Al Qaeda - A time to talk?

[ledhed]

Cool let me get some popcorn...the other crap is depressing .

 

[YSSMAN]

Wow, a lot happens when I'm gone doing other things...

The summation I see of what is going on here is that people don't seem to agree that we are in this for the long-haul, something in which may indeed be the Holy Wars all over again. Those who wish to run away from the problems are only going to make themselves more vulnerable to attacks from terrorist groups while those of us who wish to address the problems with action seem to invoke more problems.

As ledhed and danoff have pointed out dozens of times, with evidence no-less, these things are messy. No matter what, they are going to kill us (Westerners) if given the chance, American or not. We all support the ideas in which they hate, thats enough to get rid of us. That is pretty obvious when you see German and French folks getting caught up in the mess in Iraq even if they aren't fighting. They support western ideas, live in countries that are Allied with the United States, which in turn backs Israel, which makes them "bad guys" in the eyes of the terrorists.

"...And I think to myself, what a wonderful world..."

 

[Swift]

What's your problem? When did I say I don't want to discuss? Why are you talking crap?

I discussed my opinions with people on here and then I chose to stop discussing, I gave it a go and then decided that the debate was not worth continuing any more, from my point of view. So where do you get off telling me to go to another forum? I have a life and decided to do something else. That doesn't mean I have no stamina to discuss this into the night over and over again. It just means I discussed for a bit and that was it for me.

Not everything everyone that posts on a forum must have backups or some kind of seal of aproval. People write all kinds of unfounded crap of this forum and although I'm not one of them I don't see them being asked for backup!

Swift you were good to back danoff, you're both in the same league. Simple right?

Actually, you said danoff was self centered. In other words, attacking the man, not the issue. Ad Hominem I believe it's called.

And about the posts. Things posted in opinions forums need to be able to be backed up. I don't post things that I can't backup with some reference or something. Danoff is the same way.

The annoying and ironic part is that you specifically told Danoff to "do some research" and said that "I don't need to backup my post" in the same paragraph!

Yes, danoff, if you don't belive me, do some research and see if I'm stating facts or fiction. Excuse me, but I never said my statements are self evident. I'm simply posting what I believe through my research, I never said that I don't need to back up my posts, it's just that I can't be bothered. If you want to learn do it yourself.

That's just rather weak in my mind. It's not our job to find backup for your statements.

Anyway, it seems you're still here so feel free to continue the discussion.

 

[Cobra_UK]

Actually, you said danoff was self centered. In other words, attacking the man, not the issue. Ad Hominem I believe it's called.

And about the posts. Things posted in opinions forums need to be able to be backed up. I don't post things that I can't backup with some reference or something. danoff is the same way.

The annoying and ironic part is that you specifically told danoff to "do some research" and said that "I don't need to backup my post" in the same paragraph!

That's just rather weak in my mind. It's not our job to find backup for your statements.

Anyway, it seems you're still here so feel free to continue the discussion.

Hahaha Swift, I'm not continuing the discussion, the last post was aimed at you and your attitude towards me, it had nothing to do with the discussion. I see I have to make things very clear for you, or you are in danger of reading one thing and understanding another.

I called danoff self-centered because he told me he prefers a closed mind to an open mind. Not a big insult or an unnatural guess on my part. But this was an attack on him as a person, a personal attack, according to you. Ad Hominem relates to an argument also, something I wasn't having, I was discussing, debating... Ad Hominem refers to discrediting an opponent's statements with a personal attack. Just saying that danoff is self-centered discredits him? Doesn't take a lot then. Innit? Perhaps I should feel discredited because you said I had no stamina when I chose not to continue the discussion and decided to get on with other things. Ehhh, nope, sorry to dissapoint you.

[Cobra_UK=sarcasm]Hey, it's a good job you guys can actually take things for what they are and not escalate them, generalize and start to threatening people.[/sarcasm]

Irony? I told danoff to do some research into my statements if he doesn't belive me, that's all, the irony is in your head dear. I don't want to backup my posts. That's rather weak? That I have the stength to choose what want to do and what I don't. You're right about one thing though, I still feel free. I will discuss when I want to and stop when I want to. You want to force me to backup my posts and force me to continue the discussion? And if I don't? Will you warn me? Will you ban me? Hehehe, You're the irony. Hence I said you're in the same league as danoff.

OK, hold on, let me retort, this is a reply to your off-topic post aimed at me again. NOT me continuing the topic discussion. Wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea again. If we continue this I'll pm you so we don't interfere with the topic discussion. I don't want to stop these people debating or you may tell them they got no stamina either.

 

[KSaiyu]

We settled the first issue. At this point, everyone knows that to initiating communications with Al Qaeda would be defeat. We're bored of rehashing that so we morphed this thread into a discussion about whether terrorism is sparked by religion (because so many of them are religiously motivated).

Did we? I just remember it petering it out and then someone debating with magburner (I think) about religion being the motivation for all terrorism - we didn't all come to the conclusion that it would be a defeat to start talks with Al Qaeda. Although I will agree that since neither side is going to budge, the topic should be left alone for now.

 

[Danoff]

Hahaha Swift, I'm not continuing the discussion, the last post was aimed at you and your attitude towards me, it had nothing to do with the discussion. I see I have to make things very clear for you, or you are in danger of reading one thing and understanding another.

Ah yes, here you claim Swift is a simpleton who cannot undersand things unless you make them super clear. Way to keep things mature. Please, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and leave. You've made it clear you don't want to engage in a discussion, so get the hell out of the opinions forum.

I called danoff self-centered because he told me he prefers a closed mind to an open mind.

I prefer a rational mind that will stand by its conclusions to a blank slate accepting all equally.

Ad Hominem relates to an argument also, something I wasn't having, I was discussing, debating...

You're complaining and whining rather than contributing and discussing.

Ad Hominem refers to discrediting an opponent's statements with a personal attack. Just saying that danoff is self-centered discredits him?

Ad Hominem is an ATTEMPT to discredit someone based on personal attack. It's a logical fallacy - it only works if people don't recognize the inherent flaws in that argument.

...I chose not to continue the discussion and decided to get on with other things.

Go ahead then, get on with them.

Irony? I told danoff to do some research into my statements if he doesn't belive me, that's all, the irony is in your head dear. I don't want to backup my posts.

Then you're not welcome here. That doesn't mean you'll be banned, but it does mean that you're going to run into hostility. We've got a good thing going here on the opinions forum with well reasoned arguments on all sides and lots of evidence and counter evidence. The last thing we need are people like you showing up who don't feel the need to make quality arguments.

Basically, don't **** in our sandbox.

 

[magburner]

I found this whilst surfing the net, and I thought it summed up the war on terror:

Strategically speaking, it is better to annex a country without the use of force rather than devastate that country and then occupy it. It is equally preferable to capture an entire army than to annihilate it. Similarly, capturing en masse the regiments, battalions, companies, platoons or squads is far better than destroying them. The acme of excellence belongs not to the one who fights and wins every battle but to the one who conquers without even waging a war.

Unleess you are totally ignotant of the facts and have decided to forever remain so , you must realise that Osama and co. have based their actions and are inspired by and inspiring others directly from the teachings of ISLAM .
They seek tthe BLESSINGS and the ADVICE of their own CLERGY their AYatollahs or whatever you care to call them .

You've not been smoking again have you? Your calling me ignorant? Have you read the Koran? Have you even bothered to look into the faith or have you just got your info off Fox News? You said: Osama and co. have based their actions and are inspired by and inspiring others directly from the teachings of ISLAM. Which teachings are those then? I would like you to prove this point to me once and for all. Don't post any of Bin Ladens speeches, I want you to post the actual sura's where it states the things you claim. You do know what a sura is don't you?

I see that very differently. Your government knew there was a terrorist threat if you attacked Iraq with us or not. You are an ally to the United States, and in the eyes of the terrorists, you deserve to die just as much as we do. I don't think Iraq has much to do with the sources of the issues at hand, but I think most people could concede that it has done enough to improve their morale against democracy and freedom.

