PDA

View Full Version : Betcha' we won't see this on in the NYTimes


dude1394
05-10-2004, 07:41 PM
High morale in the new Iraqi Army

That according to Iraqi blogger Mohammed, who relates a conversation he had with a male relative. The unnamed relative had been a draftee in Saddam's army, where graft and corruption were rampant and soldiers were treated as chattel. But now,

The most important thing is that this army has no retards or illiterate in it like the old one. Now education is an essential requirement when applying to serve in the new army and anyone who hasn’t finished high school at least has no place there. In fact most of the volunteers are college and technical institutes graduates.

Everything is new, no more worn out dirty uniforms that only God knows how many people used before you, and they never minded about the size. This time they took our sizes and handed each one of us a new elegant uniform that’s worthy of an officer! It was a common scene, you know, that soldiers wander near their halls in their underwear after training hours. Some of them did that because they didn’t have much to wear when they wash their uniforms, but the majority did it out of custom. Now this is unacceptable, and everyone received a nice comfortable suit to wear after the training hours. ...

My relative’s face was glowing as he continued, "you can’t imagine how much valued we are and how much our religion and traditions are respected. When we pass by a mosque, the officer in charge shouts “no talk” until we pass the mosque by a considerable distance, and when one of the officers enters our hall, if he sees that one of us is praying he remains silent and order us to keep quite until our comrade finishes his prayer.

For the first time in my life, I feel I’m somebody. I’m not a trash as Saddam and his gang tried to make me believe” as he finished his last words his voice went faint as if he was chocking. I felt his pain and tried to change the course of our talk, “how much do you get paid” I asked, “Oh, pretty much, more than enough, thank God” “and what about your meals” I added and he said with a smile, “Oh you won’t believe it. Everything that we couldn’t get in our own homes before and that we only saw when the officers in the old army made a feast to honor a guest! I mean we have everything; meat is essential in every meal, vegetables, fruits apples and bananas. It’s still unbelievable to many of us!” ...

A frown crossed his face as he said "I remember when they used to train us at the most hot hours of the day for hours without allowing us to rest for a while under a shade or drink any water, and when we get almost killed by thirst, we would be forced to drink from the dirty contaminated ditch water. Now we don’t even drink tap water! Each one of us gets more than enough an amount of that healthy bottled water everyday”

To some people this may mean little if anything, but my relative looked at it as something huge, and indeed, before the war, drinking bottled water was really a luxury that a very small percentage of Iraqis could afford. In my house we used to boil the tap water and cool it before drinking it, because we knew it was not safe and we couldn’t afford buying bottled water everyday.

"I feel I’m somebody now. I’m respected and get all what most people get. Do you believe that they threw one of the Iraqi officers out of the army because he used us to do him personal services, like carrying his bags, and when we complained about his behavior, they told him “ Do you see any of us, American officers use our soldiers? You can go home. You still have the mentality of the old regime and you can’t fit in this new army!” imagine that! They listen to our complains, we the soldiers, and bring us justice even if it involved the higher ranked officers. This had never happened in the old army."

Read the whole thing.

Iraqi Soldier (http://www.donaldsensing.com/)

FishForLunch
05-10-2004, 10:47 PM
Cant you see it must the CIA planting Fake Stories, nothing good happens in Iraq, the Main Stream Media says so.

FishForLunch
05-10-2004, 10:47 PM

FishForLunch
05-10-2004, 11:19 PM
http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/05-10-04.jpg

FishForLunch
05-11-2004, 09:56 AM
http://www.drudgereport.com/iiraq.jpg

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE OF A DIGITAL CAMERA: SOLDIER AS HERO TO FREED IRAQIS
Mon May 10 2004 23:09:13 ET

Here's an image you will not see in the NEW YORKER or on 60 MINUTES:

An American soldier welcomed as a hero in Iraq!

