FRIHOSTFORUMSFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Final Stages? Final Outcome?

 


S3nd K3ys
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/06/061206101357.8mjamnal.html



breitbart.com wrote:
Follow God or vanish, Ahmadinejad tells West
Dec 06 5:14 AM US/Eastern

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or "vanish from the face of the earth".

"These oppressive countries are angry with us ... a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.


Quote:
"We hope to have the big nuclear celebration by the end of the year (March 2007)," Ahmadinejad said, echoing comments he has made on numerous occasions in recent months.


Sure sounds to me like he's just about ready to start the real war. Who do you think will get the worst of it? I think, if Iran only does a small attack, he will get wiped out completely before he knows what hits him. If he decides to go all the way and take out any/everything he can all at once, he has a chance of staying around for a little while.

Either way, my money's on Western Civilization over Barbaric Radical Islamic Muslims. (LoL, "filled to the rim, with BRIM")

:edit:

Look at that, 4,000 posts. Very Happy

Thanks firhost!
wumingsden
It's a shame in my opinion that you achieved such an achievement with this kind of post.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Barbaric Radical Islamic Muslim Rolling Eyes
Star Wars Fanatic
It's a shame in my opinion that we have mods like you.

Right there is (some more) proof of Radical Muslims views, just in case we didn't get the clue after they sent the planes into the Twin Towers, or after all the suicide bombers, he is telling us exactly what he means.

I think we need to get someone to assainanate this guy, he clearly has it out for everyone.
wumingsden
Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
It's a shame in my opinion that we have mods like you.


That is exactly that, an opinion Wink
Thankfully, I don't care what people say about me, especially on the net (I'm not that sad). I usually take it as a compliment anyway as it means I'm doing my job as a mod properly, so thank you Laughing

Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
Right there is (some more) proof of Radical Muslims views, just in case we didn't get the clue after they sent the planes into the Twin Towers, or after all the suicide bombers, he is telling us exactly what he means.



Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is stating an opinion, which I think is taken from the Quran (I stay away from all books that teach you only to think one thing).

yes, there are Radical Muslims. I name them terrorists however, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. my point was that if he calls Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "Barbaric Radical Islamic Muslim" what would he call terrorists. Just because he thinks a different way doesn't make him something evil ( Twisted Evil)


Star Wars Fanatic wrote:
I think we need to get someone to assainanate this guy, he clearly has it out for everyone.


And that makes you better than him?

I could give you my opinion on yourself for thinking such a thing, I will however bite my tongue, like usual.
S3nd K3ys
I'm with SWF. What a shame.

He is clearly, as defined by Islamic law, announcing his attacks. Yet those who are the target sleep.

It has also been stated on this board, repeated threats against Americans. Warnings if you will. I have no doubt about the intention here. I have no doubt this BRIM has every intention of sacrificing his entire country if necessary to defeat "civilization". He has made it very clear.

And look, moderator wumingsden is highly offended that I would speak truthfully about that BRIM that's running Iran...

wumingsden wrote:
It's a shame in my opinion that you achieved such an achievement with this kind of post.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Barbaric Radical Islamic Muslim Rolling Eyes


Do you honestly believe he's anything BUT a Barbaric Radical Islamic Muslim?

Then our moderator wumingsden goes on to say

Quote:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is stating an opinion,


When in reality, he is stating intentions and warnings. Repeatedly.

:sigh:

Quote:
I could give you my opinion on yourself for thinking such a thing, I will however bite my tongue, like usual.


Yes, you will again wait on that until you close the thread so you can get the last word in. Wink
wumingsden
I consult at least one staff member before closing a thread, so that decision will not be just mine. You'll be well aware if this thread is locked, so I wouldn't worry Keys. If I really thought that any member was that important for me to insult them in a thread then I'd do it via PM, so again, do not worry.
At the moment it's fairly moderate, that however usually changes in time, hopefully though on this occasion there's a first for everything. So far the only reason why another mod may want this thread to close is how members are "talking to me", but like I stated before I do not care. Therefore, if you want it left open, I suggest you both stop.

So, to the members involved in this thread, can you really compare Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the people that have been part of the terrorist attacks, and come to the conclusion that they are on the same level of evilness.

I'd also like to add that i think it's quite sad that as soon as mulsim people are mentioned, so are terrorist attacks (especially the US ones).

