Why We Are Fighting The Global War On Terrorism

[Go Fish]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7116437460889399690

[jafar00]

Just more of the usual hate filled right wing propaganda taking quotes from the Qur'aan in English out of context and twisting the words to support whatever agenda you have. Much like what Al Qaeda does.

[Trish]

Just more of the usual hate filled right wing propaganda taking quotes from the Qur'aan in English out of context and twisting the words to support whatever agenda you have. Much like what Al Qaeda does.


Jafar -

I have a question - rather a couple of questions for you. Should we (the West) ignore what AQ and other Islamic extremists base their actions on? You and others claim (perhaps rightly so) that the Qur'aan is not being fairly represented. Many in the West are receiving their impressions of what the Qur'aan does or does not say directly from Muslims. Radical Muslims true, but Muslims nonetheless. So are we to ignore the foundation upon which the attacks against us are based? Does the fact that AQ and other extremist groups corrupt the Qur'aan for their own benefit make their attacks or their mission any less deadly? Are we not to repeat what THEY say because it's a corruption?

[jafar00]

Just more of the usual hate filled right wing propaganda taking quotes from the Qur'aan in English out of context and twisting the words to support whatever agenda you have. Much like what Al Qaeda does.


Jafar -

I have a question - rather a couple of questions for you. Should we (the West) ignore what AQ and other Islamic extremists base their actions on?


If AQ and other extremists are twisting the words of the Qur'aan to mean something different and then their actions are in conflict with the real teachings of Islam, is it fair to call them "Islamic" extremists and terrorists, thereby demonising Muslims?


You and others claim (perhaps rightly so) that the Qur'aan is not being fairly represented. Many in the West are receiving their impressions of what the Qur'aan does or does not say directly from Muslims. Radical Muslims true, but Muslims nonetheless.


Actually, they are getting their education about Muslims from those with an agenda to paint Islam in a bad way. When was the last time you saw the media dominated by positive stories about Islam? The only time a quote from the Qur'aan is displayed is when it comes from some mysterious Al Qaeda type who shouldn't be given the airtime in the first place.
So yes, the Qur'aan is being unfairly represented by Western media.


So are we to ignore the foundation upon which the attacks against us are based?


No. The attacks are for a reason. To combat the threat you need to go to the source of the reason they attack, and that is not the Qur'aan and not Muslims.


Does the fact that AQ and other extremist groups corrupt the Qur'aan for their own benefit make their attacks or their mission any less deadly?


No it doesn't, nor does their misuse make them more deadly.


Are we not to repeat what THEY say because it's a corruption?


That would help. Perhaps balance it out by mentioning that it IS a corruption, rather than convincing the population that it is what all Muslims are taught.

This film is pure ignorance on tape.

[Trish]

Just more of the usual hate filled right wing propaganda taking quotes from the Qur'aan in English out of context and twisting the words to support whatever agenda you have. Much like what Al Qaeda does.


Jafar -

I have a question - rather a couple of questions for you. Should we (the West) ignore what AQ and other Islamic extremists base their actions on?


If AQ and other extremists are twisting the words of the Qur'aan to mean something different and then their actions are in conflict with the real teachings of Islam, is it fair to call them "Islamic" extremists and terrorists, thereby demonising Muslims?


You and others claim (perhaps rightly so) that the Qur'aan is not being fairly represented. Many in the West are receiving their impressions of what the Qur'aan does or does not say directly from Muslims. Radical Muslims true, but Muslims nonetheless.


Actually, they are getting their education about Muslims from those with an agenda to paint Islam in a bad way. When was the last time you saw the media dominated by positive stories about Islam? The only time a quote from the Qur'aan is displayed is when it comes from some mysterious Al Qaeda type who shouldn't be given the airtime in the first place.
So yes, the Qur'aan is being unfairly represented by Western media.


So are we to ignore the foundation upon which the attacks against us are based?


No. The attacks are for a reason. To combat the threat you need to go to the source of the reason they attack, and that is not the Qur'aan and not Muslims.


Does the fact that AQ and other extremist groups corrupt the Qur'aan for their own benefit make their attacks or their mission any less deadly?


No it doesn't, nor does their misuse make them more deadly.


Are we not to repeat what THEY say because it's a corruption?


That would help. Perhaps balance it out by mentioning that it IS a corruption, rather than convincing the population that it is what all Muslims are taught.

This film is pure ignorance on tape.



You make a good point regarding balancing information regarding Islam. However, I disagree with you on others. First, I think you're wrong in objecting to characterizing AQ and other such groups as "Islamic" extremists. That's what they are. If they were basing their mission and goals on a distorted view of Biblical principles then they'd be "Christian" extremists, if they were basing their distortions on The Talmud, then they'd be "Jewish" extremists, etc. etc. etc. That their distortions are based on The Qur'aan make them "Islamic" extremists.

I also don't think you can base the way some people view Islam as an attempt to paint Islam in a bad light. These jihadists and extremists are responsible for the negative perspective people have.

We are going to the source for the reason they attack - their distorted view of religious doctrine. It's what makes them so dangerous - the fact that this is based on religious belief, no matter how skewed. ANY religious connotations of this type are more dangerous than simple political ideology differences. Religious beliefs ratchet up things to an entirely different, more dangerous, more intense level. That's not just true for Islamic extremists but ALL religious extremists.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Trish....

Would you feel that people in other nations should judge our nation, or its people based on the acts of radical christians? You know, the ones who blow up abortion clinics, use force against innocent doctors who perform abortions, demonize and victimize our troops because they are fighting in an army of "gays and lesbians"?
We are a "majority" christian nation, so would this seem fair to you, or more importantly, would it seem ACCURATE?

I don't think so.

Religion mixing with politics is always a bad recipe, and when we base political actions, or worse, military actions on religious motive, we are only asking for trouble in the form of inaccurate bias, labelling and "mantra" outweighing "facts".

So, do you share the same hatred for the "radical muslims" as you do the "radical christians"?

Do you support Christian missions into foreign lands to "spread the word" the same as Muslim, Rastafarian, Buddhist missions to accomplish the same goal?

I look forward to your reply, with sincere intrest.

[apdst]

Couldn't AQ's so called twisted interpretation of the Koran be considered blasfamy? Shouldn't Muslims, Worldwide be up in arms over that?

[Osborn F. Enready]

APDST said:
Couldn't AQ's so called twisted interpretation of the Koran be considered blasfamy?

I suppose, if you believe in that, much as could christian radicals.

APDST said:
Shouldn't Muslims, Worldwide be up in arms over that?

In the same manner that Christians are upset at their radical branches?

[Trish]

Trish....

Would you feel that people in other nations should judge our nation, or its people based on the acts of radical christians? You know, the ones who blow up abortion clinics, use force against innocent doctors who perform abortions, demonize and victimize our troops because they are fighting in an army of "gays and lesbians"?
We are a "majority" christian nation, so would this seem fair to you, or more importantly, would it seem ACCURATE?

I don't think so.

Religion mixing with politics is always a bad recipe, and when we base political actions, or worse, military actions on religious motive, we are only asking for trouble in the form of inaccurate bias, labelling and "mantra" outweighing "facts".

So, do you share the same hatred for the "radical muslims" as you do the "radical christians"?

Do you support Christian missions into foreign lands to "spread the word" the same as Muslim, Rastafarian, Buddhist missions to accomplish the same goal?

I look forward to your reply, with sincere intrest.


I think we're already judged on a number of different fronts and the perceptions of citizens of other countries may or may not be accurate depending upon which perspective is being discussed. I think if we as a nation seem to support, or to stay largely silent, about Christian extremists murdering people because of abortions, bombing clinics etc., then yes, I would say that it would be understandable for some people to view the US and/or Christianity from that perspective. It's not accurate, just as judging all Islam by the jihadists perspective is not accurate, but it is understandable.

As for me "hating" radical Muslims, I don't. I despise what they do; I despise the manner in which they do it; and I despise the resulting high price (and I don't mean money) that is paid by the whole world because of it; but I don't "hate" the people. Actually, I suppose pity would be a more apt description of my emotions toward the members of any radical religious group. I often think that people, ALL people, don't take the time to study for themselves what their religious beliefs are, where they came from, and why. If we, and I'm not speaking of just Muslims or Christians, but rather all religious people, don't KNOW for ourselves what we believe and why, we're all too easily fooled in believing stupid crap. It's that type of wilfull ignorance that led to tragedies like Jonestown, and in my opinion, is largely responsible for this extremist Islamic crap. People are just too willing to abdicate responsibility for their beliefs to some other "authority" and thus too easily accept damn fools that pervert the Scriptures.

