|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hey Ron Paul what do you have to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Inside Today's Bulletin
Al-Qaida Calls For Jihad In Mauritania
By: John P. Connolly, The Bulletin
08/13/2008
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
The Islamic terrorist group al-Qaida has called for a jihad in Mauritania, pushing for Islamic rule after the country's coup that overthrew democratically elected leaders.
The North African wing of al-Qaida, led by Abu Mus'ab Abd el-Wadoud, called for jihad in a statement posted to the Internet yesterday.
The statement condemned what it called "apostate regimes ruling the Islamic Maghreb."
"Those regimes that enslave their people have always raised the banner of democracy in their fight against Islam, while people see that most of them assumed power through military coups," read the statement signed by Mr. Wadoud.
Mauritania, on the northwestern coast of Africa, connects both Arab and sub-Saharan African regions. It was an ally of the United States under President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi, who was deposed in a military coup on Aug. 6. Al-Qaida denounced the coup as well as the democratic regime, accusing both of being instruments of Western oppression.
"The latest coup in Mauritania could never have succeeded without the agreement of America, France and Israel," said the statement. "For this reason, we warn Muslims to be wary of all forms of unbeliever democracy, because they are just a ploy by the Zionist-Crusader alliance to trick you."
The statement urged Mauritania's Islamic population to "wake up and prepare for the war; the cross is marching towards you."
"O people of Mauritania, you need to get back to Islam and don't hesitate to wage holy war to fight the Jews and the Christians together with the apostate governments," the message continues. "Raise the banner of jihad and let us bleed and have our limbs severed until we bring back a caliphate styled along the lines of The Prophet's way."
A caliphate is an Islamic form of government whose head of state is successor to the prophet Muhammad's political authority. The caliphate is the only political system with the full approval of traditional Islamic theology. It has not existed since 1924, when Turkey abolished the institution.
Advertisement
John P. Connolly can be reached at [email protected] |
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20014395&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Al Qaedia fights for the Caliphate and they will keep fighting until they get it or are destroyed.
End of story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Turkey: 21 Suspected Al Qaeda Members Arrested
August 29, 2008 | 1603 GMT
Turkish police in Istanbul on Aug. 29 arrested 21 people suspected on being members of al Qaeda, the Anatolian news agency reported.
Back to top |
This was because of US policy.
well no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Hey Ron Paul what do you have to say? |
He says be peaceful unless otherwise absolutely necessary. The horror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Al Qaeda did not attack the US cause they hate our freedoms.
but the anti war movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights.
| Quote: |
By the time of SIMI's 1999 Aurangabad convention, which Qureshi is believed to have helped organise, many of the speeches delivered by delegates were frankly inflammatory. "Islam is our nation, not India," thundered Mohammad Amir Shakeel Ahmad, one of over a dozen SIMI-linked Lashkar operatives arrested in 2005 for smuggling in military-grade explosives and assault rifles for a planned series of attacks in Gujarat. Among those listening to the speech was Mohammad Azam Ghauri, one of the co-founders of the Lashkar's India operations. Ghauri, some SIMI members present in Aurangabad say, was offered SIMI's leadership, but refused.
Qureshi was, investigators say, one of the principal organisers of SIMI's last public conference in 2001. SIMI leaders told the estimated 25,000 followers who attended the conference that the time had come for Indian Muslims to launch an armed jihad which would have the establishment of a caliphate at its final aim.
In the wake of the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York in September 2001, SIMI activists organised demonstrations attacking the United States of America for being an 'enemy of Islam.' SIMI literature hailed Osama as a 'true mujahid (Islamic warrior' and celebrated the demolition of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban [Images]. Muslims were exhorted to 'trample the infidels.' |
http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/14delblast2.htm
The bombing in India wasn't cause of US policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| The bombings were a direct result of Spanish troops in Iraq. A war in which the vast majority of Spanish were already opposed to. Spain didn't cave in. The kicked out Washington's poodles. |
You are right. Spain wasn't just randomly attacked. It had troops sent to Iraq. If it didn't send troops to Iraq, it wouldn't have been attacked.
At any rate, Al Qaeda is becoming weaker and weaker. It doesn't have much sway in Afghanistan anymore. The Taliban are separate from them. In Iraq they still have some power and in Pakistan, but they don't have close to the power they have, so they need to send out appeals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| but the anti war movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights. |
And the pro-war movement did not receive enough affection as children.
www.violence.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]Al Qaeda did not attack the US cause they hate our freedoms.
but the anti war movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights.
