=80=99s complaint about =E2=80=9Crestrictions=E2=
=80=9D also implied
a threat to go after the Mahdi Army militia of Shia cleric Moqtada
Sadr, perhaps opening a second =E2=80=93 Shia =E2=80=93 front in the U.S.=
=E2=80=99s war
on the Iraqi people.
Even more ominously, Bush threatened a wider war in the region,
possibly direct attacks on Syria and Iran. After blaming them for
=E2=80=9Callowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move =
in
and out of Iraq=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cproviding material support for attack=
s on
American troops,=E2=80=9D Bush warned, =E2=80=9CWe will disrupt the attacks=
on our
forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And
we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry
and training to our enemies in Iraq.=E2=80=9D Would this mean attacks on
Iranians in Iraq? On the border? In Iran itself? This was left
intentionally vague. Bush also stated he had deployed another aircraft
carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and was stepping up military
coordination with other pro-U.S. regimes in the region. MSNBC
Commentator Keith Olbermann noted that Bush was expanding the
=E2=80=9Cplaying field=E2=80=9D of the war, from Iraq to Iran. And the rece=
nt
shake-up of Bush=E2=80=99s war cabinet also points to a growing U.S. focus =
on
Iran and growing danger of an expanded war.
Bush also promised to =E2=80=9Cincrease the size of the active Army and
Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st
century.=E2=80=9D Bush couched all this as a great struggle between =E2=80=
=9Cthose
who believe in freedom and moderation=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cextremists who =
kill the
innocent.=E2=80=9D As we=E2=80=99ve analyzed in these pages, the entire U.S=
.. war on
Iraq =E2=80=93 and its =E2=80=9Cwar on terror=E2=80=9D have been based on l=
ies,
half-truths, and distortions in service of the needs of U.S.
imperialism. Now Bush=E2=80=99s pledge for an expanded military can only me=
an
more wars, more death, and more destruction =E2=80=93 over wider swaths of
the globe, in an attempt to solidify and expand the U.S. empire against
the needs and wishes of billions around the world.
Bush warned =E2=80=9Cin Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are
engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global
war on terror.=E2=80=9D Indeed, what happens in Iraq and the Middle East are
central =E2=80=93 not to the hopes and needs of humanity =E2=80=93 but to t=
he U.S.
rulers=E2=80=99 drive for unchallenged and unchallengeable global dominance.
The stakes are huge for them, and Bush=E2=80=99s new escalation is a huge
gamble =E2=80=93 one commentator called it double-or-nothing =E2=80=93 which
carries with it enormous risks and no guarantee of success.
Bush=E2=80=99s actions starkly illustrate the fact that U.S. democracy is
actually a dictatorship of a capitalist-imperialist ruling class,
overseen by not one, but two political parties representing the needs
and interests of that system. In November, millions voted resoundingly
against the war, yet last night that vote counted for nothing. Bush was
making the decisions, he told us, based on his understanding of the
needs of the system, regardless of what the people want. In fact, it
has been reported that his =E2=80=9Csurge=E2=80=9D of troops was underway e=
ven
before his speech.
And finally, it was also clear that nothing good will come out of this
situation unless millions of people take the responsibility to stop
this criminal carnage. The opposition Democrats complained about
Bush=E2=80=99s speech and new plans =E2=80=93 reflecting their real concern=
s as
part of the political establishment that the gambit might backfire, as
well as their needs to contain the anger of millions whose faith in the
political order is being shaken. Yet they were unwilling =E2=80=93 or unable
=E2=80=93 to take a stand fully in opposition to the war, much less to put
forward a plan for actually stopping it.
Anyone listening to Bush=E2=80=99s speech, the Democrats=E2=80=99 response =
and the
subsequent discussion in the bourgeois media didn=E2=80=99t hear anyone
demanding this war stop, that it stop now, and the whole criminal cabal
who launched it =E2=80=93 and have committed many other crimes =E2=80=93 be
impeached and/or driven from power.
Most Democrats who commented on Bush=E2=80=99s speech agreed with the basic
terms he had laid out =E2=80=93 even blaming Iraqis, not the U.S., for the
growing catastrophe. Senator ***** Durbin, who gave the official
Democratic Party response, complained that the Iraqis shouldn=E2=80=99t be
allowed to =E2=80=9Ccall 911" for American support every time they need help
=E2=80=93 as if the Iraqis forced the U.S. to illegally invade their countr=
y,
based on WMD lies, and wreak death and destruction.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama declared the U.S. had done
everything imaginable for the Iraqi people, and he wasn=E2=80=99t going to
=E2=80=9Cre-litigate=E2=80=9D the war. In other words, there would be no di=
scussion
of, let alone accountability for, the war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed by the U.S. in launching and carrying out the war
and occupation and that have shaped its very nature, objectives, and
results. He agreed with Bush on =E2=80=9Cbenchmarks=E2=80=9D for the Iraqi
government, and that there was nothing wrong with =E2=80=9Cmaking sure=E2=
=80=9D
that Iran and Syria weren=E2=80=99t making =E2=80=9Cmischief=E2=80=9D in Ir=
aq. He
promised the Democrats would not =E2=80=9Cstrand=E2=80=9D U.S. troops in Ir=
aq, who
would be assured of =E2=80=9Call the resources necessary=E2=80=9D for their=
safety
and accomplish their missions. And he agreed with Bush that Iraq
wasn=E2=80=99t a Democratic or a Republican problem, it was an =E2=80=9CAme=
rican
problem=E2=80=9D and he wanted to be part of a =E2=80=9Csolution.=E2=80=9D
Even those Democrats who may genuinely oppose the war as a catastrophe
for U.S. power and influence, and want to see it ended, are lashed to
the same strategic imperial necessities confronting Bush =E2=80=93 including
support for the U.S. military and the troops =E2=80=93 and the fear that, as
Bush stated, the consequences of failure are so enormous for the rulers
they can=E2=80=99t afford to lose.
