Jump to content
Islamic Forum
kellygreen

Muslims On Gawaher Are Definitely Anti-u.s.

Recommended Posts

In my short time here, one thing has stuck out like a sore thumb. It's the members of gawaher. They are rabidly anti U.S. No matter what, they will work their spin to turn anything into a 'Bash The U.S. ' party. But at the same time, Russia, China, Syria... they get a free pass. They can do anything and no one makes a peep about it. There are more posts in the 'Islam and dogs' thread than there are in the 'Russian troops on the ground in Syria' thread. Doesn't that seem 'odd' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Which gawaher member justified the Russia, China, Syria killings (if any)? Here the members are anti-Us for it's killing of innocent civilians. I am yet to see someone giving free pass to Russia, China, Syria massacres.

 

There are greater number of posts in 'Islam and dogs' thread because the members know more about this than the 'Russian troops on the ground in Syria' thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I am not anti US, I have many American friends, and I know more, muslims and none musilms .. we get along just fine :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I am not anti US, I have many American friends, and I know more, muslims and none musilms .. we get along just fine :)

 

I will also say the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why there are more US threads/posts compared to Russia or China because there are more US members here compared to Russian or Chinese so the discussions usually involve Americans and America. Plus add to the fact that the US has been invading and intervening almost everywhere in the Muslim world so obviously we are going to speak against it. It's also not so much being "anti-US", its more of 'anti-US foreign policy'.

 

I could also say, kellygreen, that you are rabidly anti-Islam. I'm sure you oppose Shariah and its implementation, you would not want a Caliphate to be re-established in the Muslim world and you prefer israel instead of Palestine so you are rabidly anti-Islam and anti-Muslim. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would also say the same thing.,.,. , am not anti us as such but if anyone is doing something wrong i dont think any one would like to support , be it in any part of the world .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members here are not supporting the regime in Syria so I don't know where you got that from - there are many posts here which highlight the oppressive nature of the Syrian regime. As for China and Russia they barely ever come up as topics here. I am anti american when it comes to a lot of their foreign policies. You are also very anti Islam which is clear from many of your posts. I have met many nice american people who also oppose a lot of the policies the american government support does that make them anti-american?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not anti America. have met quite a few lovely Americans. Just wish everybody could love everybody. I dont like their government though but I dont like mine either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that Syria gets a free pass. It has been condemned on this site before. Countries such as Russia, China, Syria are worse than the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my short time here, one thing has stuck out like a sore thumb. It's the members of gawaher. They are rabidly anti U.S. No matter what, they will work their spin to turn anything into a 'Bash The U.S. ' party. But at the same time, Russia, China, Syria... they get a free pass. They can do anything and no one makes a peep about it. There are more posts in the 'Islam and dogs' thread than there are in the 'Russian troops on the ground in Syria' thread. Doesn't that seem 'odd' ?

 

To return to the original post: yes that was partially my experience on this forum. It's not so much a matter of the anti-US feelings I think, but rather one of a concentrated hatred which, frightningly appeared to verge on such extremism as to justify so-called terrorist acts and the support for dictatorships. I have in fact suggested that this is actually an extremist website, supported by the so-called IF guardians, especially since we are talking of, what seems to be a perceived war here.

 

Suddenly, now I see that forum members admit to having American 'friends'! Obviously I think this looks great, on the surface. But is it true?

 

Now I'll tell you about my subjective experience of Americans. They are, I think , generally arrogant, ignorant and often aggressive and big-headed. As a country their foreign policy reflects those characteristics. However, I still tend to believe that at heart many of them often mean well, although there are very defiantely many extremists amongst them. I can understand why they are universally hated in the world as a whole, in general. They, however cannot comprehend this.

In spite of what I've said, I have a great affection for some of the 'radical' Americans of the sixties, who were and remain, open minded and totally tolerant and loving souls, most certainly not comitted to 'Mother America'.

 

I have however, fallen out with what might be termed 'mainstream Islam', since it seems to be actually quite agressive and warlike, nowadays I think. I wonder how much of this is down to Bin Laden's and others, master plans?

There are some, however, who do not go along with the herd (however large) but will not challenge them - like Buddhists, in the main, who believe in the true path of submission and the ultimate triumph of enlightenment.

 

Regards,

 

ron (- I'll talk to anybody - Shirt)

 

Regards,

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me i'm against the US adminstration un-justified actions, while it's ok with the American people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SaracenSoldier posted: ..." Plus add to the fact that the US has been invading and intervening almost everywhere in the Muslim world so obviously we are going to speak against it. It's also not so much being "anti-US", its more of 'anti-US foreign policy'."

