Terrorism

[UCXIN1]

What drives the Muslims to terrorism? Do you have that answer? If you have really studied up on this you will see that the Muslims involved in terrorism have a warped interpretation of the Koran. They see any non-Muslims and non-believers and should die for their own Christian beliefs. The moderate Muslims of the world have a much better interpretation of the Koran, which they believe preaches peace.

Overall a very good post ..but pretty hard to agree with this point ..that Muslims target chirstians because of thier chirstian beliefs..

Lot of people are becoming terrorists because of wht US & its allies (UK) are doing in middle east..killing innocent children,women....

I dont know when will u understand this simple point...

And stop talking like George Bush....THEY HATE INDEPENDENT PEOPLE

[Loburt]

When will you understand this?

Terrorism committed by certain Islamic groups existed before Bush was president. Bush's actions may have exacerbated the problem, but it didn't start with him.

Al-Qaeda never cited the Middle East conflict as one of its reasons for attacking the US, until a couple of years ago when they realized it could gain them more recruits.

Al-Qaeda's goals were the expulsion of non Muslims from the Arabian peninsula and the reestablishment of the Caliphate.

Not only does the US, UK and other western nations not support those goals, most Arabs don't.

You can't blame all Islamic terrorism on US policy in the Middle East.

That's as shallow and ignorant as saying all Muslims are terrorist.

[UCXIN1]

When will you understand this?

Terrorism committed by certain Islamic groups existed before Bush was president. Bush's actions may have exacerbated the problem, but it didn't start with him.

Al-Qaeda never cited the Middle East conflict as one of its reasons for attacking the US, until a couple of years ago when they realized it could gain them more recruits.

Al-Qaeda's goals were the expulsion of non Muslims from the Arabian peninsula and the reestablishment of the Caliphate.

Not only does the US, UK and other western nations not support those goals, most Arabs don't.

You can't blame all Islamic terrorism on US policy in the Middle East.

That's as shallow and ignorant as saying all Muslims are terrorist.

It was exulsion of all western Military Troops from Middle east ..not all nationals...

And restablishment of Caliphate regime...is this a new american propoganda .....

[Loburt]

No, they explicitly stated they wanted all non Muslims out. Not just US troops. And US troops were there on the request of the Saudi government.

The reestablishment of the Caliphate has been stated time and time again in al-Qaeda's own literature, statements, propaganda, websites etc.

The fact that you don't know that shows clearly that you haven't followed these issues very closely and are just spouting anti-American and anti-Western propaganda.

[i_love_som_tam]

Taken from the PBS website~ The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism.

Do you trust the PBS as a reliable source of information? This clearly states Al-Qaeda's goals:

Al-Qaeda (The Base): Established by Usama Bin Ladin (UBL) circa 1990, Al Qaeda aims to coordinate a transnational mujahideen network; stated goal is to "reestablish the Muslim State" throughout the world via the overthrow of corrupt regimes in the Islamic world and the removal of foreign presence - primarily American and Israeli - from the Middle East.

[UCXIN1]

Taken from the PBS website~ The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism.

Do you trust the PBS as a reliable source of information? This clearly states Al-Qaeda's goals:

Al-Qaeda (The Base): Established by Usama Bin Ladin (UBL) circa 1990, Al Qaeda aims to coordinate a transnational mujahideen network; stated goal is to "reestablish the Muslim State" throughout the world via the overthrow of corrupt regimes in the Islamic world and the removal of foreign presence - primarily American and Israeli - from the Middle East.

It is pretty hard to believe what the Americans say atleast in Asia...

They attacked Iraq because it had Weapons of Mass destruction & also that Saddam had links with Al-Qaeeda ...neither has been proved

And will never be proved ..bcos both of them never existed...

The Main reason was OIL , is OIL

[i_love_som_tam]

Taken from the PBS website~ The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism.

Do you trust the PBS as a reliable source of information? This clearly states Al-Qaeda's goals:

Al-Qaeda (The Base): Established by Usama Bin Ladin (UBL) circa 1990, Al Qaeda aims to coordinate a transnational mujahideen network; stated goal is to "reestablish the Muslim State" throughout the world via the overthrow of corrupt regimes in the Islamic world and the removal of foreign presence - primarily American and Israeli - from the Middle East.

