'The War Is Not Over'

'The War Is Not Over'

There are 276652 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Sep 12, 2006, titled 'The War Is Not Over'. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

WASHINGTON - President Bush led the nation on Monday in marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

Therealnews com

Brooklyn, NY

#286972 Mar 14, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you brother for your kind words.
I had a better sense of humor , but the years I have spent on these Topix Threads, has diluted it much.
Because most of times I hear abuses, insults and curses and this dampens the sense of humor.
Now that phone call, to whom I should make it? And I must not use my Mobile Phone, right?
Because Mobile Phone signals are a "sure shot" sign to trace you for "droning purpose"?
Why should I take the risk?
Things as they are might give me 10 % chances of survival, why should I blow it out?
PS:
And this is not posted with any sense of humor!!
Don't let the insults bother you. Just let it bounce off.

In my country we have a saying: Sticks and Stones can brake your bones but names can never harm me. lol

I think you misinterpreted my post MUQ.

There is no need to drone SA and India because the USA works closely with those countries.

A phone call is all they need to capture a predator and arrest them.

Good Police Work is all I'm saying.

P.S. It is good to have a sense of humor, it helps with your spirit.

And a vacation from topix is refreshing every once in a while. lol
ABs

Aiken, SC

#286973 Mar 14, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
No these images are used to "stereo type" all Muslims in the world. Very few people read that those images were fakes, but most of them "saw" that Muslims world over celebrating 9/11.
And then there was no apology and no one was punished. These things are done with alarming regularity to malign a religion and a community.
Who am I at a personal level? But I belong to the biggest Universal Brotherhood in the world (despite all these problems)!!
So is the answer that you are against ALL injustice or just muslim injustice? And I quote..."O ye who believe, stand out firmly for JUSTICE,as witness to Allah,even if it be against yourself, against your parents, against your relatives, whether it be rich or poor,for Allah Protects both."
Even your sacred book demands you speak out against injustice, yet you refuse to, why is that comrade Muq? Why you not condemn the injustice of the fake palestinian pictures falsely accusing Israel of killing the man's child when in fact it was done by hamas rockets as sharply as you attack jewish false accusations?...I speak out agains ALL injustice, got it comrade MUQ?

You never answered, comrade, were you born into islam or did you submit?
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#286975 Mar 15, 2013
AB s wrote:
So is the answer that you are against ALL injustice or just muslim injustice? And I quote..."O ye who believe, stand out firmly for JUSTICE, as witness to Allah, even if it be against yourself, against your parents, against your relatives, whether it be rich or poor ,f or Allah Protects both."

Even your sacred book demands you speak out against injustice, yet you refuse to, why is that comrade Muq? Why you not condemn the injustice of the fake Palestinian pictures falsely accusing Israel of killing the man's child when in fact it was done by hamas rockets as sharply as you attack jewish false accusations?...I speak out against ALL injustice, got it comrade MUQ?

You never answered, comrade, were you born into islam or did you submit?
Ans.

I am against all injustices, whether it be done by Muslims or Non Muslim.

I do not condone any act of violence done by any one in which any innocent men, women and children is killed.

I do not consider the faith of the person who was killed and the faith of the person who is killing them.

So my condemnation is general. And if any specific case is brought to my notice, I would condemn it.

A Muslim is not allowed to retaliate and kill innocent persons of other community, even if they are persecuted and killed by their enemies.

But what I have seen is that people use "different standards" when it involves killing by people of their Army, Police, and residents of their own country. They try to justify their killings and put the blame on other party.

Their aim is not to condemn killing of innocents, but just to put all the blame on the other side.

This is the type of position I do not tolerate.

PS:

I was born into a Muslim family, if that answers your question.
Democracynow org

Oakdale, NY

#286976 Mar 15, 2013
Dan Rather talks about the corrupt Corporate media
http://tinyurl.com/axcfm88


Noam Chomsky - The Myth of the Liberal Media
http://tinyurl.com/a8lxbyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#286978 Mar 15, 2013
News you will not see or hear on CNN and FOX News

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

Drones and Our National Religion

By David Swanson (Contd.)



