Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

Charging people doesn't bring back the lives of hundreds of innocent people, we both know that.

Once again, it appears you are deliberately missing the point. Where did I even imply that it did? I simply pointed out that these soldiers made mistakes and acted on their own -- and not under official orders, and thus the government is not to blame for their actions. The government disapproved of what they did, and did not order them to be criminals. Their criminal actions were their own.

Of course, you knew this, but choose to try and gloss over that fact.

With that said, if charging people who commit such crimes brings any justice, which it does, then surely Bush and Co should be taken to Hague tribunal for their crimes against innocent Iraqies?

If you have evidence a crime was committed I will be the first in line to call for this trial.

O'wait that can't happen because you guys can massacre civilians, invade countries and then justify your actions based on 'bad intelligence'.

Please don't lie, or over simplify.

If I were to take you to a store, and we walked up to a display of apples that said 'free, take one', and I encouraged you to take one are you guilty of a crime if the apples were not free, and an employee set up an unauthorized display? No -- you would not be convicted by any reasonable court. The person responsible for the bad information -- the rogue employee -- is the one that did something wrong. You took an action in good faith based on the information presented to you.

You guys do really have the memory of a gold fish don't you? Acts of terrorism/suicide bombings in towns, cities and markets targeting civilians? Heard of false flag operations? Allow me to remind you of Operation Northwoods. The proposal was to get CIA and its offshoots to "commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere" developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

I'm not sure why you keep harping on these things -- I have already admitted (well before your first post on this thread, I might add) that the US government is not infallible, and has done some atrocities. For some reason you are obsessed with acting like I am disagreeing with you on these issues.

~~snip~~

Based on these factual evidence, revelations and precendents how can you expect people to believe your media, government and your 'facts'? How can you trust the media when its almost entirely owned by either one individual or entities with a single political objective?

I don't. That is part of the reason I am here -- to get additional information and opinions on issues. But of course, according to *YOU* I should not be here, because there are problems with the US I need to address first.

Once again, your simplistic worldview comes back to bite you.

Exactly! If they are one of the largest violators of basic human rights then why has the halo sporting US government supported that regime for decades? One of the largest violators of basic human rights is Israel who has broken 168 United Nations resolutions, a state that doesn't even allow aid to reach Palastinians, why is the US funding, supporting and arming Israel? A state that was formed as a result of terrorist acts i.e the deir yassin massacre carried out by Irgun Zwai Leumi. No, the legacy of Eitan Livni reigns in the summits of AIPAC and manifests itself in the foreign policy of their tool, that is, the United States of America.

Once again you trivialize the issues and tend to ignore anything that does not fit your preconceived notions.

And for your information, I am not an intellectual nor am I here for intellectual discussion. I am here to remind people of their their double standards and their incapacity to understand the root causes of the conflicts.

Then why are you currently the single largest promoter of double standards and ignoring the root causes on this thread? *Everyone* should be held accountable for their actions in violation of human rights, not just 'the west'.

[akbarkhan]

If you have evidence a crime was committed I will be the first in line to call for this trial.

The pretext of Iraq war was Saddam having WMD. The fact that no WMDs were found is evidence that the Bush administration deceived the public and committed a war crime. But of course, that can be justified with 'false intelligence' scenario. What about CIA officer's admitting that the CIA faked bin laden videos? http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=12748

Or how about "during planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CIA's Iraq Operations Group considered creating a fake video of Saddam Hussein engaged in sexual acts with a teenage boy, then flooding Iraq with copies of the tape."

Please don't lie, or over simplify.

I don't lie and you know it. That is exactly why you resort to reductio ad ridculum.

If I were to take you to a store, and we walked up to a display of apples that said 'free, take one', and I encouraged you to take one are you guilty of a crime if the apples were not free, and an employee set up an unauthorized display? No -- you would not be convicted by any reasonable court. The person responsible for the bad information -- the rogue employee -- is the one that did something wrong. You took an action in good faith based on the information presented to you.

Fair enough, if it happens once, twice or even a third time. I accept the fact that we are human beings and are therefore prone to making blunders. But what if the same thing happens over and over again in different shapes or forms? What if the same establishment uses the pretext of 'false intelligence' repetitively?

I'm not sure why you keep harping on these things -- I have already admitted (well before your first post on this thread, I might add) that the US government is not infallible, and has done some atrocities. For some reason you are obsessed with acting like I am disagreeing with you on these issues.

Talking about 'oversimplification', the US government has not done just 'some atrocities', it has torched the entire globe with its imperialistic interests. It has repetitively carried out acts of state terrorism, black operation, systematic torture and extraordinary rendition.

I keep on bringing these things up for one reason. The US waves an olive branch with the right hand and shed blood with the other. The US and her allies beat the drums of 'human rights', 'universal freedom' and 'the right of self-determination' but she has and is violating human rights. If other countries violate human rights, they don't beat its drums either. If other countries violate human rights, they don't come and lecture the rest of the world when they are themselves neck deep soaked in the blood of innocent human brings. Am not implying that the latter are better or should be forgiven.

I understand that you don't disagree with me, but what good does you agreeing with me bring when you boil down decades of injustice to 'some atrocities' while overblowing the other? I urge you to look and study the evidence I have pointed out in my posts and beyond, put yourself in other people's shoes. Try to see the world from the eyes of an Afghan man who questions why his land was invaded in the 18th century, in the 19th century surely there were no Mullah Omar or Bin Laden back then. Try to see the world from the spectacles of a woman whose children were armed by the US to fight their arch enemy USSR, but now the same child with the same ideology is being pounded by the US.

I don't. That is part of the reason I am here -- to get additional information and opinions on issues. But of course, according to *YOU* I should not be here, because there are problems with the US I need to address first.

I am not asking you to leave or anything like that, I have no personal issues with anyone. However, I am urging you to find out the underlying reasons behind a man waking up in the morning, putting on a suicide jacket making his way to a US compound. Life is beautiful, you love it and so does everyone else - no one likes to die even though its inevitable. To suggest that such people are motivated by money or are brain-washed is baseless argument, people are driven to do such things as a last resort. People are driven to such acts when for centuries their internal affairs have been middled with, when their freedoms, hopes, aspirations and dreams are shattered by the 'national interests' of others.

*Everyone* should be held accountable for their actions in violation of human rights, not just 'the west'.

I agree. What human rights did we violate in the 18th/19th century? What human rights did we violate post US/USSR proxy war when our nation was left to rot on its own? The ring leader should be held accountable before the average man is held accountable. The leader of the world is the US and those who reside in the Security Council with veto powers. Wait, did we get to vote for and elect the members of the Security Council, democracy!?

[ozymandias]

The pretext of Iraq war was Saddam having WMD. The fact that no WMDs were found is evidence that the Bush administration deceived the public and committed a war crime. But of course, that can be justified with 'false intelligence' scenario. What about CIA officer's admitting that the CIA faked bin laden videos? http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=12748

Once again, I support charging *anyone* that can be shown to have known the data was false, and was used in that way.

Or how about "during planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CIA's Iraq Operations Group considered creating a fake video of Saddam Hussein engaged in sexual acts with a teenage boy, then flooding Iraq with copies of the tape."

That would be defamation of character, and not terrorism.

I don't lie and you know it. That is exactly why you resort to reductio ad ridculum.

Either you are lying, or are being willfully ignorant when you claim that the US can massacre civilians and 'get away with it'. No one in this thread -- or that I have ever talked to -- claims that, or would claim that, but somehow you are pretending that someone made that argument -- and must be taken seriously.

[quote]

Fair enough, if it happens once, twice or even a third time. I accept the fact that we are human beings and are therefore prone to making blunders. But what if the same thing happens over and over again in different shapes or forms? What if the same establishment uses the pretext of 'false intelligence' repetitively?

[quote]

Here you are over simplifying again. Granted, I started it with the store example, but in the case of military intelligence it is not as simple as taking a single person's word and a simple sign. They research into these things -- and in the case of Iraq Saddam was actively spreading misinformation and violating agreements not to procure the supplies needed to make the weapons.

