Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
Author Message
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
I posted this on Redstate the other day and today it was linked at hotair, so here it is. Just a glimpse in how insane the Rothbardian's are:

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/jpniner/20...for_empire

Recent blog post of Rockwell's:
Quote:http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/ar...20936.html
---------------------------------------------------

May 11, 2008
Why the Campaign Against the Burmese Junta?
Posted by Lew Rockwell at May 11, 2008 11:31 AM

So the US empire can once again use a humanitarian crisis to take over another country, of course. (Thanks to Sean Corrigan.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Rockwells link for the real kicker. Where does he get his thesis from that the US will "take over" Burma for "Empire"? Why a Socialist and Trotskyte website!!!!


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may200...-m10.shtml


-------------

the reason is, other than they are morally in the gutter, is the source of their Ideology. The anarchist, Murray Rothbard. who beleived Military and War spending was the absolute worst of all no matter what and the first line of attack for the "libertarians". Thus the "libertarians" like crackpot Rockwell, allow Leftist nuts to post at his site and similar. Which has gradually made them as insane as the leftist themselves.

in the process they are smearing the legacy of Ludwig Von Mises, a brilliant economist who would have nothing to do with any of that.
05-16-2008 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #2
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
Im curious as to why you care what LRC has to say about anything?
05-16-2008 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #3
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im curious as to why you care what LRC has to say about anything?

Straw men are the only sort of men he is capable of out-debating.
05-16-2008 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #4
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im curious as to why you care what LRC has to say about anything?

Straw men are the only sort of men he is capable of out-debating.

Im not being combative...Im just curious as to why he would post such an obscure topic on a board that would have NO clue as to what he was talking about?...Rothbard,,Mises?...Damn...I thought this board was about Reagan,Clinton and God.
05-16-2008 08:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im curious as to why you care what LRC has to say about anything?

because he's insane and a hack, racist, etc. Plus he's slandering Ludwig Von Mises using his name....it should be the murray rothbard institute


I actually know the main founder of the Repub. Liberty caucus. They can tell some tales on them.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2008 10:04 AM by GGniner.)
05-17-2008 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
Fo Shizzle Wrote:
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im curious as to why you care what LRC has to say about anything?

Straw men are the only sort of men he is capable of out-debating.

Im not being combative...Im just curious as to why he would post such an obscure topic on a board that would have NO clue as to what he was talking about?...Rothbard,,Mises?...Damn...I thought this board was about Reagan,Clinton and God.

If you know about Ron Paul, this is exactly where he comes from and where the ideology comes from. this is the fringe segment, and the source of their ideology is Murray Rothbard. a brilliant economist but also insane, played footsie with the Far-Left commies during Vietnam, the black panthers, etc. and today its rearing its ugly head again in the worst of ways.


Do you think the US is angling to "Take over" Burma for "EMPIRE"? I mean come on. Interestingly Ron Paul was the ONLY member of congress the other day to refuse to send sympathies to the Burmese people, which makes sense if he's either heartless of this 'out there' and on board with his closest of allies, Rockwell on this.

the mainstream base do ignore Rockwell and company though b/c they've always been a sideshow act. However, with the internet's abilities I think they need to be exposed for who they really are. It is possible to understand Econ 101 yet be an idiot elsewhere.
05-17-2008 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #7
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
GGniner Wrote:Interestingly Ron Paul was the ONLY member of congress the other day to refuse to send sympathies to the Burmese people,

Perhaps you can explain where in the Constitution it says he's responsible for doing anything for any other foreign nation.
05-17-2008 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #8
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
GGniner Wrote:
Fo Shizzle Wrote:
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im curious as to why you care what LRC has to say about anything?

Straw men are the only sort of men he is capable of out-debating.

Im not being combative...Im just curious as to why he would post such an obscure topic on a board that would have NO clue as to what he was talking about?...Rothbard,,Mises?...Damn...I thought this board was about Reagan,Clinton and God.

