Why Does the Left Try so hard to Justify Terrorists in the Middle East?

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I'm skipping a lot, but in total, we may have built bases elsewhere, and this might have encouraged terrorists like OBL to engage the US on bolder terms, but it was not the US that drew first blood.

And in wars there's collateral damage. This means innocents will die. So to a large extent, the failure to prevent the deaths of innocents is forgiveable.

Should we trust soldiers to be critical of their own organization - that supports them?

Thanks Johnnywhite for the excellent dialogue, and for actually reading what I post and not twisting it to beef up your argument like another font is doing.


First, you'll have to fill me in a bit more. I'm not exactly a US history buff, I don't know every single thing that happened, so maybe you can help add to my timeline. As I know it, the US intervened in middle east foreign affairs back in the 1950s with Iran. As far as bases in the middle east, the US installed bases in Saudi Arabia immediatly after Sadam invaded Kuwait. We were fearful that he may also invade Saudi Arabia and take control of their oil reserves as well. To make sure this didn't happen, those bases were installed. THIS is what I remember OBL referencing when I mention him talking about our bases in their territory. I am NOT referring to the fact that, ofcourse, we're in Afghan and Iraq. Was there an incident that happened pre-Kuwait invasion with OBL that motivated us to put bases in Saudi Arabia that I'm not aware of?

In any case, I fully acknowledge that Al Qaeda will attack anyway based on idealogie, but as I've said in previous posts, I don't think our foreign policy is helping us in this "war". I think it's killing us as a nation by robbing us of both our money and our personal freedoms at home.


Second, the anology is a bit light on details, but I'm glad you appreciated the point I was trying to make. I just want to point out a couple of things. I think when we invaded Afghan, the American people were by and large all for it. Somewhere along the way, we lost our way and let it turn into something it wasn't meant to be. Ofcourse, it's easy to look back and see that the end result isn't what we want. Going forward, invading any nation to tackle a criminal or criminal organization seems misguided and horribly inefficient.

Iraq, on the other hand, never bared fruit. We were lied to, or given piss poor information, about every reason we invaded the country. We actually brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. For the American public, as you said, by and large casualties can be overlooked. But when when these numbers keep adding up, can the Iraqis overlook those casualties? A single death can serve as recruiting tool for several new recruits, recruits who have a personal vendetta against the US.

At some point you have to way your options. Maybe the bad guy gets away for now, but beef up your defense and your intel, and get him next time. We will not provide him fodder to grow. As someone else said, don't provide the locals with a reason to turn a blind eye to what's going on, or even worse, aid them.


Last, I completely agree that any organization has to have checks and balances, army included. I'm not 100% sure what you're referencing. Are you talking about me suggesting we listen to the soldiers and vets as a way of supporting them? If so, I think you've misunderstood the point, especially with vets. What does a Vet gain by pulling out of a war or hostel country? I think active duty soldiers realize they're voicing their opinions that are not likely to change anything. If I need to know how to reduce the emissions in the city I'm mayor of, I'm going to ask the guys at the EPA, the guys with the experience and have been there before. The governmental group overseeing the EPA could be filled with know-it-all beaurocrats, none of whom know a thing about what to actually do with regards to controlling emissions or the emissions of my city. But those beaurocrats DO know the EPA is keeping total emissions under their national goal, so send them another check.


Thanks for the discussion!

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by steveknows
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I don't see Americans highjacking planes and flying them into buildings regardless of the age and civilian status of the passengers.

I don't see Americans walking into subways with bombs strapped to their bodies and killing as many unarmed
people as they can just for the sake of killing as many unarmed people as they can.

I don't see Americans kidnapping eastern non combatants off the streets of the U.S, cutting their heads off and posting it on youtube.

I don't see Islamic jihadist wearing uniforms so that they can be identified for who they are.

I don't see Islamic jihadist doing what they can to help people who got in the way when they were attacking a military target. Oh wait. They don't attack military targtets just innocent civilians.

I didn't see any coalition forces in Afghanistan until one day a group of Islamic jihadist highjacked some airplanes and flew them into building in the U.S murdering thousands if innocet men women and children. And no they weren't casualties of war. They were murderd.