I don't have a problem with prosyletizing as a rule. I have enjoyed many a discussion with people of different religions. I don't have to agree with them to find discussion of their beliefs, or developing a greater understanding of their beliefs an enjoyable pursuit. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness yet have many times thanked one of their members for remembering me in prayer. I have been "blessed" by Wiccans and thanked them for their kindness. If someone wishes me "Happy Hannukah" or whatever the salutation is for Ramadan, I wouldn't be insulted because I'm a Christian, I'd be touched by their thoughtfulness. For me, it's not the religious belief of that person that is the most important thing - it's that that person cared enough, was kind enough to consider me and my needs worthy of divine intercession. But I suppose I am an odd duck in that respect. So no, I don't have a problem with "spreading the word" or sharing my beliefs with others or them sharing theirs with me or others. I DO have a problem when prsyletizing becomes a threat - you convert or die type of thing. Yep, I have a big problem with that.

I do agree with you completely on the religious extremism and political/military front, however. It's a volatile, powerful, and highly dangerous mix. There's no more dangerous creature than a religious zealot on a "divine" mission of destruction.

[Osborn F. Enready]

That was a superb post Trish, and I thank you for answering in detail.

There is nothing there I can disagree with.

I also have NO problem with religion, as long as it does not affect my nations politics.

I agree with this statement very strongly:
If we, and I'm not speaking of just Muslims or Christians, but rather all religious people, don't KNOW for ourselves what we believe and why, we're all too easily fooled in believing stupid crap. It's that type of wilfull ignorance that led to tragedies like Jonestown, and in my opinion, is largely responsible for this extremist Islamic crap. People are just too willing to abdicate responsibility for their beliefs to some other "authority" and thus too easily accept damn fools that pervert the Scriptures.

Great post.

[apdst]

In the same manner that Christians are upset at their radical branches?

I don't recall extremist Christians hijacking airplanes, or suicide bombing people. Am I missing something?

demonize and victimize our troops because they are fighting

Liberals do that all the time.

[jafar00]

Couldn't AQ's so called twisted interpretation of the Koran be considered blasfamy? Shouldn't Muslims, Worldwide be up in arms over that?


How you know we aren't? Ever since these criminals somehow got blanket international television coverage the likes of which no corporation could hope to buy, Imams and Sheikhs have been bombarded by questions from Muslims. Every shred of teaching I have got from a Sheikh or Imam in a Mosque, is totally contrary to what the Al Qaeda says. My own Sheikh went as far as telling us that Osama and his media team are totally unqualified to make their fatwas and do not have the permission to make any judgments as they have done.

Bottom line is that them claiming to be Muslims despite acting to the contrary does not in any way make them "Islamic". For example, according to Shariah, POWs are supposed to be shown kindness, taught Arabic and taught to read the Qur'aan and fed literally from the same plate as their captors. Instead you see them chopping off heads etc. They are not what they claim to be at all.

[nevadamedic]

Just more of the usual hate filled right wing propaganda taking quotes from the Qur'aan in English out of context and twisting the words to support whatever agenda you have. Much like what Al Qaeda does.


Anyways, try again.

People see the Qur'aan as what it really is, a book of hate and the religion of Islam as what it is, evil and Mohammed as what he really was, a monster.

[nevadamedic]

In the same manner that Christians are upset at their radical branches?

I don't recall extremist Christians hijacking airplanes, or suicide bombing people. Am I missing something?

demonize and victimize our troops because they are fighting

Liberals do that all the time.


:clapper:

Perfect example "Dirty" Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, The Berkeley City Council and Code Stink.

[apdst]

How you know we aren't?

We damn sure can't see that you are! We see ya'll getting hyped up over cartoons, Israel and Iraq, but nothing from ya'll as far as killing YOUR terrorists. Wassup? What are ya'll waiting on?

[Osborn F. Enready]

APDST said:
I don't recall extremist Christians hijacking airplanes, or suicide bombing people. Am I missing something?

Yes, a knowledge of a large portion of history that doesn't agree with your outlook.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence
http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/

The U.S. need not look past its borders to find religious extremism and suicidal zealots.


Nevadamedic said:
Anyways, try again.

People see the Qur'aan as what it really is, a book of hate and the religion of Islam as what it is, evil and Mohammed as what he really was, a monster.

Very open minded of you...... :sadly:

Do you view all religions with such open mindedness? :grrrr:

APDST said:
We damn sure can't see that you are! We see ya'll getting hyped up over cartoons, Israel and Iraq, but nothing from ya'll as far as killing YOUR terrorists. Wassup? What are ya'll waiting on?

Great point in contrast to the cartoons violence.....literally. :thumbsup:

That contrast can't be stressed enough... If the middle eastern countries threw a protest half the size of the cartoon related protests, against Al Quaeda, perhaps there would be a more obvious reason for more than a modicum of respect.

[apdst]

The U.S. need not look past its borders to find religious extremism and suicidal zealots.

Yeah, and we've done a helluva job putting those fuckers in jail, too.


If the middle eastern countries threw a protest half the size of the cartoon related protests, against Al Quaeda, perhaps there would be a more obvious reason for more than a modicum of respect.

Thank you. I couldn't agree more. Jafar, read Oz's last post.

[Go Fish]

Just more of the usual hate filled right wing propaganda taking quotes from the Qur'aan in English out of context and twisting the words to support whatever agenda you have. Much like what Al Qaeda does.


Talk to Patrick Henry about it, Jafar. He posted the link on this forum long before I did. I only posted it because it shows muslims being muslims. It's you guys being you guys. Pretty fucking uncomfortable, isn't it?

[jafar00]

Just more of the usual hate filled right wing propaganda taking quotes from the Qur'aan in English out of context and twisting the words to support whatever agenda you have. Much like what Al Qaeda does.


Anyways, try again.

People see the Qur'aan as what it really is, a book of hate and the religion of Islam as what it is, evil and Mohammed as what he really was, a monster.


Prove it. Your statement makes no sense.

[jafar00]

How you know we aren't?

We damn sure can't see that you are! We see ya'll getting hyped up over cartoons, Israel and Iraq, but nothing from ya'll as far as killing YOUR terrorists. Wassup? What are ya'll waiting on?


They are YOUR terrorists. Why should we have to play policeman for you? By the way, The Iraqi resistance have been fighting Al Qaeda for quite some time in Iraq, and other countries such as Yemen have been using the best the weapon there is against these misguided people. The Qur'aan. Once they realise their error they quickly renouce their violent ways and become law abiding Muslims.

[nevadamedic]

APDST said:
I don't recall extremist Christians hijacking airplanes, or suicide bombing people. Am I missing something?

Yes, a knowledge of a large portion of history that doesn't agree with your outlook.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence
http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/

The U.S. need not look past its borders to find religious extremism and suicidal zealots.


Nevadamedic said:
Anyways, try again.

People see the Qur'aan as what it really is, a book of hate and the religion of Islam as what it is, evil and Mohammed as what he really was, a monster.

Very open minded of you...... :sadly:

Do you view all religions with such open mindedness? :grrrr:

APDST said:
We damn sure can't see that you are! We see ya'll getting hyped up over cartoons, Israel and Iraq, but nothing from ya'll as far as killing YOUR terrorists. Wassup? What are ya'll waiting on?

Great point in contrast to the cartoons violence.....literally. :thumbsup:

That contrast can't be stressed enough... If the middle eastern countries threw a protest half the size of the cartoon related protests, against Al Quaeda, perhaps there would be a more obvious reason for more than a modicum of respect.


Nope, just Muslim's as they are the root of all the evil in this world.

[Osborn F. Enready]

nevadamedic said:
Nope, just Muslim's as they are the root of all the evil in this world.

You should be put in an asylum for analysis if you honestly believe such nonsense, and I mean that with all honesty of good intention. You sound dangerous. :shock: :scared:

I wonder what your employer would think of this?