If you know about Ron Paul, this is exactly where he comes from and where the ideology comes from. this is the fringe segment, and the source of their ideology is Murray Rothbard. a brilliant economist but also insane, played footsie with the Far-Left commies during Vietnam, the black panthers, etc. and today its rearing its ugly head again in the worst of ways.


Do you think the US is angling to "Take over" Burma for "EMPIRE"? I mean come on. Interestingly Ron Paul was the ONLY member of congress the other day to refuse to send sympathies to the Burmese people, which makes sense if he's either heartless of this 'out there' and on board with his closest of allies, Rockwell on this.

the mainstream base do ignore Rockwell and company though b/c they've always been a sideshow act. However, with the internet's abilities I think they need to be exposed for who they really are. It is possible to understand Econ 101 yet be an idiot elsewhere.

I have no damn idea what evil the US govt. or any other govt. is planning....Nothing would suprise me. I think this one is a bit crazy...but HELL...the history of govt. is full of crazy ass stuff.

Im still curious as to why you care what LRC has to say anyway...and why you bother to read the blog.?
05-17-2008 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:Interestingly Ron Paul was the ONLY member of congress the other day to refuse to send sympathies to the Burmese people,

Perhaps you can explain where in the Constitution it says he's responsible for doing anything for any other foreign nation.


hmm, perhaps you should ask Paul

aside from that, the Burmese vote doesn't "do anything" for other nations. It was a toothless show of moral support, something that libertarians that care about Human Rights are calling paul out on right now. Although, the US got a lot of "Foreign Support and Aide" in its early days.

Yes votes by Ron Paul, hypocrite-Texas

Quote:Some resolutions from the 2nd session of the 109th Congress:

H RES 578, “Concerning the Government of Romania�s ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.”

H RES 736, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that legal action in Afghanistan against citizens who have already converted or plan to convert to other religions is deplorable and unjust.”

H RES 795, “Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.”

H RES 642, “Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown?”

H RES 233, “Recognizing over 200 years of sovereignity of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and expressing support for efforts by the United States continue to strengthen its relationship with that country?”
Why did Paul vote in favor of those if he thinks criticizing foreign governments is under the aegis of State?

Interesting No Vote:

Quote:H RES 861, “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”

H RES 921, “Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel�s right to defend itself, and for other purposes.”

While we are on the Topic of Constitutionality, where does congress get the authority to tell the Commander in Chief the number of troops he's allowed to use? Paul voted with his Leftist friends on this
Quote:H CON RES 63, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”


Paul votes for Notoriety, not principle. The last thing he wants is the mainstream to take him seriously because he would get torn to shreds in the mainstream by the press and opponents.
05-18-2008 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im still curious as to why you care what LRC has to say anyway...and why you bother to read the blog.?

just that he's a crazy old fool, who happens to understand econ 101. So other conservatives know what all he's really about, why he's alot like if not worse than the far-left on Foreign Affiars matters. And the root of the ideology, Murray Rothbard. someone who in the 60's allied with the far-left and black panthers.

Quote:"Among the things which are really disturbing is the case of Murray Rothbard......he is allied with the New Left. Imagine that!. Just a short while ago he was on a Committe that favored Castro and Cuba. It's sad to see a brillant mind like his go to pot that way" Lawrence Fertig in a letter to Ludwig Von Mises in 1968. According to Mises biographer, Guildo Hulsmann, Fertig's views on the issue "probably conveys Mises' own feelings as well." (p. 1030. Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism).

Rockwell and company are just carrying the torch that Rothbard started. Its important that conservatives understand this and the history, to easy for them to be influenced by their propaganda otherwise.
05-18-2008 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #11
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
GGniner Wrote:Yes votes by Ron Paul, hypocrite-Texas

Quote:Some resolutions from the 2nd session of the 109th Congress:

H RES 578, “Concerning the Government of Romania�s ban on intercountry adoptions and the welfare of orphaned or abandoned children in Romania.”

H RES 736, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that legal action in Afghanistan against citizens who have already converted or plan to convert to other religions is deplorable and unjust.”