I have first-hand experience from the terror attacks here in the UK, yet do not associate the terrorist attacks with everyday muslims.
ocalhoun
wumingsden wrote:

I'd also like to add that i think it's quite sad that as soon as mulsim people are mentioned, so are terrorist attacks (especially the US ones).

Gee, I wonder why that is...
Perhaps it's because terrorist attacks are what the Muslim people are famous for.
wumingsden
ocalhoun wrote:
wumingsden wrote:

I'd also like to add that i think it's quite sad that as soon as mulsim people are mentioned, so are terrorist attacks (especially the US ones).

Gee, I wonder why that is...
Perhaps it's because terrorist attacks are what the Muslim people are famous for.



.... which is a shame because it's only a small group of people that feel this way.
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
So, to the members involved in this thread, can you really compare Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the people that have been part of the terrorist attacks, and come to the conclusion that they are on the same level of evilness.


That thug says he want's another country "wiped off the map", along with "all of Western Civilizaiton", REPEATEDLY, and has already started attacks via Hesbollah and Hamas and with his militias in Iraq killing dozens of innocent women and children daily while they shop and pray.

He has the blood of thousands on his hands, and he has barely just begun.

Yeah, that's a nice, gentle, kind, civilized leader, isn't it?

:puke:

Quote:
I'd also like to add that i think it's quite sad that as soon as mulsim people are mentioned, so are terrorist attacks (especially the US ones).


You've got it backwards... when terrorism is mentioned, Radical Muslims are brought up. I wonder why?

Quote:
I have first-hand experience from the terror attacks here in the UK, yet do not associate the terrorist attacks with everyday muslims.


So do I. A brother that lived in Pa and my dad lived in NY in Sept 2001. I also have in-laws in England. So unless you've been in a building when it exploded, you're no different than the rest of us. And I put the blame squarely on Radical Islamic Muslims until it is proven otherwise or until Muslims denounce terrorism IN IT'S ENTRIRETY and PROVE it's a Religion of Peace, not a Religion of Peace by the Sword.
ocalhoun
wumingsden wrote:



.... which is a shame because it's only a small group of people that feel this way.

I guess the rest of them should do something to improve their image... Why don't they?
wumingsden
S3nd K3ys wrote:
wumingsden wrote:
So, to the members involved in this thread, can you really compare Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the people that have been part of the terrorist attacks, and come to the conclusion that they are on the same level of evilness.


That thug says he want's another country "wiped off the map", along with "all of Western Civilizaiton", REPEATEDLY, and has already started attacks via Hesbollah and Hamas and with his militias in Iraq killing dozens of innocent women and children daily while they shop and pray.

He has the blood of thousands on his hands, and he has barely just begun.

Yeah, that's a nice, gentle, kind, civilized leader, isn't it?

:puke:


I didn't say he was, but not being nice, gentle, and kind does not make you a Barbaric Radical Islamic Muslim. I also do not know much about him, but I'm almost certain that Bush has more blood on his hands than him or anybody else for that matter.

Quote:
I'd also like to add that i think it's quite sad that as soon as mulsim people are mentioned, so are terrorist attacks (especially the US ones).


S3nd K3ys wrote:
You've got it backwards... when terrorism is mentioned, Radical Muslims are brought up. I wonder why?


Actually, when it concerns you, I haven't. When Islam is mentioned, you have the tendency to mention terrorists.

Quote:
I have first-hand experience from the terror attacks here in the UK, yet do not associate the terrorist attacks with everyday muslims.


S3nd K3ys wrote:
So do I. A brother that lived in Pa and my dad lived in NY in Sept 2001. I also have in-laws in England. So unless you've been in a building when it exploded, you're no different than the rest of us. And I put the blame squarely on Radical Islamic Muslims until it is proven otherwise or until Muslims denounce terrorism IN IT'S ENTRIRETY and PROVE it's a Religion of Peace, not a Religion of Peace by the Sword.


I didn't say first

ocalhoun wrote:
wumingsden wrote:



.... which is a shame because it's only a small group of people that feel this way.

I guess the rest of them should do something to improve their image... Why don't they?