Once again, however, anyone that *knows* the information is false is the guilty party -- and those that suspect it is false and have the power to follow up but do not are the guilty ones -- not the whole country, or even the leadership.

I find it interesting that you are ignoring all the times that the information was *correct*. You are looking back, and selecting a few high profile cases where the intelligence could not be trusted, and are ignoring the thousands of reports, and trillions of data points collected over the course of a week that *are* correct. Sure, when you only point out the times that information could not be trusted, it is easy to ask why they continued to trust the data, but you only look foolish once people realize you are avoiding the fact that these sources and this information routinely proved to be correct. If I tell you I sent you a box of cookies, and it was a rotten tomato, you might not trust me. If I do it again, you would be foolish to trust me. But if, over the course of several years I tell you I am sending you a box of cookies *AND DO SO* 9998 times, and twice sent you a rotten tomato it's not so clear cut, now is it?

Talking about 'oversimplification', the US government has not done just 'some atrocities', it has torched the entire globe with its imperialistic interests. It has repetitively carried out acts of state terrorism, black operation, systematic torture and extraordinary rendition.

I keep on bringing these things up for one reason. The US waves an olive branch with the right hand and shed blood with the other. The US and her allies beat the drums of 'human rights', 'universal freedom' and 'the right of self-determination' but she has and is violating human rights.

Once again I point out the simple fact that occasionally you will have to harm a few to preserve the safety and sanctity of human rights for the many. You are essentially saying that it is wrong to kill a single innocent, and can never be justified, and are ignoring the fact that occasionally the 'bad guys' use the innocents as a shield. If you say that a single civilian causality is unacceptable the terrorist regimes simply need to chain a few school children to their cars, and drive right to the heart of a city. If you say that you cannot violate the rights of one, the extremists are going to form a dictatorship and oppress thousands.

Occasionally you *HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS*. Life is not all sunshine and puppy dogs. It's sad that you refuse to even acknowledge this simple fact, and instead are attacking those that can and do admit it.

If other countries violate human rights, they don't beat its drums either. If other countries violate human rights, they don't come and lecture the rest of the world when they are themselves neck deep soaked in the blood of innocent human brings. Am not implying that the latter are better or should be forgiven.

No, you are just selectively looking at history and current events.

I understand that you don't disagree with me, but what good does you agreeing with me bring when you boil down decades of injustice to 'some atrocities' while overblowing the other? I urge you to look and study the evidence I have pointed out in my posts and beyond, put yourself in other people's shoes. Try to see the world from the eyes of an Afghan man who questions why his land was invaded in the 18th century, in the 19th century surely there were no Mullah Omar or Bin Laden back then. Try to see the world from the spectacles of a woman whose children were armed by the US to fight their arch enemy USSR, but now the same child with the same ideology is being pounded by the US.

That's the thing -- I do understand why these people are the way they are, I am simply trying to take them from being pawns and reacting like uncivilized barbarians to acting like human beings and come to the table and try and solve these problems.

I am not asking you to leave or anything like that, I have no personal issues with anyone.

You repeatedly have stated and implied that I have no right to be here, as my country still has flaws, and I ought to focus on those before I have any ground to address bigger issues. You even use the same logic in this very post, stating that the US has no right to try and protect the rights of people because the US has violated people's rights in the past ( not to mention you ignoring the details of these very cases).

However, I am urging you to find out the underlying reasons behind a man waking up in the morning, putting on a suicide jacket making his way to a US compound.

And, once again, that is why I am here -- to understand what it is about your religion and culture that allows some of you to do that. But I am not stopping there. I don't think I can easily related to uncivilized **** like terrorists, but I think that I can find a common language and communicate with some of those that either support them, or defend them (but don't go so far as to become them) or even with other's from their religion and culture. Once I find a common ground, it becomes a tool to try and reduce these problems, to reduce the support for these people.

It's not just the west that needs to learn why the middle east does what it does -- you folks can stand to learn more about the west. Look at how many of you don't even understand the concept of free speech -- but don't even know they don't understand. They think they understand -- but they are so far off base! Some of you can stand a little education and enlightenment as well.

Life is beautiful, you love it and so does everyone else - no one likes to die even though its inevitable. To suggest that such people are motivated by money or are brain-washed is baseless argument,

Bull. You are telling me that you think no one on this planet would be tempted by an offer of lots of money and support for their family if they were to kill themselves? You might not be tempted, I might not be tempted, but I assure you people that would be tempted are out there.

Furthermore, brainwashing is a *fact*. It has been measured and even used strategically by most major governments -- and more importantly religions. I suggest you talk with a psychologist some time and watch a religious service with them -- you can even pick the religion to watch. I assure you that they can point out event after event that is related to brainwashing. Heck, forget religion -- go to a play. Go to a sporting event. Go to a parade. Go to a concert. Go to a protest. In every single one of these cases the roots of brainwashing exist: rhythmic chanting, enhanced lighting, musical beats, cadence, group chants, collective group actions -- even a social stigma to behave 'proper' re-enforces the effect.

Typically when the brainwashing is not deliberate, all you do is get a rush of endorphins, or find yourself caring more about the outcome of the sporting event -- or less willing to speak out and be and individual. Occasionally brainwashing is used to do things like force women to accept abuse, or polygamy, or any number of other things that religion does to them -- it makes the news on a regular basis.

More rarely, you get people that are convinced that if they do one 'heroic' action, they will get an everlasting reward. That can still be brainwashing.

people are driven to do such things as a last resort. People are driven to such acts when for centuries their internal affairs have been middled with, when their freedoms, hopes, aspirations and dreams are shattered by the 'national interests' of others.

This also happens, I do not deny that, but you need to admit that it also happens when they are taught a corrupted (or even not so corrupted religion) and surrounded by people that reinforce their outlooks, and deliberately only repeats the information that fits that world view. Take you, for instance -- all the hatred and biased information you are presenting against the west is a gold mind for those cells that are trying to bias young minds into hating the west, into reacting in evil ways. You both ignore the positives of the west, you both up-play the horrors done, and you both deliberately twist things to try and make it look like the government is either complicit or actually orchestrated the horrible actions of individuals that were working on their own.

I agree. What human rights did we violate in the 18th/19th century?

Please define 'we' -- and you may wish to refer to the UN Declaration of Human Rights thread, as I have stepped through this basic document and pointed out case after case where 'you' as a religion have violated rights, and in many places do so even today.

What human rights did we violate post US/USSR proxy war when our nation was left to rot on its own?

Look at some of the people that have come out of your country and made the international news, either as citizens, or as people with the support of the government -- or even just using your nation as a convenient place to hide.

This goes back to the discussion of harming the few to protect the many. If evil men choose to live in your country and use your country as a shield, innocent lives may be lost trying to bring the evil to justice. It's terrible -- but that is the fault of the evil using you to hide.

The ring leader should be held accountable before the average man is held accountable. The leader of the world is the US and those who reside in the Security Council with veto powers. Wait, did we get to vote for and elect the members of the Security Council, democracy!?

Which country are you using as 'we'? Afghanistan? Been a voting member since 1946. Pakistan? 1947?

FYI, the Security Council non-permanent positions are filled by a vote in the General Assembly, which includes many Mid-East countries. Each of the 192 countries has one vote, regardless of size. Think about that for one second -- that means you have *MORE* representation per person from the Middle East countries than the 'west' does.

Interesting fact, thanks to the one country one vote policy, this means that the 8% of the world comprising of the smallest countries can actually hold a 2/3 majority vote, and outvote the entire 'west'.

You have *MORE* democratic power over that council than anyone else. To compensate the effect of allowing 8% of the world population full control, they have a few permanent members -- most of which rank towards the top of the list for size, and population -- and were founding members of the UN, and had significant loses in the war that lead to it's creation.

I think they ought to revamp much of the UN, but for now it's the best we have.

[akbarkhan]

That would be defamation of character, and not terrorism.

I never stated that was an act of terrorism. I pointed that out in regards to 'false intelligence' or the making of 'false intelligence'.