So what your saying is that we would of been attacked anyway? I don't think so. Look at the evidence, and it says something completely contradictory to what you have just said. If you look at all of the terrorist attacks that have happened since 9/11 they all have a couple of things in common. The targets where either in countries that were part of the 'broad coalition' or where in Islamic states, or countries with a sizeable population of Muslims. To my knowledge there has been no other attacks that fit into a pattern outside of the one I have just mentioned. If you know different, I stand ready to be corrected.

...Was attacking Iraq the best thing to do? Yes and no, as it depends on how you view the war. But I think most of us can agree that being on the offensive against the terrorists is about the best thing we can do right now...

From what I remember, we invaded Iraq, because they had WMDs and not because it was a terrorist state. It has been well documented that Saddam had no dealings with any terrorist organisation. So I ask the question, how was invading Iraq, going on the offensive against terrorists? I could see the arguement with regard to Afghanistan, but not with Iraq.

Listen to what the terrorists say. Listen to Osama's words and you'll know that I am right. These people blow themselves up because they believe that it is what God wants them to do. Their religious beliefs (don't confuse that with all muslims), tell them that it is God's will that they kill innocent infidels. All the proof I need is in their own admissions.

I have listened to what they say, What I don't understand is where they get their anger from? Surely there must of been some catalyst...? Just because a fanatically religious person commits acts of terrorism, it doesn't mean that they are acting out the will of their god - Your confusing Islamistic ideology with religious fervour.

You keep trying to shift the blame to America. But we cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.

I'm not trying to shift the blame at all, everyone knows that any action has an equal and opposite reaction. What I'm trying to do, is highlight your countries involvement in the region, and how over the past 20 or 30 years, it has boiled down to the debacle we have at present. I would be equally vitriolic if one of the main protaganists had been Luxemburg or say, Chile. Face facts, you nation is as much a part of the problem/solution as mine is and the terrorists are.

Too often you try to paint me as a guy that has a negative argument with Americans. Thats not the case. I'm critisizing American foreign policy, not the American people - I can see the difference between elector and elected. Is it so hard for you to think the same with respect to my arguments? If I have an arguement with Americans at all, its usually those that support the foreign policy of their country. So by being obviously opposed to the 'war on terror' I tend to gravitate towards those types of arguements and people. I have to say though, pulling the anti-America card everytime someone tries to look at your countries role in the troubles is getting to look a little tired now. Why do you refuse to talk about your countries involvement in the region? I'm happy to talk good or bad about mine, why can't you do the same?

If you don't want me to ask the questions, all you have to do is say. Of course, I will have to stop debating fact, and start making assumptions... All you have to do is ask!

We settled the first issue. At this point, everyone knows that to initiating communications with Al Qaeda would be defeat. We're bored of rehashing that so we morphed this thread into a discussion about whether terrorism is sparked by religion (because so many of them are religiously motivated).

Nearly everyone... Why are you trying to call time on a subject that is still in open debate? You've made an assumption that everyone agrees with your opinion on the subject. There is no doubt that there is a core that believe the same things you do, not everyone does - I'm in that camp. your trying to minimize the significance of this part of the debate, when it is infact an integral part of the discussion - it is also an analogy of the threads title.

Try to make sure that everyone agrees before you make a statement like that please. 👍

Look, just admit that the US has been dragged into a religious war and eliminate the headache for yourself.

see:

Are you sure it wasn't just being used as a "catalyst"?

I love the hypocrisy. "Go do research danoff!!! Oh me? No I don't have to. My statements are self evident."

See:

I don't care about what the Koran says. I care about the religious beliefs of those who are blowing up innocent civilians.

Are you sure your doing yours? Earlier I was discussing the concept of jihad, and you responded with that. Also:

Wikipedia's entry on "Holy War" lists Jihad. We were in a holy war before we even knew it. At this point, I don't think there is any way we can make them hate us more. We've been dragged into a holy war and now we have to win it.

So your doing all your research on Muslims through Wikipedia then? If you had read the entry for 'holy war' properly, you would of seen that it says 'Holy War is often used as a synonym for the Islamic Jihad'. Now look up the meaning of 'synonym', what does it say? 'synonym: A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language'. Its clear straight away that statement that there is room for intepretation. so therefore, your understanding of what a holy war is, could be wrong. If you want to start talking Jihad, at least get your information from the source, not through second or third hand accounts or descriptions. I'm not disputing that holy war is a part of what jihad is, but jihad is not defined by holy war.

Actually, you said danoff was self centered. In other words, attacking the man, not the issue. Ad Hominem I believe it's called.

I seem to remember in a previous thread that you called me (and I quote) 'A bleeding heart liberal'. were you attacking the man or the issue back then?

 

[Swift]

I seem to remember in a previous thread that you called me (and I quote) 'A bleeding heart liberal'. were you attacking the man or the issue back then?

I don't remember that. But I may well have said it. Well, your views give you the perceptiton of a bleeding heart liberal. Now, did I use that point to make my argument against your stance? Or was I just stating an observation of your views? If it's the former, then I apoligize.

EDIT: I found the post in question.

then you have no principles. You simply go with the side that seems weaker. Forget who has the justification or anything. Civilians are dieing, so whoever is doing it MUST be wrong. Yeah, that's bleeding heart liberalism at it's core.

I would say that's certainly an observation of your point of view. Not a direct personal statment or attack. What do you think?

 

[Danoff]

From what I remember, we invaded Iraq, because they had WMDs and not because it was a terrorist state.

We invaded Iraq to influence the region. We justified the invasion by pointing out their refusal to comply with UN resolutions.

It has been well documented that Saddam had no dealings with any terrorist organisation.

Uh... no.

So I ask the question, how was invading Iraq, going on the offensive against terrorists? I could see the arguement with regard to Afghanistan, but not with Iraq.

The idea was to bring democracy to Iraq and show them that America is OK by liberating them from a brutal dictator.

I have listened to what they say, What I don't understand is where they get their anger from?

Same place all religious nuts get their anger from... the belief that they are doing god's work.

Your confusing Islamistic ideology with religious fervour.

I'm confusing terrorist ideology based on Islam with religious fervour because they are the same.

I'm not trying to shift the blame at all, everyone knows that any action has an equal and opposite reaction.

That doesn't mean every action bears responsibility for all things that come after. You admit that you're trying to point out that America shares the blame for all of this, see the next quote:

Face facts, you nation is as much a part of the problem/solution as mine is and the terrorists are.

America = Terrorists in terms of evil. That's what the above statement says, and yet you claim I'm pulling the anti-American card. No, I will not submit to the notion that America is just as responsible for 9/11 and terrorist acts in general as the people who actually commit those acts. The responsibility lies with the people who are performing those acts.

your trying to minimize the significance of this part of the debate, when it is infact an integral part of the discussion - it is also an analogy of the threads title.

Try to make sure that everyone agrees before you make a statement like that please. 👍

I have explained why it would be defeat, nobody has refuted that explanation. Until someone refutes it, I'll assume we're done with that subject.

So your doing all your research on Muslims through Wikipedia then?

No, I used wikipedia to provide a quick definition of the term Holy War. That's it.

 

[magburner]

I would say that's certainly an observation of your point of view. Not a direct personal statment or attack. What do you think?

At the time I was slightly offended - I've been called a lot of things in my time, but never liberal!, Honestly, its nothing serious. I just mentioned it because you you were pulling up someone else for a personal attack. I know that persons attack was more direct than yours, I was merely using it as an example. Look! I feel bad now for making you search for the quote that offended me! Sorry about that, Peace. 👍

We invaded Iraq to influence the region. We justified the invasion by pointing out their refusal to comply with UN resolutions.

Well, the region sure has been influenced! Talk about a long hot summer of death and destruction! I have to ask, because I cannot see the logic - in what way do you think the region has influenced, and in what way did you think that it would be?

Uh... no.

