I'm not ignoring the WTC, I'm just saying the targets were not just civilians. Two of the 4 targets were the White House and the Pentagon. Even if he had targetted only the Pentagon, he would be killing the civilians on the plane, so it doesn't matter.. it is a terrorist attack which targetted civilians the moment the planes were hijacked. You said that the US never targets civilians. There is a threshold which you define in your mind which separates targeting civilians from not targeting civilians. It is critical to this discussion. I am using what I believe is your statement, and if I'm wrong correct me. You said that the one thing is The US never targets civilians. I mentioned some examples in the context of that statement, specifically that the US: 1) Is the biggest funder of human rights abusing countries in the world which has undoubtedly led at least to hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not millions. 2) The US has paid and trained armies to target and kill civilians. This has resulted in the murder of hundreds of thousands, injuring more, and raping a at least a few thousands people along the way. 3) The US defines ANY HUMAN in the vicinity of a drone strike a "militant". We are still at infancy stage, so this has killed hundreds and has spread to 2 or 3 countries. The key point being: those surrounding people can be innocents, children, woman, handicapped people, people who hate the target anyway, etc. I said that when you launch a pilotless attack based on a kill list maintained and controlled by the POTUS, we can say that your President is routinely making the judgement to ignore potential civilian deaths to hit his target. If you have some notion that the majority of drone strikes are clean, think again. That's why there's outrage in Pakistan at the moment and they shut down a NATO base because of it, and NATO launched another drone attack + negotiated a new location for NATO forces. Essentially saying: we don't care about your civilians, we are carrying out this list of kills even if it kills innocents routinely. You responded that OBL and Hitler want to wipe the same people off the face of the earth. Although this is a fallacy because Hitler wanted to wipe ETHNICITIES off the earth as well as countries, whereas OBL and Bush and Obama and Ahmedinejjad want to wipe governments out usually through war and disregarding civilians. I will show how imbalanced an approach you are taking. Hitler: Killed upto 8 million people, 6 million of them Jews, all because of race/ethnicity, all on his own dime, his own watch and with the intention to rule the world by force and institute some supreme race. At the time was among the most powerful countries in the world and most military capable. OBL: Killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands but some of those were on the US dime/watch. OBL targeted Saudi Arabia because he objected to Saudi's approval of permanent US forces being stationed in Saudi Arabia, which is seen in the religion of Muslims as the protector of the Kaaba. If the US was not in the Middle East interfering in his country at the time, he would continue to maintain already-friendly relations with the US and there is plenty of proof to show that he did not explicitly have a problem with the US until disputes regarding the US role in defending Saudi from Iraq. He wanted to defend Saudi from Iraq on behalf of Saudi Arabia. No one votes for this guy, he doesn't have a country, he is a transnational terrorist who masterminded a number of small to medium attacks to create terror and draw the US into an unwinnable war. Frankly, it's not worth discussing whether he intended global domination since that is so incredibly far-fetched. Bush: You are willing to put that legendary terrorist Hitler in the same boat as a medium sized terrorist like OBL, but you are up in arms when I put Bush in that boat, knowing full well he went to war without congress and without the international community and against his intelligence and 700,000 Iraqis are dead now and none of the 3 goals (WMD, Al Qaeda, democracy) are materializing. I repeat, in defiance of state intelligence, ignorance of his people's wishes, disregard of the international community, he went to Iraq with the most powerful force in the world and came back empty-handed and full-pocketed (if there is such a word). From an international perspective, the only difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is a sweet talker and Bush is not. These people are among the most powerful people in the world, and indeed probably history. They are leaders of the most powerful country and owners/users of the deadliest weapons in history. I guess you are making the point that the Commander in Chief hasn't in recent history given an order for a member of the US government to kill a civilian, I would agree that this does not happen anymore, but fail to see why you place any value in this. There are many ways to kill civilians, directly and indirectly without that having to happen. IMO it is an arbitrary rallying point. Perhaps you see this as a moral stance, but I see it simply as avoiding political suicide since there are other ways to achieve the murder of civilians for the purpose of terrorism without having to give an order. If you are done with responding, thanks for the discussion.
