Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: john9001 on January 19, 2006, 12:07:38 PM
-
cliped from news story...
""We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.
"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said."
-
Yep and if you believe all that, I have a bridge for sale, hardly used and not a scratch on it. Contact me at BR549
-
If true, the Great Shaitan must be starting to get to them. Otherwise, they'd never eat that much humble pie.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Yep and if you believe all that, I have a bridge for sale, hardly used and not a scratch on it. Contact me at BR549
i doubt that, all bridges in america are falling down and need billions in repair but the govt has no money because bush gave the "rich" people tax cuts.
?? did i just highjack my own thread?
-
Does this donut-hole actually think the American people would treat with him, and trust his word? He suggests that he's worried about all the money we're spending? This is the same guy who's persoanlly responsible for killing and maiming literally thousands of people who never did him a moments harm.
Can he actually be that incredibly naive? Do you think this means he's actually getting scared? Maybe we're getting close? Or do you suppose he just figures this statement will contribute to fomenting political distress here? Either way...he's a frikkin animal.
If I could send him a response to his offer, for my part, the answer would be as follows;
Too Late.
(followed shortly by the brief but distinct sound of an incoming Tomahawk)
-
John...
Yup. You did. :rofl
-
could be the only possible end to the entire mess .. other than more of the same
then again, who is OBL actually in charge of? who would honor this truce? his rag tag cave dwelling followers or every islamic nutjob in the ME?
-
Yeah, a truce, that's the ticket. Why don't you come over for a truce dinner, yeah.
-
Originally posted by john9001
cliped from news story...
""We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war.
"There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America," he said."
He's not saying that for our benefit, nor do I think his intended audience for this excerpt is the American people.
I think he's always trying to influence our western allies and his own allies for that matter, more so than American public opinion.
-
is this the same audio tap (unconfirmed if was bin laden as of when was driving to work 4 hours ago) in which he was basically saying there are more terrorist attacks planned for the US?
-
So the guy starts a fight, kills 3000 americans, gets attacked in response, continues to be under attack, has basically been in hiding ever since, has had two muslim countries invaded and sufferred tens of thousands of lost fighters and now he offers us a truce, as if it would be in our benifit?
m'k
-
Nutts
:D
-
Hi All,
Originally posted by john9001
""We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat.
Osama and friends are once again relying on the fact that most infidels haven't read the Quran and aren't familiar with Muslim doctrine.
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" [Quran, Sura 9:4]
Lying and deceiving infidels, is not only not shirk (a sin) it is considered an admirable tactic in Jihad. The doctrine even has a name it is called "al-Taqiyya" which can be translated as dissimulation. It literally means "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."
"Verily we smile for some people, while our hearts curse those same people." - Abu Al Darda
Imam Al Ghazzali, one of the most respected and oft quoted of all the Islamic theologians, treats the subject of permissible lying at length in his work "The Reliance of the Traveller" but he can be summarized in the following way:
"Safeguarding of a Muslim's life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that lying is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim's blood is at stake."
Happily though, I think even the most gullible of Westerners realizes that OBL is not someone whose promises can be trusted.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Stringer
I think he's always trying to influence our western allies and his own allies for that matter, more so than American public opinion.
Of course he didn't, thats silly! Here we see again what a warmonger Bush is, he didn't accept a fair truce!!!!!!!111111
-
Seagoon, you are amazing. Good stuff.
-
Nuts! it is.
-
OK Assoma, here's the deal. Have one of your cronies pick up a hand held GPS.... turn it on...read your cordinance... hrs...min....sec.. longitude and hrs...min....sec..latitude. Then phone these in to the pentagon. They will dispatch a peace treaty party from a ship in the Arabian Sea. Sit tight, it will only take an hour or so.
-
"a conditional truce"
Bush should have made a statement outlining conditions which we could accept.
1. Osama must denounce the use of violence especially against civilians.
2. Osama must surrender to American troops with his top 20 or so deputies and accept imprisonment for the rest of his life. (or worse)
3. On world wide TV, Osama and his deputies must sing two verses of "The Star Spangled Banner", "God Save the Queen", and the Spanish, Austrailian and Indonesian national anthems, among others.
4. On world wide TV, Osama must put his head between his knees and kiss his own arse.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Osama and friends are once again relying on the fact that most infidels haven't read the Quran and aren't familiar with Muslim doctrine.
I could equally claim that you're relying on the fact that your audience aren't familiar with the Quran in order to push your own dogma:
Some points for you:
Regarding Sura 9:5, and not 9:4 as you incorrectly label it, why didn't you quote the verses that come before and after the one you posted? Was it because they add context that would make a nonsense of your argument?
9:4 If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
9:6 If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
Regarding the concept of Taqiyya, you're again presenting an incomplete picture. Taqiyya was generally held as a Shia concept that related to hiding one's affiliation from Sunni co-religionists for the purpose of avoiding persecution. Sunni acceptance of the permisability of Taqiyya is by no means universal; in fact many regard it as hypocrisy and to be avoided. So why do you present it as a universal tenet of Islam?
I find it interesting that someone with your ostensible background would make such omissions of context out of ignorance.
Comments?
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
Maybe he just realized that 10-1 payback is on the low end of historical US responses, and he ought to quit now. He got a few thousand of us, but the body count in the regions he purports to support have seen an (estimated) 30,000+ deaths.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
See Rule #4, #5
thought you left
right... a pastor of a small church in NC is no different than a cheekbones in the ME who advocates mass murder
-
Hi Momus,
Sorry about mislabeling the verse, I have been known to mislabel verses in the Bible as well, even in sermons. Yet more evidence of my fallibility.
I sometimes wonder how much context you are going to require? Why not back up to the beginning of the chapter and then give the historical context?
