War against terror

[stgn 39]

@ July 08 2005,01:25)]

About vietnam, wasen't the biggset problem the US public rather than the forces they where fighting?

STGN

Who are Vietnameese anyway?

You ment South? The communists from north? Vietmin? South Vietnameese goverment? Clearyfy what you mean, because if you say "Vietnameese" it means nothing to me.

I mean I could try and guess, but in your nomenclature there were only one Vietnameese, who were all coimmunists and were terrorised by US...

The truth is that Vietnameese - both north and south - suffered alot from Vietcong too. The Communists organised massacres to terrorise and indoctrinate. They also used tortures to elliminate political opposition among their own nation.

The people in South Vietnam didn't care about Ammericans and commies at all. All they ever wanted was their fields and villages. It was Vietcong that came and terrorised them, stole their rice, indocteinated, took their men by force and incorporated them into their army. Then the Americans came and burned down what was left...

It was not a war between Vietnam and USA. It was a war between US together with South vietnam and the communists from North Vietnam.

The main problem in Vietnam was the lack of political conception on how to solve the crisis. The US goverment didn't wanted the conflict to escalate like it happened in Corea and so it restricted their military not to attack various targets, such as Hanoi port or airfields where Migs were deployed, and for some time even SAM launchers(!, because they were affraid that if they kill a military advisor from SU or PRC then the country would strike back. Later it was shown that many of NVA Migs were piloted by Chineese or Soviet "volunteers" anyway, but that's a different story. And on the other hand there were hippies (yay! who demanded all the soldiers to be moved out and the "american agression on Vietnam" to be stopped... So the army was limited from striking military targets or assaulting towns, while at the same time they didn't have enough people to effeciently wipe Vietcong out of Villages and cut their food supply.

As for the SV goverment - It'd be good if they DID install a puppet goverment. One of their biggest mistakes was leaving the corrupted and decayed SV politics and military leaders who didn't give a damn about neither their nation or the war going on - they stole the help recived from US...

The war was lost, maybe even before it started - due to the politicians and the communist repressions and terror taht followed the NV victory were awfull.

That's it about Vietnam and please don't bring this up. You misinterpret facts in both cases to show the terrorers as crystal clean freedom fighters.

BTW. There were terrorist strikes in Saigon using bombs in public places.

So please don't say  "Vietnameese", "Iraqi people" 'cuz I see you don't realise what you're talking about.

In the case of VGietnam you feel for communist propaganda (sorry, but I'm from Poland and we don't like them here - simply because it's an hearthless and merciless ideology), and you're just repeating their old thessis instead of getting a clear look on how it was.

Wonder from which country you are... Usually you can tell what people think based on that.

I don't want to get into quarrels. Last time it was someone who tried to blame terrorism on religion, now someone blames it on the US.

I don't belive I have said Vietnameese I said Vietnam refering to the Vietnam war in which the US fought.

I don't feel for comunist I don't like them at all what I meant was that because the US citicens didn't liked to have thier sons killed they wanted them home, I was thinking that because of this the troops needed to fight the comunist where they should had been fought, on the ground and not from the skies, was not there.

About parralells i don't think they are so valurable to judge a situation in progress because it is all up to the individual person how he understands them, what value he gives them.

STGN

[Panda-PL- 0]

I didn't say you did.

(Now taht I red it - it looks like I adressed You, but I dind't intend to).

That was concerning Appollo's "pararells" :

Quote[/b] ]Actually ,iraq is SERIOUSLY going wrong ,personaly i have read a number of books on the Vietnam war for ex. ,and i can draw important parrallells between both conflicts.

The most important parallel of all however is that ,just like in Vietnam ,the Iraqi's don't want the Americans there ,neither do they want to be forced with goverment that they do not want.

and the letter was to him. I quoted You because I agreed with your words

I don't think he understood it all right if he draws such conclussions about Vietnam (and Iraq too).

Sorry for the mess STGN. I agree to what you said.

[Apollo 0]

I think the attitude of the public on the street summed it up...

"We've seen it all before"

I got text messages off my friends such as 'Fucking terrorists have made me late for work!'

It was nice to see people acting calmly and sensibly, instead of running around like headless chickens.

I'm watching Condoleeza Rice bleating on about how now Brits know how the US feels! We've had 50 bloody years of it, just from different enemies.

We'll deal with it as we always have..... Sensibly.

I'm happy lots of Brits can nuancate these attacks and put them into perspective.

I was not surprized to see that the reaction of the USA against this perceived hughe threat was much more irrational and emotional than it was for the Brittish.It does remind me of the Cuban missile crises ,while East germany had been under constant threat from the USSR both unconventionaly and conventionally by a hughe land army sitting at its border for decade's ,the American public went Beserk with a few nukes placed in close range ,it seems the USA is much less reseliant against attacks on it's home soil than most of Europe seems to be ,on the other hand while the USA have been able to put themself in safe isolation for more than a 100 year Europe was always the center of almost constant war and security was always illusive for any european country.

I think there is a distincive difference in mindset when it comes to the USA and many European country's on the matter of warfare.While Europe have felt much of the consequences of hughe scale warfare at home ,when it came to WW1 and WW2 the USA could always campaign from a virtually secure homeland to a conflict abroad ,wich it could win with not a to hughe cost in terms of manpower and finances compared to it's potential.For Europe these wars were much more devastating ,a much higher amount of manpower lost for the country's involved ,same for infastructure ,and a victory that was illusive ,it's costs often to great.

The result is that Europe is genneraly much more weary of war ,having fought bloody conflicts in wich even the winner lost more than it gained.Compared to the USA wich actually gained a lot in WW1 and 2 ,both these wars eventually made the USA the dominating power in the world ,their victory's wern't illusive ,and the USA might have gotten the impression it could gain a lot with it's power ,while in Europe the merrits of war would have been much less if compared to the results at home.Well the hughe difference here was that the USA came as liberator's.

Even the vietnam war didn't learn the American's much about involving oneself in a conflict where their input is really not wanted.Much Americans still think the USA could have won that war if not for some "cowards" ,that failed to give the finnishing blow.

I think this is the big difference between europe and the USA ,and also somewhat between Europe and the UK ,continentel Europe didn't came out as victor's from both world wars ,and might look at war more as something were it's hard to get any possitive effects from.The UK and te USA on the other hand were more constant victor's ,and for them war migth seem a easy way to get their wishes done in this war.

1. What do you base that on? Being more used to somthing is not that same as understanding.

2. You mean west germany right? Also years its very starnge that the US didn't like to have the russians suddenly being able to nuke em thats not stange at all. German's coundn't realy do enything about the russian army and problery learnt to live with it. The american's could do somthing about and offcause they did I think eny Nation set in that situation would have done somthing simular.

