Posted on 03/03/2003 2:46:58 AM PST by HAL9000
As I understand, Baghdad regime could be supportive of secular left wing radical/terrorist organisations like some factions of Palestinian movement or in Lebanon. But Saudi/Wahhabi terrorists like those in Chechnya or around Bin Laden are rather hostile to Saddam Hussein. (US went to Kuweit to protect Kuweitis and Saudis from secular BAATHists). Same with Shiite radicals like Hezbollah - they are Iran related. (Iraq and Iran waged long and bloody war).
You see, there are very different parties in the Middle East and you cannot throw them all in one bag. Same as you cannot put European conservatives, social-democrats, communists and fascists into one category.
Interestingly enough in the last war in Yugoslavia - Saudies were supportive (together with most of NATO) toward KLA. Iran had/has its Shiite clients in Bosnia while socialist Baghdad gave support to socialist Belgrade.
Don't flatter yourself, Beck. You're no 'pragmatic realist.'
You're a no-hoper, who's too up himself to give credit and respect where it has been clearly earned. The poster A. Pole has shown you just how important JPII was in the fight against communism, but you and Robert still bluster on. The props have been kicked out from under your BS, but you shrug it off, somehow thinking that vehemence can substitute for fact. How liberal an attitude is that?
What a load of unadulterated crap.
It really has been a sad meltdown, the way you have thrown away the respect you once had here by pushing this kind of nuttiness, Bob.
only folks with an agenda deny the connection.
You choose the idiocy of this last papal blunder over the reality of worldwide islamic terrorism. You have that right. I honor that... but think you would be better off to go jump in the lake... because you are wrong.
and byron:
I HAVE never had any credibilty here.. so losing what I do not have, is rather painless. You think much like pole... and that is just fine. ALL islamofascists are in bed together whether you choose to play the ostrich or the eagle... and the pope has kissed up to the evil doers of islam WAY too much for MY Personal taste.... I do not take your ranting personally. Glad you care enough to argue...
BUT YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.. and will deny it, EVEN AFTER we have proof of the money transfers to the 9-11 perpetrators from Sadaams regime.
When it comes out that money and technology were used from IRAQ AND IRAN to bomb our buildings... YOU will say it is manufactured evidence... you probably believe the jews and the cia did 9-11, just to start this war with Islam, or some such drivel as well... you are wrong if you think that as well.
I am sorry you both seem to depricate the value of Jewish victims of terrorists paid by sadaam, osami and iran... and wahhibis out of sa are part and parcel of that same gigantic BAG of islamofascism. THat you cannot see that, I do not understand... maybe its' those rose-coloured glasses of yours.
and don't take it personally... because I don't. I really BELIEVE that you are seriously deluded ON THIS MATTER... just as you do me...
Well, clearly you can. Sigh.
I am sorry you both seem to depricate the value of Jewish victims of terrorists paid by sadaam, osami and iran... and wahhibis out of sa are part and parcel of that same gigantic BAG of islamofascism. THat you cannot see that, I do not understand... maybe its' those rose-coloured glasses of yours.
It seems to me that you think with your emotions. You have a special place in your heart reserved for all Middle Eastern villains and so you see them as one big bag of "islamofascism". But this is not the way to conduct policy or to win or to understand what is going on.
There are many theories about who killed JFK - maybe Mafia, maybe Castro, maybe men from military-industrial complex, etc ... It could be anybody but to insist that all the usual suspects needed to plot the murder together is not sensible, even if it is very satisfying.
and don't take it personally... because I don't. I really BELIEVE that you are seriously deluded ON THIS MATTER... just as you do me.
Do not worry, I also do not take it personally.
Isn't the pope supposed to have threatened to go to Poland and stand with the Poles if the Soviets invaded in the early 80s? He's no anti-American or appeaser. He's widely credited with being the force - along with Reagan and Thatcher -- that brought down Soviet Communism and the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe.
Maybe the pope remembers that CONTAINMENT destroyed the Soviets. We didn't invade them - - the way freepers want Iraq invaded - - but we defeated them through military pressure. Was Reagan a "surrender monkey appeaser" because he didn't invade the Soviet Union? The pope may see more clearly than folks here that disarming Iraq through military pressure should be tried before invading a country that hasn't attacked us.
ALSO, REMEMBER THAT THE POPE WAS SHOT BY A MIDDLE-EASTERN TERRORIST BEFORE YOU START SAYING HE'S AN APPEASER OR KNOWS NOTHING OF TERRORISM OUT OF THAT REGION!!!!!!!!!
If not, why aren't you calling for an invasion of North Korea - - - Is Bush a surrender monkey for not invading North Korea? I don't think so. I also think you can oppose invading Iraq without being a surrender monkey.
The double standard of freepers on this question is amazing.
Excuse me? If this degenerates into a mid-eastern conflagration, or Saddam lobs missiles at Israel - Israel will "benefit"?
You sound like Buchanan who says we're fighting this war for Israel. Bush hasn't said that. One can favor containment of Iraq without being an antisemite, just as one can favor containment of North Korea (as opposed to invasion) without being racist against, say, the Japanese (ie neighbors who might gaine if North Korea were liberated).
That's anti-catholic propaganda. Why were priests and nuns thrown in concentration camps, if the church was friendly to Hitler? Why did Golda Meir thank the church? Why did the chief rabbi of Rome convert to Roman Catholicism in thanks?
That's anti-catholic propaganda.
Neville Chamberlain did not control Hitler. Is that anti-Catholic propaganda or is that a fact?
Nobody controlled Hitler. We, the United States, had to destroy him. My point is that a speech by the Pope will not control Saddam either. Whatever he says, however good a man he is, however much truth his Church contains, it is not a worldly instrument that can control megalomaniac dictators bent on using WMD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.