[apdst]

You should be put in an asylum for analysis if you honestly believe such nonsense

I bet there were people saying the same thing in 1937, too.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Its like saying blacks, whites, secularists or any other "group" is the source of all evil....

Its ridiculously absurd, and an insult to every muslim and every American if indeed Nevadamedic is an American. With people holding ideas like this, its no wonder a large portion of the world disrespects us....

[jafar00]

Nope, just Muslim's as they are the root of all the evil in this world.


Can you put aside your brainwashing for a moment to listen to what I have been saying and perhaps even proffer a little evidence to show why you think Islam is evil? :p

[Tessy]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7116437460889399690


Oooo... promoting CIA propaganda now? Awesome! Go for it! Let's kill them ALL! Even though "radical Islam" is mostly a CIA/ISI joint invention.

[Trish]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7116437460889399690


Oooo... promoting CIA propaganda now? Awesome! Go for it! Let's kill them ALL! Even though "radical Islam" is mostly a CIA/ISI joint invention.


Oh really? Mostly a CIA/ISI joint invention huh? That's a real interesting statement, and one that most of the rest of the world does not share. In fact many Muslims, as well as ex-Muslims not only do not share that view but take the exact opposite view - that radical Islam is not only real - what we refer to as "radicalism" is the core principle of Islam itself.

Report: Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.

"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

"As a Muslim, I must support my Muslim brothers and sisters," Choudary said. "I must have hatred to everything that is not Muslim."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344409,00.html

Now before you get your drawers in a knot that this is a Fox News story and therefore not reliable, here are the links behind the story that prove Fox is accurately reporting what was said.

The video referred to by the Fox article: http://youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related

The Islam Watch report referred to by the Fox article: http://www.islam-watch.org/AyeshaAhmed/London-Imam-Attempt-to-Carry-Out-Sunna.htm

Other:
http://www.islam-watch.org/ayeshaahmed/Debating-Islam-Techniques-for-Muslims.htm
http://www.islam-watch.org/IW/aboutus.htm

How cunning of the CIA/ISI in using actual Muslims - including Imams - in promoting their invention!

[Kyi Yo]

How about we take a look at the man who produced this nice piece of propaganda?

Fitna is a film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Dutch parliament. The movie offers his ... all » views on Islam and the Qur'an. The film's title comes from the Arabic word fitna which is used to describe "disagreement and division among people", or a "test of faith in times of trial". The movie was released to the Internet on 27 March 2008


'I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam,' says Holland's rising political star

Geert Wilders, the popular MP whose film on Islam has fuelled the debate on race in Holland, wants an end to mosque building and Muslim immigration. Ian Traynor met him in The Hague

* Ian Traynor
* The Observer,
* Sunday February 17 2008
* Article history

About this article
Close
This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday February 17 2008 on p40 of the World news section. It was last updated at 00:06 on February 17 2008.
Dutch politician Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders, the right-wing Dutch politician. Photograph: Jerry Lampen/Reuters

A TV addict with bleached hair who adores Maggie Thatcher and prefers kebabs to hamburgers, Geert Wilders has got nothing against Muslims. He just hates Islam. Or so he says. 'Islam is not a religion, it's an ideology,' says Wilders, a lanky Roman Catholic right-winger, 'the ideology of a retarded culture.'

The Dutch politician, who sees himself as heir to a recent string of assassinated or hounded mavericks who have turned Holland upside down, has been doing a crash course in Koranic study. Likening the Islamic sacred text to Hitler's Mein Kampf, he wants the 'fascist Koran' outlawed in Holland, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Muslim countries halted, Muslim immigrants paid to leave and all Muslim 'criminals' stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported 'back where they came from'. But he has nothing against Muslims. 'I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people.'

Wilders has been immersing himself in the suras and verse of seventh-century Arabia. The outcome of his scholarship, a short film, has Holland in a panic. He is just putting the finishing touches to the 10-minute film, he says, and talking to four TV channels about screening it.

'It's like a walk through the Koran,' he explains in a sterile conference room in the Dutch parliament in The Hague, security chaps hovering outside. 'My intention is to show the real face of Islam. I see it as a threat. I'm trying to use images to show that what's written in the Koran is giving incentives to people all over the world. On a daily basis Moroccan youths are beating up homosexuals on the streets of Amsterdam.'

Wilders is lucid and shrewd and the provactive soundbites trip easily off his tongue. He was recently voted Holland's most effective politician. If 18 months ago he sat alone in the second chamber or lower house in The Hague, his People's Party now has nine of 150 seats and is running at about 15 per cent in the polls. His Islam-bashing seems to be paying off. And not only in Holland. All across Europe, the new breed of right-wing populists are trying to revive their political fortunes by appealing to anti-Muslim prejudice.

A few months ago the Swiss People's Party of the pugnacious billionaire Christoph Blocher won a general election while simultaneously running a campaign to change the Swiss constitution to ban the building of minarets on mosques. Last month in Antwerp, far-right leaders from 15 European cities and from political parties in Belgium, Germany and Austria got together to launch a charter 'against the Islamisation of western European cities', reiterating the call for a mosque-building moratorium.

'We already have more than 6,000 mosques in Europe, which are not only a place to worship but also a symbol of radicalisation, some financed by extreme groups in Saudi Arabia or Iran,' argued Filip Dewinter, leader of Belgium's Flemish separatist party, the Vlaams Belang, who organised the Antwerp get-together. 'Its minarets are six floors high, higher than the floodlights of the Feyenoord soccer stadium,' he said of a new mosque being built in Rotterdam. 'These kinds of symbols have to stop.'

Where a few years ago the far right in Europe concentrated its fire on immigration, these days Islam is fast becoming the most popular target. It is a campaign that is having mixed results. In Switzerland, the Blocher party has been highly successful. In Holland, Wilders is thriving by constantly poking sticks in the eyes of the politically correct Dutch establishment. But when Susanne Winter ran for a seat on the local council in the Austrian city of Graz last month by branding the Prophet Muhammad a child molester, she lost her far-right Freedom Party votes.

For the mainstream centre-right in Europe, foreigner-bashing is also backfiring. Roland Koch, the German Christian Democrat once tipped as a future Chancellor, wrecked his chances a fortnight ago by forfeiting a 12-point lead in a state election after a campaign that denounced Muslim ritual slaughter practices and called for the deportation of young immigrant criminals.

Wilders echoes some of the arguments against multiculturalism that have convulsed Germany in recent years. Like many on the traditional German right, he wants the European Judaeo-Christian tradition to be formally recognised as the dominating culture, or Leitkultur. 'There is no equality between our culture and the retarded Islamic culture. Look at their views on homosexuality or women,' he says.

But if Wilders shares positions and aims with others on the far right in Europe, he is also a very specific Dutch phenomenon, viewing himself as a libertarian provocateur like the late Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh, railing against 'Islamisation' as a threat to what used to be the easy-going Dutch model of tolerance.

'My allies are not Le Pen or Haider,' he emphasises. 'We'll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I'm very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.' Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are what drive him, he says.

He shrugs off anxieties that his film will trigger a fresh bout of violence of the kind that left Van Gogh stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street and his estranged colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali in hiding, or the murderous furore over the Danish cartoons in 2005.

The Dutch government is planning emergency evacuation of its nationals and diplomats from the Middle East should the Wilders film be shown. It is alarmed about the impact on Dutch business. 'Our Prime Minister is a big coward. The government is weak,' says Wilders. 'They hate my guts and I don't like them either.'

And if people are murdered as a result of his film? 'They say that if there's bloodshed it would be the responsibility of this strange politician. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. They're creating an atmosphere. I'm not responsible for using democratic means and acting within the law. I don't want Dutch people or Dutch interests to be hurt.'

But he does want to create a stir. 'Islam is something we can't afford any more in the Netherlands. I want the fascist Koran banned. We need to stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands. That means no more mosques, no more Islamic schools, no more imams... Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.'

Free speech or hate speech? 'I don't create hate. I want to be honest. I don't hate people. I don't hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology.'

For more than three years, Wilders has been paying for his 'honesty' by living under permanent police guard as the internet bristles with threats on his life. He has lived in army barracks, in prisons, under guard at home. 'There's no freedom, no privacy. If I said I was not afraid, I would be lying.'