Senator Ted Kennedy introduced legislation requiring Congressional
approval before troop levels can be increased. Yet when asked if the
Democrats would block funding for the =E2=80=9Csurge,=E2=80=9D he acknowled=
ged they
wouldn=E2=80=99t and the vote would be largely symbolic: =E2=80=9CThe horse=
will be
out of the barn by the time we get there.=E2=80=9D The request for money
would come at the end of January or in early February and would take
another two months for Congress to act. =E2=80=9CBy that time, the troops
will already be there,=E2=80=9D he said. =E2=80=9CAnd then we=E2=80=99ll be=
asked, are we
going to deny the body armor to the young men and women over there?=E2=80=
=9D
The Democrats have proven unwilling to fully unleash the one force that
could stop this war =E2=80=93 the millions who hate the war. Even Time
magazine summed up that the Democrats were =E2=80=9Cmore bark than bite=E2=
=80=9D on
Iraq. This amounts to fiddling while Bush burns down Iraq and the
Middle East.
The time is now for millions to clearly confront what this escalation
means and to act decisively. To confront the fact that =E2=80=9CU.S.
interests=E2=80=9D is a euphemism for U.S. imperialist domination of the
Middle East. To break with the notion that people in Iraq, the Middle
East or in the U.S. should make common cause with these global
marauders and death merchants.
We=E2=80=99ve seen what this war is about and the carnage that results. An
estimated 655,000 Iraqis have already paid for this U.S. invasion and
occupation with their lives. How many more Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, and
U=2ES. lives will be spent in the U.S. rulers' imperial pursuit? Everyone
must now do more, much more, to stop this war and this regime =E2=80=93 to
take responsibility for this great, historic effort; to sacrifice for
it; and to put ourselves on the line for it. Not to do so now, after
this war=E2=80=99s horror and criminality have been made clearer and cleare=
r,
would amount to immoral complicity in the countless deaths and untold
destruction that are coming.
And the opposite is also true. The Bush regime has never been more
isolated from the people and more exposed. More and more are turning
against the war with every new Bush lie, and every new Bush horror.
Those feelings must now be turned into active, militant, determined and
courageous opposition. That =E2=80=93 and nothing short of that =E2=80=93 c=
ould
change everything =E2=80=93 unleashing a new and liberating force in
unimaginable ways =E2=80=93 and stop this regime and end its unbounded,
ongoing, and escalating war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Center for Research on Globalization or your
dear old Uncle Wally for that matter.....HOOROO !
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 01:14:07 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Apparently there are a few posters on this group who DO need to be
reminded of their hypocrisy when it comes to the topic under
discussion. Randolph, for instance, among others. But Randolph has so
far dodged my question asking if he supported President Clinton's
bombing of Belgrade.
Serbia was engaged in aggression against a neighboring country.
I support putting down despots which are agressing against
neighboring countries. Saddam WAS NOT aggressing against any
neighboring countries which is why I don't condone the action
Bush took. Comprende' ??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 01:31:38 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Apparently there are a few posters on this group who DO need to be
reminded of their hypocrisy when it comes to the topic under
discussion. Randolph, for instance, among others. But Randolph has so
far dodged my question asking if he supported President Clinton's
bombing of Belgrade.
Serbia was engaged in aggression against a neighboring country.
Really?
I support putting down despots which are agressing against
neighboring countries.
You thought Kosovo was Milosevic's neighboring country?
Saddam WAS NOT aggressing against any neighboring
countries which is why I don't condone the action Bush
took. Comprende' ??
Uh ... no. If you think of Kosovo as Milosevic's neighboring country,
you might also think of Iraqi Kurdistan as Saddam's neighboring
country. Saddam gassed the Kurds, you know. Have an opinion about that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 01:49:17 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Apparently there are a few posters on this group who DO need to be
reminded of their hypocrisy when it comes to the topic under
discussion. Randolph, for instance, among others. But Randolph has so
far dodged my question asking if he supported President Clinton's
bombing of Belgrade.
Serbia was engaged in aggression against a neighboring country.
Really?
I support putting down despots which are agressing against
neighboring countries.