As the world's satellites and printing presses await fresh images of troop horrors and abuse, soldiers on the ground e-mailed this snap of warm greetings from some of Iraq's women and children.

u2sarajevo
05-11-2004, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/05-10-04.jpgYes, 9/11 was horrible but to try to justify the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees by saying it's not as bad as what happened to us is pathetic and sorry.

That cartoon is misguided.

FishForLunch
05-11-2004, 10:12 AM
Sorry but these tactic were used to get information, may the best way would have been to send these Iraqi detainees who planted IED's or shot our troops to Jordon or Egypt to get all the information we can to save soldiers lives.

FishForLunch
05-11-2004, 10:14 AM
The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed

By Laurie Mylroie
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 11, 2004

Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student."


That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at Germany’s Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a “Hamburg student.” The discovery of the notation in al-Ani’s appointment calendar about a meeting with a “Hamburg student” provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim.



Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport.

The Iraqi Plot against Radio Free Europe

Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the Czechs were closely watching the Iraqi embassy. Al-Ani’s predecessor had defected to Britain in late 1998, and the Czechs (along with the British and Americans) learned that Baghdad had instructed him to bomb Radio Free Europe, headquartered in Prague, after RFE had begun a Radio Free Iraq service earlier that year.

On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence (known as BIS), observed al-Ani meet with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Another informant in the Arab community reported that the man was a visiting student from Hamburg and that he was potentially dangerous.


The Czech Foreign Ministry demanded an explanation for al-Ani’s rendezvous with the Arab student from the head of the Iraqi mission in Prague. When no satisfactory account was forthcoming, the Czechs declared al-Ani persona non grata, and he was expelled from the Czech Republic on April 22, 2001.


Hyman Komineck was then Deputy Foreign Minister and had earlier headed the Czech Foreign Ministry’s Middle East Department. Now Prague’s ambassador to the United Nations, Komineck explained in June 2002, “He didn’t know [what al-Ani was up to.] He just didn’t know.” As Komineck told the Times of London in October 2001, "It is not a common thing for an Iraqi diplomat to meet a student from a neighboring country."

Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who had observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and told the BIS he believed that Atta was the man he had seen meeting with al-Ani. On September 14, BIS informed its CIA liaison that they had tentatively identified Atta as al-Ani’s contact.

So Many Errors: the Clinton Years

Opinion polls show that most Americans still believe Iraq had substantial ties to al Qaeda and even that it was involved in 9/11. Yet among the “elite,” there is tremendous opposition to this notion. A simple explanation exists for this dichotomy. The public is not personally vested in this issue, but the elite certainly are.

America’s leading lights, including those in government responsible for dealing with terrorism and with Iraq, made a mammoth blunder. They failed to recognize that starting with the first assault on New York’s World Trade Center, Iraq was working with Islamic militants to attack the United States. This failure left the country vulnerable on September 11, 2001. Many of those who made this professional error cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it; perhaps, they cannot even recognize it. They mock whomever presents information tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks; discredit that information; and assert there is “no evidence.” What they do not do is discuss in a rational way the significance of the information that is presented. I myself have experienced this many times, including in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, when as I responded to a Commissioner’s question, a fellow panelist repeatedly interrupted, screeching “That is not evidence,” even as C-SPAN broadcast the event to the entire country.

Former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke is a prime example of this phenomenon. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, when President Bush asked him to look into the possibility of Iraq’s involvement, Clarke was “incredulous” (his word), treating the idea as if it were one of the most ridiculous things he had ever heard. On September 18, when Deputy National Security Adviser Steven Hadley asked him to take another look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, Clarke responded in a similar fashion.

Yet as we know now, thanks to Epstein’s work, Czech intelligence at that point had already informed their CIA liaison that they had tentatively identified Mohammed Atta as the Arab whom al-Ani had met on April 8, 2001.

Evidence is “something that indicates,” according to Webster’s. Proof is “conclusive demonstration.” The report of a well-regarded allied intelligence service that a 9/11 hijacker appeared to have met with an Iraqi intelligence agent a few months before the attacks is certainly evidence of an Iraqi connection.

