View Full Version : To all the idiots who blame America for September 11....
Yassar Arafat
6 Nov 2001, 14:25
...that ****wit bin Laden has said Australia is part of the jihad b/c they are also anti-Islamic by taking part of the wrenching of Islamic land being East Timor from an Islamic country, being Indonesia.
Therefore following the logic that so called US interference in the MIddle East brought the atack on New York, then Australia deserves it if a terrorist act is carreid out by bin Laden's cronies on Australia b/c we stuck our noses into a foreign situaiton on foreign soil in a matter that had nothing to do with Australia.
What's good for the goose........
Show's you how stupid the original premise about America is....
Bomb the ****e out of the Afghanis and bin Laden cronies the wrold is best rid of them all.
London Dave
7 Nov 2001, 05:40
Here's an article by John Pilger, ratbag journo etc. Your thoughts would be appreciated Yassir.....
Don't necessarily agre with the Pilger perspective on everything, but its nice to have a contrary view sometimes!!!!
URL is http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11392430&method=full
or try
http://www.johnpilger.com/
PILGER: THIS WAR IS A FRAUD By John Pilger, Former Mirror chief foreign correspondent
The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks' bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan.
Instead, one of the poorest, most stricken nations has been terrorised by the most powerful - to the point where American pilots have run out of dubious "military" targets and are now destroying mud houses, a hospital, Red Cross warehouses, lorries carrying refugees.
Unlike the relentless pictures from New York, we are seeing almost nothing of this. Tony Blair has yet to tell us what the violent death of children - seven in one family - has to do with Osama bin Laden.
And why are cluster bombs being used? The British public should know about these bombs, which the RAF also uses. They spray hundreds of bomblets that have only one purpose; to kill and maim people. Those that do not explode lie on the ground like landmines, waiting for people to step on them.
If ever a weapon was designed specifically for acts of terrorism, this is it. I have seen the victims of American cluster weapons in other countries, such as the Laotian toddler who picked one up and had her right leg and face blown off. Be assured this is now happening in Afghanistan, in your name.
None of those directly involved in the September 11 atrocity was Afghani. Most were Saudis, who apparently did their planning and training in Germany and the United States.
The camps which the Taliban allowed bin Laden to use were emptied weeks ago. Moreover, the Taliban itself is a creation of the Americans and the British. In the 1980s, the tribal army that produced them was funded by the CIA and trained by the SAS to fight the Russians.
The hypocrisy does not stop there. When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their way to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company, Unocal.
With secret US government approval, the company offered them a generous cut of the profits of the oil and gas pumped through a pipeline that the Americans wanted to build from Soviet central Asia through Afghanistan.
A US diplomat said: "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did." He explained that Afghanistan would become an American oil colony, there would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution of women. "We can live with that," he said.
Although the deal fell through, it remains an urgent priority of the administration of George W. Bush, which is steeped in the oil industry. Bush's concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth and enough, according to one estimate, to meet America's voracious energy needs for a generation. Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistan can the Americans hope to control it.
So, not surprisingly, US Secretary of State Colin Powell is now referring to "moderate" Taliban, who will join an American-sponsored "loose federation" to run Afghanistan. The "war on terrorism" is a cover for this: a means of achieving American strategic aims that lie behind the flag-waving facade of great power.
The Royal Marines, who will do the real dirty work, will be little more than mercenaries for Washington's imperial ambitions, not to mention the extraordinary pretensions of Blair himself. Having made Britain a target for terrorism with his bellicose "shoulder to shoulder" with Bush nonsense, he is now prepared to send troops to a battlefield where the goals are so uncertain that even the Chief of the Defence Staff says the conflict "could last 50 years".
The irresponsibility of this is breathtaking; the pressure on Pakistan alone could ignite an unprecedented crisis across the Indian sub-continent. Having reported many wars, I am always struck by the absurdity of effete politicians eager to wave farewell to young soldiers, but who themselves would not say boo to a Taliban goose.
In the days of gunboats, our imperial leaders covered their violence in the "morality" of their actions. Blair is no different. Like them, his selective moralising omits the most basic truth. Nothing justified the killing of innocent people in America on September 11, and nothing justifies the killing of innocent people anywhere else.
By killing innocents in Afghanistan, Blair and Bush stoop to the level of the criminal outrage in New York. Once you cluster bomb, "mistakes" and "blunders" are a pretence. Murder is murder, regardless of whether you crash a plane into a building or order and collude with it from the Oval Office and Downing Street.
