Coffeehouse Thread

62 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Saddam is dead - YAY!

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    dahat wrote:
    

    Also if you are wanting to count Iraqi civilian deaths... how many from your numbers are as a direct result of Muslim on Muslim violence?


    At least link to a balanced site. Not some bottom wipe of a webpage.

  • User profile image
    dahat

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    At least link to a balanced site.


    So a link to a site that is critical of the "Religion of Peace" is bad links to sites critical of the war are ok?

    I'm afraid that in the years I've been watching the issue, I have yet to see a site that I suspect that you'd call 'balanced'. Why? Because they come in two varieties, the first is from those who honestly believe that Islam is a 'religion of peace' and try to be as PC as they can when discussing it and the 'prophet'.

    On the other... those who’ve actually broken open books like the Qur'an and the Sunnah and looked into what they actually say. Not just little bits but in their actual contexts and come to realize that the claims of the violent Muslims tend to be far more inline with the content of their scripture and the historical (and internal) interpretations of it.

    If you care to point me to a true 'balanced' site... I’d love to see it, however I do hope that such a site would be actually 'balanced' and not attempt to whitewash the issue in anyway.

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    Not some bottom wipe of a webpage.


    Care to be more specific on what makes it so bad?


    Better yet... rather than make such seemingly baseless gripes... why not read, discuss and debate rather than just retort "that's stupid"?

    If you think someone is wrong, don't just tell them you think they are, tell them how they are wrong and be open to the possibility that you yourself may be wrong.

  • User profile image
    cheong

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    
    Considering he never denied the death of all the people he killed, nor the people he gassed...what would specifically be a fair trial? And what would that do for him?

    That said, I believe he would otherwise be release without doubt had U.S. not invaded Iraq.

    You know, many countries have law that the president of the countries is immune to prosecution for any orders given at his position that does not harm the country, and I believe there should be such "law" be set at that country when he kill those 182 people.

    So unless these 182 people are of certain level of significant to the country (I haven't had time to read through the news yet),  he  should have been  technically "NOT"  be found guilty and be released.

    Even if the new government have changed/deleted that law, to play fair the new legislation decisions should not affact the action be made before those decisions.

    It's the effort of U.S. and the new government that made him be sentenced to death.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    cheong wrote:
    
    Cybermagellan wrote:
    Considering he never denied the death of all the people he killed, nor the people he gassed...what would specifically be a fair trial? And what would that do for him?

    That said, I believe he would otherwise be release without doubt had U.S. not invaded Iraq.

    You know, many countries have law that the president of the countries is immune to prosecution for any orders given at his position that does not harm the country, and I believe there should be such "law" be set at that country when he kill those 182 people.

    So unless these 182 people are of certain level of significant to the country (I haven't had time to read through the news yet),  he  should have been  technically "NOT"  be found guilty and be released.

    Even if the new government have changed/deleted that law, to play fair the new legislation decisions should not affact the action be made before those decisions.

    It's the effort of U.S. and the new government that made him be sentenced to death.


    The funny thing is that, many in the US are happy, when the fact is that It was Iran that carried out the execution of America's man in Iraq. Bush basically handed him over to Moqtada's militia, which carried out the execution.

    So , they used him to do their business, and when he was no longer useful, they gave him to a militia that is anti-American.

    Now we wait and see what happens after this point in Iraq's history.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    dahat wrote:
    SecretSoftware wrote:At least link to a balanced site.So a link to a site that is critical of the "Religion of Peace" is bad links to sites critical of the war are ok? I'm afraid that in the years I've been watching the issue, I have yet to see a site that I suspect that you'd call 'balanced'. Why? Because they come in two varieties, the first is from those who honestly believe that Islam is a 'religion of peace' and try to be as PC as they can when discussing it and the 'prophet'. On the other... those who’ve actually broken open books like the Qur'an and the Sunnah and looked into what they actually say. Not just little bits but in their actual contexts and come to realize that the claims of the violent Muslims tend to be far more inline with the content of their scripture and the historical (and internal) interpretations of it. If you care to point me to a true 'balanced' site... I’d love to see it, however I do hope that such a site would be actually 'balanced' and not attempt to whitewash the issue in anyway. SecretSoftware wrote:Not some bottom wipe of a webpage.Care to be more specific on what makes it so bad?Better yet... rather than make such seemingly baseless gripes... why not read, discuss and debate rather than just retort "that's stupid"?If you think someone is wrong, don't just tell them you think they are, tell them how they are wrong and be open to the possibility that you yourself may be wrong.


