Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community

destruction

Members
  • Content count

    925
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

destruction last won the day on August 13 2005

destruction had the most liked content!

About destruction

  • Rank
    Old Skool Legend
  • Birthday 03/08/1983

Converted

  • Location
    THE REVOLUTION LIVES!
  1. wow

    I can't believe how dead this forum is.
  2. And out of the USA too. http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/12/14/senate-majority-leader-harry-reid-hates-america-and-freedom/
  3. Larry Craig

    GOP = Gay Old Perverts
  4. Bush thought Saddam was prepared to flee: report By Jason Webb Reuters Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 12:07 PM MADRID (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein was prepared to take $1 billion and go into exile before the Iraq war, according to a transcript of talks between U.S. President George W. Bush and an ally, Spanish newspaper El Pais reported on Wednesday. During a meeting at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, Bush told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that Saddam could also be assassinated, according to the transcript published in El Pais in Spanish. In Washington, White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on the report. "The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction," Bush was quoted as saying at the meeting one month before the U.S.-led invasion. Asked by Aznar whether Saddam could really leave, Bush replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated." A spokesman for Aznar's private foundation had no comment on the transcript or its authenticity. El Pais, which was critical of the Iraq war and of Aznar's government, did not say how it obtained the transcript which it said was made by a Spanish diplomat who attended the meeting. In it, Bush spoke openly about pressuring countries who were members of the United Nations Security Council at the time to support a resolution authorizing force, but that, whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March." "(Former Chilean President Ricardo) Lagos should know that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile still has to be approved by the Senate, and that a negative attitude on this could endanger its approval," he said, adding aid to Angola also depended on U.N. support. "And (Russian President Vladimir) Putin should know that his attitude is endangering Russia's relations with the United States," he was quoted as saying. BAD COP "For my part, I'll try as of now to use the most subtle rhetoric possible, while we try to get the resolution approved." Bush was dismissive about former French President Jacques Chirac, who he said "thinks he's Mr. Arab" and described the United States as playing a game of "good cop, bad cop" with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop," Bush said. The U.S. president referred optimistically to the reconstruction of Iraq which he thought "could be organized into a federation." In case the war endangered energy supplies, "the Saudis would help us and put all the oil necessary into the market," said Bush, who considered Europeans to be complacent about Saddam. "Maybe it's because he's dark-skinned, far away and Muslim, lots of Europeans think everything's okay with him," he said. "Saddam Hussein won't change and he'll keep on playing games. The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is," Bush said. In March 2003, days before the war, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his top aides should step down and go into exile. It was the first time an Arab state had made an official call of this kind. In a communique issued after the summit in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Arab leaders said they opposed any attack on Iraq and made no reference to the UAE's proposal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601024_pf.html Bush backs Saddam exile plans By Stewart Powell in Washington February 1 2003 Advertisement For the first time President George Bush has publicly endorsed efforts by Arab leaders to negotiate exile for President Saddam Hussein, to avoid a United States-led attack on Iraq. Mr Bush expressed his support at the White House on Thursday shortly before a private meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal. The prince is the architect of moves by a coalition of Arab nations to offer Saddam asylum and exemption from war crimes charges. Mr Bush said he hoped international pressure would convince Saddam to relinquish power. "Should he choose to leave the country, along with a lot of the other henchmen ... we would welcome that, of course." But Mr Bush said his aim remained to disarm Iraq, regardless of who was the leader. The White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, declined to estimate how many Iraqi officials or members of Saddam's family would have to step aside to satisfy the US demand for a complete regime change in Iraq. Arab officials say their plan involves an agreement, perhaps through the United Nations Security Council, to exempt from prosecution all but about 100 of Saddam's top military and political aides. It was hoped that would encourage some Iraqi generals to overthrow Saddam without fears of facing war crimes prosecutions at a later date. But Saddam is said to have told