Here you are over simplifying again. Granted, I started it with the store example, but in the case of military intelligence it is not as simple as taking a single person's word and a simple sign. They research into these things -- and in the case of Iraq Saddam was actively spreading misinformation and violating agreements not to procure the supplies needed to make the weapons.

We are talking about Saddam the dictator - installed, funded and armed by the US government. The same Saddam who at one point was commanded by the US to invade Kuwait.

I am not oversimplifying anything, this is a forum thread not a book or a detailed report where I could elaborate! I have given references to books, documents, and research studies.

No, you are just selectively looking at history and current events.

Today's conflicts are the results of yesterdays events. I am not being selective about anything, I am only pointing out that which others try to brush under the carpet in an effort to make the old nick look like a saint with a halo.

That's the thing -- I do understand why these people are the way they are, I am simply trying to take them from being pawns and reacting like uncivilized barbarians to acting like human beings and come to the table and try and solve these problems.

Let me make this clear, I condemn suicide no matter what. Does Japan call Kiyoshi Ogawa and Masafumi Arima 'uncivilized barbarians'? If they don't, I wonder why.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words and since we are talking about barbarians I shall present you with a picture of US soldiers in the US Embassy in Kabul. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...morgroup_4.png

You repeatedly have stated and implied that I have no right to be here, as my country still has flaws, and I ought to focus on those before I have any ground to address bigger issues. You even use the same logic in this very post, stating that the US has no right to try and protect the rights of people because the US has violated people's rights in the past ( not to mention you ignoring the details of these very cases).

LOL @ flaws - isn't it ironic that you accuse me of 'oversimplification' while you categorize American sponsored acts of terrorism as mere flaws!

The US doesn't just have 'flaws', its oppressive foreign policy is the root cause of 'bigger issues'. And as I said before, I am not ignoring any details of any case - please be aware these are forum posts not books.

And, once again, that is why I am here -- to understand what it is about your religion and culture that allows some of you to do that. But I am not stopping there. I don't think I can easily related to uncivilized **** like terrorists, but I think that I can find a common language and communicate with some of those that either support them, or defend them (but don't go so far as to become them) or even with other's from their religion and culture. Once I find a common ground, it becomes a tool to try and reduce these problems, to reduce the support for these people.

Allah swt commands us to live in harmony with everyone regardless of their religion or background. He commands us to come to common terms with each other.

It's not just the west that needs to learn why the middle east does what it does -- you folks can stand to learn more about the west. Look at how many of you don't even understand the concept of free speech -- but don't even know they don't understand. They think they understand -- but they are so far off base! Some of you can stand a little education and enlightenment as well.

Just because you find us in ruins these days, doesn't mean that we don't understand anything or are less aware. Enlightment and illumination did not start from the West as you like to believe, but you are given to arrogant ways without reservations. We understood the concept of free speech centuries before you came to understand and accepted that a black person is equal to a white person. We recognized the rights of prisoners of war way before such a thing appeared in Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention.

And even today we uphold the rights of POWs but look at the US playing semantics with their concept of 'enemy combatants' and their symbolic drop of the term.

Furthermore, brainwashing is a *fact*. It has been measured and even used strategically by most major governments -- and more importantly religions. I suggest you talk with a psychologist some time and watch a religious service with them -- you can even pick the religion to watch. I assure you that they can point out event after event that is related to brainwashing. Heck, forget religion -- go to a play. Go to a sporting event. Go to a parade. Go to a concert. Go to a protest. In every single one of these cases the roots of brainwashing exist: rhythmic chanting, enhanced lighting, musical beats, cadence, group chants, collective group actions -- even a social stigma to behave 'proper' re-enforces the effect.

Typically when the brainwashing is not deliberate, all you do is get a rush of endorphins, or find yourself caring more about the outcome of the sporting event -- or less willing to speak out and be and individual. Occasionally brainwashing is used to do things like force women to accept abuse, or polygamy, or any number of other things that religion does to them -- it makes the news on a regular basis.

Talking about brain-washing I am reminded of human rights violations in the MK-ULTRA project.

This also happens, I do not deny that, but you need to admit that it also happens when they are taught a corrupted (or even not so corrupted religion) and surrounded by people that reinforce their outlooks, and deliberately only repeats the information that fits that world view. Take you, for instance -- all the hatred and biased information you are presenting against the west is a gold mind for those cells that are trying to bias young minds into hating the west, into reacting in evil ways. You both ignore the positives of the west, you both up-play the horrors done, and you both deliberately twist things to try and make it look like the government is either complicit or actually orchestrated the horrible actions of individuals that were working on their own.

I am impartial, you don't know me in person just like I don't know you. Alot of people are exploiting religion as means of achieving political goals.

There are more than 101 things I love about the West, there are way more 101 things I like about the country that I currently live in, honestly speaking there is more fairness and good in the West compared to secular so called Islamic countries. We don't up-play the horrors, we see it with our own eyes while you hear quite the opposite on FOX News. Everything I have mentioned in my posts, I have provided references and sources for - so go and investigate.

The only reason I am wasting my time on this thread is because I want you to understand the view of the common Afghan. What does a common Afghan see when the US tries to portray itself as 'saviours of human rights' and 'liberators'!!!

Please define 'we' -- and you may wish to refer to the UN Declaration of Human Rights thread, as I have stepped through this basic document and pointed out case after case where 'you' as a religion have violated rights, and in many places do so even today.

We as in Afghans.

Look at some of the people that have come out of your country and made the international news, either as citizens, or as people with the support of the government -- or even just using your nation as a convenient place to hide.

The only thing that has come out of my nation are the same people that the US funded and armed not so long ago.

FYI, the Security Council non-permanent positions are filled by a vote in the General Assembly, which includes many Mid-East countries. Each of the 192 countries has one vote, regardless of size. Think about that for one second -- that means you have *MORE* representation per person from the Middle East countries than the 'west' does.

Interesting fact, thanks to the one country one vote policy, this means that the 8% of the world comprising of the smallest countries can actually hold a 2/3 majority vote, and outvote the entire 'west'.

You have *MORE* democratic power over that council than anyone else. To compensate the effect of allowing 8% of the world population full control, they have a few permanent members -- most of which rank towards the top of the list for size, and population -- and were founding members of the UN, and had significant loses in the war that lead to it's creation.

Is that why we were able to get Israel sanctioned for breaking 168 resolutions? No we weren't, why? Because uncle Sam vetos it. The saying goes "“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.

[ozymandias]

I never stated that was an act of terrorism. I pointed that out in regards to 'false intelligence' or the making of 'false intelligence'.



We are talking about Saddam the dictator - installed, funded and armed by the US government. The same Saddam who at one point was commanded by the US to invade Kuwait.

I was under the impression that we were talking about false intelligence being used to justify military actions. When you randomly change the topic, could you please inform me? I cannot read your mind, so it is hard to follow when you change topics and the new topic has no relation to the old.

I am not oversimplifying anything, this is a forum thread not a book or a detailed report where I could elaborate! I have given references to books, documents, and research studies.

You can and do oversimplify when you ignore the facts that *drastically* change the situation. Ignoring all the times that the intelligence is correct gives you a very skewed view of 'military intelligence' -- and then you proceeded to make assumptions and accusations based on this skewed idea that one could easily discover which information is trust worthy -- or even assume that all intelligence is suspect.

I am not asking you to look into every little detail, I am asking you to acknowledge the whole big picture -- and in the big picture the trustworthy and true intelligence acted upon far outweighs the false information (trustworthy or otherwise) acted upon.

Today's conflicts are the results of yesterdays events. I am not being selective about anything, I am only pointing out that which others try to brush under the carpet in an effort to make the old nick look like a saint with a halo.

And in doing so you quite deliberately ignore all the justifications for these actions, whether or not these actions were sanctioned, or the times that benefits resulted from these actions. You are as guilty -- if not more so -- than any one else in this thread. In fact, the only group on this thread that *ANYONE* is trying to make look like angels would be Islam -- and only a select few refuse to admit that even that group has done bad things.

Let me make this clear, I condemn suicide no matter what. Does Japan call Kiyoshi Ogawa and Masafumi Arima 'uncivilized barbarians'? If they don't, I wonder why.