    Listen, do you really want to start a religious war/fight in Channel 9? Because if you really wanted a heated religious discussion, I will give you one.I can post sites that are critical of Christianity and open threads that defame christainity all you want.So dont start this sh*t okay? Go play with yourself somewhere else.

    Edit: Secondly, what does islam have to do with the topic of this thread? or is it each time news comes from the middle east, some dogs have to start barking like always?

  • User profile image
    cheong

    dhogan wrote:
    
    One of Saddam's greater crimes was the use of chemical weapons against a number of different enemies - in particular against the Kurds. Saddam could have been executed for these crimes, and these cases were still in progress at the time of his execution...

    I have one side-view for this...

    It does have clear evidence that Japanese have done chemical and even biological weapon experiments on Chinese civilians when invading China in WWII, and many times more people was killed. Yet when Japanese surrender, no Japanese officiers I heard of was be hanged for what they have done.

    The world must be lacking mercy people had in the past, right?

    P.S.: I doesn't mean to argue for Saddam, he has, without doubt, done many bad things and deserve to be hanged. I'm just trying to point out "the other views" in this.

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    cheong wrote:
    
    dhogan wrote:
    One of Saddam's greater crimes was the use of chemical weapons against a number of different enemies - in particular against the Kurds. Saddam could have been executed for these crimes, and these cases were still in progress at the time of his execution...

    I have one side-view for this...

    It does have clear evidence that Japanese have done chemical and even biological weapon experiments on Chinese civilians when invading China in WWII, and many times more people was killed. Yet when Japanese surrender, no Japanese officiers I heard of was be hanged for what they have done.

    The world must be lacking mercy people had in the past, right?

    P.S.: I doesn't mean to argue for Saddam, he has, without doubt, done many bad things and deserve to be hanged. I'm just trying to point out "the other views" in this.


    The people who gave him these weapons are as equally guilty as him.

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    
    cheong wrote:
    dhogan wrote:
    One of Saddam's greater crimes was the use of chemical weapons against a number of different enemies - in particular against the Kurds. Saddam could have been executed for these crimes, and these cases were still in progress at the time of his execution...

    I have one side-view for this...

    It does have clear evidence that Japanese have done chemical and even biological weapon experiments on Chinese civilians when invading China in WWII, and many times more people was killed. Yet when Japanese surrender, no Japanese officiers I heard of was be hanged for what they have done.

    The world must be lacking mercy people had in the past, right?

    P.S.: I doesn't mean to argue for Saddam, he has, without doubt, done many bad things and deserve to be hanged. I'm just trying to point out "the other views" in this.


    The people who gave him these weapons are as equally guilty as him.


    Um, so that is like saying that because your parents gave you a car, if you use it to run over people then it's their fault? Try again.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    
    SecretSoftware wrote:
    cheong wrote:
    dhogan wrote:
    One of Saddam's greater crimes was the use of chemical weapons against a number of different enemies - in particular against the Kurds. Saddam could have been executed for these crimes, and these cases were still in progress at the time of his execution...

    I have one side-view for this...

    It does have clear evidence that Japanese have done chemical and even biological weapon experiments on Chinese civilians when invading China in WWII, and many times more people was killed. Yet when Japanese surrender, no Japanese officiers I heard of was be hanged for what they have done.

    The world must be lacking mercy people had in the past, right?

    P.S.: I doesn't mean to argue for Saddam, he has, without doubt, done many bad things and deserve to be hanged. I'm just trying to point out "the other views" in this.


    The people who gave him these weapons are as equally guilty as him.


    Um, so that is like saying that because your parents gave you a car, if you use it to run over people then it's their fault? Try again.