H RES 795, “Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006.”

H RES 642, “Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown?”

H RES 233, “Recognizing over 200 years of sovereignity of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and expressing support for efforts by the United States continue to strengthen its relationship with that country?”
Why did Paul vote in favor of those if he thinks criticizing foreign governments is under the aegis of State?

Show me the full bill. Depends on if the bill is simply a statement, or if the bill proposes aid, sanctions, etc etc. If it's just a statement, I could see a Yes vote, because it's totally meaningless. It's just a shallow circle jerk by Congress.

Quote:Interesting No Vote:

Quote:H RES 861, “Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.”

H RES 921, “Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel�s right to defend itself, and for other purposes.”

While we are on the Topic of Constitutionality, where does congress get the authority to tell the Commander in Chief the number of troops he's allowed to use? Paul voted with his Leftist friends on this
Quote:H CON RES 63, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”


Paul votes for Notoriety, not principle. The last thing he wants is the mainstream to take him seriously because he would get torn to shreds in the mainstream by the press and opponents.
[/quote]

First, Israel is not the 51st state. I know that's hard for neocons like yourself to grasp, but it's true. Our constant meddling with Israel is to our direct detriment fiscally and safety wise.

Secondly, Paul opposes the whole "global war on terror" propaganda nonsense, because it has come with tremendous losses at home of civil liberties, fiscal responsibility, etc. Guns and butter, as usual. There's a difference between going after those responsible for 9/11, and hunting them all down, and using the deliberately vague "war on terrorism" to drum up support for totally unrelated wars. Recall ... 0 hijackers came from Iraq. 0 weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. The CIA and NIE report have said several times that al Qeada (sp?) was pretty much non-existant in Iraq until we showed up. The evilness of Saddam didn't make Congress sleep poorly at night when they were financing him, and giving him weapons (even nerve gas!). So explain to me again why we invaded Iraq? And then explain to me why one should support deliberately vague and non-defining resolutions on "terrorism" when they are used to promote such things as Iraq?
05-19-2008 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
Again, two statements lefties and Paulistinians cannot seem to marry up together, since it is my contention that it is better to fight them there than it is here:

A) There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we arrived.

B) We need to pull out of Iraq because Al Qaeda isn't going to follow us home.

Those two are completely and totally contradictory.
05-19-2008 08:10 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #13
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
The current limited acceptance of aid by the Burmese junta is not enough to assuge the suffering on the ground, plus the junta is stealing the supplies for it's military, or selling it to the highest bidder on the black market.

I wouldn't protest a US military humanitarian landing on the Irrawaddy delta - set up 20 mile perimeter, and invite the countries of the world to drop off the relief supplies. Once the UN or League of Nations or the Super Friends arrive, let them admin the relief and pull the USA out.

It's stirring a hornets nest for sure, but almost a hundred thousand people have died, and many thousands more may die of syptoms caused by the cyclone. Are we so callous as not to attemp to land humanitatian supplies, out of concern for the soverignty of a true dictatorship?

I have a personal attachment to Burma - I visited in 1998, and my neighbor's work colleague is on the run from the Burmese government for supporting Aung San Suu Kyi. To think that people are dying because of the junta's lack of action is disgusting. Even the Communist Chinese are working to save their people in the earthquake regions, and accepting international assistance, and not letting them perish on the vine like the Burmese military is letting their people perish.

It's Burmese state sanctioned genocide.
05-19-2008 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
uhmump95 Offline
Race Pimp
*

Posts: 5,337
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 50
I Root For: all my hoes!
Location:

Crappies
Post: #14
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
RebelKev Wrote:Again, two statements lefties and Paulistinians cannot seem to marry up together, since it is my contention that it is better to fight them there than it is here:

A) There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we arrived.

B) We need to pull out of Iraq because Al Qaeda isn't going to follow us home.

