War against terror

[quicksand 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.  

I think you missunderstood what I was saying.I was refering to cases when militants bursted on purpose with a clear intent to kill,into barbershops in Iraq and killed the owners because they were cuting hair.The victims had nothing to do with the US occupation nor with the Iraqi government,not even with the Shia "apostates".

So what I am saying is that religious extremism can leave victims for various reasons.Coupled with the fact that terrorism isn't a centralised organisation and any 4 man gang can pick the Al-Queda banner...Well,let me ask you once more are you completly sure that countries that didn't participate in Iraq's invasion are out of danger of being targeted ?

[Balschoiw 0]

I disagree Ironsight:

Quote[/b] ]The word, an Arabic colloquialism, means "a man with a gun on a horse." Janjaweed militiamen are primarily members of nomadic "Arab" tribes who've long been at odds with Darfur's settled "African" farmers, who are darker-skinned. (The labels Arab and African are rather misleading, given the complexity of the region's ethnic history. For simplicity's sake, Explainer will stick with these inelegant terms.) Until last year, the conflicts were mostly over Darfur's scarce water and land resources—desertification has been a serious problem, so grazing areas and wells are at a premium. In fact, the term "Janjaweed" has for years been synonymous with bandit, as these horse- or camel-borne fighters were known to swoop in on non-Arab farms to steal cattle.

The Janjaweed started to become much more aggressive last year, after two non-Arab groups, the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, took up arms against the Sudanese government, alleging mistreatment by the Arab regime in Khartoum. In response to the uprising, the Janjaweed militias began pillaging towns and villages inhabited by members of the African tribes from which the rebel armies draw their strength—the Zaghawa, Masalit, and Fur tribes. (This conflict is entirely separate from the 21-year-old civil war that has pitted the Muslim government against Christian and animist rebels in the country's southern region. The Janjaweed, who inhabit western Sudan, have nothing to do with that war, which seems close to a peaceful resolution and is thus not a topic at today's meeting between Powell and Annan.)

The Jajaweed were basically a tribal defence militia. The government supported their acts with airstrikes and weapons.

Their primary motivation is NOT religion but ethnic cleaning.

Quote[/b] ]According to Sudanese Arabic, which is a distinguished indigenous in Sudan, the word Janjaweed is an acronym composed of three words; jan, jawad and jim; which may be translated into English to give the meaning of djinn, horse and the German machine gun known as G-3 or 4, respectively. So, the word Janjaweed means a Horse-Mounted G-3-Armed Djinn.

The highly circulated term Janjaweed was not on high velocity just few years ago. Violent acts that other nomadic groups such as the Maraheel were few years accused of perpetrating involved activities similar to that of the Janjaweed are allegedly engaging into today. Both groups were in essence tribal defense militias. The major function and the raison d’etre for this militia are to protect herds of nomadic tribes in western Sudan from attacks of looters, highway robbery and particularly, attacks of rival nomadic tribes at times of conflict on pastures and water.

After 1983, the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) started military operations against the government in areas of southern and western Sudan. The Maraheel and other nomadic communities who were turned to be potential targets of such operations requested to be protected by the government security forces. At that time President Jaffar Numeri was in power (1969-1985). Since the security situation was not so grave, limited police protection was granted to some of these nomadic groups in western Sudan. Eventually, shot guns and defensive rifles were authorized through guarantees of tribal chiefs. The area of Darfur is so wide and its terrain is so rough. Its area of 256 000 square kilometers is larger than the total area of UK. By 1986, just one year after the collapse of Numeri’s regime, at the reign of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister, Mr. Sadiq Al Mahdi, these groups were officially recognized as defensive militias who have the legitimate right to protect their herds from attacks of SPLA/M rebel groups which were intensified at the time. The government that time believed its action was pragmatic since the military and other armed forces belonging to the state were increasingly engaged in the war in the south cannot provide the required manpower and other necessary means to protect the life and property of these nomadic communities. Therefore, it is naturally that they were to be provided with appropriate means to defend themselves within the framework of the rule of law. At the time the recognized name was the Maraheel.

By the advent of the government of the National Salvation Revolution (NSR) of President Omar Hassan El Bashir on 29 June 1989, the status of security in Sudan has become dismal in every part of the country, particularly, in areas directly affected by the civil war. In response to the security challenge, especially the deterioration in the southern and south eastern Sudan, as well as in areas in western Sudan, the government increased the capacity of the national armed forces by opening the way wider for popular recruitment. At this time, the Popular Defense Forces (PDF), which has become part and parcel of the Sudan People's Armed Forces (SPAF), emerged as an official army of reservists under the guidance and command of the regular army. Many nomadic tribal members enthusiastically joined the PDF. Some of these irregulars and reservists sneaked out of PDF camps and found their way to high way robbery in their respective regions. The government, especially in the State of North Darfur, through the federal system of law enforcement and judiciary dealt with these splinter groups since their attacks were sporadic and less intensive. Historically, these groups have been existent in Darfur’s extreme rural areas for many centuries conducting acts of high-way robbery. The situation here is reminiscent of the 18th and 19th century American robber barons in the Wild West. The high way robbery is an ancient practice in nomadic societies which are not unique to Darfur. It is to be found in communities of similar circumstances in different parts of Africa. Groups such as the Tora Bora and Besh Merga emerged as new fledglings conducting the old practice of high way robbery. Their likes are to be found in Chad, Central African Republic (CAR), Cameroon, Mali, Niger and Mauritania, where nomadic communities are still dynamic and existent. During the period of the Chadian civil war (1962-1991) these groups which freely cross the borderlines between the Sudan, Chad and CAR practiced smuggling of light weapons into Sudan. At that time they found modern weapons from the stock provided to rebels in these countries from different contributors such as Libya, Egypt, France and the USA. Later, the civil war in Southern Sudan which lasted from 1983 to 2004 also fomented the phenomenon of proliferation of arms and increased the population of armed robbers. The atmosphere of unrest in Central African Republic further contributed in provision of more arms to the nomadic communities in the region.