    A car is not a chemical weapon. They knew he was going to use it against innocent civilians in Iran-Iraq war which Rumsfiled fully backed.

    Saddam does not do anything without US approval. When he went into Kuwait, he called the US embassy and asked if the US would be OKAY with the invasion, and he got the OK from the ambassador and he went ahead. THen the US had to cover its a$$, by making the ambassador escape goat and blaiming it on her.

    So most people are just brainwashed, they just beleive the news in the US, and they dont really know the basis of the Bush -Saddam relationship that goes back some 50 years ago.

    So they knew he was going to use these weapons on the Iranian civilians and iranian citties to take revenge for the Ayatoullahs takeover of the Shah's US backed government.

    SO they gave him the permission to do this, and they come and play the innocent bid, when they are as equally guilty in what he did to the Iranians and to his own people.

    Go read up on how Saddam came to power, and the CIA's role in bringing him and building him to do its bidding in the Middle east.



    Its like Mafia wars.

  • User profile image
    dahat

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    Listen, do you really want to start a religious war/fight in Channel 9?


    Go back and re-read how this started. I simply mentioned a number, you are trying to make the mentioning of it into a war and an affront to Islam.

    If you want to claim offense towards your religion where there was none intended... isn't it fair for you too to be blamed for offense if you offend someone else's?

    Already you've offered to attack Christianity... but we know just how well that'd work... but that's not the point...

    My faith faith preaches open-mindedness and rationality... in this and previous threads you have been extremely close-minded and irrational... something that is deeply offensive to me. Fair enough? But do you see me attacking you for it? Nope, I just point it out.

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    Because if you really wanted a heated religious discussion, I will give you one.I can post sites that are critical of Christianity and open threads that defame christainity all you want.


    Be my guest... only know first that I am not a Christian.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again... what you are doing right now is a symptom of what is wrong with Islam today and why the world is turning against it... when someone acts in the name of Islam in a violent manor and someone mentions that the perpetrator was Muslim (or claiming to be one), there is more anger from the Muslim world over the fact that the persons faith or the faith they claimed was mentioned as Muslim rather than the fact that the act occurred and that someone did it in their name.

    It is a sad day when perceived defamatory or insulting 'attacks' are rabidly attacked (often with physical force)... while people acting violently in their name is pretty much ignored.

    If you want to get into defaming Christianity... why don't you find me some examples similar to the following where Christians or people calling themselves Christians commit similar acts in the name of all Christianity, their faith or their god:

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    So dont start this sh*t okay? Go play with yourself somewhere else.

    Edit: Secondly, what does islam have to do with the topic of this thread? or is it each time news comes from the middle east, some dogs have to start barking like always?


    First up, re-read my statement on how this began.

    Secondly and more importantly. Rather than get angry at someone you think is insulting Islam... do what I said before, read, discuss and don't attack. Why? Well we've seen all too well how well Islam lashing out at perceived insulters/attackers works.

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Really, did you want the country that let O.J. Simpson go to hold the court procedings against a dictator?

    Saddam: Your honor, HAD I done it, I would have done it like so...

    Or is this another "beer28 conspiracy about the xbox people" just in reference about Dearborn Mi. I mean there has to be a reason that people are happy about his death.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    TimWoodland wrote:
    Let me first say that yes, I do believe Saddam deserved to be executed.  I don't think what he did was right, I don't think that anything he did should be excused.

    I simply do not think he was given a fair trial.  Would that have changed the outcome?, most likely not, but now we will never know.  In theory, he should have been tried and punished according to international law, which was not followed at all.

    According to Wikipedia (which should be taken with a grain of salt):

    ---
    "The human rights organization Amnesty International criticized the death sentence and said the trial was "deeply flawed and unfair." The process was marred by "serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal," Malcolm Stuart, director of Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa program, said. "in particular, political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court." [44] The specific concerns raised by Amnesty International include the status of the trial as a "Special Trial" (unconstitutional according to the Iraqi Constitution), political interference in trial proceedings by the removal of a judge mid-trial, exclusion of members of the defence team at points in the trial, assassination of multiple members of the defence team, and the closure of the trial before the defence team had completed presenting its legal case."
    ---

    Also, a cnn link:  http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/20/saddam.trial.unfair/index.html

    Excerpt from cnn article:

    ---
    "Sunday's report concludes that the prosecution undermined several guarantees necessary to a fair trial under international law, including the right to an independent and impartial court, the presumption of innocence, the ability to prepare a defense and the right to cross-examine witnesses."
    ---

    I just think no matter what crime is, or may have been, committed, EVERYONE should be entitled to a fair trial, which my personal opinion is that Saddam did not receive this. 