Uh... yes! If you have evidence to the contrary, why don't you share it with us? I found this whilst trying to back up my claim. It doesn't back it up 100%, but its still enough to clear him of any terrorist involvement. Here it is, taken from the 9/11 Commision Report:

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Paragraph #348 on page 66(PDF)

Searching the 9/11 Commision Report for 'Iraq and Al-Qaeda'

The idea was to bring democracy to Iraq and show them that America is OK by liberating them from a brutal dictator.

That doesn't answer the question I asked. I said: how was invading Iraq, going on the offensive against terrorists? Also, is bombing a country flat, and leaving it in a state of anarchy, teetering on the edge of sectarian and civil war showing 'them' that America is ok? Saddam was a brutal dictator, but I can imagine if you asked a cross-section of Iraqis, some would rather him back than the situation they have at present - democracy or no democracy.

I'm confusing terrorist ideology based on Islam with religious fervour because they are the same.

As similar as the KKKs beliefs and christianity in general? That would fit with your analogy. No?

That doesn't mean every action bears responsibility for all things that come after. You admit that you're trying to point out that America shares the blame for all of this, see the next quote:

I would say it does 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. The equal and opposite in our case, is unfortunately islamistic terrorism.

America = Terrorists in terms of evil. That's what the above statement says, and yet you claim I'm pulling the anti-American card. No, I will not submit to the notion that America is just as responsible for 9/11 and terrorist acts in general as the people who actually commit those acts. The responsibility lies with the people who are performing those acts.

Hello? Where did you just get that from? I never for a second suggested that 'America = Terrorists in terms of evil' as you put it. Maybe I should of made it clear that I was talking about the 'war on terror' - I thought you would of realised that. America, the UK, and others are as much protagonists as the terrorists themselves are. The only thing that separeates us is belief and execution.

America WAS responsible for training, suppling and financing Bin Laden and his minions to carry out 'terrorist' attacks agains the Soviet Union. Just because he went rogue, and decided to further his own agenda, doesn't remove America from the equasion. Its laughably ironic how he has now become the thorn in the side of two super-powers and the number one threat to the Western world today. Some form of responsiblity lies at your countries door. Not the end results (ie. terrorist acts), but you can't sit there and say that America has had no part to play what so ever. To claim otherwise would be ignorant of the facts.

I have explained why it would be defeat, nobody has refuted that explanation. Until someone refutes it, I'll assume we're done with that subject.

You have, but myself and others have voiced opinions contrary to yours. It still doesn't mean that you can close that aspect of the debate without concensus.

 

[Danoff]

Well, the region sure has been influenced! Talk about a long hot summer of death and destruction! I have to ask, because I cannot see the logic - in what way do you think the region has influenced, and in what way did you think that it would be?

That sounds like an essay topic. I can tell you that I didn't expect Iraq to be a center for freedom and economic prosperity in the middle east YET. I figured it would take decades.

It has been well documented that Saddam had no dealings with any terrorist organisation.

Uh... yes! If you have evidence to the contrary, why don't you share it with us? I found this whilst trying to back up my claim. It doesn't back it up 100%, but its still enough to clear him of any terrorist involvement. Here it is, taken from the 9/11 Commision Report:

Did you intent to say "Al-Qaeda" instead of "terrorist organization"? Or are you really claiming that Saddam had absolutely no dealings of any kind with any terrorist organization (I'd be hard pressed to justify that even about the US).

That doesn't answer the question I asked. I said: how was invading Iraq, going on the offensive against terrorists?

Indirectly, by providing people of the region freedom and an opportunity to understand America's system of government and basic human rights we hope to get them to respect others (especially religiously) and stop hating us for being different.

Also, is bombing a country flat, and leaving it in a state of anarchy, teetering on the edge of sectarian and civil war showing 'them' that America is ok?

[sarcasm] That's right. We just dropped a few nukes and flew home. That's what I remember. [/sarcasm]

Saddam was a brutal dictator, but I can imagine if you asked a cross-section of Iraqis, some would rather him back than the situation they have at present - democracy or no democracy.

Some people do not value freedom.

As similar as the KKKs beliefs and christianity in general? That would fit with your analogy. No?

I don't know what you're talking about.

I would say it does 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. The equal and opposite in our case, is unfortunately islamistic terrorism.

i.e. US = Terrorist. I get it. I've heard you say it many times at this point. We're responsible for 9/11... right... I know you think that. What you seem to be missing is that the resonsibility for action lies with the actor.

America, the UK, and others are as much protagonists as the terrorists themselves are. The only thing that separeates us is belief and execution.

...and morality and justice.

Not the end results (ie. terrorist acts), but you can't sit there and say that America has had no part to play what so ever. To claim otherwise would be ignorant of the facts.

I didn't.

You have, but myself and others have voiced opinions contrary to yours. It still doesn't mean that you can close that aspect of the debate without concensus.

Until I see a rebuttle, I'll assume the discussion is over.

 

[vladimir]

I thought we were talking about terrorisim in general against Israel. But OK.

no, i stated that al quaeda has not launched any attack on israel. that was what this part of the discussion was about.

Nothing, except the fact that the Muslim nations of the world told ALL the muslims to leave Palestine so they could obliterate Israel. Well, they failed and of course the muslims have been mad at the Israelis all this time when it was their own religious people told them to leave. The Israeli government was not the ones that forced the muslims out of Israel.

all the muslim nations of the world?
and as far as i know, we're not discussing the situation of some minority in israel, which has voting rights, but the situation of the palestine population whose state is not recognized by israel or most of the western world.

Sadam Hussein is insane. I don't know much about the Spanish conflict you're talking about.

then have a look into it. it won't hurt to get to know some other reasons why people like to have self determination apart from insane saddams and jewish israels.

What started the conflict to which they "resist"? Anytime.

its totally irrelevant whether that place is holy or not, its a place. thats ernough.

if someone came to your house, waving some long forgotten document from a hundred years ago that stated the house was his and would just throw you out, would you just walk away and search for a new home or would you try everything you could to stay in that house that you thought you would own?

Uh...in Iraq. Ok, I'll certainly go along with that. However, the US is involved in a global war on terror so how about some numbers saying that global terrorist acts have skyrocketed. Maybe, just maybe they have. But they haven't hit the US or UK(as far as I know since 7/7) So either what we're doing is very effectiver or purely coincidental.

certainly 7/7 or the bombings in madrid were a response to britain's and spain's involvement in iraq. those people want western nations out of there first of all. america was the target before because america already had lots of troops in the middle east before 9/11.

The Crusades were sparked by trade issues annd political issues with religion being used as the tool to create motivation without using vast sums of cash . And here we have people claiming others have no clue of history ?

Religion is just another" tool " used to lead the sheep . That is historical fact . You want to unite a region ..convert the people to the same religion ...marry off your daughter so the other leader will convert...

Thousands of examples throughout history where religion was used NOT only to manipulate the people but leaders as well .

wow, thats exactly what i'm saying.

For good old Vladamirs benifit.

http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2005nctcannexfinal.pdf#search="nctc report"

YOU gotta check this out .. interesting report. Nice Graphs of attacks around the world ...

i know most of the stuff you have posted already.

you're especially right with the last report being very interesting. it clearly shows that not the western world is the target of the vast majority of terrorism, but nations where people feel they're being suppressed.
also most attacks are not suicide attacks of people who might believe they will get to heaven quicker, but rather armed attacks which don't necessarily bring you quicker to your 72 virgins.

Yup, and the cause is religious in nature.

for some people, yes. in order to get lots of support, however, an occupying enemy is much more help though.
there are countless muslim nations, yet the vast majority of suicide bombers is recruited from those that have western troops stationed in them.
iran is often depicted as an extremely fundamental state, but do you know any iranian terrorists?

I'd like to see you back that up. My entire understanding of the conflict with Israel is that it is religious in nature - Jewish occupation of the holy land vs. Muslim occupation. If Israel were composed of Muslims, would there be a conflict? I don't think so.

iran and iraq are composed of muslims, yet there was a conflict between them.
turkey and iraq are composed of muslims, yet the kurds had conflicts with both.

and i did back it up, i gave you the names of numerous secular terrorists groups fighting in palestine. you could easily inform yourself about them.