As I've said in a thread I posted. If these Islamic jihadist want to claim that they're soldiers then lets start shooting them for posing as civilians behind enemy lines and planning and carrying out attacks as per the rules of war.

edit on 23-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

1)look a little close americans hijack planes too.

2)over the last year I've seen multiple americans open fire intoa crowd. Did you miss those events?
3)really? Again, I think you ought to pay more attention. America assasinaated an american born cleric, in case you forgot.
4)should people fighting against an invading army wear uniforms? Really? What, so that they are easier targets for that INVADING army?
5)'help people who got in the way'? Not even gonna touch that one, as the logic of such a statement is scary and sad.
6)avoiding the 9/11 bait there, I certainly didn't see entire countries flying planes into building. I saw a few people. Yet that, to you, justifies attacking not one, but two nations? And a forcing of a new ideology on those countries?


This thread really has become a case study of nationalionalism and narcisism.

What a lame tool you are. Talk about scratching for a response. It would be good if the next bomb they let off got you then you'll have more than your heart bleeding. You did not make one reponse with anything rational or substantial. Just like a terrorist

You obviouly don't have the IQ to grasp the post.

By the way lover of Jihad. I''m not American so there goes your nationalism crap.

edit on 23-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

If you are going to talk about iq, you should at least understand the terms that you are disputing. One doesn't have to be american to be a nationalist. Nice try though.

Please explain to me why it is that you think I have a bleeding heart. Which one of my statements suggests that to you? You know what they say about ASSumption.

Furthermore, calling me a 'tool' and a 'terrorist' proves nothing other than that you are quite young and not intelligent enough to debate with an actual reponse.

This site sure does worsen when the kids are out on break...

Because you didn't respond to one single line with any kind of rational statement. At all.

Here's an example. You said why should they wear uniforms? Well because they claim they're fighting a war and they and people like you are claiming that they're some kind of soldier. They are living in western countries and attacking those countries. That's not fighting an invading army and it's sad that had to be pointed out to you.
I'll explain it more for you. Fighting in their own country agianst coalition forces they can dress however they want, But if they're in the country of their enemy dressed like civilians and planning attacks then they're breaking a rule of war and they're behind enemy lines dressed as civilians and should be shot as per the rule of war. .Fine I say lets give them the status of enemy soldier then we can shoot them for dressing as civilians behind enemy lines.

You're reponse was a knee jerk rant. Please show me through a link where the latest American has claimed to be fighting a war and flown a middle eastern passenger plane into a middle eastern tower. Please show me through a link where the last American living in a muslim country has walked into a subway with a body bomb and murderd passgengers? Please show me through a link where an American has kidnapped a muslim off the street in the U.S and hacked off their head on youtube?

And you can't see the difference? I think it is you who is young and can't give an intelligent response.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

All of your "facts" are derived from the assumption that Bin Laden and his cohorts perpetrated the attack, which, by now atleast, has been proven as categorically false. All roads lead to Israel, buddy. You have quite thoroughly bought into the propagandists wet dream I see.

Oh really. And where is this proof you claim to be out there?

reply to post by steveknows



Every response was completely rational. Let me address your example. Let's turn the tables and say your home country was being invaded. Would you put on a uniform so that the invading army could more easily identify and kill you? Or would you use the BASIC TACTIC of staying invisible to the aggressor?



Please show me where I claimed they were 'some kind of soldier'. In a debate, lying about what your opponent has said forfeits all of your credibility.


Please show me a link that proves the hijackers were from afghanistan. Or muslim. Or had any affiliation with the governments of the nations we have since pummelled. Please show me a link showing muslims rolling through foreign nations in tanks. Please show me a link of middle eatern soldiers raping civillians in a foreing land in their own homes. Please show me a link showing muslims dropping hundreds of bombs in civillian areas.

See, it goes both ways. You just refuse to look at the whole picture.