3. You problery right but it has never stoped us from killing each other now here your history could problery draw some paralells my dad prity offens says that the situation we have to day resemblens the state we had before WW1 and says that i might expirence a Inter European war in my life time.

4. I belive that if meany of the US troops in vietnam had not been withdrawn and instead started the massive bombing of  the north the US had, had a chance of winning but it would offcause had cost them meany lives.

5. Offcause they are different and the British have thier own Island for a reason but honestly I don't think that central europe look at war as a much worser think than the the US and UK its more a political thing and that Europe is more socialistic than the USA and the reasons the US fight for is not the same as a Socialist would fight for.

STGN

on 1: dont understand what youre trying to ask here.Can i prove my oppinions fully with facts?No afcourse not ,hence an oppinion ,but i read a lot of history ,so i have a lot of precendents to draw comparisons to.No it's not perfect but since this is a discussion board oppinions go freely as they should.Btw ,never feel youreself less because i feel my oppinion is more correct than yours ,such discussions can never rach a consencus accepted by everyone ,so no oppinion ism ore proven tur than an other most of the times.

on 2: yes sorry i meant West Germany.

The reaction of the USA wasn't that strange at all ,that is not my point ,the importance is the amount of fear it spread among the poppulation of the USA ,people were really heavily frightend and upset in the USA by this move of Russia ,more than any western civilian would have ever been from such a move.Even Kruchev addmited ,long after the incident ,that he never expected such a hefty reaction of the American public against this move ,he didn't supect the USA would have been so frightend.The consequence however is that this has influenced the politics of the USA ,as it's poppulation is the ellectoral decider.In other words it shows that the American poppulation is easier to frighten and thus more easy to win for an forcefull reaction than the poppulation in europe might be ,i think the attacks in London today showed that to some extent.

on 3:Actually i could find less important parallels to the current situation in Europe now and that one before WW1.Most importantly there isn't such a military buildup beteen various European nations as it was before WW1 ,and there isnt so much competition between european major's worldwide as there was before WW1 where when the European nations were colonial superpowers.Neither is there a formation of systems of alliances like there was bfore WW1 ,actually most European country's these days are part of NATO.neither are there many oppresed nationality' these days in europe ,wichwas much different before WW with such constructions as for ex. Austria-Hungary.(and note that it was the assasination of the Austrian Kaiser that started it all)

Top it off with mutual interrests on the levels of trade and employment ,due to globalization ,and i would say there are actually very few parrallels to the situation of Europe before world war one ,if not none.

on 4:Actually ,a staggering amount of bombs were thrown on North Vietnam during the vietnam war ,and by staggering i mean that tghe amount of bombs was even hughe compared the amount of bombs thrown over the whole course of WW2 by allied bombers.So staggering was the amount of bombs ,and yet it nver amouted to much neither ,it deffinatly changed few to the war capabilety's of North vietnam ,most casualty's were civilian ,the industry's were irrelevant anyway ,same for much of te transport infrastructure.the actual result was that the bombings of civilians only made more recruits for the North vietnamese costs ,and to top it off US casualty's of bombers in the war were quite substantial ,those north vietnamese AA gunners were no amatuers.

5: You could have a point ,however one must analyse first why Europe has turned that socialist and pay that % of their BNP to social programs that other country's ,like the USA ,might use for upkeeping a larger millitary.Deffinatly many Western country's were much less socialist before WW1 and WW2.

[General Barron 0]

Okay, this kind of speech is old news, but it never fails to make me shake my head. Here we have the old argument: "Well, it was wrong, but it was the British's (or Americans, or Spainiards...) fault because...".

From the article: Arab world condemns London blasts

Quote[/b] ]The Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought in London, Dr Azam al-Tamimi, while condemning the bombings as barbaric, took the opportunity to criticise leader Blair.

"If there is some party that should be held accountable for killing the innocent and spreading terror and chaos among the British people, it should be the government of Tony Blair," al-Tamimi told Aljazeera.

He said it was a combination of what the British prime minister and his government had done that led to this disaster.

Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan, the abuse of Muslim detainees by British soldiers in Belmarsh prison in London and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and even the latest utterances of Blair on his return from Singapore after winning the bid for 2012 Olympics, against "extremists", which al-Tamimi said was a veiled reference to Muslim organisations, all contributed to the blasts.

So let me get this straight... we shouldn't blame the terrorists, we should blame Blair. I guess his policies "forced" the terrorists to kill total innocents who had nothing to do with what he is complaining about. Yup.

Like I said, this argument isn't really new. We've been hearing it since 9/11. And unfortunately it doesn't seem to be limited to (legal) Islamic extremists either. But it never ceases to astound me.

You know what? Maybe it is time that the civillized world starts following this logic. I mean, using his logic, the British should then go blow up a bus in Saudi Arabia, Palestine, or some other Muslim country. Hell, the US might as well just Nuke the entire middle east.

After all, middle eastern terrorists have killed us, so that gives us the right to kill anybody from the middle east, right? I'm just using the same logic that this idiot and idiots like him have used to justify such atrocities.

And don't give me any crap about "oh, well you guys do that stuff already". Give me ONE specific incident recently in which US or British troops knowingly, intentionally killed innocent civillians under orders passed down from high command.

[miles teg 1]

What is a car?

It's only a mechanical contraption for transportation.

Would that be a correct answer?

It only depends on what you are seeking. Do you seek a simple straightforward answer or an overly elaborated one like a thesis. Sorry for my bedroom sunday school approach for i am not writing a thesis or to impress but to only simply show a point of view. However neither is yours a thesis in your deluded sense of granduer in pushing someone down with uncalled for comments. It may be your barbaric style but it is certainly my right to let you know i dont accept your crappy style and find it utterly reprehensible, unbefitting of a civilise man.

Now, to really go indepth into the history will need more than a simple post here, so you are therefore deluded if you think that post of yours will give the entirety of the historical conflict that was created by Hitler.

I do find your post tiresome and did not read it in its entirety as i had a hard time keeping up with your deluded and unstructured opinions, but i guess even a monkey has an opinion, which i shall leave you to your delusions, though i doubt sincerly if you are adding any thing much to the topic.

Woe....Philcommando....put down the mushrooms dude.  LOL!  Waaaay too philosophical and way too little solutions.  

I disagree completely that fanatical ideologies can't be tamed with words.  They most certainly can if those words are delivered in a manner and with a message that is more appealing to the masses.

Osama Bin Laden IS NOT Islam.  However, the more we attack violently Islamic nations in an effort to kill terrorists (or for whatever reason....oil maybe?) the more we fuel his ideology.  Its not so different as an escalating crisis in a marriage in which both sides spend every day fighting and belittling each other and trying to "get back" at the other with nasty remarks and actions until eventually one blows up and either acts violently (usually the guy) or one decides to file for divorce.