It is pretty hard to believe what the Americans say atleast in Asia...

They attacked Iraq because it had Weapons of Mass destruction & also that Saddam had links with Al-Qaeeda ...neither has been proved

And will never be proved ..bcos both of them never existed...

The Main reason was OIL , is OIL

So this thread is now about the war in Iraq. You can't think of any compelling arguments so it's off to a topic that's been discussed time and time again?

Make your comments in the appropriate "America went to war with Iraq because...." forum. I've wasted enough time on you as far as this topic is concerned. Thanks, bye bye. Have a nice day. :wink:

[i_love_som_tam]

Wait... Slurms? Is that you? :shock:

[eagle]

Wait... Slurms? Is that you? :shock:

lol maybe :shock:

[Loburt]

PBS is a public broadcasting station. It is independent. It is not the Bush government.

When you say "the Americans" you lump us all together. That's shallow and ignorant.

Should I lump all you Indians together with the murderers in Gujarat? Or the prostitutes of Sonagachi?

Hard to believe anything you Indians say.

The war was not about oil

But no point in trying to convince a deep thinker like you that it wasn't.

[Loburt]

Wait... Slurms? Is that you? :shock:

could be. and as some of his info comes up matching two other profiles banned for being fake, he's gone.

[i_love_som_tam]

Wait... Slurms? Is that you? :shock:

could be. and as some of his info comes up matching two other profiles banned for being fake, he's gone.

sh*t... i should be a cop :shock:

[CiaranM]

To all you ignorant 'murderer symathizers" on this thread why don't you take a peak at some of the stuff below, view, read and educate yourselves so you may eventually contribute to living in a CIVILIZED world.

These murderous animals only represent themselves and their interpretation of their mission from God and the majority of the human race regardless of religion wishes they would just drop down dead and go away and allow the planet to resolve ALL it's problems by civilized debate, discussion and consideration for all.

and what ideology do u think is driving Bush and the neo cons from our civilised world!!

do u don't think by any chance "these murdering animals" are following what they believe is their "mission from God" ??

[funnyman]

ppl forget that regardless of who strated the war the german ppl suffered the most in the end.

If you want to talk about childish rubbish we can talk about the above statement.

The Germans killed 6 million plus Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Catholics, political dissidents and assorted others by putting them in concnetration camps, gassing them and throwing them into ovens. This includes women ad children.They attempted to exterminate entire races.

I think those were the people, thier victims, who suffered most in the end.

What this indicates is your own ignorance and blinkered views.

In point of fact the people who suffered the absolute most in numercial terms of people kiled were the people of the Soviet Union a point I alluded to when making my reference to the German people having suffered the most.

We all know they - in effect [coz it is very contentious as to wheter they actually started ww2- It was actually started by France and the UK] started ww2 and were the badies of ww2. Yes they did do all maner of bad things and ultimately were more guilty of gross misdeeds than the allies but the allies were by no means whiter than white and have plenty of blood on their hands. The amount of innocent german people killed is testament to that.

The point is that at the end of the war the germans were defeated and humiliated as a nation. There country was utterly destroyed, indeed no other country in history has ever been so wasted and vanquished. On a human level one has to sympathise with that. Many of the jews killed for example were good germans! The numbers of germans killed was expotentially larger than any amount from the usa uk and other western forces combined!

As I say this was essentially a war between the soviet union and the nazis in which the uk the usa and others played very useful supporting roles and in the case of the USA thye provided excellent industrial production resources to the war effort. Also overlooked is the fact that depite the way things turned out it was a far closer run thing than people realise and a few vital outcome changes here ina thee could easily have seen Europe dominated by a nazi regme that would have probbaly led to either anoither cold war in which the soviet union would have been replaced with the german reich, [an eventuality that would have led to a likely defeat of the USA given the far more formidable threat the nazi would have been] or a hot war in which whomever got the atomic bomb first would have been the dominant power for years to come.

The USA unlike the two main sufferers [as nations] actually came out of the war having made incredible profit and gains. In short the ww2 was the best thing that ever happned to the usa and the amount of sufferring it had to endure was tiny by comparison with what the rest of the main protaganists had to go through.