Once again, you try and change the topic. We are not talking about suicide -- or at least we were not. We are talking about suicide bombers -- as part of a larger group of terrorists. We are talking about terrorists as part of the larger group of radical Islam that tries to force their views and religion on others.

Not only that, but *ONCE AGAIN* I need to point out the difference between attacking a *MILITARY TARGET* like the USS Bunker Hill and USS Franklin and suicide bombing a shopping mall, bus stop, market street, or *ANY* other civilian target. Could you please stop being willfully ignorant and ignoring this difference?

I have not once spoken out against military attacks on military targets, nor civilized responses to *ANYTHING* that angers you. Please stop deliberately blurring the lines. It makes it hard to carry a rational conversation if you insist on lies, falsehoods, and underhanded tactics in a deliberate smear campaign against everything the US has done.

You claim to be trying to represent both sides of the issues, but consistently not only present one side and ignore the other, you consistently make false comparisons to try and skew and mislead.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words and since we are talking about barbarians I shall present you with a picture of US soldiers in the US Embassy in Kabul. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/da...morgroup_4.png

Once again you only state part of the story -- and leave out very important details.

1) You state these ar US Soldiers. This is not true -- they are mercenaries hired by the US government, and not members of the US military.

2) You 'forget' to point out that that very image was released as part of the investigation into these actions to punish these guards for these actions.

3) You also 'forgot' to mention that these yokels are where they are because teh previous mercenary service in charge at this location was *fired* for incompetence and poor performance.

4) *ONCE AGAIN* you are comparing apples to oranges. We *WERE* discussing the violent reactions to political events resulting in terrorist acts, or repressive laws restricting the freedoms of others, and you jump to a picture of a few off duty guards acting like drunken frat boys. You are comparing suicide bombs, death threats, fire-bombing embassies and attacking innocent civilians with some homo-erotic drunken party games that only hurt the participants and the images of their employers. Please note *NO ONE DIED BECAUSE OF THESE PICTURES*.

This is just another case of *exactly* what I have been discussing.

I'll leave it at this: if you want to start dragging out irrelevant pictures in an attempt 'score points' and only tangentially stay on topic, feel free -- but please start a new thread so we can avoid sullying this one and derailing it when I start posting pictures of barely human **** calling to 'behead all who oppose Islam', or 'death to all that call Islam violent' or any of a hundred similar photos and stories about uncivilized pigs. I'll even stick to the high ground -- and only post pictures of actions sanctioned by either an Islamic leader, or an Islamic government -- and you can continue to post photos of unsanctioned buffoons that have either been punished, or are being investigated.

LOL @ flaws - isn't it ironic that you accuse me of 'oversimplification' while you categorize American sponsored acts of terrorism as mere flaws!

Please do *NOT* put words into my mouth. I never stated, nor even implied that they are 'mere' anything.

Flaw (noun):
1 a : a defect in physical structure or form <a diamond with a flaw> b : an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness <vanity was the flaw in his character> <a flaw in the book's plot>

As you can see, I very accurately used the term 'flaw' to describe actions, events, and policies of the US that detracts from the 'whole' -- as you repeatedly point out.

Please note that the word 'flaw' does *NOT* does not carry a connotation of magnitude or size. You are injecting meaning into my statements that is clearly not there, and then deriding me for the meaning *YOU* created.

The US doesn't just have 'flaws', its oppressive foreign policy is the root cause of 'bigger issues'. And as I said before, I am not ignoring any details of any case - please be aware these are forum posts not books.

I disagree that this is the root cause. The root cause is a religion that can be twisted to support barbaric reactions and the followers that let it.

We are talking violent physical reactions to mere words and cartoons, and oppressive laws that exist with *NO* relation to the US. The US foreign policy is *NOT* a major root cause of Islamic laws and traditions, nor even the modern interpretations of these laws and traditions. These events did not structure Turkish or Saudi Arabian laws -- the Koran and Hadiths did.

While these events may have played a role in some of the terrorist and criminal actions, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the proper response to a government doing something you do not like is *NOT* terrorism of killing innocent civilians that may not have even been born at the time, let alone know about *OR SUPPORT* the events that occured.

Allah swt commands us to live in harmony with everyone regardless of their religion or background. He commands us to come to common terms with each other.

You may believe that -- which I doubt, but clearly not all of Islam agrees with that, as many members of Islam have decreed that it is fair and just to attack the civilians and non-believers.

You personally, clearly do not take that command to heart, as you are deliberately seeding strife and discent by presenting only one side of these issues and pretending that the illegal acts of induviduals represents the government that *punished them* for those very acts.

[/quote]

Just because you find us in ruins these days, doesn't mean that we don't understand anything or are less aware. Enlightment and illumination did not start from the West as you like to believe, but you are given to arrogant ways without reservations. We understood the concept of free speech centuries before you

[/quote]

You may be right -- but you clearly have forgotten these things. Take a look at the Islamic countries forbidding free speech, repressing free speech, and even violating all sorts of other rights people have. Heck, look at all the people *in this thread* that can be used to prove that some members of Islam do not understand the concept of free speech *today*.

Just because you know something at one point in history, as a culture does not mean you know it today, or even respect it today. Islam is a perfect example of this.

came to understand and accepted that a black person is equal to a white person.

What about women? Brunei still don't let women vote, nor does Saudi Arabia. UAE took until 2006 to allow them to vote. Kuwait? 2005. Afgahnistan? 19*65*. Pakistan? 1956. In fact, of all the Islamic countries, only Azerbaijan beat the US to allowing women to vote -- and Albainia tied us, and we were fairly late to allow women to vote for 'the west'.

Look at the bigotry and hatred against the Jewish people displayed even on this forum. Blacks and whites are not the only races, you know -- not to mention that Islam comes from a regine with a high 'black' population. Let's also not get into the fact that the Arabic slave trade of Africans dwarfs even the American slave trade.

Shall I bring up the story about forcing school girls to burn to death because they could not reach their scarves, and thus could not be allowed out of the burning building?

We can really get into this, if you want -- but I would say that you might want to avoid claiming that Islam is some sort of *modern* ideal of Enlightenment.

We recognized the rights of prisoners of war way before such a thing appeared in Chapter II of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention.

And even today we uphold the rights of POWs but look at the US playing semantics with their concept of 'enemy combatants' and their symbolic drop of the term.

That's an awefully broad 'we' you use there. While 'you' might honor the rights of POW, many of your fellow faithful don't. Many of you even refuse to take prisoners at all.

Talking about brain-washing I am reminded of human rights violations in the MK-ULTRA project.



I am impartial, you don't know me in person just like I don't know you. Alot of people are exploiting religion as means of achieving political goals.

You are right -- all I know is what you post -- and this very clearly shows you are far from impartial -- or at least the persona you play online is. You might just be a clever troll, or you might believe what you post. Either way, you are presenting a far from impartial image here.

There are more than 101 things I love about the West, there are way more 101 things I like about the country that I currently live in, honestly speaking there is more fairness and good in the West compared to secular so called Islamic countries. We don't up-play the horrors, we see it with our own eyes while you hear quite the opposite on FOX News.

FYI, FOX News is not the only news source, nor do most people in the US consider it trustworthy, or use it as a sole news source.

Everything I have mentioned in my posts, I have provided references and sources for - so go and investigate.

The only reason I am wasting my time on this thread is because I want you to understand the view of the common Afghan. What does a common Afghan see when the US tries to portray itself as 'saviours of human rights' and 'liberators'!!!

I must admit to a more lofty goal. I am trying to correct the propoganda of people like you and inform the misinformed and attempt to solve the problem of their miseducation, and not just teach others that they are miseducated.

We as in Afghans.

Fair enough. I will keep this in mind that when you say 'we' you are not refering to Islam, Islamic countries, or even the Middle East, but are instead discussing one fairly minor sub-set of these groups. In the meantime, this thread is about the larger groups, and not *just* Afghanistan -- see the title if you need confirmation.

The only thing that has come out of my nation are the same people that the US funded and armed not so long ago.