Why does Al Qaeda fight? That is rather complicated. Al Qaeda wants to spread an Islamic theocracy from the Middle East to Spain, but it mainly wants to overthrow the governments of the region and replace them with theocracies, but they also do fight, because they don't like the occupation of Iraq and Palestine, and the occupation of Afghanistan by Russia helped get them started, and they had U.S. backing.
Later, when the Soviets basically were disappearing, Saddam was encouraged to invade Kuwait. He was no longer an asset since his being anti-communist was no longer useful, and Iran was seen at that time as weakened enough, and the Soviets wouldn't have been able to block more of a US presence in the region. It is natural that the US Empire will want to expand its influence and Al Qaeda will want to expand its. I would rather be under the US Empire than Al Qaeda, of course, but I prefr a different world paradigm, because the world is more important to me than one particular country. Our planet cannot sustain the insanity caused by countries like the US, Britain, France, Russia, and groups like Al Qaeda. Those groups have left a legacy of too much violence in our world. We need a change. The world needs something better than this insanity. Our world is not a better place with all the posturing we've had these past few decades, now is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gangpae
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The real threat to Spain are the drunken British louts who invade year round, leaving Spaniards scurrying for cover in their wake. Al Qaida will never ever be able raise a force nearly as formidable. Although some Spaniards might even welcome Al Qaida as saviors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Alias wrote: |
| The bombings were a direct result of Spanish troops in Iraq. A war in which the vast majority of Spanish were already opposed to. Spain didn't cave in. The kicked out Washington's poodles. |
You are right. Spain wasn't just randomly attacked. It had troops sent to Iraq. If it didn't send troops to Iraq, it wouldn't have been attacked.
At any rate, Al Qaeda is becoming weaker and weaker. It doesn't have much sway in Afghanistan anymore. The Taliban are separate from them. In Iraq they still have some power and in Pakistan, but they don't have close to the power they have, so they need to send out appeals. |
It was in Al Qaeda's sights.
Just like the Bali bombing was in revenge for Timor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Adventurer"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Al Qaeda did not attack the US cause they hate our freedoms.
but the anti war movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights.
Why does Al Qaeda fight? That is rather complicated. Al Qaeda wants to spread an Islamic theocracy from the Middle East to Spain, but it mainly wants to overthrow the governments of the region and replace them with theocracies, but they also do fight, because they don't like the occupation of Iraq and Palestine, and the occupation of Afghanistan by Russia helped get them started, and they had U.S. backing.
Later, when the Soviets basically were disappearing, Saddam was encouraged to invade Kuwait. He was no longer an asset since his being anti-communist was no longer useful, and Iran was seen at that time as weakened enough, and the Soviets wouldn't have been able to block more of a US presence in the region. It is natural that the US Empire will want to expand its influence and Al Qaeda will want to expand its. I would rather be under the US Empire than Al Qaeda, of course, but I prefr a different world paradigm, because the world is more important to me than one particular country. Our planet cannot sustain the insanity caused by countries like the US, Britain, France, Russia, and groups like Al Qaeda. Those groups have left a legacy of too much violence in our world. We need a change. The world needs something better than this insanity. Our world is not a better place with all the posturing we've had these past few decades, now is it? |
70,000 trained in Al Qaeda camps during the 1990s.
This was while the US was protecting muslims from Saddam in Iraq and from Slobidan in Serbia. This was also when the US was trying to bring Israel and the Palestinian side together.
What was the problem then?
The is necessary and then their is sufficient.
Saddam was not encouraged to invade Kuwait. He was not given the ok to invade Kuwait.
| Quote: |
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly -- even before they had consolidated control over the country -- to set up defenses along Kuwait's borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait. |
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5DF123DF932A15751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| but the anti war movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights. |
And the pro-war movement did not receive enough affection as children.
www.violence.de |
Well as soon as the Bathists , the Khomeni followers and the Al Qaedists give up their war I will be anti war. Let them give up their war.
It is wrong to invade a country to steal its oil. It is not wrong to force those who have engaged in a war against you to stop their war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"][quote="Adventurer"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Al Qaeda did not attack the US cause they hate our freedoms.
but the anti war movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights.
Why does Al Qaeda fight? That is rather complicated. Al Qaeda wants to spread an Islamic theocracy from the Middle East to Spain, but it mainly wants to overthrow the governments of the region and replace them with theocracies, but they also do fight, because they don't like the occupation of Iraq and Palestine, and the occupation of Afghanistan by Russia helped get them started, and they had U.S. backing.