If Blair was really opposed to all forms of terrorism, he would get Britain out of the arms trade. On the day of the twin towers attack, an "arms fair", selling weapons of terror (like cluster bombs and missiles) to assorted tyrants and human rights abusers, opened in London's Docklands with the full backing of the Blair government.
Britain's biggest arms customer is the medieval Saudi regime, which beheads heretics and spawned the religious fanaticism of the Taliban.
If he really wanted to demonstrate "the moral fibre of Britain", Blair would do everything in his power to lift the threat of violence in those parts of the world where there is great and justifiable grievance and anger.
He would do more than make gestures; he would demand that Israel ends its illegal occupation of Palestine and withdraw to its borders prior to the 1967 war, as ordered by the Security Council, of which Britain is a permanent member.
He would call for an end to the genocidal blockade which the UN - in reality, America and Britain - has imposed on the suffering people of Iraq for more than a decade, causing the deaths of half a million children under the age of five.
That's more deaths of infants every month than the number killed in the World Trade Center.
There are signs that Washington is about to extend its current "war" to Iraq; yet unknown to most of us, almost every day RAF and American aircraft already bomb Iraq. There are no headlines. There is nothing on the TV news. This terror is the longest-running Anglo-American bombing campaign since World War Two.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the US and Britain faced a "dilemma" in Iraq, because "few targets remain". "We're down to the last outhouse," said a US official. That was two years ago, and they're still bombing. The cost to the British taxpayer? £800 million so far.
According to an internal UN report, covering a five-month period, 41 per cent of the casualties are civilians. In northern Iraq, I met a woman whose husband and four children were among the deaths listed in the report. He was a shepherd, who was tending his sheep with his elderly father and his children when two planes attacked them, each making a sweep. It was an open valley; there were no military targets nearby.
"I want to see the pilot who did this," said the widow at the graveside of her entire family. For them, there was no service in St Paul's Cathedral with the Queen in attendance; no rock concert with Paul McCartney.
The tragedy of the Iraqis, and the Palestinians, and the Afghanis is a truth that is the very opposite of their caricatures in much of the Western media.
Far from being the terrorists of the world, the overwhelming majority of the Islamic peoples of the Middle East and south Asia have been its victims - victims largely of the West's exploitation of precious natural resources in or near their countries.
There is no war on terrorism. If there was, the Royal Marines and the SAS would be storming the beaches of Florida, where more CIA-funded terrorists, ex-Latin American dictators and torturers, are given refuge than anywhere on earth.
There is, however, a continuing war of the powerful against the powerless, with new excuses, new hidden agendas, new lies. Before another child dies violently, or quietly from starvation, before new fanatics are created in both the east and the west, it is time for the people of Britain to make their voices heard and to stop this fraudulent war - and to demand the kind of bold, imaginative non-violent initiatives that require real political courage.
The other day, the parents of Greg Rodriguez, a young man who died in the World Trade Center, said this: "We read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us.
"It is not the way to go...not in our son's name."
Very interesting perspective
I imagine the real position is somewhere between the two views
ie bush and blair v Pilger
We should not be following America blindly. We made that mistake once before.
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 09:11
If you accept Pilger and his biased views (he has no credibility other than being another member of the looney left) then you should accept any El Qaeda attack on Australia is justified due to our meddling in other nation's affairs as referred to by bin Laden.
If you believe Pilger then you must believe America wanted an attack like that which occurred onSep 11, in fact you will believe that America planned it as a pretence to attack Afghanistan.
If Pilger is right, why would America stop at killing only 7 members of one family intentionally? Why dont they just bomb the hell out of Kabul and the other cities? To fool the other countries? Come on, Pilger is on his anti-american and anti-british hobby horse. He is basically a ********.
I agree with alot of what Pilger has said.
If killing 6,000 innocent people in the WTC disaster is wrong, how does killing innocent Afghans in retribution become right?
If the UK and US want to minimise terrorism, they should stop selling arms to them and training terrorists.
If the US wanted to destroy terrorist training camps, why concentrate on Afghanistan, when Germany, the US itself, North Africa have far more....
We will never know the real reasons because we are victims of propaganda. At least Pilger is not fooled by the US and UK press.
The two biggest steps the US could take to minismise terrorism would to stop selling arms, and to reduce it's dependency on oil, which would decrease it's need to stick it's nose into middle eastern politics.