You thought Kosovo was Milosevic's neighboring country?
All the maps put Kosovo and Serbia in separate places, yes.
You were thinking Kosovo was part of milosovec's domain, yes ?
Kosovo and Serbia are both included in greater Yugoslavia, but
Kosovo doesn't fall within Serbia (which was milosovec's purvue).
You have to bear in mind Stevie, that by 1998 the former
Yugoslavia was already broken up. The Yugoslav Serbs did
not control all of that area, and Kosovo was effectively
controlled by the Kosovo Liberation Army. I can support
a US President who puts us into conflict for the sole
purpose of preventing an imminent mass extermination.
Saddam WAS NOT aggressing against any neighboring
countries which is why I don't condone the action Bush
took. Comprende' ??
Uh ... no. If you think of Kosovo as Milosevic's neighboring country,
you might also think of Iraqi Kurdistan as Saddam's neighboring
country. Saddam gassed the Kurds, you know. Have an opinion about that?
If we had bombed Saddam's people as they were trying to gas
the Kurds, I would have been impressed. Invading Iraq 15 years
after that fact is underwhelming, illegal, and makes the rational
mind suspect ulterior motives (like stealing oil).
You like the idea of stealing oil, yes ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
20 Jan 2007 02:02:55 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Apparently there are a few posters on this group who DO need to be
reminded of their hypocrisy when it comes to the topic under
discussion. Randolph, for instance, among others. But Randolph has so
far dodged my question asking if he supported President Clinton's
bombing of Belgrade.
Serbia was engaged in aggression against a neighboring country.
Really?
I support putting down despots which are agressing against
neighboring countries.
You thought Kosovo was Milosevic's neighboring country?
All the maps put Kosovo and Serbia in separate places, yes.
[quoting] On the surface, the fighting is a bloody tug-of-war between
ethnic Albanians and Serbians over Kosovo, a province of Serbia
(Yugoslavia's dominant republic) where ethnic Albanians comprise a
majority of the population. Fighting for an independent Kosovo state is
the rebel group of ethnic Albanians. Fighting against the rebels are
Serbian forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who will not
cede control. [end quoting]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/overview/kosovo.htm
Notice "Kosovo, a province of Serbia" in the above quoted article.
You were thinking Kosovo was part of milosovec's domain, yes ?
Yes, just as everyone (except you, apparently) did.
Kosovo and Serbia are both included in greater Yugoslavia, but
Kosovo doesn't fall within Serbia (which was milosovec's purvue).
Yes it did.
You have to bear in mind Stevie, that by 1998 the former
Yugoslavia was already broken up. The Yugoslav Serbs did
not control all of that area, and Kosovo was effectively
controlled by the Kosovo Liberation Army. I can support
a US President who puts us into conflict for the sole
purpose of preventing an imminent mass extermination.
That's fine, but Clinton (and Blair, and others) got us involved in a
sovereign nation's civil war. You support getting involved in a
sovereign nation's civil war?
Saddam WAS NOT aggressing against any neighboring
countries which is why I don't condone the action Bush
took. Comprende' ??
Uh ... no. If you think of Kosovo as Milosevic's neighboring country,
you might also think of Iraqi Kurdistan as Saddam's neighboring
country. Saddam gassed the Kurds, you know. Have an opinion about that?
If we had bombed Saddam's people as they were trying to gas
the Kurds, I would have been impressed. Invading Iraq 15 years
after that fact is underwhelming, illegal, and makes the rational
mind suspect ulterior motives (like stealing oil).
Oh yeah, the old reliable conspiracy theory.
You like the idea of stealing oil, yes ?
Show some documentation that we are stealing oil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
21 Jan 2007 04:15:28 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Apparently there are a few posters on this group who DO need to be
reminded of their hypocrisy when it comes to the topic under
discussion. Randolph, for instance, among others. But Randolph has
so far dodged my question asking if he supported President
Clinton's bombing of Belgrade.
Serbia was engaged in aggression against a neighboring country.
Really?
I support putting down despots which are agressing against
neighboring countries.
You thought Kosovo was Milosevic's neighboring country?
All the maps put Kosovo and Serbia in separate places, yes.
[quoting] On the surface, the fighting is a bloody tug-of-war between
ethnic Albanians and Serbians over Kosovo, a province of Serbia
(Yugoslavia's dominant republic) where ethnic Albanians comprise a
majority of the population. Fighting for an independent Kosovo state is
the rebel group of ethnic Albanians. Fighting against the rebels are
Serbian forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who will not
cede control. [end quoting]
As usual you spend a great deal of time saying nothing.
Do people actually talk to you, I mean outside of just
setting you straight on facts ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
21 Jan 2007 12:19:45 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Apparently there are a few posters on this group who DO need to be
reminded of their hypocrisy when it comes to the topic under
discussion. Randolph, for instance, among others. But Randolph has
so far dodged my question asking if he supported President
Clinton's bombing of Belgrade.
Serbia was engaged in aggression against a neighboring country.
Really?
