0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 08:16 am
A hit in the top five of the Dr. Demento show for weeks now . . . sung to the tune of The Lion Sleeps Tonight . . .

Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe

We'll fight the Axis of Evil, bring it on!

Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe

We'll pump the oil 'til the fossil fuels are gone

Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe
Shock and Awe

In the White House, the Whitey White House
The Liar sleeps tonight
In the Mideast, the oily Mideast
The terrorists we'll fight . . .


I'll refrain from posting the rest . . . after all, Mr. Whitekeys & The Fabulous Spamtones want you to buy their CD . . .
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 08:21 am
This what Bush has wrought. Victory is within whose grasp?
INSURGENCY

In Western Iraq, Fundamentalists Hold U.S. at Bay

By JOHN F. BURNS and ERIK ECKHOLM

Published: August 29, 2004

AGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 28 - While American troops have been battling Islamic militants to an uncertain outcome in Najaf, the Shiite holy city, events in two Sunni Muslim cities that stand astride the crucial western approaches to Baghdad have moved significantly against American plans to build a secular democracy in Iraq.
Both of the cities, Falluja and Ramadi, and much of Anbar Province, are now controlled by fundamentalist militias, with American troops confined mainly to heavily protected forts on the desert's edge. What little influence the Americans have is asserted through wary forays in armored vehicles, and by laser-guided bombs that obliterate enemy safe houses identified by scouts who penetrate militant ranks. Even bombing raids appear to strengthen the fundamentalists, who blame the Americans for scores of civilian deaths.

American efforts to build a government structure around former Baath Party stalwarts - officials of Saddam Hussein's army, police force and bureaucracy who were willing to work with the United States - have collapsed. Instead, the former Hussein loyalists, under threat of beheadings, kidnappings and humiliation, have mostly resigned or defected to the fundamentalists, or been killed. Enforcers for the old government, including former Republican Guard officers, have put themselves in the service of fundamentalist clerics they once tortured at Abu Ghraib.

In the past three weeks, three former Hussein loyalists appointed to important posts in Falluja and Ramadi have been eliminated by the militants and their Baathist allies. The chief of a battalion of the American-trained Iraqi National Guard in Falluja was beheaded by the militants, prompting the disintegration of guard forces in the city. The Anbar governor was forced to resign after his three sons were kidnapped. The third official, the provincial police chief in Ramadi, was lured to his arrest by American marines after three assassination attempts led him to secretly defect to the rebel cause.

The national guard commander and the governor were both forced into humiliating confessions, denouncing themselves as "traitors" on videotapes that sell in the Falluja marketplace for 50 cents. The tapes show masked men ending the guard commander's halting monologue, toppling him to the ground, and sawing off his head, to the accompaniment of recorded Koranic chants ordaining death for those who "make war upon Allah." The governor is shown with a photograph of himself with an American officer, sobbing as he repents working with the "infidel Americans," then being rewarded with a weeping reunion with his sons.

In another taped sequence available in the Falluja market, a mustached man identifying himself as an Egyptian is shown kneeling in a flowered shirt, confessing that he "worked as a spy for the Americans," planting electronic "chips" used for setting targets in American bombing raids. The man says he was paid $150 for each chip laid, then he, too, is tackled to the ground by masked guards while a third masked man, a burly figure who proclaims himself a dispenser of Islamic justice, pulls a 12-inch knife from a scabbard, grabs the Egyptian by the scalp, and severs his head.

The situation across Anbar represents the latest reversal for the First Marine Expeditionary Force, which sought to assert control with a spring offensive in Falluja and Ramadi that incurred some of the heaviest American casualties of the war, and a far heavier toll, in the hundreds, among Falluja's resistance fighters and civilians. The offensive ended, mortifyingly for the marines, in a decision to pull back from both cities and entrust American hopes to the former Baathists.

The American rationale was that military victory would come only by flattening the two cities, and that the better course lay in handing important government positions to former loyalists of the ousted government, who would work, over time, to wrest control from the Islamic militants who had emerged from the shadows to build strongholds there. The culmination of that approach came with the recruitment of the so-called Falluja Brigade, led by a former Army general under Mr. Hussein, and composed of a motley assembly of former Iraqi soldiers and insurgents, who marched into the city in early May, wearing old Iraqi military uniforms, backed with American-supplied weapons and money.