So you admit that they are there. Then you understand why the US is there as well?

Is that why we were able to get Israel sanctioned for breaking 168 resolutions? No we weren't, why? Because uncle Sam vetos it.

If you, and other countries, really had a problem with that, it would not be hard to override that veto -- or even remove it. As it stands not enough countries see what Isreal did as problematic.

It sucks, but sometimes that happens.

The saying goes "“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.

And in this case is it 1 wolf (the US) and 191 sheep. You have a problem with what the US does? In the UN, *YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT*.

[akbarkhan]

I was under the impression that we were talking about false intelligence being used to justify military actions. When you randomly change the topic, could you please inform me? I cannot read your mind, so it is hard to follow when you change topics and the new topic has no relation to the old.

I am not asking you to look into every little detail, I am asking you to acknowledge the whole big picture -- and in the big picture the trustworthy and true intelligence acted upon far outweighs the false information (trustworthy or otherwise) acted upon.

I have already presented the bigger picture! Operation Northwoods had the approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what makes you think that the same kind of operations don't take place today? I am not being random at all, everything I present is corelated, you know it too well but you can not give straight responses to it because you would be digging yourself a hole. Therefore you seek solace in ad hominem.

And in doing so you quite deliberately ignore all the justifications for these actions, whether or not these actions were sanctioned, or the times that benefits resulted from these actions. You are as guilty -- if not more so -- than any one else in this thread. In fact, the only group on this thread that *ANYONE* is trying to make look like angels would be Islam -- and only a select few refuse to admit that even that group has done bad things.

False! I have already mentioned that I believe there is more justice and fairness in Western countries as compared to most secular nominative Islamic countries.

Once again, you try and change the topic. We are not talking about suicide -- or at least we were not. We are talking about suicide bombers -- as part of a larger group of terrorists. We are talking about terrorists as part of the larger group of radical Islam that tries to force their views and religion on others.

Not only that, but *ONCE AGAIN* I need to point out the difference between attacking a *MILITARY TARGET* like the USS Bunker Hill and USS Franklin and suicide bombing a shopping mall, bus stop, market street, or *ANY* other civilian target. Could you please stop being willfully ignorant and ignoring this difference?

Incorrect! I have not changed the topic at all, you referred to suicide bombers as "uncivilized barbarians". I had already reminded you about false flag operations carried out by the US, I have even presented you with official documents showing that US's Joint Chiefs of Staff has had the will and approval of carrying out terrorist acts in order to defame her adversaries, change public opinion or build pretext for wars.

Point being, if the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could approve of "innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked". How can you surely state that the people who blow themselves up killing civilians are not actually the handywork of CIA/US administration? Given the factual evidence that CIA/US has in the past approved of such underhanded schemes and agenda as part of their psyops!

Why not ask yourself these questions:

"My country (US) had in the highest level approved of carrying out terrorist acts on its own citizens and abroad not too long ago, perhaps the spin in the media is part of the same machination and psyops today?" "What if I am being lied to?" "Has my government been hijacked by a few greedy and conniving men?" "Am I paying for someone else's unjust wars?"

1)You state these ar US Soldiers. This is not true -- they are mercenaries hired by the US government, and not members of the US military.

What a stupid thing to say, seriously, you can do better than that. There is no difference between a US 'soldier' and a 'mercenary' in the eyes of Afghans or when it comes to Pentagon, they are both armed to teeth and are part of the same invading force. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Don't believe me? Why not asking your own experts in the field, ask Joshua Foust, Peter Marsden, Antonio Guiztozzi, Barnet Rubin, Jeremy Scahill or Mathew Hoh. This whole 'mercenary' and 'military' scenario is well known tactic used to fool the world and the American public about the actual number of boots on the ground.

Regardless of them being soldiers or mercenaries, they are still Americans; uncivilized barbarian Americans. (Not stereotyping as I know that the majority of American's are good people, that is why the US government has to lie to them.)

2) You 'forget' to point out that that very image was released as part of the investigation into these actions to punish these guards for these actions.

It was not part of any investigation, a whistleblower revealed it just like the pictures of Abu Gharib and Gitmo, so of course once it surfaces the damage control mechanism come into motion and guys will be 'punished'. What kind punishment? Well, they are fired from private security company only to be recruited by the US military and vice versa!

3) You also 'forgot' to mention that these yokels are where they are because teh previous mercenary service in charge at this location was *fired* for incompetence and poor performance.

And because of their pious track record of $20 billion heist in Iraq and their 'poor performance', the Pentagon has made Erik Prince and his croonies more autonomous and ever powerful in 2010. Reference? Jeremy Scahill

4) *ONCE AGAIN* you are comparing apples to oranges. We *WERE* discussing the violent reactions to political events resulting in terrorist acts, or repressive laws restricting the freedoms of others, and you jump to a picture of a few off duty guards acting like drunken frat boys. You are comparing suicide bombs, death threats, fire-bombing embassies and attacking innocent civilians with some homo-erotic drunken party games that only hurt the participants and the images of their employers. Please note *NO ONE DIED BECAUSE OF THESE PICTURES*.

Yes that is correct, we were discussing violent reactions to political events. That is why I provided evidence that the US has and can go to great violent lengths for its political gains, at one point it has even authorized and approved of terrorizing its own citizens as part of their psyops.

A barbarian is a barbarian regardless of being on duty or off duty. To suggest that a barbarian is not a barbarian between i.e 9-5 office hours is a new development in human history!

I'll leave it at this: if you want to start dragging out irrelevant pictures in an attempt 'score points'

I am not off topic at all, you brought up 'uncivilized barbarians' so I showed you what uncivilized barbarians look like.

calling to 'behead all who oppose Islam', or 'death to all that call Islam violent'

If you look at all those photos that you are referring to, you will see that they all share something in common.

1. The hand writing is the same - meaning only one person has written all of them.
2. The people who are carrying those banners are masked - hiding their true identities.

I urge the government to arrest them and then we will find out whether they are planted agents or Muslims.

As you can see, I very accurately used the term 'flaw' to describe actions, events, and policies of the US that detracts from the 'whole' -- as you repeatedly point out.

Please note that the word 'flaw' does *NOT* does not carry a connotation of magnitude or size. You are injecting meaning into my statements that is clearly not there, and then deriding me for the meaning *YOU* created.

That is incorrect. No body will ever refer to terrorist acts or state sponsored terrorism as 'flaw'. Flaw is too light a word to be used in such cases, ask any political analyst or linguist.

I disagree that this is the root cause. The root cause is a religion that can be twisted to support barbaric reactions and the followers that let it.

Islam is the religion that protected and gave shelter to the Jews when Christians were trying to slaughter them. Islam is the religion that has its Prophet ranked number 1 on the list of the most influential persons in history.

We are talking violent physical reactions to mere words and cartoons, and oppressive laws that exist with *NO* relation to the US. The US foreign policy is *NOT* a major root cause of Islamic laws and traditions, nor even the modern interpretations of these laws and traditions. These events did not structure Turkish or Saudi Arabian laws -- the Koran and Hadiths did.

If that was the case then surely people would be driven away from Islam. I am not going to give you figures, because you won't accept them. So why don't you find facts and figures about Americans converting to Islam since 9/11 specially American women.

You may believe that -- which I doubt, but clearly not all of Islam agrees with that, as many members of Islam have decreed that it is fair and just to attack the civilians and non-believers.

Every Muslim agrees with that, infact it is in the explicitly mentioned in the Quran. Anyone disagreeing with that goes out of the fold of Islam. If you came to my house as a guest or a person in need, I will go out of my way to be hospitable to you but if you kick my door in the middle of the night and come with your 'mercenaries' or 'soldiers' then its either you or me - and that my friend is what every true Muslim believes in and that is truly how Afghans deal with things.

You personally, clearly do not take that command to heart, as you are deliberately seeding strife and discent by presenting only one side of these issues and pretending that the illegal acts of induviduals represents the government that *punished them* for those very acts.

That is incorrect assumption, you don't know me in personal life just like I don't know you.

