An admiration for genocide

Discussion in 'History' started by S.A.M., Aug 2, 2008.

  1. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Diamond:
    I'm not implying that you support the murder of innocent civilians. S.A.M, on the other hand, is trying to justify the insurgents deliberate targeting and murder of civilians. 'Invasion, occupation'? Tough shit. That hardly makes your targeting of your own innocent civilians more ethical, nor does it exonerate you.

    Lie. You're lying. I've linked to two reputable sources, and yet you continue to contradict them without any evidence of your own.

    Ahh, I see. So criminals in Afghanistan have a penchant for strapping themselves with explosives and detonating in areas dense with civilians. Strange. In the West, our criminals very rarely do that, unless they belong to some sort of political movement or cultish ideology.

    There's no need for me to tarnish the name of S.A.M, she's already held in low regard by 95% of the members. But where on earth have I tarnished the name of other Muslims on this forum, apart from you? And you have to admit, I was justified in calling you obtuse and dishonest, because you continually refuse to address my articles from the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, which contradict your claim that the insurgents in Afghanistan don't target and hide behind civilians.
    have nothing to stand on besides lies, manipulation, and fabrication.

    You... are... dishonest. I've already posted this:

    http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/16/afghan15688.htm

    You're a liar, Diamond. No wonder you and S.A.M are such good buddies.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,557
    So when did I lie? I don't understand what you are trying to imply I stand for.

    Also, I don't believe everything you post, because I simply do not believe you can find justification for that in Islam. Islam is based on high principles of respect and honor for all human beings, Muslim or not. Islam is just, but I understand you obviously have an agenda so I don't think you will listen to what any Muslim has to say about what they believe.

    If Muslims become human beings, then simply your entire mindset will fall in on itself, and you must support your hatred by justifying our innate evilness.

    If you can prove I lied without trying to imply I stand for something which I don't, then go ahead.

    Saying a person is a liar is a heavy charge and must be proved with evidence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    How would they have dressed if not as civilians? Especially if their aim is to get close enough to collaborators or US troops?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,557
    I'll believe that when i hear it from SAM, not you. I think she is fairly capable of explaining her own views. By attempting to discredit her by implying she supports something, which she does not by the way, is dishonest. It's fairly clear-cut.


    No, my posts are clear. There is no clear organization or one structure in which we can neatly put the resistance in Afghanistan, rather it is composed of different nationalist groups who share a common goal, that is to end foreign occupation of their land.

    I never denied that criminals do not kill innocents, I've simply stated that these people are an obstacle to the people of Afghanistan's fight for independence and, as such, do not compose the popular resistance.

    There are thousands of brave fighters fighting in Afghanistan against foreign occupiers, they compose the resistance.


    Not everyone in Afghanistan represents the will of the Afghani populace, some are in direct opposition to it. Karzai and his thugs have made a habit of genocidally murdering whole villages of Pathans for simply being Pathans. They are an example of this type of criminal mindset. Murderers who kill innocents are murderers, nothing more.

    In my opinion, I don't necessarily view the members of this forum as highly as I do people like SAM. You are just part of the campaign to try to discredit SAM because she is vocal and honest about her views. Rather than issuing personal attacks, debate the issues at hand. The more posters on this forum issue personal attacks against SAM or any other poster, the more they tarnish their own image.

    Yes, you did mention this source, but you also wrongly blamed the resistance. These are criminals and thieves who take advantage of anarchy and lack of control, created by the unnecessary invasion of Afghanistan, to rule the lives of Afghanis using fear and intimidation. These people are a product of the invasion and destabilization of Afghanistan. Had the US never invaded Afghanistan, these people would be kept under check by the Afghani government and populace.

    Not only this, but do you realize that Karzai, the Northern Alliance, and associated warlords, have been the biggest criminals throughout the Afghan civil wars. These criminals invaded entire villages kidnapping, murdering and butchering innocent people. They are creating an Afghanistan, devoid of any order, so they can rob, murder, and control all who oppose them using foreign troops to do this. These people are animals, not men, and those foreign troops who murder innocent Afghans are also equal in blame.

    Afghanistan is no joke, innocent people die in their own country for being Afghan. Women are captured and held by Karzai or the foreigners as sex slaves. Innocent young men are kidnapped, tortured, murdered and dropped in plain daylight for people to see. Afghanistan is the only country for Afghanis. The foreigners will leave one day, but the Afghanis will live there forever.

    Americans do not realize this but Afghanis will remember Americans by what they do to them and which types of people they support against them. America has forever ruined its image in Afghanistan, they are occupiers, just like the British and Russians before them.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I find it very odd that people seem to think five years of bombing, incarceration, torture, beatings, water boarding, sodomising kids, rape and murder will lead to a normal pleasant population that thinks rationally.

    I also find it odd that these same people seem to think that people who are at the desperate stage of blowing themselves up are going to expose themselves so they can be prevented from doing it.

    Most of all, I find it highly incredulous that people who have sent troops to sovereign countries and are occupying them are complaining about the behaviour of the occupied!