The actions and policies of the US in the Middle East in the past 15 years (at least) have bread the kind of hatred it takes to commit the acts of Sept. 11. I'm not saying America is to blame, but surely it's time to realise the mistakes of the past and start on a course of correction, instead of making them over again and continuing the cycle.
Pessimistic
7 Nov 2001, 10:23
I am now worried that the US will do a bit more bombing, then allow the 'Northern Alliance' to go in and clean up the taliban.
I fear there will be a bloodbath followed by 'Killing fields'.
It's bad enough, but what has it to do with addressing terrorism ?
F. All
Originally posted by Pessimistic
I am now worried that the US will do a bit more bombing, then allow the 'Northern Alliance' to go in and clean up the taliban.
I fear there will be a bloodbath followed by 'Killing fields'.
It's bad enough, but what has it to do with addressing terrorism ?
F. All
It really does make you ask yourself - "Exactly what IS the US agenda?" doesn't it....
If it is supposed to be a war on terrorism, why target Afghanistan solely ... it is not the only country with a terrorist element, and if they think it is going to get Bin Laden, they are sadly mistaken....
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 11:17
Originally posted by Briedis
It really does make you ask yourself - "Exactly what IS the US agenda?" doesn't it....
If it is supposed to be a war on terrorism, why target Afghanistan solely ... it is not the only country with a terrorist element, and if they think it is going to get Bin Laden, they are sadly mistaken....
Who said the US is targeting Afghanistan (or parts of it) solely? Obviously they will pursue bin Laden first but they cant go for everyone at once, even the US resources cannot extend to fighting a myriad of fights at the same time (as Hitler found out).
The fact that the US has supported Israel in the Mid East process does not mean it has given it 100 % support. It has criticised Israel as well and it has supported Arab nations where applicable e.g Eygypt.
Whilst it remains the Arab view in some places that the only way to solve the Mid East crisis is to destroy Israel then th US are within their rights to support the continuing existence of Israel. They have criticies Sharon for what he is oding at the moment and also they critcised Menachim Begin who was only a step behind Sharon. Shimon Peres is the most moderate voice in the Mid East and if he regain some power it will be for the benefit of all.
The US has a role in the Middle East and it is not for the bin Ladens of the world to have a "foreign policy". He represents no one but himself.
Australia is just as guilty as the US (if guilt is the word) of meddling in Indonesia and East Timor, PNG and in Fiji. Meddling is your word though not mine. Isolationism and appeasement is not the way, as it only encourages the Stalins and Hitlers of this world.
Method of execution can be debated, but in the present case, there is no real role for diplomacy at present. If the Taliban were smart, they would have handed over bin Laden. If they did that they would have save all the bloodshed of the troops and would have then been able to see if Puncy Pilger was right. But of course they are in league with bin Laden and support his cause.
If the US are bombing anywhere else other than Afghanistan in retribution of the Sept.11 attacks, then please let me know.
Why did they not bomb Libya to high hell in the 80s? They have training camps and commited numerous terrorist acts against the US....
The US always have a hidden agenda, don't be naive and think that this attack is solely for the purpose of combatting terrorism.
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 11:48
Is it as naive in being a conspiracy theorist?
The "war" has started in Afghanistan. When it ceases there that will not be the end of the war against terrorists. it will move somewhere else. If it doesnt then the consiracy theorists can have a field day. What I said was they wont fight on all fronts at once b/c they cant. When it happens you can read it in the papers.
This is their so-called new approach to dealing with terrorists. it may work it may not, what would you do to deal with them, appease them thus encouraging more twits with addled brains to perpetrate these crimes?
I don't have the answer to the US problems, but don't you think that making martyrs out of innocent people is only going to strengthen support for Bin Laden? Of course it is. You should know, Yasser. What happens in Palestine everytime a Palestinian is killed by an Israeli? Martyrdom, then more violence, and no solution to the real problems.
The lessons of history seem to be lost on the US. Surely, we should have learnt the lesson of oppressing nations from the results of the Treaty of Versailles. The continued bombing and trade embargo of Iraq will further the support of these people. The US is giving these people a reason to hate.
I still want to know why the US did nothing about the terrorist camps, which still exist today, in Libya after the terrorist attacks in the 80s. I would say it is most likely because Libya as a nation do not have annything to offer the US for such a campaign, i.e. there's no oil.