Fast forward to 9/11 and we see our nation feeling never more wounded and vulnerable - a driect cosequnce sees the usa invade and occupy two countries in no time at all, while the islamofacists who can not, as has been pointed out, be dealt with with anything excpet brute and ruthless force continue to target innocent ppl with no goal whatsoever other than to terrorise

you also mentioned omagh in the north of ireland from 1998 well i checked up on that and again u have ur facts wrong it had nothing to do with the IRA but rather a splinter group going under the laughable name of "The Real IRA" which we can no doubt agree is a childish and absurd name for any freedom fighters/terrorist group.

Elsewhere it was emtioned that the iRA were a catholic group? Some ignorant Itailian guy I think. NOPE they were a nationalist group trying to have the BRITISH presence in their country [iRELAND] removed. religion may have tended to be the demarcation line of which side people were on but it was not the issue. Indeed many of the top freedome fighters and figureheads of the Irish nationalists were protestant! [aparently= parnell, wolf tone, robert emmet?]

In the context of the IRA they done a good job of bombing the british to reason and making the Brtish see that it didnt pay to occupy and interfer with Ireland indefintely accordingly the uk have given in effect a timetable for their withdrawl and the re-unification of that country. As was also pointed out the IRA had a clear set of political objectives which as it happens were correct . In other words had the British kept their noses out of Ireland they would have had no problems. The IRA did give warnings and never set out to kill innocent people, which is no excuse for the pub bombings and stuff they did carry out. in war things get out of hand and errors of tactics or just errors are made.

ANy british soldier killed or wounded was a legitimate target as he belonged in his own country most of whom were good soliders and partiots many of whim were not and were just state sanctioned terrorists. The British done a lot of dirty things in ireland but they eventually leanred their lesson and made some accomdation. By contrast the islamofascists cannot be appeased and so should be wiped out without any mercy. If that means some innocent muslims get caught up in the western security net, sad as that is so be it. As I have said on another post when the real true moderate muslims get with the program and start shouting from the tops of their voices that the islamofascists are not speaking for them progress will be made. if they wanna play victim and refuse to assimalte to the westen world which tehy have made their home then they can expect a miserable time ahead. get onside and they are welcome as full and equal members of whatever country in the west they reside. and yes that means accpeting that their faith is A PRIVATE MATTER and that the rule of law is the only law there will ever be in the western countries. sharilaw is never going to be even entertained and if they want that they should NOT COME TO THE WESTERN COUNTRIES WITH A VIEW TO LIVING THERE they are not welcome if they harbour such notions.

[Loburt]

What this indicates is your own ignorance and blinkered views.

In point of fact the people who suffered the absolute most in numercial terms of people kiled were the people of the Soviet Union a point I alluded to when making my reference to the German people having suffered the most.

We all know they - in effect [coz it is very contentious as to wheter they actually started ww2- It was actually started by France and the UK] started ww2 and were the badies of ww2.

So France and the British started World War II. What neo Nazi group do you belong to?

The people of the Soviet Union certainly suffered greatly during World War II. No one ever denied that. But suffering isn't measured only by numbers.

Maybe if you or your ancestors had spent time in a concentration camp you would understand. But most intelligent people don't actually need to go through the experience to understand its horror.

Oh, and I'm so sorry the Germans suffered national humiliation. My heart bleeds for them. The biggest source of their national humiliation was not that their army was defeated or their cties bombed or their capitulation.

The source of their national humliiation was the discovery of the concentration camps they ran and the genocide the perpetrated.

[funnyman]

So France and the British started World War II. What neo Nazi group do you belong to?

So you dont like what I have to say or the facts of what I write and you respond by inferring I am a neo nazi? Well a look at the color of my skin might have been a hint to the fact that I am about as farf rom being a nazi of any kind as anything far removed from reality. Typical sort of response by the sanctimonious brigade of know it all know verry ittle really category.