    The solution to tyranny is not more tyranny.  The solution would be for Saddam to be given a fair trial, and upon a guilty verdict, the opportunity to exhaust his right to appeals.  In a perfect world I guess...


    Were the Iraqis that Saddam killed entitled to this concept of a fair trial as well?

    He had a trial, he was guilty, and the prosecution demonstrated it. Has the outcome deviated in any way from what you expected it to be? If not, then continuing to discuss whether or not every possible measure could have been taken to ensure fairness, when more measures were taken to ensure fairness for Hussein's trial than are taken for any other trial, is completely senseless.

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    
    dahat wrote:

    Also if you are wanting to count Iraqi civilian deaths... how many from your numbers are as a direct result of Muslim on Muslim violence?


    At least link to a balanced site. Not some bottom wipe of a webpage.


    There are three ego states, the child ego state, the parent ego state and the adult ego state and when people cease to act in the adult ego state, they wonder why they are treated like children.

    If you are not mature enough to post a response on a message board using the adult ego state, then perhaps you should not be posting.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    Really, did you want the country that let O.J. Simpson go to hold the court procedings against a dictator?

    Saddam: Your honor, HAD I done it, I would have done it like so...

    Or is this another "beer28 conspiracy about the xbox people" just in reference about Dearborn Mi. I mean there has to be a reason that people are happy about his death.


    Only the people who were victims who also were loyal to Iran plus other brain washed no-bodies.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    Shining Arcanine wrote:
    



    There are three ego states, the child ego state, the parent ego state and the adult ego state and when people cease to act in the adult ego state, they wonder why they are treated like children.

    If you are not mature enough to post a response on a message board using the adult ego state, then perhaps you should not be posting.


    So why are you posting? Why do you teach what you dont practice?

    Shame shame!

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    dahat wrote:
    

    SecretSoftware wrote:Listen, do you really want to start a religious war/fight in Channel 9?


    Go back and re-read how this started. I simply mentioned a number, you are trying to make the mentioning of it into a war and an affront to Islam.

    If you want to claim offense towards your religion where there was none intended... isn't it fair for you too to be blamed for offense if you offend someone else's?

    Already you've offered to attack Christianity... but we know just how well that'd work... but that's not the point...

    My faith faith preaches open-mindedness and rationality... in this and previous threads you have been extremely close-minded and irrational... something that is deeply offensive to me. Fair enough? But do you see me attacking you for it? Nope, I just point it out.

        I am not close-minded. If I was, I would not have wasted time reading the so called Holly bible. I know more about Christianity than most Christains know about their bible and faith in general. I would not describe that as close mindedness.

    Secondly, what offense are you talking about that I should be blaim for?

    Your faith, brought us the likes of Adolph Hitler, Abu Ghraib, and many other atrocious crimes against the human race. So dont give me this horse dung. Who is developing the most lethal of weaponry to murder human beings today? Who used the Atom bomb on a city full of innocent women and children , not once, but twice, in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Japan?


    Who is responsible for the backwardness of Europe? Was it not the Catholic Church, that killed off many free thinkers and was the most closed minded institution known to mankind?

    Who associated women with dirt and sin as an ever lasting curse by the God portayed in the Bible?

    We can sit and talk about the terrorism that took out whole cities because the Christian God (whom you claim is merciful) felt like it?

    dahat wrote:
    

    SecretSoftware wrote:Because if you really wanted a heated religious discussion, I will give you one.I can post sites that are critical of Christianity and open threads that defame christainity all you want.