You may be right -- but you clearly have forgotten these things. Take a look at the Islamic countries forbidding free speech, repressing free speech, and even violating all sorts of other rights people have. Heck, look at all the people *in this thread* that can be used to prove that some members of Islam do not understand the concept of free speech *today*.

We understand free speech, but we observe decorum just like any civilized person would. We believe that men are born free and that no man has the right to rule over another man hence no lords of patrons. If I was in position of high power and you spat on my face, there won't be any repercussions as compared to the Iraqi journalist who was jailed and tortured for throwing his shoe at Bush.

I agree that they are many secular Islamic countries that oppress their citizens, violate human rights - what is frustrating to us is the fact that these secular countries are supported and mentored by the US i.e Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc etc

FYI, FOX News is not the only news source, nor do most people in the US consider it trustworthy, or use it as a sole news source.

Could you please gave a list of media resources not owned by Zionists?

So you admit that they are there. Then you understand why the US is there as well?

Of course there are black sheep in every herd, none can deny. Yes we understand why US is there, infact we understand why US is everywhere - for her own interests, natural resources, trade routes and proxy wars. If that wasn't the case then why is the US government supporting, funding and giving high positions to drug dealers and violators of human rights in Afghanistan i.e General Dostum, Wali Karzai, Atta Noor etc etc

Why support Dostum when the entire world knows how many people he has massacred? Infact he was on the verge of being tried at Hague, until Uncle Sam saved his rear end. Do you know what Dostum and his commanders did? He cut off women's breasts, he pushed hen eggs in women's reproductive organs, he dipped human beings in hot cooking oil and called it 'dance of the dead'. That is the kind of people US is supporting and protecting for its 'national interests' and then it waves the banner of human rights and justice!

It sucks, but sometimes that happens.

Yep, that is how easily you guys put and look at it when we are oppressed.

And in this case is it 1 wolf (the US) and 191 sheep.

US is not a sheep, its a mule, the wolf of course - loves pulling strings.

[ozymandias]

I have already presented the bigger picture! Operation Northwoods had the approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what makes you think that the same kind of operations don't take place today? I am not being random at all, everything I present is corelated, you know it too well but you can not give straight responses to it because you would be digging yourself a hole.

If you refuse to admit that there is a difference between the leaders of a country acting upon what they believe is valid information, and intentionally disseminating false information, I don't really know what to say.

I have already stated repeatedly that I feel that creating and spreading such false information in order to justify a military action is a crime, but acting in response to it is not a source of guilt. With every post you try to blur the issue and make it less clear, but we have been talking about attacking Iraq over allegations of WMD, and your claim that it should have been obvious in the light of other false information that this information was false. Now you are trying to drag the *CREATION* of false data into the mix -- but you cannot provide anything more than 'it happened before' to justify these allegations. Forgive me if I don't understand the leap from topic to topic.

Therefore you seek solace in ad hominem.

As for the accusations of ad hominem, I am not attacking your premise based on your biases or beliefs. Your premise may be completely valid, however you are not fairly discussing the topic, thus it is not fallacious to discuss your biases. I am not, and have not rejected anything you have stated simply because of your beleifs, I have consistently presented the remainder of the story, and rejected your premis on those grounds -- and then pointed out your bias in an attempt to get an intellectiually honest discussion out of you.

False! I have already mentioned that I believe there is more justice and fairness in Western countries as compared to most secular nominative Islamic countries.

And it was about time when you did.

Incorrect! I have not changed the topic at all, you referred to suicide bombers as "uncivilized barbarians".

I was discussing suicide bombers in the context of terrorism. Kamikazi bombers were *NOT* terrorists, as they attacked military targets. You are changing the scope of the conversation when you blur that line.

I had already reminded you about false flag operations carried out by the US, I have even presented you with official documents showing that US's Joint Chiefs of Staff has had the will and approval of carrying out terrorist acts in order to defame her adversaries, change public opinion or build pretext for wars.

Yes. You keep harping on this even though I have consistently agreed with you that this is wrong and criminal. I am not sure why you keep harping on it.

Point being, if the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could approve of "innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked". How can you surely state that the people who blow themselves up killing civilians are not actually the handywork of CIA/US administration? Given the factual evidence that CIA/US has in the past approved of such underhanded schemes and agenda as part of their psyops!

For starters the confessions of the guilty groups helps. Secondly those acts of terrorism are *not* the only justifications used in the past for the US actions.

Why not ask yourself these questions:

"My country (US) had in the highest level approved of carrying out terrorist acts on its own citizens and abroad not too long ago, perhaps the spin in the media is part of the same machination and psyops today?" "What if I am being lied to?" "Has my government been hijacked by a few greedy and conniving men?" "Am I paying for someone else's unjust wars?"

Absolutly no reason not to ask those questions. The lack of evidence and logic behind these actions give plenty of reason to dismiss them easily.

What a stupid thing to say, seriously, you can do better than that. There is no difference between a US 'soldier' and a 'mercenary' in the eyes of Afghans

Hence the need to educate.

or when it comes to Pentagon, they are both armed to teeth and are part of the same invading force. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Let's see: Not trained by the US. Not operating under direct control of the US. Not operating on orders of the US. Not acting in an official capacity when these photos were taken. Not subject to the full restrictions of the US military. Heck, not even paid by the US military. They were not selected by the US. They were not trained by the US. They are employees of a private company that has been contracted by the US government to do a job. Sorry, but it is pretty easy to see the difference when you go beyond the superficial -- and it's not hard to see how the US is no more resposible for these soldiers than Britian is for the Gulf oil spill.

Don't believe me? Why not asking your own experts in the field, ask Joshua Foust, Peter Marsden, Antonio Guiztozzi, Barnet Rubin, Jeremy Scahill or Mathew Hoh. This whole 'mercenary' and 'military' scenario is well known tactic used to fool the world and the American public about the actual number of boots on the ground.

Regardless of them being soldiers or mercenaries, they are still Americans; uncivilized barbarian Americans.

Apples and oranges again. A few drunken hijinks are a far cry from brutally slaughtering innocent civilians in a terrorist attack. The scale is so far different that you are talking two completely different things.

(Not stereotyping as I know that the majority of American's are good people, that is why the US government has to lie to them.)



It was not part of any investigation, a whistleblower revealed it just like the pictures of Abu Gharib and Gitmo, so of course once it surfaces the damage control mechanism come into motion and guys will be 'punished'. What kind punishment? Well, they are fired from private security company only to be recruited by the US military and vice versa!

So you honestly think that an investigation should have been going *before* anyone knew there was anything to investigate?

In the case that something *actually criminal* they will not be allowed into the military -- and who a private company hires is up to them -- as is how they are repremanded when they fail to act in the best interest of the company.

And because of their track record in $20 billion heist in Iraq and their 'poor performance' Erik Prince and his croonies are becoming more autonomous and ever powerful. Reference? Jeremy Scahill



Yes that is correct, we were discussing violent reactions to political events. That is why I provided evidence that the US has and can go to great violent lengths for its political gains, even has at one point even authorize and approved of terrorizing its own citizens as part of their psyops.

I somehow missed how a photo of a few drunks making fools of themselves is any sort of commentary on that. That is evidence that those people make drunken fools out of themselves in their free time -- and not a single thing about psyops, terrorizing anyone, or any government invovlement in said actions.

Once again, you keep changing topics and cannot keep a coherent thought. Are we now discussing psyops or the actions of some drunken off duty mercenaries?

A barbarian is a barbarian regardless of being on duty or off duty. To suggest that a barbarian is not a barbarian between i.e 9-5 office hours is a new development in human history!

I'm sorry if you cannot understand the difference between actions of an employee during free time and actions taken while on duty with the knowledge, consent, or even orders from their employers.

One only shows the employee is barbaric -- one shows that the employer is barbaric, as well.

I see you are still comparing drunken antics with acts of terrorism, though. Because the barbaric act of drinking is no different than murdering crowds of people. Gotcha. Are you also implying one act of less than civilized partying justifies terrorism? It seems like you are.