However, the reason that aggravated the recent events in Darfur, particularly after February 2004, when the name Janjaweed found much publicity in the western media, was the intensity of the attacks, their widespread and the quality of weaponry used in the tribal warfare which involved both nomadic and sedentary communities. Unfortunately, the emergence of two new political armed opposition groups namely, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) moved the borders of conflict from Darfur geographical region to involve the federal army, the SPAF. Also, the political rhetoric pronounced by the armed political opposition provided pretext for criminal groups, exclusively identified with high way robbery, to ride the wave of violence. Law enforcement and security agencies in the States of Northern and Western Darfur recorded cases where the Besh Merga and the Tora Bora were coordinating attacks against nomadic tribes; pillaging, killing and looting their herds. The nomadic militia retaliated by pursuing these looters who usually find refuge into the sedentary communities’ villages. Meanwhile, lack of interest among villagers to cooperate by identifying the fugitives, frequently result in burning these villages in order to chase out villagers who harbor these criminals. Also, changes of allegiances between different groups at one part and criminal organizations on the other, often result in conflict of interest between different nomadic and criminal groups which victims in many cases become the sedentary communities. The involvement of the Janjaweed in the recent conflict has been a result of direct attacks against their respective communities either by the JEM, SLM or groups allied with them. Again, other nomadic tribes whose territories were attacked or were potential for further attacks found themselves part of the conflict such as the Gimir, Barti and Rizigat which respective tribal militias retaliated fiercely against JEM, SLM, Tora Bora and Besh Merga. Generally, the vacuum that resulted in the killing of more that 800 army, police officers and other security agents in the three federal states of Darfur resulted in evacuation of many police stations which, in turn, produced an atmosphere of total chaos in the region. The weakening and disempowerment of the security apparatus in Darfur invited attacks of retaliatory tribal militias and reprisals from others.

It is hoped that the presence of more than 40 000 Sudanese armed forces agents and 12 000 police officers with involvement of tribal chiefs and local community leaders in the peace effort in Darfur, will calm the region in the time being. The presence of the regional African Union (AU) monitors amounting to more than 300, directs much attention nationally and globally to the peaceful resolution of conflict in Darfur.

The long-term resolution to the conflict in Darfur, in particular, and in Sudan in general, rests on application of a sound formula of balanced development, effective federal system of administration, widely representative multi-party system, good governance and transparency.

Hassan E. El Talib is Deputy Head of Mission of the Sudan Embassy in Pretoria, SA.

They don´t fit into the terrorist scheme. Militia, yes. Terrorists, no.

[Apollo 0]

At Panda[pl]

Quote[/b] ]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.

Few people are going to refute this point ,and most are aware of this when they engage in discussion here.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Yes ,i won't disagree ,there were obviously supporters on both sides.However the North had clearly more supporters among the large poor class ,and this can be seen in the amount of men ,AND even woman and children that they mobilized into war.For the normal Vietnamese peasent ,the communists made prommises for them were worth fighting for ,even if it was an illusion and the Communist regime was never up to so much good as it promised.The value of the ideoligy here isn't important ,it's the reality of how many wish to belief in it and fight for it in a actual conflict.

Quote[/b] ]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).

Here you are correct ,and i must admit that the deeper reasons for anti-american sentiment in Iraq do not have that much simmilarity's to those reasons for the ordinary vietnamese peasant.There is less of an economical reason ,like land reforms in Vietnam ,no nationalistic reason like one state but actually just the other way around ,many Iraqi's are fighting for their clan or their religious segment ,more like seperatist movements.on the other hand the new Iraqi goverment has realy few support ,like i mentioned their support comes mostly from the more liberal elements either ,or from people alligned to the clan/religion of the sitting president.But this selective support means automatic enemy's to ,their always going to be number of religious groups and seperatists movements in Iraq that won't be content with a specific president and the political establishment ,as that establishment will always be dominated by one group that the many others won't like.

Well simply said there is no Iraq ,i know you agree with that ,it's a country on the constant verge of civil war.

Most importantly however my point goes to the ever increasing spiral of violence ,the escalation of the conflict.This was my most important parallell to Vietnam ,as essentially the Americans were confronted with a situation that was never improving ,only worsening ,i find they are in the same place in Iraq now ,the problems are only getting greater with time ,the amount of US casualty's increasing to.

The point here is that if Iraq keeps escalating like it is ,then soon the USA is going to stand for the same problems as in Vietnam when it was becoming to hot.Either send more Americans ,make a strong puppet regime ,or leave the area all toghether.The USA is choosing for the strong pupet rregime option ,afcourse it's the best option when it succeeds ,but the precedent in Vietnam tell's us that there ,EVEN if the South Vietnamese goverment had a number of support domesticly ,even if they were very good funded ,had many men ,good training and excelent material (atleast compared to VC) ,even then they performed misirably.

True ,a Shia dominated Iraq might have much more goverment supporters than South Vietnam had ,but it then still winds up in a civil war ,with the other groups attacking them ,and by norm the goal of the US is to keep Iraq toghether ,a Iraq falling apart during civil war would be a catastrophe ,but how are you going to prevent it from happening if much of the violence in Iraq these days make it look like Iraq is in a civil war already anyway.

Quote[/b] ]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 understand what you want to say ,afcourse i should point out that nuancations are important in such discussion ,if somebody is trying to make a point it's better to look at the general oppinion that he wants to put forward rather than the syntax and semantics of this words where it could be easy to make misinterpretations.

I do understand the difference between an Arab and a muslim ,although i'm sure most Arab's are muslims.

i do not think any one here wants to make generalizations of muslim's or Arabs here neither ,just try to take people's oppinions witha grain of salt and try to deduct the general point.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Well thank you ,and i'm gratefull that you are continueing this discussion again on a fair bases.

Youre points have value to btw. ,he fun about discussions comes when both do it in a good way and hence learn some thing's about eachother and his views.Personally i can say i have learned a lot by years of some debating online.

Quote[/b] ]I did mentioned communist propaganda as it had a great impact on hippie movements.

Ouch! You hit one of America's grandest misconceptions.Heck in America a hippie is about synonim to a communist ,wich actually is kinda rediculous.

Actually the hippie movement had absolutly nothing to do with communism ,although afcourse there probably were a number of communists among hippie's ,and communists of various forms.

However the hippie movement was distinctly a pacifist ,anti-war movement ,it did not porpagate any communist ideals as a movement ,and pacifism in itself is really nothing that coincide's with communism ,i do not know any Communist regime that ever put pacifism forward as one of it's leading principle's.