 

Hey, Sarcen..... America has been "invading and intervening" since long before you and I were born. "Remamber the Main" started the Spanish-American war. We had, by then, taken on the Moors (who were Muslims), invaded Mexico to get southern California, invaded Canada during the war of 1812, and killed many of our own neighbors during the Civil War. I clearly remember US troops going into several Central American countries, and, of course, that major Caribbean Power, Grenada! It's only in recent times that we began to go after Islamic countries, and even you must recognize that what happened on 9/11 is a major motivational factor in that decision. I know this may sound, to you, like blaming a rape victim for bringing on the attack by putting on make-up and wearing a pretty dress, but bin Laden DID bring down the wrath of this country on "you all!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

I am anti-American when it comes to the government, but have nothing against its people, no matter how ignorant or extremist they may be.

 

As for Syria, just do a search on Gawaher and you'd see multiple threads highlighting the abuses of the Syrian regime.

 

For other places of conflict, I would agree that there deserves to be more threads, but that doesn't mean Muslims are not aware of the injustices that occur in Sheeshan (Chechnya), Kashmir, or the Xinjiang province.

You notice that threads start when the mainstream media covers them, and they rarely do so on the above mentioned areas. But it doesn't mean Muslims are not aware. The information is already out there.

 

To return to the original post: yes that was partially my experience on this forum. It's not so much a matter of the anti-US feelings I think, but rather one of a concentrated hatred which, frightningly appeared to verge on such extremism as to justify so-called terrorist acts and the support for dictatorships.

 

Are you suggesting that the US has not had its hands dirty, literally with the lives and blood of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc?

 

When a US drone falls on a village where ordinary Muslims live, you are bound to have feelings of hatred.

 

Hey, Sarcen..... America has been "invading and intervening" since long before you and I were born. "Remamber the Main" started the Spanish-American war. We had, by then, taken on the Moors (who were Muslims), invaded Mexico to get southern California, invaded Canada during the war of 1812, and killed many of our own neighbors during the Civil War. I clearly remember US troops going into several Central American countries, and, of course, that major Caribbean Power, Grenada! It's only in recent times that we began to go after Islamic countries, and even you must recognize that what happened on 9/11 is a major motivational factor in that decision. I know this may sound, to you, like blaming a rape victim for bringing on the attack by putting on make-up and wearing a pretty dress, but bin Laden DID bring down the wrath of this country on "you all!"

 

Thank you for the history lesson. I might add you forgot to mention that before 9/11, the US gave loads of American taxpayer money to the state of israel to shed Palestinian blood. The US bombed and killed Iraqi women and children since the early 1990s. The US funded the mujahiddin in Afghanistan since the 80s, and now it calls them terrorists. The US supported dictatorships like Mubarak and others, and only opposed them if they refused to do business with your government, or refused to sell you oil.

 

If it is wrath you talk about, now you know how the Muslims feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it is what it is. Embrace your anti-Americanism if that's how you really feel. But own up to it. A quick search through years worth of previous threads on this site easily confirms this. Just look at the 'Russian troops on the ground in Syria' thread. Replace 'Russia' with 'U.S.' and what do you think that thread would look like ? I'll tell you... a total 'DIE U.S.' BASH-A-THON !!!

Edited by kellygreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably won't believe me, FreedSlave, but I agree with your comments about my country. I'm ashamed by what we have done, and was only explaining the reasons, not agreeing with them. If you want to read what I have published about the US government, go to the website of the organization run by my only son, Will, who is the Executive director of New Hampshire Peace Action. I'd post a link, but the odd rules of this Forum won't let me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am posting here the article I wrote that sets out my views on recent actions by the US government.

 

Have we totally lost our moral compass?

It began with 9/11, of course, a jarring and horrible enough event to start any ship's compass spinning. But those at the helm are supposed to know how to steer the ship of state anyway, and we now know that Bush and Cheney just didn't care. First there were the lies that got us into Iraq, and then the decision to use torture, and the moral compass of this country was left spinning wildly. Legal scholars across America, from former war crimes chief prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz tosuch “liberals” as Professor Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark voiced the opinion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. But that, and the related outrage of many around the world, did nothing to deter the Bush Administration from invading Iraq anyway, and then deciding on the use of waterboarding, which was clearly also a violation of international law, and for which practice we had hanged several Japanese after World War II. We now know that the Bush gang obtained the infamous Bybee “Torture Memos” from a submissive assistant AG to justify whatever they wanted to do to get information from captured al Qaeda operatives. But soon after they came into power, the Obama Administration repudiated such policies, giving hope to those of us who are committed to the rule of law that government would resume a safe and normal course. The failure to prosecute anybody involved in any prior war crimes, however, should have raised a warning flag. Indeed, the decision, just last fall, by somebody in the United States Government to assassinate a sixteen year old American boy, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, son of Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American is being justified by attorneys for the current administration as being perfectly legal. I join other attorneys in my conviction that that killing was NOT legal!