Don't forget, most of the atrocities around the world are done using US and UK developed and manufactured arms. Surely, ceasing their arms trading would be a bigger step to reducing terrorism.
Sydneyfan
7 Nov 2001, 12:20
I believe that America have made a big mistake in naming their campaign a War on Terrorism. Terrorism occurs frequently throughout the world in places as diverse as Northern Ireland, Spain, Colombia and Sri Lanka.
Following the September 11 attacks, the US stated that they were going to flush the world of terrorism once and for all, this is definitely a noble cause. But were the US ever realistically intending on doing this?
To eliminate or dramatically reduce terrorism worldwide would be a huge operation which would take place in tens of countries throughout the world and take decades to complete. While America's War on Terrorism takes place in Afghanistan, terrorist attacks have recently occured in Birmingham, England (attributed to the Real IRA group), Madrid, Spain (attributed to ETA Basque separatists), and numerous other places throughout the world.
When America have finished their War on Terrorism in Afghanistan, it is extremely unlikely to say the least they will venture to any other troublespots throughout the world to clean up terrorism and this could well cause resentment in areas affected by terrorism.
I believe that the Bombing of Afghanistan is nothing more than a revenge attack for September 11.
Originally posted by Briedis
I would say it is most likely because Libya as a nation do not have annything to offer the US for such a campaign, i.e. there's no oil.
I think you've hit it right on the head... Americas in this because of the profit.... and if America dont stop in about 2 weeks time theres gonna be a huge outcry from Arab countries (due to Ramadan)
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 14:15
I am a Moslem and I believe they should keep bombing the crap out of the bastards.
Anyway, who started the war against Israel in 1973 during Yom Kippur?
Whats good for the goose........................
There is no mysticism to ramazan you know.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
I am a Moslem and I believe they should keep bombing the crap out of the bastards.
Anyway, who started the war against Israel in 1973 during Yom Kippur?
Whats good for the goose........................
There is no mysticism to ramazan you know.
Do you mean a Muslim??
Do you mean Ramadan?
Two wrongs don't make a right
For me, it doesn't really matter if innocent people die durng a religous holdiay or not - innocent people should not be dying full stop.
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 14:28
You show your ignorance Jars.
I have always used the term "moslem" rather than muslim as I prefer that name. The two are interchangeable.
Also the name of the month of fasting which begins on 17 November (I suppose you knew that as you are trying to tell me how to suck eggs grandma) can be Ramadan for you infidels but we have always called in Ramazan as most Sunni sect MOSLEMS do.
I in fact heard Imran Khan call it that also at the week end on CNN.
So dont try to tell me about my religion you cretin.
Tell me do you know the 5 pillars of Islam? Have you performed the pilgrimage as yet?
LAH I LAHE IL ALLAH MUHAMEDIN RESULLULAH
(There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet)
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
You show your ignorance Jars.
I have always used the term "moslem" rather than muslim as I prefer that name. The two are interchangeable.
Also the name of the month of fasting which begins on 17 November (I suppose you knew that as you are trying to tell me how to suck eggs grandma) can be Ramadan for you infidels but we have always called in Ramazan as most Sunni sect MOSLEMS do.
I in fact heard Imran Khan call it that also at the week end on CNN.
So dont try to tell me about my religion you cretin.
Tell me do you know the 5 pillars of Islam? Have you performed the pilgrimage as yet?
LAH I LAHE IL ALLAH MUHAMEDIN RESULLULAH
(There is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet)
If that is the case I apologise.
As far as the five pillars and the pilgrimage - no
I don't belive in God.
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 14:51
Apology accepted...its just that I thought you were having a go at me for pretending to be MOSLEM.
I am though I would nto say I am a practising moslem at the moment, though I have done the ramazan fast many times though not recently.
I have no problem with America bombing Afghanistan b/c regardless of the reason they are doing it, it has nothing to do with a holy war that is for sure. It is not an anti Islamic thing.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Apology accepted...its just that I thought you were having a go at me for pretending to be MOSLEM.
I am though I would nto say I am a practising moslem at the moment, though I have done the ramazan fast many times though not recently.
I have no problem with America bombing Afghanistan b/c regardless of the reason they are doing it, it has nothing to do with a holy war that is for sure. It is not an anti Islamic thing.
So, because it is not a war against Islam it is OK? There are other things to consider other than religion, e.g. deaths of innocent people, operation effectiveness....
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 15:07
The difference is bin Laden's aim is to kill innocent people, whereas at the moment that i snot the US aim as it was not NATO's aim in Kosovo.
If bin Laden could have killed more innocent he would have and he would have been happy with it.
If the US could limit the killing of innocent people they would be happier.
If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden they would not be suffering what they are suffering now.
No one want to see inncoent people die. But if you believe that everything can be achieved by talking, then you are really living in a dream land. There is time to talk and there is a time when talk is inappropriate. The Talban's refusal to hand over bin Laden has led to the time when talk in inapprpriate.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
The difference is bin Laden's aim is to kill innocent people, whereas at the moment that i snot the US aim as it was not NATO's aim in Kosovo.
If bin Laden could have killed more innocent he would have and he would have been happy with it.
If the US could limit the killing of innocent people they would be happier.
If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden they would not be suffering what they are suffering now.
No one want to see inncoent people die. But if you believe that everything can be achieved by talking, then you are really living in a dream land. There is time to talk and there is a time when talk is inappropriate. The Talban's refusal to hand over bin Laden has led to the time when talk in inapprpriate.
The Taliban did not refuse, they asked to see the evidence and if it was appropriate they would hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country.... the US did not accept this. They wanted blood.
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 15:14
Of course the Taliban are innocent little things who only behead women for not wearing a veil when it is not even requried under the Koran.
bin Laden has admitted invovlement not only for Sep 11. They wanted evidence. What a load of crap. They know he was behind it and they sponsored it so their posturing should not have and did not count for anything.
Bloody Islamic d.i.c.k.h.e.a.d.s.
Mobbenfuhrer
7 Nov 2001, 17:31
Isn't the interpretation of Islam, the stance taken by the Taliban, a fundamentalist one?
Originally posted by Briedis
The Taliban did not refuse, they asked to see the evidence and if it was appropriate they would hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country.... the US did not accept this. They wanted blood.
i think its fair enough that the Taliban wanted evidence, but the US said that they know its him and therefore the whole world should believe them
Bin Laden has never admitted to the Sept 11. acts. He is happy about it, but he has never said "I organised it".
Does anyone here actually know what evidence the US has against him? I have never heard any of it.
The US price themselves on freedom and justice for all. Why abandon your ideals when it does not suit? I hope for their sakes that they realise that they are stooping to the Talibans violent moral level, and try other ways to combat the problem.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
The difference is bin Laden's aim is to kill innocent people, whereas at the moment that i snot the US aim as it was not NATO's aim in Kosovo.
If bin Laden could have killed more innocent he would have and he would have been happy with it.
If the US could limit the killing of innocent people they would be happier.
If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden they would not be suffering what they are suffering now.
No one want to see inncoent people die. But if you believe that everything can be achieved by talking, then you are really living in a dream land. There is time to talk and there is a time when talk is inappropriate. The Talban's refusal to hand over bin Laden has led to the time when talk in inapprpriate.
I find it interesting that you take the name of a "reformed" terrorist like Ararfat. So you agree with Israel's policy of an eye for an eye then?
Originally posted by 1AD
I find it interesting that you take the name of a "reformed" terrorist like Ararfat. So you agree with Israel's policy of an eye for an eye then?
So would you say that Nelson Mandela is also a reformed terroritst
Its interesting what terrorists we are willng to support nad what terrorists we are not
I raise this purely to show how hard it is
Clearly apartheid was wrong and evil and we can support those fighting it
But by killing innocent people?
What about Basque seperatists?
East Timor Freedom Fighters?
Very difficult to differentiate.
Yassar Arafat
8 Nov 2001, 10:26
Everybody in the Middle East is a reformed terrorist from Arafat to Rabin to Begin to Sharon.
I dont agree with terrorism. I dont agree with acts of gross indecency. At least with the attacks on the USA troops in the Mid East in 83 they were attacking army people and not civilians as their aim.
The attack on New York on Sep 11 was an act of barbarism and nothing can justify it.
The US has stated it is attacking the El Qaeda networks and training camps and hopes to capture if possibel bin Laden and any of his cronies but bin Laden is not the sole target.
And once the matter concludes in Afghanistan it shoul dnot be the endof the war on terrorism.
Pessimistic
8 Nov 2001, 12:21
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Everybody in the Middle East is a reformed terrorist from Arafat to Rabin to Begin to Sharon.
