Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on April 07, 2004, 02:44:15 PM
-
Kerry: Terrorist Shiite Al-Sadr 'a Legitimate Voice'
In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.
Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."
In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction. "Well, let me ... change the term 'legitimate.' It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."
But Kerry again seemed to voice sympathy for the Shiite terrorist when asked whether he supported al-Sadr's arrest. "Not if it’s an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq," Kerry told NPR, in quotes first reported by the New York Sun.
"If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here," Kerry added. "And I think this administration is just walking dead center down into that trap."
On March 28, the U.S.-led coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper, al-Hawza, for 60 days, the Sun reported. L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, charged that the newspaper had published false stories blaming the coalition forces for local acts of terrorism.
Source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/7/104340.shtml)
-
LOL man and people call bush stupid? Kerry may sound smart cause he talks like a smooth politician, unlike Bush, but boy does he say some dumb stuff.
"this guy is a leader, and has a voice, or wait ah well he is kinda a terrorist, but we should not like catch him or anything like."
-
Kerry is supporting the enemy, again.
Yep, he learned well from great statemen and moralists like senators Ted "hic!" Kennedy and Robert "KKK" Byrd. No one is better at giving aid and comfort to the enemy then these clowns.
-
Is al-Sadr a terrorist by your definition ? Why ?
-
Land Slide Bush!
-
Ah, the righty circle jerk. The good news is you won't get prostate cancer.
-
Hristo, I would say yes. He's trying to convince other people to kill those that are giving him freedom.
That turns on the big *TERRORIST* light in my head.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Yep, he learned well from great statemen and moralists like senators Ted "hic!" Kennedy and Robert "KKK" Byrd. No one is better at giving aid and comfort to the enemy then these clowns.
Speaking of Sen. Byrd, where's the outrage now? Sen. Dodd hailed his career no less than did Lott for Thurmond.
Can you say double standard? I can.
-
Nice source, especially the editor's note under the 'article' is nice.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Ah, the righty circle jerk. The good news is you won't get prostate cancer.
They blast Democrats for posting from MoveOn.Org but do ritual dancing around NewsMax posts. Hypocrite? Of course, They are Republicans!
-
For the sake of prostates, leave them alone.
-
Kerry = Hitler
-
That Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr guy is a terrorist now. There is no democracy in Iraq yet, the situation is a war zone because some people refuse lay down their arms and rebuild Iraq. Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr is an enemy leader in my opinion. He may have offered to surrender, well then do it.
-
In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction. "Well, let me ... change the term 'legitimate.' It belongs to a voice — because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."
I heard the interview. He immediately stated that it wasn't legitimate. Jeeez guys. Get something real. I mean Kerry ain't no great shakes, but this is really digging.
Would you really want to have a "misstatement war" between Kerry and Bush?
-
Midnight, your a hypocrite. Your own flip flop on the issue of candidates is easily referenced here. Make up your mind as your opinions weigh very lightly with me at the moment.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113409
-
Since he immediately changed his statement that the voice was "sorta" terrorist rather than legitimate doesn't that negate his whole point?
-
No hipocrisy there or here. I suggest you read it again ....slowly.
-
Against Kerry
This is the poorest choice for President since ...er ....since ....Polk whupped What's-his-name!
In support of Kerry.
I heard the interview. He immediately stated that it wasn't legitimate. Jeeez guys. Get something real. I mean Kerry ain't no great shakes, but this is really digging.
Would you really want to have a "misstatement war" between Kerry and Bush?
Thats flip flopping.
-
No it isn't. I can be anti BS without being pro-Kerry.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No it isn't. I can be anti BS without being pro-Kerry.
But can you be pro-Kerry without being pro-BS? ;)
-
Go away Iron.. yer giving me a headache!
:cool:
-
corect me if I'm wrong.
as I understand it this guy is attacking foreign military presence in his country. that is the situation, right?
how does that make him a terrorist?
he may be the enemy, he may deserve to die for killing our guys. but as long as he's fighting military forces at the source of the problem, and not attacking civilian targets outside of iraq, then he's not really a terrorist.
-
Why is there so much debate over the word "terrorist"? Rebel=Terrorist on many levels and when civilian contractors are targeted and not just the military then that is a form of terrorism. You guys crying about calling him a terrorist makes me feel like you sympathize with the guy. What the Iraqi people don't seem to understand is that once there is relative peace, we will set up our puppet government and leave. Then they can feel free to overthrow it either legally (future elections) or by a rebellion. Their insurgency is what is keeping us there. So screw 'em.