    All anyone has to do is imagine themselves in a bombed ravaged country without the rule of law, where their family/friends have been murdered or kidnapped, where they have been tortured or raped and where there is no end in sight to the foreign troops who seem like a permanent fixture that will never leave.

    What would they do?
     
  9. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    S.A.M:
    Supposition, plain and simple. I'd argue that most civilians would wish simply to live below the radar, without interference from the occupiers and insurgents. And even those civilians which supported a resistance movement would not be in favour of the butchery employed by the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, which involves the deliberate killing of their own countrymen and starting firefights in areas densely populated by civilians. This is reflected by the fact that many tribal leaders in Afghanistan want NATO to increase security.

    And as an afterthought, why does it matter who kills my unsuspecting loved one? Whether the occupier does it under some false notion of introducing democracy, or an insurgent does it under the misguided notion that they are 'liberating us', my loved one is still dead. They didn't want to get killed by a NATO or insurgent bomb, they just wanted to live their life without getting blown to pieces.

    Why do I need to demonstrate that suicide terrorism is independent of occupation in order for you to agree that it is heinous? Surely the intentional targeting and butchering of civilians (especially your own) is heinous, no matter what? That reminds me, S.A.M, you still haven't answered my question. Once again:

    "Why is it OK for Afghani insurgents to kill civilians, but not for NATO to do likewise?"

    Answer? Because now that we've established that you do think it is OK for Afghani insurgents to kill civilians, all we now need to know is why. From what you've suggested in this thread, the answer is 'Because they are under occupation.'

    So would it correct for me to summarise your views on the matter as: "It's OK to employ terrorist tactics that result in the loss of civilian life when you are under occupation"

    So now you're spouting irrelevant anecdotes while choosing to ignore my articles from the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, which make it quite clear that the insurgents do indeed target civilians (their OWN countrymen, by the way). Your attempt at evasion is noted, SAM.

    Wait, now you know the mind of a suicide bomber?!

    I don't, but I've read up on this subject, and your portrayal of suicide bombers as aggrieved victims who spontaneously kill in a fit of rage is complete nonsense.

    Suicide bombers tend to be educated. Someone who is going to self-detonate would generally needs to work their courage up, think through all the possible ramifications, ask why they are sacrificing their life, and turn to religion to put themselves at ease about dying.

    Insurgents don't strap themselves up with bombs on in a moment of whimsy and rage, nor do they just run around freelancing, detonating whenever it pleases them.
    Quite the contrary, suicide bombing tactics often show a great deal of organisation and tactical planning (both in timing and where they strike) that conflicts with your portrayal of them as dissatisfied individuals who spontaneously strap up and send off.

    You're assuming that every insurgent in Afghanistan has had the above happen to them. Given that some of these insurgents are foreign to the country, we have to wonder exactly what the occupiers have done to harm them.

    Also of note is that many people who have suffered what you described above do not resort to targeting civilians. People have a choice in how they respond to occupation and abuse. Fancy that.

    Members of Afghanistan were sucking the dicks of the Taliban, a repressive theocratical regime, for financial or political favours. People have been sucking dicks for financial or political favours since time immemorable. Many didn't go out and massacre civilians.

    There's no way in hell that I would wage a resistance effort which involved deliberately targeting civilians who were minding their own business, hiding behind civilians and firing shots so that occupier would retaliate and blow us all up, and targeting civilian infrastructure to make my own people suffer. Not only would it be unethical to do so, it tarnishes the reputation of the resistance and turns the civilian population against us.

    NATO isn't winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, but neither is the resistance.
     
  10. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    S.A.M:
    Summary: They are occupied and oppressed, so it's OK for them to kill civilians!

    If I'm mistaken, please correct me, SAM.
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    You suppose wrong. Just look at history.

    In a choice between foreigners and "insurgents", people will ALWAYS support the home team. If you think otherwise, just imagine a bunch of Chinese soldiers in your town.

    No its not alright, but they don't have a choice. Where would they kill foreign troops and collaborators without hurting civilians? If they had the werewithal, like Russia, the could get on a plane and send some nukes into your countries, but they don't. Do you think Australia will send troops to Russia to liberate Georgia?
     
  12. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    S.A.M:
    HOLY FUCKING SHIT?!

    DID YOU JUST FINALLY GIVE A STRAIGHT AND CONCISE ANSWER, WITHOUT EVASIONS?! UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

    But thank you, S.A.M. Maybe there is some hope. If you'd been straight to begin with, we would have avoided this headache.

    So you agree with the statement that:

    "It's not OK for NATO and the insurgents to kill civilians."

    Yes they do, S.A.M. You always have a choice in how to respond to occupation, which is reflected by the fact that many occupied countries had resistance movements which did not employ terroristic tactics. It might also be appropriate for me to point out that Diamond himself admitted that some (most?) insurgents employ tactics which are not terroristic in nature, which further suggests that one can resist without wantonly killing your own civilians.