There is little doubt that if Wilders's film exists - and it's shrouded in secrecy - and is broadcast, it will be construed as blasphemy in large parts of the world and may spark a new bloody crisis in relations between the West and the Muslim world.

He does not seem to care. 'People ask why don't you moderate your voice and not make this movie. If I do that and not say what I think, then the extremists who threaten me would win.'


A man who doesn't care, who actually seems to want to create violence from this film. Who's the terrorist? It seems to me the lines are blurred.

[apdst]

A man who doesn't care, who actually seems to want to create violence from this film. Who's the terrorist?

Let's just say you're right. The Muslims are proving his point for him.

[Kyi Yo]

A man who doesn't care, who actually seems to want to create violence from this film. Who's the terrorist?

Let's just say you're right. The Muslims are proving his point for him.


If there were a Muslim Congressman who likened the bible to Hitler's Mein Kampf, wanted the 'fascist bible' outlawed, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Christian countries halted, Christian immigrants paid to leave and all Christian 'criminals' stripped of US citizenship and deported 'back where they came from'. 'I have a problem with Christian tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Christian people.'

Yuppers, using religion to make policy about people is a really good idea! I'm all for it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

APDST said:
Let's just say you're right. The Muslims are proving his point for him.

Do you concede the same point for equal value, when it is being made by people who accuse "all christians" of being ruthless killers, citing abortion clinic bombings as their evidence?

I can't help but see some nationalism motivated bias here APDST.

[apdst]

Do you concede the same point for equal value, when it is being made by people who accuse "all christians" of being ruthless killers, citing abortion clinic bombings as their evidence?

Does the whole of Christiandom condone and excuse the actions of a few abortion clinic bombers? Or, do we track them down and throw their asses in jail?

Islamic terrorism should be policed by the Muslims. If they did so, it would go a long way to lending credibility to their faith. It doesn't do much for Islam's image when people cheer at the news about the 9/11 attacks. It does even less when those people make excuses for the attackers.

[Buck Laser]

nevadamedic said:
Nope, just Muslim's as they are the root of all the evil in this world.

You should be put in an asylum for analysis if you honestly believe such nonsense, and I mean that with all honesty of good intention. You sound dangerous. :shock: :scared:

I wonder what your employer would think of this?

Well, he's about as dangerous as the late and unlamented (except by apdst) Cheesy. Cheesy hated Muslims. Of course, apdst has said "we can't have a black president," and CWN never said that on this forum. I'm not a Muslim, but I am constantly nonplussed and disappointed at the number of people who blame Islam or religion in general for the problems of the world. The solid fact is that anything human beings touch turns to shit. That's just how things are. Christian theologians call that original sin.

[Osborn F. Enready]

APDST said:
Does the whole of Christiandom condone and excuse the actions of a few abortion clinic bombers?

Do ALL OF MUSLIMDOM condone and excuse the actions of a few Saudis who flew planes into buildings on 9-11? Thank you for showing how ridiculous that is.

APDST said:
Or, do we track them down and throw their asses in jail?

Different societies, different governments, different laws, different perception of justice.

You can't expect foreign nations justice to meet the same mark as your nations justice...... That is why we ARE NOT a global government, and it is part of nation/state sovereignty.

APDST said:
Islamic terrorism should be policed by the Muslims. If they did so, it would go a long way to lending credibility to their faith.

No, what you are saying is that Islamic Terrorism should be policed by Muslims to a level YOU AGREE WITH, which is entirely unreasonable.

APDST said:
It doesn't do much for Islam's image when people cheer at the news about the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't do much for Americas image when people cheer and rant about us attacking a nation who posed no threat to us, nationally or otherwise.

APDST said:
It does even less when those people make excuses for the attackers.

Like you and some of the others make EXCUSES FOR BUSH?

The smell of hypocrisy has fumed out this thread.... I think I need to take a break..... :blah:

[apdst]

Do ALL OF MUSLIMDOM condone and excuse the actions of a few Saudis who flew planes into buildings on 9-11?

Did Muslimdom do anything to stop it? Have they put the first foot forward in eradicating Islamic terrorism? No, on both accounts. The only thing we hear is how it ain't their fault, their misunderstood, it's America's fault, it ain't the problem of the Muslim community, or any one of a number of other excuses why they don't have to lift a finger to police their own religion. Personally, I don't buy it.

Then, when someone calls them on it, we get called racists. Nevermind that Islam is a religion and not a race.

Different societies, different governments, different laws, different perception of justice.

Sharia law is effect in most Muslim countries. They cut people's heads off for rape. So, you comment isn't going to get'r done.

No, what you are saying is that Islamic Terrorism should be policed by Muslims to a level YOU AGREE WITH, which is entirely unreasonable.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to something, because right now, they're doing nothing.

It doesn't do much for Americas image when people cheer and rant about us attacking a nation who posed no threat to us, nationally or otherwise.

Were it not for Islamic extremism, we wouldn't have had to do it. If only the Muslims could learn to play well with others. How great would The World be?

Like you and some of the others make EXCUSES FOR BUSH?

I've never made any excuses for Bush. I only call it like I see it; the way I would do with anyone.

[jafar00]

Do ALL OF MUSLIMDOM condone and excuse the actions of a few Saudis who flew planes into buildings on 9-11?

Did Muslimdom do anything to stop it?


How could we stop when 1) We were first aware of the plot when we saw it on TV like you, and 2) It didn't have anything to do with the 1.5billion Muslims who didn't even know the 9/11 hijackers existed?


Have they put the first foot forward in eradicating Islamic terrorism? No, on both accounts.


Yes, the first foot has been put forward many a time. Just visit your local mosque and listen to what Muslims are being taught. You may be pleasantly surprised.

[Tessy]

Do ALL OF MUSLIMDOM condone and excuse the actions of a few Saudis who flew planes into buildings on 9-11?

Did Muslimdom do anything to stop it?


Did you? I hear-by sentence you to death then! Did the christians? Sentence them all to death! Did the hindus? Off with their heads!

Great logic there. Such logic shows the true retardedness of this war and those promoting it! The few insane stragglers that remain...

[Tessy]

Have they put the first foot forward in eradicating Islamic terrorism? No, on both accounts.


Yes, the first foot has been put forward many a time. Just visit your local mosque and listen to what Muslims are being taught. You may be pleasantly surprised.


Well that's always been a muslim teaching. Peace and forgiveness! Over the centuries there have been several attempts to radicalize the religion in order to carry out political agenda. The most recent one was our own CIA in cahoots with the ISI and the wahabbiists we see today are the result of that.

Christianity has been used in the same way. The most pronounced of which goes largely unspoken in western countries. From 1500 to 1900 we exterminated (ETHNICALLY CLEANSED!) approximately 100,000,000 (that's one hundred million in case you thought that was a type-o) native Americans or "Indians" and Mexicans. At the beginning of every battle prayer was offered to the christian god (alah akbar) and the primary justification for the killings were that they were unchristian heathens (infidels). Gee, sounds just like the "muslims" to me. And the "Indian Wars" are BY NO MEANS the only example where christianity was used to kill millions or hundreds of thousands.

Fact is, there will always be scum-bags that use religion and religious texts to justify the political agenda of greed through corrosion and/or violence. Sitting here watching a blind retarded idiot who calls themselves "a christian" bagging on a muslim for 9-11 is the most extreme example of hypocrisy anyone could ever fathom to imagine.

It's like watching a baby killer ripping off the head of his 1000th baby for the day, stepping out of his blood covered apartment, covered in blood and baby-guts himself, and calling the 1st person he sees step on a bug a "bloody murderer".

No doubt the next stupid-ass thing I hear here will be "They hate us for our freedom".

[apdst]

1) We were first aware of the plot when we saw it on TV like you, and 2) It didn't have anything to do with the 1.5billion Muslims who didn't even know the 9/11 hijackers existed?

Don't gimme that. There were plenty of Muslims that did know.

Just visit your local mosque and listen to what Muslims are being taught. You may be pleasantly surprised.

More lip service. Who cares what they're being taught?

Let's just I did visit my local Mosque. They would put the rhetoric on the back burner, just because I was there.

Give us some more excuses.

Over the centuries there have been several attempts to radicalize the religion in order to carry out political agenda.

Islam has been radicalized, since day one.

The most recent one was our own CIA in cahoots with the ISI and the wahabbiists we see today are the result of that.