I support putting down despots which are agressing against
neighboring countries.
You thought Kosovo was Milosevic's neighboring country?
All the maps put Kosovo and Serbia in separate places, yes.
[quoting] On the surface, the fighting is a bloody tug-of-war between
ethnic Albanians and Serbians over Kosovo, a province of Serbia
(Yugoslavia's dominant republic) where ethnic Albanians comprise a
majority of the population. Fighting for an independent Kosovo state is
the rebel group of ethnic Albanians. Fighting against the rebels are
Serbian forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who will not
cede control. [end quoting]
As usual you spend a great deal of time saying nothing.
Do people actually talk to you, I mean outside of just
setting you straight on facts ?
Oh the irony. What was it your said about being delusional?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid Rocks" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
23 Jan 2007 04:12:47 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Apparently there are a few posters on this group who DO need to
be
reminded of their hypocrisy when it comes to the topic under
discussion. Randolph, for instance, among others. But Randolph
has
so far dodged my question asking if he supported President
Clinton's bombing of Belgrade.
Serbia was engaged in aggression against a neighboring country.
Really?
I support putting down despots which are agressing against
neighboring countries.
You thought Kosovo was Milosevic's neighboring country?
All the maps put Kosovo and Serbia in separate places, yes.
[quoting] On the surface, the fighting is a bloody tug-of-war between
ethnic Albanians and Serbians over Kosovo, a province of Serbia
(Yugoslavia's dominant republic) where ethnic Albanians comprise a
majority of the population. Fighting for an independent Kosovo state
is
the rebel group of ethnic Albanians. Fighting against the rebels are
Serbian forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who will not
cede control. [end quoting]
As usual you spend a great deal of time saying nothing.
Do people actually talk to you, I mean outside of just
setting you straight on facts ?
Oh the irony. What was it your said about being delusional?
I think I said you were deluding yourself. I said nothing
about anyone being 'delusional'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
19 Jan 2007 04:44:20 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
46idna7szcIqYzPYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia kil=
les
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right alo=
ng
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
until it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtua=
lly
every way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC
members, there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah
media amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these
betrayers, which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can
hardly be attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on=
to
do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
saying was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbors.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
Bah, all this is false. the only unilaterality was that of the signature =
of
the UNSC, and it was the breach of the resolution in virtually every way
that commanded this action. And there were all that, dozens of hurriedly
emptied WMD labs, all alegedly shipped to Syria, but that didn,t matter,
'Allegedly shipped'...LOL! Well, you're right, that doesn't matter that
they were 'allegedly shipped', just that Bush had tens of thousands die
for a threat unproved.
since it was the breach of the UN resolutions that mattered
A breach that didn't threaten the security of the US or its allies, but
certainly the 'breaches' stood as open sores, legally, technically, for
years--but still the world wasn't being threatened during all those
years of inspections, aerial surveillance (and periodical bombings),
sanctions punishing civlians severely (resulting in massive disease and
death)...and all for the sake of a relative handful of greedy
exploitative capitalists after Black Gold and other (lesser) lucrative
investments and obscene profiteering.
, according to it
anyway, not to the clowns who spat on their signature in order to have
backshishs from Saddam.
But the majority of people are clowns too since they love being the butt =
of
the joke as long as it satisfies their hate for the USA. Doesn,t change
reality.
No, Jeano, try as you might, you can't change reality for you and your
neoconic brethren for being so very wrong in supporting Bush and his
failed policies.
Dr. Bipolar
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate th=
ese
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for
killing innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each
others. Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others thru=
out
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on and
on and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own
wealth and power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs, the=
se
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in
hell with a fork in their asses.
Yeah yeah, changhe the subject by quoting things that would require 20 pa=
ges
to rectify. Pfff.
Doesn't change what is happening since this UN resolution sanctioned
invasion
The vote for war failed in the UNSC...the US had no legal authority to
interpret and act on the Resolution as a UN Charter member, and go to
war. The world knows that, Jeano, even if you don't, or don't want to
admit it. No wonder you couldn't pull 2% of the vote up there -- you're
unable to do a very basic thing most mature adults, leaders or not,
need to do...admit you're wrong. Your arrogance and insufferable
egotism sinks your boat.
Dr. Bipolar :)~~~~~~~
, that those who kill innocents Muslims and other denomination
unarmed civilians, in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, are Muslims. That =
you
dump the guilt of the terrorists on the USA doesn't change an iota of
reality.
=20
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
17 Jan 2007 11:15:52 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia kill=
es
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed, un=
til
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually eve=
ry
way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC member=
s,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media
amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these betraye=
rs,
which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be
attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been say=
ing
was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's neighbor=
s=2E
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate the=
se
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for kill=
ing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others.
Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others thruout
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on and =
on
and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own wealth =
and
power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs, these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in he=
ll
with a fork in their asses.
Does your information, as God's official spokesman, include these
people?
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore, Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 01:43:11 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
kill
es
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
un
til
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually
eve
ry
way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC
member
s,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media
amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these
betraye
rs,
which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be
attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
say
ing
was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbor
s.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
the
se
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for
kill
ing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others.
Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre
of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on
and
on
and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own
wealth
and
power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs,
these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in
he
ll
with a fork in their asses.
Does your information, as God's official spokesman, include these
people?
Look at all the democrats who were lied to by the Bush administration.
Astounding.
I see your point, yes. It was not just traditional republicans
who were misled by Bush, it was democrats as well. I'm sure you
now see just how badly you were misled, Stephen.
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore, Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 06:01:54 AM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98BC752EC380rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
kill
es
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
un
til
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually
eve
ry
way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC
member
s,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media
amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these
betraye
rs,
which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be
attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
say
ing
was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbor
s.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
the
se
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for
kill
ing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others.
Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre
of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on
and
on
and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own
wealth
and
power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs,
these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in
he
ll
with a fork in their asses.
Does your information, as God's official spokesman, include these
people?
Look at all the democrats who were lied to by the Bush administration.
Astounding.
I see your point, yes. It was not just traditional republicans
who were misled by Bush, it was democrats as well. I'm sure you
now see just how badly you were misled, Stephen.
All I can say is Chuck Hegel for President.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 11:11:03 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "John Lemke"
<jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
Does your information, as God's official spokesman, include these
people?
Look at all the democrats who were lied to by the Bush administration.
Astounding.
I see your point, yes. It was not just traditional republicans
who were misled by Bush, it was democrats as well. I'm sure you
now see just how badly you were misled, Stephen.
All I can say is Chuck Hegel for President.
Arnold the governator might make a good president. He's looking
more like a man of the people, for the people, all the time. Too
bad he wasn't born a US citizen or he might qualify for the job.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 07:38:25 AM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98BC752EC380rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de n=
ews:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
kill
es
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
un
til
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually
eve
ry
way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC
member
s,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media
amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these
betraye
rs,
which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be
attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
say
ing
was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbor
s.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
the
se
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for
kill
ing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others.
Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre
of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny =
to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on
and
on
and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own
wealth
and
power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs,
these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in
he
ll
with a fork in their asses.
Does your information, as God's official spokesman, include these
people?
Look at all the democrats who were lied to by the Bush administration.
Astounding.
I see your point, yes. It was not just traditional republicans
who were misled by Bush, it was democrats as well. I'm sure you
now see just how badly you were misled, Stephen.
All I can say is Chuck Hegel for President.
So you're a Hagel Republican, are you? Will you vote for him in the
primaries? Will you vote for him against a Democrat in the general
election?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 07:34:32 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:NGrrh.145920$rv4.132501@edtnps90...
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de ne=
ws:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
kill
es
a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed,
un
til
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually
eve
ry
way. If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC
member
s,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media
amongst others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these
betraye
rs,
which is what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be
attributed to those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
And we invaded and found exactly what the Bush Adminstration had been
say
ing
was there prior to 9/11, nothing.
No WMD, no links to Al Queda, nothing to threaten us or Saddam's
neighbor
s.
The US unilateral use of UN resolutions was part of the sham.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate
the
se
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for
kill
ing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others.
Imagine against other religions!
BAH!, and look at the massacres brought about by the malevolent cadre
of
elitists that have shaped this current disaster and so many others
thruout
America's history. "Christians" that have brought death and tyranny to
Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Iranians, Iraqis, Filipinos, Salvadorans on
and
on
and on for the control of resources and for the sake of their own
wealth
and
power.
Iraq currently is the same feces, different flavor and these chefs,
these
American oligarchs that have fashioned this stew will burn brightly in
he
ll
with a fork in their asses.
Does your information, as God's official spokesman, include these
people?
Look at all the democrats who were lied to by the Bush administration.
Yeah, what a bunch of buffoons all those Democrats must be to be so
easily fooled.
Astounding.
Astounding that the country would put a bunch of easily fooled buffoons
into the majority, isn't it?
I see your point, yes. It was not just traditional republicans
who were misled by Bush, it was democrats as well. I'm sure you
now see just how badly you were misled, Stephen.
By Saddam Hussein, who pretended to have WMD and failed to cooperate
with the UN inspectors? Absolutely.
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Biden (D-DE), John
Breaux (D-LA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Jean Carnahan (D-MO), Tom Carper
(D-DE), Max Cleland (D-GA), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Tom Daschle (D-SD),
Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Edwards (D-NC),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Tim
Johnson(D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu
(D-LA), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Zell Miller
(D-GA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), and
Congressmen Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry,
Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson, Clement,
Cramer, Crowley, Davis, Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel,
Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green, Hall, Harman, Hill,
Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy,
Kind, Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas, Luther, Lynch, Maloney, Markey,
Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy, McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore, Murtha,
Pascrell, Peterson, Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin,
Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith, Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner,
Tauscher, Taylor, Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, and Wexler.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
19 Jan 2007 04:15:08 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
or-dnXnRFp2mrTPYnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@locallink.net...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia kille=
s a
Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for eterni=
ty?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Well, what started it all is the UN resolution that everyone backed, until
it was time to enforce it after Saddam had breached it in virtually every
way.