You've never heard a Muslim denounce terror attacks


Last edited by wumingsden on Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
ocalhoun
^Never.
I'm sure there are those who do, but they are the small minority. (With the majority being those who don't care enough about it to denounce it or join it.)
Nice double post, by the way.
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
I didn't say he was


No, you got disgusted when I said he was a Barbaric Radical Islamic Muslim. Which part of that statement is NOT true?

Quote:
I'm almost certain that Bush has more blood on his hands than him or anybody else for that matter.


That statement was a cluster-**** of Biblical proportion!

Laughing

At the very VERY least, take a look back from between the last 10 and 100 years and see what names come up for the most people killed. Once you finish eating THAT crow, just for fun take out those that killed for the betterment of mankind, as in stopping Japan and Germany from trying to conquer the world.

They're still digging up bodies in Iraq. Iran is proving to be largely responsible for much of the violence in Israel and Iraq.

Quote:
I didn't say first


Yes.

You did. You quoted yourself saying it for crying out loud. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

wumingsden wrote:
I have first-hand experience from the terror attacks here in the UK, yet do not associate the terrorist attacks with everyday muslims.


Hello??? Shocked
wumingsden
I orginially typed "I said I have first-hand experience, not second" but I changed it to that, which is wrong.

I don't have any facts on how much people he has killed (if any). Can you find any? I suspect it's Bush still.

@ocalhoun: it's because i'm a slow typer Laughing
Its a shame you see that in your life, rather you don't have many muslim friends or a lot of muslim people where you are from are too afraid to speak up.
I however have a lot of muslim friends, and all of them denounce the actions of all terrorists (whether its supposedly in the name of Allah or not)

Quote:
At the very VERY least, take a look back from between the last 10 and 100 years and see what names come up for the most people killed.


I'd probably end up with Hitler


Edit:

The Iraq Body Count group put the total number of Iraqi civilians dead between 41,744 to 46,668 and the number of police dead at 2,578 (figures obviously disputed) on 15th oct.



In october the lancet medical journal stated that around 655,000 iraqi civilians have died because of the war


Last edited by wumingsden on Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:20 am; edited 1 time in total
ocalhoun
wumingsden wrote:


I'd probably end up with Hitler

So why do you say that President Bush has more blood on his hands than anyone else?
*cough*Bigot*cough*
wumingsden
ocalhoun wrote:
wumingsden wrote:


I'd probably end up with Hitler

So why do you say that President Bush has more blood on his hands than anyone else?
*cough*Bigot*cough*


I didn't think. Now that I've edited my post however it may be Bush, but i'm way too lazy to check out the figures.
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
I orginially typed "I said I have first-hand experience, not second" but I changed it to that, which is wrong.


I see. Thanks for clearing it up. Very Happy

Quote:
I don't have any facts on how much people he has killed (if any). Can you find any? I suspect it's Bush still.


You should look in to how much time effort and money America puts in to reducing civilian casualties. Take a look at statistics from the Iraq war and other wars and see how precise America is when it attacks. It's not often we use large scale destruction methods any more. The same can't be said for the likes of Iran, (i.e. the militias in Iraq, Hesbollah and Hamas) and other Radical Islamics.

Quote:
Quote:
At the very VERY least, take a look back from between the last 10 and 100 years and see what names come up for the most people killed.


I'd probably end up with Hitler


Agreed. But basically ALL the leaders inovlved in any major conflict in the last century has more blood on their hands than Bush. Bush has done more than any other leader to spare civilian life where he thought he could. Ask any US military about the priority given to engagement. Also look at our own soldiers caught being barbaric, they are prosecuted by our own government!

We're such evil terrorists, aren't we?

Body count?

Quote:
The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
15,749

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
141*

*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists)



There's your body count from IraqBodyCount.net. What they don't tell you is WHO killed those civilians. Rolling Eyes


Last edited by S3nd K3ys on Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:27 am; edited 2 times in total
horseatingweeds
During the 9-11 attacks I was going to school part time in Dearborn Michigan, which has the highest concentration of Arabs ( I assume most are Moslem) in the US.

After word I heard stories (rumors) of Arabs celebrating the attacks. What I did se first hand, however, was Arabs talking about how the Jews perpetrated the whole event to get the US angry with Moslem countries. There was absolutely no speaking out of any kind, more of a quiet support or belligerent support for what they termed as ‘the cause’, whatever that means. This is of course in addition to the usual animosity toward the US, even though they live there and get half there tuition free for being a resident of Dearborn MI.