I dont agree with terrorism. I dont agree with acts of gross indecency. At least with the attacks on the USA troops in the Mid East in 83 they were attacking army people and not civilians as their aim.
The attack on New York on Sep 11 was an act of barbarism and nothing can justify it.
The US has stated it is attacking the El Qaeda networks and training camps and hopes to capture if possibel bin Laden and any of his cronies but bin Laden is not the sole target.
And once the matter concludes in Afghanistan it shoul dnot be the endof the war on terrorism.
Starting to agree with you there, Yassar
Yassar arafat
its Muslim not Moslem
Moslem pronounced the way that bush says it means oppresors in arabic
Ramadan not Ramazan i think you should know that, once again check the arabic
For a muslim you show remarkable lack of knowledge on the subject.
You seem to be going out of your way to knock Islam.
No one has said the attacks on New York was a good thing or deserved. But i would like something clarified.
Its been CONFIRMED that out of the 4000 isralies that worked in the tower zero showed up to work that day, the Shabak had informed them that an attack was coming (Reported by Israli Haaratz) israeli newspaper. It has been confirmed that the FBI knew of it months before hand. A US senator was interviewd months before it happened and said that an attack was going to happen on Manhatten and that he had received such information. He had complained to the FBI but they had told him that they had orders NOT to investigate this. They already knew.
The death toll by the new york times is down to below 3000. And over 1000 were muslims, can you tell me how a minority group of 3% makes up for over 33% of the dead.
These are FACTS.
The taliban have denied their involvment and so has bin laden.
Anyone who can tell me that the damand for proof is unreasonable is hate filled. Its nothing but a foundation of Justice, practice what you preach america.
And the real Yassar Arafat isnt a reprasentative of Islam, he and his PLO are nothing but a band of thugs who kill every real attempt to by muslims to represent the wishes of the Palestinians. He killed to get in power, he kills his own people to remain there. Go and read some history.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
And once the matter concludes in Afghanistan it shoul dnot be the endof the war on terrorism.
BIt late for the people of
SRI LANKA
RWANDA
NTH IERLAND
CAMBODIA
IRAQ
IRAN
CHILE
ETC
ETC
ETC
Good how the America can pick the wars we become involved in.
Funny how the CIA always seem to train or have helped these thugs
SADDAM
NOREIGA
PINOCHET
BIN LADEN
ETC
ETC
ETC
And NO I don't think Bin Laden should not go unpunished, kill him I don't care, but after 2000+ bombing sorties how many terrirosts are dead as opposed to innocent civilians?
Yassar Arafat
9 Nov 2001, 09:23
Originally posted by Solace
Yassar arafat
its Muslim not Moslem
Moslem pronounced the way that bush says it means oppresors in arabic
Ramadan not Ramazan i think you should know that, once again check the arabic
For a muslim you show remarkable lack of knowledge on the subject.
You seem to be going out of your way to knock Islam.
.
It is moslem or muslim. Look it up in the dictionary. I dont give a fcuk how Bush pronounces it. The word is moslem. I am not an Arab or an Islamic scholar. I am a moslem.
And we call the fast RAMAZAN. Go listen to how Imran Khan called it. RAMADAN and RAMAZAN are interchangeable.
And smartarse Solace, do you know that the festivities afterwards are called Baryam but people also pronounce it Bayram?
I am not a muslim. I am a moslem. And I wont let some mealy mouthed individual pretend he knows more about my religion than I do because he or she doesnt. I want to Islamic school for 4 years as a youngster, so you can take a running jump infidel.
I havent seen you at the Carlton mosque lately bigot.
As for knocking moslems, the people who perpetrated the acts of terror are not moslems or followers of the Islamic faith. If for no other reason than it is agasint the teaching of the Koran to commit suicide let alone murder.
But a lot of the arabic nations certainly deserve what they get that is for sure.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
smartarse Solace,
mealy mouthed individual
you can take a running jump infidel.
I havent seen you at the Carlton mosque lately bigot.
.
For a person that gets upset about personal abuse YOU do pretty good yourself?
Also I thought you weren't practicing so how can you meet Solace at the Mosque?;)
Yassar Arafat
9 Nov 2001, 10:32
By not practising I mean I will not do the fast of ramazan nor will I pray 5 times a day, but I do go to the mosque every so often either to meet with people I know or to attend the occasional ceremony.
It would be like not really being a practising Christian but still going to church at easter or christmas.