Later, when the Soviets basically were disappearing, Saddam was encouraged to invade Kuwait. He was no longer an asset since his being anti-communist was no longer useful, and Iran was seen at that time as weakened enough, and the Soviets wouldn't have been able to block more of a US presence in the region. It is natural that the US Empire will want to expand its influence and Al Qaeda will want to expand its. I would rather be under the US Empire than Al Qaeda, of course, but I prefr a different world paradigm, because the world is more important to me than one particular country. Our planet cannot sustain the insanity caused by countries like the US, Britain, France, Russia, and groups like Al Qaeda. Those groups have left a legacy of too much violence in our world. We need a change. The world needs something better than this insanity. Our world is not a better place with all the posturing we've had these past few decades, now is it? |
70,000 trained in Al Qaeda camps during the 1990s.
This was while the US was protecting muslims from Saddam in Iraq and from Slobidan in Serbia. This was also when the US was trying to bring Israel and the Palestinian side together.
What was the problem then?
The is necessary and then their is sufficient.
Saddam was not encouraged to invade Kuwait. He was not given the ok to invade Kuwait.
[quote]
Israel and Palestine were ignored by George Bush for the longest time until after September 11th with the idea it's not our business kind of idea.
The Israelis were hammering the Palestinians, and the temperature in the region was raising in general. The people of the region saw it quite differently than how you are portraying it, and that's what counts, in the end. People even said that Al Qaeda pushed their attacks earlier, because of the increased anger over Palestine. That's what they said, that Binladin pushed things earlier than others wanted.
As far as Saddam Hussein, he asked April Glaspie about America's position regarding Iraq and Kuwait.
In late July 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on its border with the emirate and summoned U.S. ambassador April Glaspie to a meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. In them, Saddam Hussein outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to Saddam Hussein:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late �60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us? My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship � not in the spirit of confrontation � regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
Some have interpreted portions of these statements, particularly the language "We have no opinion on the Arab�Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", as signaling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the U.S. State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it handled everything �by the book� (in accordance with the U.S.' official neutrality on the Iraq�Kuwait issue) and had not signaled to Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League�s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam Hussein may have been influenced by the perception that the U.S. was not interested in the issue, (as they had not minded when he ordered the invasion of Iran) for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example, and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of a U.S. response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war
[Frankly, I think Bush senior's government should have given Saddam a clear message before he sent his troops in there, knowing that he might carry out an invasion. I am not so sure Bush was against Saddam invading Kuwait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Israel and Palestine were ignored by George Bush for the longest time until after September 11th with the idea it's not our business kind of idea.
-> Sure but the 9-11 attacks were planned before Bush got to office. The hijackers were in the US before Bush was in office.
| Quote: |
| The Israelis were hammering the Palestinians, and the temperature in the region was raising in general. The people of the region saw it quite differently than how you are portraying it, and that's what counts, in the end. People even said that Al Qaeda pushed their attacks earlier, because of the increased anger over Palestine. That's what they said, that Binladin pushed things earlier than others wanted. |
->Again it was another case of both sides doing it to each other and it was after Arafat turned down Bill Clintons offer
| Quote: |
As far as Saddam Hussein, he asked April Glaspie about America's position regarding Iraq and Kuwait.
In late July 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on its border with the emirate and summoned U.S. ambassador April Glaspie to a meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. In them, Saddam Hussein outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to Saddam Hussein:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late �60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us? My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship � not in the spirit of confrontation � regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
Some have interpreted portions of these statements, particularly the language "We have no opinion on the Arab�Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", as signaling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the U.S. State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it handled everything �by the book� (in accordance with the U.S.' official neutrality on the Iraq�Kuwait issue) and had not signaled to Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League�s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam Hussein may have been influenced by the perception that the U.S. was not interested in the issue, (as they had not minded when he ordered the invasion of Iran) for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example, and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of a U.S. response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war |
[Frankly, I think Bush senior's government should have given Saddam a clear message before he sent his troops in there, knowing that he might carry out an invasion. I am not so sure Bush was against Saddam invading Kuwait
Saddam never got a green light , and the US couldn't give such a thing.
More than that Saddam thought the US was going to fight Iraq for Kuwait.
and he had 6 months to get out before the first gulf war anyway.
The US isn't that smart to trick Saddam into invading Kuwait.
Though it would have been fine if they did since anything that is done to Bathists, Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists is okay.
but again the US did not trick Saddam the US isn't that good.
What is most likely is that the US ambassdor gave the wrong message or didn't want to do anything to make Saddam angry.
She even got in trouble for what she said later.
Interestingly enough Kim Il Sung claimed to the US tricked him into invading South Korea when the US set South Korea out side its sphere of concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