Take a look at 9/11. Those guys had been living here nicely for quite a while. It was religious conviction that got them to blow themselves up despite comfortable living.

they lived there for quite a while because it took quite a while to set things up.

It's not a question of rights, it's a question of Jewish people who are still breathing.

no, its a question of both.

Quote me on any other reason for the invasion.

you used the word "we", so i used the word "you" and meant the united states in general and not you in particular.
as for the US we had WMDs, nuclear programme, not complying to UN resolutions, al-quaeda connections, liberating iraqis from a brutal dictator and fighting terrorism. strangely ernough those reasons have not been used equally at the same time but the attention rather shifted from scary things like WMDs and the nuclear programme that were supposed to get the UN's support to the universally applicable fight against terrorism lateron when instead of ready to fire WMDs only some decade old stocks of mustard gas were found.

 

[Danoff]

for some people, yes. in order to get lots of support, however, an occupying enemy is much more help though.
there are countless muslim nations, yet the vast majority of suicide bombers is recruited from those that have western troops stationed in them.
iran is often depicted as an extremely fundamental state, but do you know any iranian terrorists?

Just because religion doesn't motivate all doesn't mean it wasn't the motivation for the ones that actually acted.

iran and iraq are composed of muslims, yet there was a conflict between them.
turkey and iraq are composed of muslims, yet the kurds had conflicts with both.

Why is it tha those conflicts are so overshadowed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

they lived there for quite a while because it took quite a while to set things up.

They were comfortable. To get someone to blow themselves up when they're comfortable, it helps to have a little religious zeal.

you used the word "we", so i used the word "you" and meant the united states in general and not you in particular.
as for the US we had WMDs, nuclear programme, not complying to UN resolutions, al-quaeda connections, liberating iraqis from a brutal dictator and fighting terrorism. strangely ernough those reasons have not been used equally at the same time but the attention rather shifted from scary things like WMDs and the nuclear programme that were supposed to get the UN's support to the universally applicable fight against terrorism lateron when instead of ready to fire WMDs only some decade old stocks of mustard gas were found.

Oh is that all, just some decade old chemical weapons that violated treaties.

No biggie.

 

[magburner]

That sounds like an essay topic. I can tell you that I didn't expect Iraq to be a center for freedom and economic prosperity in the middle east YET. I figured it would take decades.

Decades for what? the war to end? Or the country to try and start rebuilding itself? It also begs the question how can you just expect someone to live through the 'decades' of turmoil? Also, what are your aspirations for iraq? If/when the troubles cease, what do you expect to be in place?

Did you intent to say "Al-Qaeda" instead of "terrorist organization"? Or are you really claiming that Saddam had absolutely no dealings of any kind with any terrorist organization (I'd be hard pressed to justify that even about the US).

Ok, you pulled me up on that one - I need to phrase my syntax better! I have provided proof that Iraq was not responsible for the attacks of 9/11 by admission of your own government.

Indirectly, by providing people of the region freedom and an opportunity to understand America's system of government and basic human rights we hope to get them to respect others (especially religiously) and stop hating us for being different.

What makes you think that they would want to understand Americas system of government? Therein I think lies the problem. There are many Western countries that wouldn't, so how could you expect Middle Eastern countries that have been invaded by you to? Before you say, I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Americas system of government, but there are many other types just as valid, some of which might be more relevant.

As for the human rights issue. Until Guantanamo Bay is closed, you haven't got a leg to stand on with that arguement. Where are the human rights of those inmates?

[sarcasm] That's right. We just dropped a few nukes and flew home. That's what I remember. [/sarcasm]

Thats the lowest form of wit yunno! What I was talking about was the fact that it was widely believed by your countries administration that Iraq would welcome democracy openly, and that there would be a smooth transition towards peace. Proof of that ignorance was 'Dubyahs' infamous 'End of Hostilities' speech. Three years later, we are all still waiting...

Some people do not value freedom.

Its got nothing to do with not valuing freedom! The average Ali in Iraq can't walk down the street without the fear of being involved in some sort of terrorist incident. The death tole in Baghdad alone is report at about 6,000 a month! Whats to value about that kind of freedom?

I don't know what you're talking about.

you said:

I'm confusing terrorist ideology based on Islam with religious fervour because they are the same.

I said:

As similar as the KKKs beliefs and christianity in general? That would fit with your analogy. No?

I was trying to make a comparrison there, but it fell flat on its face! I will attempt to tackle it from a different angle...

There is no disputing that the terrorists are fanatically religious. The way I see it is that its not their faith (ie. Islam) that is influencing them to commit terrorist acts, its the agenda (ideology) of their beliefs that are linked to their faith. Al-Qaeda is an 'Islamistic' terror organisation. Don't confuse 'Islamistic' as being the same as 'Islamic', because they are two different entitities. Any Muslim, could be classed as Islamic, only a few can definitely be called 'islamistic'.

Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.

The word "Islamism" is highly appropriate, for this is an "-ism" like other "-isms" such as fascism and nationalism. Islamism turns the bits and pieces within Islam that deal with politics, economics, and military affairs into a sustained and systematic program. As the leader of the Muslim Brethren put it some years ago, "the Muslims are not socialist nor capitalist; they are Muslims." I find it very telling that he compares Muslims to socialists and capitalists and not to Christians or Jews. He is saying, we are not this "-ism," we are that "-ism." Islamism offers a way of approaching and controlling state power. It openly relies on state power for coercive purposes.

Islamism is, in other words, yet another twentieth-century radical utopian scheme. Like Marxism-Leninism or fascism, it offers a way to control the state, run society, and remake the human being. It is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism. The details, of course, are very different from the preceding versions, but the ultimate purpose is very similar.

Note how Islamism is classed as Ideological rather than religious. Thats the point I was trying to make. You asserted that their religion and their beliefs were one in the same, when In my opinion, they are different. It would be interesting to see how many not-so-religious muslims, or non-muslims are fighting for Islamism.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

Full Article: Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism

i.e. US = Terrorist. I get it. I've heard you say it many times at this point. We're responsible for 9/11... right... I know you think that. What you seem to be missing is that the resonsibility for action lies with the actor.

Your still banging that drum arn't you? I never said that, and you know it. When the twin towers were attacked, the terrorists gave their reasons. They don't justify their atrocities, but part of their rant was directed at American/Israeli actions in the Middle East - real or preceived. Action=Reaction.

Is any of this true? ledheds post regarding the terrorists reasoning

Whislt re-reading ledheds post, a thought came across my mind. The terrorists have a lot of anger vented towards Israel, why has Israel not suffered one (if not many more) atrocities like 9/11? Israel is surrounded on all sides by Muslim nations, some no doubt that have terrorist organisations. If the terrorist threat is as real as we are led to believe, how come Israel has not been attacked more vigoursly? It wouldn't take to much preparation for the terrorists in Iraq to export their 'talents' to Israel, but three years into the iraq invasion, and there has never been any direct link to terrorism of any sort. Why do you think that is?

...and morality and justice.

AKA 'belief'. I used that as a catchall statement.

I didn't.

Ok, you didn't, but you always go hush-hush and start spouting America=terrorism nonsence when I even try to approach the subject, why?

Until I see a rebuttle, I'll assume the discussion is over.

In your mind it maybe. I'm looking into some things regarding this, I will post them when I'm ready.

 

[Danoff]

Decades for what? the war to end? Or the country to try and start rebuilding itself? It also begs the question how can you just expect someone to live through the 'decades' of turmoil? Also, what are your aspirations for iraq? If/when the troubles cease, what do you expect to be in place?

You quoted my answer already. I believed even before we invaded that Iraq was a decades long project toward a free nation with representative government that was a cultural and economic center for the region. I still believe it is possible, though I'm dissapointed with the internal religious and ethnic struggles they're dealing with. With all that oil, Iraq could be a truly great country. Combined with freedom from tyranny it could be an example for the entire middle east - a place for people in the region who simply want to live comfortable productive lives not needing to blow people up to justify their existence.

