JohnS Posted November 13, 2002 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 193 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,459 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/28/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/20/1965 Share Posted November 13, 2002 PUTIN SAYS 'WEST IN MORTAL DANGER' Islamic radicals are pursuing the systematic annihilation of non-Muslims, President Vladimir Putin claimed yesterday.The Russian leader said at a European Union summit in Brussels that western civilisation faced a mortal threat from Muslim terrorists, and claimed that they had plans to create a "worldwide caliphate". His words overshadowed the main achievement of the summit, which was to end years of wrangling over Moscow's isolated enclave in Kaliningrad. Mr Putin said the world no longer faced isolated acts of terrorism but a "concerted effort and programme" by a global network bent on slaughter, perhaps with nuclear weapons. He said the West should face up to the reality that Chechen terrorists were religious extremists in league with al-Qa'eda, rather than a separatist movement seeking a breakaway republic. If the West failed to deal with the Chechen terrorist threat, he said, there would be repeats of the Moscow theatre siege and the Bali bombing "all over the world". He couldn't have said that in our land of free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levi Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 He couldn't have said that in our land of free speechOh yes he could. Sounds alot like what is being said in America to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigershark Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Sure he could have said that. Â He just would have had a new file opened on him by the government "home land security" office and been wiretapped. But he could have said it. These laws that seem to provide security, may just do that today. Â But what will these laws do tomarrow? Â who will be their "targets" when Bush is not in office. Â Can anyone imagine these laws in place with Clinton in office. does anyone emember "filegate" "whitewater" "Vincent Foster" Â to name a few. Â What do these powers confirm tomorrow? Personal note as I watch the US become more and more abusive towards the very foundational laws I grow colder and colder to "her". Â My loyality is not assured because of birth, it is earned because of performace. That got me a new entry in my file no regrets Tigershark "give me freedom or give me death" Â quote a very admirable man/American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levi Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 He just would have had a new file opened on him by the government "home land security" office and been wiretapped. I think they've had a file on this guy for quite some time now and I'll tell you, he is a manto watch. I have to agree with you Tiger, America has quickly changed for the worse as a result of  9/11. However people try to justify it, America has become a big brother style police state and it is already wreaking havoc with many innocent people's lives. I would even say it borders on fascism and may get much worse....probably will. America is no longer the America of bygone days. She has changed into something much worse. The last great bastion of freedom is gone and probably never will be again. The last 7 years could start almost any day now it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted November 21, 2002 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 FYI: I strongly recommend everyone pullup the 11/19/02 article by WorldNetDaily called, "Sheik:'It's OK to kill non-Muslims'... It's a shocking account of a Muslim cleric's position toward non-Muslims. According to this article, the Sheik is quoted as follows: "If a kafir person (non-believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow." explains Hamza. "Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law." He also goes on to claim that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigershark Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 He just would have had a new file opened on him by the government "home land security" office and been wiretapped. I think they've had a file on this guy for quite some time now and I'll tell you, he is a manto watch. I have to agree with you Tiger, America has quickly changed for the worse as a result of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levi Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 No doubt if the "hate speech" was about the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians, you would be touting the wonderful and righteous decision of the courts to restrict free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigershark Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 No doubt if the "hate speech" was about the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians, you would be touting the wonderful and righteous decision of the courts to restrict free speech. I'm not quite sure I am following you thought on the last post?? Regards Tigershark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted November 21, 2002 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 21, 2002 Personal note as I watch the US become more and more abusive towards the very foundational laws I grow colder and colder to "her". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levi Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 I'm not quite sure I am following you thought on the last post??It's just that there is a common thread running through many posts where people complain about speech being limited in some areas but then follow the same limiting tactic in order to silence dissent, especially when it comes to Israel and the Jews. As soon as you point out Israel's unrighteous sins, people jump all over you, call you names and attach all kinds of labels. They are in effect doing the very thing they complain about.If you are going to have free speech in society, it has to be for all, not just a select religion or race, or nationality, etc. If you aren't willing to allow free speech in the case of Jews or criticism of America, then you have set the stage for the limiting your own ability to say what you want about others too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts