How many of those that subscribe to Islam support terrorism?

I think it's fairly obvious that Bush went to war for many reasons of which oil is a primary consideration. I think Crusading against a Muslim country was another.

If you think that your just as ignorant as you claim us to be. :lol:

The crusades have been dead for over 600 years. Theres no incentive to invade and hold iraq just to kill muslims.

It was unjustified, but it certainly wasnt a crusade.
 
Let's assume that only 51% of the popular vote in the PNA went to Hamas (although this number is significantly higher). This means that out of a population of 2.5 million, at least 1.251 voted for a terrorist organization to take power. That's already, on its own right, 0.1% of the entire Islamic population. The sheer immensity in numbers means that if only half the Palestinian population supports a single terrorist organization out of the existing many, they're still 0.1% of the entire faith.

So while statistically speaking you guys may be right and more oppose violence than they propose it, there's still a metric ton of jihadic idiots trying to kill the west with the majority in the Arab world not really doing much to stop them...

I think another poll should be held to see how many Zionist idiots support apartheid, and state terrorism such as helicopter gunships killing women/children in their homes.
 
[/B]
If you think that your just as ignorant as you claim us to be. :lol:

The crusades have been dead for over 600 years. Theres no incentive to invade and hold iraq just to kill muslims.

It was unjustified, but it certainly wasnt a crusade.

Please read the best-selling book by Karen Armstrong, "Holy War" in which she talks about how we have a modern day Crusades going on.

It is you, my friend, who would be ignorant to deny the parallels between the Crusades back in the day and the Neo-Crusades today.
 
The third party is a wasted vote in Palestine, and how do you fight against a power which will brutally oppress you if you oppose them? it's not democratic when those in power have bombs, guns and AK-47's. And those who oppose them have rhetoric.
The ruling regime in the PNA was the Fatach. Hamas won. I don't know where you're from, but in democratic states when Party A is overthrown for Party B, and party B doesn't shoot anyone during the voting process, that means there was a democratic exchange of power. Even if this exchange was from a militant regime threatening to kill people to a new kind of gun-totting, jihadic psychotic murderous regime threatening to kill people, your point is rendered invalid. The vote worked - it just blew up in our face, literally.

What do you suggest it's unbalanced those who speak against them have nothing but harsh language? Would you suggest they even the score by using terrorism as you once did in the same situtation? How can they fight they have no means accept violence?
Allow those of us with the means to put an end to violence to do so. Collaborate with us by letting us know where the bomb factories are, who's the local ring leader and where they are digging underground tunnels. Let us know if there's an IED in the main road where your kids go to school. Allow people with bigger guns to take care of your local hoodlums, and help us kill those who are trying to kill us both!
 
I think another poll should be held to see how many Zionist idiots support apartheid, and state terrorism such as helicopter gunships killing women/children in their homes.
Against civilians? You'll be hard pressed to find people like that in positions of power in the Israeli regime, mostly because that's a criminal offense punishable by law - a law that is very often acted upon. Against bomb factories in civilian houses, or rocket launchers fired from inside courtyards? You have to be a total idiot to oppose being first to killing that who wishes to kill you.
 
Please read the best-selling book by Karen Armstrong, "Holy War" in which she talks about how we have a modern day Crusades going on.

It is you, my friend, who would be ignorant to deny the parallels between the Crusades back in the day and the Neo-Crusades today.


Then answer me this, why are we going over thier to kill terrorists and rid saddam in the intent to liberate the iraqi people.

I know that didnt work as planned and i did not support the war, but if we were crusading, we would have different objectives in mind.

The crusades, mainly the first crusade, aimed to capture jeruselam and extort the surrounding region and create crusader states. If you know european history and the concept of feudalism and vassalage this makes sense.

The crusaders were motivated by thier religious fervor and greed for loot, plunder, and power in the middle east.

None of those things are goals of any western country who fights in afghanistan or iraq. We want to get rid of the terrorists and hand back control to the iraqis.

Obviously this isnt working but its not the same as a "neo-crusade" or whatever you want to call it.
 
Pew is one of the best research poll organizations out there. Instead of attacking the Sec. of State attack the poll results. I've not knoe Pew to be anti islam or Ms. Albright. So I'm going to call you out on that and demand you start posting some facts to back up your slanderous claims.

Oil from Iraq was not going to the US before on now after the war. Can you back up that claim? Or how about giving a reason why he would crusade against a muslom nation. And why pick one that was in violation of 17 UN charters and in violation of a cease fire aggreement signed after said muslim nation invaded, raped, murdered and stole from while there?
 
Then answer me this, why are we going over thier to kill terrorists and rid saddam in the intent to liberate the iraqi people.