A little legal history may be helpful. While history records many political assassinations, going back at least to Alexander the Great's father and Julius Caesar, the issue of the legality of such killings by a government under international law was not really raised until the nineteenth century. Significantly, no accepted rule was ever developed or adopted, and the question of whether any specific killing is legal must be decided by reference to the laws of the state that kills, and the state where the killing takes place. The most widely reported political assassinations have been by the israeli secret service, Mossad, but almost certainly there were many, by both sides, during the Cold War. We have all seen many such violent deaths portrayed in action films like the James Bond movies, probably without even considering any legal issues that might be involved, and only a few such events have ever resulted in local arrests, or even diplomatic complaints. But here in the United States, there is relevant law. As pointed out by The New York Times and many others, we have “an executive order banning assassinations, federal laws against murder and the protections of the Bill of Rights.” Though the original Executive Order, issued by Ronald Reagan in 1982 (No. 12.333) has been modified by the last three Presidents to deal with the War on Terror, it was never expanded to allow the killing of American citizens, either in this country or anywhere else in the world. Legally, the deliberate summary execution of any citizen by any agent of this government is murder. It is just as simple and black and white as the lynching of an accused in custody or a member of a minority by a policeman.

Never-the -less, when it became clear that American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had become a significant al Qaeda operative, responsible for several terrorist incidents directed at America, the Obama administration decided to “get him,” and added him to a “targeted killing list.” His father, Nassar al-Awlaki, also a Us citizen, filed litigation, with the help of the ACLU and others, but his request for an injunction to prevent the assassination of his son was dismissed by a Federal Judge earlier this year. It has since been disclosed that the President had obtained a secret memorandum in June of 2010 that, according to the NY Times “in essence concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed if it was not feasible to capture him.” As with the Bybee memo obtained by the Bush Administration, it was produced by a compliant staff attorney told to find a legal theory to justify killing Anwar al-Awlaki. In fact, on September 30th, a CIA operated drone fired missiles at Anwar,'s car on a road somewhere in Yemen, that did kill him. That killing has provoked some outrage here and around the world. After all, the US government did deprive Anwar of his life, in violation of the plain language of the Fifth Amendment with very little, if any, “due process of law.” The only thing close to due process was the secret memorandum which, by its terms justified only the summary execution of Anwar as a particular, very special case. But the reaction to the President's speech announcing the killing has been muted and largely accepting. Most Americans seem to recognize that what Anwar did and said really does meet our definition of “Traitor.”

Then, two weeks later, Anwar's sixteen year old son, Abdulrahman, was also killed by a drone strike in Yemen. No secret or other memorandum, or any prior legal opinion authorized this killing. Nobody has been able to determine just who did authorize it. The boy, born in Denver in 1995, clearly was a pretty normal American teen, who was in Yemen with his grandparents. He reportedly snuck out and went looking for his father about the time Anwar was killed, but there is absolutely no evidence that he was a militant or had ever been involved with any terrorist activity, or that he wanted to join in his father's evil activities. He reportedly just wanted to see his Dad before he was killed. A close friend has said he loved soccer and video games. When the killing was first announced, Abdulrahman was identified as the 21 year old son of Anwar, and was also labeled a terrorist. Family and friends have established quite clearly that he was only sixteen, and not a terrorist. The Washington Post is reporting that no one in the Administration, or anybody else, will respond to inquiries about the event, but moral outrage is building. Because the authorization to kill his father, Anwar, was so narrowly drawn, unless the son was targeted totally by mistake, the CIA or the military committed murder of an American citizen in the name of “the War on Terror” when he was killed. I have great respect for our President, but remember well his promise during his 2009 inaugural address that under his watch we would “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” The murder of Abdulraham al-Awlaki by my government seems to me proof that we have lost our moral compass completely. My own father was a law school dean who brought me up believing in the vital importance of the rule of law and the oath we both took to become attorneys. Sadly, Barack Obama, too, took that oath. Now I fear he has let the ship of state wander even farther off course than did Bush and Cheney and their henchmen! Am I wrong to fear that this is not change I can believe in?