Clarke’s adamant refusal to even consider the possibility of an Iraqi role in the 9/11 attacks represents an enormous blunder committed by the Clinton administration. Following the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, senior officials in New York FBI, the lead investigative agency, believed that Iraq was involved. When Clinton launched a cruise missile attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters in June 1993, saying publicly that the strike was punishment for Saddam’s attempt to kill former President Bush when he visited Kuwait in April, Clinton believed that the attack would also take care of the terrorism in New York, if New York FBI was correct. It would deter Saddam from all future acts of terrorism.

Indeed, Clarke claims the strike did just that. The Clinton administration, Clarke explains in Against All Enemies, also sent “a very clear message through diplomatic channels to the Iraqis saying, ‘If you do any terrorism against the United States again, it won't just be Iraqi intelligence headquarters, it'll be your whole government.' It was a very chilling message. And apparently it worked.”

But if the entire 1991 Gulf War did not deter Saddam for long, why should one cruise missile strike accomplish that aim? Indeed, the Iraqi plot against Radio Free Europe—the existence of which is confirmed by RFE officials—is clear demonstration that the June 1993 cruise missile strike did not permanently deter Saddam.

Bush 41: A War Left Unfinished

The claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11 is also strongly opposed by some senior figures in Bush 41. They include former National Security Council Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, who wrote in the summer of 2002, “There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks carries serious implications for judgments about the way that Bush 41 ended the 1991 war. As will be recalled, after 100 hours of a ground war, with Saddam still in power and Republican Guard units escaping across the Euphrates, Bush called for a cease-fire. Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pushed for that decision, and Scowcroft backed him, although it was totally unnecessary, and many Arab members of the coalition were astounded at the decision.

To err is human. And if one errs, one should correct the mistake and move on. The prevailing ethos, however, is quite different, even when serious national security issues are involved. Extraordinarily rare is a figure like Dick Cheney, who as Secretary of Defense, supported the decision to end the 1991 war with Saddam still in power, but after the 9/11 attacks was prepared to recognize the evidence suggesting an Iraqi role in those attacks and memorably remarked that it was rare in history to be able to correct a mistake like that.

Why we are at war: Iraq’s Involvement in 9/11

Never before in this country’s history has a president ordered American soldiers into battle, without fully explaining why they are asked to risk life and limb. One would never know from the administration’s public stance that senior officials, including the President, believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Iraq was indeed involved in those assaults. There is considerable information to that effect, described in this piece and elsewhere. They include Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public.

We are now engaged in the most difficult military conflict this country has fought in thirty years. Even before the fiasco at Abu Ghraib became widely known, both the American public and international opinion were increasingly skeptical of U.S. war aims.

In taking on and eliminating the Iraqi regime, Bush corrected a policy blunder of historic proportions. His decision for war was both courageous and necessary. Now, he needs to make it clear just why that decision was made.

Laurie Mylroie was adviser on Iraq to the 1992 campaign of Bill Clinton and is the author of Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department tried to Stop the War on Terror. (HarperCollins) She can be reached through www.benadorassociates.com.

Mavdog
05-11-2004, 12:02 PM
Yeah, this linkage of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks will not be seen in the NYTimes because it is BS. It is very telling that the only shread of evidence is a since dismissed encounter between an Iraqi diplomat/spy and an arabic man who some speculated was Atta.

This is all one has to support the Iraqi-9/11 connection? As they say here in Texas, "That dog won't hunt..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq link to Sept 11 attack and anthrax is ruled out
By Peter Green in Prague
(Filed: 18/12/2001)

THE case for widening the war on terrorism against Iraq suffered a major setback yesterday when a vital piece of evidence allegedly linking Baghdad to the September 11 attacks appeared unfounded.