In POINT OF FACT FRANCE AND THE UK DECALRED WAR ON GERMANY FOLOWIG THE INVASION OF POLAND BY GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION You will note that they did not decalre war on anyone else? Given both where leading colonial powers with vast overseas territories it is the case that there involvment made it a world war. But as you ignore I actually already cncede that "in efffect it was Germany that started the war because I allow for the context of it having previous ations like the peace in out time lark which lead to Czech....etc.

The people of the Soviet Union certainly suffered greatly during World War II. No one ever denied that. But suffering isn't measured only by numbers.

Eh no they didint merely sufffer. They were the victims of nazi barabrism on a truly monstrous and grand scale they had their towns, cities and country over run with nazi forces. They then fully engaged the nazis in the greatest war ever waged in human history. The sheer scale of which means that numbers cannot be ignored or sidelined for it is the sheer numbers that are so staggering and key to understanding the vital importance of understanding that it was overwhelmingly a war between these two military giants. This is all in stark contrast to the cases of the UK , USA and others [csanada and oz] in which the losses were tiny by comparison and the sufferring of the people immeasurably less as comapred to the german and soviet ppl. Which is not to suggest that the individual suffering is any less coz that is exactly my point. Regardless who is to blame suffering s still suffering and all humans feel pain regardless of the fact of wheter or not they have been primarily responsibly for their own fates. Im sure the children going to school in Horoshima were totally innocent and not deserving of the fate they met on that faithful day in august 1945

Maybe if you or your ancestors had spent time in a concentration camp you would understand. But most intelligent people don't actually need to go through the experience to understand its horror.

I dont need my realtives or ancestors to have been in a concentratio camp for me to empahtise with the suffering of those ppl and appreciate the grave wrongs committed by the nazis, but as I say above they were by nio means the only innocents of the war.

Oh, and I'm so sorry the Germans suffered national humiliation. My heart bleeds for them. The biggest source of their national humiliation was not that their army was defeated or their cties bombed or their capitulation.

Well thats about right coz I dont think you do have any sypathy for the german ppl or german nation and thats just wrong for the reasons I have given above.

They suffered not merely because their cities were destroyed and their country decimated but because they lost! Yes defeat is a hard thing to swallow and it changes everthing had Germany not been so aggregiously humiliated and abused after the ww1 when they were no more to blame for the outbreak of war than anyone else then the nazis and ther german ppl may not have ended up on the path to war and self destruction that ultimately came about after they took on far too many powers and were defeated by the soviets with some support from the usa and the uk. Had they won the world would indeed have been worse off but tell that to the millions who were sent to the gulags and the millions who perished filowing soviet victory and not to mention the virtual ensalvement of the whole of eastern europe and a big chunk of germany itself.

The source of their national humliiation was the discovery of the concentration camps they ran and the genocide the perpetrated.

The source of their humiliation was most certainly not just the concentration camps though that clearly is a particualr badge of shame for whic the german ppl have certainly atoned and accepted responsibility for. The totally devastd and defeated sate of their country and their helplessness following the end was the gravest of faiths to endure for any people or nation. The point is that they paid a very heavy price for their misdeeds and unlke the allies have fully atoned for them. It is the victor who gets to write hsitory and impose the moral standard. In circumstances considerably less trying than thos endured by the germans one hundred thousand ppl of japanese decent were also put in concentraion camps in the usa [ THOUGH NOT THE TYPE IN NAZI LAND NOR OF THE KILING KIND] and it took many years later for the usa to admit its wrong etc. Lkewise the air raids and kiling of so many innocent ppl is something which the allies have nver been brought to book for [coz they won!]

morally and ethically there is was and never could be a justification for the atomic bomb attacks perpertarted by the usa and it was a war crime of unimaginable prortions as were the bombings of tokoyo,hamburg and dresden to name but a few, however from a practical point of view al are to some extend understandable or at least regretful admission and revealations thAT WAR leads to hell for everyonea nd drags everyone down. It all just depneds on the circumstances and the level of depravity a nation or ppl have gone to down to.

[Loburt]

funny, funnyman, but you never mentioned the sufferings of the Jews or others placed in concentration camps until others had to bring it up.

Instead you spent your post wringing your hands over the humliation and suffering of the poor German nation.

Now you're trying to cover your ass.

