West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on November 08, 2005, 02:28:48 PM
-
-Like the situation in France, American immigrants have been creating chaos in Iraq. Reports are showing that the chaos has been perpetrated at a much larger magnitude, and for more than 900 days now! They are setting Iraqi cities ablaze, bombing homes, and killing in record numbers, over 100,000 Iraqi's have been brutally murdered. The 140,000 American immigrants, snuck into Iraq with tanks and bombs in March of 2003, and the torture campaign has gone on unbridled since, with no signs of stopping!
.... I've been following the situation in Iraq along with the situation in France, it sounds like the French might get their immigrant situation under control, but unlike the situation in France, the American immigrants in Iraq have stolen and now control most of it's wealth, they are better paid, and have been afforded greater priveledges, which makes their justifications for the destruction sound much more monstrous than the African immigrants in France. The American immigrants are also less in number, only constituting 140,000.
-
Why do you hate our freedom?
-
What is the source of this poorly written article?
-
The only difference is that the Iraqis had no control over letting the Americans into their country.
In the West, we are importing our own enemies into our countries through our insane immigration policies. They are using our openess and tolerance against us!
-
The only difference is that the Iraqis had no control over letting the Americans into their country.
In the West, we are importing our own enemies into our countries through our insane immigration policies. They are using our openess and tolerance against us!
Testify.
-
Why do you hate our freedom?
Quit changing the subject. My post had nothing to do with you and I- "our" anything, my post was about Iraq and about France.
-
The only difference is that the Iraqis had no control over letting the Americans into their country.
In the West, we are importing our own enemies into our countries through our insane immigration policies. They are using our openess and tolerance against us!
So because the American foriegners (immigrants) entered Iraq by force that makes them better, and makes their cause noble?
-
The only difference is that the Iraqis had no control over letting the Americans into their country.
In the West, we are importing our own enemies into our countries through our insane immigration policies. They are using our openess and tolerance against us!
So because the American foriegners (immigrants) entered Iraq by force that makes them better, and makes their cause noble?
A. When military enters a country to do justice on someone, they aren't considered immigrants.
and
B.Just because America entered Iraq under false pretenses, they still took down one of the most tyrannical leaders this world has seen like they should have done 15 years ago, and now muslim psychos are blowing themselves up because they think they have a point to prove.
-
Quit changing the subject. My post had nothing to do with you and I- "our" anything, my post was about Iraq and about France.
haha I know dude I'm just messing around sayin some bullshit, like you.
-
i ask you this if the multinational forces left do u honestly think iraq believe iraq could tranform into a stable prosperous country?
at the end of the day whats done is done quit crying over spilt milk...americans are there till iraq can stablise itself, although maybe their methods could be improved.
-
So because the American foriegners (immigrants) entered Iraq by force that makes them better, and makes their cause noble?
No, it means that we in the West are stupid as hell for letting millions and millions of third world immigrants into our countries.
Do you really think an Arab country would allow millions and millions of poor white Christians to move in and become citizens? Hell no. But we in the west are importing our own destruction by allowing millions and millions of Muslims who detest our culture into our countries.
What have we gotten from our immigration policies??? Planes flown into skyscrapers in New York, subway systems blown up in London, buses bombed in Madrid, filmakers assasinated in Denmark, and riots in Paris. I SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
-
So because the American foriegners (immigrants) entered Iraq by force that makes them better, and makes their cause noble?
No, it means that we in the West are stupid as hell for letting millions and millions of third world immigrants into our countries.
Do you really think an Arab country would allow millions and millions of poor white Christians to move in and become citizens? Hell no. But we in the west are importing our own destruction by allowing millions and millions of Muslims who detest our culture into our countries.
What have we gotten from our immigration policies??? Planes flown into skyscrapers in New York, subway systems blown up in London, buses bombed in Madrid, filmakers assasinated in Denmark, and riots in Paris. I SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Well put CWalker187
Too many people taking advantage of what I'd call and "open door policy" on immigration in America. Something needs to be done.
-
Let's just send all immigrants back......oh wait, we're all immigrants.
