RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ?

RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

subrob1967 -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 3:54:45 PM)
Can a Nobel Peace Prize winner be a Terrorist? Apparently there's one British Lord who placed a bounty on GWB and BHO.

Politesub53 -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 4:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Yes, because 9/11 was due to them hating our freedom[8\|] I am suprised some people are stupid enough to think this. Bin Laden made clear his reasons for 9/11. Your freedom had little to do with them Sorry but that is crap. One of his prime complaints was that western pluralism exists. No one, not even OBL, believed the aftermath of 9/11 would be the US being less involved in the muslim world. He wanted us to become the christian equivalent of Wahabism. And we came very close to doing what he wanted. Historians have said that but you would be hard pushed to find me a quote from OBL stating this. He clearly stated the reasons as being the following..... Support for Israel..... Gulf War 1....... US troops stationed in Saudi.

Politesub53 -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 4:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Can a Nobel Peace Prize winner be a Terrorist? Apparently there's one British Lord who placed a bounty on GWB and BHO. Apparently you are not too good at checking facts. Below is from wiki and clearly shows the Tribune retract their statement..... Which kind of stops your muckraking in its tracks. Haripur meeting A Pakistani newspaper, The Express Tribune, alleged that Ahmed said "If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush", at a business meeting in Haripur, Pakistan, on 15 April 2012.[27] On learning of these allegations, the Labour Party immediately suspended Ahmed pending a formal investigation.[28][29] Ahmed later responded by stating "I'm shocked and horrified that this whole story could be just made up of lies..." Ahmed went on to say that he was not issuing a bounty but rather calls for the prosecution of George W. Bush and Tony Blair due to the "war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan" in what he considers to be "illegal wars".[30] Video footage of the meeting, released on 18 April, showed that Ahmed had been misquoted and instead had said, "Even if I have to beg I am willing to raise and offer £10 million so that George W Bush and Tony Blair can be brought to the International Court of Justice on war crimes charges."[31] The same day, the Express Tribune offered a "clarification" that it had "erroneously reported" Ahmed's statement and that their reporter had incorrectly cited the name of Obama. The article stated that the newspaper "deeply regretted" its mistake.[32] Lord Ahmed was administratively suspended from holding office or representing the Labour party on 15 April 2012. This suspension was later revoked on 25 June 2012. .[33]

kdsub -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 4:27:18 PM)
I thought it was because we had military bases in Saudi Arabia Butch