Czech police said yesterday they had no evidence that the ringleader of the suicide attacks, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague earlier this year. Administration hardliners in Washington had cited the alleged meeting in support of their argument that Saddam Hussein's regime had been backing terrorism.

The story emerged as the White House announced that the anthrax attacks that swept America probably originated from a domestic source. It had been suggested that the bacillus had originated in an Iraqi biological weapons lab.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said: "There is nothing that has been final, that has been concluded. But the evidence is increasingly looking like it was a domestic source."

The story of Atta's possible link to Iraq first surfaced in Czech and US newspapers and later appeared to be confirmed by the interior minister, Stanislav Gross. In a briefing to journalists two months ago, Mr Gross said the Czech counter-intelligence service, the BIS, had evidence of a meeting in April this year between Atta and an Iraqi spy, Ahmed al-Ani, who was working as consul at the Prague embassy.

But yesterday Jiri Kolar, the police chief, said there were no documents showing that Atta visited Prague at any time this year, although he had visited twice in 2000.

Atta could have entered the country using false papers, but Mr Gross questioned why Atta would do so when he was not a wanted man. "I don't see any reason for him to visit under a false name," he said. "He was 'legal' when he was in Germany."

The true story of any Prague connection appears to be much less definite than Mr Gross first suggested. The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, who has access to papers of the counter-intelligence service, said earlier this month that it was only "70 per cent" certain that Atta had met the Iraqi spy in Prague.

It had been assumed that the information on the April meeting came from BIS agents trailing an Iraqi spy, something that is common in Nato states such as the Czech Republic. But Mr Havel said the report of the meeting came "from an informer who followed this Iraqi spy", rather than a BIS staff member.

Other Nato states, including Britain - which is known to be lukewarm about the idea of attacking Iraq during the next round of the war on terrorism - have questioned accounts of Baghdad's possible involvement in the September 11 attacks.

On a visit to Prague last month, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in the attacks. "I must emphasise that we do not have any proof of Baghdad's participation in the attacks on New York and Washington," he told a Czech newspaper.

In recent days, there have been suggestions in the Czech press that another Mohammed Atta had visited Prague this year. A man of the same name did arrive in the Czech capital in 2001, an intelligence source told a Czech newspaper, but it was not the Egyptian terrorist.

"He didn't have the same identity card number, there was a great difference in their ages, their nationalities didn't match, basically nothing. It was someone else," an unidentified interior ministry official told the newspaper Mlada Fronta Dnes.

A police spokesman, Major Ivana Zelenakova, said Atta the hijacker had been in Prague, but a year before the alleged meeting with al-Ani. Atta's two confirmed visits in 2000 took place a few days apart, in May and June. On both occasions, Atta's entry was logged by Czech police. "What exactly he did here during that time, we do not know," she said.

According to the FBI, Atta left the US for several days in early April this year for Europe. Credit card records indicate that he bought a knife at Zurich airport and show him returning to Florida a few days later.

His alleged contact, the Iraqi consul al-Ani, was expelled from Prague soon after the alleged Atta meeting for "conduct incompatible with his diplomatic duties". The Czechs suspected that al-Ani was a spy because he was noticeably absent from all diplomatic functions. "He was paid for performing some duties, and he had no diplomatic duties, so we checked, we found and we acted," said a senior Czech official.

One long-time member of Prague's Arab community, a businessman who prefers to be known only as Hassan, said that he was a close friend of the Iraqi and that he believed the Czechs had mistaken another man for Atta.

Hassan said a man he knew only as Saleh, a used car dealer from Nuremburg, often came to Prague to meet al-Ani and sold him at least one car. "I have sat with the two of them at least twice. The double is an Iraqi who has met with the consul. If someone saw a photo of Atta he might easily mistake the two," Hassan said.

Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/18/wirq18.xml)

madape
05-11-2004, 12:57 PM
What about Saddam's funding of terror suicide bombers in Palestine? What about him launching scud missles at Tel-Aviv unprovoked? Are you willing to dismiss these crimes as well? Or does the term terrorist only apply to groups that attack US? Other western-style democracies that get targeted by the Islamic terror movement don't count? Shit man. wake up.