More
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 08:23 am
Joe Nation wrote:
It is also a fact that the majority Justices voting for the stoppage had been previously longstanding and outspoken opponents of Federal interference in States affairs, but for some reason (none expressed in the opinion) they felt impelled to intervene in the Florida case. Odd. And btw never repeated by any of them since.

"State's affairs"? That's a curious description for a State's attempt to alter the course of a Federal Election, isn't it? Set aside your motivation for a moment and it should become clearer. Idea
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 08:26 am
Constituionally, the Federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter of how states count electoral votes, apart from assuring the Voting Rights Act is applied.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 08:37 am
The second paragraph of Article II, Section 1 reads:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The third paragraph of this section was superceded by the XIIth amendment, ratified in June, 1805, which reads, in part:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

The portions of that amendment which i have not posted here are not concerned with the process of choosing electors in the several states. There was no constitutional authority and no precedent for the interference of the Supremes in Florida in 2000, and a strong argument could be made that interferring in that State's certification of the vote is a violation of paragraph two, Section 1, Article II. Obviously, people disagree on this matter--it is clear, however, that the constitution regards this as a state's affair.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 08:45 am
Setanta wrote:
The second paragraph of Article II, Section 1 reads:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The third paragraph of this section was superceded by the XIIth amendment, ratified in June, 1805, which reads, in part:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

The portions of that amendment which i have not posted here are not concerned with the process of choosing electors in the several states. There was no constitutional authority and no precedent for the interference of the Supremes in Florida in 2000, and a strong argument could be made that interferring in that State's certification of the vote is a violation of paragraph two, Section 1, Article II. Obviously, people disagree on this matter--it is clear, however, that the constitution regards this as a state's affair.


State government actions must be in compliance with the Constiution.

The USSC's role in government is to interpret the Consttituion.

In Bush v. Gore, 7 of 9 Justices found "Constitutional problems with the FLSC order re: recounts.

5 of 9 Justices found one of those problems to be violation of the Equal Protection provision of the Federal Constitution.

For that reason they remanded the case back to the FLSC for resolution not inconsistent with their ruling.

Case closed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 08:54 am
No, your case is not closed. There is no mention in the constitution of the Supremes having any role in interpreting the constitution. That is an authority based upon precedential custom arising from Mr. Justice Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison. You have quoted the relevant portion of the constitution which i posted, and attempted to claim that somehow the case against a state determining how electoral votes are counted is closed, despite the specific text: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Therefore, a state clearly follows the constitution in directing the manner in which electors are appointed. You have no case for asserting that the Supremes have authority in this matter from the constitution. Their authority is based, at a stretch, upon the claims made by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. There are literally hundreds of legal and constitutional scholars in this country who would assert that the Supremes have no such authority, and who would consider your claims ludicrous.

Before you post statements about the constitution, it would help if you read it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 09:07 am
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.


This is the entire statement of the authority and jurisdiction of the Court in Article III, Section 2 of the constitution. The portion which i have emphasized was superceded by the XIth amendement, ratified in February, 1795, and which reads in full:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The authority to interpret the constitution rests upon Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion written for the ruling in Marbury v. Madison. You will note (if you have sufficient reading comprehension skills, which your previous post brings into doubt) that even that authority cannot be considered absolute, as the conclusing phrase of the second paragraph of this section makes clear--". . . with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

You really ought not to make authoritative statements about the constitution when your authority to make them is not established, and your statements are contradicted by the text of the constitution itself.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 09:09 am
Setanta wrote:
Obviously, people disagree on this matter--it is clear, however, that the constitution regards this as a state's affair.

I lack the time, desire (and probably the ability :wink: ) to argue the legal stuff with you Set. However, it is actually quite clear that the Supreme Court disagreed with your assessment. And, they are the Supreme Court.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 09:13 am
Yes, O'Bill, and in the sentence of mine which you quote, i have acknowledged the unsettled controversy of that action by the Supremes. Do me a favor, will you, and spare me the vacuous emoticons--if i thought you lacked expressive or comprehensive ability, i wouldn't bother to exchange posts with you. That the Supremes ruled in the matter, and that they ruled in the manner which they did, is not prima facia evidence that they have the authority to do so. Certainly, a majority the members of the Court as it is now composed believed as much. That belief is not universal among legal and constitutional scholars.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 10:11 am
Setanta wrote:
Constituionally, the Federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter of how states count electoral votes, apart from assuring the Voting Rights Act is applied.