Politesub53 -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 4:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I thought it was because we had military bases in Saudi Arabia Butch That was one of a few reasons given Butch...... I cant recall anything saying OBL was against US freedoms. 9/11 was a follow up to the 1996 ? Trade centre bombing, also planned by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 4:46:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The much vaunted 'drone strategy' used by the US to hit Afghani insurgents and 'terrorrists' inside Pakistan has been the subject of a study carried out by researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. The researchers set out to conduct "independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians". The study's findings, analysed at the two links below, are alarming. They report multiple breaches of international humanitarian laws, woeful targeting, an unacceptable level of civilian casualties, drone missile attacks on rescuers trying to pull wounded and dying from the rubble, lies by US officials in reporting the outcomes of drone strikes to Americans. In short, they accuse the US of terrorising the entire population of the border regions of Pakistan. They found the strategy short sighted at best, and likely to cause more terrorists by filling the ranks of insurgent groups by angry young men whose relatives and communities had been devastated by the missile strikes. They also found only about one in fifty of casualties are known militants, calling into question the military effectiveness of the strategy, whatever its other flaws. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html I was horrified as I read the articles. What was your reaction? Horrified? No. Disappointed? Absolutely. Stunned? At the incredible increase in number of strikes and in the precision of "surgical removal" by way of buzzsaw. I am finding out, more and more, that "collateral damage" pertains more to the impact on our troops than it does to the civilians. I am not surprised that the drone strikes induce terror. I did not know the drones flew 24/7. I was also shocked that we (the US Government) had a study showing that our policies were more to blame for anti-US terrorism, and yet, when politicians made that claim, they were routinely ridiculed. In an early GOP debate, Ron Paul busted out his claim and was booed by the audience and - you'll get a laugh out of this - while Santorum's response got a round of applause. The main reason I wasn't a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 was my perception of RP's foreign policy as being dead ass wrong. I blame my naivete on my lack of paying attention to almost all things politics in previous years. The more I read, the more I found that RP was right. The more I read, the more conservative I became. The more I read, the more I disagreed with the Democrats and the un-proclaimed path of the Republicans. Through readings of economics, and more political writings and discussions I would have thought I'd perform in my lifetime prior to then, I have only become more and more conservative, fiscally, and more and more Libertarian in terms of party affiliation. I haven't completely made my decision regarding my vote in November. It's either going to be Romney, or it's going to be Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). I am not sure what it's going to take to make my decision, either. I have not always been against drone strikes, and I am still not completely against them. They do serve a purpose, though I do believe our current usage is ill-advised, not to mention wrong (I will not comment on Bush's use of drones since I don't know his style of use and it really doesn't matter at this point; I do not know whether or not I'd back Bush's usage patterns, so I'm not simply being partisan). The fact(s) is/are that we "need" to be in a variety of places to fulfill previous decade long commitments, many of which, those foreign govt.s won't admit to...but the other fact(s) is/are...in a great majority of those places....we just don't fucking belong. We pay for 100% of Japan's (ocean) military...we protect Australia, and even as they deny it, the Arab Emirates and multiple others in the Middle East (some, just so we can obtain fly over rights). We do this because it's in "our best interests" and it's in our best interests because of oil. Thousands of American service men and women die because of these "vested interests". Because of oil. If we had a cogent energy policy which included both solar and wind (regardless of the cost) it would far outpace those costs that we expend on the Straight of Hormuz (still being cognizant of Israel...who we should protect at all costs). We're almost there but...we need a Prez that believes in "any and all". Who that is is up to you. I can't even come close to grasping why we protect so many countries who find us, at best, bile at minimum (I ain't the Prez...and there's a whole lot of shit that none of us know about) but....if we could provide our own energy....regardless of the cost....we wouldn't be in other people's shit. And we shouldn't be. Ron Paul, as crazy as some believe him to be....he had it right. We don't belong "there"...wherever "there" is. It ain't our country...and any other country that wanted an airstrip in Kansas or Oklahoma...would have been laughed out of Congress. We don't belong in these places. Anywhere. As powerful as we are....we can show our strength better by saying "goodbye". Then let's see how many of these fucks who we pay billions to basically hate us, after we say "Asta La Vista"....want us back....and by the way....for pennies on the dollar...BITCH!

DomKen -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 4:59:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Yes, because 9/11 was due to them hating our freedom[8\|] I am suprised some people are stupid enough to think this. Bin Laden made clear his reasons for 9/11. Your freedom had little to do with them Sorry but that is crap. One of his prime complaints was that western pluralism exists. No one, not even OBL, believed the aftermath of 9/11 would be the US being less involved in the muslim world. He wanted us to become the christian equivalent of Wahabism. And we came very close to doing what he wanted. Historians have said that but you would be hard pushed to find me a quote from OBL stating this. He clearly stated the reasons as being the following..... Support for Israel..... Gulf War 1....... US troops stationed in Saudi. People who studied the man and the entirety of his life say that. One of his prime complaints against the House of Saud was that they were too western. He had also complained quite a lot about the presence of women amongst our troops in SA. All in all it seems clear his hatred of the west boiled down to pluralism.

tweakabelle -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 12:10:03 AM)
Sorry, but the notion that Arabs/Muslims hate the West because they "hate our freedoms" is crap. Pure undiluted crap. IIRC, this claim was first advanced by Bush the Dumber immediately following 9/11. It certainly reflects GWH's less than stellar grasp of international affairs. Even at a cursory level it is shallow and self-serving, and ought to be dismissed on those grounds alone. Oppressed people don't hate those who enjoy freedom, they wish to enjoy those freedoms themselves. In my entire experience of meeting with Arabs/Muslims and travelling extensively in that part of the world, not one person has ever brought up this notion to me, or even anything remotely resembling it. Not a single one. Ever. In my experience, Arabs and Muslims admire our freedoms and would dearly love to have the same rights and freedoms themselves. This is the main motive driving the 'Arab Spring' uprisings across the Arab world. . OTOH, virtually every single person I have encountered from that part of the world has brought up Western support for Israel, the Occupation of Palestine , Western support for corrupt leaders and dictators in the Arab/Muslim world and the invasions/occupation of Muslim lands by Western military forces. This is no secret. These factors have been brought to America's attention innumerable times by your friends, Arabs and Muslims, and Western scholars specialising in the region. The problem is that American politicians seem most reluctant to confront anything that reflects badly on Israel, and so clutch at idiotic straws such as the "they hate our freedoms" nonsense.