Ok, you pulled me up on that one - I need to phrase my syntax better! I have provided proof that Iraq was not responsible for the attacks of 9/11 by admission of your own government.

Ok. You've got no argument from me. I'd have agreed with that from the beginning if you'd have said it.

As for the human rights issue. Until Guantanamo Bay is closed, you haven't got a leg to stand on with that arguement. Where are the human rights of those inmates?

Rights are guaranteed to your citizens. You don't guaranteed the same legal protections to non-citizens. That being said, I think it's sad that you immediately point to guantanamo rather than simply acknowledging that America is one of the best in the world when it comes to human rights.

Thats the lowest form of wit yunno! What I was talking about was the fact that it was widely believed by your countries administration that Iraq would welcome democracy openly, and that there would be a smooth transition towards peace. Proof of that ignorance was 'Dubyahs' infamous 'End of Hostilities' speech. Three years later, we are all still waiting...

I honsetly don't know where you're going here... the subject is Al Qaeda. We were attacked BEFORE we invaded Iraq. So leaving Iraq is obviously not going to fix problems with Al Qaeda.

Its got nothing to do with not valuing freedom! The average Ali in Iraq can't walk down the street without the fear of being involved in some sort of terrorist incident. The death tole in Baghdad alone is report at about 6,000 a month! Whats to value about that kind of freedom?

Potential for greatness.

There is no disputing that the terrorists are fanatically religious.

Then we should stop discussing it.

The way I see it is that its not their faith (ie. Islam) that is influencing them to commit terrorist acts, its the agenda (ideology) of their beliefs that are linked to their faith.

Whatever.

Al-Qaeda is an 'Islamistic' terror organisation. Don't confuse 'Islamistic' as being the same as 'Islamic', because they are two different entitities. Any Muslim, could be classed as Islamic, only a few can definitely be called 'islamistic'.

I really don't care. I don't have any beef with muslims in general, just the ones that subscribe to the whole Great Satan, West must die, I love Whitney Houston part.

Note how Islamism is classed as Ideological rather than religious. Thats the point I was trying to make. You asserted that their religion and their beliefs were one in the same, when In my opinion, they are different. It would be interesting to see how many not-so-religious muslims, or non-muslims are fighting for Islamism.

It's based in religion so it is religious in nature. You're getting upset because you think I'm blaming the Muslim faith for terrorism. I don't, I blame people for terrorism.

Your still banging that drum arn't you? I never said that, and you know it. When the twin towers were attacked, the terrorists gave their reasons. They don't justify their atrocities, but part of their rant was directed at American/Israeli actions in the Middle East - real or preceived. Action=Reaction.

Their reasons don't pass on the responsibility, so why are we talking about them again?

Whislt re-reading ledheds post, a thought came across my mind. The terrorists have a lot of anger vented towards Israel, why has Israel not suffered one (if not many more) atrocities like 9/11? Israel is surrounded on all sides by Muslim nations, some no doubt that have terrorist organisations. If the terrorist threat is as real as we are led to believe, how come Israel has not been attacked more vigoursly?

Israel is a much more difficult target than the US because they have much more restrictive policies regarding what people can do and how. But, I believe Israel has faced many more deaths than we have. They've been hit quite hard.

Ok, you didn't, but you always go hush-hush and start spouting America=terrorism nonsence when I even try to approach the subject, why?

Because it doesn't matter. None of that justifies their actions, so it's a pointless discussion.

 

[magburner]

OK, last one before I got to bed - its 1am here!

Rights are guaranteed to your citizens. You don't guaranteed the same legal protections to non-citizens.

Its rights now? You said 'human rights' earlier. As I understand it, 'human rights' are universal - they apply whether your a citizen of a country or not.

That being said, I think it's sad that you immediately point to guantanamo...

I pointed to Guantanamo, because it was the most relevant to the discussion, and it would be something that Muslims would find objection to as well. Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: 'Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.' Do the inmates at Guantanamo have these rights? What is it, Three or four years detention without charge? Is that part of the American Constitution?

...America is one of the best in the world when it comes to human rights.

Maybe one of the best, but there is still some way to go yet! There are many more nations that have better track records. For a start, no European Union country kills its own citizens for the crimes they have commited - There is an article (#3) in the Declaration of Human Rights covering that. IMO the UK, or any other European country has a better human rights record than America.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[ledhed]

Magburner I dont know why ..but you continue to underestimate me and make assumptions on what I have and have not read or what I understand or have studied for years .

http://www.amislam.com/pundit13.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/061yealk.asp

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/027873.php

the Koran clearly states (Sura 5:21) that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle there. In addition, it is predicted that before the end of days, God will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of the Land, gathering them from the different countries and nations (Sura 17:104).

These are the types of conversations that interest me ..

Now when do YOU want YOUR education on the Koran and Wahhabism and what number sura would you care to dicuss ?

I have already admitted my understanding of the Koran to be limited by my only reading ENGLISH translations ..I have been told by the Imman that to truly understand the Koran I must read it in the language it was written in .
You see I work along with muslims and we actually sit around in our spare time and argue about different aspects of politics and religion...and we never raise our voices or accuse each other of being idiots because we choose different paths . I already accept and understand it may take my whole life to actually learn what I need to know to understand all that I should about Islam or anything else ...but I make the effort .


You should have read the whole book " the ART of WAR" It would have warned you against making assumptions a thousand times .

It would also tell you that the best way to win a war is to never fight it .
Among some otheer hundreds of things that carry over not into everyday life but are valuable if you ever want to get into business .

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622518546&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


But you were curiouse about the shura's that Bin laden bases his jihad on no ?

Lets look at them ...

I hope the rest of you guys dont get bored with this ....


You must start here ...

Wahhabism and the Saud Family
In the 1700s, a Sunni Muslim named Muhammad Wahhab (1703-1791) traveled about the Ottoman Empire, comparing what he saw with what Islam was supposed to be according to the Koran. He began a new movement that denounced all influences in Islam that had developed after the writing of the Koran: luxurious living, Sufi influence, rationalism, visiting the tombs of saints and asking intercession of the Prophet or the Imams. Wahhab viewed the granting of godly powers to Muhammad and others as a violation of Islam's strict monotheism. Wahhab's movement labeled all other Muslims as polytheist. They called themselves "Unitarians," or simply Muslims. Others called them the Wahhabi (Wahabi).

Followers of his doctrine usually call themselves Muwahhidun ("Unitarians"); Non-Muslims refer to followers of his sect as Wahhabists

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch17arab.html

Now you have to understand that Islam and the Koran are interpreted by different sects in different ways...like you know the BIBLE ?

So you can have one holy guy tell you that its ok to go all Jihad and he will justify it in the koran while another holy guy will have the exact opposite opinion and might even read it from the same sura .

Like this one ...

And he quoted from the Koran's Sura 60, Verse 9, where it states,

God enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are wrong doers.

see you can use that to make friends with your enemy because your other enemy is also his enemy . Because although he may be your enemy ..

You can also use it to say that the US is your enemy because it is a friend of israel the US being a " wrong doer" and all.

Common Magburner this is like terrorist kidergarden..I'm getting bored .

On the other hand, no less a figure than the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, issued a statement on the official Saudi news service, defending Muslims' divine right to resort to violence: "The spread of Islam has gone through several phases, secret and then public, in Mecca and Medina. God then authorised the faithful to defend themselves and to fight against those fighting them, which amounts to a right legitimised by God. This ... is quite reasonable, and God will not hate it."

Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam.

Yawwwwn.....

And you know the old dude that wants me to learn arabic so I can actually read the Koran the right way ?


Seems he isn't the only one...I admit I had to check ..I thought the old dude wanted me to convert or something...

BUT ..

As it happens, reading the Koran is not without its difficulties. There is, for a start, the thorny problem of context. The Koran gives little help with this: it does not mark off specific passages one from another and its 114 chapters (suras) are not laid out in chronological order.

You have to study the life of Mohammed to get the chapters in the right order ..I think ..I gotta go look again...there's a name for it..a book .I think its the sunna ..but supposedly since the Al queda dudes want to get westerners to join the crusade...english versions are on the web ..supposedly , I can get the name from work of the book store that sells english versions ..if anyone is interested .