a senior Arab diplomat, who visited Baghdad two weeks ago, that he would not accept a Saudi offer of exile. The unidentified diplomat said in New York on Thursday that the Iraqi leader was in high spirits and remained confident his forces could prevail. The diplomat also confirmed that a senior Saudi intelligence official and several aides visited Baghdad in December, and met Saddam's younger son, Qusai, to discuss exile proposals for Saddam and his inner circle. The diplomat said Qusai promised to relay the offers to his father, but it was unlikely they would be accepted. Prince Saud and Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, insisted after meeting Mr Bush that they had not discussed the Arab plan for Saddam's exile. But Prince Saud said he remained "committed to seeking a "diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq" and was "hopeful that there will be a way to do so". State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Bush Administration officials have encouraged the Turkish Prime Minister, Abdullah Gul, to make the case for exile to Saddam during a visit to Baghdad. "Certainly we think it would be an option that Saddam Hussein should take," Mr Boucher said. "I don't think we've taken a passive attitude for it. We've encouraged it." To sweeten exile, the Bush Administration has delayed any decision on war crimes charges against Saddam, leaving open the possibility that he could avoid a war crimes prosecution similar to former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. But Mr Fleischer said war crimes charges against Saddam was "not a matter for the Americans to decide". "It would be something that would be discussed in concert with friends and allies," he said. Hearst Newspapers, Newsday, Associated Press This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520559.html function initPost() { document.domain = "smh.com.au"; var bust = Math.floor(1000000*Math.random()); var bust2 = Math.floor(1000000*Math.random()); var baseAd = { src: "http://ffxcam.smh.com.au/html.ng/", params: { cat: "print", ctype: "ffxnewsstory", domain: "smh.com.au", site: "smh", isiframe: "yes"}}; FD.addAd($merge(baseAd, { id: "adSpotIsland", iframeId: "AdPlaceholder-island", params: $merge(baseAd.params, { adtype: "doubleisland", adspace: "300x250"}), priority: 1, addSmall: true})); FD.addAd($merge(baseAd, { id: "adSpotBanner-Leader", iframeId: "AdPlaceholder-banner", params: $merge(baseAd.params, { adspace: "468x60", adtype: "panorama"})})); }
  5. It's appalling we have mentally ill hatemongers running the country. It's equally appalling there are idiots who actually support these retards. They (the far right neocons) might as well wear cloaks and robes. Racist pigs. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770 This is the psycho-slut. She looks like Hitler in drag.
  6. Released: February 28, 2006 U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed†While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,†while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.†Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months. The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq. The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,†77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.†“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,†said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.†Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%). The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,†Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency. The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value. Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more. A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30. The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points. http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
  7. Friends, Monday, November 27th, marked the day that we had been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II. That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad. And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet. Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die. Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland: ** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq. ** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops. Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint. There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it. The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them. A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!" The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Gandhis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently. So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life. The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end! The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken. This is what we demand: 1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it. 2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives. 3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned. In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death. But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again. Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness. We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now. Yours, Michael Moore www.michaelmoore.com [email protected]
  8. Fuck You Igloo

