The Iraq Thread

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't that the same as saying Iraq does not pose a relevant threat to the USA?  (I did ask you not to beat around the bush, didn't I?)<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know how to say it any clearer, so I repeat:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003 @ 04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, just because WE'RE not directly threatened doesn't mean that we shouldn't act.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please bear in mind that I did not ask your opinions about why the US should invade Iraq or what threat Iraq poses against the UN.  However, since you offered your opinions anyway (so much for not beating around the bush), why did you avoid the following question:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please tell me why the UN hasn't already collapsed under the weight of alllllllllllllll those other resolutions (hundreds) that remain unenforced?<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

For all practical purposes it has collapsed.  Don't think so?  While we're on the topic of unanswered questions, what's your take on the UN's ability to resolve the North Korean situation?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.  So why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists?<span id='postcolor'>

Err, what?  Read my sentence again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm... Did we touch a nerve or do we just need to lighten' up a bit?  <span id='postcolor'>

That depends on whether you really believe that trash you posted or you were just taking a cheap shot against my integrity.

Semper Fi

[Longinius 1]

"Lay off the CrAcK."

"No, but they could have those things in other places in America. If you want to build an army, America must be the best place."

If American militia groups, which are built the same way as terrorist cells, can get a hold of fully automatic weapons, HMG's and even tanks, what prevents Islamic fundamentalists from doing the same?

"Besides, the fact that there were training camps in Afghanistan does not give the US the right to bomb that land and invade. Like you said, its a question for lawenforcement. If they cant handle it, you should have the UN deal with it. You cant just go around like Rambo, killing people left and right because you feel its OK."

So you think its OK to start wars on your own accord, just because you want to try and get to a bunch of people who have nothing at all to do with the people you are waging the war on, nor the government of that country? If so, then YOU should get of the crack.

[FSPilot 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 21 2003,030)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Same problem than before, Afghanistan is NOT Taliban (no wonder Massoud did have followers), Taliban are NOT the one who have prepared and executed 9/11 (UBL was just hiding amongst Taliban), but US (and others...) come and drop cluster bombs over Kabul. You attacked UBL by starting a war in Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban was the governing body in Afghanistan.  They didn't control all of Afghanistan, but most of it.  They were harboring the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11.  Yes, I know they were from Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't make any difference since they weren't being harbored in Saudi Arabia or even living in SA.  The American man who went and joined the Taliban, he was from America.  Does that mean we should bomb ourselves because one of our enemys once lived here?  No.  The terrorists were being harbored by the governing body in Afghanistan, so we attacked them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think its OK to start wars on your own accord, just because you want to try and get to a bunch of people who have nothing at all to do with the people you are waging the war on, nor the government of that country? If so, then YOU should get of the crack.<span id='postcolor'>

Explain how the Taliban had nothing to do with Al Queda, even though they were harboring them in their country as guests and were suffering multiple UN sanctions if they didn't get rid of UBL.

source

And THIS is scary.

[Longinius 1]

"Explain how the Taliban had nothing to do with Al Queda, even though they were harboring them in their country as guests and were suffering multiple UN sanctions if they didn't get rid of UBL."

Just because they were harboring doesnt give anyone the right to start a war. Especially since I doubt the Taliban were even in a position to hand anyone over, especially an organisation like Al Queda.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They didn't control all of Afghanistan, but most of it.<span id='postcolor'>

This is another perfect example on how much you actually know about afghanistan.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 21 2003,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because they were harboring doesnt give anyone the right to start a war. Especially since I doubt the Taliban were even in a position to hand anyone over, especially an organisation like Al Queda.<span id='postcolor'>

They could of easilly told us where they were hiding and gotten out of it nicely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is another perfect example on how much you actually know about afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you going to argue something or just keep attacking me personally?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you going to argue something or just keep attacking me personally?<span id='postcolor'>

Argueing with you ? Good joke.

If you ever checked Afghanistan´s infrastructure and population density and have a quick look onto the afghanistan map and take into consideration the most parts of afghanistan have no telephone, TV or even radio and such you maybe will rethink your granted link between taliban and aq.

If there is a person in afghanistan that knows about every little aq camp or links between taliban regime and aq he must have a superbrain and a running government system plus the according up-to-date infrastructure and many many men to check this huge and hostile terrain.

As I said before you seem to lack info. Don´t turn it into a personal attack. No need for it.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 21 2003,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there is a person in afghanistan that knows about every little aq camp or links between taliban regime and aq he must have a superbrain and a running government system plus the according up-to-date infrastructure and many many men to check this huge and hostile terrain. <span id='postcolor'>

The Taliban obviously knew about Al Queda, they were under UN sanctions to get rid of them. If they had let us in to get UBL and his gang we wouldn't of had to bomb them. They probably wouldn't of even had to draw on a map and show us where they were, we could of found them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said before you seem to lack info. Don´t turn it into a personal attack. No need for it.<span id='postcolor'>

I posted a link before, I think that's enough info for my argument.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Has anyone seen this yet? If so, let me know and I will delete my post.  