And now you're going on about the poor innocent Japanese who had the atomic bomb dropped on them.

No mention of Nanking or the other atrocities perpetrated by the Imperial Army of Japan for nearly a decade before that event.

Your posts are pure sophistry intended to wind people up.

Sanctimonious? You got pretty sanctimonious about the sufferings of the Germans while sugar coating their crimes against humanity (they were baddies who did bad things is what you wrote. Now that's really telling it like it is.).

And nothing done by the Americans, French of British during World War II compares on the scale of crimes against humanity to the Holocaust.

No A4 length post you can put together can change that fact.

[DanMorgan]

funny, funnyman, but you never mentioned the sufferings of the Jews or others placed in concentration camps until others had to bring it up.

Now you're trying to cover your ass.

Loburt, here is your funnyman..

:wink: go and catch him!!

[Angel_Master]

Start dealing with the cause and there is no need to be searching or suspecting anyone.

So if we're all well-behaved in our nice developed countries everyone else will be good too? The only source of evil and aggression is from the richer developed countries?

Then how do you explain Darfur?

So, if al Qaeda's goal is the overthrow of all governments from the north of Africa to the Malay peninsual and the re-establisment of the Caliphate and the imposition of an ultra-conservative brand of Islam over everyone in that region, we should just say okay?

Even if the majority of the people in that region don't want that?

As I recall, al-Qaeda's original motivation was the expulsion of US troops and all non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula, or the Holy Lands.

That's a legitimate complaint?

Should we then also expel all Muslims from our Western countries? And if they don't want to go, should we then deliberately target some women and children for death by bombing in Riyadh or Jeddah?

You seem to be lumping terrorism and genocide together, but they are distinctly different. What one might say about terrorism is probably not applicable to genocide. My post was in response to the journal and complaints about the searches. It is also about terrorism not genocide.

Well, I'm not clear on exactly what Al-Qaeda's goals are. It seems to me that most if not all that we have heard about Al-Qaeda has been from the Bush administration or the US government in any case. I will be doing some research on this time permitting. As for the goals of those who were trying to remove westerners from Saudi Arabia it seems clear that their primary goal was the over through of the Saudi monarchy, this is what anyone you might talk to here believes. Had they been more successful in deterring westerners from working here they might well have succeeded. Without the expat work force and management the economy would collapse. What their goals were beyond that does not seem to be so clear. Was the real motivation religious purity as they claimed or was it in fact power? And who was really responsible? I mean, who are the men at the top of Al-Qaeda really?

It is interesting to consider what might have happened had the Saudi monarchy been over thrown.

Yes, I dare to question that there is any terrorism that is motivated by a goal to spread the Muslim religion. Religious extremism may well be only a tool that is used to enlist troops for what is really a power struggle.

[i_love_som_tam]

funny, funnyman, but you never mentioned the sufferings of the Jews or others placed in concentration camps until others had to bring it up.

Now you're trying to cover your ass.

Loburt, here is your funnyman..

:wink: go and catch him!!

he gave himself up :shock: does he think that people are that simple? :shock:

[Loburt]

If you're not clear on what al-Qaeda's goals are, then you shouldn't be proposing that the solution to their terrorist acts is for us to deal with the cause, implying that it is some form of injustice.

You shouldn't be suggesting it's all due to the wrongs committed by the West if you haven't actually studied what al-Qaeda has said and what they want.

if you are suggesting that their terrorism is not motivated by religious extremism, but instead a lust for power (I personally think it's a mixture of both), then how do we deal with the root cause of that?

let them have their way?

even if the majority of people in the areas they want power over don't want them to have power?

I'm not confusing terrorism and genocide. It appears you didn't understand the post.

You posted that terrorism is just another form of war. In saying that, you are removing moral judgements about it and saying it is a justified response.

The leaders who order their followers to commit genocide can say exactly the same thing.

It's just another form of war. We can never truly win unless we kill them all. Otherwise their children will grow up and seek revenge on us later. So the only way to end it is to kill them all. That's just the way war is.

I don't agree with that. But they are using the same logic you did.