Care to fill us in on that?

[Tessy]

1) We were first aware of the plot when we saw it on TV like you, and 2) It didn't have anything to do with the 1.5billion Muslims who didn't even know the 9/11 hijackers existed?

Don't gimme that. There were plenty of Muslims that did know.

OK, you must know them. Start naming them off. Otherwise it's only you own delusional speculation. Since most of your posts are just that I'm going to assume this is no different!

Just visit your local mosque and listen to what Muslims are being taught. You may be pleasantly surprised.

More lip service. Who cares what they're being taught?

Let's just I did visit my local Mosque. They would put the rhetoric on the back burner, just because I was there.

Give us some more excuses.

Oh, so you're the real conspiracy theorist! Of course >I< already knew that but now you're showing you paranoid neurotic colors for all to see. LOL they're all talking about you behind your back and planning the destruction of your entire race. How pathetic!

Over the centuries there have been several attempts to radicalize the religion in order to carry out political agenda.

Islam has been radicalized, since day one.

And we can say the exact same thing about christianity! Exactly!

The most recent one was our own CIA in cahoots with the ISI and the wahabbiists we see today are the result of that.

Care to fill us in on that?


Why? You'll just deny reality like you always do. If Bush didn't say it himself you won't believe it. Right?

http://moderate.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/abdullah-azzam-and-the-omissions-of-neocon-historians/
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers19%5Cpaper1844.html
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1435
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6107
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://www.naitazi.com/2007/12/28/who-killed-benazir-bhutto-the-main-suspects/
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0705/0705_2.htm
http://wikicompany.org/wiki/911:Shia_muslim_genocide
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-nimmo200106.htm
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003706.php
http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2007/05/isi-chief-had-saudi-intelligence.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers5/paper433.html
http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/pakistan_northern_alliance.htm
http://www.at.gnucash.org/mirrors/www.saag.org/2001.10.13/papers3/paper287.html
http://courses.washington.edu/g100s02/afghanistan.ppt
http://groups.google.com/group/shiagroup/msg/871a06366b0442a6
http://www.liveleak.com/browse?tag=Al-CIA-duh
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/chuss10.html
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=771425&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=1
http://www.hindustan.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4884
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message138939/pg4
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/29-Dec-2007.html
http://www.spongobongo.com/her9989.htm
http://www.socialismtoday.org/81/usjihad.html
http://www.boloji.com/analysis2/0165.htm
http://userhome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/sschaar/Who_Osama%20.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/0912cia.htm
http://www.tellchildrenthetruth.com/osama_en.html
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/07/30/stories/2004073000031000.htm
http://www.watchingamerica.com/argenpress000009.shtml

But if you didn't know that I guess you're allergic to reading so here's some vids for your TV brain:

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-6658236838262875255
http://video.google.com/url?docid=2648512190718851305
http://video.google.com/url?docid=8929503137001775976
http://video.google.com/url?docid=2562426309305280206
http://video.google.com/url?docid=7644910725346986157
http://video.google.com/url?docid=6114010204532426180
http://video.google.com/url?docid=3103779188317874616
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-4111094345351147124
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-6911130854356086376
http://video.google.com/url?docid=9010080508453255778
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-2123970929676063279
http://video.google.com/url?docid=5058355118709441276
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-2144998961619522593
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7vEntXzsVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b35f2OKGVJI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdu0tLb2frk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIO-BXo1pRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgNiqwt10MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVpwLYV-hAk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNY0pP32r0M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrMj3bJYGY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGK-7_sM8iU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THYfJ8WmfQs
http://video.google.com/url?docid=7555249662702116437
http://video.google.com/url?docid=4225064731430461328
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-8667792393799771255
http://video.google.com/url?docid=4472671349450886466
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-3857917663523144457

[Wndrtch]

Do ALL OF MUSLIMDOM condone and excuse the actions of a few Saudis who flew planes into buildings on 9-11?

Did Muslimdom do anything to stop it?


How could we stop when 1) We were first aware of the plot when we saw it on TV like you, and 2) It didn't have anything to do with the 1.5billion Muslims who didn't even know the 9/11 hijackers existed?


Have they put the first foot forward in eradicating Islamic terrorism? No, on both accounts.


Yes, the first foot has been put forward many a time. Just visit your local mosque and listen to what Muslims are being taught. You may be pleasantly surprised.


jafar00,
I think what apdst is saying is, how come these more radical elements within Islam, have not been dealt with by the Muslim community? I mean, "terrorism" as a tool and method, has been used by Islamic Extremeists for the last 50 years, and no one has been willing or able to address the problem in the ME. The Saudis are just begining to rout some of the extreme elements in their society, yet for decades have just sat by and watched this insane movement grow and take over.

My understanding is, that modern-day terrorism, started in Egypt back in the 1930's, when Egypt became the first secular Muslim state. The theocratic elements didn't like that, and attempted to overthrow that government to re-install a theocracy. Secular Egypt was able to hold off the rebellion, but killed the radical leader (I don't remember his name), turning him into a martyr.

After that, Western interest became a target for the radical theocrats, because basic commerce with Westerners was seen as "helping" the secular states remain in power, thru the money generated by that commerce. So, they retargeted for Western interest, and attempted to scare business away.

[Elrathin]

how come these more radical elements within Islam, have not been dealt with by the Muslim community? I mean, "terrorism" as a tool and method, has been used by Islamic Extremeists for the last 50 years, and no one has been willing or able to address the problem in the ME. The Saudis are just begining to rout some of the extreme elements in their society, yet for decades have just sat by and watched this insane movement grow and take over.


Probably the same reason the the Iraqis didn't deal with Saddam. Yet, I don't see you having a problem helping them out.

[apdst]

Probably the same reason the the Iraqis didn't deal with Saddam.

The path of least resistance? It's easier and safer for moderate Muslims to ignore the problem, because they know that the Islamists aren't going to attack brother Muslims?

Cowardice is the best excuse I've heard, yet.

[Tessy]

Do ALL OF MUSLIMDOM condone and excuse the actions of a few Saudis who flew planes into buildings on 9-11?

Did Muslimdom do anything to stop it?


How could we stop when 1) We were first aware of the plot when we saw it on TV like you, and 2) It didn't have anything to do with the 1.5billion Muslims who didn't even know the 9/11 hijackers existed?


Have they put the first foot forward in eradicating Islamic terrorism? No, on both accounts.


Yes, the first foot has been put forward many a time. Just visit your local mosque and listen to what Muslims are being taught. You may be pleasantly surprised.


jafar00,
I think what apdst is saying is, how come these more radical elements within Islam, have not been dealt with by the Muslim community? I mean, "terrorism" as a tool and method, has been used by Islamic Extremeists for the last 50 years, and no one has been willing or able to address the problem in the ME. The Saudis are just begining to rout some of the extreme elements in their society, yet for decades have just sat by and watched this insane movement grow and take over.

I think what apdst needs to be saying is, how come these more radical elements within christianity, have not been dealt with by the Christian community? I mean, empire building, corporate fascism, and funding terrorists all around the world as a tool and method, has been used by Christian fundamentalists for the last 50 years, and no one has been willing or able to address the problem in the W. The truthers are just beginning to rout some of the extreme elements in their society, yet for decades have just sat by and watched this insane movement grow and take over.

My understanding is, that modern-day terrorism, started in Egypt back in the 1930's, when Egypt became the first secular Muslim state.

Bahaahahahaaaaa... You just make stuff up? Don't you research anything before you talk? "The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. (1788–1799)"

"Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear." and this could apply to the USA just as much and probably more-so than any Arab nation.

"Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, 4 dead in Ohio..."


The theocratic elements didn't like that, and attempted to overthrow that government to re-install a theocracy. Secular Egypt was able to hold off the rebellion, but killed the radical leader (I don't remember his name), turning him into a martyr.

After that, Western interest became a target for the radical theocrats, because basic commerce with Westerners was seen as "helping" the secular states remain in power, thru the money generated by that commerce. So, they retargeted for Western interest, and attempted to scare business away.


WOW! That's really coming from outer space. Dewd, pick up a history book. Please! This is kind of embarrassing.

[Tessy]

Probably the same reason the the Iraqis didn't deal with Saddam.

The path of least resistance? It's easier and safer for moderate Muslims to ignore the problem, because they know that the Islamists aren't going to attack brother Muslims?