I am not off topic at all, you brought up 'uncivilized barbarians' so I showed you what uncivilized barbarians look like.

It's very off topic. As I have repeatedly stated a few drunken relvelers is not nearly the same as terrorism.

If you look at all those photos that you are referring to, you will see that they all share something in common.

1. The hand writing is the same - meaning only one person has written all of them.
2. The people who are carrying those banners are masked - hiding their true identities.

You want to start a pictures thread, start it. Don't derail this one. I am not even going to refute this here.

I urge the government to arrest them and then we will find out whether they are planted agents or Muslims.

Well, we sorta agree on one thing. It would be nice to find out who they are -- but arrest them for *what*? Exercising free speech? Can't agree with that.

That is incorrect. No body will ever refer to terrorist acts or state sponsored terrorism as 'flaw'. Flaw is too light a word to be used in such cases, ask any political analyst or linguist.

Sorry, that is the dictionary definition, and it fully applies. What I stated was consistent with the dictionary. Any indication of size was you injecting words into my mouth.

In case you were unaware linguists are the ones that compiled the dictionaries.

Islam is the religion that protected and gave shelter to the Jews when Christians were trying to slaughter them. Islam is the religion that has its Prophet ranked number 1 on the list of the most influential persons in history.

So? Please try and stay on topic here. Not only does the fact that in your history you did nobel acts mean exactly zero when it comes to how your religion behaves *now*, the fact that your prophet was ranked #1 was, at least in part, due to all the terrorism and barbaric actions of some of his followers -- and not just the positive things!

If that was the case then surely people would be driven away from Islam. I am not going to give you figures, because you won't accept them. So why don't you find facts and figures about Americans converting to Islam since 9/11 specially American women.

Some people *are* driven away from Islam -- a fact you are yet again choosing to ignore.

Every Muslim agrees with that, infact it is in the explicitly mentioned in the Quran. Anyone disagreeing with that goes out of the fold of Islam. If you came to my house as a guest or a person in need, I will go out of my way to be hospitable to you but if you kick my door in the middle of the night and come with your 'mercenaries' or 'soldiers' then its either you or me - and that my friend is what every true Muslim believes in and that is truly how Afghans deal with things.

Once again, you ignore the Muslims that interpret the Koran differently, and simply dismiss them. Praise be to Prophet Akbadkhan! Are you here to correct the mistakes and flaws (there is that word again!) in Islam?

That is incorrect assumption, you don't know me in personal life just like I don't know you.

Once again, I admit that I only know the role you play on the internet. If the comments you make do not acurately reflect the real you, it is your fault and your problem if people get the wrong impression of you. I havge no reason to disbelve the intelligence you are presenting about yourself -- other than the fact that you are appearing more and more like a troll.

We understand free speech, but we observe decorum just like any civilized person would.

Once again: YOU MIGHT. NOT ALL MUSLIMS DO. It is not decorus or civilized to respond to the exercise of free speech with death threats and acts of violence.

We believe that men are born free and that no man has the right to rule over another man hence no lords of patrons.

Funny. I can find Islamic rulers. I can find cases of Islam trying to subjigate people. I can see cases of human rights being violated in the name of Islam.

Sorry, you might believe in freedom, but not everyone in your religion does -- or are you going to simply decree that they are not Muslim again, great Prophet?

If I was in position of high power and you spat on my face, there won't be any repercussions as compared to the Iraqi journalist who was jailed and tortured for throwing his shoe at Bush.

That is nobel of you. too bad more Muslims do not agree. I really wish you *were* a prophet and could spread some of this -- on the other hand your bias would be a terrible thing if you actually had much power....

I agree that they are many secular Islamic countries that oppress their citizens, violate human rights - what is frustrating to us is the fact that these secular countries are supported and mentored by the US i.e Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc etc



Could you please gave a list of media resources not owned by Zionists?

First you must do 2 things for me before I can answer that: Define what you mean by zionist -- as I have seen too many people misuse that word, and define 'owned' as most media companies are 'owned' by shareholders and stockholders -- which is pretty much anyone that chooses to invest in the company -- making it hard to show that *any* publically traded company does not have a few shares in the hands of any ethnic group.

Of course there are black sheep in every herd, none can deny. Yes we understand why US is there, infact we understand why US is everywhere - for her own interests, natural resources, trade routes and proxy wars. If that wasn't the case then why is the US government support, funding and giving high positions to drug dealers and violators of human rights in Afghanistan i.e General Dostum, Wali Karzai, Atta Noor etc etc

Why support Dostum when the entire world knows how many people he has massacred? Infact he was on the verge of being tried at Hague!


Yep, that is how easily you guys put and look at it when we are oppressed.



US is not a sheep, its a mule, the wolf of course - loves pulling strings.

.... I have no idea what you are even trying to say, and at this point, I am tired of dealing with you, and don't care try and figure out what you are saying.

[akbarkhan]

I was discussing suicide bombers in the context of terrorism. Kamikazi bombers were *NOT* terrorists, as they attacked military targets. You are changing the scope of the conversation when you blur that line.

I am not changing the scope of conversation, you just like to pretend that is the case.

Let's see: Not trained by the US. Not operating under direct control of the US. Not operating on orders of the US. Not acting in an official capacity when these photos were taken. Not subject to the full restrictions of the US military. Heck, not even paid by the US military. They were not selected by the US. They were not trained by the US. They are employees of a private company that has been contracted by the US government to do a job. Sorry, but it is pretty easy to see the difference when you go beyond the superficial -- and it's not hard to see how the US is no more resposible for these soldiers than Britian is for the Gulf oil spill.

In the case that something *actually criminal* they will not be allowed into the military -- and who a private company hires is up to them -- as is how they are repremanded when they fail to act in the best interest of the company.

So the US military bears no responsibility for the 100k+ military contractors? Goes on to prove how ignorant you are.

I see you are still comparing drunken antics with acts of terrorism, though. Because the barbaric act of drinking is no different than murdering crowds of people. Gotcha. Are you also implying one act of less than civilized partying justifies terrorism? It seems like you are.

I have never compared drunken antics with acts of terrorism. You spoke of barbarians so I showed you what barbarians look like.

lol you call me a troll but then you please your little soul with 'gotcha' hehe

Well, we sorta agree on one thing. It would be nice to find out who they are -- but arrest them for *what*? Exercising free speech? Can't agree with that.

Arrest them for what they arrest others i.e inciting hatred

"After a complaint from a member of the public, Mr Laxton was arrested for inciting religious hatred - which can carry a seven-year prison term - and bailed to reappear at a central London police station at the end of March. "

Sorry, that is the dictionary definition, and it fully applies. What I stated was consistent with the dictionary. Any indication of size was you injecting words into my mouth.

In case you were unaware linguists are the ones that compiled the dictionaries.

Young kid I said "ask any political analyst or linguist" do I have spell it out for you - 'political linguist'! Words have different meanings and connotations under different disciplines. The State Department will never state "iran has some flaws" or "taliban have some flaws" because that tone of rhetoric implies that the severity of such attributes are insignificant.

For example:

Layman terminology
fas = A pattern of mental and physical birth abnormalities found in some children of mothers who drank excessively during pregnancy.

Law/political terminology
fas = noun meaning divine law or command

.... I have no idea what you are even trying to say, and at this point, I am tired of dealing with you, and don't care try and figure out what you are saying.

That is because you have limited knowledge of history.

[ozymandias]

I am not changing the scope of conversation, you just like to pretend that is the case.

Let's leave this as an 'exercise for the readers', then.

So the US military bears no responsibility for the 100k+ military contractors? Goes on to prove how ignorant you are.

They bear a responsibility to try and keep them in line and reprimand and replace them (as appropriate) when they step out of line -- just like any other contracted out job. Since these people are being reprimanded and replaced as needed, that duty is fulfilled.

The level of responsibility is proportional to the level of oversight. Highly overseen troops, such as members of the US military reflect upon the US military. More loosely overseen troops, such as these mercenaries are not trained of regulated to the same level -- and when they screw up it is not a reflection upon the US Military, but upon their respective organizations.