This is America however ,it's a country that is just so much polarized to the right wing that even what is perceived as moderate left views in Europe are seen as extreme left wing views in America ,communist for them.In America "Hippie" ,"liberal" "communist" are almost foul words.Heck GW Bush used Liberal as a slur against Kerry ,saying that Kerry was by this on the far end of the political spectrum and that his views were onrealistic and absurd.Bush knew that there is this conception among the majority of American people that left ideas are bad ,and are comparable to hippie'ism (aka pot smokers) ,communists ,etc...

Why is America so much right wing polarized?The cold war afcourse ,and i deffinatly blaim mcartyism for a very large part.That is ,in the 50's people were arrasted ,mollested or put in jail for having political thoughts were people counld interpret them as loosely allied to communist.In a way Mcartyism was leftist erradication time in the USA.

Afcourse this last presents a discussion on itself.Nevertheless on this topic i advice you to rent the movie "punishment park" ,it shows a lot of the mindset of that time ,and i think youll like the movie a lot to.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Oh i do agree ,i never wanted to glorify the communists as i mentioned earlier.However ,wheter or not the communists were good or bad ,they did effectivly achieve to get that many supporters ,enough to beat the USA ,and thats the important thing to note.See i'm not going to morraly justify Al-Quaida for ex. ,but wheter or not they are filth of the earth ,it doesn't impair their recruitment potential.So whether or not people's hatred is used for political goals ,the results in both scenario's are similar.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Well it does have some value though ,as the word terrorism is used by many country's to justify own agenda's against certain seperatist movements. (btw a movement can be and seperatist and terrorist to ,so terrorists can have a political agenda to)

In the case of Indonesia this is getting a bit absurd ,sure there are sme real terrorists there ,but seperatist movements like those of Papua New Guinea terrorists??? Don't make me laugh.

An ex. of this ,a few years back the USS cole was attacked witha  speadboat carrieing bombs ,a big hole and some servicemen dead as result.The attack was widly denounced as a Terrorist act ,yet the USS cole was a military target.If these boat guys were technicly terrorists ,then what were Japanese Kamikaze's?

Quote[/b] ]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.

Well i think the American goverment doesn't want to much negative immages about the war in Iraq because it would increase war wearriness ,with the though even maybe that in Vietnam this was a big factor to defeat ,that is war-weariness at home.So the US media mostly shows positive images from Iraq ,some Iraqi person content with the potential Democracy gives him ,another one of servicemen handing out water ,food or medicine to people ,etc ,meanwhile reports of US casualties are minimalized ,only the lowest estimate given ,showing dead body's of American soldiers on US Tv seems to be a No No.

the American media is for some part biased ,we know that Rupert Murdoch ,bos of Fox and the big media Moghul in the USA ,is a staunch supporter of president Bush (and Fox news is really absurd ,shoulda seen their ellection coverage ,Bush had won the ellection 50 times already on Fox before the voting even started)

I think the American media is showing a very polished view of Iraq ,giving the average American an impression that everything is going well there and that American soldiers are truly so brave and hounerable.While in Europe there is much less nonsense and more showing the grim reality ,hence many people in Europe get the impression that Iraq is truly FUBAR.

However ,as much as American media can give a polihed view ,they cant stand at the side when an attrocity happens ,like in Abu graib ,US media couldn't keep that silent.In Vietnam ,it was also a specific attrocity that make war weariness go trough the roof.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Yeah ,i'd say it's fun to talk about history and try to put the lessons learned there into a modern perspective.it's a fun style of debating IMO ,and history is a lot of fun to talk about.

Btw ,as to youre remark to Denoir ,i'm an Atheist myself ,but im democraticly minded.Yet i agree with Denoir that there are actually litteral passages in Quran and bible ,that if interpreted litteraly basicly means: you are alowed to kill non-believers.Afcourse only fanatics use the literal meaning there ,but these passages are also in the Christian bible ,and they were used in the crusades to fight the "infidils" ,heathens ,or used later in times of colonization or religious wars to justify some acts.Like slavery and genocide in certain colony's.

In fact i remind myself of the Council of Valladolid wich happend around somewhere 1570 i think.It was a meeting of christian clerics and nobilety ,it's subject was the question "do we have the right to enslave and do whatever we want with non-christians in colony's" ,the answer of the clergy was "yes ,you can" however they also noted that the indiginous poopuation of America was to weak for slavery and that black Africans would be much better as slaves ,with this the church actually promoted 200 years of slavery trade.

The thing is here that this conclusion was made from theoligist ,supposedly those who knew what the bible meant said that the bible said "you have the right to kill non-believers".

btw. ,if you don't want to reply on all my texts ,i undestand ,our discussion is getting long alread ,i'm content that actually somebody replied to my thoughts in the first place.

[Ironsight 1]

The Jajaweed were basically a tribal defence militia. The government supported their acts with airstrikes and weapons.

Their primary motivation is NOT religion but ethnic cleaning.

Etnicity and religion are always very close connected to each other. Etnicity is a many times driven by religion. But I think a lot of people disagree with me on this.

Quote[/b] ]They don´t fit into the terrorist scheme. Militia, yes. Terrorists, no.

Depends on how you define would define the word terrorist. In my opinion the Janjaweed fits in the category terrorists.

By the way, we are talking about the Janjaweed here, but they are not the only terrorists. If you see what the government defines under "police troops" who will restore order and will stop the Janjaweed, I am starting to think the whole Sudanse Islamic government are a bunch of terrorists. These "police troops" are seriously a bunch of animals. For example a "Police troop" commander trew in a chicken into a crowd of new recruits and they were basically fighting against each other to tear that chicken apart to show to their commander and off course local people how fierce they were. Not really the profile of troops that have to restore order. If they act like animals themselves, how are they supposed to stop other barbaric activities against locals? Those police troops were by the way ex-Janjaweed fighters according to some refugees who fled for the "Police troops".

I consider these people terrorist and not just a militia. Everyone is free to call these "animals" how they want them to call, but I think most people agree now with me that these people are terrorists.

[Garcia 0]

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.

That's kinda funny...in US, if someone rapes and kills, let's say 30 women...he's called a serial killer and rapist...if 500 muslim members of a militia in some poor country in africa each rapes and kills, let's say, 10 people in a town/village/city, many will call it terrorim...I agree with you that rape and murdering is as bad as terrorism, and the cases you talk about is a lot worse than 5000 rapes and murders, but still, I think christians around the world are too quick shouting "terrorist(s)" at muslims...just look at things in US, like columbine...as far as I know that was only called a "tragedy"...I would say that the columbine tragedy is as much a terrorist action as any other, only difference is there were no muslims involved...if 2 mulim boys did it tomorrow, it would most likely be called a terrorist attack, even though the 2 boys grew up in US...

and for everyone that says that islam isn't what it used to be and may be of the opinion that islam is a part of the terrorist problem, then think about christians...if you look at US, there's a lot of fanatic christian sects and shit like that whos as bad as the muslim terrorists...the only reason you don't got any christian terrorists is cause no christian country is occupied by a muslim country, and cause christian counties got their army to do their attacks...

