Reply With Quote
At least i address the issue at hand.
Right on cue.
Do you ever want to address your "they don't hate freedom" B.S. that I already proved totally false?
I'll sing -ba-ya if we get to that point.
You'll error on the side of getting your ass blown up.
"Got any other brilliant observations? I'm also skeptical of the existence of unicorns - want to debate that next?"............................................ .....Don't get your panties in a wad Scott! I'm just jerking on your chain. Kinda payback for the snide remark in the other thread. . You know which one. I didn't think I ever did anything to you to deserve that. OK?
At least i address the issue at hand.
Right on cue.
Do you ever want to address your "they don't hate freedom" B.S. that I already proved totally false?
I'll sing -ba-ya if we get to that point.
You'll error on the side of getting your ass blown up.
I'm sorry, a while back, you would have suckered me into a farse of a debate. But I've learned to weed through the people here that listen those that don't. It's pointless to speak to those who don't listen because it's about as intellectually stimulating as debating with my cat. Although my cat doesn't hate Muslims as much as you, so it may actually be worse.
So sorry, you'll have to go find another sucker.
Why would Imams in Kuwait be dogging the US in the first place? Don't they love us without condition?
this cat doesn't hate muslims but he thinks there are some crazy mother ers out there that we can't ignore and must deal with.
I agree. Smackdaddy is a Grand Wizard in hist anti muslim bigotry, however.
Actually I don't, but in any event I apologize.
Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the internet, and I don't believe him either.
You probably won't hear it on Fox either.
Me too!
So in other words, I don't listen which makes me wrong and you right. Eventhough you have no arguement to support the "they don't hate freedom" crap and I post "non-terrorists" saying the opposite. A farce of a debate when I use the actual words of Muslims all over the world.
You also were salivating at the Muslims Against Terrorism Rally scheduled in D.C. in May. More people showed at my childs school recital a few months back.
Where were the marches after 9/11, Spain, Britain, Indonesia, Australia????
I believe you don't want to discuss because you have no evidence to support your side. All I have ever asked is to see something, anything of substance from the Muslim community here and abroad. What do I read 90%+ of the time?
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=748
Terror in London (7) - Head of London Center for Islamic History Hani Siba'i: In Islam, There Are No Such Things as Civilians; Al-Qaeda "rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud"
The following are excerpts from an interview with the head of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, Hani Al-Siba'i, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 8, 2005.
Al-Siba'i: I think that British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a grave error when he spoke before the investigation and claimed that the perpetrators of these acts were acting in the name of Islam. I think that he will pay the price for this grave error in the future. No possibility should be ruled out. We do not rule out the possibility that it was done by the intelligence agency of another Western country hostile to Britain. We do not rule our countries... or some Zionist Americans who wanted to overshadow the G-8 summit. But at the same time, we do not rule out the Al-Qaeda organization. It's been claimed that Al-Qaeda died in Afghanistan, and was buried in the caves there. And behold: it was resurrected after the American occupation of Iraq. Moreover, Al-Qaeda controls the war agenda in Iraq. It is the Al-Qaeda organization in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq), headed by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, that imposes its policies, to the extent that the Egyptian government was forced to... It was forced to recall (its ambassador), and other countries are afraid to send ambassadors there.
Host: He was not an ambassador, but rather a representative that was murdered, and then Egypt lowered its level of representation.
Al-Siba'i: He previously worked in the so-called "Israel." What I want to ask is: can this organization do this? Is it conceivable that it did it? Yes, it is. Why? In the year... We must not forget that on April 15, 2004, Sheik Osama bin Laden released a taped message, in which he said... He gave... He reached out for reconciliation...
Host:
Just to recall, you are referring to the Madrid incidents, in which some 190 people were killed.
Al-Siba'i: After the Madrid incidents, he addressed the Western and European nations. Obviously, he didn't address the leaders, whom he does not recognize. He talked to the Western nations about reconciliation...
Host: Excuse me, he gave them three or four months. But, forgive me, targeting civilians... You, as a Muslim and as the director of a center for Islamic history... Is targeting wretched civilians considered brave or manly?