Many U.S.ians have avoided knowing that U.S. citizens, including minors, have been targeted and killed, that women and children are on the list of those to be killed, that hundreds of civilian deaths have been documented by serious journalists including victims' names and identities, that U.S. peace activists went to Pakistan and met with victims' families, that the U.S. ambassador in Pakistan said there was a U.S. government count of how many civilians had been killed but he wouldn't say what it was,

that the vast majority of those killed are not important leaders in any organization, that people are targeted and killed without knowing their name, that people are targeted and killed merely for the act of trying to rescue victims of previous strikes, that the wounded outnumber the dead, that the traumatized outnumber the wounded, that the refugees who have fled the drone strikes are over a million, that the drone wars did not replace ground wars but began war making in new nations so destabilized now by the drone strikes that ground wars may develop, that some top U.S. military officials have said the drones are creating more new enemies than they kill, or that what drones are doing to our reputation abroad makes Abu Ghraib look like the fun and games our media pundits said it was.

If our courts killed without trials there would be by definition a risk of killing the innocent. The same should be understood when a president and his flying robots, or missiles, or night raids, kill without trial.

If we were being bombed we would not deem it any more acceptable to kill those who resisted than those who did not. Therefore, the category of "innocent civilian" (as distinct from guilty non-civilian) is suspect at best.
bibleSays

AOL

#286980 Mar 15, 2013
.

Revelation's FALSE PROPHET = Pope of Rome

http://youtu.be/Co9oADUSi08

.
ABs

Atlanta, GA

#286981 Mar 16, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
I am against all injustices, whether it be done by Muslims or Non Muslim.
I do not condone any act of violence done by any one in which any innocent men, women and children is killed.
I do not consider the faith of the person who was killed and the faith of the person who is killing them.
So my condemnation is general. And if any specific case is brought to my notice, I would condemn it.
A Muslim is not allowed to retaliate and kill innocent persons of other community, even if they are persecuted and killed by their enemies.
But what I have seen is that people use "different standards" when it involves killing by people of their Army, Police, and residents of their own country. They try to justify their killings and put the blame on other party.
Their aim is not to condemn killing of innocents, but just to put all the blame on the other side.
This is the type of position I do not tolerate.
PS:
I was born into a Muslim family, if that answers your question.
Now we are getting somewhere, comrade MUQ...nice to hear you shake the shackles off and speak of your own mind and thoughts on occassion. Very nice indeed.
Could not agree more with you...injustice wherever and by whoever should be spoken out against. And I think we can both agree the blame game is not the important thing, but speaking out to try to stop the injustice, now that is what should matter, yes? I think we can also agree that in the eyes of allah if a muslim is not allowed to retaliate then there is certainly no doubt that in today's day and times there are quite a few muslims not living by the islamic standard, yes? Such is the case for so called followers of many other religions as well, do you agree? So what is our alternative in your opinion?
ABs

Atlanta, GA

#286982 Mar 16, 2013
MUQ wrote:
News you will not see or hear on CNN and FOX News
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...
Drones and Our National Religion
By David Swanson (Contd.)
Many U.S.ians have avoided knowing that U.S. citizens, including minors, have been targeted and killed, that women and children are on the list of those to be killed, that hundreds of civilian deaths have been documented by serious journalists including victims' names and identities, that U.S. peace activists went to Pakistan and met with victims' families, that the U.S. ambassador in Pakistan said there was a U.S. government count of how many civilians had been killed but he wouldn't say what it was,
that the vast majority of those killed are not important leaders in any organization, that people are targeted and killed without knowing their name, that people are targeted and killed merely for the act of trying to rescue victims of previous strikes, that the wounded outnumber the dead, that the traumatized outnumber the wounded, that the refugees who have fled the drone strikes are over a million, that the drone wars did not replace ground wars but began war making in new nations so destabilized now by the drone strikes that ground wars may develop, that some top U.S. military officials have said the drones are creating more new enemies than they kill, or that what drones are doing to our reputation abroad makes Abu Ghraib look like the fun and games our media pundits said it was.
If our courts killed without trials there would be by definition a risk of killing the innocent. The same should be understood when a president and his flying robots, or missiles, or night raids, kill without trial.
If we were being bombed we would not deem it any more acceptable to kill those who resisted than those who did not. Therefore, the category of "innocent civilian" (as distinct from guilty non-civilian) is suspect at best.
AND YET the President OBUMBLE lovers are to ignorant to realize that drone killing has EXPLODED under his watch...so much for his election promises of transforming world opinion, eh comrade?
Frank

Oakland, CA

#286983 Mar 16, 2013
Swiss massively back executive pay curbs
http://www.thelocal.ch/page/view/swiss-vote-t...
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#286984 Mar 16, 2013
News you will not see or hear on CNN and FOX News

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

Drones and Our National Religion

By David Swanson(Contd.)