So ill ask you the same question I asked the other guy: why do you only consider it wrong, and only consider it to be terrorism when the perpetrators are muslim? Why are you ok with justifying the same action if they are perpetrated by white people?

well, the problem is that jewish lobby is very strong in spreading misinformation and hiding the truth, so what you may call 'terrorist' another one may call 'freedom fighter'...

here is a nice example of how israelis behave:



or here (warning, graphic)



if you had such people invaded your country and killed your family, what would you do?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by steveknows

 

Every response was completely rational. Let me address your example. Let's turn the tables and say your home country was being invaded. Would you put on a uniform so that the invading army could more easily identify and kill you? Or would you use the BASIC TACTIC of staying invisible to the aggressor?

I was tlaking about the terrorist cells that are hiding in the countries of their enemies. I said nothing about them fighting in their home countries.

Please show me where I claimed they were 'some kind of soldier'. In a debate, lying about what your opponent has said forfeits all of your credibility.

Please show me where I said that they should wear uniforms when fighting an invading army. My reference was to the cells planning attacks in the countries of their enemies and you know it. So yea you know all about lying.

Please show me a link that proves the hijackers were from afghanistan. Or muslim. Or had any affiliation with the governments of the nations we have since pummelled. Please show me a link showing muslims rolling through foreign nations in tanks. Please show me a link of middle eatern soldiers raping civillians in a foreing land in their own homes. Please show me a link showing muslims dropping hundreds of bombs in civillian areas.

See, it goes both ways. You just refuse to look at the whole picture.

And there is the support for the terrorists acts you claim you don't have. Why don't you post links to back up your support for them?

So ill ask you the same question I asked the other guy: why do you only consider it wrong, and only consider it to be terrorism when the perpetrators are muslim? Why are you ok with justifying the same action if they are perpetrated by white people?

Because at the end of day Bin laden admitted to the act and the Taliban which was the governing body of Afganistan harboured him.

Why do you like to twist words. Why do I need to point out to you that a soldier in a uniform displaying the country he or she comes from and with an advertised presence isn't a terrorist. That a person who enters the country of their enemy under the claim of visitor, migrant or refugee and then plans on carrying out attacks against that country is a terrorist. How dare you compare the two.

Why do you like to twist words. Why do I need to point out to you that a soldier in a uniform displaying the country he or she comes from and with an advertised presence isn't a terrorist. That a person who enters the country of their enemy under the claim of visitor, migrant or refugee and then plans on carrying out attacks against that country is a terrorist. How dare you compare the two.

dictionary.reference.com...

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

dictionary.reference.com...

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

Just for reference the term terrorist is very broad, and when broken down means an individual or group that uses fear for a specific agenda.

Both can be compared if you are going by the definition of terrorism.

Originally posted by steveknows

This entire thread is political trolling but the thread remains but this comment gets this ?
WOW. Just WOW!

reply to post by CaDreamer


Yah thing is you should take a look at who's pulling the strings of these morons , Or are we just going to ignore elephent in the living roomn...

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

obviously the Evangelical propaganda kool-aid party was successful.

!NO!

The 109 plus verses in the Koran !DEMANDING!, exhorting, requiring faithful, true Muslims to behead, kill, exterminate, inflict violence on non-Muslims are quite clear.

They are obviously clear enough for many energetically intent on earning their purported Heavenly rewards to earnestly seek violent ways to do just that.

Millions more provide safe houses, money, encouragement, political and media defense for such violence.

When the Islamic/globalist blade comes for your evidently non-Muslim neck, will you lay it down eagerly or will you resist or run away?

reply to post by MrXYZ


It depends on your definitions, I suppose.

AS I've noted before . . . several years ago on C2C a world famous expert on Islam, whose name I've forgotten, asked on of his high ranking Muslim experts what percentage of the general population of Muslims supported violent Jihad--either by doing violent things; giving money for violence; providing safe houses; defending such politically or in the media.

He asked the Imam 5%?

No.

10%?

No.

Well what percent?

70%

The Islam expert didn't believe his trusted high ranking Imam source.

So he immediately ONE AT A TIME, contacted an additional TWELVE other high ranking Muslims all around the world.

Every last one of them, ONE AT A TIME said:

70%.

You are wrong.