 

William H. Hopkins

Attorney at Law (Retired)

Charlestown, New Hampshire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

I am anti-American when it comes to the government, but have nothing against its people, no matter how ignorant or extremist they may be.

 

The people elect their government. Remember ?

 

As for Syria, just do a search on Gawaher and you'd see multiple threads highlighting the abuses of the Syrian regime.

 

Not many at all. And most written by kuffars.

 

For other places of conflict, I would agree that there deserves to be more threads, but that doesn't mean Muslims are not aware of the injustices that occur in Sheeshan (Chechnya), Kashmir, or the Xinjiang province.

 

Yeah, but you save your 'energy' for the bash U.S. threads. No one hears a peep of the others. One quick look back on this site EASILY confirms this.

 

Are you suggesting that the US has not had its hands dirty, literally with the lives and blood of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc?

 

The only 'action' I don't condone is iraq. That was a mistake that shouldn't have been made. It's clear that it takes a killer like Sadaam to keep the kooks there under control. But why isn't there any condemnation of the militias, al quada of iraq, and iran ? All are killing many more civilians than the U.S. EVER did. Our ally is israel, just like hezbollah and hamas' ally is iran. Afghanistan could have avoided all this mess by just handing over bin laden. The mistake the U.S. made was staying in afghanistan. We should have killed those that needed killing, and there were/are plenty. Then we should have left. No 'nation-building'. The afghans have proved time and again that they aren't civilized enough to live in the type of world the U.S. was trying to give them. They can't even defend themselves.

As far as pakistan goes, the U.S. has seen exactly what they're about. One hand outstretched for our money, the other holding a knife for our back. Anything bad that happens to them, they deserve. Their skies should be black with drones. The Islamofascists in yemen still have a price to pay for the U.S.S. Cole attack.

 

 

Thank you for the history lesson. I might add you forgot to mention that before 9/11, the US gave loads of American taxpayer money to the state of israel to shed Palestinian blood.

 

And iran gave tons of money to hezbollah, hamas and the p.l.o. to kill Americans. Like the Beirut barracks bombing in '83.

 

The US bombed and killed Iraqi women and children since the early 1990s.

 

First off, the U.S. DOESN'T target civilians like al qada, the taliban and the militias do. If they did, there'd be many more dead afghans. It's unproductive and frankly a waste of ammo. And why did the U.S. bomb iraq 'since the early 1990s ? Because they invaded and raped Kuwait. And again, you don't see any threads that condemn that action. It looks like the plan is to jump all over the kuffar but look the other way when a 'brother' kills and pillages. And did the U.S. get any props for saving Kuwait when the rest of the 'moslem world' sat around with their thumbs up their collective ? NNNAAAHHH !! Same with bosnia. Went over there when no one else did. Saved the moslems from the serbs (while Russia armed Serbia. But Russia gets a pass). And what do you see posted on gawaher ? 'The U.S. waited too long on purpose so more muslims would die before they came to the rescue !! CAN YOU FRIGGIN' BELIEVE IT !! And you wonder why, along with the pakistan double-cross amongst other things, that the American people don't have the most trust in moslems ?

 

The US funded the mujahiddin in Afghanistan since the 80s, and now it calls them terrorists.

 

Remember, the U.S. didn't HAVE TO fund the mujjies. We could have let both the Russians and the mujjies slowly bleed. If it weren't for the U.S. there'd be a lot of Russian speaking afghans by now. But in true ungreatful, back-stabbing fashion ( that we've learned to expect) they turned it around and we got things like the Cole, the 1st W.T.C. bombing, 9/11, the African embassy bombings...

 

The US supported dictatorships like Mubarak and others, and only opposed them if they refused to do business with your government, or refused to sell you oil.

 

We'd MUCH rather support guys like Mubarak than, say the mullahs. Neither is a GOOD choice, but the choice is an easy one to make. Look at egypt now. Who is there for the U.S. to support ? The muslim brotherhood ? Get serious !! The U.S. supports the Democratic process, but that doesn't mean we have to support a creep/party just because they were elected Democraticly. No one 'refused' to sell the U.S. oil. That was tried in the '70's. The arabs quickly learned that it hurt them much more than us. And when the U.S. finally gets a REAL energy policy (after we throw out the socialist Obama) and takes full advantage of the resources it has right here, the arabs and their buddy Chavez will learn that hard lesson again. I hope oil tastes good because they're going to have to eat that stuff or starve. They're a one-trick pony.

 

If it is wrath you talk about, now you know how the Muslims feel.