I think you're attracted to the women of the west because they give poor guys a chance unlike the pretty girls in the middle east, but are also intimidated by their sexual confidence. Other than that you're just here to stab in the dark and see where you stand against the Western argument, because you're still finding yourself intellectually. At the end of the day, you'll get a diplomatic job with the UAE and do whatever you need to appease your supervisors and the Western money coming in, not destroy the west with these half-assed, out of context arguments. The civilian argument is terrible. OBL targeted the Pentagon as well as the WTC, so he didn't "just" target civilians? But he still did? And meanwhile the taliban uses human shields outside all of their hideouts and now the US is targeting civilians? Just like the claim that the "US attacks Phillipines" you made in this thread? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=220945 Philippine government asks US to use drones to take out terrorist group. US uses drones to take out terrorist group. Mathloom weeps for dead civilians used by terrorists as cover. What are your thoughts on the Taliban led insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Are they doing what's best for the people in the long run by suicide bombing and assassinating their own countrymen (accounting for 80% of civilian casualties in the last 2 years)? Here's a source, something you never provide - http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1783&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=12602 The climax of your argument is when you claim there is a difference between a legendary terrorist and a "medium sized" terrorist. That one had me clapping, but seriously beginning to put you on terrorist watch. I guess you won't be much of a terrorist if you only kill 3 westerners. Right Matty?
Won't answer questions, waste of time. Even if he does Al Taqiyya kicks in. I lost any semblance of respect for Islamic apologists for terrorism after 'islamic freedom fighters' kicked down the doors of a Christian church in Baghdad and executed priests, women and children in he name of allah. I especially like how Al Qaeda claims credit for the attack, as if it were a great military victory. The hero of the attack, this guy...At least 30 of the people were killed when one of the al Qaeda terrorists either detonated his vest or lobbed hand grenades at the Christian hostages being held in the basement. Medal of honor? I guess they were just following mohummad's example when he executed, by beheding, between 400-900 defenceless Jews in the Massacre of Banu Quraiza. To separate the young Jewish men from the minors, Muhammad ordered that their pants be pulled down and the youngsters genital area examined Nazi, SS style for pubic hairs and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them. Mathloom, do you believe that the Radical Islamic Brotherhood is going to be good for Syria, and the Arab / Islamic world?
My true belief is that Assad is not the problem, the protestors are not the problem, the Iranians are not the problem, Muslims are not the problem, the problem is Islamic ideology that gives no freedom of choice, but demands submission. Jews, Christians and Arabs lived in relative peace until allah's prophet introduced Islam, and the associated violence that comes with it, to the area. Ever since then it has been bloodshed in the name of religion. Why the USA continues to give billions in aid to terrorist regimes is beyond me...I guess one man's terrorist is another man's Martyr ( shahid ).
I think it's horrible, and we have plenty of evidence and awareness about how horrible and counterproductive it is. So what? Ofcourse OBL targeted civilians, I was making the point to Sweet Lou that in both the cases of OBL and Bush/Obama, the civilians are secondary targets because their death is seen as a sacrifice for the prime target, but they are targets nonetheless. Regarding the rest of your post, not worth responding to. I'm not going to attack you personally, and if it makes you better to attack me personally please indulge lol.
OBL directly targeted citizens. Comparing him to Bush or Obama is just grossly ignorant and disturbed. By excusing his insanity you are just giving justification for ATW to label you as a brainwashed nutcase. OBL wanted to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties. Obama and Bush have not targeted civilians. Despite your perverse rationalizations and weird logic, the facts are not on your side.
In the case of Osama Bin Laden civilian casualties were his primary target. But he was just following the orders and mohummad's example: Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle." Qur'an:7:3 "Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them." Tabari IX:42 "We have been dealt a situation from which there is no escape. You have seen what Muhammad has done. Arabs have submitted to him and we do not have the strength to fight. You know that no herd is safe from him. And no one even dares go outside for fear of being terrorized." Qur'an:33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive..." Qur'an:3:150 "Soon We shall strike terror into the hearts of the Infidels, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be in the Fire!" Regarding innocent women and children... Bukhari:V4B52N256 "The Prophet passed by and was asked whether it was permissible to attack infidels at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, 'Their women and children are from them.'" Ishaq 580... Often we have left the slain cut to pieces and a widow crying alas over her mutilated husband. 'Tis Allah, not man we seek to please." Ishaq:311 "When the Quraysh began to bewail their dead, consumed in sorrow, one said, 'Do not do this for Muhammad and his companions will rejoice over our misfortune.'" No doubt the US have killed innocent civilians, who these terrorist use as shields in many cases or terrorise into supporting them, but unlike OBL, the American's don't go into battle targeting civilians in the hope of striking fear and terror into the hearts of women & children.
This article proves nothing. Neither do selected quotes with zero context from Islamic holy texts. Anybody can do the same thing to Christianity.
