http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcBjpsP1bU

Al Qaeda's latest display of terror has made its way onto the Internet, showing horrifying images of what appear to be prisoners in Iraq being doused with an inflammatory liquid and then burned alive.

The video, which appears to have been posted first on Google last December in an alleged anti-Al Qaeda Web film, shows five insurgents standing behind three blindfolded prisoners kneeling at the edge of a burning pit.

"And now that we have captured these scums who committed this dreadful crime, we will burn them with this fire," the Al Qaeda leader says in Arabic. "The same fire which they committed their crime with.

"And I swear by God almighty that, I swear by God almighty that we will have no mercy on them," he continues. "Allahuakbar, Allahuakbar."

As he speaks, two of the insurgents pour liquid on the blindfolded prisoners. Then they push the bound men into the pit, where they are engulfed in flames.

According to the summary — in Arabic and German — included in the nearly 15-minute video posted on Google, many of the clips were found in Diyala, Iraq. The makers of the film say that the originals were "passed to us by others."

Click here to see the video on a Turkish news site (WARNING: Very disturbing Images).

Click here to see the full video on Google (WARNING: Very disturbing images).


http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Video.aspx?s=5&vid=2107

Fri 02/15/08 01:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcBjpsP1bU
please stay on topic

just an example of Keith's past..I don't think he ought to be casting stones at anyone..

"On July 28, 2006, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) sent an open letter to Olbermann at MSNBC stating, "We are deeply dismayed by your ongoing use of the Nazi 'Sieg Heil' salute, both on your program and in public appearances…" The letter explains that Olbermann's use of the salute prompted many complaints from its members, including Holocaust survivors, and that any use of it "serves to trivialize the Holocaust and the six million Jews and others who died as a result of Hitler's Final Solution." The letter closed by asking Olbermann to "reconsider [his] use of the Nazi salute in the future."

Olbermann had written a year earlier in his weblog that Nazi references have "no place...in this culture" and "the analogies are wrong, offensive, and deeply hurtful" when used in partisan politics."

a reasonable person would assume he has done this to mock Reich marshal Bush/Vidkun Quisling

AS IN ALL the other occupied countries, the Nazi power profited from the support of local sympathisers. During a visit to Hitler in Berlin in the winter of 1939-40, the leader of the national socialist Nasjonal Samling Party, Vidkun Quisling, had pointed out how valuable it would be for Germany to occupy Norway. Immediately after the invasion, on the morning of April 9, 1940, he proclaimed himself the new head of the government and ordered the Norwegian armed forces to stop battling the Germans. But Quisling's intervention backfired and stimulated the resistance. Thus, the occupying power quickly realized that -- for the time being -- Quisling did not serve their interests and they chose to base their administration of the country on a certain degree of give-and-take with the existing civilian authorities.

I don't consider you to be at all reasonable and that's probably why you assume that...

I'm with Keith.

I posted this before but since liberal socialists only have a short memory here it is again.


Over the years the liberal socialistic Democrats continually accuse the conservative Republicans of being “Nazis and Fascists” and attempting to establish a dictatorship in this country. That got me to thinking. What party would the World’s worst dictators, who incidentally just happen to be the World’s worst mass murderers, have belonged to? The answer is they would all have been liberal socialistic Democrats. If you think I am wrong, consider the following:

Stalin and the entire communist ilk in Russia – Socialists who came to power supported by the “oppressed masses” used them to overthrow the Tsar and then murdered them by the millions with absolute impunity when they asked for a piece of the pie or reminded the leaders that they were not living up to the promises that had been made. Estimated number of dead 30+ million.

Hitler and the Nazis – Nazi stands for National Socialist party. Hitler came to power supported by the masses by promising them a bigger piece of the pie. Once in power he turned on the people who had helped him attain it and murdered and anyone who opposed him them with glee. Estimated number of dead 12+ million in the concentration camps alone, that does not include the number of people who died in or as a result of WW II.