LOLLLL @ liberate the Iraqi people

Do you really believe that crap they spew forth? LOL! That America came, DESTROYED Iraq, for the benefit of Iraqis? Iraqis WHO HATE America ??? Well, thank you! How kind America to do that!

This liberation you speak of...this killing of innocent civilians, this rape of girls, this torture of Iraqis....it is a very strange liberation you speak of.

Let us analyze your statement: the Iraqis did not want you to invade, so how in the heck are you using the argument that you did it to liberate them??? How is DESTROYING their country liberating them? How is allowing the nation to STARVE to death for YEARS -- killing HALF A MILLION CHILDREN -- liberation???

The crusaders were motivated by thier religious fervor and greed for loot, plunder, and power in the middle east.

Exactly as we have today. :) Complete with the Crusader State known as Israel...in the EXACT spot that the Crusader state was before.

None of those things are goals of any western country who fights in afghanistan or iraq. We want to get rid of the terrorists and hand back control to the iraqis.

LOL

Fairy-tales.

You do not devestate countries for the benefit of the people of those countries. They hate you, and you say you did it for them. Laughably naive.
 
It seems talking to you is pointless. You act as if i support the war and you selectively read my lines.
:rolleyes:
 
You are right, Brother. I apologize. That was out of line of me.
It's OK, just be careful.

I will await till the reparations are paid to the thousand or more Arabs that were detained in camps without charge or trial. History has a way of repeating itself. :)
First of all, where did you get that figure? Secondly, American troops aren't grabbing random people off the street - if they arrest someone, it's for a reason. (Such as firing a weapon at them, being caught with an RPG, etc....) It's hardly the same thing as illegally detaining Japanese American citizens who had done nothing wrong. If you can show that the Arab Muslims we're talking about were arrested despite not carrying weapons or assisting those who do, then it might be an apt comparison - but as it is it is not.

Which is also a major civilian populated area. I cannot understand how anyone can rationalize the use of the atomic bomb. Please answer my question, Brother: If an Arab released a nuke in New York City, would that be terrorism or not? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
Two answers: First of all, if the Japanese place a major army depot in a civilian population center, that's their decision: According to the "laws" of war we are allowed to destroy it anyway. Secondly, more lives were saved by the deliberate bombing of targets, including targets surrounded by civilian buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than would have been by any other alternative. The combined bombings killed less than one million people; an invasion of the Home Islands would have most likely killed at least one to two million US soldiers alone, as well as tens of millions of Japanese, including millions of Japanese civilians.

Even a naval blockade would have caused millions and millions in the Home Island to starve to death - Japan was already in trouble regarding rationing of food, an adult in Tokyo was being issued 1200 calories a day at the end of the war.

As cold as it sounds, it's simply a matter of numbers. This was the least bloody way of ending the bloodiest war in human history. It may be ugly - but war is ugly.

As for whether if an Arab destroy New York City with an atomic bomb, it would be terrorism, then yes, it would be, absolutely.

And what about American imperial conquests at the time?
Such as what?

But anyways, your opinion is that it wasn't enough that Japan was willing to end the war, but instead you had to take over another country completely and if they refused, you'd drop an a-bomb killing thousands of civilians? That, in your opinion, is justified?
They had to be willing to end the war, and we had to be able to insure that they would not attack us again as they had. It is the right of every nation to protect itself against assault, and our leaders believed the unconditional surrender of the Japanese was the only way to ensure that. You're welcome to disagree, but I hold to that view: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than they ended, both in the short and long term. Do I abhor that even one innocent child or man or woman died? Certainly. But there is no such thing as a perfect option when dealing with imperfect people - we chose the least imperfect option, and saved the most lives.

Instead, the only war-mongerers we have to worry is about is America right?
Only if you're a terrorist or a mass murderer. Those who act civilized have nothing to fear.

For example, on the 22nd of July in 1946, Jewish terrorists blew up a hotel and killed 91 British soldiers, and blamed it on the Arabs. This was called the King David Massacre, and it was done in order to turn the British opinion against the Arabs. However, in this instance, the Jews were caught and today it is well known and accepted that it was Jews who did it.
That's on the historical record. Did I, or anyone here say that only Muslims have committed terrorism? I don't think so. What we are asking is how many Muslims today support terrorism? Which I think is a fair enough question to ask.
 
Pew is one of the best research poll organizations out there. Instead of attacking the Sec. of State attack the poll results. I've not knoe Pew to be anti islam or Ms. Albright. So I'm going to call you out on that and demand you start posting some facts to back up your slanderous claims.