"A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- . Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. " (Quran, Suras 9:1-3)
The context of course is the declaration of Muhammad that the treaties and alliances that the Arabian tribes that had accepted Islam had entered into with tribes and peoples that had not, were now abrogated. The reason for doing this was in order to make it possible for these tribes to wage Jihad against their former allies (particularly in Mecca). In some cases this involved breaking historic links forged by marriage or even payment. These solemn vows were declared null and void. They are then told they can employ any strategem in waging war against those who do not believe, until they either cease resisting and are subjugated or become Muslims themselves.
Al Taqiyaa as a doctrine, is indeed more formally accepted by Shia, but as the Shia scholars have pointed out for Sunnis to say that they don't have a doctrine of dissimulation is to ignore their own scholars and history and more importantly the Quran and the Hadiths.
I would encourage you strongly, for instance, to actually read "The Reliance of the Traveller" which has long been one of the most oft quoted manuals of Islamic Law in the Sunni Community. Decent translations are now available in English via Amazon (although the translator avoids certain subjects that will appall Westerners, so for instance if you want Islamic law on Slavery you'll need to learn Arabic.)
Anyway, here are a few extracts from that text on the Sunni doctrine of "permissible lying":
"PERMISSIBLE LYING
r8.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, ``He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.''
This much is related by both Bukhari and Muslim, with Muslim's version recording that Umm Kulthum added, ``I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A:in smoothing over differences),''
[Seagoon note - this ^^^^ refers to a quote from the Hadiths regarding what Muhammad [him] said]
"This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. When for example one is concealing a muslim from an oppressor who asks where he is, it is obligatory to lie about his being hidden. Or when a person deposits an article with one for safekeeping and an oppressor wanting to appropriate it inquires about it, it is obligatory to lie about having concealed it, for if one informs him about the article and he then siezes it, one is financially liable(A: to the owner)to cover the article's cost. Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying.
...
r10.3 Scholars say that there is no harm (def: p8.2( A: )) in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law that is more important than not misleading the person being addressed, or if there is a pressing need which could not otherwise be fulfilled except through lying."
[The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by NOAH HA MIM KELLER]
If you simply peruse the Sunni English Language Islamic centers on the Internet, you'll see how highly acclaimed this work is.
That's the pattern, the custom, and the religious teaching. Lying in the case of Holy War, especially when it is a lie to told to an infidel "oppressor" is permissible. Merely wanting to believe something else isn't going to change that.
Do you seriously believe that Osama is honestly offering this "truce"? Additionally, how do you explain AQ breaking their "agreement" to stop attacks in Al-Andalus if the Spaniards withdrew from Iraq?
- SEAGOON
-
why not invite bin laden and co. into a nice secure rooms so you can 'talk' it out....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
thought you left
right... a pastor of a small church in NC is no different than a cheekbones in the ME who advocates mass murder
Preaching and promoting intolerance is the same, whether it be from a pastor in a small town in NC or some guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.
ack-ack
-
You better repent and believe the Gospel Ack, or I might just finally snap and be forced to go to the extreme of saying "repent and believe" again only this time, I'll add an exclamation mark at the end.
Don't make me go there man... Don't you know that I'm loco essay?
- SEAGOON
-
You're missing the point Seagoon. I don't care if the Bin Laden offer is genuine or not although I suspect that the reports are untrue. The problem is that you are presenting verses as undisputed evidence for your position that people like Bin-Laden represent the underlying mainstream of Islamic doctrine whilst omitting context that doesn't support that view. You've just done it again because you fail to mention that Sura 9 is referring to a real event, the Battle of Tabouk that took place in Arabia in 630AD. By your standards I may as well cite Deuteronomy 7.1 & 2 as allowing for the Jews of 2006 to ethnically cleanse palestine of all non-jews:
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girga****es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them
Ridiculous no?
As for the Ghazali citations; what do you think they prove?
One is permitted to lie in war time. Well no kidding? Didn't Churchill write that the first casualty of war is the truth?
One is obliged to lie if protecting someone from an oppressor? Sounds like a nice rule to me.
I'm not quite sure what you think the significance of al-Ghazali's work is in this context. Whether Bin Laden can use it to legitimize his actions is moot since he represents only himself and a relatively small number of deviants. I'm quite happy for you to asign the worst of motives to his movement, as long as we're clear that it is just his band of extremists that we're referring to.
-
I have an idea. y not do what they did in the robot movie, u know where each country has a giant robot and to settle disputes they just fight in this HUGE colosium. Or like what happened in that show where america and China where at war. Each country sent one of its best soldiers to this island, there they had to kill each other. Whoever won settled the war.:noid
-
Go for the truce, invite to dinner of peace, arrest...
:aok
-
Originally posted by Momus--
So why do you present it as a universal tenet of Islam?
I find it interesting that someone with your ostensible background would make such omissions of context out of ignorance.
Comments?
Psst. What you had better be concerned about is if the "Great, Infamous, Iranian Missisle Defense System" of yours works. Btw, you just broke a window.
The day I care what YOU think, well, that day will never come.
To hell with OBL and his backers, supporters, etc. I'll screw the 70 virgins first.
Karaya
-
Yea ask Spain what a truce with Muslim Extremest Fascists is worth:
"The train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004, killed 191. Three days later, Spaniards voted out the pro-war government and voted in the anti-war Socialists. The incoming prime minister vowed to promptly pull out Spanish troops from Iraq. Spain's reward? On April 2, 2004, Spanish authorities found a 22-pound bomb on a railway track between Madrid and Seville. And, later that year, in October, Spanish authorities foiled a plot to blow up their National Court, Spain's center for prosecuting terrorists. So much for Osama bin Laden's "offer," made a month after the Madrid train bombings, for a "truce" to any European country that stops "attacking Muslims" before a three-month deadline."
-
Originally posted by superpug1
I have an idea. y not do what they did in the robot movie, u know where each country has a giant robot and to settle disputes they just fight in this HUGE colosium. Or like what happened in that show where america and China where at war. Each country sent one of its best soldiers to this island, there they had to kill each other. Whoever won settled the war.:noid
I'm having to wonder just how high tech a robot Bin Laden could
build. Maybe a giant car filled with explosives?