The vast majority of the "worst of the worst" locked away in Guantanamo have been exonerated and freed, something that cannot be done with drone victims. Yet John Brennan, once deemed unacceptable for his role in detention and torture, is now deemed acceptable. The goodness of his murdering evil beings outweighs the badness of his detaining and torturing people who were sometimes misidentified. The dead cannot be misidentified. The president has declared that any unidentified dead male of fighting age was, by definition, a militant. After all, he was killed.

Yet, this we know for certain: He was someone's child. He was someone's loved one. He was someone's friend.

We have a responsibility right now to grow up very, very quickly. Our government is breaking down the rule of law and stripping away our rights in the name of protecting us from an enemy it generates through the same process. Drones are not inevitable. Drones are not in charge of us.

We don't have to fill our local skies with "surveillance" drones and "crowd control" drones. That's a choice that is up to us to make. We don't have to transfer to mindless hunks of metal the heroism heretofore bestowed just as nonsensically on soldiers. There is no excuse for supporting the murder of foreigners in cases in which we would not support the murder of U.S. citizens. There is no excuse for supporting a policy of murdering anyone at all.

There is no excuse for allowing your government to take your son or daughter and give you back a flag. There is no excuse for allowing your government to take someone else's son or daughter. Ever. Anywhere. No matter how scared you are. No matter what oath of loyalty you've robotically pledged to a colored piece of fabric since Kindergarten.

Actual robots can perform the pledge of allegiance as well as any human. They do not, however, have any heart to place their hand over. We should reserve our hearts for actions robots cannot do.

David L. Swanson is an American activist, blogger and author. warisacrime.org
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#286989 Mar 17, 2013
AB s wrote:
1.

01. Now we are getting somewhere, comrade MUQ...nice to hear you shake the shackles off and speak of your own mind and thoughts on occasion. Very nice indeed.

02. Could not agree more with you...injustice wherever and by whoever should be spoken out against. And I think we can both agree the blame game is not the important thing, but speaking out to try to stop the injustice, now that is what should matter, yes?

03. I think we can also agree that in the eyes of Allah if a muslim is not allowed to retaliate then there is certainly no doubt that in today's day and times there are quite a few muslims not living by the islamic standard, yes? Such is the case for so called followers of many other religions as well, do you agree? So what is our alternative in your opinion?

2.

04. AND YET the President OBUMBLE lovers are to ignorant to realize that drone killing has EXPLODED under his watch...so much for his election promises of transforming world opinion, eh comrade?
Ans.

01 & 02. No need to apply "old oil", let us just move on.

03. As per Quran, Muslims "are allowed" to retaliate in equal manner of what harm is done to them (otherwise it would be a "Non natural" law)…… but they should not exceed the harm and if they forgive it would be better (the last line is for people who have high degree of persistence and perseverance)

04. President Obama came to power promising "change" after GWB the Great had done extreme damage to USA both financially and economically.

But he was to "know " that President of USA is not 'as free and as powerful" as people think him to be. He is like a puppet who is being controlled by very powerful puppeteers.

So "nothing" changed in USA, US is still solidly behind Isreal, US army is in Iraq, US army is in Afghanistan, GITMO is there, US is ready to fight Yemen, Iran, Syria…

As if GWB the Great is still ruling USA, so people decided to "re-elect" him for another term.