Your assertion is also illogical if you have read anything significantly of the Koran etc.

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by steveknows

 

Every response was completely rational. Let me address your example. Let's turn the tables and say your home country was being invaded. Would you put on a uniform so that the invading army could more easily identify and kill you? Or would you use the BASIC TACTIC of staying invisible to the aggressor?

I was tlaking about the terrorist cells that are hiding in the countries of their enemies. I said nothing about them fighting in their home countries.

Please show me where I claimed they were 'some kind of soldier'. In a debate, lying about what your opponent has said forfeits all of your credibility.

Please show me where I said that they should wear uniforms when fighting an invading army. My reference was to the cells planning attacks in the countries of their enemies and you know it. So yea you know all about lying.

Please show me a link that proves the hijackers were from afghanistan. Or muslim. Or had any affiliation with the governments of the nations we have since pummelled. Please show me a link showing muslims rolling through foreign nations in tanks. Please show me a link of middle eatern soldiers raping civillians in a foreing land in their own homes. Please show me a link showing muslims dropping hundreds of bombs in civillian areas.

See, it goes both ways. You just refuse to look at the whole picture.

And there is the support for the terrorists acts you claim you don't have. Why don't you post links to back up your support for them?

So ill ask you the same question I asked the other guy: why do you only consider it wrong, and only consider it to be terrorism when the perpetrators are muslim? Why are you ok with justifying the same action if they are perpetrated by white people?

Because at the end of day Bin laden admitted to the act and the Taliban which was the governing body of Afganistan harboured him.

Why do you like to twist words. Why do I need to point out to you that a soldier in a uniform displaying the country he or she comes from and with an advertised presence isn't a terrorist. That a person who enters the country of their enemy under the claim of visitor, migrant or refugee and then plans on carrying out attacks against that country is a terrorist. How dare you compare the two.

edit on 23-12-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

1)so you are just talking about the terrorist cells and not all of the other people involved. Little near-sighted, don't you think?

2)you are flat out lying. You spoke of fighters dressing as civillians. In fact, you went so far as to say that if they do that, we should just gun them all down. Don't you remember?

3)how do you leap from my pointing out that all of your arguments are narcisistic and can be used by all sides to saying that is me justifying anything? Talk about twissting words, or maybe just not understanding them. You are the second person in this thread to accuse me of justifying terrorist action, yet neither of you can supply even the smallest bit of evidence backing the claim up. The only people I see justifying anything in this thread are those that are attempting to justify the erradication of muslims and american agression.

4)I'm not going to turn this into a 9/11 debate, but I will say this-OBL admitted no such thing. He never claimed responsibility. And, low and behold, HE WASN'T IN AFGHANISTAN! (Or did we forget about that one?)

5)your definition of terrorism is absolutely incorrect, especially in that, as I have already pointed out, it is a subjective term.

6)you're damn right I compare the two, as the comparison is quite valid.

7)I notice in your rant about posing as migrants and refuges you willfully ignore the fact that both the us and israel do the exact same thing-only we send them in as spies for "intelligence purposes", so its ok. Semantics are fun toys, aren't they?

reply to post by Miraj

To some degree I am, but I have a hard time finding any other logical reason for us to become a target,

Evidently you have not read much of the Koran, at all.

It is the RELIGIOUS DUTY of every Muslim to . . . ultimately . . . convert or exterminate all Muslims.

Yeah, there's some grounds for taxing them and living in a pseudo peace with non-Muslims . . . particularly when it's convenient, serves Islam in some way or when Muslims are not quite powerful enough to get away with genocide.

Read the at least 109 verses of the Koran exhorting violence and see if you still believe the same way.
Colo emphases added below.

before-i-sleep.com...

Quran Has 109 Verses Advocating Violence against Non Muslims
Sep 4th, 2010
by Dark Horse.

According to Citizen’s Watch:

“THE QURAN is Islam’s most holy book. Sixty-one percent of the Quran is about non-Muslims. Writings about what Muslims should do is religious. Writings about what non-Muslims should do or how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims is political (read more about this). Therefore, based on Islam’s most holy book, Islam is more political (61%) than religious (39%).