[zeusbheld]

I had tried to check that page before, but it doesn't work. Conspiracy theories and alternative history are mostly a heap of crap, but they make people think...

generally, no, they do quite the opposite. they STOP people from thinking by convincing them that they are 'in the know' and that anyone with any expertise must be wrong, evil or stupid somehow.

there are two or more sides to every story and we need to confront criticism in all disciplines, history included.

so you're saying fabricating facts is a legitimate form of argumentation? BULLSHIT.

So I guess this means you do NOT think that muslim=terrorist, right?

it is obvious that, historically, not all terrorists have been muslim. aside from real-world facts there is a logic issue here:

saying

TERRORIST=MUSLIM

IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING

MUSLIM = TERRORIST.

note that the structure of the above is the same as:

cat = mammal, which any idiot can see doesn't mean mammal = cat.

the second statement, muslim= terrorist, is bigoted, true, terrorist=muslim isn't necessarily. it's worth keeping that in mind when discussing things like profiling.

[zeusbheld]

...these people are not putting out any warnings, any demands, as was said: there is no negotiation table anywhere!

actually they do pretty consistently. the most recent al quaeda tape includes an american islamist urging americans to 'convert to islam'. you can haggle over the accuracy of translations but this is in english and it's all over TV right now, see for yourself. the evangelism often coincides with an attack, and some form of evangelism generally happens before islamists attack civilians--it is a rule they must follow or they risk eroding their support even among islamist extremists.

So, what the heck is happening, what is the object of all this! "Old fashioned" terrorists groups: they atleast have quite clear agendas, they have leaders to negotiate (or not negitiate) with etc...What is hoped to happen to put the whole world scared? Why?

actually the islamists have clear objectives, which include ending the collusion between the US and israel against the palestinians, getting ALL US troops and bases out of the middle east, elminating secularism in the middle east, etc. some factions of islamists are more extreme, with objectives ranging from eliminating israel entirely to converting the entire world to extreme fundamentalist islam. whether you consider their objectives worthwhile is a separate issue--a little research and you can easily uncover their objectives.

I don't consider as the "modern warfare". There has always been freedom fighters and terorists, and guerilla warfare. And considering the fact that this kind of terrorist warfare does not seem to have any kind of common agenda...:-(

it does actually and robbie36 is right, it IS modern warfare. warfare rarely involves playing nice, it's ugly but asymmetrical warfare aka terrorism IS the new reality when it comes to war.

[zeusbheld]

Terrorism is modern warfare - pure a simple.

The days of large armies facing one another on the battlefield are gone.

Small numbers of armed personnel can wreak havoc - both physical and psychological - on their perceived enemy. The protaganists grievancies are aired across all mass media and terrorists are difficult to eliminate without substantial collateral damage.

We might as well get used to it....

You're describing guerilla warfare not terrorism & that's as old as the history of war. Terrorists are cowardly criminals.

bill maher got fired from network tv after 9/11 for saying that the pilots were a lot of things but not cowards. criminals? sure. insane? by my standards yep.

but if you dont have the balls to kill yourself for what you believe in, it is weak at best to sit in your comfortable living room and call them cowards (or wherever you are, hero).

at worst it is dangerous--underestimating an enemy is a great way to lose to them.

[zeusbheld]

And now you're going on about the poor innocent Japanese who had the atomic bomb dropped on them.

No mention of Nanking or the other atrocities perpetrated by the Imperial Army of Japan for nearly a decade before that event.

Your posts are pure sophistry intended to wind people up.

aside from his ineptitude as a writer,

i think his point in citing hiroshima as an examples was not about whether japan the nation was more or less culpable than the USA for the war in the pacifc, but that innocent people suffer horrible, undeserved fates on all sides in war, as it inevitably descends into 'total war.'

unless of course, the flash-fried children of hiroshima who ended up as shadow-like stains on walls (literally) were somehow implicated in the rape of nanking... i have yet to see the evidence for that though (unless being born in the wrong place, wrong time makes you guilty).

general curtis lemay, the architect of the american strategic bombing campaign in the war against japan, apparently said that if the US lost the war he and his cadres would be considered war criminals ('m paraphrasing, thus the absence of quote marks). that according to former secretary of defense robert mcnamara, who worked with lemay in world war 2.