Bin Laden, born to a wealthy family, abandoned his life of luxury to fight in Afghanistan. By all accounts, he fought bravely. By all accounts, he is a pious and genuine Muslim. Misrepresnting his motivations and his personality is a dangerous mistake.



No, they're do represent Islam, at least a part of it. They say so in every commmunique. If they didn't make their motivations clear then there would be little point in carrying out attacks.



Who is the real criminal: the arsonist or the company that mixed the can of gasoline he used to burn down a building? Who is the real hero: the policeman, or the company that sold his department the gun he used to stop a criminal? Any weapon is only a tool. The criminal who uses it is responsible for his own actions.

Bin Laden, born to a wealthy family, abandoned his life of luxury to fight in Afghanistan. By all accounts, he fought bravely. By all accounts, he is a pious and genuine Muslim. Misrepresnting his motivations and his personality is a dangerous mistake.

Islam is their motivation to carry on the war,but it's not the reason for starting it.As I said,they didn't wake up one day and said: "Why don't we start a war with the most powerful nations on earth.I'm sure Allah will be impressed."
Islam makes them believe they are right,but it is not the catalysator.

Here is one of the most obvious reasons proving that they do do it for religion.


They commit suicide glady, why? Because they believe that by sacrificing themselves to kill Westerners they will be rewarded with eternal bliss.

They only kill themselves for their religion.

Here is one of the most obvious reasons proving that they do do it for religion.


They commit suicide glady, why? Because they believe that by sacrificing themselves to kill Westerners they will be rewarded with eternal bliss.

They only kill themselves for their religion.

Followers.See above.

The religious leaders do it for religion too. There is not other reason for them to. The followers become the leaders anyway.

You know,I could use the very same argument to call Bush a christian crusader.

No, because we didn't go to war with Iraq for religion.

No, because we didn't go to war with Iraq for religion.

Really?


Lasts words of the "State-of-the-Union"-speech:


Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Link


Took me only 5 mins to find it.Now,can you tell me how that differs in any way from the claims of resonsibality by Al-quaeda?

Using that brief comment as a Religous motivation for Iraq war is a bit of a stretch.

Exactly. Britain went to war with Iraq because of the threat they posed.

We are not exactly a religious country.

Using that brief comment as a Religous motivation for Iraq war is a bit of a stretch.

Of course it is.Just like saying Bin Laden woke up one day after having a dream about Allah telling him to kill the infidels,which he then proceeded to realize.A religion,that is more than a thousands years older than the USA can't instruct it's followers to destroy this country.And anyone who is capable of terrorizing a world power,THE world power, and pulling off a stunt like 911 can't be a religious fanatic,that is getting his ideas from the Quran.They may be muslims,they might even believe they are chosen by Allah,but they certainly didn't start a war just for the heck of it.



Exactly. Britain went to war with Iraq because of the threat they posed.

Iraq never really was a threat,not even to it's neighbours.

We are not exactly a religious country.

No,you're not,but we are talking about the USA here.Just to get this straight:
I don't believe the USA went to war because of religion,either.But the same goes for terrorists.

To get this back onto the London case and not religon:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...ning%20Standard

smallpackage is right,it doesn't belong in here.I'd start a new thread,provided you are interested Mr. Ed or anyone else for that matter.

Iraq was a threat. A regime of ethnic cleansing was going on.

The intelligence reports showed there was an effort to get their hands on WMDs.

Well North Korea has admitted to having WMD's why arent we invading them to protect the world. I think North Korea is a lot bigger threat then Iraq but we arent invading them. Iraq might have been a small threat but the only reason we went to war with them was for $$$$. Same reason most wars are fought.

Are you totally naive?

It would be the end of the world if we were to invade North Korea, literally. We would all die.

America attacks Korea. Korea attacks all neighbouring US friendly countries with nuclear weapons. China attacks America. Alliances form.
Boom.

Well if the main reason for going to war with Iraq was becuase of alleged WMD's that they never found. NK has them admits to having them. i thought the US was the world police and had a duty to spread democracy throughout the world....

I know going to war with NK would be insane but i think going to war with Iraq is almost as bad. Seems they only pick on countries that cant fully defend themselves. Iraq was no match for the US and since they already tried invading NK and failed they are scared to try again.

The coalition liberated Iraq. Saddam was killing many of his own people each day.

He was a power crazy dictator.
No country can any longer attack a country that has nuclear weapons, it is the utlimate war detterent.

It is not about being scared, it is about what you can do to better the world we live in without sparking off a major war.

The coalition??? The only 2 countries that really did anything was the USA and Britain. What a grand coalition.

And now instead of Sadam killing people its the US and British armies doing the killing. yah thats way better.. I do think the Britisth army seems more civil in how they treat the iraq people.

The war over there had nothing to do with making this world a better place. it was about money and power nothing else.

If making the world a better place was the reason why arent we saving those poor people in Sudan? Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and we do nothing.

No, it was not about money and power. We lost money from doing it and America is so powerful already that it does not need any more, at all.

We should be, we should also put a stop to events in Burma.

Mr Ed, while you go on about Saddam being a bad guy you should find out who was his big business partner during that time...who was it you ask? George HW Bush. It came to light in a court case but had little media attention. So if Saddam was SOOOO bad...well then why was elder Bush his darned business partner? Whats going to be your apologist rebuttle now?

thats right, they picked a country wgere they can realistically achieve something, lets criticize them fr trying to make a difference!



actually iircc the australian SAS got a huge sandbox to play in, in the form of East Iraq, and were very succesful in their endevours too



actually if it were about money i would have attacked Sudan first...you do realise northern sudan is oil rich?

There is a different program for Africa. Genocide plays a big part.