And in 2016, we will get "another puppet" in White House to dance at the tune of those puppeteers!!(to keep people happy!!)
Pdamerica org

Oakdale, NY

#286991 Mar 17, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
01 & 02. No need to apply "old oil", let us just move on.
03. As per Quran, Muslims "are allowed" to retaliate in equal manner of what harm is done to them (otherwise it would be a "Non natural" law)…… but they should not exceed the harm and if they forgive it would be better (the last line is for people who have high degree of persistence and perseverance)
04. President Obama came to power promising "change" after GWB the Great had done extreme damage to USA both financially and economically.
But he was to "know " that President of USA is not 'as free and as powerful" as people think him to be. He is like a puppet who is being controlled by very powerful puppeteers.
So "nothing" changed in USA, US is still solidly behind Isreal, US army is in Iraq, US army is in Afghanistan, GITMO is there, US is ready to fight Yemen, Iran, Syria…
As if GWB the Great is still ruling USA, so people decided to "re-elect" him for another term.
And in 2016, we will get "another puppet" in White House to dance at the tune of those puppeteers!!(to keep people happy!!)
http://tinyurl.com/yh3xdku
Republicans are Losers

UK

#286993 Mar 18, 2013
mook wrote:
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
...
You must be joking, mook. First off, George W. Bush was so much more imperial than Obama. He demanded the utmost respect, and took pleasure and delight in giving others 'nicknames' which were demeaning and showed Bush's arrogance and 'fratboy' elitism.

And what's this about Reagan and jack-booted thugs? Do you consider DEA agents in full battle dress kicking in the doors of inner-city crack dealers' homes the act of 'jack-booted thugs?' Remember the War on Drugs? Remember "Just Say No?" Reagan loaded the federal prisons with drug criminals.

So you think Michelle Obama, whose relatives were whipped and beaten by white slavemasters, is a little hard on the white folks? Remember, mook, Barack has white relatives, but Michelle's relatives are all ex-slaves or their descendants. I guess you figure the slaves should be thankful their masters fed them at all. Maybe the rich slaveholders should not have bought the slaves in the first place, and just picked the cotton themselves.

mook, you old Nazi racist. Still got that thick German accent? Is old Himmler's portrait on your bedroom wall fading yet?
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#286994 Mar 18, 2013
Rogue Gallery!!– MUQ

10 years on, authors of Iraq invasion stand ‘discredited’

WASHINGTON: They were the men who were to remake the Middle East, but 10 years on, the alliance of politicians and neoconservative thinkers who launched the Iraq war are a discredited band.

1. GEORGE W. BUSH:

As US president and commander-in-chief of American forces, George W Bush bears ultimate responsibility for launching the war to topple Saddam Hussein, an act he perhaps hoped would secure his legacy.

Now 66, and apparently happy to pursue his artistic endeavors in a Texas retirement, the high point of his public life came after the 9/11 attacks when he stood at the ruins of the World Trade Center and defied America’s enemies.

The image of him as a resolute leader with a bullhorn might have lingered longer had he not, two months after the start of the 2003 Iraq war, appeared on the deck of an aircraft carrier under a “Mission Accomplished” banner.

The mission was far from accomplished and Iraq haunted the rest of his presidency, even after his 2004 re-election, bleeding America of men and wealth even as his justifications for the invasion fell apart.

While the Republican leader’s American conservative base largely turned its back on him because of his uncontrolled spending, Iraq ultimately became the main factor discrediting him before a world audience.

2. TONY BLAIR:

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted last month in an interview with the BBC about his support for Bush going into the Iraq war:“I’ve long since given up in trying to persuade people it was the right decision.”

Even more than that of his close US friend, the Labor leader’s entire legacy has been tarnished by a conflict that a majority of Britons opposed even when it was still claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

As the most successful left-wing elected politician in British history, always more popular abroad than at home, Blair had hoped for a rewarding post-office life as a consultant after stepping down in 2007.

He did earn lavish fees from international contacts, and some recognition for his work as a Middle East peace envoy, but public appearances in his homeland are often marred by noisy protest.

While he still insists committing British troops was the right call, the 59-year-old admitted last month that the situation today in a still-violent post-Saddam Iraq is “not nearly what it should be.”

03. DICK CHENEY:

While Blair seems pained that the public won’t accept his justifications for going to war, former US Vice President Dick Cheney shows no sign of having any doubts about the decision to fight.

“If you want to be loved, go be a movie star,” he snorts in a documentary movie due for release entitled “The World According to Dick Cheney” and based around a four-hour interview with the unrepentant 72-year-old hawk.

In Bush’s first term, Cheney wielded vast influence as the gatekeeper to information reaching the Oval Office, but saw his influence wane in the second term when even the president began to question his judgment.

But, according to the film, he still refuses to believe Saddam did not have active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#286995 Mar 18, 2013
contd.