I have never compared drunken antics with acts of terrorism. You spoke of barbarians so I showed you what barbarians look like.

Apples and oranges.

lol you call me a troll but then you please your little soul with 'gotcha' hehe



Arrest them for what they arrest others i.e inciting hatred

I don't agree with that charge -- as I have constantly stated.

"After a complaint from a member of the public, Mr Laxton was arrested for inciting religious hatred - which can carry a seven-year prison term - and bailed to reappear at a central London police station at the end of March. "

Here we go again. You are comparing religious protestors to a diplomat calling for the extermination of the Jewish people. While I disagree with arresting him for inciting hatred, I can see the difference between these cases -- and reasoning for the difference in reaction. Can you imagine the riot that would have ensued had anyone tried to detain and unmask those Muslim protestors?

Young kid I said "ask any political analyst or linguist" do I have spell it out for you - 'political linguist'! Words have different meanings and connotations under different disciplines. The State Department will never state "iran has some flaws" or "taliban have some flaws" because that tone of rhetoric implies that the severity of such attributes are insignificant.

Funny. I recall seeing something similar on the news not too long ago. I will go see if I can find a link about that -- I believe it was along the lines of Saudi Arabia's laws concerning non-Muslims.

For example:

Layman terminology
fas = A pattern of mental and physical birth abnormalities found in some children of mothers who drank excessively during pregnancy.

Law/political terminology
fas = noun meaning divine law or command

So now you are claiming to no longer be a lay person? Not long ago you were upset that I was asking you to provide the most basic intellectual honesty and completeness to your posts, and your argument was that you were a lay person and not an intellectual. Can you stop wishy-washing and decide if you want to be held up to the basic standards of rational discourse, or want to be a 'layperson'?

Additionally, 'flaw' in the political sense is again the exact same as the lay definition, and even in the political sense was used correctly by me -- you were the one to try and read a sense of scale into my comment -- not me.

That is because you have limited knowledge of history.

No, I would say that it has to do with your confusing analogies. The previous comment about democracy not working with 2 wolves and a sheep would imply that the US is a wolf, and taking advantage of the power it has, and abusing the sheep -- this is consistent with your bigoted and biased views you consistently post. When I pointed out that the sheep far outnumber the wolves and can outvote them, proving your analogy false, you say that the US is not a sheep -- who thought it was? -- and was a mule instead. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. You are mixing analogies in an unclear and confusing manner.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias,

Do you believe in freedom fighters? Aren't those freedom fighters who kill the enemies who have invaded their country. Then the very same enemy makes fun of our religion.

How many times to I have to answer this?

Yes, I believe they exist.

Yes, I believe that they have the right to kill the *MILITARY* invaders invading their country. Civilian 'invaders' should not be killed -- they should be charged with a crime, and handled in a civilized manner. Terrorists are *NOT* freedom fighters. Freedom fighters are a military group attacking MILITARY targets. Civilians are not MILITARY targets, so those deliberately targeting civilians, or those callously ignoring the damage to civilians are TERRORISTS. Those using tactics of war banned by the UN such are approaching the line, if not crossing it.

As for making fun of your religion? So what? Free speech means they can make fun of your religion -- or any other. Not only that but a little mocking and joking *DOES NOT JUSTIFY TERRORISM EVER*.

[Azmatullah]

I am just asking for you to bring evidence to support your claim, that's all. I have not decided yet which is the correct stance to take, so i want you to explain with some evidence this time.

By merely saying ''If they want to leave Islam it is their choice. Period. No ifs or buts about it''

Is that suppose to be enough for us?

[Azmatullah]

I think i posted in the wrong thread.

[akbarkhan]

More loosely overseen troops, such as these mercenaries are not trained of regulated to the same level -- and when they screw up it is not a reflection upon the US Military, but upon their respective organizations.

Your own intellectuals and political analysts disagree with this - this is the essence of double standards! How can you put 60k 'US soldiers' and then a 100k+ mercenaries in a war zone without being equally responsible for both! Pentagon bears responsibility for all military interventions, but you guys blurr the lines and play with international law by such excuses. Very soon the entire military industrial complex is going to be privatized, so US won't be responsible for any bloodshed!!!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y33NMRia-x4

Can you imagine the riot that would have ensued had anyone tried to detain and unmask those Muslim protestors?

Such people should be arrested, but they are not because it is made up for the media.

So now you are claiming to no longer be a lay person? Not long ago you were upset that I was asking you to provide the most basic intellectual honesty and completeness to your posts, and your argument was that you were a lay person and not an intellectual. Can you stop wishy-washing and decide if you want to be held up to the basic standards of rational discourse, or want to be a 'layperson'?

Additionally, 'flaw' in the political sense is again the exact same as the lay definition, and even in the political sense was used correctly by me -- you were the one to try and read a sense of scale into my comment -- not me.

And the fact that you ignore major points in my arguments makes you 'intellectually honest'? Plus 'flaw' doesn't have the same meaning in political rherotic, go ask someone at Harvard. As I already stated words have different meanings in different discipline, take egalitarianism as an example - it has different definitions according to politics and social philosophy.

No, I would say that it has to do with your confusing analogies. The previous comment about democracy not working with 2 wolves and a sheep would imply that the US is a wolf, and taking advantage of the power it has, and abusing the sheep -- this is consistent with your bigoted and biased views you consistently post. When I pointed out that the sheep far outnumber the wolves and can outvote them, proving your analogy false, you say that the US is not a sheep -- who thought it was? -- and was a mule instead. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. You are mixing analogies in an unclear and confusing manner.

I am not mixing analogies at all, America is the wolf and the secular Muslim states are the chained sheeps infact this was outlined in Project for New American Century PNAC. And as far as America being a mule is concerned, you should look into, AMDOCS, Comverse Infosys etc etc and the influence of AIPAC over congress and white house.

Here are former CIA officers on the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkjqrF00FM be aware that I am not asking you to believe in everything that is said in a video. There are historic events, documents, and evidence supporting the fact that there is a shadow government in the US, a shadow government that has been there since inception, getting stronger and stronger as the years have gone by. And as far as modern day America is concerned, it has Leo Strauss written all over it!

[ozymandias]

I am not mixing analogies at all, America is the wolf and the secular Muslim states are the chained sheeps infact this was outlined in Project for New American Century PNAC. And as far as America being a mule is concerned, you should look into, AMDOCS, Comverse Infosys etc etc and the influence of AIPAC over congress and white house.

Then why, when I pointed out that the analogy of 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on dinner was false as the sheep far out number the wolves, you told me I was wrong, and America was a mule?

Here are former CIA officers on the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVkjqrF00FM be aware that I am not asking you to believe in everything that is said in a video. There are historic events, documents, and evidence supporting the fact that there is a shadow government in the US, a shadow government that has been there since inception, getting stronger and stronger as the years have gone by. And as far as modern day America is concerned, it has Leo Strauss written all over it!

But that evidence that far exceeds that level is still suspect when it come to the Holocaust?

I'm starting to think that your eyes are so clouded you cannot even *see* reality.

That's the only answer I am going to dignify this with, as I have *tried* to discuss things rationally with you, and you simply keep changing the scope and context and ignoring anything that does not support your bias.

If you want to come back to the table and make an effort we can pick this up again.

[akbarkhan]

But that evidence that far exceeds that level is still suspect when it come to the Holocaust?

I'm starting to think that your eyes are so clouded you cannot even *see* reality.

That's the only answer I am going to dignify this with, as I have *tried* to discuss things rationally with you, and you simply keep changing the scope and context and ignoring anything that does not support your bias.

If you want to come back to the table and make an effort we can pick this up again.

I am talking about a shadow government within US and you bring up holocaust! and then you accuse me of 'changing scope and context'!

Rationally? I have presented you with references, people and documents while you just have piss-farted to dodge my arguments and the evidence that back them up, and you call this rational?

I have restrained myself from providing evidence from the work of Muslim researchers because you might think they are biased hence everything I say is backed up with references and literature from your own kind.

I am not changing the scope or context of anything, infact I have categorically addressed all the issues that you have brought without ignoring any!