-
No, it means that we in the West are stupid as hell for letting millions and millions of third world immigrants into our countries.
Yeah... stupid as hell for letting your dad come here...
-
i ask you this if the multinational forces left do u honestly think iraq believe iraq could tranform into a stable prosperous country?
at the end of the day whats done is done quit crying over spilt milk...americans are there till iraq can stablise itself, although maybe their methods could be improved.
Yes, I do honestly believe that if the multinational forces left Iraq, that Iraq would again become a stable and prosperous country. And you just accept whatever discussion line they throw out there for debates on Hannity and Colmes, CNN Crossfire, BBC, and all the other major news networks. Whatever the major media decides to use for their line of discussion, you accept it eagerly.
Let me give you 2 examples:
Example 1: The media may choose that for this week they are going to display polls and have debates on a subject such as Was the Bush administration acting upon faulty intelligence in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom? You'll sit back and absorb these discussions on television for a week, and then you'll come on to the forum, and make a topic about how you think the Bush administration acted on bad intelligence in the months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. You've already been fooled and manipulated, and the sad thing is you thought you were being "liberal" or something like that. In reality, your already acting upon false assumptions, because #1. The real truth is that even if Iraq had dozens of Nuclear Weapons it would still be no justification for war, because Isreal and the United States had been threatening Iraq for decades and everyone knows Isreal and the United States have more nuclear weapons individually than the rest of the Middle East combined. #2. Calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom is a joke, because it is really Operation Long Term Iraqi Occupation.
Example 2: The fourth branch of the government (that being the media) will decide to run polls and discussions for a week or two, with the topic being, "Has America being failing in it's duty to properly train Iraqi military and police forces to provide in their own security?" Now this is a trick you fall for everytime. Because it makes it sound like they are critisizing the American government. So you'll automatically jump on this and say America needs to do a better job training Iraqi security forces, blah, blah, blah and you'll make a thread about it. Already, you've allowed yourself to be manipulated, and made yourself their tool, because the truth of the matter is, #1. The reason their is fighting in Iraq is because of America's presence, so it makes no sense to say America needs to be there to train Iraqi forces, that's a complete contradiction. #2. America just wants to train some Iraqi's so that they can go into dangerous territories and feel them out, and if it's safe, the American troops can come in and take over, this makes Iraqi's kill other Iraqi's and saves American lives, and it serves many purposes, because it also allows America to claim that their is a civil war in Iraq, thus another attempt at justifying their occupation of Iraq.
Please tell me you get it.
-
i don't believe everything i read i make up my own mind on things thank u very much....BUT if we left tomorrow the iraqi government would fall and there would be civil war there would be no stability that is pretty much garenteed, and after the civil war there would be some taleban style government which seized power which would only bring america back....
whateva happen iraqs gonna be fuck up for a long time.
-
i don't believe everything i read i make up my own mind on things thank u very much....BUT if we left tomorrow the iraqi government would fall and there would be civil war there would be no stability that is pretty much garenteed, and after the civil war there would be some taleban style government which seized power which would only bring america back....
whateva happen iraqs gonna be fuck up for a long time.
Man, your still doing the same thing. The 4th branch of the government, the media, is trying to project this fear onto American's that if America leaves their will be somekind of civil war in Iraq and their will be a "Taliban style government". Your just gettin used over and over like a 2 dollar whore. They are doing the same thing to you that they did in the run-up to the Iraq war. They projected fear onto the public claiming that Sadaam was a loose cannon with all these nuclear weapons and ties to terrorists and that he was some kind of immenent threat. SADDAM WAS NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT, OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO BEING AN IMMINENT THREAT.
Once again, your buying into the media line and your forgetting the reality. The reality is, #1. There already is a civil war in Iraq, and the reason for the civil war, the so-called "insurgents", and all the mayhem, is a result of the American occupation of Iraq, bottom line; they are the leading cause of violence in Iraq; so if they leave, you will lose the major cause of violence in Iraq. #2. So what if a Taliban style government takes over Iraq?
