Same terrorist coin, different side

To use a Casby tactic, surely you're not suggesting the "insurgents" (those are terrorists/murderers to you, folks) are fighting for freedom?

You couldn't even sell that story in downtown Baghdad.

 

They think they are, as does much of the Arab world. Sure there are opportunistic individuals that capitalize on this for personal power and gain, but much of the Arab street see us as truly evil oppressors. The fact that this view is not justified is moot. This is their reality, and any uncivilized act we commit re-enforces it, though it may already be too late.

 

Like the people/governments financing and directing the shlumps who are blowing themselves to pieces?

Opportunistic is an awfully nice word to use to describe these people.

An opinion from Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel:

"We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges. "

 

No argument with me there.

 

How many attacks have been aimed at the US military? How many at innocent civilians? If the terrorist focused the brunt of their violence against military targets then I agree with you -- you can't bully the USA. When any group specifically targets innocent, unarmed, non-military, civilians then they are nothing more than a low life chicken-sh!^ bully IMO.

The "insurgence", as you refer to them, are fighting to maintain their way of life. One in which all people are NOT granted the same opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The "insurgence" is comprised of an extremist minority. The majority of the Arab world, if they were free to speak and act, would grasp freedom. Don't beleive me? then stop in a local Subway, Dairy Queen, or quick-mart. If life in these Arab countries is so good, that US military efforts to free a society are viewed as oppresive, then why do these people flock to our shores?

 

bin Laden has stated that he condones the targeting of non-combatants, women, and children. He believes that the US is hypocritical of this policy as when the US states dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they did differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. When the US bombs/shells places they also do not distinguish between the two there either.

It does go against the teachings of the Qu'ran to target non-combatants, women and children though.

 

Most Islamic countries, if given the freedom to choose their form of government, would elect to curtail that freedom by choosing an Islamic theocracy and implementing Sharia (sp?) law.

Using convenience store employees as an example of the mindset of the Islamic would - I'll refrain from commenting on that.

While it's fun and satisfying to demonize your enemy, it's far more useful to try to understand him.

 

Can you give me an example of when the US military has deliberately and specifically targeted civilians? The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were directed at the center of Japan's military leadership. There is a difference between collateral damage and specific targeting of innocent civilians.

If I live next to a facility that political\religious extremists are using as a base of military operations in a conflict, and I know that there is a possibility of attack on that facility, then you can bet your a$$ I'm going to take whatever steps are needed to protect my family. I'll route the extremist occupying the facility or I'll move my family.

If the Qur'an forbids the targeting of non-combatants then why are the actions of the Islamic terrorist tolerated by the Islamic community? The Qur'an views our predominately Christian nation as "infidels" and not "non-combatants". That is why you hear very little if any criticism of these terroristic actions by the Islamic community.

The Christian "right" catches a lot of flack from time to time regarding the actions of a few "zealots". However, there is no shortage of public outcry, from Christian leaders and communities, when one of these zealots perpetrates a heinous crime against society. Where is that same public outcry from the Islamic community?

 

When have the Iraqi people had an opportunity for such an election?

I consider them to be business OWNERS, who have invested their lives in our nation, you referred to them as "employees".

You can put a cow bell on a pig and you've still got a pig! A demon is a demon even if dressed in angel's wings.

 

Grow up and start thinking rationally.
I guess using your premise when Al Qaeda attacked the twin towers they were targeting the center of America's financial leadership and the people that were lost there were just collateral damage. If they were looking just to kill people then they could have picked other targets that would have had a much higher death rate, such as a football game for example.

For one thing it goes against the Qu'ran to go against another Muslim.
The Qu'ran also says that there should be no other law than Islamic law (sharia). So it makes it harder for them figure out exactly what the right thing to do is.
For another it would take some balls and that is not something I think is in abundance over there.
I think that some of the people over there might not support the terrorist actions, but they also do not support the US and are also leery of the US intentions over there.

 

It is my belief that there is more to this concept than what is on the surface.

From the material I have been exposed to I come to the conclusion that there are two groups of people in these types of situations.

There are those that think that the Qu'ran is the only way and then there are those that believe in the Qu'ran but also recognize that this complete blind faith to the Qu'ran has them going back wards in the world and can recognize that this is not good for Islam also.

I think that one thing that is against us is that these people really have had no taste of true freedom. It is hard to change your ways for something that you really know nothing about.

 

Regardless of what we do while in iraq now, these men hate the US! Most taught from birth that we are wrong, our thinking wrong! With this in mind, how could they ever see democracy working in their country?

Why are we forcing our views on these people? Because Sadam was wrong, because the things that happen in their country we see as morally wrong? Things we consider as uncivilied may have been parts of their lives for a long time. How can you say that these people, who have lived in a different time, differnt mind set, would see the same things as being uncivilized?

 

Grow up ??? Sounds like something my 9 year old would say to her sister.

My premise is this (please feel free to rationally point out the error in my thought process) - There is a marked difference in an attack that targets innocent civilians and an attack against a military target that results in the loss of civilian lives. If Al Qaeda were focused on the military aspect of a WTC attack then they could have carried out their attack at night or on a weekend when the Trade Center would not have been as occupied. The result of such an attack would have likely been the same, i.e. destruction of a symbol that embodies the freedom of the USA, disruption of financial operations, etc, but without the magnitude of loss of innocent civilian lives. The fact that they carried out their attack during business hours, in the middle of the week, tells me that they were specifically targeting innocent Americans and not military targets. Perhaps, while we are on this subject, someone could explain to me what military significance a Russian elementary school has.

The Bible teaches that we should love our neighbor as ourself and much more so those of the faith. I'll still take whatever action is neccesary to prevent my "brother in Christ" from injuring an innocent.

kmfegan wrote - "It does go against the teachings of the Qu'ran to target non-combatants, women and children though."