Those two are completely and totally contradictory.
Of course those statements are contridictory if you just type them. But if you look at the facts those statements make perfect sense.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraw before we attacked. Why? Because crazy knows crazy. They were not going to get a foothold in Iraq as long as Saddam was still in charge. We leave Iraq alone and we would still have Saddam acting like he had WMDs and no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Instead we go in and destabilize the government and create a breeding ground for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

As for them following us home, let's be realistic, there is probably a high chance that Al Qaeda already has a "cell" or two already here. Plus if Al Qaeda really want to be here, I do not think that there is any way we could keep them out.
05-19-2008 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #15
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
RebelKev Wrote:Again, two statements lefties and Paulistinians cannot seem to marry up together, since it is my contention that it is better to fight them there than it is here:

A) There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we arrived.

B) We need to pull out of Iraq because Al Qaeda isn't going to follow us home.

Those two are completely and totally contradictory.

That is a valid point, and it just totally backed up my arguments. To prevent B, we shouldn't **** around and do **** like A under the guise of "combating global terrorism" or whatever else boogie man story they come up with.
05-19-2008 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:That is a valid point, and it just totally backed up my arguments. To prevent B, we shouldn't **** around and do **** like A under the guise of "combating global terrorism" or whatever else boogie man story they come up with.

So you're thinking Al Qaeda only wants to destroy us because we're in Iraq? Is that you're point? 'Cause from where I'm seated, it looks to me as if you're trying to make the point that pulling out of Iraq would prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States. Let me just add a big 01-wingedeagle

I don't know HOW many times I have to drill this through you guys heads, but these f'ers are NOT going away. Chechnya, England, Paris, Spain, Amsterdam, Bali, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, etc., etc., etc., etc. ALL places we're absent, yet they are having problems with Islamic fundamentalists. No, no 9-11 hijacker was from Iraq. However, they weren't ALL from damn SA either. They had but one thing in common, their warped cult of a religion. It is not time to pull back from a country where we've gained ground. We are winning this war. We were attacked 4 times during the Clinton Administration and he did not a damn thing but lob a few missiles into some empty camps. Boy, that sure showed'em, huh scooter? These people don't want peace. People like Achmedinajad don't want peace. Ever. They are on a global jihad and issuing fatwa after fatwa after fatwa declaring any combat against the "infidel" is a just and righteous cause. Don't want to fight it? Don't hinder the damn process. YOU guys bury your heads in the sand. Just make sure to dig the hole a little deeper so your neck is down their as well. Fundie Muzzies have a soft spot for necks.
05-19-2008 01:47 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #17
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
RebelKev Wrote:So you're thinking Al Qaeda only wants to destroy us because we're in Iraq? Is that you're point? 'Cause from where I'm seated, it looks to me as if you're trying to make the point that pulling out of Iraq would prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States. Let me just add a big 01-wingedeagle

No, my point is to go to the source. The US shouldn't go invading countries for no apparent reason. Iraq is the second holiest nation in Islam. I wonder if that will motivate some crazies to blow themselves up.... Suicide bombers are TEN TIMES as likely to come from a nation the US currently occupies or has permanent forces in. Even Wolfowitz said the great hidden benefit of Iraq was that US troops could be pulled out of Saudia Arabia. Our troops there are part of what motivated 9/11. Most of the hijackers came from Saudia Arabia. It's pretty simple really: Why bother to have any troops on the Arabian Peninsula? It's surrounded by water.... we could be just as vigilant by having a carrier taskforce over there. The #1 cause of terrorism, especially suicide terrorism, is occupation. The CIA and NIE have said that for some time now. If we get off the Arabian Peninsula, and let the two groups of religious extremists fight with each other like they have for centuries, we'll come out the better. Don't send them foreign aid. Don't have bases in their countries. Keep a carrier taskforce around. If they become a real valid thread to US citizens, put them in their place. But that won't happen -- they'll be content to just fight each other until the end of time. So let them. And let's profit off their stupidity by selling them goods in the process. Pay down some of our massive debt and invest in our own craptastic infrastructure.