Will it be necessary, do you think, to arrange for UN invigilators/ assessors to be sent to Florida during the next election, to ensure the fairness of the voting process?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 10:16 am
It's a nice thought, McT, however, it is impractical. In another thread, i wrote: "American democracy, all the votes that are fit to be counted."
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 11:01 am
Setanta wrote:
No, your case is not closed. There is no mention in the constitution of the Supremes having any role in interpreting the constitution. That is an authority based upon precedential custom arising from Mr. Justice Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison. You have quoted the relevant portion of the constitution which i posted, and attempted to claim that somehow the case against a state determining how electoral votes are counted is closed, despite the specific text: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Therefore, a state clearly follows the constitution in directing the manner in which electors are appointed. You have no case for asserting that the Supremes have authority in this matter from the constitution. Their authority is based, at a stretch, upon the claims made by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. There are literally hundreds of legal and constitutional scholars in this country who would assert that the Supremes have no such authority, and who would consider your claims ludicrous.

Before you post statements about the constitution, it would help if you read it.


Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the LEGISLATURE thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Yup, and the Florida Legislature did just that.

You will note it says nothing about the judicial branch of a state dictating the manner of selecting electors.

And the USSC did NOT change any law in Florida that would constitute interference with the provision of the Constitution cited.

As I said, case closed.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 11:42 am
Larry434 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
No, your case is not closed. There is no mention in the constitution of the Supremes having any role in interpreting the constitution. That is an authority based upon precedential custom arising from Mr. Justice Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison. You have quoted the relevant portion of the constitution which i posted, and attempted to claim that somehow the case against a state determining how electoral votes are counted is closed, despite the specific text: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Therefore, a state clearly follows the constitution in directing the manner in which electors are appointed. You have no case for asserting that the Supremes have authority in this matter from the constitution. Their authority is based, at a stretch, upon the claims made by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. There are literally hundreds of legal and constitutional scholars in this country who would assert that the Supremes have no such authority, and who would consider your claims ludicrous.

Before you post statements about the constitution, it would help if you read it.


Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the LEGISLATURE thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


Yup, and the Florida Legislature did just that.

You will note it says nothing about the judicial branch of a state dictating the manner of selecting electors.

And the USSC did NOT change any law in Florida that would constitute interference with the provision of the Constitution cited.

As I said, case closed.






Print This Story E-mail This Story

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Election-Lawsuit.html

Quietly Florida Admits 2000 Election Fraud
By The Associated Press
April 26, 2002 | Filed at 10:17 p.m. ET

MIAMI (AP) -- A federal judge has approved a settlement between Leon County and civil rights groups that sued over widespread voting problems in the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

The state and six other counties remain in the case brought by the NAACP and four other groups who sued in a dispute that grew out of the long-uncertain results of Florida's vote for president.

"There was nothing they were seeking that was impossible to achieve," Ion Sancho, Leon County supervisor of elections, said Friday. "I've been a proponent of settlement from the moment the lawsuit was filed."

Thomasina Williams, one of the attorneys for voters, said settlement talks are under way with other counties, and she was optimistic that some will follow Leon's move. Trial is set for Aug. 26.

State lawmakers changed election laws in response to complaints after the 2000 election, but critics said the changes didn't go far enough.

In the biggest departure from current procedures, Leon agreed to give a written explanation to voters whose ballots are rejected. The idea to make that a state standard was discarded by the Legislature.

The groups that sued agreed that the settlement "achieves some if not all of the relief" they could have obtained at trial, according to the court order dropping Leon from the lawsuit last week.

The county agreed to address disputes over voting, voter registration and voting lists and will meet with community groups to boost registration, with special efforts targeting minorities and college students. Sancho said he was doing all of that before.

Many voters said their votes didn't count or they were turned away from polls due to mistakes on voter lists, busy telephone lines at election headquarters, punch-card voting machine foul-ups and other problems.

Statewide, the largest numbers of voting problems were found in precincts with high proportions of black and elderly voters.

Under the settlement, both sides will work to restore voters who were wrongly removed from voters lists in the 2000 election. Many law-abiding voters across the state said their names were dropped because they were mistakenly pegged as ex-cons, who generally aren't allowed to vote in Florida.

The county also agreed to improve communication and training for staffers who work on election day.