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
Then they can feel free to overthrow it either legally (future elections) or by a rebellion.
I thought rebel = terrorist?
-
I thought rebel = terrorist?
All I was saying is that if they want to have a rebellion after we leave then who cares. And I said that "on many level" Rebel=terrorist. I did not say that in every situation rebel=terrorist.
I stand by what I said before and their current rebellion against us is the single most biggest thing that will keep us there longer.
-
Any legit news sources for this?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What makes him a terrorist?
:::scchhhwweeeeeeewww:::
(Thats the sound of credibility leaving forever.)
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
All I was saying is that if they want to have a rebellion after we leave then who cares. And I said that "on many level" Rebel=terrorist. I did not say that in every situation rebel=terrorist.
I stand by what I said before and their current rebellion against us is the single most biggest thing that will keep us there longer.
so the founding fathers were terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Land Slide Bush!
I believe that and have said it on this bbs, to referenced again after the Bush landslide
Kerry has no moral compass and is unable to take a stand on any issue.... he just blows in the wind it seems like.
-
I normally don't get into this but I had heard at work the "contractors" were all ex-special forces. Is this a true statement? If so they could be considered to be mercenaries in which they are fair game to anyone in that country.
As far as the terrorist bit. Cpt Apathy you stated "he may be the enemy, he may deserve to die for killing our guys. but as long as he's fighting military forces at the source of the problem, and . not attacking civilian targets outside of iraq , then he's not really a terrorist". One thing that gets me in this statement is what is in bold letters. A terrorist isn't necessarily one who only attacks civilians outside of their respective state or country. Timothy McVeigh was a US citizen. Yes he killed innocent civilians but did he not also attack government employees? So what exactly should he be considered as? Civilians could have simply been collateral damage in his mind and the real target was the government placed in that building. And in that mind set he would be considered what?
If a armed group is attacking forces which are in the state or country to bring peace how is it alright to kill and not be considered a bad guy. Terrorist may not be the politically correct labeling here but they are infact trying to interfere with a country trying to bring a peaceful solution to a country that once was in chaos in many ways. They are infact militants trying to disrupt the peace process. This can be debated as many would say we shouldn't have been there in the first place but we are trying to bring about a peaceful nation. With that being said if they infact want a peaceful government that looks out for all of the people in Iraq is violence against the people who are trying to bring that about just or the correct way to go? I doubt it. All they are doing for themselves in the meanwhile is labeling themselves as a rogue group which in the end will get them nothing but blood shed (our and theirs). Trying to bring Iraq into a state of revolutionary war isn't the answer to what they seek. It will only mean we will stay there longer to try to stabilize the country.
-
so the founding fathers were terrorists.
I bet in the minds of the British at that time period, our founding fathers would have been considered terrorists. I'm syre there was propaganda back in England about how violent cells were disrupting the peace of the loyal colonies
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
I bet in the minds of the British at that time period, our founding fathers would have been considered terrorists. I'm syre there was propaganda back in England about how violent cells were disrupting the peace of the loyal colonies
Good point - of course it does make the occupying forces in Iraq sort of the the equivalent of the Redcoats or Hessians.
-
I don't recall the redcoats helping the colonists to establish an independent freely elected government and rebuild their infrastructure.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I don't recall the redcoats helping the colonists to establish an independent freely elected government and rebuild their infrastructure.
Actually they were.(well at least with the infrastructure thing)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That has nothing to do with what is defined as terrorism, and btw. their infrastructure wouldn't need rebuilding if you hadn't destroyed it in the first place.
And it would have been destroyed if Saddam didn't invade Kuwait.
-
I love the moral relativism here... The Iraq terrorists fighing the USA people offering them democracy and religious freedom are compared to the French resistance who was fighing the Nazis - one of the most brutal regimes in history.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Again irrelevant to the Iraqis who wonder why you now want to help them rebuild their water treatment plant you bombed 13 years ago and prevented them from rebuilding themselves because the equipment was deemed "dual-use".
Irrelevent since now they are liberated now.
-
Yes it does, imo
They know power will be turned over to Iraqis by June, and they are simply a minority of thugs trying to screw everything up for the majority while trying to gain control of the country for themselves.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If someone fighting a good force he believe to be evil is a terrorist, while someone fighting an evil force he believes to be evil is a freedom fighter, the question is subjective and dependant on how you perceive good and evil. The old cliché "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". Wouldn't truth be better served if we had a common term for these combatants regardless of how and what we perceive good and evil?
That argument makes no sense.
You say a person fighting a good force? I dont care what they beleive, if it is a good force it is a good force.