There are 245 verses in the Quran that could be considered “positive verses” about non-Muslims. Every single one of those verses have been abrogated by later, negative verses about non-Muslims. Not one positive verse about non-Muslims is left.

In contrast, there are 527 verses of intolerance toward non-Muslims, and 109 verses specifically advocating violence towards non-Muslims. Not one of these verses has been abrogated.

My conclusion: Non-Muslims who like Islam don’t know much about it.”

Original article:

www.citizenwarrior.com...

=================================

164 Jihad Verses in the Koran

Compiled by Yoel Natan, author of Moon-o-theism,

a book about Allah being a pre-Islamic pagan war- and moon-god.

Email a friend about this Web page:

With streamlined formatting:

www.yoel.info/koranwarpassages.htm (108 KB)

With more involved formatting:

www.yoel.info/koranwarpassagesformat.htm (383 KB)

I. Introduction. II. Horizontal List of Verses
III. Vertical List of Verses IV. Excerpts of Verses
V. Full-text of Verses (With Bolding) VI. Footnotes

FROM:

www.yoel.info...

A. Jihad Verse Selection Criteria

Each of the 164 Jihad verses in this list was selected based on how clearly and directly it spoke about Jihad, at least when considered in its immediate context. Most of the listed passages mention a military expedition, fighting, or distributing war spoils. Verses NOT generally listed are those that speak about aspects of Jihad other than the raiding, fighting and looting, such as:

Muhammad's poor opinion of those who did not go on Jihad, even though they were able-bodied and able financially (for instance, some verses in K 009:081-096),
The heavenly rewards for Jihadists, and
The many generic mentions of "victory" found in the Koran.

Such omitted verses can readily be found in proximity to the Jihad verses listed below.

The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses: K 002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 003:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 004:071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095,100-104; 005:033, 035, 082; 008:001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048,057-060, 065-075; 009:005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029,036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083,086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123; 016:110; 022:039, 058, 078; 024:053, 055; 025:052; 029:006, 069; 033:015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050; 042:039; 047:004, 020, 035; 048:015-024; 049:015; 059:002, 005-008, 014; 060:009; 061:004, 011, 013; 063:004; 064:014; 066:009; 073:020; 076:008

A sampling of such:

Translation used: M. H. Shakir, published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., 1983, unless otherwise indicated.
The Koran's 164 Jihad Verses

Excerpt K 2:178-179

Set 1, Count 1+2 [2.178]...retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain... [2.179] ...there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.

Excerpt K 2:190-191

Set 2, Count 3+4 [2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

A couple of things rationalization fails to address:

What if the tides were turned? Doesn't matter because that's not the point. What's now is now. The terrorists today are the Muslim extremists who just like some of the people here twist their own ideology and use it to justify killing thousands of people!

Armies are terrorists? Really Armies are terrorists? Besides the loose definition of terrorism which can be applied to anybody that looks at you strangely, I would not say armies are terrorists. Definition of Army is

The branch of a nation's armed services that conducts military operations on land

Anything that is a "war" is justified killing unfortunately. But armies even have laws about who they can kill and how they can kill. You can easily find this information out. As it is illegal to rape civilians for US Soldiers and many get punished for doing this. Terrorists are a fringe group of people where no laws apply and they just want to terrorize people and spread whatever message they want to; in this case Radical Islam!

We need to admit to the root causes? Ok what if we did and we threw down all of our weapons and said to the Middle East sorry we screwed you over and took all your oil. Thanks! And just left.Would that really accomplish anything? No! Why shouldn't we clean up our own mess? I think that it's safe to say that trying to implement democracy in failing nations could actually help them in the long run and they can finally have the freedom to see how wrong they were!

For the past 50 or so years this has been all that we could possibly do and it is unfortunate that there was no other way. As mentioned in my OP I believe that we will begin to see less wars thanks to drones. The Middle East will begin to wake up thanks to internet advancements and social networks soon we will be able to leave them alone for they will start to implement democracy on their own. But until that time becomes widespread, drones and troops are still needed for the damage that we have already done.