Saddam was willing to use terror to exterminate Jews. He was willing to use it to exterminate you. It was only a matter of time. Now we don't have to worry about that shit anymore.

reeds
05-11-2004, 01:04 PM
"Saddam was willing to use terror to exterminate Jews. He was willing to use it to exterminate you. It was only a matter of time. Now we don't have to worry about that shit anymore"

So basically what you are saying is if we hadnt decided to invade IRAQ- Saddam would have exterminated us??? PLEASE- tell me you are joking?? I thought your big bad President was so strong on Defense? How could Saddam have exterminated us??PLEASE, I would luv to hear your answer...
Now we dont have to worry about that shit anymore- Thank you Mr. Bush..I wasnt able to sleep the past five years worrying about Saddam and Iraq....OMG...Bush does have a way of brainwashing people..that much is true

kg_veteran
05-11-2004, 01:10 PM
Saddam would have exterminated us??? PLEASE- tell me you are joking?? I thought your big bad President was so strong on Defense? How could Saddam have exterminated us??PLEASE, I would luv to hear your answer...

You apparently have difficulty with the concept of what terrorism IS. Thankfully, Bush doesn't have your nonchalant "it could never happen to us" attitude. He KNOWS that it could happen to us. In fact, it did.

As for your comment about "your big bad President", he's yours too, clown.


Now we dont have to worry about that shit anymore- Thank you Mr. Bush..I wasnt able to sleep the past five years worrying about Saddam and Iraq....OMG...Bush does have a way of brainwashing people..that much is true

I'm sure that the families of those that died on 9/11 appreciate your flippant attitude. They probably didn't think much about terrorists before that day, either.

You really just don't get it.

Mavdog
05-11-2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by: madape
What about Saddam's funding of terror suicide bombers in Palestine?

True, he did give the families of bombers money, is this the rationale for attacking? If it is, should we then apply the same to all those who support the palestinian suicide bombers? we would need to attack Saudi Arabia if that were the case...

Again, this has nothing to do with 9-11 does it?


What about him launching scud missles at Tel-Aviv unprovoked?

If I recall those were launched during the first gulf war weren't they? when Iraq was at war? they didn't just come out of the blue.


Are you willing to dismiss these crimes as well? Or does the term terrorist only apply to groups that attack US? Other western-style democracies that get targeted by the Islamic terror movement don't count? Shit man. wake up.

The point of my post was to emphasize there is NO connection validated between the attacks of 9-11 and Iraq. I certainly don't dismiss Saddams transgressions, yet also cannot justify an invasion of Iraq based on it being a response to 9-11 and a part of the "war on terror". If you do associate Iraq with the war on terror it is you who needs to "wake up".


Saddam was willing to use terror to exterminate Jews. He was willing to use it to exterminate you. It was only a matter of time. Now we don't have to worry about that shit anymore.

He was a despot and a tyrant, He was not a part of the radical Islamist movement we call al Queda. And yes we do still have to worry about "that shit" because by removing Saddam we have not made the Islamist threat disappear or be weaker. Two differnt enemies...

Epitome22
05-11-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Sorry but these tactic were used to get information,

Bullshit, these "tactics" were used as a means for degenerate members of our military to relieve their boredom at the expense of the dignity and humanity of others. Even if they were "tactics" used to gather "information" they are absolutely unacceptable. Even the President of the United States could tell you thank and I'm thankful that he does. I'm frankly appalled at your practical condonement of such despicable acts on the basis that they are either A: notas bad as what Saddam might do (I'm sure he was just gathering information too huh?) B: aren't as bad as the tragedy of 9/11 and therefor not worth serious attention, C: the attitude that even admitting that these acts are despicable, they were somehow neccessary to gather information and save "our" troops lives right? better them than us I suppose eh? torturing them is perfectly justifiable if it hypothetically might aid in saving troops lives correct?