It's important to understand, Jeano, that Saddam's 'breach' of the UN
Resolution(s) did not ultimately represent a direct threat to the
security of the
United States or its Western allies...why then would that 'breach'
require
a preemptive attack, occupation, removal of government, and occupation?
Well, of course, we all remember the propaganda that inundated the
media
for months prior to the day Bush gave the Iraqis 'shock and awe.'
It was the WMD, stupid...
and...it wasn't there...STUPID!! Without verifiable evidence, the WMD
never existed. And, you and your fantasizing, conjecturing ain't gonna'
substitute for the evidence, Jeano. You and your neoconic nut buddies
seem to ignore the fact, too, that no chemical weapons were ever used
during the war. Why? Yep, early on, there were plenty of chemical
alerts, and one might speculate the US expected Saddam to cut loose
with a bunch of chemical-tipped missiles...and yet nothing...nothing.
Saddam never delivered chem missiles on Israel in 1991. Why? He
could've mounted 'em on Scuds and given the Jews a good gassing...but
he didn't. It wasn't chem WMD that the Bush propaganda machine buzzed
about, it was those 'mushroom clouds' they kept telling the public were
close on the horizon if a preemptive attack didn't stop 'ol dangerous
Hitler-like Saddam, the tin-horn dictator of a 5th rate airless
military power...under the US's watchful 24/7 military surveillance,
and deprived of many materials, with heavy sanctions punishing its
impoverished people.
Jeeez...and, now, we hear from Bob Gates,
the new Defense Sec., that the naval flotilla build-up and Patriot
missile
installments are simply meant to send IRAN a 'message' that the US
won't
tolerate 'interference' in Iraq.
Uh huh...just another necessary little preemptive war that will save
the
world from Muslim WMD...that will be the 'rationalization' for an
attack on Iran--NOT that Iran was meddling in Iraq. Well, they'd damn
well better come up with verifiable evidence of Iranian nuke WMD, or
suffer even more scorn from a world alread fed up with them. Still,
this administration, with its new faces, cannot level with the public.
Same ol' deceptive game with many lives on the line.
There's only one thing the American people have to do at this point (or
forever deeply regret it) --
Remove psycho Bush and his stinking crazy cabinet.
Bring the beleagured troops home from a futile war.
And, I might add this third objective, which hasn't ever been mentioned
by
the American media or politicians...but I think is pretty damn
important,
too --
Kick the hairy Green dwarf ***** of a Canadian nutcase who kept
supporting
Bush's war, his policies, and licking Bush so enthusiastically for
years,
and being so damned wrong in doing it. We could send just one guerilla
operative into Montreal and get that done quickly.
And don't tell me to 'take my pills', Jeano, because you know fully
well
you've been off your anti-psychotic meds for years, are dangerously
hallucinating, and need to get back on them ASAP.
Docrodile :))~~~~~~~~~~~~~A/+2
If there hadn't been betrayal of their signatures by the SC members,
there wouldn't have been the fueling of this by the Al Jazirah media amon=
gst
others. If the evidence that there is no spine by these betrayers, which =
is
what made the situation 100 times worst, it can hardly be attributed to
those who just did what they all had signed on to do.
But about this, those directly responsible are those who perpetrate these
massacres, whether they are Sunni or Shia. They have no excuse for killing
innocent people, but it shows the hate Muslims have for each others. Imag=
ine
against other religions!
=20
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
17 Jan 2007 11:13:58 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes a
Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Speaking for God, are you? Are you now God's official spokesman?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 01:50:38 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
killes a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Speaking for God, are you? Are you now God's official spokesman?
Clearly Bush is evil, and the devil has power to assume a
pleasing shape... look at how badly Bush is misleading the
Christian community.
If Bush can make the entire evangelical Christian community
believe it's ok to lie, steal, and kill just to make a profit,
then he must have powers given by the devil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 06:10:21 AM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98BC895AC0D9rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Clearly Bush is evil, and the devil has power to assume a
pleasing shape... look at how badly Bush is misleading the
Christian community.
If Bush can make the entire evangelical Christian community
believe it's ok to lie, steal, and kill just to make a profit,
then he must have powers given by the devil.
The gates of heaven are closed to liars and murderers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 07:40:28 AM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98BC895AC0D9rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Clearly Bush is evil, and the devil has power to assume a
pleasing shape... look at how badly Bush is misleading the
Christian community.
If Bush can make the entire evangelical Christian community
believe it's ok to lie, steal, and kill just to make a profit,
then he must have powers given by the devil.
The gates of heaven are closed to liars and murderers.
Since it was Saddam Hussein who lied and murdered, and caused the war
by failing to cooperate with the UN inspectors (as required by the 1991
cease fire agreement and again by Resolution 1441), you must be
referring to Saddam Hussein with that statement.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 07:36:51 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
killes a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Speaking for God, are you? Are you now God's official spokesman?
Clearly Bush is evil, and the devil has power to assume a
pleasing shape... look at how badly Bush is misleading the
Christian community.