Cowardice is the best excuse I've heard, yet.


The path of least resistance? It's easier and safer for moderate Christians to ignore the problem, because they know that the Christian radicals aren't going to attack brother Christians?

Cowardice is the best excuse I've heard, yet.

Except there is no excuse for apathy in the face of evil doings! It's just lame. Period.

[Elrathin]

The path of least resistance? It's easier and safer for moderate Muslims to ignore the problem, because they know that the Islamists aren't going to attack brother Muslims?

Cowardice is the best excuse I've heard, yet.


So you are saying the Iraqis are all cowards now, nice. So since you think they are all cowards how are they EVER going to stand up so we can stand down?

[apdst]

So, you would agree that moderate Muslims are cowards?

I'll by the coward defense quicker than the other crap I've been showered with.

[Elrathin]

So, you would agree that moderate Muslims are cowards?

No I wouldn't.

But it seems you think the Iraqis are cowards. It's easy for YOU to sit at your computer and call someone a coward when you haven't even come close to being in the same situation as these people have. But please by all means, talk brave and say they are cowards if it makes you feel better.

[apdst]

You said they were afraid to stand up to the terrorists. I'm jsut following your lead.

It's easy for YOU to sit at your computer and call someone a coward when you haven't even come close to being in the same situation as these people have

We're not a buncha pussies. Us Americans would beat a MF'ers ass for acting the way the terrorists do. A few years ago, two of my brothers and I beat the shit out of a couple Nazi/Skinhead types. I mean, we left them fuckers bleeding in the gutter.

[Elrathin]

Us Americans would beat a MF'ers ass for acting the way the terrorists do. A few years ago, two of my brothers and I beat the sh1t out of a couple Nazi/Skinhead types. I mean, we left them fuckers bleeding in the gutter.


That is different and you know it. Our government doesn't try to kill us or our families for speaking out. My guess is that if you knew beating those Nazi/Skinhead types would be a death sentence for you and your family, you wouldn't have done it.

The Iraqis are in a completely different situation than you or I ever were in.

[apdst]

Our government doesn't try to kill us or our families for speaking out.

Yeah, and if they did, you and I would be kicking somone's ass, too. And, you know it!

My guess is that if you knew beating those Nazi/Skinhead types would be a death sentence for you and your family, you wouldn't have done it.

Your guess couldn't be more wrong. We would have went ahead and killed those two, and went looking for a few hundred more to kill.

[Tessy]

Well it's totally insane to think that there are "all these terrorists" is some country or society. It's like a few imbeciles here are attempting to suggest that there are many terrorists in Iraq. This is the bizarre reasoning of insane presidents and their imbecilic blind followers who can not and will not read.

So the whole conversation is a bit silly.

It's like saying all christians are terrorists when it's quite clear that only a very few are... And these days you can identify them by their positions in the U.S. federal government.

The bottom line is that there are no terrorists and people that think they are fighting them by killing women, children and men just trying to defend their homes and their country are criminally insane!!!

[Trish]

Well it's totally insane to think that there are "all these terrorists" is some country or society. It's like a few imbeciles here are attempting to suggest that there are many terrorists in Iraq. This is the bizarre reasoning of insane presidents and their imbecilic blind followers who can not and will not read.

So the whole conversation is a bit silly.

It's like saying all christians are terrorists when it's quite clear that only a very few are... And these days you can identify them by their positions in the U.S. federal government.

The bottom line is that there are no terrorists and people that think they are fighting them by killing women, children and men just trying to defend their homes and their country are criminally insane!!!


Just a quick question, Tessy. How does strapping a bomb on the back of 2 retarded women and remote-detonating those bombs in a marketplace of fellow citizens qualify as a defense of "their homes and their country?"

[Osborn F. Enready]

The less choices a people have to competent defense, the more extreme measures they will use to inflict losses on their enemy.

You can't tell me that the U.S. citizens wouldn't resort to guerilla warfare if the government turned its forces against our own people, or if we were invaded and occupied by hostile enemy forces.

Suicide bombers, are no different in spirit than Kamikazes were for Japan. Only the tactics are different.

Does this mean I "support" the tactics? No.
Does it mean I could understand why they would be used, and why some would resort to those tactics? Yes.

[apdst]

The less choices a people have to competent defense, the more extreme measures they will use to inflict losses on their enemy.

What we're seeing in Iraq isn't the rocks and spears tactics of people who can't afford better. What we're seeing, is assimetrical warfare, at it's best.

I think the inability, by some, to see it for what it really is, is what makes it all that more effective. A large part of the reason for that is the distortion of how effective unconventional warfare really is and the over-emphasis of it's use throughout history.

[Tessy]

Our government doesn't try to kill us or our families for speaking out.

Yeah, and if they did, you and I would be kicking somone's ass, too. And, you know it!

What planet do you two live on? Oh yeah, Planet Fox. Pretty funny that you should be saying this so close to Martin Luther King day.

Besides the JFK, RFK and the recent hit on John Jr. there's literally thousands of hits done by the US military (I've witnessed a few of these first hand!), the federal government, drug dealing heads of state, and etc..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/26/212449/970
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/war_critic_soldiers_killed_to_send_message.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/yem-n12.shtml
http://www.whitedog.com/trespass.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/25/justice_dept_accuses_u_s_citizen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/us-soldier-killed-herse_b_91898.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmanexecuted.htm
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/martyrs.htm
http://community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/Mark_Allen/2007/12/07/Remembering_The_December_4th_Assassination_Date_of _Fred_Hampton_Sr_and_Mark_Clark

I could easily fill a book (with names only) of cases where someone with 1st hand evidence against the US government or some officials speaks out or tries to and then is killed. Sometimes including family members as well.

[Tessy]

The less choices a people have to competent defense, the more extreme measures they will use to inflict losses on their enemy.

What we're seeing in Iraq isn't the rocks and spears tactics of people who can't afford better. What we're seeing, is assimetrical warfare, at it's best.

I think the inability, by some, to see it for what it really is, is what makes it all that more effective. A large part of the reason for that is the distortion of how effective unconventional warfare really is and the over-emphasis of it's use throughout history.


Did that even make sense?

You seemed to have partially contradicted yourself three times in three incomplete thoughts. ???

[Wndrtch]

Why are we fighting?

Centuries ago, Islam ruled a large part of the world and Muslims had spread out of the Middle East and moved across Europe, conquering all in their path. At Islam’s pinnacle, the Ottoman Empire stretched from Egypt to the Black Sea and from the Persian Gulf to Hungary.

So what happened to the glorious Islamic empire? Today, Islam blames the Crusades, the Jews, Western culture, and Christians for its fall from power. In truth, the most destructive enemy that Islam has ever had was Islam itself.

As the world modernized around them, the Islamic leaders refused to move forward with the rest of the world. Firmly believing in Islamic superiority, the pompous ruling class of religious leaders planted the seeds of hatred towards the West as far back as the 1700s. The ruling Islamic religious leaders believed western inventions were evil things created by evil and inferior people.

Any attempt to modernize the empire was put down by the ruling Islamic body called the ulema which wanted to hold onto its power and maintain Islam in its pure state. This meant no non-Muslim influence of any kind.

It should be no surprise that the western advancements in warfare eventually overwhelmed the archaic ways of Islam. The Islamic dream of ruling the world, was over.

At the end of World War I, France and England carved up what was left of the once great Islamic Empire. All that remained was Turkey. It was the Islamic Turks who slaughtered over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. The Turks blamed the Armenian Christians for assisting in Islam’s fall from power. Islam has a long history of blaming others for its failures.

The new leader of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal, wanted Turkey to join the modern world and insisted on a separation of mosque and state, something that infuriated the Islamic leaders. Kemal declared Islam the national religion but did not allow the controlling and backward ways of Islam to destroy the new country. The battle rages today in Turkey between the Islamic leaders and the secular government. Slowly, the Islamic leaders are winning.

By 1924, the glory days of Islam were over.

This inner battle for Islam stewed after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Middle East came under the influence of western culture. Secular Arab governments, which accepted western modernization, drove the followers of True Islam into a murderous rage.

Today’s terrorist movement started in 1928 with the founding of Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to oppose the Arab secular governments that stripped the Islamic elite of its power. This group, led by Hassan al-Banna, felt no Islamic country should tolerate a secular government. Islam had always been the judge, jury, and executioner over the people.

