The Actual Words of Osama

Originally posted by Colonel
This should be changed to:

It's the US's job because the US can. We police places that have strategic and financial value to US corporations saying we're doing it for the good of those people (edit). If vast oilfields were discovered in the Congo, I'm sure suddenly those people's plight would be paramount because the US would be right there conviscating it.

__________________

As it has been since the beginning of time, the basis of conflict is that the little dog has the bone and the big dog wants it. I don't see a problem here.

The next response to this will be "But that doesn't make it right!". Maybe, maybe not. But there are some who try to paint the US as the very first agressor, and every other culture/civilization as lily-white innocent. We're no more than any, and a lot less than most.

We have more freedoms than anyone we "attack". Like being able to criticize our government without being executed. Try to do that in Iraq/Iran/N Korea/Haiti, etc.



________

[Edited on 15/4/04 by COOL HAND]

Just as we were having our fist civil conversation....anyway.....

I still think it lies. It makes no sense to me that a nuclear material which is naturally hazardous becomes safe after detonation with no health effects afterwards. Look at Chernobyl. Furthermore, this gov info is suspect....

CAMPAIGN TO BAN WEAPONS: SOLDIERS, DOCTORS TESTIFY ON EFFECTS OF DU

www.iacenter.org...

We can sit here and exchange links all day:

www.mod.uk...

All I can personally say is that I have handled DU rounds on numerous occasions and I have yet to suffer from any health problems related to it, nor has anyone else I know.

You're wrong.

There I said it.

Where do you get this "exposed radiation" tripe? Do us all a favor and look up the word Depleted. Let us know what you come up with.
Newsflash!!! Inhaling the dust from any heavy metal will cause illness. If we were using plain old lead (innefective) anti armor weapons you would be here bitching about lead poisoning and contaminated water supplies. War is hell, get over it.

But, that is irrelevant on its face: Why?

1) They aren't exploded, which is key.
2) I don't know how long you've been doing this. (You couldve started 2 months ago)
3) You wear equipment while those who suffer the after effects of detonation are openly exposed.
4) Is it in the drinking water which is probable after a DU explosion which could make things worse.

Originally posted by Colonel



I still think it lies. It makes no sense to me that a nuclear material which is naturally hazardous becomes safe after detonation with no health effects afterwards. Look at Chernobyl. Furthermore, this gov info is suspect....

__________________

I have to agree with the Colonel on this one; it just doesn't make sense. Especially when you begin to hear of increased levels of leukemia in those that shouldn't have been affected.

I'm just glad I'm not a guinea pig here.

_______

Originally posted by Fry2
You're wrong.

There I said it.

NO, YOU'RE WRONG!

(I will continue this later)

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Colonel
This is how you create terrorists. You invade thier homeland. Kill their leaders and religious figures, not to mention their families. Steal their resources. Destroy their infrastructure.

Then, everyone acts so shocked when the terrorist returns the favor.

Exactly, and thank you for the first post.

I'm surprised that Bush & Co. wouldnt've learned from the Soviets that it was unwise to attempt to invade Afghanistan (or any Middle-Eastern country, for that matter).

I'm sure there was atleast one Intel Advisor that told his superior the invasion was a bad idea, especially noting :
a) A region of the world that is so suspicious and hateful of the U.S. would form some (at-the-time) secret allegiance with our C.I.A. in order to remove the Soviets should prove one thing: They don't want anyone there, including us (which is maybe why they agreed to let us train them, instead of us making moves ourselves to remove the Soviets)
b) No one living within the countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) asked us to come and save them.
c) "Saddam was a bad man. Bad man, terrorism. I don't see whats so hard about making the connection." I simply don't think that's good enough, especially when Pyonyang and Khadafi are far easier enemies to have.

Ahh, the refreshing youthful comeback:
"I know you are but what am I?"

Classic Colonel.

Originally posted by Colonel
But, that is irrelevant on its face: Why?

1) They aren't exploded, which is key.

They do not explode, they are KE weapons. No warhead to explode on the round.

2) I don't know how long you've been doing this. (You couldve started 2 months ago)

Nope, try five years.

3) You wear equipment while those who suffer the after effects of detonation are openly exposed.

Yes, we do not to have sailors getting injured for being stupid.

4) Is it in the drinking water which is probable after a DU explosion which could make things worse.
What? How did it get there in the first place? Are they going to shoot up a water treatment plant with DU?