In this case, there is no divorce possible short of ethnic cleansing and isolating the Islamic world. But the violence has already begun.   Fortunately however there is a possibility for some marriage counceling.  

Is that philosophical enough?  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Okay, this kind of speech is old news, but it never fails to make me shake my head.

"Blame yourselves" logic.

Love that 'ol "Gimme a cookie or I'll beat my little sister up" logic. Allways in fashion. You don't give 'em a cookie - the blame is yours, not theirs.

[miles teg 1]

Okay, this kind of speech is old news, but it never fails to make me shake my head. Here we have the old argument: "Well, it was wrong, but it was the British's (or Americans, or Spainiards...) fault because...".

From the article: Arab world condemns London blasts

Quote[/b] ]The Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought in London, Dr Azam al-Tamimi, while condemning the bombings as barbaric, took the opportunity to criticise leader Blair.

"If there is some party that should be held accountable for killing the innocent and spreading terror and chaos among the British people, it should be the government of Tony Blair," al-Tamimi told Aljazeera.

He said it was a combination of what the British prime minister and his government had done that led to this disaster.

Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan, the abuse of Muslim detainees by British soldiers in Belmarsh prison in London and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and even the latest utterances of Blair on his return from Singapore after winning the bid for 2012 Olympics, against "extremists", which al-Tamimi said was a veiled reference to Muslim organisations, all contributed to the blasts.

So let me get this straight... we shouldn't blame the terrorists, we should blame Blair. I guess his policies "forced" the terrorists to kill total innocents who had nothing to do with what he is complaining about. Yup.

Like I said, this argument isn't really new. We've been hearing it since 9/11. And unfortunately it doesn't seem to be limited to (legal) Islamic extremists either. But it never ceases to astound me.

You know what? Maybe it is time that the civillized world starts following this logic. I mean, using his logic, the British should then go blow up a bus in Saudi Arabia, Palestine, or some other Muslim country. Hell, the US might as well just Nuke the entire middle east.

After all, middle eastern terrorists have killed us, so that gives us the right to kill anybody from the middle east, right? I'm just using the same logic that this idiot and idiots like him have used to justify such atrocities.

And don't give me any crap about "oh, well you guys do that stuff already". Give me ONE specific incident recently in which US or British troops knowingly, intentionally killed innocent civillians under orders passed down from high command.

General Baron, don't pick out one British Muslim and consider him a spokesperson for Islam cuz he's not. You will find all manner of opinions in the Islamic world concerning terrorism and the cause of it.

However from a cold logical view, the UK allied itself with the US invasion of Iraq and thus is now a fair game for terrorists or at least a higher priority target. It is true that you have some wackos in France still trying to blow stuff up just because their pissed off over that hajab (head scarf) issue but the vast majority of French Muslims have resoundingly agreed to not react with violence against the rulings of the French government against wearing Hijabs in government run facilities and schools.

They even petitioned successfully for the release of those French journalists in Iraq.

It would not surprise me if the wannabe terrorists in France were caught with the assistance of French Muslims.

<sarcasm alert>

But if you are of age and you are physically fit, you are welcome to join the military and go kill some A-rabs in Iraq if you're American or British and are really feeling some bloodlust. Once you get that feeling of deep hatred and lust for killing Muslims, you will then get in touch with these deepr savage emotions that drive some of these terrorists to kill non-Muslims and even fellow Muslims (even though killing civilians and fellow Muslims is expressely forbidden in Islam). Revenge is allowed (under certain judicial limits but terrorists just ignore that)....and this feeling of revenge and twisted interpretation of Jihad gives strength to that blood lust and hatred. So if you want to give in to those same feelings, hey its open season on Iraqis right now if you want to go there as a security consultant and without worry of getting arrested, go and murder as many Iraqis (sorry I mean terrorists) as you want to. Maybe it will make you feel better getting some Arab blood on your hands? YOu could make it real good and maybe like disembowel them and pull out all their intestines....maybe debrain some babies? Stick some people under tank treads? Take off some arms and limbs? Torture some before murdering them? Come on why not? They torture and behead Westerners and blow us up in horrific ways. Maybe we should be like the Serbs and go on a raping spree not only killing Iraqis but raping their women and then killing them in retaliation for the bombings?

But you are right..nuking is much less messy. Nothing like just BBQ'ing all those already sun-BBQ'ed filthy brown savages with a few big ass nukes! That would feel good wouldn't it?

We could sell terrorist ashes on EBAY then as souvenirs in sealed glass/lead containers.

Ah yes... what fun it would be...we could have A-rab safaris and make hunting Muslims a sport! Think of the great tourist money and huge supply of Muslims to hunt! We could start with the ones in our own countries and send them to game ranches. With all Americans owning guns, it would be great fun and a superb capitalist endeavor making money from terrorists. The Muslim little ones would make smaller targets and hide easier so bonus points for killing then. But our hunting dogs would snuff them out and rip them to shreds if we don't get the satisfaction of blowing them away first. We could tack up their skins on our walls and make lamp shades and boots from their skins!

Their meat...well they're filthy savages but maybe we could turn their meat into cheap dog food! Hell yeah!

Purina ex-Muslim Chow. We could also bring back gladiator tournaments and feed them to lions and bears and packs of really hungry pit bulls. Think of the entertainment value!!! Hey it would be something to get our children away from all that damn artificial killing on their computers and X-Boxes. They could see the real thing and see how to treat Muslims.

What say you good Christian gentlemen? Shall we throw out the New Testament and just go Old SchoolTestament on their asses? Come on Jesus was just a hippy anyways. Not like he was God or anything right?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Apollo 0]

@ July 08 2005,02:25)]

Well Panda since youre reply was directed to me ill take time to reply to it ,last one for now as i have to go to sleep soon.

Quote[/b] ]

Who are Vietnameese anyway?

You ment South? The communists from north? Vietmin? South Vietnameese goverment? Clearyfy what you mean, because if you say "Vietnameese" it means nothing to me.

Vietnamese ,as in inhabitant born in vietnam ,of Vietnamese origin.South vietnam was an artificial construction ,but there was a nvietnamese nationalistic movement where most Vietnamese felt symphaty to ,wich can already be seen in the times of French colonialism in Vietnam.

Quote[/b] ]The truth is that Vietnameese - both north and south - suffered alot from Vietcong too. The Communists organised massacres to terrorise and indoctrinate. They also used tortures to elliminate political opposition among their own nation.