    In war, some civilian deaths are unavoidable. The intent to kill civilians is avoidable, and it's only ethical and responsible that one takes precautions to minimize civilian deaths, especially when they are the very civilians that you claim you are fighting for.

    Some Afghani insurgents have intent to kill civilians and don't give a shit about precautions, and will gladly sacrifice civilians for their own cause. That's horrendous, S.A.M, and you can't lay the blame at the feet of NATO. Terrorists must be held to account for their bad behaviour, much as NATO must be held accountable for their bad behaviour.
     
  13. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    S.A.M:
    Complete nonsense.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Okay, tell me of an instance where people chose foreign rule over domestic freedom.

    Which ones?
     
  15. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    S.A.M:
    SAM, you yourself have admitted that there are collaborators with the American occupiers.

    Poland, Finland, Indonesia, India.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    yeah, there are collaborators in every place. In the US they were called Loyalists.


    Poland: I suggest you look up how they treated Nazi collaborators and also Jews after WWII.

    Finland: Finland allied with Germany to protect itself and was never disarmed or fully occupied. They also fought off the Soviet Union militarily and recovered their lost terrotories. I don't know much about Finnish history, but I wouldn't be surprised if the occupied territories had not reacted pretty much as ANY occupied territories do.

    Indonesia: They had a bloody revolution. Whole villages were fighting the Dutch and there were massive attacks. They had several rebellions. But again, I am not aware of any details.

    India: Not true, we had a very strong extremist movement. Lal, Bal and Pal, Damodar Savarkar, Subhash Chandra Bose. Collaborators were murdered and set up as examples. One of the defining moments was the Chauri Chaura incident

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauri_Chaura
     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    And in Islam they are called Moslems Converts..
     
  18. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    S.A.M:
    Which blows your claim that “In a choice between foreigners and "insurgents", people will ALWAYS support the home team" right out of the water.

    The fact of the matter is that the occupied do not always side with the insurgents, especially if the insurgents are killing civilians willy nilly. In fact, I'd argue that the majority of the population keeps their heads down and tries to live life much as they did before occupation, unless the occupier is exceedingly repressive and murderous. And even then, civilians don't necessarily support extremist resistance movements which employ terroristic tactics.

    *sigh*

    1. Yes, spies and Nazi informers were killed, as well as traitors whose cooperation with the Nazis directly lead to the death of innocent Poles. But a collaborator does not = operating in a civilian capacity.

    Do you mean to tell me that when Afghani terrorists target what the HRW and UN claim are civilians, they are only actually only aiming to kill collaborators? That seems like a stretch of logic, S.A.M.

    2. What occurred after the war is irrelevant. We're discussing resistance during occupation. And while Polish resistance groups did employ insurgent tactics, they definitely didn't rely on terrorism. They didn't go around wantonly killing Polish civilians to disillusion their people to German rule. "Look, we're killing you, the occupying regime can't provide you with security!"

    3. What exactly DID the Polish do to the Jews after WWII, SAM?

    You are aware that many Poles helped hide Jew from the Nazis, risking the lives of their families while doing so? You are also aware that after WWII, Poland became a Soviet puppet state, and that it was the Jews who turned in nationalistic Poles to the Soviets (not that there were many Jews left after the Nazi purges)? Thousands of Poles who had resisted the Nazis were sent to the Gulags and worked to death.

    So yeah, I'm a little confused as to what exactly the Polish did 'after' WWII, because what occurred after consisted mainly of getting fucked over by another imperialist. Oh, and that reminds me, the Polish didn't employ terrorist tactics while under Soviet puppet rule, either.

    So? They were partially occupied, outnumbered and outgunned. The Finnish resistance certainly didn't rely on terroristic tactics.

    No they didn't, S.A.M. They were forced to concede a lot of their territory to the Russians as part of a peace deal.

    Did all of the resistance factions engage in terroristic activities?

    Yes, you had A strong extremist movement. But they weren't the only resistance movement, S.A.M, they were but one of many.

    You also had a strong passive resistance movement. Remember this man?

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

    The fact that there were multiple groups fighting for Indian independence, each with their own ideology and tactics in regards to resisting the occupier, demonstrates that the occupied do have a choice in how they react to, and (if necessary) resist occupation. The "OMG LETS GO KILL OUR OWN CIVILIANS TO TEACH THE OCCUPIER A LESSON!" is not a response 'forced' on you by an occupier, if a conscious choice you make freely, and hence you must be held responsible for.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Yeah, who do you think the Indians supported even when so many Indians were killed? When one million people died in the partition? When the country was rent with riots? The British?


    He was shot dead by an Indian. Whats more extreme than that?
     
  20. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    A Moslem Suicide Bomber in a Moslem Market.
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2008
  22. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    No, only Islam inspires that, Shaheed.

    "A believer is not afraid of death; he is prepared through the Koran and the tradition. By sitting next to the graves at night for hours, you prepare yourself for joining the Shaheeds, and when the time comes, you'll join the Messenger of Allah... We are not afraid of death, because death is a privilege." --
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822

Share This Page