Al-Siba'i: I think... The man (bin Laden) addressed these peoples so that they would pressure their governments. He told them: We did not attack you. You have been attacking us for more than two centuries, and your campaign continues. He said to them simply: Withdraw your soldiers from the Arabian Peninsula, withdraw from Afghanistan and Palestine...
Host: Excuse me, Is Sheik Osama bin Laden a religious scholar, who issues fatwas, or is he the head of Al-Qaeda?
Al-Siba'i: First of all, he is one of this (Islamic) nation. Allah... We have no clergy, or a pope, or anything like this. Anyone can carry out his religious duty, even if he is by himself.
Host: Mr. Hani, issuing fatwas is done by religious scholars.
Al-Siba'i: He has a Shura council, he has religious scholars... He wanted to debate with other scholars, but they refused. He asked to discuss matters with them, but they refused.
Host: The question, in short, is whether the religious scholars... Sir, the religious law assembly in Mecca at the end of last month issued a fatwa forbidding the killing of civilians. Should we follow it or Osama bin Laden?
Al-Siba'i: These assemblies resemble the assemblies of the Church. These assemblies forbid young people from going to Iraq to fight the Jihad. These assemblies... The Higher Religious Authority (in Saudi Arabia) are the ones who allowed the presence of Crusader forces in the Land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia). These assemblies...
Even the host slips.................................
Host: Mr. Hani, make no mistake. The same assembly ruled that Jihad in Iraq is allowed against soldiers. Even Sheik Osama (sic) Al-Maqdissi, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's mentor... OK. Abu Hani, OK... He asked Al-Zarqawi not to kill civilians and to attack only the Americans... I mean, only soldiers...
Al-Siba'i: The term "civilians" does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as "civilians" in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Harb
Dar al-Harb (Arabic: "house of war") is a term used in many Islamic countries to refer to those areas outside Muslim rule. In some conservative traditions of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the "house of submission" or the "house of God", and dar al-Harb, the "house of war": the home of the infidels or unbelievers (Arabic: kufr). The terms are usually understood to refer, respectively, to those lands currently administered by Muslim governments and those administered by non-Muslim governments. The exact definitions of these territories can vary widely according to the viewer's concept of who is and is not a Muslim, and which governments are or are not Muslim in practice.
The Muslim worldview espoused by the terms dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb is further confused by the addition of a third 'house' during the Ottoman era. See dar al-Ahd.
The goal of some aggressive Islamist organizations, such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb, and to create a universal Islamic community. According to their philosophy, this is the meaning of the term jihad. Another philosophy that espouses this terminology is the Saudi Wahhabist tradition. However, bin Laden and the Wahabbis differ on the important point of whether jihad may be pronounced and undertaken by individuals, or is a power reserved to the state. Bin Laden takes the former view, most likely emanating from his readings of Sayyed Qutb.
For more recent commentary on the meaning and relevance of the term dar al-Harb in the modern world, see the discussion under dar al-Islam.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Harb"
These ins utes, like the Islamic Association (of Britain), represent white-collar people, the effendis, people with "prestige." They only represent their own interests and do not mix in society. They don't know... Ask other Muslims... People see them only on their TV screens. They don't participate in the demonstrations for the poor. they are not interested in people's problems. We invite them, and they don't show up.
Host: The Muslim Association of Britain represents 400 Islamic organizations...
Al-Siba'i: These are all interest groups. With all due respect, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sheik Moududi group do business with one another.
Host: Are you claiming they are not Muslims?
Al-Siba'i: They are behind all these movements. They promote some people nobody has heard of. Then they promote some journalists.
Host: Excuse me, who do you want to promote? Those who want the banner of "There is no god but Allah" over the Queen of England and Buckingham Palace? Those who want to establish a caliphate and turn the Queen of England into a captive? Those who say (England) is Dar Al-Harb and property there can be plundered? Are those the kind of people you want?
Al-Siba'i: These associations do not represent the Muslim public. They collaborate with the British police for certain interests. They want an "English Islam," and not the Islam that was sent to the Prophet Muhammad.