So mags you want to ummm back up a bit or do I have to put all the wahhabi crap and radical rationalizing all over the thread ?


Its FUNNY that the same KORAN that says the JEWS will have Israel also says they have to all die ....well not funny but Ironic. I guess it depends on the sura huh Mags and what order its read in .and Who is reading it for what purpose .


Its late its Friday my beer is calling and there are so many fatwa's and quotes from radical's to justify just about everything I wont waste my time tonight...I'll leak them out a bit aat a time so you dont all stone me to death .

But you can also take into account the other version of Shura ...( in case I got the H mixed up or forgot it ).

Mujahideen Shura Council
Mothertongue Name:
Majlis Shura Mujahideen fi al-Iraq


Aliases: Shura Council of the Mujahideen of Iraq

Base of Operation: Iraq

Founding Philosophy: The Mujahideen Shura Council is an umbrella organization made up of Jihadist groups in Iraq, including al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers.

The name Mujahideen Shura Council first emerged in spring 2005 in connection with the kidnapping of Australian citizen Douglas Wood. Wood was a contractor with the American construction firm Bechtel and was abducted by a group calling themselves the “Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq.” The group demanded the removal of coalition forces from Iraq. After being held in captivity for weeks, Wood was apparently freed by Iraqi forces in an operation in June 2005

They be the ones blowing up crap ...


And Mags read Bin Ladens fatwas to see the Sura's he is using..he list them or quotes them .

If you need a link....well I'm sure you will let me know .


The crazy thing is all the Muslims come over from Pakistan , kazistan ( sp ) and India..( there are muslims living in India !) they are much better educated than I am ...two especially well educated...but they are working in menial jobs until they can get degree's in the US and make the cash by getting the jobs they deserve and for the most part they are more American than a bunch of the Americans I work with . And there is a HUGE diffence between the Black Muslim teaching in the US and theirs...I get to be the white guy referee...I'm a white devil but they still let me play . I'm sure he means it in a nice way . At any rate what we do at lunch for an hour..they consider stimulating , almost like a sport . Its a different world for one hour .


See beer makes you ramble....


Vlad here's another one you may find interesting...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013262.php


Mags this one is for you..

http://www.islamworld.net/jihad.html

Think deeply, dear brother in Islam, how Allah (swt) encourages the spirit to make His Word superior and to protect the weak, and to rescue the oppressed ones. Also think deeply how Jihad is connected with Salat (prayers) and Saum (fasting). It is made obvious that Jihad similar to both of them, and all the three (Jihad, Salat and Saum) are ordained (by Allah) for the believers. See how Allah has encouraged the cowardly men to plunge themselves into the battles, to face death with an open heart and to run madly for it (Jihad) with great encouragement showing clearly to them that death will certainly overtake them and in case they die as Mujahidin (Martyrs) they will compensated for their worldly life with a mighty compensation and they will not be dealt with unjustly in the very least.

Jihad is a great deed indeed and there is no deed whose reward or blessing is as that of it, and for this reason, it is the best thing that one can volunteer for. All the Muslim religious scholars unanimously agree that Jihad is superior to Hajj and 'Umra (pilgrimage) and also superior to nonobligatory Salat (prayer) and Saum (fasting) as mentioned in the Qur'anand Prophet's Sunna. It is obvious that the benefits of Jihad for us are extensive and comprehensive, it(Jihad) includes all kinds of worship both hidden and open, it also includes (a great) love for Allah (swt) and it shows one's sincerity to Him and it also shows one's trust in Him, and it indicates the handing over of one's soul and property to Him- it (Jihad) shows one's patience, one's devotion to Islam, one's remembrance to Allah (swt) and there are other kinds of good deeds which are present in Jihad and are not present in any other act of worship.

I left out the big BOOM at the end..

 

[YSSMAN]

So what your saying is that we would of been attacked anyway? I don't think so. Look at the evidence, and it says something completely contradictory to what you have just said. If you look at all of the terrorist attacks that have happened since 9/11 they all have a couple of things in common. The targets where either in countries that were part of the 'broad coalition' or where in Islamic states, or countries with a sizeable population of Muslims. To my knowledge there has been no other attacks that fit into a pattern outside of the one I have just mentioned. If you know different, I stand ready to be corrected.

Even I'm confused as to what you are attempting to get at there. Your country is a target as I explained before, or you could read some previous postings by ledhed that include the definition of Al-Queda's Jihad. They hate us because we are anti-Islam by "promoting" their views of Satan... Drugs, sex (women), alcohol, ISRAEL. It doesn't matter if you are in Iraq or not, as long as your country fits into their puzzle, you are a target. Sure, I completely understand that your previous attacks were justified by the UK's involvement in Iraq, but even without that, they would have found something else to justify it with.

...Look at Canada. Not to deminish their role in the War on Terror, but they haven't done much. What happened in the spring? Terrorists were plotting to destroy part of Toronto. Why? Canada is an ally of the United States and Israel, support western ideals, and therefore is allied with Satan.

Iraq is an excuse to blow things up, I'll give you that, but it isn't the only reason why they hate us. Quite frankly, the list would be quite long for both the UK and the US, and you would be quite naive to think that it wouldn't be so for you...

From what I remember, we invaded Iraq, because they had WMDs and not because it was a terrorist state. It has been well documented that Saddam had no dealings with any terrorist organisation. So I ask the question, how was invading Iraq, going on the offensive against terrorists? I could see the arguement with regard to Afghanistan, but not with Iraq.

Yes, you are correct. But hold on a second, I think you are missing something. If you are the leader of your country and you not only have MI-6, but also the CIA, along with French, Russian, and Israeli Inteligence telling you that Saddam has WMDs and has reportedly talked with suspected terrorists, would you not be worried? Bush was, so was Blair. Given what they had, they made a case for war, and our Legislative brances decided to give the okay.

...Three years down the road, we now know that inteligence was indeed flawed, but it is fairly well-accepted that Saddam was attempting to rebuild his WMD collection, albeit at a very slow pace. As for the terrorists, we knew they were operating in Iraq, and although we thought they may have been cooperating with Saddam, that is a false truth depending on who you talk to.

So we are there now, liberating the Iraqi people from the tyrrany of Saddam, creating open warfare with the terrorists, "securing democracy" in the Middle East. We are now fighting the terrorists head-on, on their own playground, and it has been costly, moreso than we had anticipated. The idea of "securing democracy" seems to be the key one here these days. Of course, it doesn't look like its going to well, but we've made strides no less.

---

But, we are going in circles here. We always do. It doesn't matter if you are for or against the War on Terror, as we are all a part of it. Like it or not, you're with us. You've always been with us, and guess what, you always will be. As long as you support freedom and democracy, allow women their freedoms, use oil, pay your taxes, watch American movies, or even worship anything but Islam, you are an enemy to the Jihad.

...We may as well paint targets on our chests, cause guess what? They want to kill us!

 

[ledhed]

Ysssman...I left it up there in a little subtle way ...but remember way back when I mentioned there are Islamic leaders that think the world must be under Islamic rule for it to be " right " . Or "fixed " Or whatever you want to call it ?

Well back in my rambling I pointed you ( well whomever was looking ) at a verse that basicaly gives you the blueprint on what they truly believe .

Remember they look at the west and do not see GOOD ..only temptation excess and evil. Its hard but you have to put yourself in their shoes to understand.

Read this again .

Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam.

Note ...

Accept Islam ....

Or Surrender and pay tribute ... Under the protection anf guidance of Islamic rule .

OR DIE .

So says the Prophet Mohammed according to the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh .

That is what is being taught . That is what Bin Laden is trying to bring about along with the other true believers.

What I dont get is what its going to take for people to actually believe it ?


I dont make this crap up . And I really cant see what the argument is about.

They do not want our cultural influence poisoning their world...the only way to stop it is to destroy us economically and Militarily or to convert us to Islam or bring us under Islamic rule.