The people in South Vietnam didn't care about Ammericans and commies at all. All they ever wanted was their fields and villages. It was Vietcong that came and terrorised them, stole their rice, indocteinated, took their men by force and incorporated them into their army. Then the Americans came and burned down what was left...

It was not a war between Vietnam and USA. It was a war between US together with South vietnam and the communists from North Vietnam.

I'm not going to glorify Communism or the NVA ,iim no communist myself ,and from what i read of books on the Cultural revolution in china ,i have few symphaty to the idioligy.

Where did the Vietnamese care for? 2 thing's: Their lands and crops ,and an unified Vietnam ,the first being most dominant.The problem in Vietnam was ,just like in china before the Chinese civil war ,that the agruicultural system was still much fuedal with poor peasants and rich landlords.The ordinary Vietnamese wanted land reforms ,and South vietnam never managed to get them trough ,for an ordinary farmer therefore the communist system looked much more ideal ,atleast they thought it could prevent mass famine.This is one of the foremost reason of the failure of South vietnam ,and it was also a major factor in the Guomingdang's loss agaisnt Communist China.

Afcourse here there are few parallels to Iraq ,but this is besides my points.Furthermore you might interpret that my view onthe vientam war is skewed by the generalizations i make ,but i merely make these generalizations to avoid having to write a whole history book on Vietnam here to put it in detail.

Quote[/b] ]The main problem in Vietnam was the lack of political conception on how to solve the crisis. The US goverment didn't wanted the conflict to escalate like it happened in Corea and so it restricted their military not to attack various targets, such as Hanoi port or airfields where Migs were deployed, and for some time even SAM launchers(!, because they were affraid that if they kill a military advisor from SU or PRC then the country would strike back. Later it was shown that many of NVA Migs were piloted by Chineese or Soviet "volunteers" anyway, but that's a different story. And on the other hand there were hippies (yay! who demanded all the soldiers to be moved out and the "american agression on Vietnam" to be stopped... So the army was limited from striking military targets or assaulting towns, while at the same time they didn't have enough people to effeciently wipe Vietcong out of Villages and cut their food supply.

Actually the main problem was the US involvement in the first place.Why did they involve themselfs? Because the USA leaders thought the fall of Vietnm to communists would lead to a domino effect in the rest of South-East Asia ,and this had to be prevented.But the real domino threat was never actually there.

Once in the war there was no way to win ,and IMO those that think that USA could have ever won the Vietnam war are wrong ,and many historians would agree with me ,try Barbara Tuchman for one.Even if backing down from escalation would have been the problem ,wouldn't engaging then in the escalation only have ment even more people to fight against?

Quote[/b] ]As for the SV goverment - It'd be good if they DID install a puppet goverment. One of their biggest mistakes was leaving the corrupted and decayed SV politics and military leaders who didn't give a damn about neither their nation or the war going on - they stole the help recived from US...

Well ... i agree that the SV goverment was most corrupt and unworthy.However ,for the USA there wasn't much of an alternative than that goverment ,if none.

Quote[/b] ]That's it about Vietnam and please don't bring this up.

I got the right to discuss about what i want here as long it is withing the lines of the rules.

Quote[/b] ]ou misinterpret facts in both cases to show the terrorers as crystal clean freedom fighters.

I do notthing of this sort ,and this comment is even somewhat insultuous.I never agreed to what terrorists do ,i havn't made the link to any current terrorism groups and any so called freedom movement.I was talking about parallels between the Vietnam and Iraq war ,plz don't misuse my words to create a slur usefull for dismissing my oppinions as worthless.

If you can't debate fairly then don't.And neither do you hav to paternalize me ,as if it was a fact that youre views are obviously correct and mine obviously faulty ,oppinions are oppinions and as for now i have respected yours even if i didn't agree with them.

If you fail to discuss with me on reasonable terms ill start to shun you.

Quote[/b] ]BTW. There were terrorist strikes in Saigon using bombs in public places.

But then the Vietnamese were never called terrorists ,neither would anyone dare to say these days that the nationalist movement that united Vietnam was one based purely on warfare by terrorism on the bases of religious fanatism.

Besides ,Vietnamese strapped bombs to their body's often and ran with it into command posts to blow them up ,kinda terrorist like to ,but then it's not much different from a japanese VAL crashing itself with a few 500kg bombs on an aircraft carrier ,at these times such ways were merely perceived as vertical warfare.

Quote[/b] ]So please don't say "Vietnameese", "Iraqi people" 'cuz I see you don't realise what you're talking abou

I don't understand what you want to say here.Do you have trouble's making a disticntion between an inhabitant of Vietnam and one of Iraq??? Or do you want to say there is no such thing as an "Iraqi"? I can agree on the last one ,but this dismisses few of my oppinions ,as i already stated in a previous reply that the difference here between Vietnam and Iraq was that there was a general nationalist movement in Vietnam ,and regional sepperatists movements in Iraq ,but in the end the consequences for the US installed puppet regime are about the same.

Quote[/b] ]In the case of VGietnam you feel for communist propaganda (sorry, but I'm from Poland and we don't like them here - simply because it's an hearthless and merciless ideology), and you're just repeating their old thessis instead of getting a clear look on how it was.Wonder from which country you are... Usually you can tell what people think based on that.

WTH are you talking about??? Wich communist propaganda? i could care less for communism ,and i acknowledge that Communism effectivly resulted in mass famines and failed industrial projects in many country's that it was implemented to.Again i find such remarks somewhat insulting ,you twist and misinterpretate my words and make conclusions out of it that are far from the truth ,if not illogical to.

Quote[/b] ]I don't want to get into quarrels. Last time it was someone who tried to blame terrorism on religion, now someone blames it on the US.

Dude ,what i was saying was that the situation in Iraq is becoming unmanagable for the USA ,for reasons where i drew parallels to the Vietnam war to.That is very far away from saying that the USA is to blame for terrorism.

Quote[/b] ]Back then when I was a kid I was affraid to sleep because I thought there was a monster in my closet waitin for me to close my eyes. Right now I don't belive in monsters. Real monsters don't hide in your closet. No. And they are not affraid of being seen. They walk around in full light and they are more scarry then I could imagine back then.

OK ,ellaborate what you want to mean with this symbolism in this context ,im not getting youre point here.

[Garcia 0]

Okay, this kind of speech is old news, but it never fails to make me shake my head. Here we have the old argument: "Well, it was wrong, but it was the British's (or Americans, or Spainiards...) fault because...".

From the article: Arab world condemns London blasts

Quote[/b] ]The Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought in London, Dr Azam al-Tamimi, while condemning the bombings as barbaric, took the opportunity to criticise leader Blair.

"If there is some party that should be held accountable for killing the innocent and spreading terror and chaos among the British people, it should be the government of Tony Blair," al-Tamimi told Aljazeera.