-
(http://theminiaturespage.com/news/pics/scf/dec02/760918a.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
(http://theminiaturespage.com/news/pics/scf/dec02/760918a.jpg)
ack-ack
While a Draconis Atlas, or even better a Robotech Veritech would represent the US in a battle of giant robots.
This is what those homicidal sandmonkeys would comeup with
(http://www.usabyways.com/images/wind_up_robot_art.JPG)
-
Let's invite him and all his henchmen to a wonderful discussion at the UN Building in NYC... and fly a few remote 747's into it during the main course. Make sure Kofi and Family are there and Kim, Jung Il.....
Dammm I should be the Prez!!!
Prez Mac..
~New Taxes? There are NO Taxes!!!
You work hard enough, that's taxing enough!
WelFare? Well you better learn how to Fare for yourself!
You and your 7 children can help to keep American Freeways clean. Minumum wage. Your subsidized home... will dedesized, those that can't work Highways will be moving in with your tired asre. Until we assist you in working at the landfill.
Borders? Closed and Guarded. NAFTA is outta here, you both took enough advantage. Bye! Same with NATO... cya ~Bye~ Sponge off Belguim or someone..you have a 30 day notice.
You long time Politicians? Cya, gone.. ohhh no serverance either. You ripped us off long enough. We now repocess the stuff that made you thrive off of "We The People..." It will be actioned and money given to those working the Highways.
Nurses, Teachers, Firemen and Police will have a double hike in pay. You are what saves us. Psst short note to the Postal Office. If you don't wanna be riding horses again across the Fine Divide I suggest staying with the 2 cent stamp, email is kicking yer arse any ways.
Europe, Asia, Middle East and all point beyond. Warning notice: We have just successfully closed our Borders. You are not welcomed to come here and trash America. We had enough. Next week we are turning the Statue of Liberty areound a bit to face where the Twin Towers were and her Lamp will shine for all that had perished... not the "Bring us you're tired and Humble Masses..." but "We Shall Never Forget".
You Atheist out there better run, Chistmas is "Christmas!" You have a problem with that then flee... We are a Country based upon Religeon and the freedom of choice to pick and do so. "In God We Trust" Let that burn in your eyes as you run.
Hollywood and you lame Actors/Actresses along with the Music Industry...Bye~! If it takes crap/political BS/Scientology to sell yer asre then sell it in China. Your outta here!
Now for the American People. We need to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, there's alotta work to be done.
We will now take care of Ourselves and let the rest of the ungreatful World fend for themselves.
Voting on the "Free America" ticket...
Mac
-
Originally posted by Momus--
You're missing the point Seagoon. I don't care if the Bin Laden offer is genuine or not although I suspect that the reports are untrue. The problem is that you are presenting verses as undisputed evidence for your position that people like Bin-Laden represent the underlying mainstream of Islamic doctrine whilst omitting context that doesn't support that view. You've just done it again because you fail to mention that Sura 9 is referring to a real event, the Battle of Tabouk that took place in Arabia in 630AD. By your standards I may as well cite Deuteronomy 7.1 & 2 as allowing for the Jews of 2006 to ethnically cleanse palestine of all non-jews:
Ridiculous no?
As for the Ghazali citations; what do you think they prove?
One is permitted to lie in war time. Well no kidding? Didn't Churchill write that the first casualty of war is the truth?
One is obliged to lie if protecting someone from an oppressor? Sounds like a nice rule to me.
I'm not quite sure what you think the significance of al-Ghazali's work is in this context. Whether Bin Laden can use it to legitimize his actions is moot since he represents only himself and a relatively small number of deviants. I'm quite happy for you to asign the worst of motives to his movement, as long as we're clear that it is just his band of extremists that we're referring to.
Osama makes up the rules as he goes along. A simple Quran reading would instantly give him an excuse to ignore any (Treaty).
009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
PICKTHAL: And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist.
SHAKIR: And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.
In other words accept Islam or you violate the treaty.
-
Divide and conquer.
Its a simplistic tactic to get people talking and then fighting. People who are willing to blow themself up arent into truces. Osma's prime tactic is to break us economicly thus any expressed concern for the cost of war is absurd.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
"Safeguarding of a Muslim's life is a mandatory obligation that should be observed; and that lying is permissible when the shedding of a Muslim's blood is at stake."
How is this not in contradiction with the bombing of multiple muslims to include a wedding party and more hypocritically, a mosque??
-
Originally posted by john9001
i doubt that, all bridges in america are falling down and need billions in repair but the govt has no money because bush gave the "rich" people tax cuts.
?? did i just highjack my own thread?
and if you beleive that line of rhetoric I have a perfecly good bridge to sell you.:cool:
Besides.It is my understanding that in most cases most of the bridge repairs are the states responcability, Not the federal goverment.
-
Nuke Mecca, just to let them know we care!
Hmmm Irans President is in Syria... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that maybe they are having Dinner at the Syrian Presidential Palace? Hello...? Crash the party with a few Tomahawks...geez, kill two birds with one stone.
Worried about the Worlds Impression of America? Get over it, Maybe if we lop the heads off of a few in Gitmo on live Kezarra, they might understand we mean business! I still say a single grenade in a Tikrit spider hole would have solved a few probs.
Mac
And I still believe the only thing stopping a Kennady Family Reunion is a single bullet. Ted is one Flubbed Duck Senator.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Hello Momus,
The critical difference in your analogy is that Deuteronomy 7 refers to instructions given to the nation of Israel thousands of years ago in the midst of the Herem. Those specific instructions no longer apply. "The Reliance of the Traveller" however, is an explanation of Quranic law that is still bought and referred to by hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims worldwide. The instructions in the Quran and the Hadiths are still being followed. The idea that it is acceptable to lie to infidels in times of war, and to break treaties in order to advance the greater good of the Dar El Islam is a concept that Millions of Muslims subscribe to, not just Osama. We had a long discussion of this on other controversial portions of Sharia during a study group way back in 1989 before OBL was even on the radar screen.