    FUCK YOU IGLOO! J00 [email protected] M37 J00R D357RUC710N!!!!1!!111!1!!1!11111 In case if you're wondering what that means in "leet" or 1337 social misfit, it means YOU HAVE MET YOUR DESTRUCTION. America won, you lost!! Go download some child porn with Mark Foley after you finish sulking you fucking diddler! J00 SUCK5ORZ 7HE 816 C0CKZORZ!!!11!11!1!!!11111111111 Figure that one out yourself you fucking loser. :laugh:
  9. Rumsfeld faces suit in Germany over alleged war crimes By Mark Landler The New York Times ord = Math.random() * 10000000000000000; document.write(''); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0)|| navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {document.write(' ');} Emboldened by his resignation last week, lawyers on Tuesday asked a German prosecutor to investigate Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on allegations of war crimes, stemming from the treatment of prisoners held in military jails in Iraq and Cuba. The 220-page lawsuit, filed with the German federal prosecutor in Karlsruhe, names 11 other current and former American officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whom it claims either ordered the torture of prisoners or drafted laws that legitimated its use. The suit, filed by civil-rights legal groups on behalf of 12 detainees - 11 Iraqis and a Saudi - asserts that they were subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation, withholding of food, and sexual humiliation. "Even if we never put Rumsfeld on trial in a German court, he will be harassed and publicly stamped as a torturer," said Wolfgang Kaleck, a Berlin attorney who filed the complaint, together with the Center for Constitutional Rights, an American group, and other legal organizations. Kaleck acknowledged that Germany would be reluctant to prosecute top U.S. officials. But he described a protracted legal procedure, during which he claimed that Rumsfeld might encounter trouble traveling to Germany or other European Union countries. Lawyers, he said, were also prepared to file complaints in Spain, Belgium, Argentina, and other countries. For Rumsfeld, who is soon to lose the legal protection of his cabinet post, the prospect of foreign lawsuits could be a lingering irritant, should he decide to travel overseas as a private citizen, legal experts said. A spokeswoman for the Pentagon, Cynthia Smith, declined to comment on the lawsuit because she had not seen it. The Pentagon denies torturing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad or in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The German prosecutor's office confirmed that it had received the document and said that it would begin reviewing it. This is the second time lawyers have asked German prosecutors to investigate Rumsfeld. Prosecutors turned down a request in February 2005, saying that German courts should not assert jurisdiction in a case that would be better handled by prosecutors in the United States. The lawyers contend that almost two years later, the United States has done little to investigate the role of senior Bush administration officials in the treatment of prisoners who are suspected terrorists. Moreover, they contend, the Military Commissions Act, passed by Congress, will make it more difficult to prosecute U.S. officials at home for alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions. The act also provides retroactive immunity dating to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "We've had two years of complete inaction by the Bush administration," said Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, which is supporting the case. "They've been very good at prosecuting lower-level officials, but done nothing to investigate high-level officials." The lawsuit is ambitious, naming not just Rumsfeld and Gonzales, but also John Yoo and Jay Bybee, two former Justice Department lawyers who helped draft the Bush administration's legal arguments for treatment of suspected terrorists. It also names Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the military's former commander in Iraq. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who commanded Abu Ghraib and was punished for the abuses there, has offered to testify. While the first lawsuit focused on Abu Ghraib, this one includes as a plaintiff Mohammed al Qahtani, a Saudi who is believed by many to be the "20th hijacker." A lawyer for Qahtani, who is being held in Guantánamo, said he was subjected to abuse, authorized by Rumsfeld. The lawyers said they chose to file the suit in Germany for legal and political reasons. German law has the principle of universal jurisdiction, under which courts are entitled to prosecute people for war crimes, regardless of where they live or where the crimes were committed. Germany, despite its opposition to the war in Iraq, also has a web of connections to the U.S. military. Several military officials implicated in the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib were stationed at U.S. bases in Germany; some returned to Germany after their tours in Iraq. American air bases in Germany are used for military flights to and from Iraq. The German Parliament is investigating whether some of those flights included transfers of suspected terrorists to secret prisons - the so-called rendition program run by the Central Intelligence Agency. The lawsuit comes at an awkward time for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been trying to put German-American relations on a firmer footing after the mistrust generated by the Iraq war. Prosecuting high-level officials for war crimes in foreign countries has a patchy record, according to legal experts. A Spanish judge was unable to win the extradition of General Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, to face trial there for crimes against humanity. But Pinochet was held in London, and when he later returned to Chile, he found himself under legal siege. Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, has been sought for questioning by courts in several countries about American involvement with various Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s. "If I were Rumsfeld's travel agent, I would advise him to choose some other part of 'old Europe,'" said Detlev Vagts, emeritus professor of international law at Harvard Law School. "There is some danger out there." The timing of the lawsuit was not directly tied to Rumsfeld's resignation, according to Kaleck. The lawyers opted to wait until after the week after the elections in the United States to avoid being labeled political. Still, they said, Rumsfeld's exit gives the lawsuit an extra edge. "Rumsfeld now seems to be less protected than he was before," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is paying for part of the legal campaign. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/rumsfeld.php
  10. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15408508/
  11. Fuck you Igloo.... You lost