He said it was a combination of what the British prime minister and his government had done that led to this disaster.

Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan, the abuse of Muslim detainees by British soldiers in Belmarsh prison in London and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and even the latest utterances of Blair on his return from Singapore after winning the bid for 2012 Olympics, against "extremists", which al-Tamimi said was a veiled reference to Muslim organisations, all contributed to the blasts.

So let me get this straight... we shouldn't blame the terrorists, we should blame Blair. I guess his policies "forced" the terrorists to kill total innocents who had nothing to do with what he is complaining about. Yup.

Like I said, this argument isn't really new. We've been hearing it since 9/11. And unfortunately it doesn't seem to be limited to (legal) Islamic extremists either. But it never ceases to astound me.

You know what? Maybe it is time that the civillized world starts following this logic. I mean, using his logic, the British should then go blow up a bus in Saudi Arabia, Palestine, or some other Muslim country. Hell, the US might as well just Nuke the entire middle east.

After all, middle eastern terrorists have killed us, so that gives us the right to kill anybody from the middle east, right? I'm just using the same logic that this idiot and idiots like him have used to justify such atrocities.

And don't give me any crap about "oh, well you guys do that stuff already". Give me ONE specific incident recently in which US or British troops knowingly, intentionally killed innocent civillians under orders passed down from high command.

Of course, if US and UK didn't attack Iraq or anyone else, there would be less danger of terrorism, but there would still be terrorism against UK and US sooner or later...after all, 9/11 was what triggered the "War on terror", and therefor, quite obviously, was before al the reasons made by that guy...and blaming Blair directly is just silly...he may have had some bad calls now and then and stuff like that, but it's still the terrorists and the terrorist organisations that's to blame.

Quote[/b] ]Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan, the abuse of Muslim detainees by British soldiers in Belmarsh prison in London and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and even the latest utterances of Blair on his return from Singapore after winning the bid for 2012 Olympics, against "extremists", which al-Tamimi said was a veiled reference to Muslim organisations, all contributed to the blasts.

I can bet my ass that this would have come with only the invasion of Iraq...and even if UK wasn't in Iraq, this would have come sooner or later...

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]He said it was a combination of what the British prime minister and his government had done that led to this disaster.

I'm just using the same logic that this idiot and idiots like him have used to justify such atrocities.

He is not justifying it. He is calling it a disaster.

[denoir 0]

From the "Terrorist attack on London" thread:

Panda[PL]:

Quote[/b] ]Anyway you don't have any evidence to prove your point on religion EITHER, so you're just makeing a fool of yourself in public calling it bullshit.

Evidence of what? That religion was a motivating factor behind the attack? Well, why don't you do yourself a favour and read the statement of those that have claimed responsibility of the attack:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660391.stm

It starts with

"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Quote[/b] ]If you find reason for brutalitty and murders in religion then you must be the king of fools.

It's ok, you don't have to call me "Lord".

Quote[/b] ]Most mass murders in 20'th century were made by declared atheists.

First of all, that isn't true. The only declared atheists were the Soviets and the Nazis outdid them in murder. That is however besides the point - you need to polish your English or your logic - I never said religion was the only reason for people murdering each other. There are plenty of reasons, but throughout history religion has been a constant source of armed conflict and outright murder.

Quote[/b] ]Anyways you don't respect anyone but yourself and in fact I'd sooner see you then myself as a potential terrorer.

Did God appear to tell you this revelation about me or please tell me how you deduced it? I respect quite a lot of people and a lot of ideas. Belief in ghosts, alien abductions, fairies, horoscopes, religion etc are nonsense that I don't respect. I do also respect a number of religious people as well, but of course because of other factors - not because their religious beliefs.

Quote[/b] ]You definitely don't know the subject.

I don't know religion? Did your horoscope tell you that, or what do you base that statement on?

Quote[/b] ]Is anyone who doesn't agree with you an "idiot"?

Is everyting you do not agree with "bullshit"?

Is everyone on this world a morron because you're the smartest and You have bought the Monophol For Truth?

Yes, that's exactly it. I don't agree with say Nazism, which means that I hate everything in the world and everybody but me is a moron. And in a minute I'll be off killing you all. Spot on. Your powers of deduction are a credit to man kind.

Quote[/b] ]Who the hell gave him the right to judge the others?

God? No, wait, right, I don't believe in him. Could it be reason? Could it be independent thinking? Nothing a little inquisition can't cure me of. Hilarious statement by the way by a religious person.

Quote[/b] ]I don't want to be thrown in one bag with fanatical terrorers because I go to the church.

I'm not saying anything about you, but I have no reason to believe that you are an irrational homicidal fanatic. Only by your statements that you are irrational. And how religious are you? Have you been killing people working on Sunday recently?

Exodus 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death."

Should I really be respectful of an ideology that advocates the killing of people choosing to work on Sunday (Saturday for Judaism)?

Anyway, I'm not going to debate theology here, but the fact remains that religion is the main motivational factor for these terrorists that have been very active in killing civilians for the last decade. The main final goal of the islamists is the reinstatement of the caliphate i.e an islamic theocracy. They have a huge potential recruitment base as the people in the islamic countries today are strongly religious. If you have blind and irrational faith in something, you can easily be pushed into a more radical and in some cases homicidal direction. If you on religious grounds believe that people who curse Allah should be killed (law in many Muslim countries), then it isn't a big step to take to believe that people who don't respect Allah should be killed as well (i.e all the "infidels").

[Bernadotte 0]

I can bet my ass that this would have come with only the invasion of Iraq...and even if UK wasn't in Iraq, this would have come sooner or later...

Ok, let's bet your postcount.

If the next European or North American country to be struck by an Al Qaida terrorist attack did not participate in the Iraqi invasion you will get 140 of my post count.

However, if the next European or North American country to be struck by an Al Qaida terrorist attack did participate in the Iraqi invasion I will get 140 of your post count.

Given that the majority of European and North American countries did not participate in the Iraqi invasion, the odds should favour you greatly, right?

What do ya say?  

Edit: I'm able and willing to make the same bet with up to 9 others. Any takers?

[Panda-PL- 0]

What I mean all the time is that we all have a tendency to generalise.

1) Muslims - we (some) say "muslims this", "muslims that". But there are different people among muslims. Some really are against any form of violence and don't blame terrorism on western countries, some do blame west, but admit that the terrorers themselves are more at blame. Some do support terrorers - but that's minority.

The rest cannot fight that minority because if anyone does so he'll be accused of supporting Americans - that's why they do not dare to do so, even through they do not accept violence.