    Be my guest... only know first that I am not a Christian.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again... what you are doing right now is a symptom of what is wrong with Islam today and why the world is turning against it... when someone acts in the name of Islam in a violent manor and someone mentions that the perpetrator was Muslim (or claiming to be one), there is more anger from the Muslim world over the fact that the persons faith or the faith they claimed was mentioned as Muslim rather than the fact that the act occurred and that someone did it in their name.

    This is the most close minded arugment I ever saw. You take one example and you generalize from it , which is wrong. My actions do not represent my faith, because I am a human being who makes mistakes. The faith represents itself in its teachings. So stop with this fallacious argument, because its not going to serve your case.

    Secondly, the world is not turnging against Islam. Islam was and remains to this day the fastest growing religion in the entire planet. So your preception is wrong because you think the US is the entire world, and even in this assumption your wrong because the US is not against Islam or any other religion. Its only Christain fundamentalists and Zionists who have a problem with Islam, because their faith is bankrupted, and when you cant sell your faith to others, you start bashing the ones who's able to sell their religion to the world. Kind of like how Linux croud is bashing Microsoft because its being adopted successfully. So it goes with the old saying "If your stung from the back, then know your in the front".

    The anger in the Muslim world is because of what others are doing to Muslims. Its not their fault that God gave them the largest oil reserves in the world. So people try to create all sorts of problems to get their hands on the Oil. The creation of Israel for example, was to keep a base near the oil fields and hence that is why Israel is a stratetic thing to the US. When muslims see their people in Palestine being massacured at the hands of the neo-na-zi Zionists who fled na-zi regime in Germany, that makes them natrually angrey.

    So your ignoring a large part of the picture. For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. And that is as it should be, beacuse its the law of nature.

    Muslims are not pre-genetically predisposed to be violent, its what others are doing to them that makes them react this way.

    If the same conditions happened to people in Europe in a Christian place, you will see them reacting in the same way.

    It is a sad day when perceived defamatory or insulting 'attacks' are rabidly attacked (often with physical force)... while people acting violently in their name is pretty much ignored.



    dahat wrote:
    

    If you want to get into defaming Christianity... why don't you find me some examples similar to the following where Christians or people calling themselves Christians commit similar acts in the name of all Christianity, their faith or their god:

    SecretSoftware wrote:So dont start this sh*t okay? Go play with yourself somewhere else.

    Edit: Secondly, what does islam have to do with the topic of this thread? or is it each time news comes from the middle east, some dogs have to start barking like always?


    First up, re-read my statement on how this began.

    Secondly and more importantly. Rather than get angry at someone you think is insulting Islam... do what I said before, read, discuss and don't attack. Why? Well we've seen all too well how well Islam lashing out at perceived insulters/attackers works.



    Again you make the generalization mistake. There are American christains who rob banks and who kill and who rape and who do atrocious crimes, are they representing their faith?

    Who is the close minded person here me or you? When you discuss religion , you go to the texts or to the teachings, not what people do who might be counted as being followers of a faith or religion!
    There are bad people in every religion, they do not represent the faith.

    Can I say that the Abu-Ghraib scandal and the people who did them, are representing Christainity and its values? Can I say that when an American man beats his wife to death, that he is following commandments of the Bible? or when a priest molests young boys in the Churches that they are doing so following Jesus Christ?

    I am assuming you will answer no..Perplexed

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    
    A car is not a chemical weapon. They knew he was going to use it against innocent civilians in Iran-Iraq war which Rumsfiled fully backed.

    Saddam does not do anything without US approval. When he went into Kuwait, he called the US embassy and asked if the US would be OKAY with the invasion, and he got the OK from the ambassador and he went ahead. THen the US had to cover its a$$, by making the ambassador escape goat and blaiming it on her.

    So most people are just brainwashed, they just beleive the news in the US, and they dont really know the basis of the Bush -Saddam relationship that goes back some 50 years ago.

    So they knew he was going to use these weapons on the Iranian civilians and iranian citties to take revenge for the Ayatoullahs takeover of the Shah's US backed government.

    SO they gave him the permission to do this, and they come and play the innocent bid, when they are as equally guilty in what he did to the Iranians and to his own people.