Do you think OBL was raised and educated in a Vaccuum? He and men like Zarqawi actually understand traditional Islam very well, and certainly their actions are in no way at odds with those of the prophet. That's not just my take on it, that's one of the reasons they are so popular with the Ummah internationally.
In any event, Westerners don't understand the "permissible lie", because our society is still based in part on the command "You shall not bear false witness" and the understanding that we shouldn't do what we know to be evil even if our overall objective is good. For us, even if we are liars by nature, we understand lies to be bad. That's why we feel so guilty today for all those treaties made in bad faith with Indians.
I know you desperately want this all to be about one gangly Saudi Arabian, but there's a reason his T-Shirts sell so well in Islamabad and why AQ can easily plant cells in Mosques in London, Paris, Jakarta, Singapore, the Phillipines, the United States, Thailand, etc ad nauseum.
Momus, the truth is Bin Laden is a symptom, not the actual disease.
- SEAGOON
-
if its a disease, just like cancer, best way to kill it is with a "little" radiation.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
DP
-
Originally posted by Momus--
snip
No, I'm quite rational. Delusional is supporting the invasion of a secular regime in Iraq thinking that it will somehow harm islamic radicalism. Delusional is believing that there are millions upon millions of terrorists out to get you, going to war halfway around the world and yet failing to secure your southern border.
Momus, until I reached this bit I was thinking "Quite right, and well stated". I completely agree. While I loathe the radical elements involved in terrorism and probably differ with you regarding how far we are right to go in terms of seeking them out and exterminating them, there's no call for religious bigotry.
However, I beg to differ with you on this last bit. The invasion of Iraq to expel Saddam and allow the formation of democratic government was both the right thing to do and is indeed an important component of the overall strategy to curb islamic radicalism.
We've already been successful in deposing and bringing a mad and murderous tyrant to justice. If we are successful in allowing a democratic regime to develop and flourish, and then leave once its healthy, we will have demonstrated the validity and efficacy of our stated good intent to the Arab world. I believe that we will be successful, and that history will reflect the same results of success that it has in Japan and Germany. The long view here is IMO a worthy one.
As to our southern border, its where I live - in fact in one of its most populous and most porous areas. I and my family are perfectly secure. Its true that illegal immigration is rampant, and I agree we should work on that problem. Its true that in theory this means terrorists have an opening to exploit in terms of entry to the US.
But, you might be surprised to learn just how much of the flow north is monitored by police on both sides of the border, and how aware they are of its elements. There are political factors involved that mean blind eyes are turned toward the illegal immigration to some extent. That doesn't mean that dangerous elements can't be identified and interdicted to a larger extent than many are aware.
culero
-
Your points are well made Culero. In respect of Iraq, my view is that the invasion and subsequent occupation has been counterproductive in respect of fighting terrorism in that it has underlined the radicalist message that muslim lands are under occupation and attack and has thus served to actually radicalise *more* of the region's population. The subsequent rise in terrorist incidents around the globe that followed the invasion might offer some evidence that this is the case. It may well be that in the long term a democratic iraq will stablize the region; if this is the case then it can only be a good thing from any perspective. What I find ironic however is that the usual suspects in this thread are quite happy to condem all muslims as bloodthirsty savages yet at the same time point to the establishment of what looks like being a government dominated by fundamentalist Shia figures in Iraq as some kind of accomplishment. That is not a consistent position.
Regarding border security; my point is that if there are indeed millions upon millions of muslims just waiting to kill innocent Americans as some people here contend, then not addressing what is generally held to be a real problem on your southern border would seem to be an act of negligence at the very least. However, I don't believe that there are vast numbers of muslims just lining up to kill americans; just a relatively small number. That you feel secure in your home doesn't surprise me, I feel the same way living in one of the British cities with the highest concentrations of muslims in the country.
Hope this clears things up?
-
Seagoon, the Sura YOU quoted refers to specific point in the story of Islam in just the same way as the verses from the OT that I quoted do. You used a single verse with no context to make a bogus point about how the Quran allows for truce breaking, when in fact the verses I supply show clearly that there is a clear directive to respect all the terms of such a truce.
You can cite Al-Ghazali all you like: your initial assertions about the concept of Taqiyya are still misleading, since it is by means the universally held tenet that you claim. That is the point.
The problem with your method is thus:
You ignore historical context of a type that you are happy to acknowledge wheen looking at biblical passages.
You cherry pick verses from the quran and ignore verses that undermine your argument.
You give more weight to commentary and the Hadiths than you to more unequivocal quranic verses tha oppose your argument (i.e. your harping on al-Ghazali).
You are using centuries-old work non-authoritative works to define what modern muslims beleive and feel TODAY.
You disregard the political context in which many of todays islamist movements have come about and thus fail to give the full picture in attributing all their motivations to religion.
You seem to think that you can use the actions of a small number of extremists coupled with a handful of sources that *YOU* choose to tell us what the overwhelming majority of muslims who have never engaged in violence against the west really think. In this http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166704&perpage=50&highlight=millions&pagenumber=2 thread I asked you twice to substantiate your claim that there are hundreds of millions of muslims directly engaged in violent jihad against the west.
Perhaps unsurprisingly you failed to qualify your position, perhaps because that despite your apparently fervent desire to turn the War on terrorism into a War on Islam, you really haven't got any evidence backs up such claims.
Originally posted by weaselsan
Osama makes up the rules as he goes along. A simple Quran reading would instantly give him an excuse to ignore any (Treaty).
009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
In other words accept Islam or you violate the treaty.
You need to read it again. I've italicised the part in bold that you seem to have missed. The verse states that the terms of a truce can be broken only if the other side breaks them first. But yes you're right; I think Bin Laden does make the rules up as he goes along.