Chairman Mao – Socialist who came to power promising the masses a better life and again once in power condoned mass slaughter of all who were even suspected of thinking the wrong thing. Started his “Cultural Revolution” which allowed his Red Guard to be judge, jury and executioner and to write any laws on the spot that they saw fit in order to justify their murderous rampage. Number of dead in the millions but no one knows the exact total.

Fidel Castro – Liberal Socialist who came to power promising to lift up the impoverished masses. Little did they know that for many the uplifting experience would be from a rope around their neck thrown over the nearest strong branch or being tied very erect to a post in front of a firing squad. Number of dead unknown but it would have been more if thousands had not fled the 90 miles across the sea to Florida

Ho Chi Minh – Socialist who once again came to power with the support of the masses and as soon as he was firmly entrenched turned on the people and enslaved them. He wasn’t as ruthless as Pol Pot but he was in power longer so the number he slaughtered is probably greater.

Pol Pot – Socialist once again came to power with the support of the masses by promising to lift them out of poverty. Once in control he murdered with a savageness that hasn’t been seen since Ghengus Kahn. Some of the heinous crimes committed by his victims include being an intellectual, having an education, wearing glasses. Number of dead in excess of 3 million.

Saddam Hussein – I know you are going to call Bull **** on me for this one, but check the definition of Liberal and the definition of Conservative and see which title fits him. Seized power in a military coop of sorts and once again promised change and a piece of the pie to the masses then turned on them and slaughtered them like Attila the Hun. Allowed his family members to murder and rape for their own amusement and entertainment also used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. Number of dead in the hundreds of thousands.

All the rebel factions in Africa – Socialists who want to rise up the downtrodden masses and overthrow the corrupt exiting governments. Yes these governments are corrupt and in cases support and participate in genocide but no one has told the rebels that the way to win the hearts and minds of people is not to hack them to pieces with machetes, and burn them alive in churches. They rape, murder and destroy in the name of freedom. Number of dead in the millions and still counting.

Caesar Chavez in Venezuela – liberal socialist who will eliminate anyone who opposes him or attempts to remove him from power by legal means. Number of dead not many but it’s early yet.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. The liberal socialistic Democratic mantra has always been “promise them the world and then give them just enough to keep them loyal.” And all of these people bought in to the lie that they were actually going to get vast improvements in their lives handed to them by the Government. A great many of them have had to get their share of the pie in the after life because they became expendable to the liberal socialists in this one. When someone offers you a bigger piece of the pie for doing nothing, remember that pies are round but so are bullets.

What is the moral of this story you might ask? All of these countries had existing governments that were corrupt, some more than others and they had large groups of poor and discontent people. The liberal socialists seized on this and used their support to elevate themselves to power. Once in power they immediately subjugated the people who had placed them in power and the people that survived always ended up worse off than they were in the first place. In each case an existing evil was replaced with a greater evil and always in the name of freedom and social good for the masses. Remember that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our Liberal Socialistic Democratic Party thinks that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked in the past is because they didn’t have the right people running it. Now we have Hillary, Obama or John, one of which is surely the “right” person to implement socialism here. Unfortunately, they enjoy the full support of the liberal “mainstream” media because those damn fool talking heads can’t figure out that the first casualty of socialism is the free press. When, and notice that I said “when” not “if”, the socialists take control in this country these idiots will find their asses tied to a post against a wall and I doubt they will be offered the luxury of a last cigarette or a blindfold. As the firing squad prepares to send them on their way to Nirvana or where ever the godless liberals go when they die will their last words will not be a cry for freedom and justice, it will be a whimper about it shouldn’t be happening this way.

If you wish to be intelectualy honest and wish to start counting bodies look no further than the slaughter america has braught apon the world. One can start at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the targeting of civilian populations, I am sure not to many can argue that we were at war and were attacked first but it is a war crime to deliberatly target civilian populations. Now we can move on to Korea a country that never attacked us and wanted to only divide its rice up in its own way, how many died there anyone know? here comes the real boogyman of Vietnam again another country that only wished to divide its riceup in its own way we can probably call this one a hollocaust, Iraq one and two another Hollocaust. How about all those little wars inbetween? Nicarauga? america was found guilty of war crimes by the world court of STATE SPONCORED TERRORISM the only country ever to be found guilty of such Its true, of course we ignored the ruleing and moved on. Now here we are full of hypocracy trying to lecture the world on terrorism, in my mind its just a reasone to bloat our military and feed our tax dollars to the military industrial complex and ignore the real needs of the people.

