Before you go off and attempt to ruin the lives of the living, just remember these words: For every innocent that you kill, an army will amount at your heavens gates consisting of the damned. They will eventually burn your heaven to the ground to right the wrongs and misdeedings that you and your kin have cast upon the people of Earth. You should know from the texts, don't follow false prophets like those that send you to war because of their own petty vendetta's. So suicide bombing is not the answer, as you will be destroying what you glorify.
The U.S., Israel and their other pawns are the worst terrorists on the world. Looks like they're in for rough time.
About killing (innocent) people the koran is very clear: Murdering one men is murder to all mankind...you'll burn ver long (maybe forever, I can't remember) But it also says that atheists will always try to mislead you, and you should do anything to prefend them from misleading moslims. You can interpret this in many ways, and when a prophet once told you it means you're allowed to kill 'innocent' atheists, you'll believe that, and you'll read the same from the book itself. And maybe, it really means you are allowed to kill atheists....? Anyway, it ain't easy to decide what the book says about this subject. But I wonder: when the 9/11 bombers accidentally killed a moslim too, will they be turned to heaven or hell??? (the bombers) (Bush will burn very long indd Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
You have a wee-man complex dont ya? You cant lump the whole US as being terrorist, or Israel for that matter. Terrorist are not entire nations, some of the people that live here are innocent - whether you choose to believe it or not.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you read some of my other posts you would see that I mostly refer to 'U.S. corporate/government' meaning the clique that is in power that refers to themselves as 'The New World Order' as George Bush sr. stated on CNN when he was still in office. I don't ever confuse the regular people of a country with the ruling party of a country. The same as Iraqi civilians who will be killed in the coming assault are innocent, American citizens who are killed collaterally are innocent. That goes without having to be said among people who are opposed to war without reason. No one in the world blames the average American citizen for the corporate/government's oppressive policies, not even Osama Bin Laden. People in the world who hate America and who burn the U.S. flag are directing that hate at the U.S. corporate/government that is responsible for destroying budding democracies in many countries simply to ensure their profit and power margin. Read some of Noam Chomsky's books and visit www.commondreams.org so that you can balance out your view.
My God, then it will be very busy in bush's backyard... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If this was true he wouldnt of targeted thousands of civilians. He did this to hit us where it hurts, he gives a shit about our average citizens. Uhh.. I think you mean Osamas??
Are we really this afraid? Are we really so afraid of the terrorists that we can only respond with contrary principles? Why not speak the language, so to speak? Not any particular Arabic dialect, but in simple principle. • I point to Rabia, a Sufi and also, coincidentally, a woman (they do exist, only fewer and farther between) who once said she would burn the Ka'baa if it stood in the way of a faithful's path to God. la ilaha illa Ana, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
stRgrl Your point intrigues me. • Are we, the people who vote for the political leaders of the United States, absolved in any way from the actions taken on our behalf by our approved leaders? We select the leaders who create the issues that our opponents take. Are we responsible? At that same level, I'm curious how you would affix guilt to Osama bin Laden, since he did not fly one of the planes himself. Did he order it? Okay. Did he fund it? Okay. Did he approve it? Okay. Yes, by those three factors, I too hold him responsible. But we, the people order our politicians by proxy of election, we fund their operations through taxes, and approve of such actions by proxy of either re-election, or the election of a new politician to continue in the old vein. I caught a poll on MSNBC that suggests as many as 65% of Canadians believe the US needs to accept some responsibility in creating the situation that led to 9/11. To be specific, they agreed to the poll term that the US deserves "some blame" for the events of 9/11. I caught a headline yesterday that a majority of Russians agreed with the poll statement that the US "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. Now, being an American, I'm very familiar with most standard responses to disagreeable sentiments expressed by our international neighbors. But at some point, the US has to wake up to the fact that one of the reasons the world supported us after 9/11 was because the sleeping giant was finally awake, and the world hoped it could do something. The world is cooling to our mission, partially because they feel we've transgressed our bounds and spent too much of our political capital. But, since they're either with us or against us .... thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Using this principle I think both guy's yards will be busy. There are many things Bush has done and many things that he hasnt that have resulted in loss of life. I wonder if someone--somewhere could put a tally into place that would define how many people are directly killed by what our president has ordered other people to do. It wouldn't come as a massive surprise if the number was above 3000 but I doubt such a tally could be assembled anyway. Interesting tiassa...I wish to god that I could vote but, alas, such little people like me are unable to do so. BUT, if I did cast a vote to the man who would attempt to usurp our first ammendment rights (as Bush or his puppeteers are seemingly attempting to do, by arresting people who display anti-american slogans) then I would feel responsible, even though my vote makes little difference, it would be my fault. The question comes to mind: is the marine who shoots the innocents responsible for their deaths or is his commanding officer who ordered the innocents to be shot in the first place [responsible]? Would you do it, star (and other people who support Bush), if you knew something was wrong, but had an obligation to your commanding officer, would you shoot the innocent? Or put them away, without a lawyer? This is happening now, to hundreds of 'terrorists,' the definition of the word broadening every day. They're losing their rights, the dream that was presumably america (that is, what we deem as basic freedoms today but where remarkable back then) is fading away by the second, Osama's goal is being met, because of him our nation is crumbling, not from stress, but of corruption, and those that would seek to take advantage of a very advantageous situation.
As a sidenote, my friend had the idea to wear a shirt tomorrow that said 'anti-american' on it--to school of course. He retracted the idea after considering the possibility of the shirt causing riots, that his freedom of speech wouldn't matter when someone's head would be slathered all over the walls of our High School.
Can you explain this more? What do you mean, the world hoped we would do something? Please elaborate. Im very good at yelling back without fully understanding what your sayingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, I mean bush's. Although I shall never deny Osama will have his backyard full too, then it won't be the same chore from the same heaven will it? Anyways, as stated so often, I am not convinced Osama was behind the attacks. He approved of it, yes. That is all. Of course he did. He is against the West. Actually, I think Osama is laughing his head off because of the mess bush is making of it and in the meanwhile he gathers all kinds of anti-american people who are dying to do something against "the mighty, evil West", which includes other Western nations, who get sucked right into this all. Very well said Pollux...
Oh, Im sorry PollyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I seriously didnt mean to leave you out! Im out to get Tiassa!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If people dont like American, get the hell out! Go live in Iraq and throw peanuts at the US News all day while booing and burning the American flagPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In my mind its the people that down every single thing while living in our country that is making us look bad. Or it could be all the bullshit we doPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Explain what he hasnt done please to cause enormous loss of life. And are you talking about the sanctions? No sarcasm, just ingnorancePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No, I dont support Bush. I never said I did, but I do support my country. Okay, say a guy broke into your house and killed your child. The guy was blue (not to offend anyone) - Your town had 100 blue men in it. Would you do what was politically incorrect and snag them all up to question them - or would you say "Hey, its a free country, we couldnt attain them all - that would be wrong?" They have rights too!