(note that I don't, in any way mean that the British or american army is performing any sort of terrorist acts...I'm just pointing out that islam don't got anything to do with the terrorism. If Israel was occupied by Palestine, and the whole Israel army was crushed, then they would most likely turn to terrorism too (In my opinion))

[Supah 0]

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.

That's kinda funny...in US, if someone rapes and kills, let's say 30 women...he's called a serial killer and rapist...if 500 muslim members of a militia in some poor country in africa each rapes and kills, let's say, 10 people in a town/village/city, many will call it terrorim...I agree with you that rape and murdering is as bad as terrorism, and the cases you talk about is a lot worse than 5000 rapes and murders, but still, I think christians around the world are too quick shouting "terrorist(s)" at muslims...just look at things in US, like columbine...as far as I know that was only called a "tragedy"...I would say that the columbine tragedy is as much a terrorist action as any other, only difference is there were no muslims involved...if 2 mulim boys did it tomorrow, it would most likely be called a terrorist attack, even though the 2 boys grew up in US...

and for everyone that says that islam isn't what it used to be and may be of the opinion that islam is a part of the terrorist problem, then think about christians...if you look at US, there's a lot of fanatic christian sects and shit like that whos as bad as the muslim terrorists...the only reason you don't got any christian terrorists is cause no christian country is occupied by a muslim country, and cause christian counties got their army to do their attacks...

(note that I don't, in any way mean that the British or american army is performing any sort of terrorist acts...I'm just pointing out that islam don't got anything to do with the terrorism. If Israel was occupied by Palestine, and the whole Israel army was crushed, then they would most likely turn to terrorism too (In my opinion))

Where crime changes into terrorisme is when it uses fear to gain a political goal. I.E. Raping and murdering people to scare them away from an area. I find it very odd that a disproportionate percentage of terrorisme these days is carried out in the name of Islam. The world's muslim community has a problem it needs to deal with, more and more of its youths are turning towards extremisme for some reason. The "yes but the people who do this aren REAL muslims" doesnt cut it for me anymore. Thats a very cheap way of going "not my problem" while it is. What's even stranger is all those young marrocans here going "I hate the west" .... feel free to leave it then? I dont get this attitude. Hating the west yet being very willing to take advantage of the benefits this depraived system brings. If they hate us so much perhaps our governments should subsidize their emigration to a country they would approve of like Iran where they could be happier

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think about the london attack...

I think it's a war between nations.

That is exectly what theese bastards want Us to think. They want to cause a war between Islam and western world, to drag both Christians and Muslims into THEIR war. While in reality it is a war between Al'quida and the rest of the world - the muslims are also in their way, just as it was with Afghanistan where Al'quida and Talibs took power by force and ruled the country with terror.

And just as I thought that this one's been cleared already.

Quote[/b] ]They don´t fit into the terrorist scheme. Militia, yes. Terrorists, no.

I remember a program on Discovery about terrorism. They spoke of a reporter back in '80 who was wondering should he call hijackers of a plane "terrorists" - he had doubts, because the hijackers demanded money, not political issues. I think you make the same mistake - you try to distinguish terrorers by their goals, not means they use, while terrorism is a only a mean to achive any goal you want.

But I do agree that we should divide acts of terror into "local" and Al'quida - related.

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

If they shouted "Donald Duck" then would Disney studio was at any fault? Thats not real Islam. Please don't make an impression that there is a war between ISLAM and western world. That would be a step too far in simplifying facts.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Yes indeed that is a great problem that they have to deal with. You have to understand that it takes a lot of courage for a muslim to critisize fanatism - because he will be automatically accused by the rest of being on the side of US or Jews or whathever.

The problem is their mentality. Yet on the other hand Bush dosent have good relationships with muslims - because before 9-11 he DIDN'T CARE to make friends with any.

Quote[/b] ]3. Till today, their ideology treats the rest of the world as infidels

I'm sorry to tell but some Ameicans do so too. When they come to Poland they are surprised not to see cows on the streets . Of course they are equally surprised to see that Arabies are mostly well educated people, not some dubasses not worth a penny.

When Mahomet was running away with his followers from bad pagan king who wanted to kill them all he ran to a neibour country - where a cristian king refused to give him away to pagans even so he risked a war with them. The problem is Qu'ran is as allways unconsequent and in one place it states to treat them well and in other it says we'll all "lossers".

Kinda drives me crazy too! Make up your mind already!

Quote[/b] ]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!!

"and You'd become a monster, so the monster will not break You". Very nice. Just terrific. What good will victory bring if to achive it you'll give up all the ideas that you fought for? That would simply mean betraying what you belived, becoming the same as they are - a mere barbarian. You don't see the danger it brings? If you allow breaking human rights once then the gate stays oppened and anyone can do it again for any reason.

But if You want to know my oppinion interrigation using drugs is acceptable - it doesn't cause much suffering and it is not psychical tortures, so it should be used in special cases of people who are proven terrorists to get information on their buddies. But that's it. You have to be aware taht some day You might become a suspect too. Would you like to be imprisoned without trial??

Quote[/b] ]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!

Most of them don't5 really think that way. One fucki*** big problem is that unlike for example Roman Catholic Church they don't have their pope or congregations... There is noone who would clerify what exectly should they belive. So each group makes a research on their own and takes for granted whathever "truth" they find convinient.

Btw. Some female friends of mine would be really dissapointed if they recived 72 virgins  

Quote[/b] ]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

Yes we all - hopefully - agree oin this one...

Yet there is no instant solution. No simple way to solve it. "Kill them all"philosophy was practiced by Israel for 50 years now - still no result. You need to get the Islamic world's cooperation to do this, and you won't get it by makeing them look into a barrel of Your M16. The Israeli tried and failed. If the US will act fair in Iraq and will not kill nor torture any more civilians we can just make it. But I saw a US soldier on TV who said "You have to show them a riffle to get them to listen to you", he was talkin about some workers... Humilitating people in public to make them obiedent will not work on Muslims, not for a long time at least.