It is time for you to deny ignorance and admit that you do not know as much about DU as you thought you did. There is no way you can skewer the findings of medical science to prove your point on this one.

Wow, I hate to say this but I agree with Colonel on the DU item.

My father has gulf war syndrome. He has to go to the mayo clinic every few months to make sure he's all right. He was a reporter in the Gulf War, with the marines, and he never handled any DU ordinance. However, the impacted shells sent radioactive dust into the air, which he inhaled, it is because of this that he has GWS.

Military denies it, but it's true, DU caused GWS and is continually harmful to the environment and to the soldiers and civilians.

I still think the war in Iraq was justified, as is (almost) every military action taken against violent islamic extremists.

Bush Cheney '04!

What are his symptoms? Is he losing his hair, fingernails and teeth? I really doubt that. What does GWS do to you, if I might ask?

COOL HAND:

I'm beginning to like you but in this case I would have to go by my trademark line and say:

NO, YOU'RE WRONG!

As evidenced by Dreamstone: veterans and non-combatants are coming back with Gulf War Syndrome from the first Iraqi War, a serious debilitating sickness, from inhalation of the residue of DU. The Iraqis that are already there are suffering terrible sickness. Words cannot deny reality.

But, you would rather have me believe paper than what my lying eyes show me, eh?

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Colonel]

There are many theories as to what causes Gulf War Syndrome. To state that people are getting sick because of DU dust as fact is not only debatable, it's intelectually dishonest. It is possible that this is what is causing GWS, but it's also possible that we hit some chemical weapons factories and this released the cause into the air. There's also theories that chemical weapons which wouldn't have an immediate effect (the US would have come down on Iraq hard if he used WMDs on us) but a lasting one. There are many theories out there. To assume it must be DU because it supports your arguement and is what you want to hear is only causing you to decieve yourself.

I'll go ahead and claim complete ignorance on the whole DU issue, however I believe this should not be the main issue. Instead the issue should be as colonel said, why are we fighting this illegal war? And further more how can we blame them for not simply laying down for us? While osamas actions can never be justified in my mind, he and all the others around the world are not doing what they are doing because they are bored or because they hate our notion of "democracy." As for the targeting of civilians i believe in most cases that would be a foolish move tactically and politically, but when it serves their purposes they are not above it. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's been a long time ago, but if you think that we wouldn't do it again in a heartbeat then you are mistaken.

i dont give a # on what you people call me for saying this but i think that osama is right!!! osama is ONLY fighting because he hates the idea of this war. i.e. osama hates the FACT that corporations are gaining millions from this war (oil, drugs, etc.).

osama is also saying that his people are not fighting just for the sake of fighting or killing themselves for the sake of killing themselves. he is saying that they are fighting for THEIR BELIEF and THEY SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED BY OUR BELIEFS. we CANNOT judge a culture by OUR beliefs because EVERY culture would be "wierd" in OUR eyes.

i also agree with him because he only commited terrorists acts (the idea of "terrorism" is just in our heads and this is THEIR way of fighting and not OURS so we JUDGE it by OUR standards so its "wierd" or "wrong" and its REALLY NOT!) AFTER america commited acts againsts them. these "terrorists" acts is just THIER way of retaleating against us.

to ME every culture is PERFECT in THEIR OWN way and we (people all over the world) should NOT judge other cultures by THEIR OWN standards 'cause that is just WRONG! that is the main point i am trying to make...

EDIT: my money argument www.alertnet.org...



[Edited on 15-4-2004 by they see ALL]

Oddly, I think that OBL said more straightforward things than I have ever heard on the news in my life.

I am certainly NOT on his side in any way, but no one over here knows the extent of the killing in the middle east, not even me. Numbers on a page do not compare to bodies on the ground.

We have dropped tons of bombs, many of which are big and very powerful. This "colateral damage" is not some minor thing and not considered and apendage of war to the original victims, the middle easterners.

Hell, we got all fired up and freaked out in 1770 when FIVE people were killed in the Boston Massacre.