-
Hello Again Momus,
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, the Sura YOU quoted refers to specific point in the story of Islam in just the same way as the verses from the OT that I quoted do. You used a single verse with no context to make a bogus point about how the Quran allows for truce breaking, when in fact the verses I supply show clearly that there is a clear directive to respect all the terms of such a truce.
In the Bible the revelation is progressive and the NT clearly spells out (particularly in Hebrews) that the ceremonial laws of the OT were fulfilled when the one they pointed to - Christ came. The Judicial Laws and those dealing with the Herem (the conquest of Canaan) expired along with the theocracy of Israel. This is the clear understanding of almost every Christian denomination and can be found in most of the Confessional documents coming out of the Reformation. For instance, the Westminster Confession which was drawn up by the Scots and Puritans in London in 1648 states:
"III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require." [WCF 19.3&4]
The Quran also has a doctrine of abrogation, that is that the "peaceful, gracious" earlier Suras of the Mecca period, when Muhammad was attempting to get the tribes of Mecca (Pagan, Jewish, and Christian) to become Muslims were abrogated after they for the most part rejected his overtures, and now the warlike Suras about fighting and subjugating unbelievers written after he fled to Medina are the rule.
What this all means, is that for the modern evangelical the passages dealing with the instructions for the conquest of Canaan NO LONGER APPLY. But for the modern faithful Muslim, the passages in the Quran regarding Holy War STILL APPLY and always will till the judgment. Sharia law, which you never seem to bother to mention in your posts, is a binding synopsis of the teaching of the Quran and the Hadiths on every subject in religion and culture, and Sharia is also the literal law of the land in many countries. So for instance, the reason a woman in Saudi Arabia must wear the Hijab and keep covered up and escorted by a male relative when she goes out is not quaint Arabian custom - it is because the Quran and the Hadiths MANDATE that they must.
The reason I cited Ghazali is because modern Sunni Muslims treat and recommend his work as an authoratative explanation of the teaching of the Quran and the Hadiths. His book is FREQUENTLY given by Mosques to converts to tell them how to live their lives as Muslims. The English translation of the Reliance of the Traveller, and I quote "is the first Islamic legal work in a European language to receive the certification of al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. He also possesses ijazas or "certifiates of authorisation" in Islamic jurisprudence from sheikhs in Syria and Jordan. "
For a few reflections from Muslims about how authoratative the work is:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/reliance.htm
http://forums.muslimvillage.net/lofiversion/index.php/t2766.html
The work is authoratative and important because it summarizes laws binding on MODERN MUSLIMS so yes, the Sunni version of "dissumulation" is current and binding and not an invention of the "suddenly materialized in the Middle East, doesn't understand Islam and I can't understand why he's so popular" version of Bin Laden that you seem to believe in.
Oy, look Momus is every Muslim a terrorist? Clearly not. Are there "liberal Muslims" just like there are "liberal Christians?" Absolutely. But do the fiqhs regarding Jihad and alliances and lying still prevail in Muslim custom and jurisprudence? Yes.
Look, cut it whatever way you want, neither history, nor current events, nor Sharia, are on your side and the longer we play this silly game of "lets pretend" with the Muslim world, the more inevitable our eventual defeat as a culture becomes.
- SEAGOON
-
What may be helpful in this discussion is the consideration of Hugh Fitzgerald's 14 rules for discussing Islam properly, I'll only list the first 6 - the entire list is available online here: 14 Rules (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005566.php)
For people to discuss Islam properly, they would need to do a number of things. The first thing would be to recognize that the Qur'an itself is only the major but hardly the sole text, and that the other great source of Islamic beliefs and acts come from the Sunna, which means "Custom" or “Tradition,” and which itself is comprised of the Hadith, records of the sayings and doings of Muhammad, and the Sira, which is Muhammad’s actual biography. (Obviously there is a great deal of overlap between these two). Once all that has been clearly understood, one would have to:
1) Read, and re-read, together with the most authoritative Muslim commentaries, or at least some of them (as well as ‘Umdat al-Salik, "The Reliance of the Traveller," which is a most enlightening and helpful compendium of Islamic law put together for the use of Muslims), the three canonical texts of Islam: the Qur'an (available online in various English translations set out synoptically), the Hadith (available online in the recensions of Bukhari, Muslim, Malik, and, partially, Abu Dawud), and the Sira (chiefly the earliest, that of Ibn Ishaq in the recension of Ibn Hisham). For the Sira, in addition to the Muslim version, see also the many biographies of Muhammad by Western scholars of Islam: Sir Wiliam Muir, Professors Arthur Jeffery, and Tor Andrae, and Maxine Rodinson. All are readily available.
2) Study not only the texts, but how they are received. Are they taken literally? Figuratively? Are there different guides available by which Muslims reconcile seemingly contradictory elements, as for example the doctrine of abrogation, or "naskh"? And is that doctrine of abrogation helpful in smoothing out the harshness and hostility in many passages, or does that doctrine, on the contrary, make the Qur'an far harsher in its impact than a cursory reading, and a misunderstanding, might suggest?
3) Study the role of Islam in the lives of Muslims. How potent is that religion, how much does it pervade and suffuse everyday life, down to the slightest conversational allusion? For that one would need to read, and not quickly, in both in the historical sources (Muslim and non-Muslim) and in the reports of European travellers, diplomats, visitors, and in modern times, the sociologists who live for a year or two or five among Muslims, or like Fr. Menezes, tended to them over many decades, and left a record of their observations. One would also have to consult the testimony of both those who were born into Islam, and remained Muslims, and those who became "defectors" from Islam, though intimately familiar with it -- such people as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Azam Kamguian and Irfan Khawaja and a thousand other articulate writers on the subject. Many of these are presently in this country, and the rest, of course, are in other non-Muslim countries where they are safe from the penalty for apostasy – for now.