Quote[/b] ]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?

No we don't. The responsible ones should be found and killed or brought to justice. Even if the next will come (and they will) the crime should not be left without punishment.

Anyway have you noticed that the group that took responibility made threats to Italy and some other country, but not Poland The terrorists strike where they can, not where they want. That's why even if your country doesn't support occupation you are all equally in danger. France and Germany and many others need to understand it - no metter what they'll do the threat always is the same.

Of course what i say is not a result of some enlightment, but only my personal oppinion, which I might change in time and I don't state to be right and everyone else to be wrong.

[Balschoiw 0]

Ironsight, the determenation of an organization as terrorists is pretty simple. The Janjaweed are nowhere categorized as a terrorist organization, so I have to insist that they are none.

They are a murdering, raping militia, but NOT a terrorist organization.

Look at this CRS report of foreign terrorist organizations for the US congress. They are not listed. That doesn´t mean that they don´t exist, it´s just that they are no terrorist organization by the term of definition.

Foreign Terrorist organizations

More comprehensive list of worldwide terrorist organizations who do not pose a direct threat to the US:

Terrorist Group Profiles

We have to be very careful these days. Acts of violence, even widespread ones don´t automatically root from terrorism.

There is more than that on this planet. Militias of any kind, tribal clashes of any kind have different reasons than believe. Religious wars also do have no automatic linkage to terrorism.

By throwing them alltogether into the terrorist pot you make your life easier but that´s not an accurate picture of reality.

Terrorism needs to be fought as militia clashes have to be fought. Governmetal abuse of power has to be fought as dictatorships have to be fought. But all of these different issues need different approaches. It´s way too easy to label them all terrorists and think that a unified approach like the war on terror could deal with them all. Research a little. The roots for such conflicts are so different than day and night. Therefore the approaches to that conflicts have to be different aswell.

The reduce it all to islam driven terrorism is not accurate and not true and therefore hindering to find options to intervene.

The world and it´s conflicts are complicated. Don´t loose overview and mix up things that are not to be mixed up.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]I think you make the same mistake - you try to distinguish terrorers by their goals, not means they use, while terrorism is a only a mean to achive any goal you want.

There is a difference in terrorizing someone and to be a terrorist.

Check out what I wrote above.

Edit2:

The defintion of what is terrorism and what is not terrorism is always related to your point of view. I´m in no way defending terrorists or terrorist organizations but think about this:

Quote[/b] ]"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Absurd ? Maybe reality is absurd then

Anyway in Sudan we clearly don´t have a terrorist organization at work. It´s a local militia which is assisted by the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

According to your logic Ironsight all of the african local conflicts would be acts of terrorists as they all include genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass rapes, extensive killings and all that. They are/were all performed by a certain group, tribe, organization, clan...

You see the fault in your logic ?

[Panda-PL- 0]

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]I think you make the same mistake - you try to distinguish terrorers by their goals, not means they use, while terrorism is a only a mean to achive any goal you want.

There is a difference in terrorizing someone and to be a terrorist.

Check out what I wrote above.

Hmm. Sounds strange but after thinking - You're right!

"Terrorist" now stopped to be an activity a became a proffesion. Really - we have now proffesional terrorers, who are paid and who know their jobs well. Thats what experts said yesterday on TV, and it seems that it's true. They have their sponsors and they take assigments - just like professional killers do. It's no longer fanatism or ideology that's makeing them kill. They are more organised and professional then any time before.

Of course the Al'quida still uses brainwashed suicide bombers - they make them record their "last letters" on tape and if they think it over and refuse after that - they'd send the tapes to their families. Real fuck*** bastards! This part is also more sophisticated and cruel then before.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm. Sounds strange but after thinking - You're right!

Have to mark that day in the calendar. It doesn´t happen very often that something like this happens here.

You´re welcome !

Have to run now...

Need a patriotic, liberal haircut

[philcommando 0]

Terrorists, beasts, animals,etc. Let's not get confuse here but get one thing straight! They are criminals, no different from the small time crook or a serial murderer such as Stalin!.

Is this a determination of how many dead innocent men, women children and babies before a criminal is upgraded to the status of a terrorist?

All religions, even atheists, have their deviants. But justice is blind, for no matter what or who you are, rich or poor, christian, muslim, hindi, jew, buddhist or athetist; if you committed a crime, you have to f*king pay!

What these criminals had done was to hide behind the respectability of religion and used the best malleable religion that allows them to kill and to gain adherents. I have no quarels with anyone's ideology, be they cultist from planet V or they worship frogs. Its their life, but for any ideology that allows one to kill another freely, it must be stopped! How many more dead then can you see it?!

Anyone who shelters or hide a criminal is and must be considered an accomplice for he or she had obstructed the natural course of law to bring the criminal to justice. Even if an entire town choosed to shelter the criminal, justice shall not be diverted or perverted but shall be and must be served. For justice to make exceptions would only encourage more criminals to do as they please.

Many times, we hear talks about pushing moderates to side with terrorists should we push for action against their religion. It cuts no more! IF these foolish moderates take on the sides of terrorists, let them, i say! At least we know for sure who our enemies are. These are people who murder innocent men, women, children and babies, and if others want to join them, like the various M.E. terrorists now in Iraq fighting our brave boys, let them join and know that we in the free world will no longer tolerate being treated as infidels and our defenceless love ones are not meat for their propagandas!

We have been hearing talks and talks and reasons and crap for the past 4 years.HOW MANY MORE DEAD THEN WILL YOU START TO ACT?!

[Akira 0]

Utterly disgusting...

Quote[/b] ]

Hotels 'cash in' on bomb attacks

Thousands of commuters chose to walk for hours to reach home

Thousands of commuters chose to walk for hours to reach home

Hundreds of commuters spent Thursday night stranded in London and some have accused hoteliers of cashing in on the bomb attacks.

Prices at a number of London's hotels increased by more than double on Thursday night, the BBC has learned.

Lastminute.com said price rises for hotels featured on its site had been set by hotels themselves.

However, some hotels offered blankets and use of showers for free and other businesses donated goods to casualties.

The attacks on the Tube network and a double-decker bus killed at least 50 people and injured more than 700.

'Å250 room'

A Trading Standards Institute spokesman said hotel profiteering after a bombing attack was reprehensible.