2) True that there were communists among South Vietnamiese, yet it changed in some cases when VC started to terrorise them and steal their food. Of course they were hopeing for changes, but after seeing VC in action at least some of them must have changed their minds. Truth is they really werent interested in politics, besides that they didn't like to pay taxes. There were many who from ideological reasons joined VC, but there was also many who were on the US side - because of the hatered towards communists.

3) Iraqi's don't speak with one voice. The amount of newly formed military is increasing and the "puppet" goverment has many supporters. What worries me is the differences among the nation that cause most fights - and the supporting of the US is used as a justification for ones to fight another (You already pointed taht out - there is no Iraquian nation).

I know You know that (You do know a lot about Vietnam, just that it's hard to write it all down on BBS, so You ommited alot), just wanted to point it out.

What I mean is not to put all the Iraquis/Muslims/Vietnameese into one bag. It's not only about You, but alot of people say something about "Arabies" or "Muslims" - and that's misleading.(see the article posted above and the comments).

I'm also ommiting alot.

Just after your last post I'm starting to catch your drift, and in many places I got You wrong.

I did mentioned communist propaganda as it had a great impact on hippie movements. That's a dark shadow that casts over the beatifull legend - but that's way offtopic, sorry.

Yes I do know that Vietnamiese (majority of inhabitants of Vietnam) wanted independence, but I think that communists were just useing that and the Vietnam after the war wasn't obviously free. The point is that communists weren't fighting for freedom, but power. Taht's the biggest similarity I find between Iraq and Vietnam - that people's hatered is being used for political goals.

BTW. The word "terrorism" wasn't used back then. I think that the bombers were simply called criminals. The word came into use later - with the wave of aircraft hijacks for pollitical reasons. But that's not really important.

BTW2.I think the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan long time ago surrpassed the number of casualities of Vietnam. It's just that noone in US media dares to say that alloud. And that IS important. The media should be independent.

About that last thing - I dunno what that means. Besides that I don't search my room anymore before going to sleep.

No, it's not an allusion to You. Maybe it was something about that the more you know the present world the less you like it.

I don't think the Londoners will get a good sleep.

I'm feeling kinda weird toonight. It's a relief for me to talk about Vietnam - a calm subject to run away from present events.

@Bernodette: I can bet anything you like that the next country to be attacked will not be Poland. And we are the third country that has its stabilisation zone in Iraq and the only one of theese three that hasn't been strucked yet.

It's more likely to be France or Germany.

@Denoir: Well I don't blame you for that... Trying to put the blame oin religion and thus prove your point about it is what you try to do. That's the problem with You as an atheist.

Atheists are not only the Soviet Union, but also the PRC and other countries and the 20'th century is a long time. Take also the internal reppresions by NKWD and later KGB into your body count and you'll get a really nice number. Include also the casualties due to "collectivisation", people who died in work camps in Siberia, and many different actions And you'll see.

Why trying to deny that atheism can also be a destructive ideology? You cannot deny historical facts.

BTW. What was the Nazi official religion?

What was Hittler's religion?

BTW2. If It's so offtopic then why bringing it out? Let's us both get back on subject. OK, no more aswers on taht topic from my side. There are better places to disscuss philosophy and theology.

[Garcia 0]

I can bet my ass that this would have come with only the invasion of Iraq...and even if UK wasn't in Iraq, this would have come sooner or later...

Ok, let's bet your postcount.

If the next European or North American country to be struck by an Al Qaida terrorist attack did not participate in the Iraqi invasion you will get 140 of my post count.

However, if the next European or North American country to be struck by an Al Qaida terrorist attack did participate in the Iraqi invasion I will get 140 of your post count.

Given that the majority of European and North American countries did not participate in the Iraqi invasion, the odds should favour you greatly, right?

What do ya say?  

Edit:  I'm able and willing to make the same bet with up to 9 others.  Any takers?  

1) Oooooh, you're sooooo cool cause you post a lot...post count doesn't mean shit

2) Shall I buy you a set of glasses so you can read?

Quote[/b] ]Of course, if US and UK didn't attack Iraq or anyone else, there would be less danger of terrorism, but there would still be terrorism against UK and US sooner or later

Use the nice thing called "brain" and figure out the "deeper" meaning of that...what it means, is: In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq made the terror threat against UK and US bigger, but even if they did not invade, there would be a terrorist attack sooner or later...

If you didn't get it now, I'll let you go post silly post everywhere and get your beloved post count up...

[Major Fubar 0]

I know this is a charged and emotional topic, especially with recent events, but people posting in this thread are still expected to follow the forum rules like anywhere else on the forums, i.e. no flaming or flame baiting.

[pandalefou 0]

I think about the london attack...

I think it's a war between nations.The war is differents as country. USA make "legal" war and the terrorists make a "war" too... i think the terrorism is a form of war and could be respected as US methods. Because the US soldiers do some horrors but these horrors aren't considerate. For me a soldier is a soldier and a terrorist is one of them. Sorry if my speak hurt you but it's my mind...

[Homefry 0]

Quote[/b] ]<sarcasm alert>

But if you are of age and you are physically fit, you are welcome to join the military and go kill some A-rabs in Iraq if you're American or British and are really feeling some bloodlust. Once you get that feeling of deep hatred and lust for killing Muslims, you will then get in touch with these deepr savage emotions that drive some of these terrorists to kill non-Muslims and even fellow Muslims (even though killing civilians and fellow Muslims is expressely forbidden in Islam). Revenge is allowed (under certain judicial limits but terrorists just ignore that)....and this feeling of revenge and twisted interpretation of Jihad gives strength to that blood lust and hatred. So if you want to give in to those same feelings, hey its open season on Iraqis right now if you want to go there as a security consultant and without worry of getting arrested, go and murder as many Iraqis (sorry I mean terrorists) as you want to. Maybe it will make you feel better getting some Arab blood on your hands? YOu could make it real good and maybe like disembowel them and pull out all their intestines....maybe debrain some babies? Stick some people under tank treads? Take off some arms and limbs? Torture some before murdering them? Come on why not? They torture and behead Westerners and blow us up in horrific ways. Maybe we should be like the Serbs and go on a raping spree not only killing Iraqis but raping their women and then killing them in retaliation for the bombings?

But you are right..nuking is much less messy. Nothing like just BBQ'ing all those already sun-BBQ'ed filthy brown savages with a few big ass nukes! That would feel good wouldn't it?

We could sell terrorist ashes on EBAY then as souvenirs in sealed glass/lead containers.

Ah yes... what fun it would be...we could have A-rab safaris and make hunting Muslims a sport! Think of the great tourist money and huge supply of Muslims to hunt! We could start with the ones in our own countries and send them to game ranches. With all Americans owning guns, it would be great fun and a superb capitalist endeavor making money from terrorists. The Muslim little ones would make smaller targets and hide easier so bonus points for killing then. But our hunting dogs would snuff them out and rip them to shreds if we don't get the satisfaction of blowing them away first. We could tack up their skins on our walls and make lamp shades and boots from their skins!