Translation: These "moderate orgs. don't represent Islam. Only one "Islam". The one allowed to blow up civilians.
If Al-Qaeda indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud. This victory is a blow to the economy...
Everthing I point out is from the horses mouths. You ignore it. Who is ignorant?
Nice job on the racism. See you pulled a Political Science 101. I'm losing, uhhhhhhhhhhhh...............................your a racist.
I don't give a who it is. If Billy Joe Bobbie Sue believes in Islam, I'm watching him/her like a hawk.
Bring some substance to the table and I'll listen. The only thing you bring is beliefs ( and uhhhhh..........your a racist) without proof.
We've done it before. You regurgitate links and nothing more. I ask once again, have you been to a mosque?
Your answer will be the answer on whether or not I will respond to you further. I think I know what to expect.
SmackDaddy, what are you gonna do?
I know, NOTHING!
[insert goofy puppy talk] Who's my little bag of liberty? [/Jon Stewart]
Osama is still alive...but there are still plenty of psycho Pakistani's that need to be killed off in that region of the world...especially since Pakistan is a major nuclear power.
Ditto the psycho Saudi's in Iraq.
It really doesn't serve much purpose to catch Osama right now...
Once the psycho and nihilistic inclined s have been cleansed by the US military, and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran realized that they are surrounded on all sides by the US military, Israel, and India...the political desire to take on the West will be cured from the bottom up and those governments themselves will put the kibosh on the anti-American sentiment in their mosques and universities.
But right now...the oppressive and murderous s still need a place to go and die...
i must disagree
they catch deadbeat dads and arrest people for smoking joints i think they can catch the worst criminal in the world
Catching Osama now is like popping a pimple before it's got a whitehead on it...
All you do is everything up and leave thousands of psycho s dormat just looking/waiting for an excuse to kill.
What's going on right now is akin to letting all the puss collect in one place before popping the zit.
I don't know for sure that the US is not trying to catch Osama...but I do know that they haven't tried their hardest to get him...
It'd be one thing if Al Quaeda was a centralized en y whose soldiers were forced into service...but it's different than that...the army must be destroyed before the general.
Otherwise you end up with a badly popped zit and a ed up face.
well of course we havent tried our hardest
weve got 160k troops in iraq and federal investigators in aruba
Because catching Osama right now won't solve the problem. The solution is multi-faceted.
i think it would solve a big problem bush has, people thinking he's forgot about osama, he's diverting our attention by invading iraq and that he hasnt even used a quarter of his faculties to catch someone he promised to catch 4 years ago
Bush has zero problems...he got re-elected and will serve the maximum number of terms he can serve...he has zero problems. The only thing he has to be worried about now is his legacy...and he's going to have to win this war(or put us on the brink of winning it) to do that.
There is no quick fix to this conflict...and I don't know why everyone expects there to be...
In case you haven't noticed?
Al-Qaeda attacks and murders muslims on a daily basis in Iraq...they are being revealed for the s they truly are...and they are losing the support of muslims worldwide...
That's one part of the solution to the problem.
Freeing the people of Iraq from a tyrant and improving their quality of life is another.
I notice in this thread that people talk about the moderate muslims...
Well Manny and Aggie are right and SmackDaddy is operating under an outdated set of beliefs...but it wasn't too long ago that Manny would have been wrong and Smackdaddy would have been right.
We are slowly and surely dragging Islam into the 21st century...but it's not going to be done by capturing one guy or winning one war.
It's going to be done by:
1.Killing off the apocalyptic generation that embraced terrorism(this is what is hapening in Iraq, and Afghanistan). These guys are killing machines that cannot be turned from their apocolyptic path. Taking Osama without thinning their ranks leaves this shadow army invisible and still indoctrinated with a heavy anti-western mentality. Since we cannot go into Pakistan(a nuclear country) or Saudi(the holy land to all muslims)...we have to bring them out to us.
2.Improving human rights and quality of life in the middle east(Again, this is Iraq and this is Pakistan). This not only improves the image of the West in the middle East, it weakens the recruiting power of the terrorists. Poverty is the #1 tool they have in recruiting their army.