I'm not sure if I follow, so reiterate if I'm incorrect. If I knew the person was blue I would find this blue person and definitely look at blue people differently, but I would fight my inner animal (that would say to detain the blue people--all of them) and try to act on the evidence at hand. Don't get me wrong here, I love living where I do, despite my want to get-the-f*ck-away because of my parents (hehe, teenage rebellion woooo!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), but if I can get the message across that I don't like how our country is run than that is one of many ways for me to do it. We have a right to protest, and if we didn't, then we'd be living under an emperor (of earth, by now) instead of a despot who, I will remind everyone, DID NOT RECIEVE THE MAJORITY OF VOTES. As hilarious as it may sound, I really hate the idea of Bush being the president, and if I had any authority at all I wouldn't recognize him as MY representative. After all, that's what the basis of a republic is, right? Everyone can't vote on everything, so vote in some people who represent YOU to do the voting for YOU. He was never voted in by the majority, he did not represent, at least at the time, our opinions. He left the Israel situation alone. He didn't try to solve the problem, he left the morons down there to figure it out for themselves. He withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty, which could have benefited millions of people down the line. If he is to focus on foreign affairs at all then I would do so on the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the mass poverty in south america. Instead of focusing on war he should be focusing on trying to help people, trying to feed them, and trying to get them to be happy, as many people as possible. I'm not saying that he should be DOING this, but he should be trying it, because I believe that there will always be human poverty somewhere in the world, and later the human-populated universe, but to attempt to solve as many people's problems as possible (because you have the power to do so) would be a truly noble endeavour. But alas, he is a republican fiend, with war and whites his priority. (sighs) If only I were president...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wouldn't have the first idea as to what to do. Maybe a misconception...but doesn't Bush, at least as a figurehead, reasonably control what you see on the news? The want for war, and our state of affairs. He may not have direct control but he's generally the guy to blame if things are good or bad. To the world, he is america. Take care.
Polly, Ahh, gotcha! Yes, I do agree with alot that you say. I wasnt sure if I was understanding you correctly. Its not like were running concentration camps and herding up all of the middle eastern people thats in this country. Just ones with expired visas thatcould pose a threat in the future. Now this is scaryPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wake up the sleeping giant ... stRgrl-- More than fair. Just as a side note, a suggestive one, in fact: • Twisted Sister, "Wake Up the Sleeping Giant" Okay, okay. It is an anti-censorship protest, but it's well-enough written to transcend its specific political aim. I like it. It sort of characterizes a noble perception of the American consciousness. But many of our international neighbors have paid deep prices to terrorism. Germans hurt when Libyan-backed terrorists aimed after US servicemen, bombings in backwater nations that don't need anymore problems, and then the host of nations hurt by terrorism in general; most of Europe has dealt with this problem for quite a while. I look back to 1847 or so, and we see the beginning of what would become the Irish Repbulican Army; terrorists challenging the rule of law. (Incidentally, they would win come 1922 or so.) Red Brigades, Black Octobers (okay, that one may be made up ....) The point being is that terrorism in the US has always been a bizarre thing. John Brown, abolitionist, leading a group of men to stage an assault against an armory, hanged for his offenses and regarded as a mad terrorist. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman's attempted assassination of Finch (?!). Oklahoma City. Abortion clinic bombings. We've dealt with terrorism as a nation as a localized phenomenon, constantly aware of what is taking place in other countries and, despite our political contribution to the situation, we had a tendency to look at it as other people's business. So when they hit the US and the US said, "It's everybody's business," it seems that a common sentiment in Europe was, "Thank God, finally, they're in." We are late to this fight. That's part of the reason we're conducting ourselves so poorly and wasting political capital. The sleeping giant had awakened. Aside from its death, there was no way it could not. I've heard of catching the largest party in the Universe in the small of one's back (Douglas Adams) but I cannot imagine that taking a couple of 757's up the yang would not wake the giant. The slumber may be deep, but we are America, not the House at R'lyeh (where dead Cthulhu waits dreaming). But the sleeping giant got out of bed clearly on the wrong side. I remember the surreal feeling in those first days after 9/11, with American politicians and pundits acting as if the waking of the giant meant that terrorism was suddenly the world's concern. Seems to me it already was, and we were the holdouts. And then the "with us/against us" line put a bunch of countries on notice: if, for instance, they refused to extradite criminals to face the