And if someone is fighting an evil force, then they are fighting evil and that is good.
You assume a third party definition of good and evil in that argument.
-
You know that and I know that, but the Iraqis fighting the Coalition believes they are being "occupied", not liberated.
This is patently wrong. Nuke you have to call him on this. The Iraqi's involved in the recent fighting are doing so because they are in the minority there and will have no chance at power should a democracy rise from the ashes. Their only hope at power is thru concessions from the coalition or outright withdrawl of coalition forces. Don't let Gscholz get away with his Bullcrap.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, you misunderstand.
Two combatants, both using the exact same methods for the exact same purpose, the only difference is in their political ideology or religion. If you call one a terrorist and the other a freedom fighter based on your political ideology or religion the definition is subjective and serves no purpose beyond propaganda and demonising your political or religious opponents. Truth would be better served with a common definition based on their methods or purpose regardless of their beliefs, lest what I call a terrorist may not be the same as what you call a terrorist even if we're talking about the same person.
well, I agree that calling someone a terrorist is subjective in this case.... maybe just "enemy" is a better definition.
I wouldn't call them freedom fighters though, since they are fighting against freedom, imo.
-
The whole thing about who do we consider what is exactly as you guys have stated, it's subjective. It depends on who's eyes you are looking through. Regardless of peoples opinions of why we went there and what our true purpose was is now irrelevant.
The only thing that should matter now is allowing the Iraqi people to have the rights that they all justly deserve. No matter what their religion maybe. It's about equal opportunity for all opposed to what they had before with the last regime. Give them the tools and the abilitity to build a new government thats main objective is to serve all the people of Iraq. We can't give everyone everything but we can help to make it so even the minority have a say in there country. I'm sure thats all they want and though some may take it to an extreme to get there point across in the long run we are all wishing for the same thing.
-
GScholz, since we actually agreed on something, might I ask that you remove everyone from your ignore list? Myself, I like to see all the posts everyone offers...regardless of weather or not they make me upset.
-
A lot of people on this board consider US presence in Iraq = Freedom.
So much that they don't accept any other view on it.
A lot of Iraqis consider US presence in Iraq = occupation.
So much that they are taking arms and fighting the occupator.
Do Iraqis even want something you consider freedom, although I doubt they would ever get a share of it as you enjoy it in US ?
Do you really think US would allow a Iraqi government elected after June which wouldn't suit US interests ?
While US might be one of most liberal countries in the world (this board is only a small proof), their standards are very different when they occupy another country. Much less a country of totally different culture and tradition.
Put yourself in Iraqi shoes. Someone occupied your country, destroyed a lot of infrastructure, jailed countless people and all that while saying he brings freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy with barbed wire and checkpoints, puppet government and a modern kalif Bremer knowing what's best for Iraqis ?
I don't doubt some US people are sincere and believe they are doing a good thing. But majority of Iraqis, IMO, do not think that way. And it is their life to decide how to live it.
Occupation proved a good thing with Germany and Japan in the long run and all turned out well. But in Middle East or Southeast Asia it turned out to be a disaster.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
A lot of people on this board consider US presence in Iraq = Freedom.
So much that they don't accept any other view on it.
A lot of Iraqis consider US presence in Iraq = occupation.
So much that they are taking arms and fighting the occupator.
So you are an authority on how Iraqis and their feelings? Maybe we should hire you to mediate the peace.
Do you consider the US to be occupiers?
-
OH please shut up and give it a rest.
Find something In life you enjoy besides biotching about things you can do nothing about.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Land Slide Bush!
Wanna bet? ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wanna bet? ;)
what did you have in mind?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what did you have in mind?
Careful, are you one of those guys who made the WMD bet?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I put these people on ignore either because ...their posts were consistently meaningless to the point of annoying me.
Yes, thats your prerogative....to
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/ostrich.gif)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So you are an authority on how Iraqis and their feelings? Maybe we should hire you to mediate the peace.
Do you consider the US to be occupiers?
Where did he claimed that he's an authority He only posted the obvious.
U should drop ur egocentirc view that ur kind of "freedom" is the only valid one. Other people (p.e. moslems) may have other views about freedom (even though we dont like it).
Many of those Iraqy people are forced to have these views by their education - they are not anti US by nature!
IMO its a very long way and it takes generation to win favor of those people.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes, thats your prerogative....to
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/ostrich.gif)
Something is lacking from that picture, could it be George Tenet holding the daily briefings?
-
Insert Canada joke: _____________
Ha Ha!!