 

Muslims STILL live a good life in the West. That's why they still flock here, especially to the U.S. Thirteen million illegal aliens can't all be wrong. But when you wear out that welcome, maybe with one more '9/11', then muslims will know 'WRATH'. I hope that day doesn't come, but it looks to be inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. Mr. Sox fan. Let me take this post apart, like the others. :lol:

 

 

I am posting here the article I wrote that sets out my views on recent actions by the US government.

 

Have we totally lost our moral compass?

It began with 9/11, of course, a jarring and horrible enough event to start any ship's compass spinning. But those at the helm are supposed to know how to steer the ship of state anyway, and we now know that Bush and Cheney just didn't care. First there were the lies that got us into Iraq,

 

Contrary to popular belief, WMD's WERE found in Iraq. Plenty of artillery shells filled with blistering agents were dug up. Now most people will say, 'That's not the kind of W.M.D.'s we were looking for, so they don't count.' I say. 'Would you want one of those shells sitting on your mantle at home '? I didn't think so. Then, you can go the 'the Russians ferried the W.M.D.'s out of iraq to the bekka valley to hide the fact that the W.M.D.'s were supplied in most part by Russia' route. A quick GOOGLE of this will yield days worth of 'interesting' reading.

 

and then the decision to use torture, and the moral compass of this country was left spinning wildly. Legal scholars across America, from former war crimes chief prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz tosuch “liberals” as Professor Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark voiced the opinion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. But that, and the related outrage of many around the world, did nothing to deter the Bush Administration from invading Iraq anyway, and then deciding on the use of waterboarding, which was clearly also a violation of international law, and for which practice we had hanged several Japanese after World War II. We now know that the Bush gang obtained the infamous Bybee “Torture Memos” from a submissive assistant AG to justify whatever they wanted to do to get information from captured al Qaeda operatives.

 

And what do you get if you hack several peoples heads of and post the video on the web ? To me, after that, all bets are OFF !! And I'm not into the 'moral highground' B.S. If ripping a mujjies arm off and beating him with it yields actionable info, I say, 'Rip away' !! If dipping bullets into pigs blood gives a psych advantage, 'Dip away' !! Brutal force is what these people understand. Anything less, and you are weak and ripe for the picking. Out in the field when they're running around hacking heads and blowing up girls schools, they're all piss and vinegar. When their gets caught and a dog barks in their face, they scream 'TORTURE' like a .

 

But soon after they came into power, the Obama Administration repudiated such policies, giving hope to those of us who are committed to the rule of law that government would resume a safe and normal course. The failure to prosecute anybody involved in any prior war crimes, however, should have raised a warning flag. Indeed, the decision, just last fall, by somebody in the United States Government to assassinate a sixteen year old American boy, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, son of Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American is being justified by attorneys for the current administration as being perfectly legal. I join other attorneys in my conviction that that killing was NOT legal!

 

Look at who awalki jr. was hanging around with. THAT'S who the Hellfire was for. He just chose to hang with the wrong crowd. His daddys peeps.

 

A little legal history may be helpful. While history records many political assassinations, going back at least to Alexander the Great's father and Julius Caesar, the issue of the legality of such killings by a government under international law was not really raised until the nineteenth century. Significantly, no accepted rule was ever developed or adopted, and the question of whether any specific killing is legal must be decided by reference to the laws of the state that kills, and the state where the killing takes place. The most widely reported political assassinations have been by the israeli secret service, Mossad, but almost certainly there were many, by both sides, during the Cold War. We have all seen many such violent deaths portrayed in action films like the James Bond movies, probably without even considering any legal issues that might be involved, and only a few such events have ever resulted in local arrests, or even diplomatic complaints. But here in the United States, there is relevant law. As pointed out by The New York Times and many others, we have “an executive order banning assassinations, federal laws against murder and the protections of the Bill of Rights.” Though the original Executive Order, issued by Ronald Reagan in 1982 (No. 12.333) has been modified by the last three Presidents to deal with the War on Terror, it was never expanded to allow the killing of American citizens, either in this country or anywhere else in the world. Legally, the deliberate summary execution of any citizen by any agent of this government is murder. It is just as simple and black and white as the lynching of an accused in custody or a member of a minority by a policeman.

 

Again, I'm not into the 'moral highground' argument. F the 'moral high ground'. The enemy here only takes that as a sign of weakness. They laugh at us when we litigate in court whether a dog barking or splashing water on someones face is torture. And I think this WAR (yes, it's a war) is being mistaken for CRIMINAL activity. Get real !!