With the transport networks down and no way of returning home, one businessman from Manchester told the BBC he had paid Å250 for an Å80 room.

Commuters said they were appalled, and thousands chose to walk for hours to reach home rather than stay the night in a hotel.

A spokesman for the British Hospitality Association, which represents hotels, said he was surprised by the increases.

Grant Hearn, the CEO of hotel chain Travelodge, said the price rises were a "disgrace".

"Travelodge is outraged to hear reports of hoteliers taking advantage of the situation to increase rates and deplores the idea that anyone should have had the insensitivity to take advantage of the tragic circumstances," he said.

Forensic officers search the bus blast site

Police are looking at whether the blast were suicide attacks

"That type of behaviour has gone, and was never acceptable in the first place. It makes us all look bad.

"It's outrageous, and I believe the companies doing this should be named and shamed."

The BBC News website received e-mails from readers who said higher than usual prices were charged by some hotels which belonged to the Thistle Group.

A Thistle Group spokeswoman said: "Thistle Group did not raise their prices as a response to yesterday's tragedy, Thistle maintained their usual strategy offering the best rate available based on the fact all London hotels had been fully booked."

Treatment centres

She said customers who had booked rooms but cancelled or did not show up on Thursday were not charged.

London's hotels were 80% full before the blasts, and on Wednesday the UK tourist industry was celebrating the news of London's successful bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games.

But some US tourists have cancelled bookings for the coming week.

Scene of bus explosion

A bus as well as Tube trains were hit

The Hilton Metropole, located near the Edgware Road bomb blast, was used as an emergency treatment centre for casualties.

The Marks & Spencer department store on Edgware Road also allowed rescue staff to use it as a treatment unit, gave food and water to rescue teams and casualties, and also provided blankets and clothing.

A spokeswoman said: ""They just did whatever they had to do. The priority was making sure the casualties were OK. That meant giving them blankets and clothing from the shop floor.

"It's what anybody would do in that situation. We are part of the community."

Did you have to spend the night in a London hotel? If so, did you experience any rise in prices? Send us your comments and experiences using the form below.

My daughter's firm were putting up some of their staff at a local hotel in Baker Street - the hotel upped their tariffs dramatically - people who take advantage of this sort of horror are totally disgusting and their hotel and owners and/or managers should be named and shamed now. There is absolutely no doubt at all that rip-off Britain will prosper at the 2012 Olympics. Well done to our brave emergency services and our courageous population.

Catherine Pordage, London,

So much for the human spirit, it makes you wonder what goes through peoples minds you have builders walking off building sites, giving blood to help out, and hotel managers thinking how they can make a quick profit. Not only should the government step in to make them pay the money back (it would be great to find out if they can be sued for doing something like this as well). But if these are major hotel chains they should be named and shamed and companies should put them on a black list.

James Mason, London

I was due to spend a weekend in London - my first time in 30 years, the hotel I have dealt with has been exemplary, we have had a full refund. I hasten to add I have not postponed my trip due to fear but due to the logistics of getting in and around the city. I will not allow terrorists to dictate to me whether I visit a city or not, my trip is merely delayed!

Gwenda Mayers, Manchester, UK

Surely the hotels could be happy simply with the money they made from keeping their prices the same?! By raising their price they're only pushing people to other hotels, most likely rivals. So if they had kept their prices the same then they would have inevitably made a similar amount of money. It's disgusting that they're taking advantage of people who are scared and panicked from the recent events in London.

Eve, Birmingham

Hmm, why should the hotelier not raise his prices when it is possible? He is not running a charity and he doesn't owe you a hotel room. Of course, you're entitled to not rent the room. If you do, then by renting it at that price, you proved the hotelier right to charge this money (it's a free market in a free country, remember)

Cinnamon, London

Perhaps the price rises reflect the difficulty of providing a service, the hotel staff and services being affected just like everyone else.

Illi, East London UK

Working in Docklands with little prospect of easily crossing a stricken capital I booked a room quite early on in the day. No problem: Å47 room-only. Maybe I was lucky.

Mark Powell, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK

The hotels caught profiteering on Thursday must be named and shamed in the media, with a list posted at all the major railway stations and airports for all to see. In contrast, we should also acknowledge those hotels and businesses which opened their doors without question to help injured victims and passengers. This is the real spirit of London, not a few greedy hotels, giving the rest of us a bad name.

Mandy Friend, Croydon, Surrey

Let's really name and shame these appalling hoteliers. I remember at the time of the Paddington rail disaster how Sainsbury's automatically assumed a key role of their premises being used as a point for injured people or people caught up in the confusion. Hoteliers should have followed their example and opened their lobby doors - as a minimum - to those who weren't able to pay for a nights' accommodation.

R Sooknanan, Berks

One hotel chain raised their rate for police officers from Å85 to Å150, despite having a prior arrangement in case of major incident! Disgusting!

Name Withheld, Woking

If it does come to light that some of London's hotels capitalised on yesterday's atrocities, after knowing that London had been attacked by terrorists, then they should be named and shamed, the least they can do is donate the day's takings to the ambulance or emergency services. When the rest of London pulled together and a terrible day they should be ashamed.

Helen, London Bridge, London Bridge

I had to stay in a hotel that cost me Å270 when normally the price is Å65. Its pathetic that they are cashing in during such bad circumstances.

Matthew Montichinos

Raising prices for rooms in hotels last night is disgusting behaviour and those hotels should be forced to repay the extra. But in the long term the hotels of London will become a victim, they have been suffering reduced business since 9/11 and now this will finish a lot of them off as tourists are already cancelling their stays in London.

Graham, Wallington

From BBC.

[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.

That's kinda funny...in US, if someone rapes and kills, let's say 30 women...he's called a serial killer and rapist...if 500 muslim members of a militia in some poor country in africa each rapes and kills, let's say, 10 people in a town/village/city, many will call it terrorim...I agree with you that rape and murdering is as bad as terrorism, and the cases you talk about is a lot worse than 5000 rapes and murders, but still, I think christians around the world are too quick shouting "terrorist(s)" at muslims...just look at things in US, like columbine...as far as I know that was only called a "tragedy"...I would say that the columbine tragedy is as much a terrorist action as any other, only difference is there were no muslims involved...if 2 mulim boys did it tomorrow, it would most likely be called a terrorist attack, even though the 2 boys grew up in US...