Iraq, explained

LOL.

Tyler

[Longinius 1]

"The Taliban obviously knew about Al Queda, they were under UN sanctions to get rid of them. If they had let us in to get UBL and his gang we wouldn't of had to bomb them. They probably wouldn't of even had to draw on a map and show us where they were, we could of found them."

No, obviously they couldnt. Because you went in, bombed the shit out of the country, occupied it, and you STILL havent destroyed Al Queda or captured Bin Ladin. What makes you think you could have done it by just going in after him? You started a war over it, and you still cant do it.

[FSPilot 0]

You're saying that Al Queda is still a fully functional and operating organisation?

Not in Afghanistan they're not. Sure there's some resistance some places, but it's small and might not even be from terrorists. The thing about terrorist organisations is that they're not official. We're not going to receive a surrender from them. There won't be a clear end to this war.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Turkey ups the ante

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Turkish military wants to send thousands of troops into the [Kurdish] enclave to stem a potential refugee flow and to block any attempts by Iraqi Kurds to establish an independent state out of the turmoil of war.

<span id='postcolor'>

Looks like they're getting a head start on lighting the post-Saddam powder keg.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't that the same as saying Iraq does not pose a relevant threat to the USA?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know how to say it any clearer, so I repeat:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,04:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, just because WE'RE not directly threatened doesn't mean that we shouldn't act.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

I know how you can say it more clearly:  "Yes, Iraq does not pose a relevant threat to the USA.

(That wasn't so difficult, was it?)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please tell me why the UN hasn't already collapsed under the weight of alllllllllllllll those other resolutions (hundreds) that remain unenforced?<span id='postcolor'>

For all practical purposes it has collapsed.  Don't think so?<span id='postcolor'>

Nope.  But I can certainly understand why the world's only remaining superpower might wish to think so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While we're on the topic of unanswered questions, what's your take on the UN's ability to resolve the North Korean situation?<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't look to the UN to resolve such disputes.

Ok... now let's rewind the tape a bit...

E6Hotel:  Since we're so eager to discuss the repercussions of war on Iraq (heaven forbid we anger the terrorists )...

Bernadotte:  Anger the terrorists?  You must be joking.  Al-Qaida would rejoice.  The USA would be proving to all the world's would-be radicals that America is indeed the Great Satan.  Al-Quaida's numbers would skyrocket...

E6Hotel:  Glad you picked up on the sarcasm.  It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists.

Bernadotte:  I agree.  So why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists?

E6Hotel:  Err, what?  Read my sentence again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm... Did we touch a nerve or do we just need to lighten' up a bit?  <span id='postcolor'>

That depends on whether you really believe that trash you posted or you were just taking a cheap shot against my integrity.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I guess that answers my question.

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 20 2003,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Taliban obviously knew about Al Queda, they were under UN sanctions to get rid of them.  If they had let us in to get UBL and his gang we wouldn't of had to bomb them.  They probably wouldn't of even had to draw on a map and show us where they were, we could of found them.<span id='postcolor'>

We did bomb Talibans amongst other (err... I don't think my country's army did bomb, bc they didn't have units to do so, otherwise they would probably have). I know a war can't be clean, and that's precisely why we have to check out before doing so.

What were your reactions after 9/11 and all those innocents killed? Can't you imagine that Kabul innocents who lost relatives/neighbours are reacting the same way? Even if the attackers are only reacting to the acts perpetrated by pple in your own country, could you accept they bomb a whole area full of unrelated pple (and terrorist, btw, but that's not the problem)? The day I heard cluster bombs were launched over Kabul neighborhoods, I knew this war was LOST. If you repeat the same pattern in Iraq, you'll end w/ the same effects. Not a single step forward against terrorism, to say the least.

WMD are not the main weapon of terrorism, if they don't have them, they still can inflict a hell of damage. Their weapon is their pple. The more they have fanatics ready to die for the cause, the more damage they'll be able to inflict. And they have an incredible "fanatic spawning machine", using every single bit of grief pple could have against their ennemy. If you do not try to understand why some pple do not like you (and therefore can be "turned into" terrorist), and try to correct the situation, but prefer to say "we are right, others are wrong, and we'll continue on the same line", you won't solve anything. At least, plz, try to understand them.