3.Putting pressure on the despotic governments that we can't attack, to get rid of their Western Bigotry in their mosques and universities, and join the rest of mankind. The Universities are where they get their general and Mosques are the secondary tool for recruting soldiers. Number 2 is the primary way this goal will be achieved. As is having our military and allies located at key spots in the middle east.
There is no quick fix to this problem...but it's one that needs to be solved, because anyone that wants to play dumb and let someone with a suicide bombers mentality get hold of a country's nuclear arsenal...is ing insane(IE 90% of the liberals in the US).
Osama's day will come...and yes there will probably be another terrorist attack on the US before that day comes.
Last edited by whottt; 07-12-2005 at 11:35 PM.
I don't agree with everything you say, but I definetly agree with those main objectives. I think you and I would disagree that we are on the path torwards going that - I feel that we've treaded water or made slight progress at best - with the war in Iraq, but I at least like the fact you see the problem for the complex situation it is. I'm tired of the "they hate freedom" wrap because it doesn't hold any water.
If Democrats can prove that W perjured himself when he spoke to the Fitzgerald commission concerning Rove's involvement in the Plame leak, he would have big problems. Much bigger than a blow-job.Bush has zero problems...he got re-elected and will serve the maximum number of terms he can serve...he has zero problems. The only thing he has to be worried about now is his legacy...and he's going to have to win this war(or put us on the brink of winning it) to do that.
There is no quick fix to this conflict...and I don't know why everyone expects there to be...
In case you haven't noticed?
Al-Qaeda attacks and murders muslims on a daily basis in Iraq...they are being revealed for the s they truly are...and they are losing the support of muslims worldwide...
The Islamists lost the support of a majority of Muslims long ago, that's why Osama had little choice but to go to Afghanistan when he was chased out of Sudan. The misguided war on terror in Iraq has only infuriated otherwise moderate Muslims in the region to rise to arms, some for Nationalistic purposes, and other for religious and personal purposes.
One could argue that for every terrorist we kill, 2 or 3 more join the fight against us. That's no way to ever win or end a war. Let's say that the U.S. and Britian decided to pull out all of its combat troops from Iraq today, what do you think would happen? Think: self-determination.1.Killing off the apocalyptic generation that embraced terrorism(this is what is hapening in Iraq, and Afghanistan). These guys are killing machines that cannot be turned from their apocolyptic path. Taking Osama without thinning their ranks leaves this shadow army invisible and still indoctrinated with a heavy anti-western mentality. Since we cannot go into Pakistan(a nuclear country) or Saudi(the holy land to all muslims)...we have to bring them out to us.
How can we pretend to be doing all this for the human rights of Iraqis while simultaneously continuing to support regimes world-wide and in the ME that abuse, torture, kidnap, and murder its citizens everyday? Poverty is a symptom of the problem that encourages radicalism in the Middle East, but the true cancer is a lack of a political voice for a majority of Muslims, and a lack of opportunity because of a lack of capitalism.2.Improving human rights and quality of life in the middle east(Again, this is Iraq and this is Pakistan). This not only improves the image of the West in the middle East, it weakens the recruiting power of the terrorists. Poverty is the #1 tool they have in recruiting their army.
Dan...did someone steal your password?
To tell you the truth, I agree with several of the points you are making but I think you are oversimplifying this issue...
Like for instance...the standard lib attack questioning why we aren't in Saudi Arabia...
I'll get into this more tomorrow....
But surely you see the differences between Iraq and Saudi, Pakistan, and Iran?
For now I'll just say...we don't support Saudi Arabia...it's more like they support us...the terrorist movement we now are at war with is as much an enemy of that government as they are an enemy to us.
We can't declare war on Saudi Arabia..it would destroy our economy and send the entire world into a catyclysmic recession...Not to mention that we would be at war with every muslim in the world if we did so...Not just because we attacked the mother of Islam, but because historically the Saudi's have been one of the most peaceful and stable Arab countries in that region with regards to their neighbors, including Israel.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