Once more i have read facts twisted to fit one's on veiws.Look if you tell a fact it should be told in full content.The Bush Sr,goverment did sell weapons to Saddam we helped then in the oil buiness,Now i don't want to upset you but yes we were their allies, Then Saddam started his mess, gasing the Curds, invadeing the small countries that were at his borders,and guess what just like China, we could no longer support their polices so what did we do? We had to help the small counties and get Saddam under contol, The bush goverment also stoped all aid and support to iraq,You see that is how it works-You behave we help, You miss behave we stop, I hope this is simple enough for some people to understand,

conventional weapons
saddam manufactured his own chemical and biological weapons using german and russian tech:)

So if it was after money do would of attacked Sudan first!!?? You know what your talking about...













Sure you didn't mean Saudi Arabia?

That is a fact those who wish to blame the Bush family keep forgetting, along with a few more facts!

Funny they fail to mention the Democrats that did business with Saddam?

They can't, that would kill there Bush goverment did it all theory!

What weapons did we supply to Saddam? Does anyone have a breakdown of what exactly they were? All Saddam's military hardware came from Russia... tanks, planes, guns, missiles... plus some from France ... what American (or British) equipment did he actually have?

What weapons did we supply to Saddam? Does anyone have a breakdown of what exactly they were? All Saddam's military hardware came from Russia... tanks, planes, guns, missiles... plus some from France ... what American (or British) equipment did he actually have?

He actually had a lot.Ever read some of the reports of the first Gulf war?



And as for Saddam not behaving........you're right,he behaved the way you wanted him to when he was slaughtering thousands of Iranians.Then he attacked your ally,Kuwait, and that's where the complaints started.

Sadam was a guy put in his job by the states to keep an eye on the Shah, he got out of hand and they had to revoke his membership. He was supplied with small arms and some other conventional weapons by the states.

Have you? Almost all of his major weapon systems were Soviet, French and Chinese. The only modern US weapon system in service with Iraq in significant numbers in 1990 were some 155mm SP artillery pieces.

Have you? Almost all of his major weapon systems were Soviet, French and Chinese. The only modern US weapon system in service with Iraq in significant numbers in 1990 were some 155mm SP artillery pieces.

I have(don't ask me to find them,though).I know that his arsenal didn't consist of only US weapons.I know it was mostly small arms and equipment that was provided by the US.The bigger hardware came from the nations mentioned above.
I mentioned the reports because I still know,how some of them emphasized,that their own weapons were used against them.

Then name one major weapon system manufactured by the US that was used by Iraq in significant numbers in the 1990 war, other than the one I named above. If you can find one, compare it to the number of weapons in use at the time that were purchased from France, the USSR and China.

Then name one major weapon system manufactured by the US that was used by Iraq in significant numbers in the 1990 war, other than the one I named above. If you can find one, compare it to the number of weapons in use at the time that were purchased from France, the USSR and China.

I could try to dig out some information but what is the point?I told you already it wasn't ONLY USA-manufactured weapons.
Are you trying to prove that USA didn't support Saddam?Or that USSR and China did?
If,so note that the weapons were PURCHASED from China and the Soviet Union.

You bring up a good issue redneck...people in our country make profit from arms sales but so do other countrys arms dealers too. If I lived in another country I would probnably be talking about those same forces who sell the arms. America doesnt have a monopoly on bad guys...thats for sure...I wish all people in every country were more vigilant in regulating these 'merchants of death'.

Uh ... yeah, I said that they were PURCHASED from China and the Soviet Union. Let me check one more time: yep. I definitely said that.

What I'm telling you is that the US was not a major source of conventional arms, not that they didn't support Saddam Hussein. It was almost entirely Soviet, Chinese and French weapons.

What I'm telling you is that the US was not a major source of conventional arms, not that they didn't support Saddam Hussein. It was almost entirely Soviet, Chinese and French weapons.

So?

So what you wrote earlier is wrong. He didn't have "a lot" of US weapons.

So what you wrote earlier is wrong. He didn't have "a lot" of US weapons.

I said "a lot" in opposition to "no weapons at all",but you're basically right.
I have noticed that all you're doing in this thread and the other one is arguing about technicalities,just so you can prove me wrong.....is there any reason for this?

I think it's a little more than a technicality. It's a falsehood that is repeated over and over until everyone believes it. If you want to talk about an enemy that we sold a lot of weapons to, talk about Iran.

I think it's a little more than a technicality. It's a falsehood that is repeated over and over until everyone believes it. If you want to talk about an enemy that we sold a lot of weapons to, talk about Iran.

In that case there isn't much of a difference in wether you supply them with your weapons or make it possible for them to buy their own.

But anyway,can we stop this now?I have an assignment to do and only 5 hours left until school.

can you not talk to me like i am a piece of dirt?

get off your high horse!!

I am simply stating what the suicide bomber said....it is not my opinion IT IS WHAT HE SAID

Excellent point littleprincess

thats fine but present it as it is--a quote from a fundamenalist fanatic whose lost all sense of rationality--DO NOT confue these ramblings with those of others muslims or islam-they represent islam about as much as the heavens gate cult represented christianity

i did.....i said

i read an interview with a suicide bomber and HE said............

"Live not in vain,exercise your only God given inalienable right,
to die for what you believe in"

interesting quote in ur profile btw

are they not dying for what they believe in?

It is hard to explain, because it is hard to even guess. Today's media makes it hard to know what really happens in the world.

Personally, I believe that it was a set-up to turn the attention off the G8- meeting.

Well I implore you to change your thinking and that is completely untrue.

Why the hell would the government kill its own innocent people just to avert attention away from the G8 meeting? They aren't even talking about anything 'top secret'. Aid and suchlike are the topics up for discussion.

Think about it.