The difference between the US and the Middle East is that we know we are trying to help them, they aren't trying to help anybody but themselves.

Originally posted by steveknows
You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor. You might be a Muslim.
You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes. You might be a Muslim,
You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon unclean. You might be a Muslim,
You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide. You might be a Muslim,
You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing. You might be a Muslim,
You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
You might be a Muslim,
You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four. You might be a Muslim,
You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against. You might be a Muslim..

You are a very ignorant and sad person

Please do us all a favor and don't reproduce, thanks

They aren't focusing you but you're going to focus.

The op loves the left right paradigm doesn't he. z0mg republicans z0mg democrats! they're all bought out by the same corrupt interests and all work for the mega-banks that have nearly destroyed the global financial system, and "terrorism" which on record has been funded by CIA/MI6 since the late 70s/early80s has been used as a geopolitical tool against any group the West didn't like. First it was used against Serbia/Soviet Union, then the United States and UK. It's admitted that Al'Qaeda worked with NATO to overthrow Libya and has been given control, and now NATO is using Al'Qaeda forces to disrupt Syria. It is on record that police officers saw government agents planting bombs inside the building before Oklahoma City. It is on record, and came out in congressional testimony, that the government got the underwear bomber on the plane. Al'Qaeda was originally a computer list database for the list of the most radical Mujahideen and CIA admittedly used this group and persuaded it to help rid Afghanistan of USSR, and has been helping and aiding it along to do its bidding ever since. Your "war on terror" is a big joke, you statistically have a better chance of a vending machine falling on top of you and killing you, or getting struck by lightning, or being trampled by a 10 point buck.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by steveknows

 

1)so you are just talking about the terrorist cells and not all of the other people involved. Little near-sighted, don't you think?

Why is that near sited? Other than your obvious support of terrorist acts why would you think all should be included?

2)you are flat out lying. You spoke of fighters dressing as civillians. In fact, you went so far as to say that if they do that, we should just gun them all down. Don't you remember?

There you go lying again and twisting words to add weight to your rediculous pro terrorist views. The point I made was 1. If they're in the country of their enemy dressed like civilians and there for the purpose of attack then under the rules of law they should be shot when caught as by law they can be. 2 if you and they like to see them an army then thy should be subject to those laws.

3)how do you leap from my pointing out that all of your arguments are narcisistic and can be used by all sides to saying that is me justifying anything? Talk about twissting words, or maybe just not understanding them. You are the second person in this thread to accuse me of justifying terrorist action, yet neither of you can supply even the smallest bit of evidence backing the claim up. The only people I see justifying anything in this thread are those that are attempting to justify the erradication of muslims and american agression.

Show the evidence that Americans are trying to erradicate muslims. The fact that they can get into any western country legally and then blow up innocent people shows that you're just making stuff up for your lame debate.

4)I'm not going to turn this into a 9/11 debate, but I will say this-OBL admitted no such thing. He never claimed responsibility. And, low and behold, HE WASN'T IN AFGHANISTAN! (Or did we forget about that one?)

OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.

You need to read more than anti western rant propaganda.

In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".

I remember seeing the video.

The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system.

Bin Laden also makes a direct personal threat against Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, for the first time, and warns nations such as Australia, Germany and Japan to stay out of the conflict.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

5)your definition of terrorism is absolutely incorrect, especially in that, as I have already pointed out, it is a subjective term.

You don't know much do you.

6)you're damn right I compare the two, as the comparison is quite valid.

That's because you support the enemy and you've got no concept. Why don't you go and join them then our troops will have a chance at you..

7)I notice in your rant about posing as migrants and refuges you willfully ignore the fact that both the us and israel do the exact same thing-only we send them in as spies for "intelligence purposes", so its ok. Semantics are fun toys, aren't they?

edit on 23-12-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Did I say that any coalition troops dressed as civilians in their country shouldn't be subject to the same law? In fact as youtube shows, These scum would most happily execute them. Also I still don't see coalition troops dress as arabs and walk into civilian areas and blow themselves up. Your arguement is both lame and based on ignorance..[/quote[