That's for the "Iraq war is against terrorism" part. I find the "free Iraqi pple" a MUCH better reason for this war (and it'll better fit w/ USA "we free the world" motto). The main problem is to clearly state (and to be clearly understood) that :

- Saddam can't be removed by anything else than war

- No ingerance will be done after Saddam removal, the Iraqi pple will decide by themselves how they want to live. Permit me to be doubtful about this .

On a sidenote, you'll probably have seen than I'm french, and to come back on the Chirac topic, know that not every french agrees w/ his last remarks about eastern futur EU members. This seemed to me extremely arrogant and out of context.

Whis'

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't look to the UN to resolve such disputes.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, I wouldn't expect them to resolve any disputes either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok... now let's rewind the tape a bit...

E6Hotel:  Since we're so eager to discuss the repercussions of war on Iraq (heaven forbid we anger the terrorists )...

Bernadotte:  Anger the terrorists?  You must be joking.  Al-Qaida would rejoice.  The USA would be proving to all the world's would-be radicals that America is indeed the Great Satan.  Al-Quaida's numbers would skyrocket...

E6Hotel:  Glad you picked up on the sarcasm.  It's ridiculous to assert that we shouldn't act because we might offend terrorists.

Bernadotte:  I agree.  So why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists?

E6Hotel:  Err, what?  Read my sentence again.<span id='postcolor'>

What exactly is causing the confusion here?  Perhaps paraphrasing might help:

Me:  To say that we should not act against Iraq "because it might offend terrorists" is not a very good reason.  Insert "rolleyes" smiley to drive point home.

You:  I agree that the possibility of offending terrorists is not a valid reason to not take action against Iraq.  So why should you take action against Iraq, because it might offend terrorists?

Read it again.  Third time's the charm.

Semper Fi

[OxPecker 0]

Short question to FSPilot, Tex and E6Hotel -

Which of you believe the prime reason for attacking Iraq is to prevent possible distribution of WMDs to terrorists, and which do not?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 20 2003,23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What exactly is causing the confusion here?  Perhaps paraphrasing might help:

Me:  To say that we should not act against Iraq "because it might offend terrorists" is not a very good reason.  Insert "rolleyes" smiley to drive point home.

You:  I agree that the possibility of offending terrorists is not a valid reason to not take action against Iraq.  So why should you take action against Iraq, because it might offend terrorists?<span id='postcolor'>

Not quite.  I've tried to express that an invasion will not anger terrorists at all.  On the contrary, an invasion would be of great benefit to Al-Qaida.  I thought you agreed with this and, therefore, I asked "why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists (i.e. invade Iraq)?"

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,00:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Short question to FSPilot, Tex and E6Hotel -

Which of you believe the prime reason for attacking Iraq is to prevent possible distribution of WMDs to terrorists, and which do not?<span id='postcolor'>

Not.  If we attack it should be due to Iraq's perpetual breaching of UN resolutions.

As stated earlier, I personally think it's more immoral to permit Saddam's regime to continue, but that is an opinion and shouldn't be confused with a reason.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 21 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite.  I've tried to express that an invasion will not anger terrorists at all.  On the contrary, an invasion would be of great benefit to Al-Qaida.  I thought you agreed with this and, therefore, I asked "why do something that will be of great benefit to the terrorists (i.e. invade Iraq)?"<span id='postcolor'>

Well, at least we're ironing this one out.  I was referring to angry = provoke = attack.  You realize, of course, that this is how wars start.  

Semper Fi

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What were your reactions after 9/11 and all those innocents killed? Can't you imagine that Kabul innocents who lost relatives/neighbours are reacting the same way?<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so war is bad. We already know this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The day I heard cluster bombs were launched over Kabul neighborhoods, I knew this war was LOST. If you repeat the same pattern in Iraq, you'll end w/ the same effects. Not a single step forward against terrorism, to say the least.<span id='postcolor'>

The war in Afghanistan isn't over yet.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WMD are not the main weapon of terrorism, if they don't have them, they still can inflict a hell of damage. Their weapon is their pple. The more they have fanatics ready to die for the cause, the more damage they'll be able to inflict. And they have an incredible "fanatic spawning machine", using every single bit of grief pple could have against their ennemy. If you do not try to understand why some pple do not like you (and therefore can be "turned into" terrorist), and try to correct the situation, but prefer to say "we are right, others are wrong, and we'll continue on the same line", you won't solve anything. At least, plz, try to understand them.<span id='postcolor'>

I do understand them, so does my country. We also understand that we can't fix the problem. The only way these terrorists (at least Al Queda) are going to stop is if America is no more, and the whole world becomes muslim. That's not going to happen. You have to understand that the US doesn't just say "we are right, others are wrong, and we'll continue on the same line". But we're not going to change to their cooky and extremist demands.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 21 2003,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do understand them, so does my country.  We also understand that we can't fix the problem.  The only way these terrorists (at least Al Queda) are going to stop is if America is no more, and the whole world becomes muslim.  That's not going to happen.  You have to understand that the US doesn't just say "we are right, others are wrong, and we'll continue on the same line".  But we're not going to change to their cooky and extremist demands.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it would stop if they could see America was making a serious attempt to stop its meddling foreign policies. But that will never happen.