This militant group armed and trained itself and became such a problem for the Egyptian government that the terrorist leader, al-Banna, was executed but this only elevated him to martyrdom. The movement grew in power and status.

In the 1950s, a new and extremely radical leader, Sayyid Qutb, convinced his followers that the Quran justified the killing of fellow Muslims. In his book, “Milestones,” he encouraged a jihad to remove secular Muslim leaders and claimed it was the duty of all Muslims to return Islam to its former power and glory. Following strict Islamic law could only do this. Secular Muslims were put in a category with Christians and Jews—they were infidels.

Sayyid Qutb was also executed by the Egyptians in 1966, but the Islamic terrorist movement grew and expanded and now has branches of loyal followers in over 70 countries around the globe and these Islamic terrorists are more than willing to kill for their cause.

The embarrassing defeat of Islamic/Arab countries by the lowly “monkey-Jew” in the 1967 Six Day War gave fuel to the Islamic terrorist movement. This humiliating loss to the tiny Jewish state was proof for Islamic terrorists that secular Islamic states were against all that was Islamic. Islamic countries were defeated by a people that True Islam does not even consider human.

Mu'ammar Qaddaffi seized power in Libya in 1969 and he used Libya’s vast oil wealth to fund Islamic terror around the world. A decade later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the secular government in Iran by taking the American embassy personnel hostage and keeping them as prisoners for over a year.

The 1980s saw the Iranian-backed terror group, Hezbollah strike American troops on a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon and the American embassy was bombed. The United States made the tragic mistake of leaving Lebanon, and the Islamists saw this as a sign of weakness, and a rash of attacks on Americans continued unpunished around the world for the next two decades.

True Islam had its golden moment on 9/11 when it succeeded in attacking the “great Satan” on its own soil. Their bragging and celebration was brief. The American response to that attack took the terrorists by surprise. Believing America was a weak paper-tiger, I believe the invasion of Afghanistan surprised bin Laden. The loss of Afghanistan enraged the Islamists. Afghanistan was True Islam’s model for the world. Even more insulting was that the majority of Afghani people seemed to welcome the overthrow of the Taliban.

True Islam couldn’t care less about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The fact Saddam is Muslim means nothing to them. He was a secular infidel. Iraqi Muslims who wish to remain under a secular government are slaughtered like sheep because they too are considered un-Islamic infidels. Radical Islam knows this may well be its only chance to subjugate the Iraqi people under strict Islamic rule and take possession of an oil-rich terrorist training base. If True Islam were to gain control in Iraq, it would immediately join forces with Iran to wreck havoc on the world.

Once a great power, Islam has now been reduced to training the gullible to strap bombs on themselves and blow up a bus or train full of civilians. Radical Islamic leaders have only one goal: To make Islam the only religion, and to put Islamic leaders in command over the entire population of the world. To accomplish this, western civilization, Christianity, Judaism, secular Muslims, and all other non-Muslim forms of religious beliefs, must be exterminated.

There has been one important adjustment in True Islam’s plan. It no longer shuns modern weapons and technology. Indeed, Islamics believe that the detonation of nuclear weapons on American soil will bring them a quick victory. This is a serious miscalculation on True Islam’s part. A very deadly miscalculation.

If one studies the history of Islam and its violent roots, it is not difficult to understand it. Islamists have killed millions of people over the centuries and killing millions more to accomplish the goal of total Islamic rule does not disturb them.

The number of moderate-secular Muslims is declining as true Islam spreads its rage and hatred to every corner of the world. Time is short. Iran may be only months away from obtaining nuclear weapons. There are reports that several nuclear weapons are already here and in place in America. There can be no signs of weakness from the western world. There can be no negotiations or deals made with True Islam. There can be no quarter given.

History has taught us one thing: It is us, or them. There is no middle ground with terrorists. True Islam has not changed in 1400 years. It is not going to change now.

,b>About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/

[Osborn F. Enready]

APDST said:
What we're seeing in Iraq isn't the rocks and spears tactics of people who can't afford better. What we're seeing, is assimetrical warfare, at it's best.

Who said anything about "affording better", as if the barrier is financing?

What we are seeing is a movement forced into the underground, retaliating in any way it can muster support and participation for.

APDST said:
I think the inability, by some, to see it for what it really is, is what makes it all that more effective.

Ok, WHAT IS IT, REALLY?

APDST said:
A large part of the reason for that is the distortion of how effective unconventional warfare really is and the over-emphasis of it's use throughout history.

Warfare takes on whatever means the situation dictates, based on the will and abilities of those involved.

Nations that raise armies, have rules for those armies to follow.
Movements without nations, have no national armies, so they may have rules, but most likely those rules will not compare to national rules, since they are no part of national treaties, or concerns in many ways.

For example....

If the U.S. government turned its armed forces and police against its own people, do you think the American citizens who resist will form "national armies", or do you think it would be a series of calculated guerilla warfare movements, wherein the people who participate try to not call attention to themselves before and after the act?

I think its obvious, when force is used to push people to extremes, those people will react in an extreme a fashion as possible, or reasonable based on the force being used against them.

[Tessy]

If the U.S. government turned its armed forces and police against its own people, do you think the American citizens who resist will form "national armies", or do you think it would be a series of calculated guerilla warfare movements, wherein the people who participate try to not call attention to themselves before and after the act?

I think its obvious, when force is used to push people to extremes, those people will react in an extreme a fashion as possible, or reasonable based on the force being used against them.


Yup! Exactly! The problem is that the US Government rhetoric and Fox-like media propaganda define what you just described as "terrorism" when it couldn't be further from the truth. Then we put thousands of kids over there in Iraq with that description in their heads and they think they're in a nation of terrorists and are fighting terrorists. IGNORANT!


I just love it when the few that can think for themselves actually look at what's going on, shake off the media-wash, and call it for what it is. They say stuff like: "Hey guys we're over here in an illegal immoral occupation - doesn't anyone know it? - doesn't anyone care? Americans back home don't know what's going on over here. And etc."

[jafar00]

Just a quick question, Tessy. How does strapping a bomb on the back of 2 retarded women and remote-detonating those bombs in a marketplace of fellow citizens qualify as a defense of "their homes and their country?"


You are confusing Al Qaeda, the foreigners, who are there just to make fitna with the genuine resistance efforts of the Iraqi people.

[Trish]

Just a quick question, Tessy. How does strapping a bomb on the back of 2 retarded women and remote-detonating those bombs in a marketplace of fellow citizens qualify as a defense of "their homes and their country?"


You are confusing Al Qaeda, the foreigners, who are there just to make fitna with the genuine resistance efforts of the Iraqi people.


No, I'm not confusing anyone with anyone else. I was asking a question about Tessy's blanket statement that there were "no" terrorists in Iraq. That all the "terrorist" activities were people fighting for their families and country. As your reply indicates, her statement is inaccurate.

[apdst]

Who said anything about "affording better", as if the barrier is financing?

You said something about affording better. If the insurgents could put armor and aircraft into the fight, they would.

Ok, WHAT IS IT, REALLY?

As I said before, it's asymmetrical warfare. Modern history has lent more credibility to modern guerilla tactics than the tactics deserve. Generally speaking, totally unconventional forces, during the 2oth Century have been unsuccessful.

If the U.S. government turned its armed forces and police against its own people, do you think the American citizens who resist will form "national armies", or do you think it would be a series of calculated guerilla warfare movements, wherein the people who participate try to not call attention to themselves before and after the act?

Maybe. Maybe not. It all depends on how you define national army and guerilla tactics. A good example is The American Revolution. The Colonists didn't have national armies, but at the same time didn't use guerilla tactics.

[Elrathin]

The Colonists didn't have national armies, but at the same time didn't use guerilla tactics.


Depends, if you ask the English they did. The proper way of doing battle was on the battlefield army to army. The colonialists fought from trees on many battles which would be considered a guerrilla tactic at the time.

[apdst]

The proper way of doing battle was on the battlefield army to army.

Wrong answer. Conventional tactics of the period dictated that units fight in linear formations with shoulder-to-shoulder intervals so as to mass firepower and create interlocking fields of fire.

The colonialists fought from trees on many battles which would be considered a guerrilla tactic at the time.