OK, let's say that someone was asked "do you think it was worth it that six million Jews were killed"

And if the person said "yes", what would be your conclusion?

She said it was "worth the price" that half a million Muslim children died.

And there were many rallies held against her on university campuses as she was known for her anti-Muslim stance in foreign affairs. We, Muslims, do not like her. That should be enough.

And why pick one that was in violation of 17 UN charters and in violation of a cease fire aggreement signed after said muslim nation invaded, raped, murdered and stole from while there?

Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than any other country on the face of this earth.

Anyways, I'm off to sleep.

Take care.
 
OK, let's say that someone was asked "do you think it was worth it that six million Jews were killed"

And if the person said "yes", what would be your conclusion?

She said it was "worth the price" that half a million Muslim children died.

And there were many rallies held against her on university campuses as she was known for her anti-Muslim stance in foreign affairs. We, Muslims, do not like her. That should be enough.



Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than any other country on the face of this earth.

Anyways, I'm off to sleep.

Take care.

You failed miserable to answer the questions I posed wich doesn't suprise me. Or back up your slander. Israeli violations have been explaned away before since most are for stupid things like denfending their citizens. Do me a favour and if you ever respond to my posts don't point as Israel and say they do it to. Those are the tactics of children. If I want to know what you think about about Israel I ask you. Other wise don't bring it up as its not part the discusion. Can you do that.
 
First of all, where did you get that figure? Secondly, American troops aren't grabbing random people off the street - if they arrest someone, it's for a reason. (Such as firing a weapon at them, being caught with an RPG, etc....) It's hardly the same thing as illegally detaining Japanese American citizens who had done nothing wrong. If you can show that the Arab Muslims we're talking about were arrested despite not carrying weapons or assisting those who do, then it might be an apt comparison - but as it is it is not.

I don't have time to respond to all of your post because I am off to bed. However, you are 100% wrong.

NYCLU says (bold emphasis mine):

"In the days, weeks, and months following September 11, federal agents rounded up hundreds, if not thousands of Arab, Muslim and South Asian men, holding many for weeks without charges, in solitary confinement, and treating them as direct suspects of the September 11 attacks. The round-ups and detentions were based principally, or solely on religion, ethnicity or national origin. (source: See Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, supra at n.1.)"

http://www.nyclu.org/post911_immigration_enforcement_tstmny_071904.html

UM says:

"Since September 11, the fear of terrorist attacks has been used to justify a series of laws and regulations that have restricted immigrant rights, legitimized racial profiling by law enforcement agents, and led to the detention of thousands of South Asian, Muslim and Arab boys and men in the US, and the deportation of hundreds."

Please do not belittle the persecution faced by my people.

Take care.
 
I don't have time to respond to all of your post because I am off to bed. However, you are 100% wrong.

NYCLU says (bold emphasis mine):

"In the days, weeks, and months following September 11, federal agents rounded up hundreds, if not thousands of Arab, Muslim and South Asian men, holding many for weeks without charges, in solitary confinement, and treating them as direct suspects of the September 11 attacks. The round-ups and detentions were based principally, or solely on religion, ethnicity or national origin. (source: See Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, supra at n.1.)"

http://www.nyclu.org/post911_immigration_enforcement_tstmny_071904.html

UM says:

"Since September 11, the fear of terrorist attacks has been used to justify a series of laws and regulations that have restricted immigrant rights, legitimized racial profiling by law enforcement agents, and led to the detention of thousands of South Asian, Muslim and Arab boys and men in the US, and the deportation of hundreds."

Please do not belittle the persecution faced by my people.

Take care.
I don't believe the ACLU, either the New York chapter or the national organization, is a reliable or even reasonably unbiased source in this matter. I've seen you take objection to sources biased against you post by other members, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to take similar exception.

Also, you didn't quote the whole paragraph. ;)

"In the days, weeks, and months following September 11, federal agents rounded up hundreds, if not thousands of Arab, Muslim and South Asian men, holding many for weeks without charges, in solitary confinement, and treating them as direct suspects of the September 11 attacks. The round-ups and detentions were based principally, or solely on religion, ethnicity or national origin. All of the detainees were eventually cleared of terrorism charges, yet the average detainee was held for 80 days, often on minor civil violations of immigration laws, such as not filing a change of address within 10 days of a move. "

So you see, even according to your own source, they had done something that was technically illegal. You may disagree with the government's reaction (Assuming for a moment that the ACLU is correct on this) but you cannot say that they are being unjustly persecuted. The rules are being enforced - if you are upset about this, lobby to change the rules. If you are here legally, then you should respect our laws. And if you're here illegally, then I have no problem with having you summarily deported, be you Arab or Indonesian, Mexican or Filipino, German or English.