Also, there was no violence against Arabs, which quickly became the main concern of prominent Arabs, not denouncing terror.

Quote:

take a look back from between the last 10 and 100 years and see what names come up for the most people killed.


Stalin, by a Russian mile!
wumingsden
S3nd K3ys wrote:


Body count?

Quote:
The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
15,749

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
141*

*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists)



There's your body count from IraqBodyCount.net. What they don't tell you is WHO killed those civilians. Rolling Eyes


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm wrote:
The number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence is being recorded by the campaign group Iraq Body Count.

On 15 October 2006 it put the total number of reported civilian dead at 41,744 to 46,668 and the number of police dead at 2,578.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html wrote:
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.


I guess reliability isn't any of their strongest points Laughing
ocalhoun
Wikipedia wrote:
Population [of Iraq]: 26,074,906 (July 2005 est.)

President Bush would have to kill off about 160% of Iraq's population to catch up to Hitler.
(Assuming 41,619,400 kills attributed to Hitler (also found on Wikipedia))
wumingsden
ocalhoun wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Population [of Iraq]: 26,074,906 (July 2005 est.)

President Bush would have to kill off about 160% of Iraq's population to catch up to Hitler.
(Assuming 41,619,400 kills attributed to Hitler (also found on Wikipedia))


Hmmm ... so is it Hitler the person that's killed the most people then?
ocalhoun
^Well, he killed a lot, but I don't know about how many people Stalin killed, nor do I want to take the time to research it; it's besides the point anyway.
S3nd K3ys
LoL, nice try wurmingsden... that guardian article is from two years ago, and only shows the amount of exageration they exhibited then, and likely would/do today.

And as I said, Iraqi Body Count is not saying where the casualties are coming from, they're just lumping them all together as though the Americans killed them, when in reality, it was mostly MUSLIMS. Shocked

taken from quote below wrote:

we decided to sift through the data to discover the information that IraqBodyCount doesn't want you to know. We carefully examined their list of incidents from January 1, 2006 through May 9 to come up with some idea of who's really behind all those alleged civilian casualties.

...as we found out, this extremely pertinent information completely undermines their preferred conclusions and so it is omitted (to the indifference of fawning new organizations)

...

This is because (unlike the terrorists) the Americans aren't in Iraq to kill civilians.




http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/IraqBodyCount2006.htm wrote:
We often hear from people who complain - in hit and run fashion - about the "tens of thousands" of innocent Iraqis killed by "American cluster bombs" and other instruments of destruction that the "occupiers" are supposedly dropping on Saddam Hussein's once idyllic "Muslim land." Sometimes the claims run into the hundreds of thousands. Sometimes even the millions.

Not all of these folks are the wide-eyed Jihadi sympathizers that live among us here in the West (where they spend their time denouncing their host country and praying that their immigration status won't be revoked). Some are just sanctimonious anti-Americanists that use these ridiculous numbers to feel better about themselves.

Enter IraqBodyCount, an anti-war organization that was envisioned even before the Iraq War began, with the heady ambition of documenting each and every victim of American aggression in order to turn public opinion against the action to remove Saddam (let's just say they aren't too concerned about the hundreds of mass graves unearthed from the Ba'athist era).

Somewhere along the way, however, harsh reality began to sink in that America was acting as no other country in history has ever acted to prevent civilian casualties in warfare. As a matter of fact, more American troops have been killed in the conflict than have civilians been killed by Americans. Americans are literally taking casualties to prevent casualties on the part of Iraqi civilians.

Though mere mortals might be prompted to reconsider their prejudices at this point, the folks at IraqBodyCount reacted by quietly changing their mission to include the victims of terrorists - the very people that the Americans are trying to stop. Their dubious body-count even includes members of the Iraqi security forces, who are part of the coalition.

In other words, people who are killed trying to stop terrorists are counted as victims of their own effort - as if deadly attacks against the innocent should be tolerated by those in a position to discourage it. Of course, no one thinks this way in real life. Who would lay the blame for rape victims at the feet of those earnestly campaigning against sexual abuse?