death penalty because of the laws in said country, they would automatically be listed as "against us". We played our heavy hand, and people still backed us because it's flat-out time to address terrorism and its causes and, of course, its effets. But nations have been severely uncomfortable with American performance. It looks almost like setting one's opinion to polls, only it's in slow-motion. The world was wide-awake on the Palestinian issue, and it's partially the reason why many people abroad feel the US bears some responsibility for what happened. The US was late to figure that out, and the world isn't sure how sincerely we're approaching it. In addition, our move to take on Saddam Hussein keeps the world on pins and needles. While nobody disputes that Iraq is a thorn in the US's side, not nearly as many as Bush would like think we're warranted to do anything about it. Looking at the international situation through relativist eyes, I have to admit they've got a point. "Preemptive defense" was a term invented, as I recall, for the Vietnam conflict, whereby a nation would stage an offensive maneuver against its enemy and then call it a defensive tactic. Preemptive defense has never been popular except among tyrants and, if we must have that distinction, Americans. And right now, it's about all we've got going for a war with Iraq. For instance, we keep hearing about the threat Iraq poses to the US. Now, are we going to hear about how shitty their military was after our troops roll over them? Or will a bloody city-war in Baghdad and elsewhere somehow prove Iraq's offensive capability to reach the US? A nuclear weapon? Well, what about a delivery system? Chemical weapons? Well, the US shouldn't have helped him acquire such a taste for them. The situation, theoretically, should be managed politically. For all we hear about Iraqi offenses against the people, nobody ever talks about why these offenses are happening. For the last few years, I've been quite convinced that Iraq's disposition is about water. Hussein wants his testament to Iraq to be a water monopoly in the region, and draining the southern marshes fits in with this plan. Can we say that a nuclear device is truly intended to be delivered to the US, or is this one of those things where a nation is preparing to defend a risky (and somewhat perverse) policy that, when you strip away the attached methods of preparation (human loss) is perfectly justified according to political rules of the international community. (If Hussein dams the rivers in Iraq, he will be doing nothing more than we see in cattlemen's fights in Colorado and elsewhere about rivers and water resources.) So it seems to me that after the US makes its case that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons, the next issue will be why, and after that comes "can they enact that why" and "does that why matter"? At least part of the world sees a mere difference in fundamental issues which predisposes two cultures to clash on certain issues, and it's finally coming to a head. Now, add in perhaps the easiest call of Clinton's life: "The US should finish its business with bin Laden before tangling with Iraq." I think a good part of the world would like to see that, too. They have reason to be nervous. The US is attempting to change its military posture from one of defense to one of conquest and will. We literally could see the US "change hats" during the war on terrorism and suddenly become the bad guys. The world wanted us to do something, but we're acting solely in our own most immediate interests, which have no logical foundation for long-term stability, and basically seem to be inviting a future ripe with conflict. We're doing something. The rest of the world cannot necessarily tell how noble it is. Throughout the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has squandered the massive political capital the US earned through its sacrifice. A better statesman may or may not have been as "effective" as Bush's supporters think of their president, but a better statesman would not be pissing off the world so badly. I heard a rumor on MSNBC that Powell might resign if it comes to war. That would be a blow. I don't know how credible it is, but the Bush administration seems to be acting that way. They undermined his mission to the MIddle East, sending him on goose-chases and then publicly disagreeing with the points he was presenting. And then Bush sends Powell to Johannesberg to get booed by the international community. I sometimes think Powell is the only one that really knows what's going on out there. He seems to know that yes, we can get away with this war, but if we're going to get away with it, we have to do it better and more honestly. It's a pretty rough situation. We're doing something, but even our friends are kind of wary of it. It reminds me of that guy at a party with a gun who isn't angry, but is just drunk and everybody's edgy about whether or not he'll accidentally shoot someone, but how do you approach him in this state without upsetting him and raising the danger level ...? For all the "beacon of freedom" rhetoric the US is known to generate, some of our international neighbors make the mistake of taking us at our word for it. When our international neighbors hoped we would do something, it was understood that the something should benefit us all, not just Americans, or, short of that, should not establish American advantage while destabilizing the international political situation at the same time. I think I was after something like that .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