Their goals are noble ..they truly believe they are SAVING the world from Satan . Its easy to say " well they are evil " ....But you have to look at tthings from their side of the looking glass to understand them.

Hey read the Art of war...Know your enemy the way you know yourself.

If you want to beat them you must first understand them .

Just saying they are evil wont work...you are not killing soldiers you are trying to kill an Idea and a movement...different kind of war . And sure you have to kill the leaders and the soldiers but at the same time you must remove the conditions that make it attractive to strap a bomb on to your back and go blow up a bus.

Things in that part of the world are really that bad ....its worth blowing your self up to get paradise ...think on that .

You have a goat and earn 200 bucks a year...you see these Martians called Americans that throw out more crap than you can ever hope to even look at in your life ...it seems they own the world and not only that they seem to be going around killing all the muslims they can find ..and nobody can even hurt them ...except for this Bin laden dude and his boys...

Where do I sign up ?

I hate to over simplify it.. but combine the religion and its teachings with the conditions and the perceptions and ...pardon the pun...you get an explosive situation . And LOTS of recruits .

What do they have to lose ? Compared to gaining PARADISE and fame and recognition and becoming a HERO to the people ...VS. what ? No vote ..no freedom...no money ...no choices...no real future...NO say in their own life ..never mind the future of their country...Plus the fact they can actually paint a bulls eye on someone ...

Its a global movement . And it combines Religion with political motivation...but the glue that holds it all together is the religion.
And strong leaders..successfull leaders.

 

[YSSMAN]

^ I totally agree. I'd give you more Kudos, but the system won't let me.

Anyway, I'm currently reading a book called "Liberty and Power; The Politics of Jacksonian America" and I came across some interesting things that he (Andrew Jackson, Seventh President of the United States, 1830s America) had said.

"God expects Americans to preserve liberty for the benefit of the human race... and defend it untill the end of time."

...and...

"..eternal vigilance... is the price of liberty."

It is always kinda odd when our forefathers knew so much before we ever did. That, or it is kinda ironic that you can apply those thoughts to what is happening today...

 

[KSaiyu]

Until I see a rebuttle, I'll assume the discussion is over.

To which post are you referring? In my mind, I answered to all three opposing opinions on this point here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2439315&postcount=128

Then the debate turned toward religion.

 

[Danoff]

To which post are you referring? In my mind, I answered to all three opposing opinions on this point here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2439315&postcount=128

Then the debate turned toward religion.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2433226&postcount=97

Basic idea - Talking to terrorists promotes terrorism. That's why the US has a "we do not negotiate with terrorists" policy.

QED

 

[ledhed]

To which post are you referring? In my mind, I answered to all three opposing opinions on this point here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2439315&postcount=128

Then the debate turned toward religion.

Ok I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went back and re-read the points made for taliking...and why talking is not a viable alternativee..BTW the reason the thread went into religion is that the religion of the terrorist says " you will make no treaty with the infidels etc. nor you Will recognize treaties made by others "...not he exact words but close enough...

After all you arguments were soundly countered...you fell back on the old .." well what we are doing NOW isn't working so why not ....etc. TRAP .

And that when the idea of talking to terrorist was basically blown up .

If something isn't working you don't fix it by trying something worse , than what your already doing .

BTW it was already shown to be a bad idea..so then by advocating you try it because the current course of action isn't " working " ( subjective we wont know for years if its working or not ) . You really destroyed your own position .

Thats just my opinion from reading over the first 10 -12 pages and since then the argument of " talking " to terrorist has taken a horrible beating and is not even on life support...because of the terrorist own words and motivation.
The Idea of " talking ' to terrorist only matters if its a surrender negotiation .


Is that what your after terms of surrender ?

They are posted in the thread .


I really don't want you take this post as a harsh response or a condescending observation or ridiculing of your position..I honestly did read over ever one of the points you made and the counter by OTHERS..I already know what I wrote..I just went back and looked at my cut and paste stuff I don't have all the words committed to memory yet...


But you are certainly free to go back and show where your argument overcame a response or was correct ...but IMO I just cant find it .

 

[vladimir]

Just because religion doesn't motivate all doesn't mean it wasn't the motivation for the ones that actually acted.

i'm not denying that. but to get rid of those there is only one strategy, fighting them (like with weapons...)

what i'd like to get your attention on is where they get their support and fresh manpower from. where is the outrage among the arabic world over all those terrorist attacks? why do so many people join terrorist groups, be they secular or not, and become violent?
apart from someone of you three guys, who stated that the investigation i posted an interview about was flawed because one could not interview suicide attackers after they had killed themselves, none has yet really disproved anything that was said in that interview.

again, some are religios fanatics, but that does not explain all the violence and terror we're experiencing.

Why is it tha those conflicts are so overshadowed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

because israel and the palestinians have a lot of allies who are interested in their case. who cares about the kurds? who cares about the basques? who cares about the tamils?
the interest leads to more attention by the media and also more support by money or weapons that can then be used for deadly attacks. also the palestinian terrorists can plan their attacks a lot better than the kurds because the kurds live in turkey and thus are under closer surveilance. and then there are f course not only the palestinians but israel also occupies parts of other countries around.

They were comfortable. To get someone to blow themselves up when they're comfortable, it helps to have a little religious zeal.

it sure helps. it also helps if you can claim that the united states unjustly interferes with politics in the arabian world...

mohammed atta is supposed to have been anti-semitic, but also very anti-american, even before he was recruited by al-quaeda.

Oh is that all, just some decade old chemical weapons that violated treaties.

No biggie.

and have done that for decades without anyone giving a **** and the military more or less found them by accident. it wasn't like those weapons were the same that powell said the US had proof of in front of the UN. maybe even saddam didn't know they were still there.
does israel comply to all resolutions?

 

[Danoff]

what i'd like to get your attention on is where they get their support and fresh manpower from....

again, some are religios fanatics, but that does not explain all the violence and terror we're experiencing.

I think it can. We offend their religious beliefs in many ways through our culture. Their battle with Israel is also based in religion. Take those motivations (which are religious) and combine them with a justification for violence (taken, perhaps incorrectly, from the Koran) and you get both the motivation and the justification for violence via religion.

does israel comply to all resolutions?

If they don't, and they signed a treaty, they should be careful not to piss us off.

 

[KSaiyu]

I really don't want you take this post as a harsh response or a condescending observation or ridiculing of your position..I honestly did read over ever one of the points you made and the counter by OTHERS..I already know what I wrote..I just went back and looked at my cut and paste stuff I don't have all the words committed to memory yet...

Oh I don't take it like that, I obviously see it differently than how you and danoff may have interpreted it so I'll try and clear it up.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2433226&postcount=97

Basic idea - Talking to terrorists promotes terrorism. That's why the US has a "we do not negotiate with terrorists" policy.

QED

This was the issue brought up repeatedly in this thread, but it remains just that - an idea. Has it been proven correct, and is it right that the US policy is so iron-clad on this subject?

After all you arguments were soundly countered...you fell back on the old .." well what we are doing NOW isn't working so why not ....etc. TRAP .

And that when the idea of talking to terrorist was basically blown up .

I'd like to disagree with that, as you are saying all of the arguments of mine, and possibly all others who even partly agreed were counted perfectly but then the points expressed after that didn't hold ground? Here's one instance where I back up my position with facts, in retorting to:

One does that in several ways:

- No negotiation
- No appeasment
- Strengthening of resolve after each attack
- Swift, powerful response

Anything else encourages terrorism.

What encourages terrorism is the terrorist cells, happy to feed young minds with the thoughts that America, Britain and their allies

-won't talk with muslims
-won't listen to what they want in the middle east
-always respond with force against them, sometimes over-excessively
-treat them as terror suspects even if they're innocent.

This isn't my opinions on how we should change the way we approach radicalists (just imagine if we did start letting states be ruled under sharia law, where would it end), I'm stating what actually turns people into terrorists and what really does encourage terrorism.