Another big problem with IraqBodyCount's statistics is that they even include the terrorists themselves. Enemy combatants in Iraq don't wear uniforms or carry ID cards, and all it takes for someone to make the list is to wind up in a hospital or morgue with "trauma." How many true civilians were really killed by Americans at Fallujah? Probably very few.

Look further and you'll also find that one out of every 40 "war victims" on the list actually came from a stampede at a religious festival on a single day, August 31,2005, that neither the Americans, Iraqi security forces, nor even the terrorists were anywhere near. No doubt the Americans are somehow responsible for Hajj stampedes in Mecca as well.

Laughing

Unfortunately, few of the people who quote IraqBodyCount's sensational numbers bother to put much thought into what they really represent. Fewer still choose to drill into the data to discover the identity of those who kill.

In fact, if you do make it through the donation solicitation pages on the main site and begin to browse their database, you'll notice that the tables are conspicuously missing a column - the party responsible for each attack.

There's a reason for this, as we discovered when we analyzed each incident to answer this question. It turns out that the vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by Islamic terrorists, and that very few are from American bombs and bullets. This is because (unlike the terrorists) the Americans aren't in Iraq to kill civilians.

Why does IraqBodyCount vilify Americans, who are literally giving their blood to help Iraqis, while protecting the activities of foreign terrorists, who enter the country specifically to kill innocent people? Because the Website and the terrorists both share an anti-American political agenda to which the lives of innocent Iraqis are secondary.

In fact, Iraqis are little more than statistics to these folks. And since the value of these statistics is substantially mitigated by presenting the full truth, IraqBodyCount wisely avoids identifying each incident by relevant context.

Since our sympathies are merely for the innocent, and not filtered by anti-American bigotry, we decided to sift through the data to discover the information that IraqBodyCount doesn't want you to know. We carefully examined their list of incidents from January 1, 2006 through May 9 to come up with some idea of who's really behind all those alleged civilian casualties.

Obviously it would have been easier to do this if IraqBodyCount kept track of the party responsible for each attack rather than, say, the time of day that it took place, but, as we found out, this extremely pertinent information completely undermines their preferred conclusions and so it is omitted (to the indifference of fawning new organizations).


Despite this imprecise science, we feel confident in our general findings.

Since the beginning of the year, there were two American air strikes - in which 21 civilians were killed along with the terrorists. There were also six incidents on the ground in which civilians were killed in crossfire between U.S. and terrorist elements. Although the Americans aren't trying to kill civilians and the terrorists are, we added these to our count anyway just to mitigate reasonable suspicion.

Out of 1,468 deadly attacks that resulted in civilian deaths, the Americans were involved in less than a dozen. IraqBodyCount often uses a "who really gives a rat's ass" method of counting deaths that even they have to admit contains overlap, so it's difficult to discern the true number of dead bodies from the beginning of the year, but the site appears to be reporting between 2,793 and 5,396 (so much for accuracy). What's clearer is that only about 44 of these involve American troops - or around 1 in 100.

[Editor's Note: Updated count through November 1st, 2006 is 15,191 dead Iraqi civilians, of which 130 were killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans]

So far, we have not seen a single non-combatant Iraqi civilian killed intentionally by the Americans. The handful of attributed deaths are either accidental or as a result of the collateral damage from a targeted attack against terrorists. By contrast, most of the civilians killed by Islamic terrorists are deliberately killed with extreme malice.


To be fair, note that last paragraph my prove to be false, and there are court precedings right now which don't look good for the soldiers.

Any other mistruths you'd like to try to pass, wurmingsden?


Last edited by S3nd K3ys on Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
wumingsden
There is a difference betweeen trying to pass a statement which is false (I did not make the figures and nor did I dream them up, I only copied/posted text) and being too lazy to read the whole article Wink
S3nd K3ys
wumingsden wrote:
There is a difference betweeen trying to pass a statement which is false (I did not make the figures and nor did I dream them up, I only copied/posted text) and being too lazy to read the whole article Wink


No, you didn't dream them up, but I'm certain you sooo hoped they were true.... Laughing

I changed that, btw, to say mistruths instead of lies (before i saw your reply), that was uncalled for on my part, sorry.
wumingsden
O, don't be sorry.

I did not hope that the figures that the BBC and the Independant to be true, if it was up to be the body count would be zero, but I'm not God (although I do get called Jesus Confused (long story))
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.