4) Study the psychology of Muslims. What does belief in Islam do to one's worldview, one's way of regarding the world, and one’s understanding of facts about the workings of the natural world? How does it affect the way one regards the acts, and attitudes, of Infidels? Several books have been devoted to analysis of "The Arab Mind" (the title of a well-known book by Raphael Patai), but more important, perhaps, is a study of the "Psychology of Muslims." One such study exists -- that of Andre Servier -- but it is out-of-print. But this is a key area of study that someone should take up. The assumption, for example, that both Infidels and Muslims regard treaty-making in the same way is simply false. Infidels adhere to the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda (Treaties are to be obeyed), while for Muslims, the model of all subsequent treaties between Muslims and Infidels is the agreement made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D., the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. Without understanding the significance of this treaty, one cannot begin to discuss the value of, for example, Israel's signing of solemn agreements (or what appear to Israel and the United States as solemn agreements) with Egypt, or the "Palestinians," or any number of others.
5) Attempt to comprehend how Islam inculcates a manichaean view of the universe, in which the essential division is between Believer and Infidel, and hostility, or even murderous hatred, is so deeply inculcated at every level. This includes even urging Muslims never to take non-Muslims as friends (cf. Qur’an 5:51), never to wish them well on their own holidays, and never to accept even their seeming acts of benevolence (such as the help extended a month ago in the tsunami aftermath) as anything other than a sinister plot designed to soften up Muslims -- the better to then have them heed the "whisperings of Shaytan" (Satan). That this seems incredible to Western man does not mean that it is not true. The general lack of historical training in the West, and of training in the exercise of imaginative sympathy, among not only ordinary people but also among those who have a special duty to learn, and then to instruct, others (which includes journalists, government officials), now can be seen to have practical consequences.
6) Study, and think about, and study again, and think again -- for it takes time to have this matter sink in – about what it means to be a "moderate" Muslim. Is it a question of simple nonobservance, nonchalance about the Faith? Is it based on ignorance, the ignorance of an illiterate Bedouin, or Afghani villager, or someone deep in the Sumatran jungle, who knows he is a "Muslim" but has no idea what that may mean? To be a "moderate," is it enough not to be a believer or follower of "Wahhabi" Islam? If so, then must we class as moderates such notable non-Wahhabis as Ayatollah Khomeini, or Hassan Nasrallah of Hizballah, or Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Is a "moderate" someone who opposes the burka? Who opposes the full imposition of the shari'a when it comes to the criminal law? Is it someone who accepts Western dress, Western ways of doing things, Western technology, and yet still believes that Islam has a divine right to spread across the globe -- and that it must, as Muhammad said, come to "dominate and not to be dominated"?
Is a "moderate" someone who assures you that he is a "moderate," or do we need other proof, given the religiously-sanctioned doctrines of dissimulation (Taqiyya, Kitman) and the existence of people who are well-versed in lying for the Faith and the wellbeing of Believers?
And is a "moderate" Muslim someone who assures you he fully accepts pluralism? What if you suspect that that is only because he is, for now, living in the West, where Muslims are still in the process of solidifying the position and entrenchment of Islam? Could it be that for that process of solidification he needs the protection of Western pluralism, tolerance, and a highly-developed system of individual rights, but that he has no intention of supporting pluralism in the West when he no longer needs it for his own purposes, and will make no move to ensure that pluralism is accepted in Muslim countries, with full rights for non-Muslim minorities, and the right of freedom of conscience for Muslims themselves (i.e., the right to become apostates without being killed)?
Is a "moderate" Muslim someone who is now "moderate" but who may, at some personal setback, some disappointment or depression or emotional desarroi, revert to the idea that Islam provides a Total Explanation of the Universe -- and that Explanation includes the Infidel, all Infidels, as the objects of all hatred and blame? Remember “Mike” Hawash, the ideal Rotarian-turned-jihadist? Thus it is that we Infidels, when things go wrong in our own lives, can blame our parents, our siblings, our children, our spouses, Fate, the stars, our cholesterol level, our serotonin level, The System, The Man, Amerikkka, or even, at times, ourselves. Muslims, on the other hand, have it all so simple: they can blame the Infidels."
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Seagoon, the Sura YOU quoted refers to specific point in the story of Islam in just the same way as the verses from the OT that I quoted do. You used a single verse with no context to make a bogus point about how the Quran allows for truce breaking, when in fact the verses I supply show clearly that there is a clear directive to respect all the terms of such a truce.
You can cite Al-Ghazali all you like: your initial assertions about the concept of Taqiyya are still misleading, since it is by means the universally held tenet that you claim. That is the point.
The problem with your method is thus:
You ignore historical context of a type that you are happy to acknowledge wheen looking at biblical passages.
You cherry pick verses from the quran and ignore verses that undermine your argument.
You give more weight to commentary and the Hadiths than you to more unequivocal quranic verses tha oppose your argument (i.e. your harping on al-Ghazali).
You are using centuries-old work non-authoritative works to define what modern muslims beleive and feel TODAY.
You disregard the political context in which many of todays islamist movements have come about and thus fail to give the full picture in attributing all their motivations to religion.
You seem to think that you can use the actions of a small number of extremists coupled with a handful of sources that *YOU* choose to tell us what the overwhelming majority of muslims who have never engaged in violence against the west really think. In this http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166704&perpage=50&highlight=millions&pagenumber=2 thread I asked you twice to substantiate your claim that there are hundreds of millions of muslims directly engaged in violent jihad against the west.
Perhaps unsurprisingly you failed to qualify your position, perhaps because that despite your apparently fervent desire to turn the War on terrorism into a War on Islam, you really haven't got any evidence backs up such claims.
You need to read it again. I've italicised the part in bold that you seem to have missed. The verse states that the terms of a truce can be broken only if the other side breaks them first. But yes you're right; I think Bin Laden does make the rules up as he goes along.
I didn't miss anything, he would simply interpret the taunting of Islam (His Faith) to mean anything he chose to. Thus the making up his own rules (he feels that he is an Islamic scholar equal to the great Imams.