Leon County includes the state capital of Tallahassee.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Print This Story E-mail This Story



© : t r u t h o u t 2002

What have you to say about election fraud!?!
Case ignored.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 12:39 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a different perspective with their head up their ass. Somewhat more appropriate don't you think?
Laughing

That's true too! If you find that more appropriate, then you should continue to maintain that posture. However, in the off-chance you may in future prefer to seek more light, come join me at 45,000 feet. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 01:12 pm
Setanta (emphasis added) wrote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

...

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


ALSO:

Amendment XIV (1868)
Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Congress did enforce the providions of this article by, among other things, passage of the federal law which prohibits changing the rules of a specific federal election after that specific federal election has been held.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 01:35 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
...

Quote:
Quietly Florida Admits 2000 Election Fraud
By The Associated Press
April 26, 2002 | Filed at 10:17 p.m. ET

MIAMI (AP) -- A federal judge has approved a settlement between Leon County and civil rights groups that sued over widespread voting problems in the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

The state and six other counties remain in the case brought by the NAACP and four other groups who sued in a dispute that grew out of the long-uncertain results of Florida's vote for president.

"There was nothing they were seeking that was impossible to achieve," Ion Sancho, Leon County supervisor of elections, said Friday. "I've been a proponent of settlement from the moment the lawsuit was filed."

Thomasina Williams, one of the attorneys for voters, said settlement talks are under way with other counties, and she was optimistic that some will follow Leon's move. Trial is set for Aug. 26.

State lawmakers changed election laws in response to complaints after the 2000 election, but critics said the changes didn't go far enough.

In the biggest departure from current procedures, Leon agreed to give a written explanation to voters whose ballots are rejected. The idea to make that a state standard was discarded by the Legislature.

The groups that sued agreed that the settlement "achieves some if not all of the relief" they could have obtained at trial, according to the court order dropping Leon from the lawsuit last week.

The county agreed to address disputes over voting, voter registration and voting lists and will meet with community groups to boost registration, with special efforts targeting minorities and college students. Sancho said he was doing all of that before.

Many voters said their votes didn't count or they were turned away from polls due to mistakes on voter lists, busy telephone lines at election headquarters, punch-card voting machine foul-ups and other problems.

Statewide, the largest numbers of voting problems were found in precincts with high proportions of black and elderly voters.

Under the settlement, both sides will work to restore voters who were wrongly removed from voters lists in the 2000 election. Many law-abiding voters across the state said their names were dropped because they were mistakenly pegged as ex-cons, who generally aren't allowed to vote in Florida.

The county also agreed to improve communication and training for staffers who work on election day.

Leon County includes the state capital of Tallahassee.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
...

© : t r u t h o u t 2002


What have you to say about election fraud!?!
Case ignored.


Now you've finally got it! Don't blame the US Supremes for directing the Florida Supremes to stop an additional federal vote re-count that would follow rules other than those specified by the Florida Legislature prior to that same federal vote.

Blame the real culprits, the people in Florida who turned voters away from the polls on the grounds they were not legally registered. Who were these people? They were the people who managed the polling places in Florida in those counties wherein the polls were managed by registered democrats. Sad, but true.

Sorry about that! No legal re-count could legally take into account the votes of voters turned away from the polls.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 01:47 pm
McTag wrote:
This thread is entitled "The US, the UN and the Iraqis themselves" and in my view is not improved by wrangling about US domestic politics.

However, as far as foreign policy goes, if Kerry takes over this is most definitely an "I wouldn't like to start from here" problem. Bush would be handing him a crock of sh1t. American foreign policy is in its worst state for 100 years, probably ever.

This week, we learn that Karl Rove has told Michael Howard, the conservative leader in Britain, not to come to America because of his opposition to Tony Blair. Just as a small example.


McTag, thanks for your response (such as it is).

OK then! What is your recommendation for how shall this "crock of sh1t" you referred to be rectified?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 03:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a different perspective with their head up their ass. Somewhat more appropriate don't you think?
Laughing

That's true too! If you find that more appropriate, then you should continue to maintain that posture. However, in the off-chance you may in future prefer to seek more light, come join me at 45,000 feet. :wink:


Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2004 04:58 pm
HERE'S A REMINDER OF OSAMA'S 1998 FATWA

Osama (emphasis added) wrote:
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Quote:
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."


Do you still think there was no "connection" between Saddam and Osama? Based on this and much other evidence, I think they were virtually "in bed together".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 09:06:15