04. DONALD RUMSFELD:

Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld emerged from decades of backroom power politics dating back to Richard Nixon’s White House to become the unexpected star of the 2003 Iraq campaign.

The US press corps fell in love with his often blunt and sardonic briefings, which chimed with the belligerent public mood in the wake of 9/11.

But the needs of the war clashed with his goal when taking over the Pentagon — to cut costs by creating a lightweight, high-tech strike force unsuited to becoming an army of occupation.

As the Iraq campaign unraveled, the force he sent proved unable to contain a mounting insurgency. By 2006, retired generals, apparently speaking for many still in uniform, called Rumsfeld’s war planning “abysmal.”

05. AHMED CHALABI:

Iraqi banker Ahmed Chalabi led the Iraqi National Council, an anti-Saddam exile group. His group is now blamed for having fed the Pentagon much of the false intelligence that once served as the pretext for invasion.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and a group of neoconservative policy-makers and writers hoped Chalabi and the INC might take over Iraq as an interim government after the fall of Saddam, but his group was little-known and little-liked at home.

He settled for a series of lesser government posts in the new Shiite-led government.

In office, he was the one of the main proponents of the “de-Baathification” drive to rid government of alleged Saddam supporters, which alienated Iraq’s

Sunni minority and fueled the revolt against US-led occupation forces. Once the darling of the US administration — he was first lady Laura Bush’s guest at the 2004 State of the Union address — Chalabi has since flirted with US foe Iran and become a fierce critic of US policy in Iraq.

06. PAUL WOLFOWITZ:

According to several insider accounts of Washington policy-making in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz was one of the first to call for an attack on Iraq as well as on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Now a think-tank analyst, the neoconservative has come closer than most to admitting that the public case for war was designed to maximize support for the invasion.

“For reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason,” he said.
Henry

Bleicherode, Germany

#286998 Mar 18, 2013
Spocko wrote:
Gun laws in the US are so f-ing ridicules, it is actually far easier to buy a gun then it is to by a puppy or even cough medicine. Buying a gun in much of America can be as simple as forking over the cash, with no questions asked and no background check. In fact, it is much more of a hassle to buy over the counter medication than it is to purchase a firearm. A small handful of state legislatures are making an effort to change that by pushing for more effective gun laws that will actually do something. Gun laws vary dramatically from state to state, in Texas for example, there is no waiting period and no state gun registration system it is like buying candy. Federal law requires that all licensed firearms dealers (the US has more fire arms dealers than grocery stores) conduct background checks, but the restriction doesn't apply to private sales and gun shows where they are simply ignored. The NRA, which went from a benevolent and useful organization to high powered lobbying machine spreading falsehoods and lies, has been holding the country hostage for many years ...
Well, high profits its all they want!
Henry

Bleicherode, Germany

#287000 Mar 18, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
And don't forget the pink unicorns in black helicopters - yemoron -:/
Irony sometimes wakes even sleepers!
Henry

Bleicherode, Germany

#287001 Mar 18, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to worry, the NRA is on it and have offered shooting squads in lieu of...
Irony does it!
Henry

Bleicherode, Germany

#287002 Mar 18, 2013
UidiotRaceMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
Atlantic Monthly
"The Prison-lndustrial Complex," December 1998
k
California now has the biggest prison system in the Western industrialized world, a system 40 percent bigger than the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The state holds more inmates in its jails and prisons than do France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Singapore, and the Netherlands combined.
What a nice democracy the pilgrime fathers have hedged! in the 20th century!
Henry

Bleicherode, Germany

#287003 Mar 18, 2013
ABs wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to worry, the NRA is on it and have offered shooting squads in lieu of...
This is the glorious USA! Bravo!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Syria believes it's on way to military victory 9 hr just a guy i knew 3
News Bin Laden son-in-law arrested in Jordan is brou... (Mar '13) Sep 21 bldg seven 73
News Will either side blink over North Carolina's Ho... Sep 20 TomInElPaso 1
News Russian Man Sentenced For Fighting Beside Islam... Sep 19 Stephany McDowell 1
News Muslims connect with their Adirondack neighbors... Sep 19 too funny bob 2
News Judge sharply questions defense of Indiana's Sy... Sep 18 Synque 37
News How to Fight Extremism with Atheism Sep 17 P Smith 1
More from around the web