Their meat...well they're filthy savages but maybe we could turn their meat into cheap dog food! Hell yeah!

Purina ex-Muslim Chow. We could also bring back gladiator tournaments and feed them to lions and bears and packs of really hungry pit bulls. Think of the entertainment value!!! Hey it would be something to get our children away from all that damn artificial killing on their computers and X-Boxes. They could see the real thing and see how to treat Muslims.

What say you good Christian gentlemen? Shall we throw out the New Testament and just go Old SchoolTestament on their asses? Come on Jesus was just a hippy anyways. Not like he was God or anything right?

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Mate... I'm not sure if you have flown off the handle or not... from what I gathered GB was just showing how flawed the logic some use to blaim Blair or Bush for terrorists blowing things up and killing innocent people.. His comments were full of sarcasm... I'm just really very confused by your post here. It seems like you flipped out over something that made a lot of sense.

Quote[/b] ]I think it's a war between nations.The war is differents as country. USA make "legal" war and the terrorists make a "war" too... i think the terrorism is a form of war and could be respected as US methods. Because the US soldiers do some horrors but these horrors aren't considerate. For me a soldier is a soldier and a terrorist is one of them. Sorry if my speak hurt you but it's my mind...

When the idea of a modern soldier is killing innocent civillians totally unrelated to any sort of politics is acceptable... then I'll consider a terrorist a soldier. But now.. and probably not in the future.. it won't be.

[philcommando 0]

Rather than to write a long thesis on the merits of the war against terror, i shall, at the risk of 'over-simplfying' the acts, stick to the facts.

1. Eversince 911 till today, thousands of innocent men, women, children and babies had died in the hands of fanatics crying out "Allah Akbar!"

2. While many of their more moderate compatriots had been quick to distance themselves from these fanatics, they had done nothing effective in the 4 years to stop these minority groups citing various lame reasons which smacks full with procastination. And yet they are quick to cry foul when anyone else not of their religion steps in to do a job that these moderates should have done.

3. Till today, their ideology treats the rest of the world as infidels, living within the mercy of their mullahs or immans. Even Mother Theresa is an infidel to them and is allowed to live on the grace of the village idiot priest who did not go to college and doubts if he knows even the world is round.

4. America was on a isolationist path with the election of Bush. He was not interested in world affairs and only more keen on domestic issues and yet was forced by the dastardly act of dead international citizens in New York on 9/11 to act.

5. The rest of the world, who are treated as infidels by such insane ideology that enslaves the rest of us, still kindly fought tooth and nail to grant them human rights of which they had never and would have acknowledge to us had they been a power in world affairs. Just look at how despicable they are when blowing up civilians, some who had even supported their cause!!

6. There is no other religion in this world that allows a man to kill another man. While historical acts of war may have been committed, such acts of murder were no longer condoned and laws were laid down to stop the further killing of another man. Except for that hated ideology which promotes till today - kill an infidel or non believer of their faith and one gets 72 virgins to f*k for the rest of his life!

7. People in thousands die all over the world. Some natural and some by accidents. Those living in a declared war zones take their chances based on their knowledge they may face death each hour and could make the necessary decisions to evacute or support a peaceful authority that may bring order but instead, they chosed to kill such peaceful legislators instead!

They had a choice, but innocent civilians in a non war zone did not had that choice - they were brutually murdered. Make no mistakes and DO NOT insult the memory of the dead! They died because of criminal acts condone by a portion of the dredges of humanity, eyes blinded by religious fervour and humanity rights, necessary actions delayed by talks of diplomacy or cowardice to confront such evil, insane justifications of what is tantamount to rights or wrongs. THEY ARE DEAD BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO ACT OR ALLOW OTHERS TO ACT!!!!

Do we talk to a murderer or do we get the authority to put on their guns to conduct a manhunt and stop him before he kills another?

Just because it may be impossible to find a needle in the haystack, should we give up and let such murderers roam free, tell the families of the victims to talk and convince the killers it is wrong to kill their love ones and let it go?? There is no need for 'eye for an eye' but justice must be done before another dies!

[quicksand 0]

I can bet my ass that this would have come with only the invasion of Iraq...and even if UK wasn't in Iraq, this would have come sooner or later...

Ok, let's bet your postcount.

If the next European or North American country to be struck by an Al Qaida terrorist attack did not participate in the Iraqi invasion you will get 140 of my post count.

However, if the next European or North American country to be struck by an Al Qaida terrorist attack did participate in the Iraqi invasion I will get 140 of your post count.

Given that the majority of European and North American countries did not participate in the Iraqi invasion, the odds should favour you greatly, right?

What do ya say?  

Edit:  I'm able and willing to make the same bet with up to 9 others.  Any takers?  

Bernadotte,if you've read my posts you should know where I stand when it comes to Iraq's occupation and the war on terrorism.

But here is what has been on my mind for some time.While there might be a pattern of targeting countries that participated in the Iraq invasion the groups that are claiming them are not being led by a solidified chain of command,rather then that they are splinter extremist groups with rather few connections with Al-Queda per say the one being brandashed as commanded by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri.

Now let's take the example of Iraq.There the insurgency has more colors then is discernable by the human eye.We have the fighters that would only target US forces,rebels that would go all the way to the Iraqi security forces and actual nutjobs who would kill anyone to make a bang and seed fear.

The question I am asking: would a militant that has no problem slaughtering a muslim,wait,even more that that,a fellow Sunni muslim just because he is cuting hair in a barbershop.Would such a militant have any remorse killing a Christian hair stylist in Sweden,Germany or France if given the chance?

(I am sure you will understand my analogy)

[Bernadotte 0]

The question I am asking: would a militant that has no problem slaughtering a muslim,wait,even more that that,a fellow Sunni muslim just because he is cuting hair in a barbershop.Would such a militant have any remorse killing a Christian hair stylist in Sweden,Germany or France if given the chance?

Well, given that most of these are suicide attacks and the bomber probably values his own life more than that of a Sunni barber then, no, his remorse is probably no greater if the dead include Christian hair stylists from wherever.

But I don't really think yesterday's decision to target Londoners has much to do with remorse.

[Scorpio 0]

2. While many of their more moderate compatriots had been quick to distance themselves from these fanatics, they had done nothing effective in the 4 years to stop these minority groups citing various lame reasons which smacks full with procastination. And yet they are quick to cry foul when anyone else not of their religion steps in to do a job that these moderates should have done.