 

Never-the -less, when it became clear that American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had become a significant al Qaeda operative, responsible for several terrorist incidents directed at America, the Obama administration decided to “get him,” and added him to a “targeted killing list.” His father, Nassar al-Awlaki, also a Us citizen, filed litigation, with the help of the ACLU and others, but his request for an injunction to prevent the assassination of his son was dismissed by a Federal Judge earlier this year. It has since been disclosed that the President had obtained a secret memorandum in June of 2010 that, according to the NY Times “in essence concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed if it was not feasible to capture him.” As with the Bybee memo obtained by the Bush Administration, it was produced by a compliant staff attorney told to find a legal theory to justify killing Anwar al-Awlaki. In fact, on September 30th, a CIA operated drone fired missiles at Anwar,'s car on a road somewhere in Yemen, that did kill him. That killing has provoked some outrage here and around the world. After all, the US government did deprive Anwar of his life, in violation of the plain language of the Fifth Amendment with very little, if any, “due process of law.” The only thing close to due process was the secret memorandum which, by its terms justified only the summary execution of Anwar as a particular, very special case. But the reaction to the President's speech announcing the killing has been muted and largely accepting. Most Americans seem to recognize that what Anwar did and said really does meet our definition of “Traitor.”

Then, two weeks later, Anwar's sixteen year old son, Abdulrahman, was also killed by a drone strike in Yemen. No secret or other memorandum, or any prior legal opinion authorized this killing. Nobody has been able to determine just who did authorize it. The boy, born in Denver in 1995, clearly was a pretty normal American teen, who was in Yemen with his grandparents. He reportedly snuck out and went looking for his father about the time Anwar was killed, but there is absolutely no evidence that he was a militant or had ever been involved with any terrorist activity, or that he wanted to join in his father's evil activities. He reportedly just wanted to see his Dad before he was killed.

 

Again. He WASN'T the target of the strike. But when you hang with bad people, sometimes bad things happen to you. And that's what he was doing, hanging out with his pops' friends when he got hit. Mistakes like that RARELY happen. But if it means saving the lives of some troops who would otherwise have to go in there themselves, I'm all for taking that risk.

 

A close friend has said he loved soccer and video games.

 

So do I. And...?

 

When the killing was first announced, Abdulrahman was identified as the 21 year old son of Anwar, and was also labeled a terrorist. Family and friends have established quite clearly that he was only sixteen, and not a terrorist. The Washington Post is reporting that no one in the Administration, or anybody else, will respond to inquiries about the event, but moral outrage is building. Because the authorization to kill his father, Anwar, was so narrowly drawn, unless the son was targeted totally by mistake, the CIA or the military committed murder of an American citizen in the name of “the War on Terror” when he was killed. I have great respect for our President, but remember well his promise during his 2009 inaugural address that under his watch we would “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” The murder of Abdulraham al-Awlaki by my government seems to me proof that we have lost our moral compass completely. My own father was a law school dean who brought me up believing in the vital importance of the rule of law and the oath we both took to become attorneys.

 

'Unless the son was targeted totally by mistake'. NAAAAHHHH !! That couldn't have happened. The America-hating ACLU, al quada, the taliban and the rest of the Islamofascist groups out there KNOW that the U.S. devouts hours and hours of drone flight time, tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and arms just to follow a 16 year old kid ( one that likes soccer and video games, no less) around and blow him, on purpose, to smithereens. Friggin' PLEASE !!!

 

Sadly, Barack Obama, too, took that oath. Now I fear he has let the ship of state wander even farther off course than did Bush and Cheney and their henchmen! Am I wrong to fear that this is not change I can believe in?

 

 

HAHAHAHAHA !!! How's THAT change working out for ya' ? 'Henchmen' ? Sounds like another unbiased assessment, Mr. Hopkins. NOT !!!

 

William H. Hopkins

Attorney at Law (Retired)

Charlestown, New Hampshire

Edited by kellygreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little sumptin'- sumptin' to get the 'juices' flowing.

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

 

 

 

<a name="7908645484129862689">

Wikileaks Documents:Saddam's WMD Program Existed in Iraq (Note we reported the transfer of WMD's to Lebanon/Syria - at least 5 years ago and ignored

 

 

Wikileaks Documents:Saddam's WMD Program Existed in Iraq

 

 

 

(Note we reported the transfer of WMD's to Lebanon/Syria -

 

at least 5 years ago and ignored by U.K. media)-see end articles

 

 

 

Wikileaks Documents:

 

Saddam's WMD Program Existed in Iraq

 

Source: Jim Kouri, Law Enforcement Examiner

 

October 24th, 2010

 

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/wikileaks-saddam-s-wmd-program-existed-iraq

 

The recent release by WikiLeaks of classified Pentagon documents reveals that US military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction.