The only unconventional tactics that took place during The Rev-War were by Danil Morgan's men, in the South. 99% of the war was fought with conventional tactics of the period.

The Colonists used assymmetrical warfare, to a small extent, in the fact that they used terrain to mask their formations, but this was nothing new; Wellington had done the same thing at Waterloo.

[Tessy]

Just a quick question, Tessy. How does strapping a bomb on the back of 2 retarded women and remote-detonating those bombs in a marketplace of fellow citizens qualify as a defense of "their homes and their country?"


You are confusing Al Qaeda, the foreigners, who are there just to make fitna with the genuine resistance efforts of the Iraqi people.


No, I'm not confusing anyone with anyone else.


Yes, you were. And you based your question on that confusion. Several people have answered you to what should be your satisfaction. Anything else is just refusing common sense in order to justify what may be termed an "insane stance" of the war.

[Tessy]

The Colonists didn't have national armies, but at the same time didn't use guerilla tactics.


Depends, if you ask the English they did. The proper way of doing battle was on the battlefield army to army. The colonialists fought from trees on many battles which would be considered a guerrilla tactic at the time.



Yes, exactly right. The colonial wars are exactly where the the term "guerrilla warfare" comes from. Well, it at least gained unprecedented popularity at that time. The word was coined in Spain to describe their warfare in resisting Napoleon Bonaparte's French regime during the Peninsula War, its meaning was broadened to mean any similar-scale armed resistance as indeed the initial colonial conflicts qualified as.

[Trish]

Just a quick question, Tessy. How does strapping a bomb on the back of 2 retarded women and remote-detonating those bombs in a marketplace of fellow citizens qualify as a defense of "their homes and their country?"


You are confusing Al Qaeda, the foreigners, who are there just to make fitna with the genuine resistance efforts of the Iraqi people.


No, I'm not confusing anyone with anyone else.


Yes, you were. And you based your question on that confusion. Several people have answered you to what should be your satisfaction. Anything else is just refusing common sense in order to justify what may be termed an "insane stance" of the war.


I'll give you this. Your steadfast support of your own misstatements is extraordinary.

My question was based on YOUR statement. "The bottom line is that there are no terrorists and people that think they are fighting them by killing women, children and men just trying to defend their homes and their country are criminally insane!!!"

According to your statement there are NO terrorists in Iraq and our poor deluded troops are killing women, children, and men "just trying to defend their homes and their country." So even supposing that "I" am confused and don't know the difference in who is killing whom in Iraq, Jafar's statement acknowledges that AQ is indeed operating in Iraq and you then further concede that point. So which is it? There are NO terrorists in Iraq or there are terrorists in Iraq?

BTW - several people haven't answered me to my satisfaction or otherwise. One person has answered my question - Jafar. You then post an agreement to his answer. Stretching the limit to include your response makes two answers, not several. Your casual disregard for the meaning of words renders your statements untrustworthy however compelling they might otherwise be.

[Trish]

Our government doesn't try to kill us or our families for speaking out.

Yeah, and if they did, you and I would be kicking somone's ass, too. And, you know it!

What planet do you two live on? Oh yeah, Planet Fox. Pretty funny that you should be saying this so close to Martin Luther King day.

Besides the JFK, RFK and the recent hit on John Jr. there's literally thousands of hits done by the US military (I've witnessed a few of these first hand!), the federal government, drug dealing heads of state, and etc..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/26/212449/970
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/war_critic_soldiers_killed_to_send_message.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/yem-n12.shtml
http://www.whitedog.com/trespass.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/25/justice_dept_accuses_u_s_citizen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/us-soldier-killed-herse_b_91898.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmanexecuted.htm
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/martyrs.htm
http://community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/Mark_Allen/2007/12/07/Remembering_The_December_4th_Assassination_Date_of _Fred_Hampton_Sr_and_Mark_Clark

I could easily fill a book (with names only) of cases where someone with 1st hand evidence against the US government or some officials speaks out or tries to and then is killed. Sometimes including family members as well.



As a witness of such nefarious deeds, aren't you afraid of speaking out lest the government decide to employ those self-same tactics to silence you?

[Trish]

The Colonists didn't have national armies, but at the same time didn't use guerilla tactics.


Depends, if you ask the English they did. The proper way of doing battle was on the battlefield army to army. The colonialists fought from trees on many battles which would be considered a guerrilla tactic at the time.


El -

One thing that is being overlooked in your discussion here is that the Continental Army was established by the Continental Congress in June 1775 with George Washington as commander in chief. That action changed the status of the Americans fighting against the British from an insurgency to a bona fide military operation. The history I've read of the battles indicate that both traditional methods of warfare were used in the areas where such was possible, and guerilla methods in the areas where it was not. Here the terrain was often not suitable for traditional methods and since this was more familiar to the Americans they were able to turn that to their advantage.

[Tessy]

Our government doesn't try to kill us or our families for speaking out.

Yeah, and if they did, you and I would be kicking somone's ass, too. And, you know it!

What planet do you two live on? Oh yeah, Planet Fox. Pretty funny that you should be saying this so close to Martin Luther King day.

Besides the JFK, RFK and the recent hit on John Jr. there's literally thousands of hits done by the US military (I've witnessed a few of these first hand!), the federal government, drug dealing heads of state, and etc..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/26/212449/970
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/war_critic_soldiers_killed_to_send_message.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/yem-n12.shtml
http://www.whitedog.com/trespass.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/25/justice_dept_accuses_u_s_citizen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/us-soldier-killed-herse_b_91898.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmanexecuted.htm
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/martyrs.htm
http://community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/Mark_Allen/2007/12/07/Remembering_The_December_4th_Assassination_Date_of _Fred_Hampton_Sr_and_Mark_Clark

I could easily fill a book (with names only) of cases where someone with 1st hand evidence against the US government or some officials speaks out or tries to and then is killed. Sometimes including family members as well.



As a witness of such nefarious deeds, aren't you afraid of speaking out lest the government decide to employ those self-same tactics to silence you?


Why would you assume that I haven't already? That I haven't done my duty in court? Do you assume all people are cowards? I guess as a matter of projection you just might.

[Trish]

Our government doesn't try to kill us or our families for speaking out.

Yeah, and if they did, you and I would be kicking somone's ass, too. And, you know it!

What planet do you two live on? Oh yeah, Planet Fox. Pretty funny that you should be saying this so close to Martin Luther King day.

Besides the JFK, RFK and the recent hit on John Jr. there's literally thousands of hits done by the US military (I've witnessed a few of these first hand!), the federal government, drug dealing heads of state, and etc..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/26/212449/970
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/war_critic_soldiers_killed_to_send_message.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/yem-n12.shtml
http://www.whitedog.com/trespass.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/25/justice_dept_accuses_u_s_citizen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/us-soldier-killed-herse_b_91898.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmanexecuted.htm
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/martyrs.htm
http://community.myfoxchicago.com/blogs/Mark_Allen/2007/12/07/Remembering_The_December_4th_Assassination_Date_of _Fred_Hampton_Sr_and_Mark_Clark

I could easily fill a book (with names only) of cases where someone with 1st hand evidence against the US government or some officials speaks out or tries to and then is killed. Sometimes including family members as well.



As a witness of such nefarious deeds, aren't you afraid of speaking out lest the government decide to employ those self-same tactics to silence you?


Why would you assume that I haven't already? That I haven't done my duty in court? Do you assume all people are cowards? I guess as a matter of projection you just might.


I didn't assume anything. I asked a question. Since you assert that the government goes around killing people with evidence against it and then claim to be just such a person, I was just wondering why you weren't afraid that you might be on the hit list too. Since you're still around to talk about whatever it was, either what you witnessed wasn't all that important or the government isn't nearly as assassination prone as you claim.

[el comandante]

If the US were really fighting a "global war on terror" they would hand over Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles. The fact they don't just makes them look like hypocrites.

[David]

Anyways, try again.

People see the Qur'aan as what it really is, a book of hate and the religion of Islam as what it is, evil and Mohammed as what he really was, a monster.

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

You were saying? :grrrr:

[Go Fish]

If the US were really fighting a "global war on terror" they would hand over Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles. The fact they don't just makes them look like hypocrites.

Or we could have fragged the entire Castro family. Yes, I am disappointed that we haven't yet.