The "War on Terror" is only a politically correct way of saying "War on radical Islam" Terrorism is a strategy used by "Radical Islam." We where not bombing the crap out of "Terrorism" in Afganistan. We where bombing the crap out of the Taliban, a group if Radical Islamists harboring another radical islamist responsible for the death of 3000 innocent people. If we are only at war with terrorism, then in WWII we where only at war with Tanks , planes and ships not the Nazis.
Seagoon understands the fallicy of the existance of a "Moderate". By definition a moderate is neither fish nor foul...on the fence...in the middle of the road. The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead animals. Radical Islam has one goal, to convert the entire world to Islam,at any cost. They have their own definition of Islam.
Biblical passages as passages in the Quran are and have always been open to interpretation. I don't profess to have even the slightest knowledge of either. Even our own Supreme Court can't interpret our Constitution the same way twice. The death penalty is unconstitutional, 20 years later it is Constitutional again. I do know however, that radical Islam must be defeated if our way of life is to survive.
-
I can't believe a Battletech mech somehow made it into this thread. That's great!
-
lol, osama is giving out book reviews.
who'd he pick in the NFC championship game?
-
Originally posted by Debonair
lol, osama is giving out book reviews.
who'd he pick in the NFC championship game?
Heh the "Raiders"?
:aok
Mac
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Regarding Sura 9:5, and not 9:4 as you incorrectly label it, why didn't you
Comments?
Yep.
Rule #1. Never believe to muslims.
Rule #2. If you think you can believe this muslim look rule #1.
-
I have far more better things in life than to worry about Muslims and Islams frikken Jihad.
I say we stop doing the "Cat toying with the Mouse" and Nuke the bastards and move on.
We sit here and waste young lives and we have the weapons to anilate the SOB's..
Nuke the Haji when they are stampeding each other, Nuke Mecca. Nuke Tehran and Damascus at the exact time. Then tell China to back off.
The only way to win this is being as or more brutal as those we fight. I applaude the SF'rs that burned the Taliban bodies and taunted the others to come and fight. A feat short of decapitation on video tape. BTW the Geneva Convention is out...oldtime rules. NATO is out... so frikken corrupt, send NATO to Europe..maybe France, it fits.
Look at WWII. Brutal for a purpose, a goal... to end it. Did the USA media fuss about the bombing of Dresden? London being bombed over and over again. Norway, Finland, France, Spain, Poland, Slavac..on and on..What we face here today will not end in lil terrortorial skirmishes, or regional.
We pull all our troops out in a 24 hour time frame, so fast it makes the Worlds Powers and others heads snap and let the nukes fly.
If we sit and wait we have Iran with Nukes, Syria with Nukes and North Korea with Nukes. Notice Egypt has not said anything nor Saudia? Libya seen the picure quick.
We strike first and make the World a better place.
In 3 days all this would be over. Of course it would mean Millions dead... but in a Hundred Years how many dead will we count if we continue the course we are presently on?
Just my observation...otherwise we are in a long 100 years battle ~vs~ 3 days.
Mac.
-
OBL has studied and copied the methods the North Vietnamese used--- avoid stand-up fights, (which they would surely lose) fight a war of attrition, which the American left can't stomach, and call for a truce every time the war goes poorly---gives him a chance to regroup.
-
using nukes against terrorists ?
its like using a shotgun against a fly, killing everything cept the fly.
but maybe in 100 years they would forgive you, maybe.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
using nukes against terrorists ?
its like using a shotgun against a fly, killing everything cept the fly.
but maybe in 100 years they would forgive you, maybe.
Oh I don't know, we seem to have forgiven the Horrible killing of 6 million plus human beings by the Germans. It has not been 100 years yet.
Hell we even let them spout off about morality without cracking up.
-
yes i know, some people dont learn from the past, its your turn now.
-
Osama sure is a good hider. What a fricken joke.:furious Does anybody here actually believe we are trying to find this guy? PS Hi SK ;)
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Does anybody here actually believe we are trying to find this guy?
does anyone here actually think we are not?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
does anyone here actually think we are not?
Is he in Iraq?
-
Yeah, I think we're looking for him. Conversations with US servicemen returning from Afghanistan convinced me. They think they were looking for him but I guess they're just being fooled too, right?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I think we're looking for him. Conversations with US servicemen returning from Afghanistan convinced me. They think they were looking for him but I guess they're just being fooled too, right?
Well, if they are looking for him and havnt found him, I guess they are being fooled. But ity isnt thier fault. All of our efforts are being focused on bringing democracy to Iraq. Yea, I bleieve that. Duhhhhh, which way did he go george, duhhhh. You have to admit, if bin laden is still a threat, which Bush said he isnt, then we have failed so miserably it justifies a complete overhaul of the military command.
-
Do you think putting 150K troops into Afghanistan and allowing cross-border operations into Pakistan and Iran would serve us better?
I don't think 150K US troops in Afghanistan is going to give them a warm fuzzy about their Independence since the Taliban is out of there and they have their Constitution, elected Parliament up and going.
I SERIOUSLY doubt cross-border ops would give Iran or Pakistan the warm fuzzies either.
Oh, wait... let me guess.... you don't think there are any real-world restraints on looking for Bin Laden in that area, right?
Well, we sorta agree on one thing. We both think SOMEBODY is being fooled. You think it's the troops, I think it's you.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Osama sure is a good hider. What a fricken joke.:furious Does anybody here actually believe we are trying to find this guy? PS Hi SK ;)
Your tinfoil hat is showing.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Your tinfoil hat is showing.
exactly .. funny how they don't even feel it anymore ..
-
(http://www.willieboats.com/Bin%20Ladin%20Images/OSAMA%207-11.jpg) Most Wanted 7-Eleven Employee
(http://www.willieboats.com/Bin%20Ladin%20Images/OutandPlay.jpg)
(http://www.bibleprobe.com/havingabadday.jpg)
(http://www.jokesaround.com/images/pictures/give_osama_a_shower.jpg)
(http://www.ciube.it/catalog/nyc/images/Postcard%20To%20Osama.jpg)
-
PWN3D!