Terrorists attack you because you're not a muslim country? What a crock.

If that were the case, why aren't muslim extremists attacking Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Japan etc etc all the other non-muslim countries in the world?

Maybe all they want, deep down, is not to have America sticking it's nose into the middle east where it doesn't belong.

Note - I do not condone terrorism is any form, but IMHO it is important to undertsand what drives them to acts of terror.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it would stop if they could see America was making a serious attempt to stop its meddling foreign policies. But that will never happen.<span id='postcolor'>

Because we can't just back out of the rest of the world.  We're too connected.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorists attack you because you're not a muslim country? What a crock.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jihad

ji·had also je·had (j-häd)

n.

A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.

A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke†(Fortune).<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infidel

in·fi·del (nf-dl, -dl)

n.

An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

One who has no religious beliefs.

One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If that were the case, why aren't muslim extremists attacking Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Japan etc etc all the other non-muslim countries in the world?<span id='postcolor'>

There are.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 21 2003,02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it would stop if they could see America was making a serious attempt to stop its meddling foreign policies. But that will never happen.<span id='postcolor'>

Because we can't just back out of the rest of the world.  We're too connected.<span id='postcolor'>

You can be involved without the reeking foreign policies and bullyboy attitude that has so soured the world on the USA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorists attack you because you're not a muslim country? What a crock.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jihad

ji·had also je·had (j-häd)

n.

A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.

A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke†(Fortune).<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infidel

in·fi·del (nf-dl, -dl)

n.

An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

One who has no religious beliefs.

One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Nice definitions - point being? If they have declared jihad against America it is hardly because of your religious beliefs, but because of your country's interference. To simplify it to "they hate us because we aren't muslim" is at best an inaccuracy, at worst an out-and-out lie.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If that were the case, why aren't muslim extremists attacking Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Japan etc etc all the other non-muslim countries in the world?<span id='postcolor'>

There are.<span id='postcolor'>

Really? The press seem to be keeping awfully quiet about these attacks. Like to give me some examples?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can be involved without the reeking foreign policies and bullyboy attitude that has so soured the world on the USA.<span id='postcolor'>

No, you need to think about it from someone elses point of view. Say we're giving aid to one country, but to stay in budget (yeah right, i know i know, just hypothetical) we have to take 3 billion dollars out of foreign aid from another country. That's going to piss off a lot of people from one country, while making people from another country very happy. Get my drift?

In other words, we can't make everyone happy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice definitions - point being? If they have declared jihad against America it is hardly because of your religious beliefs, but because of your country's interference.<span id='postcolor'>

A jihad, by definition, is a war waged due to religious beliefs. It is a religious war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really? The press seem to be keeping awfully quiet about these attacks. Like to give me some examples?<span id='postcolor'>

What difference does it make? They said they've declared a jihad on the US, which is by defintion a religious war. It's a crusade.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 21 2003,03<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice definitions - point being? If they have declared jihad against America it is hardly because of your religious beliefs, but because of your country's interference.<span id='postcolor'>

A jihad, by definition, is a war waged due to religious beliefs.  It is a religious war.<span id='postcolor'>

BACK FROM BANISHMENT!

Actually that is NOT the definition. Having studied the concept of "jihad" in my religion class (with 3 different translations of the Qu'ran for reference), and more importantly, the western misconception of the term, I can tell you it means much more than that.

"Jihad" literally means "to struggle." It is one of the main pillars of the muslim faith. "Jihad" can take any form of struggling, whether it to be a rightous man, or care for your family, or any number of daily "struggles" that you or I go through.

A "jihad" in a military context means to struggle against those that are oppressing you, and certainly can be viewed as a struggle against the US. But also it is mentioned as only a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted, going so far in one passage to basically say "is not the world large enough? if you are being oppressed then move."

The Qu'ran also strictly forbids war based on religion, and even tells to live in peace with others of different beliefs. Pre-Crusades the Moors did just that, giving Christians, and Jews alike freedom of worship in areas in which they conquered. Only after the Europeans launched the Crusades, was religious freedom curtailed.

EDIT: Spelling and to mention I have my research paper on it around here somewhere. If you are interested I can email it (Word file).