Would you like a lesson in Quran101? SMH. In brief Mo believed he was a prophet of God, the same God of the Christians and Jews. The Arabs asked the Jews to confirm whether or not he was a prophet of God. In short, the Jews mocked his lack of Biblical knowledge and his confusion over times places and events. The Christians and Jews were also insulted and disgusted by his claims that heaven was a brothel. He now had 3 choices, admit he was a fraud, go where there were no literate Jews, or kill. He chose to kill. He then sought revenge by slaughtering the Jews of Medina, because previously he was kicked out of Mecca, then gained enough power, money and influence by robbing & plundering caravans of mostly unarmed traders, stealing the goods of the Jewish citizens of Medina & selling their widows and children into slavery. This was so that he could go back to Mecca, gain revenge on his clan for not giving him a share of the kaaba's profits. He then kept all of the pagan religious practices, apart from polytheism - even though one day he decided to bow down and worship Al-latt, Al -Manatt & Al-Uzza...but that is another story, called it Islam, married a 6 year old girl, consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old...got rich...blah blah... Now we have terrorists, the Islamic brotherhood trying to form a caliphate from North Africa, through Asia and eventually Europe; and 1.5billion people who believe that Mohummad is the perfect example to follow. How can you write the same thing about Jesus and Christianty?
Considering some of your claims about the foundation of Islam are not accurate, I don't even know where to begin. We could start with Mohammed not killing jews just for being Jewish and because they didn't recognize him, we could begin with the false idea that he said Muslims should kill Jews etc. I could make an equally false claim about Christianity if I cared to, but that isn't the point. Including the scores of pagan practices that are kept alive in Christianity such as many of the Christmas conditions etc. There is a kernel of truth behind some of your history of Islam and Mohammed, but the rest is so crazily selective with a biased objective so apparent, there's too much to even talk about.
FranchiseBlade, why are you more concerned with whatever criticism is made of Islam than with Mathloom's outrageous statements? Do you agree with what Mathloom has been posting in this thread?
Because most of Mathloom's statements that I would argue with come not from what he actually believes, but from you baiting him, framing questions in order to elicit answers, and statements into a way that will allow you to try and paint him as a fanatic, rather than his actual position. So I stopped being a part of that. Why are you concerned with me pointing out inaccuracies in anyone's posts? If they post inaccuracies, I would think it's a good thing to point out any factual answers or apparent biases. It's odd that you have a problem with people pointing out biased inaccuracies that go against Islam.
This is an absolute lie. Mathloom himself said that he wasn't even responding to me. I certainly did not "bait" him into promoting the Al Qaeda charter and saying Bush and Obama are equal to Osama Bin Laden and Hitler. Your argument is the same as Mathloom's: It's never the Islamist's fault - the Islamist is always only reacting to what has supposedly been done/said to him. You two are of the same breed. It clearly shows where you stand: Someone can promote Al Qaeda's charter - you don't mind. Someone can say Bush and Obama are the same as Bin Laden and Hitler - you don't mind. But God beware someone says something critical of Islam - leftist do-gooder FranchiseBlade will be outraged. It is very obvious.
Believe what you want. I've never suggested that Islamic terrorists shouldn't be held responsible and aren't at fault for what they've done. I have said many times on this board things to the contrary. But the way you've framed my response and added your own words ("It's never the Islamist's fault - the Islamist is always only reacting to what has supposedly been done/said to him.") and pretended that they came from me or what I've said is exactly what I'm talking about with the way you argue on this point. You try and get people to say things and no matter what they say you will then frame it using your own words and then linking it back to the person you're attacking. Obviously, you enjoy that, but I don't really get into it. Another example of what I'm talking about. That's your own incorrect conclusion, and has nothing to do with what I've said or believe. Yet again, you try and present it as if those were my sentiments and came from me.
It is how you act. You should ask yourself why you act that way. I did not incorrectly attribute anything. It is - without any doubt - how you act. Quite clearly, you did not speak up when Mathloom promoted the Al Qaeda charter. You did not speak up when he said Bush and Obama are on the same moral level as Osama Bin Laden and Hitler. You did, however, as usual, feel the urge to rush to the defense of Islam when someone criticized this ideology. These are facts. It is typical for leftists, too, so you aren't really alone in that regard.
Get used to it. Unless you start 150 alarmist threads about Islam, you must sympathize with terrorists. You can't win on this. Either you're ATW, or you're a member of A-Q.
Nope. Everyone knows I have been highly critical of New Yorker/Sweet Lou, but, to his credit, he was the only one of you leftists who actually spoke up against the downright LUNATIC statements Mathloom made. rocketsjudoka at least made a half-assed criticism of everyone, which I guess included the statements by Mathloom. But all you others just let it stand, focusing on much less outrageous statements which happened to be critical of Islam.
That's a point of contention. It was only a decade ago that it was revealed Americans deliberately targeted Korean civilians. And a whole lot of civvies always die in these "wars for freedom". Given how little the American populace knows about what actually happens in the wars fought on "their behalf" I don't think that should be an a priori assumption. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_01.shtml Anyways, in order to deflect the next post I know will come (and which I will never read) but regardless, can we also just assume that as a social democrat atheist, I condemn the Islamic crazies as well?