........They've programmed false fear into you, there is no imminent threat, and no emerging threat, American's are afraid of some bird flu disease right now, Americans are afraid of their own next door nieghbors, so they will be afraid of anything the media tells them to fear. Please tell me you get it.
-
Just because someone thinks different then you why do you always assume you are the correct one Abdul-Infinite?
You just did that with Don RIzzle. "O Don reflects some of the same views as the media, which are not what I beilive, therefore he is being influenced by the media" You ever thought that people just might feel differntly then you, yet still have valid points? I generally don't agree with a lot of things you say, but I just don't dismiss it as if your opinion dosn't mean shit. You're right, there are too many people affected by the media; just because other people reflect some of these views, dosn't mean they're automatically brainwashed.
-
first off i never supported the war on the grounds iraq was a threat i supported it for humanitarian reason saddam was an evil man who supressed 60 % of his people and iraq had turned into a failed state so there was a case for regime change, but they way it was bought about was not the best route it should have been done under a UN mandate.
second we've seen what happens before when u just up and leave, the soviets did it in afganistan and the governement which was formed then they harboured terrorists, these insurgents are not the people who shud be running iraq, neither should it be the americans. they shud have a national government which is representitive of its different communities. stop trying to pre-empt what i'm thinking because u obviously don't have a clue.
-
first off i never supported the war on the grounds iraq was a threat i supported it for humanitarian reason saddam was an evil man who supressed 60 % of his people and iraq had turned into a failed state so there was a case for regime change, but they way it was bought about was not the best route it should have been done under a UN mandate.
second we've seen what happens before when u just up and leave, the soviets did it in afganistan and the governement which was formed then they harboured terrorists, these insurgents are not the people who shud be running iraq, neither should it be the americans. they shud have a national government which is representitive of its different communities. stop trying to pre-empt what i'm thinking because u obviously don't have a clue.
You just did it again! You keep doing it. Everything you say is a product of the media, and I can prove it to you.
The very fact that you used the word "insurgents" proves that you are a product of the media. The 4th branch of the government, the media, is very careful about what terms they popularize. The word "insurgents" was probably not even in your vocabulary before the war, and you probably would not have thought to use it on your own to describe the Iraqi resistance movement. Because the term "insurgents" is a false term to begin with.
The definition of insurgent is someone who rises against an established authority. You just said that you thought that the actions should have been carried out by the UN, the UN did not santion the war in Iraq, the occupation of Iraq is an illegal operation. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the current stooges in Iraq do not represent an established authority. If you agree that the occupation was done illegally then you have to agree that the government there is not legitimate. "Insurgent" is related to the word "Insurrection" which means act or an instance of open revolt against a civil authority or a constituted government.[/i] But bear in mind that the media was coining this phrase long before the puppet government was even in place, or they had even started on the constitution. The word "insurgent" is an obvious attempt to paint a picture that resistance fighters in Iraq are trying to derail something that is good, established, and credible, and in the benefit of Iraq and the World Community.
Can you not see this? Please tell me you are getting it? You don't have to be scared your whole life and live in fear of everyone and everything. You don't have to be programmed to fear every non-white human being who isn't willing to carry out the orders of the white masters.
-
lol whether u view the war was legal or not whats done is done! iraqis voted in their government which has legitimised it, they even ratified a constitution hence they are an established authority, so yes they are insurgents.
-
So because the American foriegners (immigrants) entered Iraq by force that makes them better, and makes their cause noble?
No, it means that we in the West are stupid as hell for letting millions and millions of third world immigrants into our countries.
Do you really think an Arab country would allow millions and millions of poor white Christians to move in and become citizens? Hell no. But we in the west are importing our own destruction by allowing millions and millions of Muslims who detest our culture into our countries.
What have we gotten from our immigration policies??? Planes flown into skyscrapers in New York, subway systems blown up in London, buses bombed in Madrid, filmakers assasinated in Denmark, and riots in Paris. I SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Calm down monkey and eat your banana in the corner.
-
lol whether u view the war was legal or not whats done is done! iraqis voted in their government which has legitimised it, they even ratified a constitution hence they are an established authority, so yes they are insurgents.
They were referred to as insurgents before any new government/constitution.