If Bush can make the entire evangelical Christian community
believe it's ok to lie, steal, and kill just to make a profit,
then he must have powers given by the devil.
So you believe there is a devil? On what do you base your belief?
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
18 Jan 2007 11:05:38 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169127411.224348.142520@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia
killes a Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right
along
beside them.
Speaking for God, are you? Are you now God's official spokesman?
Clearly Bush is evil, and the devil has power to assume a
pleasing shape... look at how badly Bush is misleading the
Christian community.
If Bush can make the entire evangelical Christian community
believe it's ok to lie, steal, and kill just to make a profit,
then he must have powers given by the devil.
So you believe there is a devil? On what do you base your belief?
Well, you exist Steven, so that is proof that there is a devil. Don't you
think?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
19 Jan 2007 04:25:12 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zhrh.145873$rv4.52016@edtnps90...
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes a
Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for eternity?
J.
And the "Christian" president that started it all will burn right along
beside them.
Speaking for God, are you? Are you now God's official spokesman?
We know damn well you're not! The militaristic fascistic half-assed
'Christian' who would blow Cheney for two bits or less, joyfully hop
into bed with Tom Delay at the drop of a hat, or smilingly offer his
rosy ***** cheeks to Duncan Hunter, and failing any of those three
adventures, wrought with loneliness and despair, dig up the corpse of
Joseph McCarthy for a necrophilic liaison.
Dr. Bipolar ;))~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103 |
17 Jan 2007 01:46:31 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon wrote:
Ah... the Muslim world, how sweet.
When a Sunni kills a Shia, which one goes to heaven? When a Shia killes a
Sunni, which one goes to heaven?
Does de Imam of either group who lied goes to hell?
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for eternity?
J.
In referencing a more recent example in Northern Ireland, as just one
of
so many past conflicts between Christians, I ask you:
When a Catholic kills a Protestant, which one goes to heaven? When a
Protestant kills a Catholic, which one goes to heaven?
And we can go down the twisted path of the Christian church hierarchies
lying -- and committing acts against its own doctrine (i.e., playing
with
little boys' genitals).
And considering all the above, I ask you:
Or are they already in hell and experiencing how it will be for
eternity?
One more GOOD reason I dumped organized religion, and ALL religion,
many
years ago...'the opiate of the masses.' Intoxicating, but ultimately
self-defeating...destructive...and just plain ridiculous.
You should know better, Jeano, especially at your age...but you're just
another biased hairy ape caught up in the hysteria and hypocrisy of
religious intolerance, and a heady, snobbish feeling that your belief
system is superior over another's.
What did Nostradamus say about religious paradigms toward the end of
Western civilization? Well, it seems clear he thought Christianity
would
prevail over Islam...LOL! What dopes, you and Nostradamus! One
hypocritical evil murdering insane sickness prevails over the
other...how
lovely, our species and its future, eh?
And what religion did the preemptive slaughtering invaders of Iraq
belong to? And what was their legal, moral, strategic justification for
invading? How many innocent civilians have been murdered by the
invaders? (As in Somalia recently, the Western invaders opened fire and
killed scores of nomadic innocents.) And, would all this chaos and
murdering be going on in Iraq (and now elsewhere, as in Somalia) if
they'd stayed at home, watched TV football, whizzed around in their
SUVs, and waddled through the shopping malls? Or their Methodist Madman
of a leader hadn't had feelings God was to choose him to lead the
nation through a crisis? And...well, it's just too sickening for me to
go on with the insanity, injustice, ignorance, idiocy...of it all,
again.
Dr. Bipolar >:))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A/+2
"? .=B7:*=A8=A8*:=B7.=B7:*=A8=A8*:=B7. ? World War III 2007, The Last 200=
0 Days...HOOROO !
.=B7:*=A8=A8*:=B7. ??=A9=AET" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> a =E9crit d=
ans le message de
news: 1169005177.990895.48030@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17=
/content_5614757.htm
Attacks in Baghdad kill at least 103
www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-17 05:11:02
Special report: Tension escalates in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- A series of deadly attacks in Baghdad
killed at least 103 people and injured more that 240 on Tuesday,
casting shadows on security operation between the Iraqi government and
U.S. forces to curb violence.
Two car bombs and a suicide bomber killed 65 people and wounded132
near a university in eastern Baghdad, a well-informed Interior Ministry
official told Xinhua.
The blasts occurred at around 4:00 p.m. (1300 GMT) while many
students and employees in Al-Mustansriyah University, who finished
their courses and work, were waiting at an entrance for minibuses and
cars to take them home, the official said on condition of anonymity.
Two explosive-laden cars went off in short succession, killing
dozens of people. While many scared people were fleeing the scene,a
suicide bomber blew himself up, causing heavy casualties, the official
added.
Meanwhile, gunmen in a minivan and on two motorcycles sprayed
shoppers at a market in eastern Baghdad with automatic gunfire, killing
15 people and injuring 20, a police source told Xinhua.