Christmas day for me has always been the most boring day of the year as I do not celebrate it. But as the Koran says it believes in all the holy books that came before it including the old testament and the bible and in all the prophets but Islam does not believe in the virgin birth nor does it believe that Jesus is the son of god. But it does acknowledge him as a prophet of god.
It says the other religions that are monoist are OK but that Islam is the best being the most recent.
Chilli Afterglow
9 Nov 2001, 21:19
Well Duh! to Pilger!
He does make his point rather well, but it does sidestep around a few obvious issues.
Of course the Alliance is not going to go straight in and rip the terrorists straight out. This is surely not possible as they are all basically located in hidden caves. Of course they are attacking the Taliban directly. This must be their objective. They do not want to go in and just get the terrorists out.
They want control of Afghanistan, most probably for the oil riches contained therein. Has this been any different to any other war through history then? What is the primary purpose of war? To profit, methinks!
The military is a broadsword, not a rapier. War is also, and always has been, violent. Just because we haven't had round the clock TV coverage of it, save for the last decade, doesn't mean that it hasn't been true, no matter what the romance novels tell you.
You cannot expect a military assault to be surgical in it's operation. While military targets are a primary objective, civilian casuaties are inevitable. (This does differ from the WTC bombings in that the terrorists actually targeted civilians spefically, rather than by accident.)
The USA now control the borders of Afghanistan through Alliance with each of the respective neightbours.
Next they will seek to control Afghanistan. Once achieved, they will be able to hunt all the terrorists at their own leisure.
Then they will be able to loot and pillage, as has happened throughout the ages!
After which, they will put the Northern Alliance into power.
And 10 years later, be involved in a war with them!
Doh!
Stealth bomber
11 Nov 2001, 10:43
Probably Chili *LOL*
It wasn't that long ago (1979) that the U.S. was denouncing Russia's invasion of Afghanistan.
These things come around. Russia was an ally during WWII and then became an enemy. We allied with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and when Iran took Americans hostage, and then became enemies in the Persian Gulf thing.
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 11:02
Originally posted by Solace
No one has said the attacks on New York was a good thing or deserved. But i would like something clarified.
Its been CONFIRMED that out of the 4000 isralies that worked in the tower zero showed up to work that day, the Shabak had informed them that an attack was coming (Reported by Israli Haaratz) israeli newspaper.
This is bullcrap. Many Jews died in the carnage along with Moslems. This is just anit-Semitic clap trap.
Originally posted by Solace
It has been confirmed that the FBI knew of it months before hand. A US senator was interviewd months before it happened and said that an attack was going to happen on Manhatten and that he had received such information. He had complained to the FBI but they had told him that they had orders NOT to investigate this. They already knew.
Show me your source....yes I know you dont have one.
Originally posted by Solace
The death toll by the new york times is down to below 3000. And over 1000 were muslims,
What a load of crap.
Originally posted by Solace
And the real Yassar Arafat isnt a reprasentative of Islam, he and his PLO are nothing but a band of thugs who kill every real attempt to by muslims to represent the wishes of the Palestinians. He killed to get in power, he kills his own people to remain there. Go and read some history.
Everyone in the middle east is a reformed terrorist. Rabin was a terrorist when fighting the British in the 40s, so was Menchaim Begin. Go and read your own history.
And if Arafat does not represent the moderate Palestinians, bin Laden the penis certainly has no link to them whatsoever the hypocrite.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
And if Arafat does not represent the moderate Palestinians, bin Laden the penis certainly has no link to them whatsoever the hypocrite.
Arafat's idea of moderate is blowing up a busload of people instead of two office towers.
Bin laden and Arafat are both scum.
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 12:18
Originally posted by 1AD
Arafat's idea of moderate is blowing up a busload of people instead of two office towers.
Bin laden and Arafat are both scum.
Dont forget to throw in Begin Sharon and Rabin!
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Dont forget to throw in Begin Sharon and Rabin!
iN THE BUS?:rolleyes:
Yassar Arafat
12 Nov 2001, 12:45
Originally posted by 1AD
iN THE BUS?:rolleyes:
How immature is that?
You know what I meant silly.
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
How immature is that?
You know what I meant silly.
Very immature but after reading your "oh so" mature and gracious take on the Liberals victory what could i do to stoop to your level. (I see I suceeded)
as for Sharon, Begin etc.............................
America is on the side of Israel so they were on the force of good against evil;)