It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Understanding "Terrorists" (just hear me out) Poster's Confession/Explanation

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by cstyle226
Recently I have been speaking about the Mujahideen and how they deserve success and all that. I do it to provide a little balance here, but more importantly I should explain why, so that we can achieve greater understanding. After all, deny ignorance, right?


Imagine this. (Now I know some may not want to, but just do it, for the sake of being fair)

It's 2015, and our new President Jeb Bush (or Hillary Clinton) has decided that democracy had a nice run, but that's enough, and now it's time to save the country with a dictatorship. The President has declared themself ruler of America, and no one is to challenge them, or speak against them.

Now, the newly democratic Muslim nations see the America that saved them (thanks W) falling to the evils that had befell them not so long ago. So out of respect, and a sense of responsibility, they form a large invasion force, which they have built up, thanks to their new economic freedoms, and decide to invade America, depose our current dictator and their henchmen, and install a new democracy.

Patently absurd. The whole of the middle east, even if it was incredibly united and completely focused on the task, couldn't possibly invade the US now, let alone when its headed by a dictator. What lunacy is this, one should hope the mujahideners win, so that middle eastern democracies can save the world later? The mujahideners aren't looking for sovreignty and democracy. They -won- in afghanistan slowly in the '90s. Look what they did with it. Thats -precisely- what the jihadis want -now-, all across the middle east. And people like bin ladin want to re-establish the caliphate over all of that. The scenario you outlined would only work if the jihadis are destroyed.

Now the dictator is using the American armed forces to defend against the invaders, but since the dictatorship has taken over, the army has weakened because of the bad leadership, and they drop their weapons and mix amongst the civilians.

Now, who's side would you be on, when on a daily basis you see occupying armies killing American women and children, while attacking the "resistance?" And then referring to them as collateral damage?

Think about that for a while, before you just think of them all as terrorists. They are people, too.
Sure. They're people who are terrorists. Any americans who fought to protect an american dictator, calling for a conservative christian theocracy, blending amoung the people, loping the heads off of civlians and peace workers, setting off bombs in public markets, yeah, they'd be terrorists, and the occupiers, muslim or not, would be justified in rounding them up, putting them to tribunal and executing them. There isn't anything else that is sensible to do. Sure, in a twisted way, one could understand that the jihadis think the westerners are corrupt, immoral, piggish inferior things that are disgracing islam by even being in the middle east, in the same way that one can understand how racist nazis could think 'yeah, we -should- lock up jews', but that hardly makes them right.

The sad thing is that many of you consider them the enemy as well,
The insurgents in iraq are the enemy, the jihadis and mujihadeners all over the globe are the enemy.

and many refer to Islam as evil.

Unfortunately, many people do seem to think this. They should realize that, just like in christendom, there are sick fanatics and peaceful thinkers. I suspect that most muslims, given the opp, would prefer to have little more to worry about than what pre-school to send their kids to, or how to fit in a visit to the hairdresser inbetween taking the kids to soccer practice and grocery shopping.

With that attitude, the killing will never, ever, ever end.

This is pretty silly. First off, who cares if the killing never ends? I don't care if jihadis die, i don't care if sickos who cut peoples heads off with knives die. And as long as those people are doing that, well, unfortunately there's going to be this struggle. And secondly, until the westerners stop there will be killing? The blame is squarely put on the west? Why? Are you saying arabs and muslims are incapable of higher moral reasoning? Thats pretty low, lots of people seem to think this sort of thing.

So, their soldiers wearing the cross, full of hate, shoot into unarmed civilians, singing “"Burn, you mother-f.. Burn".

Uhm, and when is this happening? And the uniforms of the coalition members don't have crosses emblazoned across them. How would this guy even know what they are saying anyway eh? Over the barking of the machine guns. And firing into crowds of civlians? Er, no. This is what the jihadis do. They are the ones kidnapping people, ripping their heads off, planting bombs in markets and on roads. Not the US. I wouldn't pretend for a second that the US and western troops haven't killed civilians. But they aren't targeting civilians, and they certainly don't have a policy of doing so, and in fact develop less destructive weapons so as to limit civie casualties, where as the jihadis do exactly the opposite.

In contrast when the Mujahideen retaliate they praise their creator (Allah Akbar).

How is this in contrast? The author says the troopers wear crosses, and the jihadis do the equivalent.

Only occasionally they exhibit anger due to the loss of their loved ones but rarely show hatred.

What a load of garbage. You actually beleive this? The jihadis are saints, forced into killing this poor enemy, only showing anger when their family members are killed? The jihadis are the ones killing fathers and mothers, they're the ones exchanging women hostages for millions of dollars. They aren't moralists, they're immoral murderous thugs.

Hateful words like ‘rag head’, ‘sand 'n-word'’, ‘towel heads’ have no equivalence within the tolerant Muslim societies.

No, instead they call catholics polytheists and even prevent shi'ites from openly practicing their religions. Now, I'll agree that historically at least, islam, and especially in theory, can be very tolerant. Not ecumenical, but certainly tolerant. But now? Heh. No. Most muslims societies, especially in teh middle east, are intolerant of other muslims. This is a joke. You're clearly falling for or spreading baseless, inane propaganda. And whats its main conclusion, the westerners are vulgar and savage and inferior to moral upright proper supierior muslims, and that the 'savages' deserve to die. Pathetic.

I am really curious as to what you think will happen. Honestly, i want to know. We obviously disagree, but I think its pretty apparenent what I would like to happen, but what about you? Do you want the western troops to leave iraq, saudi and qatar, and for the US to abandon it preferential support for israel, at least to not give it so much money for its military? I get the impression that over all is what you'd like. But what then? What will the insurgents in iraq do? What will the jihadis across the region do? How will anything change for the palestinians? I know that everyone likes to think that they are strong, but, lets face it, the arabs, across the region, are weak. True, the isrealis were given a big edge earlier, but, even without support, they'll still be far more powerful, and, besides, if there were a massed arab invasion of israel, that would draw the US back into it anyway. So what is it that you, as an 'insurgent supporter', want to happen now and several years down the road?

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 12:13 PM
All I was saying was try to figure out the "other side's" point of view...I wasn't asking you to agree with it.

The point is, and this goes for everyone, both sides: As long as people aren't interested in the reasons people are doing what they're doing, misunderstandings will lead to more violence.

More terrorists attacks.
More invasions.
More death.

That's all.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 02:14 PM
So basically you are unwilling to discuss at least that last part of what I was talking about? I think its a good idea to look at the reasons behind these things. I tend to look at Al Sadr's group as something like the 'legitimate' resistance in Iraq, certainly one has to expect 'patriots' to take up arms and at least make it clear that they are willing to fight, and one can, even tho they are the enemy, at least say that they aren't terrorists and the like. Tho Al Sadr's group is obviously pretty apocalyptic (mehdi army and all), it at least appears that Al Sadr himself is intersted in playing a part in the poltical process. And they aren't the ones taking hostages. So there is a difference between different insurgents.

Either way, that doesn't mean an attempt at capturing/killing all the insurgents should be made, or that they shouldn't be treated as anything other than enemies.

new topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in