Early in the morning, a roadside bomb went off near a police patrol
in central Baghdad, leaving four people dead and 10 others wounded.
At around midday, twin blasts near a Sunni mosque in Bab al-Sheikh
neighborhood in central Baghdad killed 15 people and injured 70 others.
Two hours later, a bomb-rigged minibus went off in Sadr City in
eastern Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 10 others.
The attacks coincided with a report released by the United Nations
that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year.
"The situation is particularly grave in Baghdad, where most
casualties and unidentified bodies that are daily recorded also bear
signs of torture," Gianni Magazzeni, the UN human rights chief in Iraq,
told reporters on Tuesday.
Magazzeni said the UN figures were compiled from information
obtained from the Iraqi Health Ministry, operation centers at hospitals
across the country and other agencies.
He rapped the Iraqi government for failing to curb violence and
blamed some militias, active inside police and army, for killings and
sectarian attacks.
"Without significant progress in the rule of law, sectarian
violence will continue indefinitely and eventually spiral out of
control," Magazzeni warned.
The latest carnage came days before Iraqi authorities and U.S.
forces are going to carry out a new security plan in Baghdad to crack
down on illegal militants from all sectors.
U.S. President George W. Bush also pledged to send additional
21,500 soldiers to Iraq, most of them to Baghdad. However, many doubt
if it will work.
Related:
UN: More than 34,000 Iraqis killed in 2006
BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations said Tuesday that
more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed and about 35,600 people wounded in
2006.
The UN human rights report released here Tuesday said that last
year at least 34,452 Iraqis were killed and 35,685 people were wounded
in daily acts of violence across Iraq.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Center for Research on Globalization or your
dear old Uncle Wally for that matter.....HOOROO !
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3D20070=
115&articleId=3D4462
Bush's New Plan: More Troops, More Death, More - and Wider - War
Global Research, January 15, 2007
rwor.org
In the face of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, tens of thousands
of U.S. military casualties, mounting difficulties in Iraq and the
Middle East, deepening divisions in the ruling class, and growing
anti-war opposition, last night Bush outlined his long-awaited "new
plan." Escalation: more, potentially much more, of the same: more
troops, more death, more crimes, and more war - possibly much more
and much wider war involving Iran and Syria. It means escalating and
intensifying the current, horrific dynamic between imperialist
McWorld/McCrusade on one hand and Islamic fundamentalist jihad on the
other. None of it is in the interests of the people - in Iraq, in the
U.S., or in the world.
While making a show of admitting certain mistakes and failures, and
appealing for bipartisan unity (on his terms) among the U.S. rulers,
Bush threw down a gauntlet of more death and sacrifice to those who
oppose the war: "The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice
and resolve."
The New York Times (Jan 11) called it a huge presidential political
gamble: "Not since Richard M. Nixon ordered American troops in
Vietnam to invade Cambodia in 1970 has a president taken such a risk
with an increasingly unpopular war." What makes Bush think he can get
away with this? "Bush is taking a calculated gamble that no matter
how much hue and cry his new strategy may provoke," another New York
Times analysis noted, "in the end the American people will give him
more time to turn around the war in Iraq and Congress will not have the
political nerve to thwart him by cutting off money for the war."
So the question - and the challenge - is this: what are the people
going to do now? Our answer - delivered by millions - must be like
what millions did following the invasion of Cambodia: a resounding No!
An outpouring demanding this war stop - now! And repudiating the
whole Bush program and demanding this criminal regime be driven from
power.
Much of Bush's actual plan was left intentionally - and ominously
- vague. He said another 21,500 troops would be sent to Iraq to
"stabilize" Baghdad and step up attacks on anti-occupation Sunnis
in Anbar province. He claimed the Iraqi government would take steps
with the U.S. to halt sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias and
achieve "benchmarks" of stability, rebuilding and economic
development. He said this plan would succeed where previous plans had
failed. And he also made new threats against Iran and Syria.
This whole plan promises more bloody escalation - in Iraq and beyond.
With the torture of Abu Ghraib and the leveling of cities like Fallujah
in mind, it was chilling to hear Bush complain there had been "too
many restrictions" on the actions of U.S. forces in the past. With
images of thousands of Iraqis rounded up and detained, innocent
civilians murdered at U.S. or Iraqi government checkpoints, and bodies
murdered in sectarian violence littering Baghdad streets, often
murdered by Iraqi death squads operating out of the police and
military, it was chilling to hear Bush promise: "Iraqi forces will
operate from local police stations; conducting patrols, setting up
checkpoints, and going door- to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad
residents." Bush's complaint about "restrictions" also implied
a threat to go after the Mahdi Army militia of Shia cleric Moqtada
Sadr, perhaps opening a second - Shia - front in the U.S.'s war
on the Iraqi people.
Even more ominously, Bush threatened a wider war in the region,
possibly direct attacks on Syria and Iran. After blaming them for
"allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in
and out of Iraq" and "providing material support for attacks on
American troops," Bush warned, "We will disrupt the attacks on our
forces. We w | |