Now granted, you can say I don't make a case for negotiation directly, but your "alternative", with no forms of communication whatsoever will seriously, and has ALREADY PROVED to increase the terrorist threat and not reduce it. Now I don't believe this is the same argument as "it hasn't worked, throw it away", moreover I want it to show that communication could help lessen the threat we face from terrorism the world over.

If something isn't working you don't fix it by trying something worse , than what your already doing .

BTW it was already shown to be a bad idea..so then by advocating you try it because the current course of action isn't " working " ( subjective we wont know for years if its working or not ) . You really destroyed your own position .

I fail to see that - firstly where it was shown to be a bad idea, and secondly how can you possibly assume that the "current course of action" will work in a few years time, when we have been told already that it isn't working at present by the White House - which isn't subjective and up for debate.

 

[Danoff]

This was the issue brought up repeatedly in this thread, but it remains just that - an idea. Has it been proven correct, and is it right that the US policy is so iron-clad on this subject?

Basic logic. They want something. They attempt to get it via force. We don't give it to them, they'll try something else. We must maintain a policy of not rewarding force (with talks or handouts) or others will have a map for how to get exactly what they want.

If someone blows up your civilians and you pay them off, or hold talks with them listening to their demands, or change your policies in any way, what does that say to everyone else that wants something from you??? Blow people up!

There is no other side to this argument. It's simply a matter of incentives. If we give them what they want, we've already rewarded them for doing something we don't want them to do. It would be like giving a dog a treat every time he crapped on the carpet.

Now granted, you can say I don't make a case for negotiation directly, but your "alternative", with no forms of communication whatsoever will seriously, and has ALREADY PROVED to increase the terrorist threat and not reduce it.

I disagree. Our policy in Iraq may have (at least temporarily) increased terrorism (in Iraq). But the policy of no negotiation has not shown to increase terrorism.

 

[ledhed]

Please dont forget this guy is still around...

Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > Iranian President Calls for Destruction of Israel and the West

Iranian President Calls for Destruction of Israel and the West
October 26, 2005

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'



"...Addressing a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled "The World Without Zionism", Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible..." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak03.html



MIM: Barely a month after the Iranian president was feted at the UN by people who share his agenda, he has openly declared his intent to annilihate Israel. The fact that someone who was given diplomatic protection is using rhetoric identical to that of Al Qaeda, and is leading a Muslim country on the verge of producing nukes, begs the question as to why Amadinejad was even allowed into the United States. Amadinejad's statements should come as no surprise and validate Dr.Daniel Pipe's 2003 prediction which he made in an addendum to an article entitled "The Coming Anti Semitism"

"...I omitted to mention above that the psychological preparation for using nuclear weapons against Israel has already begun. In December 2001, as reported in Iran's English, Farsi and Arabic newspapers, former Iranian president and "Expediency Council" Chairman Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that

If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam..."



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=news&id=91812

Iran´s President Calls for Destruction of Israel and the West

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Iran's president told attendees of a conference in Teheran on Wednesday that "Israel must be wiped off the map." Last week, Iran promoted anti-Semitic literature at a German book fair.

"The creation of the occupying regime in Jerusalem is a strong action by the ruling arrogant world order against the world of Islam. There continues a historic war between the [powers of] World Arrogance and the Islamic world, the roots of which go back hundreds of years," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared. "The Islamic nation will not allow its historic enemy to exist in its heartland."

Ahmadinejad was addressing a Teheran conference entitled "A World Without Zionism".

"I have no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] which has started in dear Palestine and which we witness today all over the Islamic world will soon wipe this scourge of shame from the Islamic world. This is doable," Ahmadinejad encouraged the audience, which included thousands of Islamic students, as well as representatives of Arab terrorist organizations and their supporters. He noted his belief that the turn towards Islamism in the Palestinian Authority has brought the Arabs success against Israel.

Western Civilization, the Iranian leader said, "turned the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem into a staging-ground to dominate the Islamic world. ...They have created a base, from where they can expand their rule over the entire Islamic world; it has no other purpose other than this."

The goal of a world without the United States or Zionism, Ahmadinejad said, is "attainable and could definitely be realized. ...Our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] ordered that the occupying regime in Jerusalem be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement."

Compromise over the elimination of Israel, the Iranian president said, is tantamount to the defeat of the Islamic world, as "the central and command base of the enemy... is the occupying regime in Jerusalem." Ahmadinejad characterized the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria as a "trick" intended to seduce Islamic leaders to recognize Israel.

In reaction to the Iranian premier's statements, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Gillerman was told by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to demand Iran's removal from the world body.

In Iran, this Friday - the last Friday of the Islamic month of Ramadan - is Jerusalem Day, as per the late Ayatollah Khomeini's designation. Demonstrations against Israel and America are a feature of the day's events.

Meanwhile, in the heart of the West in Europe, Iran promoted Western-style anti-Semitism at its pavilion at the Frankfurt Book Fair last week. Among the books on display were The czarist anti-Semitic propaganda tract The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Henry Ford's The International Jew and Tale of the "Chosen People" by an Iranian author. The publishing event, which ended Sunday, attracted more than 250,000 people this year. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) confirmed that all books on display in Frankfurt were selected with government oversight. No action was taken against the Iranian delegation by German officials, even though German law prohibits the sale of some of the books displayed in the Iranian pavilion.

------------------------

Look at the dates he has not changed his song or his message and insist on keeping his promise .

This is the leader of a country seeking nuclear weapons and his CLERGY advocates the use of all weapons of any nature so that Islam is the religion of the world and the Flg of Islam Fly's over Washington Parrris and Moscow.

The clergy names Chemical and Biological and nuclear weapons as being the weapons of GOD and the instruments to fulfill Allahs will ...this Clergy are the LEADERS of IRAN .

As soon as I can get the video feed or transcript from the news sites I WILL post them .


But the little Elvis bunghole in NK is not as much a danger as this bunch of fanatics that thinks God wants us dead .

 

[ledhed]

Oh I don't take it like that, I obviously see it differently than how you and danoff may have interpreted it so I'll try and clear it up.



This was the issue brought up repeatedly in this thread, but it remains just that - an idea. Has it been proven correct, and is it right that the US policy is so iron-clad on this subject?



I'd like to disagree with that, as you are saying all of the arguments of mine, and possibly all others who even partly agreed were counted perfectly but then the points expressed after that didn't hold ground? Here's one instance where I back up my position with facts, in retorting to:





Now granted, you can say I don't make a case for negotiation directly, but your "alternative", with no forms of communication whatsoever will seriously, and has ALREADY PROVED to increase the terrorist threat and not reduce it. Now I don't believe this is the same argument as "it hasn't worked, throw it away", moreover I want it to show that communication could help lessen the threat we face from terrorism the world over.




I fail to see that - firstly where it was shown to be a bad idea, and secondly how can you possibly assume that the "current course of action" will work in a few years time, when we have been told already that it isn't working at present by the White House - which isn't subjective and up for debate.

Say what ? What is not working Democracy ??? What are you talking about ?

The idea is free democratic nations wont kill each other or encourage terror.

Check back ,,its on the LIST of rteasons for regime cahange and invading Iraq .

TIME will tell if the Iraqis will reconcile or find common ground or strong leaders...THE people of IRAQ have already SPOKEN 12 million of the voted and they chose a constitution...now its time for the GOVERNMENT they elected to DO ITS JOB .

While they fight foriegn terrorist who want them to fail and Sunni terrorist who want them to fail and Shiite terrorist who want to kill every Sunni born ...and Sunni terrorist who waant to kill all the Shiites...

TIME will tell ...like years ...if Democracy will work and take strong hold in Iraq. Now some support by the EU and the UN might actually help ...but hey they seem a bit confused .

 

[Sureboss]

A time to talk? Yes.

Will it happen? No.

Trying to fight Al-Qaeda hasn't really worked yet, although the Iraq war has made things so much more difficult than it needed to be. America won't back down, Al Qaeda won't back down.

It's a horrible situation because nothing will progress.

The Muslims believe ISrael is their land, despite it being the Jews land before Muhammad invaded their in the 8th century with the Ottomans. It's a horrible situation because no one will win and people will die.