Its funny and ironic theyseeALL, that his own religion condemns his actions and does not even give him sanction to do what he is doing.
Terrorism is forbidden by Islamic Law.
He declared a Jihad and was not legally able to do so, again according to Islamic Law.
Terrorism: Islamic Perspective

Muslim Law, Shari'ah/Fiqh, and its inherent relation to Muslim International Law, stipulates that only sovereign Muslim nations or governments have the legal authority to declare Jihad, in any given circumstance. Despite this expressly clear Muslim interpretation, there are those, namely Yasir Arafat and Osama bin Laden, who have used the words jihad and intifada (uprising) with 'righteous' impunity, knowing full well, that they stood in direct violation of Islamic Muslim Law, the Shari�ah/Fiqh.

In 1996, Osama Bin Laden issues his Declaration of Jihad, and in 1998, issues his fatwa against the United States (Saudi Arabia and Israel). Many Muslim scholars and juris-consults (scholars of law), called Mufti, have openly stated that Osama Bin Laden was not given license to claim a fatwa, moreover, he is not considered a Mufti, nor the head of any sovereign Muslim nation or state, and had no authority to claim or issue either a Jihad or fatwa. They have further stated that his so-called fatwa is worth no more than the paper it may (implying doubt) have been written on and amounts to no more than the personal opinion of an ordinary rich and biased person. These same Muslim scholars further mention that if what he decrees against the US is truth, these claims would amount to only crimes against humanity and not a Jihad sanctioned by the Shari�ah/Fiqh.

Next?



seekerof

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Seekerof]

uhhhh. maybe he wants to be a rebbel

OR maybe he doesnt care for religion (which holds a person back from his/her true potential) and he is just lying to his "followers" and just saying that if they kill themselves they will go to "paradise"

the fact is that all governments lie and all religions lie.

my MAIN point i was trying to make was that WE SHOULD NOT JUDGE OTHER CULTURES BY OUR STANDARDS!!!

leave osama/saddam alone! its THEIR contries let them do whatever the # they want!!!

next...

Originally posted by Seekerof
Its funny and ironic theyseeALL, that his own religion condemns his actions and does not even give him sanction to do what he is doing.
Terrorism is forbidden by Islamic Law.
He declared a Jihad and was not legally able to do so, again according to Islamic Law.
Terrorism: Islamic Perspective

Muslim Law, Shari'ah/Fiqh, and its inherent relation to Muslim International Law, stipulates that only sovereign Muslim nations or governments have the legal authority to declare Jihad, in any given circumstance. Despite this expressly clear Muslim interpretation, there are those, namely Yasir Arafat and Osama bin Laden, who have used the words jihad and intifada (uprising) with 'righteous' impunity, knowing full well, that they stood in direct violation of Islamic Muslim Law, the Shari�ah/Fiqh.

In 1996, Osama Bin Laden issues his Declaration of Jihad, and in 1998, issues his fatwa against the United States (Saudi Arabia and Israel). Many Muslim scholars and juris-consults (scholars of law), called Mufti, have openly stated that Osama Bin Laden was not given license to claim a fatwa, moreover, he is not considered a Mufti, nor the head of any sovereign Muslim nation or state, and had no authority to claim or issue either a Jihad or fatwa. They have further stated that his so-called fatwa is worth no more than the paper it may (implying doubt) have been written on and amounts to no more than the personal opinion of an ordinary rich and biased person. These same Muslim scholars further mention that if what he decrees against the US is truth, these claims would amount to only crimes against humanity and not a Jihad sanctioned by the Shari�ah/Fiqh.

Next?



seekerof

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Seekerof]

Assuming the kids in Red Dawn were Christians, they would have been condemed for their kickassidness.

I don't think anyone here is really supporting his actions. I'm certainly not, but in reality, deplomacy does not always work.

I haven't read this post but I will just post what I post.

The American media here is so one sided and so Pro-Israel that is has people saying "Where is the proof the Muslim children dying?" or "Who says they were murdered?"

What about that young boy who had both of his arms blown off in those days Americans were dropping bombs on Iraq like they cowards they are?

What about in Palestine?

Israelis have bulldozed Palestinian home to make way for condo's. All the Palestinians have is hope in the Middle East.

Or what about the genocide on a whole generation of Muslim children because of uranium fallout.

Or what about the Israeli special forces or whatever they call the crap targeting Palestinian children walking down the road to get a glass of milk.

And you got the nerve to call them terrorists?

What are they to do when they don't go an army and air force like the Israeli's do thanks to the United States?

"I say what the Bible says. I say what the Qur'an says. I say it's justice."