I think I recall you saying something about being a first generation immigrant here from another country. Well then perhaps you should do a little bit of reading in our law books and constiutional documents so that you might better grasp what WE feel us unacceptable behavior from Americans. I'm sure the President himself could give you a brief tutorial.

reeds
05-11-2004, 04:33 PM
"I'm sure that the families of those that died on 9/11 appreciate your flippant attitude. They probably didn't think much about terrorists before that day, either.

You really just don't get it."

NO KG- your really DONT get it! Those 9/11 families do NOT- I repeat, DO NOT have Sadaam to blame..in fact, the group responsible for 9-11 is more pissed off now since we invaded Iraq than they were before 9-11..it will only get worse..who doesnt get it?

FishForLunch
05-11-2004, 04:56 PM
I think I recall you saying something about being a first generation immigrant here from another country. Well then perhaps you should do a little bit of reading in our law books and constiutional documents so that you might better grasp what WE feel us unacceptable behavior from Americans. I'm sure the President himself could give you a brief tutorial.

I have not seen people who hate their own country this much, Nice to see you pulled my statement out of context. I was refereing to the fat SOB Tub Kennedy

reeds
05-11-2004, 07:01 PM
I know who you were referring to Fish, the statement goes for Kennedy also. Contrary to your beleives, Kennedy does NOT hate this country..he hates some of the things this country does..

and before you say it- I realize Kennedy was no angel..

Didnt George W. get a drunk driving ticket? Hmmm..he could have killed someone while driving drunk..u never know...tisk tisk Mr. Bush

MavKikiNYC
05-11-2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by: Epitome22

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Sorry but these tactic were used to get information,

Bullshit, these "tactics" were used as a means for degenerate members of our military to relieve their boredom at the expense of the dignity and humanity of others. Even if they were "tactics" used to gather "information" they are absolutely unacceptable. Even the President of the United States could tell you thank and I'm thankful that he does. I'm frankly appalled at your practical condonement of such despicable acts on the basis that they are either A: notas bad as what Saddam might do (I'm sure he was just gathering information too huh?) B: aren't as bad as the tragedy of 9/11 and therefor not worth serious attention, C: the attitude that even admitting that these acts are despicable, they were somehow neccessary to gather information and save "our" troops lives right? better them than us I suppose eh? torturing them is perfectly justifiable if it hypothetically might aid in saving troops lives correct?

I think I recall you saying something about being a first generation immigrant here from another country. Well then perhaps you should do a little bit of reading in our law books and constiutional documents so that you might better grasp what WE feel us unacceptable behavior from Americans. I'm sure the President himself could give you a brief tutorial.


I'm wondering if this post came before or after the airing of the video clip showing Islamic terrorists murdering an American civilian, slitting his throat and severing his head while his hands were tied behind his back. Talk about an indelible image.

So American soldiers pull some Iraqi prisoners' panties down and take naughty pictures. (Welcome to a Chelsea Saturday Night, Camel Jockey.) And the over-wrought American left shrieks in shame and disgust--for once I vaugely agree with them. The people responsible should be prosecuted and punished.

But their actions IN NO PHUKKIN' WAY delegitimize American presence or objectives in Iraq, and they certainly don't equate to Hussein's pathological history, or the history of the sub-human Islamics who attacked the United States 2.5 short years ago, or the absolutely Animal impulses of the hijos de coños who have attacked and murdered American civilians. and desecrate their remains.

May they, their mothers and their sub-animal offspring die slow and painful deaths onlly to find that their sick version of Allah is a painful, bitter, empty lie. Today, Islam and Allah were shamed indelibly.

FishForLunch
05-11-2004, 07:10 PM
Was Bush responsible for manslaughter? Sure I believe Kennedy goes not hate the country and Sky is green. I am sure he just hates our evil administration and I bet he prefers Saddam to Bush.