By the way, what country do you live in Salah-Al-Din? England?

You take care as well, and have a good nights rest.:)
 
The ruling regime in the PNA was the Fatach. Hamas won. I don't know where you're from, but in democratic states when Party A is overthrown for Party B, and party B doesn't shoot anyone during the voting process, that means there was a democratic exchange of power. Even if this exchange was from a militant regime threatening to kill people to a new kind of gun-totting, jihadic psychotic murderous regime threatening to kill people, your point is rendered invalid. The vote worked - it just blew up in our face, literally.


Allow those of us with the means to put an end to violence to do so. Collaborate with us by letting us know where the bomb factories are, who's the local ring leader and where they are digging underground tunnels. Let us know if there's an IED in the main road where your kids go to school. Allow people with bigger guns to take care of your local hoodlums, and help us kill those who are trying to kill us both!


Not going to happen and you know it, they want the original partition plan, while you stand against it nothing but rivalry is going to result, the original was unfair anyway, all they want is something you can agree to, anything else is semantics and is backed by the I am right you are wrong good old US who will veto anything you want.

It's a stalemate, and frankly as long as the US remains in the situation as the big I am it always will be, you're big enough and tough enough to stand on your own against the morons, smart people tough and resistant, and not without your ever present veto from the good old we will ever support you big up brother.

Let's put fairness back into the deal let's make a treaty that doesn't involve the side that created this mess in the first place, let's get Israel and Palestine together without the morons who run the US at the moment, and believe me they are morons. Visionary not hiding under a wing of morons.

Get you a great leader, and hope that a great leader makes his way into Palestine, OK as Palestine stands it's going nowhere, but don't blame that nowhere on them alone, it's the US and morons like Sharon who have created the situatation, hard line faces hard line. who is youre biggest friend and your biggest enemy. Listen to your own self.

Get peace and the US out of your system, they're at the moment nothing but morons, there government is perhaps the most pointless in their history. War is not won in this situation by aggression.
 
Get peace and the US out of your system, they're at the moment nothing but morons, there government is perhaps the most pointless in their history. War is not won in this situation by aggression.
There's no such thing as a war not won by aggression. If you can win it by being peaceful, then it's not a war. No war in the history of mankind has been one by refusing to go out and fight the enemy; those who tried lost.
 
There's no such thing as a war not won by aggression. If you can win it by being peaceful, then it's not a war. No war in the history of mankind has been one by refusing to go out and fight the enemy; those who tried lost.


The more terrorists/freedom fighters you kill, the more that will pop up.

History time and again has proven this.
 
The more terrorists/freedom fighters you kill, the more that will pop up.

History time and again has proven this.
Not necessarily. When fighting an insurgency, you have to take away the enemies will to fight, either by taking away their cause for anger, or by killing them so efficiently that there aren't any more left, and the people that are left are too afraid to fight you. Or some combination of the two.

Saying that the more guerrillas/insurgents/terrorists/whatever you kill, the more you'll have in all cases is absurd. Can aggressive action cause more insurgents to spring up? Certainly. Does this mean aggressive action is always the worst option, in regards to achieving you rgoal? Certainly NOT. Off the top of my head, and on the opposite side of the fence, I can think of the Roman conquest of Judea in the First Century AD - the Romans came down on Judea for rebelling like a hammer, and the Jews fought using guerrilla tactics - what happened? The Jews got slaughtered because the Romans were more disciplined, and more ruthless and aggressive. Saying that "the more you kill, the more you'll have" is always true is utter nonsense, like most generalizations.
 
You know what elrohir, your right about the romans.

However, we cannot wage war like they did in the past. The romans were brutal and enslaved their enemies and had no concern for civilians.

If we fought like that we could easily pound the insurgency to dust... along with the rest of iraq.

But if we tip-toe through iraq trying to avoid the populace then its not that easy and while we do it the insurgents will take more potshots at us.

We cannot win the way we are fighting.
 
I don't think we can win the way we usually do things in Iraq. But that doesn't mean going home, either, which was where your statement was flawed. Fighting an insurgency doesn't mean you have to turn the land into a desert (Or more so, in Iraq's case) but it does mean a good deal more common sense and aggressive action than we seem to use in Iraq on a day to day basis.

I'm not saying we've done perfectly in Iraq - obviously we haven't. But your solution is, as far as I can tell, "stop fighting because we'll just make it worse". That's nonsense - you win a war by fighting smarter than the enemy, not by throwing up your hands, and going home to huddle in a foxhole and hope the big bad enemy doesn't come and kill you.
 
Top Bottom