    Go read up on how Saddam came to power, and the CIA's role in bringing him and building him to do its bidding in the Middle east.


    No but a car is a weapon, just used correctly. Chemical Weapons should never be used, but as a deterent from doing anything further. Can you provide any hard evidence saying that we knew he was going to use those against civilians?

    Saddam doesn't do anything now, please use your sentances in proper context. Again can you provide any links saying he called the embassy?
    Sorry I lived in that region for years, while I don't understand all the politics of it, I've seen it. I've seen the bunkers blown up in Kuwait, overlooking Doha proper and have played in them on time off.

    True, we had provided him with weapons, of course I'm sure never to hurt civilians. And if so please provide from some resources other than...

    www.usisevil.com
    www.iraqpityparty.com
    or
    www.therealtruthabouttheus.com

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software


    

    Cybermagellan wrote:
    SecretSoftware wrote:
    A car is not a chemical weapon. They knew he was going to use it against innocent civilians in Iran-Iraq war which Rumsfiled fully backed.

    Saddam does not do anything without US approval. When he went into Kuwait, he called the US embassy and asked if the US would be OKAY with the invasion, and he got the OK from the ambassador and he went ahead. THen the US had to cover its a$$, by making the ambassador escape goat and blaiming it on her.

    So most people are just brainwashed, they just beleive the news in the US, and they dont really know the basis of the Bush -Saddam relationship that goes back some 50 years ago.

    So they knew he was going to use these weapons on the Iranian civilians and iranian citties to take revenge for the Ayatoullahs takeover of the Shah's US backed government.

    SO they gave him the permission to do this, and they come and play the innocent bid, when they are as equally guilty in what he did to the Iranians and to his own people.

    Go read up on how Saddam came to power, and the CIA's role in bringing him and building him to do its bidding in the Middle east.


    No but a car is a weapon, just used correctly. Chemical Weapons should never be used, but as a deterent from doing anything further. Can you provide any hard evidence saying that we knew he was going to use those against civilians?


    That is wrong. A car is not intended to be a weapon, but a tool of transportation, that has a side effect of rolling over people, and can lead to their death. It was not manufactured with the intent to be used as a weapon. A chemical weapon , like mustard gas, is specifically designed to kill a human being , by interfereing with the biological function of the body's systems. So there is a huge difference here.

    As for the evidence, ask Rumsfield. Or best yet, as the US ambassador April Glaspie, about it in her secret meeting with Saddam Hussain. It was all over the news, back then. The US backed Saddam in his war against the Ayatollahs of Iran, they knew Iran had no military, and it was composed of mainly innocent civilians. They gave saddam the weaponry he wanted and, they knew for what it was being given and for what purpose. They watched it happen and did nothing.

    Do a google search on Rumsifled and the Iraqi Chemical weapons. You wll find interesting stuff.

    Cybermagellan wrote:

    Saddam doesn't do anything now, please use your sentances in proper context. Again can you provide any links saying he called the embassy?
    Sorry I lived in that region for years, while I don't understand all the politics of it, I've seen it. I've seen the bunkers blown up in Kuwait, overlooking Doha proper and have played in them on time off.

    True, we had provided him with weapons, of course I'm sure never to hurt civilians. And if so please provide from some resources other than...

    www.usisevil.com
    www.iraqpityparty.com
    or
    www.therealtruthabouttheus.com



    Check this link out

    President Bush (Father), ordered his ambassador to shut her mouth, until saddam invaded kuwait, about the meeting that happened between them.

    That is a Wiki link.

    Here is another :
    Saddam's 'Green Light'Here is another one that gives some backstory

    How America Green Lighted Saddam’s Kuwait Invasion
    Edit :More on this

    Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    And you know why they did this?

    The US was in debt to the Gulf states for trillions of dollars. The only way to reduce this is to trick the arabs into conflict and get the Armed forces involved.

    The master of the plan was Henry Kissenger and the executive producer we Baker, and the Producer was Bush Sr.

    And it worked to trick saddam , who was out of the iran war hungery to rebuild his country. So it was perfect.

    Now they did that and claim that they are the  angels in the world, when they are infact no so!

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.