Why is it that when the argument turns against the liberal socialists they always default to the "well gee someone else did something bad too". Who ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Harry S. Truman, a liberal socialist. Viet Nam, guess who got us involved there, Kennedy and then Johnson, both liberal socialists. But you like all liberal socialists can't stick to the facts when they don't support your position. The fact is you called Bush a fascist and that shoe don't fit.

Your continued Anti American rants are starting to sound like Gina, Gary, Fitnessfanatic, Knoxman, and a few others who have been on here before. The same old cut and paste retoric only the names and pictures seem to change. It seems that a new one of you comes along about every 3 months which just happens to coincide with a college semester. I wonder if some radical left wing nutcase political science professor passes out assignments to his students to post this stuff on websites to see what reaction it generates. At least in Gina's case she admitted it. You really should go back and check the archives because all the BS you post has already been posted several times in the last year.

I think we are getting to be fascist nation,( already are ) totalitarianism, no longer abide by the law of the land(Constitution), the govt considers itself not needing to answer to the will of the people , which is the Constitution. I think our leaders are acting like dictators , both Democrats and Republicans in crime together. Even the Just US(justice) department is not following the Constitution. They need to be put on trial too. And I think they(Zionists) got us in this condition through the economy ,which is controlled by outsiders known as the federal reserve system. Was it not MR Rothschild who said something about : that he did not care who was in charge of the govt as long as he controlled the money system??? Well ,It looks to me like he STILL CONTROLS the MONEY SYSTEM. Time to kick him out of our money system, and put it back under the rules of our CONSTITUTION, which is the LAW OF THE LAND(AMERICA)(Land of Heaven)Get back to the constitution and our rightful money system , and we get rid of FAScism at the same time.(kill all those birds with one stone)Back to the Constitution , it is that SIMPLE!!!

forege dude I dont think you know the difference between liberls and socialists, they are huge by the way

SMO you have the same reply to every post on this forum no matter what the topic. Why don't you save yourself time and effort and just name your reply SMO Reply #1. we all have it memorized now and you can just click the replay button, type in SMO Reply #1 and click post topic. You could save yourself a lot of time that way which could be better spent lining your hat with tinfoil

His assesments are fairly accurate in many areas and I have yet seen him insult anyone for there beliefs he states his and you state yours but I bet her knowes the differance between a liberal and a socialist

does liberalism differ from socialism?
There are important and fundamental differences between socialism and liberalism. When critics attempt to slander liberals by calling them "socialists," liberals should immediately challenge them to define the difference between liberalism and socialism. If they cannot, or continue to claim that they are the same, liberals should then chide them for being novices in political science, unable to define even the most basic terms of the debate.

Socialism means that workers, not private owners, would own and control the means of production: factories, farmland, machinery, and so on. In democratic elections, workers would vote for 1) their supervisors, 2) their representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service, and 3) their representatives to a central congress representing all the industries and services. Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging from republics to direct democracies, from centralized state bureaucracies to free market anarchy. Political scientists do not view the "socialism" nominally practiced by the Soviet Union as true socialism -- this was, essentially, a dictatorship over workers by a ruling elite.

By comparison, liberals believe that private owners should own and control the means of production, formulate company policy, and have the right to select their own management team. Liberals would prevent them from abusing their powers through checks and balances like strong labor unions and democratic government. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/ShortFAQ.htm#socialism

there is no difference between a liberal and a socialist. Socialists call themselves liberals to disguise their agenda. Ask your political science professor about that one

:: reality becons you, we welcome you here

ah once again you strayed from the subject but then you always do when your argument falls apart.