 

The latest WikiLeaks document dump reveals that as late as 2008, American troops continued to find WMD in the region.

 

There are numerous mentions of chemical and biological weapons in the WikiLeaks documents, however the US media appear only interested in those portions of the leaked material that highlight actions that are viewed as embarrassing for the US military such as the accusation that US commanders were aware of abuse and "torture" of prisoners by Iraqi soldiers and police officers...

 

WikiLeaks documents don't reveal evidence of a massive weapons program by Saddam Hussein...or some enormous stockpile of WMD, but do reveal that chemical weapons did vanish from the Iraqi battlefield.

 

According to the latest WikiLeaks document "dump," Saddam’s toxic arsenal, significantly reduced after the Gulf War, remained intact. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict and may have brewed up their own deadly agents, according to the WikiLeaks web site.

 

During that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

 

Gen. Sada's comments came just a month after israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria"...

 

During the a battle in Fallujah, American forces claim they discovered a “house with a chemical lab...substances found are similar to ones in lesser quantities located at a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there was a call in another part of the Fallujah requesting "explosives experts to dispose of a chemical [weapons] cache."

 

In addition, an armored vehicle came upon "155mm rounds filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

 

Editor's Note: It cannot be stressed enough that the contention that the primary reason for military intervention by the US in Iraq was not -- repeat, was not -- Saddam Hussein's perceived stockpile of WMD. It was the genocide of the Iraqi Kurds per then President George W. Bush in his speech to the United Nations. In fact, Hussein's WMD programs -- which we now have proof existed -- was fourth in the reasons presented for military intervention: genocide, refusal to return prisoners of war, enabling of terrorists and their organizations, and then refusal to cease WMD development programs and refusal to allow verification of said cessation.

 

 

wmd.jpg

Vindication?: The latest released cache of intelligence documents

by Wikileaks presents proof that bio-chemical weapons of

mass destruction did in fact exist in Iraq upon the US military

intervention in that nation, with personnel finding bio-chemical

weaponry as late as 2008.

 

 

I KNOW. THANK YOU AND YOU'RE WELCOME !! :D

Edited by kellygreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SaracenSoldier posted: ..." Plus add to the fact that the US has been invading and intervening almost everywhere in the Muslim world so obviously we are going to speak against it. It's also not so much being "anti-US", its more of 'anti-US foreign policy'."

 

Hey, Sarcen..... America has been "invading and intervening" since long before you and I were born. "Remamber the Main" started the Spanish-American war. We had, by then, taken on the Moors (who were Muslims), invaded Mexico to get southern California, invaded Canada during the war of 1812, and killed many of our own neighbors during the Civil War. I clearly remember US troops going into several Central American countries, and, of course, that major Caribbean Power, Grenada! It's only in recent times that we began to go after Islamic countries, and even you must recognize that what happened on 9/11 is a major motivational factor in that decision. I know this may sound, to you, like blaming a rape victim for bringing on the attack by putting on make-up and wearing a pretty dress, but bin Laden DID bring down the wrath of this country on "you all!"

 

While I agree that 9/11 was a motivational factor for the War in Afghanistan, however even if we take everything away up till 9/11 and take a look at the time before 9/11 we find American invasions of Iraq and meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries. Like their extreme support of dictators like Mubarak and many others for decades before 9/11. And the million plus people(inc. half a million children) killed in Iraq thanks to America.

 

Watch this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

 

I mean this was waaay before 9/11 so even then my point stands that US foreign policy is wrong and something we all ought to speak out about. Even many Americans are saying the same thing.

 

Like this video made by Americans:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

 

 

There's a really nice quote from Ron Paul who said that don't do to others what you don't want done to yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it is what it is. Embrace your anti-Americanism if that's how you really feel. But own up to it. A quick search through years worth of previous threads on this site easily confirms this. Just look at the 'Russian troops on the ground in Syria' thread. Replace 'Russia' with 'U.S.' and what do you think that thread would look like ? I'll tell you... a total 'DIE U.S.' BASH-A-THON !!!

 

Maybe you should practice what you preach and own up to the fact that you hate Muslims and Islam probably a lot more than you think we hate the US.

 

And iran gave tons of money to hezbollah, hamas and the p.l.o. to kill Americans. Like the Beirut barracks bombing in '83.

 

That's funny. So you have your army stationed in their land and then you complain when they attack you. Don't get me wrong I dislike Hezbollah for other reasons to yours but that's just a silly thing to complain about.

 

First off, the U.S. DOESN'T target civilians

 

Have you forgotten the Iraqi video footage leaked by wikileaks? The 16 years old teenage son of Imam Anwar al Awlaki kiled by a drone attack for no reason(who btw was NOT hanging out with "bad people"? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The medicine factory bombed in Sudan in the 90's? And, boy, the list goes on and on and on.. and on and on and on..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should practice what you preach and own up to the fact that you hate Muslims and Islam probably a lot more than you think we hate the US.

 

 

I don't hate anyone who doesn't hate me. Islam ? Now that may be another story.

 

 

That's funny. So you have your army stationed in their land and then you complain when they attack you. Don't get me wrong I dislike Hezbollah for other reasons to yours but that's just a silly thing to complain about.

 

During the '83 barracks bombing, the U.S. was there under the auspices of NATO on a peacekeeping mission trying to keep the lebanese from killing each other. But our 'friends' iran took their shot..

 

Have you forgotten the Iraqi video footage leaked by wikileaks? The 16 years old teenage son of Imam Anwar al Awlaki kiled by a drone attack for no reason(who btw was NOT hanging out with "bad people"?

 

But you think the taliban AREN'T 'bad people'. My previous post (#18) explains that situation perfectly.

 

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

You're kidding, right ?

 

The medicine factory bombed in Sudan in the 90's? ...

 

What ? Bin ladens' factory ? You mean after the Islamofascists blew up two U.S. embassies ?

 

Edited by kellygreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hate anyone who doesn't hate me. Islam ? Now that may be another story.

 

We Muslims on this forum don't hate anyone who does not hate or kill us. The US foreign policy? Now that's another story.

 

 

During the '83 barracks bombing, the U.S. was there under the auspices of NATO on a peacekeeping mission trying to keep the lebanese from killing each other. But our 'friends' iran took their shot..

 

Call it NATO/UN/Aleins from Mars. Fact is your troops+their soil= not a good mix.

 

 

But you think the taliban AREN'T 'bad people'. My previous post (#18) explains that situation perfectly.

 

There are Taliban in Yemen now? Do you even know what you are saying?

 

From what I read he wasn't with any Al-Qaida militant. Even if he was does that mean you think its an justifiable reason to kill children?

 

 

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

You're kidding, right ?

 

Not really. Lets try this in reverse:

 

Kellygreen: What about 9/11?

 

Me: You're kidding, right?

 

 

Doesn't feel good does it. I'm not defending 9/11 but its quiet surprising that you will probably defend the bombing on Japan.. well it's not surprising at all actually.

 

What ? Bin ladens' factory ?

 

Nope a medicine factory. Just a normal medicine factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call it NATO/UN/Aleins from Mars. Fact is your troops+their soil= not a good mix.

 

Basically, it was iran that pulled the '83 bombing. In lebanon. Not their turf. So it's O.K. to kill U.N. peacekeepers ? They should be happy someone cared.

 

There are Taliban in Yemen now? Do you even know what you are saying?

 

Taliban, no. Al qada, yes. I bought up the taliban only to use as an example of who you think are 'good' people. You DO think the taliban are 'good' guys, right ?

 

From what I read he wasn't with any Al-Qaida militant. Even if he was does that mean you think its an justifiable reason to kill children?

 

He was with his dads buddies. Now who might they be ? The local bowling team ? I think not. Like I said in post 18, do you think the U.S. really expends all those hours of flight time and the tens of thousands of dollars a few Hellfire missiles costs to target a kid ?

 

Doesn't feel good does it. I'm not defending 9/11 but its quiet surprising that you will probably defend the bombing on Japan.. well it's not surprising at all actually.

 

I feel fine and I MOST CERTAINLY will defend the bombing of Japan. An invasion of mainland Japan would have cost millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of Allied lives. Not to mention the added destruction. We saw in places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima how the Japanese had to be pulled out of every hole. They would NEVER have surrendered. It's not in their nature. Japanese soldiers were found on islands years later still 'fighting the war'. Ask the people in China, Korea and the rest of South East Asia if bombing Japan was a 'bad thing'.

 

Nope a medicine factory. Just a normal medicine factory.

 

Some feel it was a bin laden owned joint. Could have been a mistake. I don't know. But see, if you don't harbor terrorists and let them openly plan embassy bombing and train on your soil, you probably won't get a Tomahawk up your butt. They put themselves in a dangerous situation.

Edited by kellygreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. Lets make this easy. In ALL of the posts on this site, has there EVER been ONE PRO-U.S. thread started by a muslim ? Surely, in all these years, the U.S. has done SOMETHING worthy of praise. Good luck finding THAT needle in the HAYSTACK. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×