    I was hoping to try to spring him out of hiding but to no avail. Damn!! Maybe he found a new hobby (after cowarding from the daily asskickings he became recipient to on CP). Trolling the kiddie chats with that pedo Mark Foley.
  12. Fuck you Igloo.... You lost

    A day after United States George Bush conceded for the first time that the US may have reached the equivalent of a Tet offensive in Iraq, the Pentagon on Thursday admitted defeat in its strategy of securing Baghdad. The admission from Bush that the US may have arrived at a turning point in this war -- the Tet offensive led to a massive loss of confidence in the American presence in Vietnam -- comes during one of the deadliest months for US forces since the invasion. On Thursday the number of US troops killed since October 1 rose to 73, deepening the sense that the country is trapped in an unwinnable situation and further damaging Republican chances in midterm elections that are less than three weeks away. In Baghdad a surge in sectarian killings has forced the Pentagon to review its entire security plan for the capital, Major General William Caldwell, a US military spokesperson, said on Thursday. "The violence is, indeed, disheartening," he told reporters. The US has poured 12 000 additional US and Iraqi troops into Baghdad since August only to see a 22% increase in attacks since the beginning of Ramadan. "Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but has not met our overall expectations in sustaining a reduction in the level of violence," Caldwell said. The bleak assessment arrives as official thinking appears to be shifting on the war, with reports that a study group led by a Bush family loyalist and former secretary of state, James Baker, could be drawing up an exit plan for US forces in Iraq. Such a strategy would once have been unthinkable for Bush, who famously vowed to keep US forces in Iraq even if he was supported only by his wife, Laura, and dog, Barney. But the president now appears willing to acknowledge that the public is losing confidence in his administration's involvement in Iraq. On Wednesday Bush admitted for the first time the existence of a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. Such comparisons had been fiercely resisted by the White House, which has insisted that the US would succeed in bringing stability to Iraq and democracy to the Middle East. But Bush appeared to agree that the rise in sectarian killings in Iraq could prove as demoralising to his administration's mission in Iraq as the Tet offensive of 1968/69. Although that offensive resulted in a military defeat for the North Vietnamese forces, it turned American public opinion against the war and the then American president, Lyndon Johnson. "There is certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we are heading towards an election," Bush said during an interview with ABC television. He said he understood the insurgents were trying to drive American forces out of Iraq. "My feeling is that they all along have been trying to inflict enough damage so that we leave," he said. While Bush now readily acknowledges the potentially demoralising effects of the violence, there was no sign on Thursday that the White House had reached the same conclusion as critics who have called for an early withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. "The president was making a point that he's made before, which is that terrorists try to exploit pictures and try to use the media as conduits for influencing public opinion in the United States," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters on Thursday. He also rejected any comparison between Bush and Johnson. "The important thing to remember is that the president is determined it's not going to happen with Iraq, because you have a president who is determined to win," he said. "We do not think that there has been a flip-over point, but more importantly, from the standpoint of the government and the standpoint of this administration, we are going to continue pursuing victory aggressively." Backstory The Tet offensive, launched in January 1968, is seen as the turning point of America's involvement in the war. The waves of attacks on Saigon and other southern cities was a disaster for the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army. But the images of violence -- including a commando attack on the US embassy in Saigon -- exposed the hollowness of the Pentagon's claims that America was in control of the situation. The offensive shook public confidence in the commander of US forces in Vietnam, General William Westmoreland, and the then president Lyndon Johnson. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=287222
  13. Hitler-themed eatery draws fire - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com MUMBAI, India - A new restaurant in India’s financial hub, named after Adolf Hitler and promoted with posters showing the German leader and Nazi swastikas, has infuriated the country’s small Jewish community.Hitler’s Cross, which opened last week, serves up a wide range of continental fare and a big helping of controversy, thanks to a name the owners say they chose to stand out among hundreds of Mumbai eateries. “We wanted to be different. This is one name that will stay in people’s minds,†owner Punit Shablok told Reuters. “We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different.†But India’s remaining Jews — most migrated to Israel and the West over the years — say they are outraged by the gimmick. “This signifies a severe lack of awareness of the agony of millions of Jews caused by one man,†said Jonathan Solomon, chairman of the Indian Jewish Federation, the community’s umbrella organization. “We are going to stop this deification of Hitler,†he said without elaborating. The small restaurant, its interior done out in the Nazi colors of red, white and black, also has a lounge for smoking the Indian water pipe or “hookah.†Posters line the road leading up to it, featuring a red swastika carved in the name of the eatery. One slogan reads: “From Small Bites to Mega Joys.†A huge portrait of a stern-looking Füehrer greets visitors at the door. The cross in the restaurant’s name refers to the swastika that symbolized the Nazi regime. “This place is not about wars or crimes, but where people come to relax and enjoy a meal,†said restaurant manager Fatima Kabani, adding that they were planning to turn the eatery’s name into a brand with more branches in Mumbai. The swastika has its roots in ancient Indian Hindu tradition and remains a sacred symbol for Hindus. Nazi theorists appropriated it to bolster their central hypothesis of the Aryan origins of the German people.
  14. If it weren't for a courageous act by Israel's Channel 2, this video from CBC News would never have been aired. http://c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=1794
×