If Islamic law is "the" law to these people then why are non-combatants being targeted?

+1 on the small nads, why else would you attack innocent people while covering your face with a diaper?

Leery of US intentions? What do they think - we only want the oil? If all we wanted was the oil then we'd take the oil. Have they forgotten who struck the first blow(s)?

 

You can justify it anyway you want when it is you.

The fact is that when we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when we bombed Germany and other parts of Europe in WWII, when we carpet bombed Viet Nam, when we shelled Lebanon, when we bombed parts of Iraq there were non-combatants, women, and children killed. You can play whatever word games you want to play so that you feel smarter than everyone else on the board, but they are dead. They are just as dead if they were deliberately target or were collateral damage. They are dead as a result of the US's actions.

But in your mind the US military would never target non-combatants, women, and children. Just ask the American Indians if you can still find any of them.

As for the 9 year old comment, it is good to see that I can get through to you then.

Yes they are leery of US intentions. One thing that might point this out to you is how they refer to the US soldiers as occupiers.

 

Thank you. It is good to know that we are still free in this nation to express our opinions. It seems to me that the difference in our perspectives is that you feel that the US deserves the unprovoked attacks aimed at innocent civilians and you view these attacks as no different than US military attacks on our (my?) enemy. I, on the other hand, think that we are not deserving of these acts and that the US military does not specifically target non-combatants, women, and children.

What about the people that died as a result of the WTC attacks? Pentagon attack? or the thousands of US soldiers that have died defending our freedom and attempting to free an oppressed nation? Are they any less dead?

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Germany, parts of Europe, Lebanon, Viet Nam -- can you give me one specific example of a US attack aimed solely at innocent non-combatants, women, and children? Yes innocent lives were lost in many of those attacks but I have yet to find an example of a US attack aimed at non-combatants, women, and children.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki - The center of the Japanese military command and location of factories producing planes, guns, bombs, and other items to support Japan's aggression toward the US.

Germany, Europe - factories producing bearings, tanks, armored vehicles, weapons, and planes were the focus of attacks. Many civilians lost their lives because these factories were located in the center of densely populated cities. Once again let us remember the aggressor.

Viet Nam, Lebannon, Iraq - give me an example of a US attack aimed solely at non-combatants.

I can give you a couple of examples of steps the US has taken to minimize the loss of civilian life in military combat -

1. Laser guided weapons - Billions have been spent developing this technology that allows us to strike a target the size of a small envelope. It would certainly be cheaper, and easier, to blanket bomb an area in order to destroy a military target but the US has chosen to develop this "smart" bomb technology in an effort to prevent civilian loss.

2. Numerous times during the Gulf war and the current war in Iraq the US has delayed or postponed attacks on military targets because the loss of civilian life would be too great. Many military communication centers were destroyed at night because the office building they were located in would have fewer non-combatants than during the day. Several military targets were removed from the "hit" list because civilian losses would be too great. Why do you think Sadam stationed military personnel in residential areas, mosques, hospitals, etc.? Because he knew the US would not attack these areas and take a chance on killing innocent civilians. How many US soldiers lives have been lost because of the US desire to prevent the destruction of innocent non-combatants, women, and children. I would venture a guess that a couple of well placed nukes could have ended this war without the loss of a single US soldier. Did the US choose that path? No. Why? to preserve the life of as many non-combatants, women, and children as possible.

I still hold to my earlier premise, and have yet seen sufficient evidence to the contrary - The US does not specifically target non-combatants in military attacks, the Islamic extremist terrorists do. A valid argument could be made that the WTC is/was a "military" target and as such was no different than any other military attack. You can not, however, refute the fact that the timing of those attacks was chosen to maximize the loss of innocent human lives.



What word games? I'm merely expressing my opinion. Can we not intelligently discuss this issue without you feeling threatened to the point that you resort to questioning my maturity (remember the grow up comment?), reasoning ability, and intentions? Could it be that you feel threatened by my opinions because they are easier to defend and justify than your own?

The way the US government treated native americans in the 1800s was unforgivable in my opinion. Has the US military not changed in the last 200 years? I think that there is a distinct difference between the US military of the 1800's and the US military of today. Can you give me an example of a US military attack aimed solely at non-combatants, women, and children in the last 100 years?

Let us not forget the source of the "grow up and start thinking rationally" comment.

Yet another area that the Islamic community could help out by speaking up.

 

I am sure the family members and friends of all the non-combatants, women, and children took solace knowing that they did not lose them deliberately.

They are not 100% unprovoked attacks either.

Just as in Pearl Harbor, we stuck/stick our nose in their shit, we screwed with them and they responded.

The people that were killed in the Sept 11th attacks did not deserve to die, but they died as a result of someone's unhappiness with the US Governments policy.

Go to Google and type in "miller bin laden" and read the interview between bin Laden and John Miller.

 

Interesting interview.
If I had to write a brief synopsis of Bin Laden's answer to just the first two questions, it would be: We want to wipe-out the Jews among us and the US is interfering with our goal.

If any military leaders in this country were to take the same position Bin Laden voices in relation to any people, we would be (rightly so) excoriated and condemned by the rest of the world.
This attitude is essentially that taken toward American Indians in the not-so-distant past, but it was not just the position of the government, but that of the citizens also.

The interview explains his reasoning and position, but there is no legitimacy to it. It is strictly rooted in hatred for another religion/ethnic group.

 

Can you give me an example of a US military attack aimed solely at non-combatants, women, and children in the last 100 years?

It could be argued that this is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

 

is all i can say.

jesus, how fucked are people these days?

 

I don't think that all of bin Laden's issues are illegitimate. I think his solutions are a problem. And his visions of what the world should become are out of touch with reality.