(http://www.ww2guide.com/parafrags.jpg)
uuuuhhhh, wrong thread, sorry
-
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Thursday, March 14, 2002
Washington -- President Bush declared Osama bin Laden all but vanquished yesterday, saying the al Qaeda leader -- dead or alive -- no longer poses a serious threat to America.
"We haven't heard from him in a long time," Bush told reporters at the White House. "I truly am not that concerned about him."
I couldnt find any with pictures, maybe one of you can interpret this for the rest.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Your tinfoil hat is showing.
You always a first class contributer. and go back to sleep.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Do you think putting 150K troops into Afghanistan and allowing cross-border operations into Pakistan and Iran would serve us better?
I don't think 150K US troops in Afghanistan is going to give them a warm fuzzy about their Independence since the Taliban is out of there and they have their Constitution, elected Parliament up and going.
I SERIOUSLY doubt cross-border ops would give Iran or Pakistan the warm fuzzies either.
Oh, wait... let me guess.... you don't think there are any real-world restraints on looking for Bin Laden in that area, right?
Well, we sorta agree on one thing. We both think SOMEBODY is being fooled. You think it's the troops, I think it's you.
Wasnt there any real world restraints on invading Iraq? Let me guess, you have some rationale for how its ok to launch an all out war to find saddam but we have to follow all international. local and city rules in our hunt for the great king of terror. Youre right, somebody is a fool. I guess its me cuz that dont make no sense. Duhhhhhh, duhhhhhhhh, duhhhhhhhhhhh. We can drop bombs on pakistanis heads, but god forbid we should trespass looking for the cause of all this mess. Duhhhhhh, duhhhhhhhhh, I hate being a fool. I just cant control it.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Is he in Iraq?
You had to edit this above question? Please move along.
Karaya
PS - I'll still screw the 70 virgins first.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Thursday, March 14, 2002
Washington -- President Bush declared Osama bin Laden all but vanquished yesterday, saying the al Qaeda leader -- dead or alive -- no longer poses a serious threat to America.
"We haven't heard from him in a long time," Bush told reporters at the White House. "I truly am not that concerned about him."
I couldnt find any with pictures, maybe one of you can interpret this for the rest.
Don't sell the bear's skin before you've killed it?
What a stupid thing to say.. correct me if I'm wrong, but gunpoint monologues are never worth it.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You had to edit this above question? Please move along.
Karaya
PS - I'll still screw the 70 virgins first.
Yea, I try to keep it simple. A futile attempt to guide the clueless to keeping the thread replies and side topics relevent. You should take your own advice.
-
Maybe I should just say that it is extremely frustrating to still have OBL terrorizing the US, even if it is empty threats. It seems to me that he has been let off the hook. It seems to me that the effort to capture saddam, was a bit more aggressive and ended as one would expect an allout manhunt by the US to end. Am I wrong? Why do we just kill al-queada leaders instead of attempting to capture them for interrogation? If a predator can track the car load of terrorists to a villiage, why cant we send in the special forces? We have assets nearby? This just doesnt make any sense to me.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Wasnt there any real world restraints on invading Iraq? Let me guess, you have some rationale for how its ok to launch an all out war to find saddam but we have to follow all international. local and city rules in our hunt for the great king of terror. Youre right, somebody is a fool. I guess its me cuz that dont make no sense. Duhhhhhh, duhhhhhhhh, duhhhhhhhhhhh. We can drop bombs on pakistanis heads, but god forbid we should trespass looking for the cause of all this mess. Duhhhhhh, duhhhhhhhhh, I hate being a fool. I just cant control it.
Whitehawk your starting to sound like this guy
(http://www.askmen.com/men/entertainment_150/pictures_150/michael_moore/michael_moore_150.JPG)
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Wasnt there any real world restraints on invading Iraq?
[/b]
You tell me. Was Iraq a known nuclear power like Pakistan? Was Iraq working with us like Pakistan is? Were we already committed to a war/occupation before we went in? What do we have in the way of surplus forces to invade Iran right now as opposed to when we went into Iraq.
Let me guess, you have some rationale for how its ok to launch an all out war to find saddam but we have to follow all international. local and city rules in our hunt for the great king of terror.
[/b]
If you recall, the reason put forth for Iraq was not to depose Saddam.
In hunting Bin Laden, Pakistan is theorhetically and, to some degree, cooperating in the search. So your solution is go ahead and invade Pakistan?
And you think we could manage Iraq and Iran at the same time? You think we still have the military to do that? Say "peace dividend" and think again.
I hate being a fool. I just cant control it.
Sorry to hear that. Maybe you can find a 12 steps program somewhere.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
If a predator can track the car load of terrorists to a villiage, why cant we send in the special forces? We have assets nearby? This just doesnt make any sense to me. [/B]
In areas where we have the latitude to do that, it IS done. You also have to understand that the A-Q may prefer to die rather than be captured. I think you can find a few examples of that in Afghanistan.
Now, if the village is in Pakistan and the Pakistanis deny permission to use US SF on their soil... your suggestion is to go ahead and do it anyway?
If the village is in Iran your suggestion is to go ahead with cross-border operations and ignore the risk of starting another war right now?
-
Toad,
There isn't a program with enough steps to be of assistance to whithawk.
Stop trying to teach the pig to sing. He has neither the capacity or appreciation for it and it wastes your time. :p
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
Whitehawk your starting to sound like this guy
(http://www.askmen.com/men/entertainment_150/pictures_150/michael_moore/michael_moore_150.JPG)
Moore is a self made millionaire. You are not.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
You always a first class contributer. and go back to sleep.
At least I am not the boards amusing nutjob.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Moore is a self made millionaire. You are not.
Moore has had a few too many egg mcmuffin I have not