DomKen -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 2:41:10 AM)
Who said anything about generic muslims? I'm talking about a single person whose views are well documented.

PeonForHer -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 3:13:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Sorry, but the notion that Arabs/Muslims hate the West because they "hate our freedoms" is crap. Pure undiluted crap. IIRC, this claim was first advanced by Bush the Dumber immediately following 9/11. To be fair, I don't recall Bush the D ever defining 'freedoms'. Arguably, that was one reason his administration found it so easy to restrict peoples' freedoms in order to, er, protect peoples' freedoms.

DesideriScuri -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 4:34:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle OTOH, virtually every single person I have encountered from that part of the world has brought up Western support for Israel, the Occupation of Palestine , Western support for corrupt leaders and dictators in the Arab/Muslim world and the invasions/occupation of Muslim lands by Western military forces. This is no secret. These factors have been brought to America's attention innumerable times by your friends, Arabs and Muslims, and Western scholars specialising in the region. The problem is that American politicians seem most reluctant to confront anything that reflects badly on Israel, and so clutch at idiotic straws such as the "they hate our freedoms" nonsense. I had the opportunity to chat up a lady whose family hailed from Jordan, though she was born in America. She does travel back to see extended family when she can, had been raised Muslim, considered herself Christian now, and has studied those two religions and Judaism. She was an avid Ron Paul fan, and I made the honest appraisal that the only major place I differed with his politics was in regard to Israel. I stated that it was my belief that the US should continue to be protected, and I do, and did, admit that that is a religious belief behind it. Boy did I get chewed out. I learned a lot about that area, but still don't truly understand it (and never really claimed to understand it). I still maintain that Israel needs to be protected when attacked. I maintain, as I did then, that if Israel is the aggressor, there should be consequences for Israel. That is, we are not Israel's bodyguard, allowing them to pick on whichever country and then have us beat them up. Do we need to be in darn near every country? No. Not at all. Do we not have enough US territories and holdings to allow us to react at a moment's notice? I do believe we do. I honestly believe that a good part of our DoD budget could be wiped out if we were to close our foreign military bases and bring those troops home. And, I completely support that.

tweakabelle -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 5:30:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Sorry, but the notion that Arabs/Muslims hate the West because they "hate our freedoms" is crap. Pure undiluted crap. IIRC, this claim was first advanced by Bush the Dumber immediately following 9/11. To be fair, I don't recall Bush the D ever defining 'freedoms'. Arguably, that was one reason his administration found it so easy to restrict peoples' freedoms in order to, er, protect peoples' freedoms. I don't recall Bush the D ever defining anything except ineptitude - and he did that in spite of himself rather than through conscious choice.

vincentML -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 5:51:52 AM)
~FR~ worth a read from Wiki According to former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader was motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[45] condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are." Bin Laden also said only the restoration of Sharia law would "set things right" in the Muslim world, and that alternatives such as "pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy" must be opposed.[46] This belief, in conjunction with violent jihad, has sometimes been called Qutbism after being promoted by Sayyid Qutb.[47] Bin Laden believed that Afghanistan, under the rule of Mullah Omar's Taliban, was "the only Islamic country" in the Muslim world.[48] Bin Laden consistently dwelt on the need for violent jihad to right what he believed were injustices against Muslims perpetrated by the United States and sometimes by other non-Muslim states,[49] the need to eliminate the state of Israel, and the necessity of forcing the United States to withdraw from the Middle East. He also called on Americans to "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury", in an October 2002 letter.[50] Bin Laden's ideology included the idea that civilians, including women and children, are legitimate targets of jihad.[51][52] Bin Laden was anti-Semitic, and delivered warnings against alleged Jewish conspiracies: "These Jews are masters of usury and leaders in treachery. They will leave you nothing, either in this world or the next."[53] Shia Muslims have been listed along with "heretics, [...] America, and Israel" as the four principal "enemies of Islam" at ideology classes of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization.[54] [SNIP] [SNIP] Bin Laden's overall strategy against much larger enemies such as the Soviet Union and United States was to lure them into a long war of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the enemy nation.[69] Al-Qaeda manuals clearly outline this strategy. In a 2004 tape broadcast by al-Jazeera, bin Laden spoke of "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy".[70]