Definition of terrorism:

Quote[/b] ]The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Think again about what you just posted.

Quote[/b] ]Ironsight, the determenation of an organization as terrorists is pretty simple. The Janjaweed are nowhere categorized as a terrorist organization, so I have to insist that they are none.

They are a murdering, raping militia, but NOT a terrorist organization.

Agree that the Janjaweed is not an organisation. But just because they aren't organised doesn't mean they aren't terrorist. Defenition of a terrorist:

Quote[/b] ]One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Do you consider genocide and raping terorrism? Then these people are terrorists. It's as simple as that.

Quote[/b] ]By throwing them alltogether into the terrorist pot you make your life easier but that´s not an accurate picture of reality.

Terrorism needs to be fought as militia clashes have to be fought. Governmetal abuse of power has to be fought as dictatorships have to be fought. But all of these different issues need different approaches. It´s way too easy to label them all terrorists and think that a unified approach like the war on terror could deal with them all.

Again I agree with you. But this started with Bordoy's post that people all arround the world are getting terrorised in the name of the Islam (most of the time this name is abused). And I believe in Darfur this is exactly the case. The people of Darfur are getting terrorised in Darfur in the name of the Islam. Attrocities like these are an act of terrorism. Why? Because inocent civilians in Darfur are the victims of genocide and rape. Again look at the definition I posted in the beginning of the post and decide for yourself if you consider the attrocities in Darfur as an act of terrorism.

Again I agree with you that it's important not to trow every form of terrorism in one pot. But think about how many terrorist acts are commited in the name of the Islam all over the world, including Darfur.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Ironsight, but what does it change? You can redefine, name and rename all you want but it changes nothing. Strict definitions are only needed for biurocracy and statistics.

If You get into such details and discuss them for hours then You'll only loose the big picture.

[Pathy 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4663457.stm

Interesting page, has quotes from quite a few world newspapers, with the reactions from around the globe.

The Israeli one basically takes the line of what Avon keeps saying, which i found interesting.  

[Ironsight 1]

@ July 08 2005,15:55)]If You get into such details and discuss them for hours then You'll only loose the big picture.

I am afraid that some people don't see the big picture. People only see what happens in North America, Europe and the Middle East. I wanted to show that there's more and show that the problem is even bigger then we think

[Akira 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4663457.stm

Interesting page, has quotes from quite a few world newspapers, with the reactions from around the globe.

The Israeli one basically takes the line of what Avon keeps saying, which i found interesting.

Find this one interesting...

Quote[/b] ]The London attack, or invasion, is not the work of a small group of individuals. It is the bitter fruit of a religion that has been hijacked by a small band of extremists while the majority watches on with a mixture of anxiety and delight. Let's hear Muslims condemning these kind of attacks without ifs and buts... The true battle against this enemy of humanity will only start when the silent majority in the Muslim world raise their voice against these killers and those who brainwash, train and finance them.

Pan-Arab Al-Sharq al-Awsat, commentary by Amir Taheri

[Garcia 0]

@ July 08 2005,15:55)]If You get into such details and discuss them for hours then You'll only loose the big picture.

I am afraid that some people don't see the big picture. People only see what happens in North America, Europe and the Middle East. I wanted to show that there's more and show that the problem is even bigger then we think  

How big?

Anyway, no matter where theres terrorism, and no matter who does it, there will always be terrorism...IMO, thinking that you can "remove" terrorism, is just like thinking that you can "make poverty history". It won't happen...only way to make it happen, is to solve both at the same time, by killing everyone in every poor country in the world, and kill every corrupt leader...but that wouldn't be a good solution There's too many people on ther earth to give everyone a good life, and there will always be people who don't like the politics of the western world, and as long as their country is poor and corrupt and to weak to put any pressure on the western world to change whatever they dislike, they will turn to terrorism as the last way of telling the western world what that group of people means about their politics.

The war on terror won't work...it may, after some time, decrease the number of terrorist attacks, but I think there will always be terrorism. Though, there will (hopefuly) come something good out of it, if the countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) do get back on their feet and gets a working goverment.

[USSRsniper 0]

@ July 08 2005,15:55)]If You get into such details and discuss them for hours then You'll only loose the big picture.

I am afraid that some people don't see the big picture. People only see what happens in North America, Europe and the Middle East. I wanted to show that there's more and show that the problem is even bigger then we think  

How big?

Anyway, no matter where theres terrorism, and no matter who does it, there will always be terrorism...IMO, thinking that you can "remove" terrorism, is just like thinking that you can "make poverty history". It won't happen...only way to make it happen, is to solve both at the same time, by killing everyone in every poor country in the world, and kill every corrupt leader...but that wouldn't be a good solution There's too many people on ther earth to give everyone a good life, and there will always be people who don't like the politics of the western world, and as long as their country is poor and corrupt and to weak to put any pressure on the western world to change whatever they dislike, they will turn to terrorism as the last way of telling the western world what that group of people means about their politics.

The war on terror won't work...it may, after some time, decrease the number of terrorist attacks, but I think there will always be terrorism. Though, there will (hopefuly) come something good out of it, if the countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) do get back on their feet and gets a working goverment.

If you remove poverty terrorism will still exist. I dont even think that poverty in poor countries causes them to attack rich countries. There are people even in Western World who hate their politics   I hate western world politics too! Does this make me terrorist?

[philcommando 0]

Never take on a defeatist view, for it is not the nature of the human race to give up and go quietly into the night. There will always be problems. What are problems but only another hurdle to overcome as long as we apply our brains to it for the common good?

If we can evolve beyond the cave and united as one to share the joy of reaching for the moon, what is mere religion that sane men cannot realise and adapt it to make us better humans? Poverty will always be with us, but developing countries can show the rest that a higher percentage of middle class can be achieved, so why not other poor nations then, through the use of internet which has no border or censorship?

Are we contend to live out our lives in pessimism or should we look beyond and seek out optimism with each new day?

One step at a time, and the step to take now is to eradicate criminal acts in any guise, more so acts that are deliberately targeted to hit massive amount of innocent men, women, children and babies. It may take years, but it will be eventually wiped out the way Inquisitions stopped by the 18th century, the way KKK clans rendered as fools, the way women are finally taking to the skies(literally), the way a man's worth is judge not by his color but by his ability for the common good, and too many other achievements that we as a human race is proud of.

[Scorpio 0]

<< Fully agreed with Panda.