Quote:I don't know HOW many times I have to drill this through you guys heads, but these f'ers are NOT going away. Chechnya, England, Paris, Spain, Amsterdam, Bali, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, etc., etc., etc., etc. ALL places we're absent, yet they are having problems with Islamic fundamentalists. No, no 9-11 hijacker was from Iraq. However, they weren't ALL from damn SA either. They had but one thing in common, their warped cult of a religion. It is not time to pull back from a country where we've gained ground. We are winning this war. We were attacked 4 times during the Clinton Administration and he did not a damn thing but lob a few missiles into some empty camps. Boy, that sure showed'em, huh scooter? These people don't want peace. People like Achmedinajad don't want peace. Ever. They are on a global jihad and issuing fatwa after fatwa after fatwa declaring any combat against the "infidel" is a just and righteous cause. Don't want to fight it? Don't hinder the damn process. YOU guys bury your heads in the sand. Just make sure to dig the hole a little deeper so your neck is down their as well. Fundie Muzzies have a soft spot for necks.

Pakistan --> Russian occupation; Helped us with Afghanistan; We're propping up a dictator there who overthrew an elected government ...
Spain --> Involved in Iraq with us
England --> Involved in Iraq with us
etc.

Get out of their endless holy war and let them spend the rest of time fighting with Israel. We're better off for not getting in the middle of it. Thinking we can solve a holy war that has gone on for ages is the utmost of American arrogance. Who are we to judge anyway? We arent' exactly blazing a path on civil liberties, social equality, corruption, or ethics.
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2008 02:18 PM by georgia_tech_swagger.)
05-19-2008 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #18
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
....and you still don't get it. It doesn't matter if we pull ALL our our troops back and our allies do the same, they're STILL COMING. Islam is spreading like a cockroach infestation. It controls almost half of the continent of Africa right now. Europe is being essentially taken over with their liberals not doing a damn thing about it. Mohammed was the second most common name of babies born in England last year. You think we're starting some holy war? It's already upon us and it's not one we initiated. We didn't just start getting attacked on 11Sep01.
05-19-2008 02:22 PM
Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
uhmump95 Wrote:There was no Al Qaeda in Iraw before we attacked.

the latest Pentegon Report, based on 100k of 600k documents from Saddams govt. that were recovered. presumably the good stuff wasn't found if ever on paper.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

from Page 34:

Quote:Islamic Jihad Organization [Egyptian Islamic Jihad]
In a meeting in the Sudan we agreed to renew our relations with the Islamic
Jihad Organization in Egypt. Our information on the group is as follows:
It was established in 1979.
Its goal is to apply the Islamic shari' a law and establish Islamic
rule.
It is considered one of the most brutal Egyptian organizations. It
carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination
of Sadat.
We have previously met with the organization's representative and
we agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the
Egyptian regime.

The Islamic Jihad Organization is Al-Qaeda ,was formed and run by current Al-Qaeda #2 - Ayman al-Zawahiri

from Page 17:

Quote:The document goes
into great depth about Iraq's links to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and includes amemorandum, dated 8 February 1993, asking that movement to refrain from moving
against the Egyptian government at that time.


Saddam and Al-qaeda working in tandem, from this small sampling of facts.

The Media the last several years has been LYING for Socialist political gain of course, but if you recall what they reported in the 1990's the opposite was true. One of many examples:

CNN and ABC reported in 1999:

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/....binladen/

Quote:Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.


This is one area were Bush will be looked kindly on by History after the BDS generation dies off and the historians who aren't born yet are writing the history.

The State Dept. labeled Iraq a State Sponsor of Terror for a decade for a reason
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2008 02:24 PM by GGniner.)
05-19-2008 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
RE: Lew Rockwell: US to Invade Burma for "EMPIRE"
....but the true enemy is the Christians. Damnit, they can pray you to death. The horror, praising God and telling you they'll pray for you? They should be exterminated, right RobertN? /sarcasm.
05-19-2008 02:23 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.