That's true. And it's probably due to either of the following reasons:

a) they are silently approving and supporting while in public they are condemning.

b) they don't care - i.e. they really don't have anything to do with it and feel that they don't have any obligation to do anything about it.

The former is present in the majority of them. As you know, quite a chunk hates the West and would support any kind of damage made to it.

The latter, from a human rights point of view, is valid. They havn't done anything wrong - they have nothing to do with the attacks other than the fact that their religion has been hijacked by terrorists. And they have no need to aplogise for anything. However, from an Islamic point of view, they do have an obligation to speak out against injustice and fight it through action.

There are some muslims who try very hard to combat these terrorists, but at they end of the day, their actions would only benefit their local community. Meaning there are no trustworthy islamic leaders that could speak for islam or unite muslims in their faith - their is no true leadership anymore. It's disorganised and distorted. The middle eastern governments you see today are nothing but hypocrites...and I certainly won't be afraid to say that into their faces.

[edit]typo

[Balschoiw 0]

Some numbers.

Victims of bigger terrorism strikes worldwide after 9/11:

April 11th 2002,Djerba, Tunesia: 21 people killed

October 12th 2002, Bali, Indonesia: 202 people killed

November 28th, 2002 Kenia: 18 people killed

May 12th 2003, Saudi Arabia: 35 people killed

May 16th 2003, Marocco: 45 people killed

November 20th 2003, Istanbul, Turkey: 57 people killled

March 11th 2003, Madrid, Spain: 191 people killed

May 29th 2004, Saudi Arabia: 22 people killed

August 24th 2004, Russia: 90 people killed

September 1st 2004, Russia : 330 people killed

July 7th 2005, London, UK: 52 people killed, possibly rising

Assumed number of people killed in Iraq as a result of terrorist

acts since GW2:

4300 people killed

Civillians killed by coalition forces in GW2:

25812 to 100.000 people killed

Civillians killed in Afghanistan by the war on terror:

5300 - 7800 people

[Bordoy 0]

Some numbers.

Victims of bigger terrorism strikes worldwide after 9/11:

April 11th 2002,Djerba, Tunesia: 21 people killed

October 12th 2002, Bali, Indonesia: 202 people killed

November 28th, 2002 Kenia: 18 people killed

May 12th 2003, Saudi Arabia: 35 people killed

May 16th 2003, Marocco: 45 people killed

November 20th 2003, Istanbul, Turkey: 57 people killled

March 11th 2003, Madrid, Spain: 191 people killed

May 29th 2004, Saudi Arabia: 22 people killed

August 24th 2004, Russia: 90 people killed

September 1st 2004, Russia : 330 people killed

July 7th 2005, London, UK: 52 people killed, possibly rising

Assumed number of people killed in Iraq as a result of terrorist

acts since GW2:

4300 people killed

Civillians killed by coalition forces in GW2:

25812 to 100.000 people killed

Civillians killed in Afghanistan by the war on terror:

5300 - 7800 people

What about civvies killed in Chad? Sudan? Iraq? Afghanistan? etc, all by the terrorists?

The Dharfur crisis is bad as the muslims are moving and killing people.

[Balschoiw 0]

You don´t expect me to list over 700 terrorist attacks in detail, do you ?

Read:

Quote[/b] ]Victims of bigger terrorism strikes worldwide after 9/11:

Sudan is not the result of a terrorist organization. It´s a state sponsored war that has nothing to do with AQ or afiliated organizations.

Quote[/b] ]What about civvies killed in Chad? Sudan? Iraq? Afghanistan? etc, all by the terrorists?

Read.

I don´t have any reliable numbers for civvies killed in Afghanistan by terrorist acts. Fell free to add them if you got reliable ones.

Another Edit:

The Iraq crisis is bad as the christians are moving and killing people.

The Sudan crisis is not primary about religion, it´s about land used for cows and ethnic cleansing. Most of the african wars are about such things. Religion is not their primary motive. It´s about money , different ethnic roots and classes and land to cultivate or breed animals on. On for ground resources aswell.

You may be surprised that people in africa make differences between black and black. Not for a matter of believe but for a matter of origin.

You want to pull the Muslim card, but it doesn´t fit in every scenario Bordoy.

Islam in Africa is way different to Islam elsewhere. They have a completely different system of elders and tribal organization.

Btw, didn´t you take your hat yesterday ?

*confused*

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]Victims of bigger terrorism strikes worldwide after 9/11:

Sudan is not the result of a terrorist organization. It´s a state sponsored war that has nothing to do with AQ or afiliated organizations.

The Janjaweed is a terrorist organisation. Or don't you conisder genocide and rapes as terror

And the Janjaweed is fighting in the name of the Islam by the way.

Quote[/b] ]The Sudan crisis is not primary about religion, it´s about land used for cows and ethnic cleansing. Most of the african wars are about such things. Religion is not their primary motive. It´s about money , different ethnic roots and classes and land to cultivate or breed animals on. On for ground resources aswell.

You may be surprised that people in africa make differences between black and black. Not for a matter of believe but for a matter of origin.

You want to pull the Muslim card, but it doesn´t fit in every scenario Bordoy.

Islam in Africa is way different to Islam elsewhere. They have a completely different system of elders and tribal organization.

Maybe religion is not the main motive for the Sudanese government but it is for the Janjaweed

EDIT:

Wikipedia article about hte Janjaweed

Quote[/b] ]The Janjaweed was formed in response to attacks on government installations by the two rebel movements. Although both sides have been accused of serious human rights violations, the Janjaweed soon gained the upper hand through being better armed, more mobile and being supported by government forces. The Janjaweed has pursued a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing throughout Darfur, burning down non-Arab villages and driving out their inhabitants. By the summer of 2004 an estimated 10,000-30,000 people had been killed and another million, mostly non-Arabs, had been forced out of their homes.

The militia has pursued fleeing refugees into neighboring Chad, whose army has fought a number of actions against Janjaweed incursions. The Chadian President Idriss Déby has said that "since the start of this war, some 300 Chadian civilians have been killed and thousands of head of cattle stolen by armed men who crossed over from Darfur." [1]

Although the Arab-dominated Sudanese government has disclaimed any responsibility for the actions of the Janjaweed, numerous reports have identified collusion between Janjaweed fighters (who are said to have been armed by the government) and the state security forces. In particular, observers have noted that Janjaweed attacks on the ground have often been supported by air strikes from the Sudanese air force.

Idris Abu Moussa, a 26-year-old Sudanese farmer, states: "They came at 4 a.m. on horseback, on camels, in vehicles, with two helicopters overhead ..."they killed 50 people in my village. My father, grandmother, uncle and two brothers were all killed."..."They don't want any blacks left." - from the Darfur Genocide website

I don't know about you guys but I consider this Islamic terrorism.