Wahabi doctrine can easily be invalidated with, I shit you not, one single verse from the Qur'an.

[2:256]"Let there be no compulsion in religion."

I'm not a qualified scholar, but it's clear at what this means.

Islam does NOT divide people into muslims and non-muslims where the non-muslims should be killed. It DOES say that there are muslims, christians, jews, sabians, and disbelievers. The above verse states that everyone has free will to believe or not. The reason why you see negative stuff on disbelievers is because it's like "If you believe you have one, If you don't you have lost"...as many times they're called the "losers".

Quote[/b] ]Many times, we hear talks about pushing moderates to side with terrorists should we push for action against their religion. It cuts no more! IF these foolish moderates take on the sides of terrorists, let them, i say! At least we know for sure who our enemies are.

Why must you generalise? And what you do mean by "at least we know who our enemies are"? Do you mean that you want to stop tolerating real muslims so that the 'war on terror' will be easier fought? If the majority of the 'moderates' join the terrorists then will you target all muslims?

Either way, I can tell you that at least I won't be joining these bastards and I'm speaking out against them in the best ways I can. But if you suddenly decide to harrass me one day it will be greatly ironic, don't you think? Don't expect to get a peaceful answer.

[pandalefou 0]

Oh and for all that agreed with the iraq war...

Saddam hussein never does anything to your contry,the US government pulled him to the power and now its the BAD GUY but let read some history.

-CIA trainned Osama bin ladem and he used his formation very well

-Us government gave weapons to Osama bin ladem (taliban and co)

-Us government pulled Fidel castro to the power

-Us government pulled the dictator of vietnam before entering in war with

-Georges W Bush lied you about the iraq and you re-elect him ! He used the 11 September attack to ally the public opinion to him.

-Did you see Farenheit 911 ? it's a great movie about your president

So don't say "ITS THE BAD GUY KILL HIM" Don't forget that your government pull dictator, train terrorist...

Oh and for the guys who will say "Why the europe country did say that about us whe helped them in the WWII"

I say to them "Seriously, did Adolf Hitler stop after the Europa ?, if i was him, i tried to conquert the USA after that" So for me the USA just defend them.

[Ironsight 1]

-Us government pulled Fidel castro to the power

Get your facts right. The US supported Batista who was there before Castro. The US never helped Castro.

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]-Did you see Farenheit 911 ? it's a great movie about your president

That movie is complete crap, not worth watching. It's completely subjective

And before you ask I am not an American.

EDIT2:

Quote[/b] ]-CIA trainned Osama bin ladem and he used his formation very well

-Us government gave weapons to Osama bin ladem (taliban and co)

That played more then 20 years ago. How was the CIA supposed to know that Osama would become an extremist. You have been watching to much Michael Moore mate

[philcommando 0]

Lets not get confuse and distracted again.

A criminal act had been enacted. Thousands of innocent men, women and children who lived their life normally had it snuff out with the last words burning in their ears "Allah Akbar!" Either that or their loved ones get to hear it, from those claiming responsibility of the criminal acts.

Whatever and no matter how compelling the justifications or reasons or conditions for terrorist acts are, a massacre in the name of Allah had been committed on innocents.

To scorpio,

I no longer care what you do or dont do for thousands of innocent had died in the manner mentioned above and has continued to die and will continue to do so. For 4 years, many had waited in peace for moderates who are in the majority to stop the killings, nothing changed despite you belonging to the majority other than ' we abhor such acts but..." What we saw daily are dismembered limbs and chaos, loved ones gone. I only seek that you ask in your heart what will be your next course of action for the sake of humanity.

Should we meet in the battlefield to apprehend the killers and their accomplices of innocent civilians, then let it be settled within our generations so that the next generation will live in freedom - freedom from hunger, freedom from slavery of the mind, and freedom from fear.

Please, scopio, i beg you. This is not a threat, only to seek that you and your faith ACT NOW to stop these minority criminals hiding in your midst. Do not obstruct others from doing their duty by blinding yourself to religious fervour, but search your heart with fellow moderates in your mosque, if we are infidels, no lower than an ant to be used for propaganda purposes by any village idiot who puts on a white cap denoting himself a wise man who made his pilgrimage to Mecca. ..

[Apollo 0]

Lets not get confuse and distracted again.

A criminal act had been enacted. Thousands of innocent men, women and children who lived their life normally had it snuff out with the last words burning in their ears "Allah Akbar!" Either that or their loved ones get to hear it, from those claiming responsibility of the criminal acts.

Whatever and no matter how compelling the justifications or reasons or conditions for terrorist acts are, a massacre in the name of Allah had been committed on innocents.

To scorpio,

I no longer care what you do or dont do for thousands of innocent had died in the manner mentioned above and has continued to die and will continue to do so. For 4 years, many had waited in peace for moderates who are in the majority to stop the killings, nothing changed despite you belonging to the majority other than ' we abhor such acts but..." What we saw daily are dismembered limbs and chaos, loved ones gone. I only seek that you ask in your heart what will be your next course of action for the sake of humanity.

Should we meet in the battlefield to apprehend the killers and their accomplices of innocent civilians, then let it be settled within our generations so that the next generation will live in freedom - freedom from hunger, freedom from slavery of the mind, and freedom from fear.

Please, scopio, i beg you. This is not a threat, only to seek that you and your faith ACT NOW to stop these minority criminals hiding in your midst. Do not obstruct others from doing their duty by blinding yourself to religious fervour, but search your heart with fellow moderates in your mosque, if we are infidels, no lower than an ant to be used for propaganda purposes by any village idiot who puts on a white cap denoting himself a wise man who made his pilgrimage to Mecca. ..

Seriously ,try to still look at this with some perspective ,yes terrorism kills ,but it's not the threat that humanity seems to give it.I can understnd that you feel emotional after yesterday.But think about it ,in all these years the deathcount of terrorism has hardly exceeded 10.000 ,lots of more civilians are killed in many different ways!And yet this don't mean you will spend so much attention and funds to those problems compared to terrorism.Yearly many more people die in mondane thing's like traffic ,natural disasters ,shortage of medicine ,disease ,while many of these problems get far less attention and funds.Millions are dying in Africa trough aids ,millions are dying in the world trough civil war ,famine ,or ethnic cleansing ,and we care far less about these problems.

If it's for the sake of humanity ,then start give terrorism less attention ,and try to alleviate some of the REAL problems in this world.