vincentML -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 5:57:48 AM)
~FR~ Transcript of President Bush's address September 21, 2001 (Page 4 of 7) The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them. (APPLAUSE) Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (APPLAUSE) Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?" They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-20/us/gen.bush.transcript_1_joint-session-national-anthem-citizens/4?_s=PM:US

thompsonx -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 6:02:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: They found the strategy short sighted at best, and likely to cause more terrorists by filling the ranks of insurgent groups by angry young men whose relatives and communities had been devastated by the missile strikes. Sometimes I think Western anti-terrorist strategy is like a bloke trying to eradicate all the wasps in his garden by walking up to their nest and trying to whack them one by one with a cricket bat. This bloke has no understanding that, these days, people can take pictures on their smartphones of what he's doing and send them to everyone in the street. And then he's baffled when all his neighbours unaccountably start treating him as though he's a dickhead. Seriously, would it be in the realms of the nuttiest conspiracy theorising to suggest that such policy is actually designed to create more terrorism in the world? That is not the design of the program, but it very well can be an unintended consequence. How do you know that that was not the design of the program?

thompsonx -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 6:17:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR War is not neat and clean and never will be. What options in that region do we have? The Taliban rebuilt quite effectively the last time we let up on the tribal regions and nearly toppled the nuclear weapon state of Pakistan. Does anyone think the Taliban/ISI in charge of nuclear weapons is a good idea? Perhaps you might tell us why you think it is a bad idea? quote: Should we send in the SEALs every time we have actionable intelligence that a couple of Taliban or Al Qaeda guys are meeting in a mud hut? Would that result in fewer deaths? Doubtful. Why is it "our " business to topple any government? quote: Fundamentally the problem is these organizations that threaten the peace and security of the entire world Perhaps one might ask themselves if they are sending drones around the world bombing folks if not then who is the threat to world peace? quote: have found safe haven amongst the Pashtun and there is no way to root them out that will not involve bad things happening to those same Pashtun. And choosing to leave them alone is unacceptable as recent events show that Al Qaeda and its various fellow travelers remain commited to our destruction. It would appear from the facts that all they want is us to stop buttfucking them.

thompsonx -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 6:20:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR War is not neat and clean and never will be. What options in that region do we have? Leave them alone? [8\|] That worked so well on 9/11/01. The facts shhow that the folks that did the 9/11 thingie were from saudi arabia...our ally

hot4bondage -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 7:24:15 AM)
Thank you for this post, vincentML. In summary, Bush is with the "Blame America First" crowd, not Ron Paul. Bush claims they attacked us because of things we cannot and should not change. Freedom is part of our foundation. Current foreign policy is not. Bin Laden wanted us to overreact and go broke. That seems to be exactly what we're doing.[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML ~FR~ Transcript of President Bush's address September 21, 2001 (Page 4 of 7) The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them. (APPLAUSE) Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (APPLAUSE) Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?" They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-20/us/gen.bush.transcript_1_joint-session-national-anthem-citizens/4?_s=PM:US

vincentML -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 9:15:55 AM)
quote: Thank you for this post, vincentML. In summary, Bush is with the "Blame America First" crowd, not Ron Paul. Bush claims they attacked us because of things we cannot and should not change. Freedom is part of our foundation. Current foreign policy is not. Honestly, I don't see that Bush was blaming America. I think he was trying to comfort the nation. Notice that the speech was given only ten days after the attack on the twin towers. It was a tricky time and to Bush's credit imo he was walking a fine line between sorrow and vengence. Soon after he became the hammer of the Lord, except he struck at the wrong nation. quote: Bin Laden wanted us to overreact and go broke. That seems to be exactly what we're doing No question h4b. You are spot on.

Politesub53 -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/28/2012 11:22:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen People who studied the man and the entirety of his life say that. One of his prime complaints against the House of Saud was that they were too western. He had also complained quite a lot about the presence of women amongst our troops in SA. All in all it seems clear his hatred of the west boiled down to pluralism. I am unsure as to why you think other people are right and OBL himself isnt. Surely OBLs own reasoning, clearly and widely expressed, takes precedent over the views of those who have "studied" him ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625