<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 2 2005, 10:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 2 2005, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That has nothing to do with the supposed descration of said holy book. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As to the "supposed" desecration of said Holy Book, considering that both Amnesty International and the Red Cross have both come out with similar statements to that which Newsweek retracted, I think its highly unlikely that the desecration was a ruse. The issues at Guantanamo bay may be larger or smaller than we believe, but I think its pretty clear that at least <i>something</i> happened.
<!--QuoteBegin-Foxtrot Uniform+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Foxtrot Uniform)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> prove that they did it and that these TERRORISTS aren't lying about it. TERRORISTS.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you are being sarcastic, this remark really irks me. Terrorists you say? Have they been convicted of terrorism? Have they even been TRIED for terrorism? No, and its unlikely that that will ever happen. Its really an ugly situation involving guantanamo bay at the moment, and has been since this whole fiasco started.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jun 2 2005, 11:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 2 2005, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That has nothing to do with the supposed descration of said holy book. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, no it doesn't. From your own post, and properly bolded this time: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be <b>treated humanely</b>, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a book, not a person. Tad bit of a difference, eh?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 2 2005, 01:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 2 2005, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually thanks to Cagey the whole geneva convention is thrown out on its arse right there.
Since both sides are not playing by the rules, the rules no longer apply. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Cyndane, you need to remember, its not jus Iraqis imprisoned at Guantanamo. This is a case with far more than "2 sides"
I never said anything about it just being Iraqi's, I don't recall the afghans playing very much by the rules, not so much as bad as the iraqis, but... point still stands?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 2 2005, 01:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 2 2005, 01:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I never said anything about it just being Iraqi's, I don't recall the afghans playing very much by the rules, not so much as bad as the iraqis, but... point still stands? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> you should always play by the rules, cheating makes more people cheat, if you cheat because someone cheat, you are as bad as the cheater or even worse, as you make the rest cheat
The Guantanamo Bay detainees didnt just come from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Kuwait, Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, all over the middle east, including a good number picked up from within the United States itself.
<!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+Jun 2 2005, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ Jun 2 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not just Iraq, not just Afghanistan, Kuwait, Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, all over the middle east, including a good number picked up from within the United States itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> WTH are you talking about <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+Jun 2 2005, 11:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ Jun 2 2005, 11:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Guantanamo Bay detainees didnt just come from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Kuwait, Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, all over the middle east, including a good number picked up from within the United States itself.
/Edited for clarity <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was actually a major part of US justification for not applying the Geneva Convention--the other side of the conflict wasn't state sponsored; Geneva applies to prisoners of war, but most of those nations have not declared war, so the detainees were (allegedly) acting as independant agents rather than state soldiers.
I'm not remotely comfortable with the suspention of Habeas Corpus when dealing with cases like Guantanamo since I believe that it in effect creates concentration camps (even if the prisoners are treated humanely, they are being held without trial); I do believe, however, that the US would be entirely justified in holding Guantanamo detainees to the same standard as criminal suspects in the US legal system rather than the standard applied to prisoners of war.
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jun 2 2005, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jun 2 2005, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 2 2005, 01:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 2 2005, 01:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I never said anything about it just being Iraqi's, I don't recall the afghans playing very much by the rules, not so much as bad as the iraqis, but... point still stands? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you should always play by the rules, cheating makes more people cheat, if you cheat because someone cheat, you are as bad as the cheater or even worse, as you make the rest cheat <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Playground rules, applied to international politics. Brilliant!
<!--QuoteBegin-Cookiebooger+Jun 2 2005, 12:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cookiebooger @ Jun 2 2005, 12:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just know that all of the countries will turn against America and just Nuke it. America is becoming too evil. NOT saying AMERICANS are evil, the GOVERNMENT is evil, dispicible and vile. They need to change the system. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wouldn't said nuking consequently kill millions of Americans?
Our system of government is just fine, if you absolutely hate the man in charge, you can say so. You also only have to put up with one man for no more then 8 years. We have innumerable freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution, which I might add, is one of the most brilliant documents ever conceived, however it is not holy.
Our system has its flaws and it’s only as good as the people who participate but it sure beats the heck out of every form of government in the Middle East.
What do you propose we switch to, an Islamic Theocracy ruled by some religious nut-job who hates woman?
Seriously though, what should we change, Bush is gone in 2 more years and I'm sure you hate him. Maybe you'll like the next guy, maybe I don't care what you like, and it’s my right.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cagey+Jun 2 2005, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey @ Jun 2 2005, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-pieceofsoap+Jun 2 2005, 11:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (pieceofsoap @ Jun 2 2005, 11:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Guantanamo Bay detainees didnt just come from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Kuwait, Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, all over the middle east, including a good number picked up from within the United States itself.
/Edited for clarity <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was actually a major part of US justification for not applying the Geneva Convention--the other side of the conflict wasn't state sponsored; Geneva applies to prisoners of war, but most of those nations have not declared war, so the detainees were (allegedly) acting as independant agents rather than state soldiers.
I'm not remotely comfortable with the suspention of Habeas Corpus when dealing with cases like Guantanamo since I believe that it in effect creates concentration camps (even if the prisoners are treated humanely, they are being held without trial); I do believe, however, that the US would be entirely justified in holding Guantanamo detainees to the same standard as criminal suspects in the US legal system rather than the standard applied to prisoners of war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed, what we have now is the creation of a gray area between Prisoner of War and civil criminality, without the protections afforded to either. No wonder its driving human rights groups up the wall.
I just love it when people compare muslim ideology to america... and then come up wiht the conclusion that "America is evil".
Lets do a little litmus test... What do you think of when you hear of criminals getting thier limbs cut off? Rape in the name of family honor? One man is worth two women. Mass Graves. Mohammeds favorite wife? <span style='color:white'>*cough* Oversimplification. *cough*</span> "I just know that all of the countries will turn against America and just Nuke it." Suicide bombings in buses Bombing the people trying to join a police force of a fledgling country. Opposition to democracy.
Now - when I think of "evil" - and the very worst kind... my thoughts turn to that type of behavior - and who are the people exhibiting that type of behavior?
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Jun 2 2005, 03:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jun 2 2005, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just love it when people compare muslim ideology to america... and then come up wiht the conclusion that "America is evil".
Lets do a little litmus test... What do you think of when you hear of criminals getting thier limbs cut off? Rape in the name of family honor? One man is worth two women. Mass Graves. Mohammeds favorite wife? (*cough* pedophile *cough*) "I just know that all of the countries will turn against America and just Nuke it." Suicide bombings in buses Bombing the people trying to join a police force of a fledgling country. Opposition to democracy.
Now - when I think of "evil" - and the very worst kind... my thoughts turn to that type of behavior - and who are the people exhibiting that type of behavior?
I'll give you a clue - not America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First off, they amputate the body parts for assurance that the person will not steal again. It also shows to people what happens when this is done.
Second. It's spelled Muhammad. And yeah he had FIVE wives. He loved them all dearly with the same compassion and dearness.
Third. It's called JIHAD. A misinturpretted JIHAD. It was given from Osama Bin Laden who is neither Muslim, Jew, Christian nor any other religion. His crew are all SAINTS, DEVILS.
Fourth. Who gave YOU the right to decide who's a "pedophile" just because he loved his wife in his time being? NOT ME, NOT GOD, NOT ANYONE in this forum. So if I were you sir I'd apologize for that remark.
Fifth. Muslims' are NOT EVIL, BAD, SAINTS. Muslims are peacefull, kind and are only looking to find inner peace with GOD. So if I were you, I'd go to a library, READ about them before you say ANYTHING about them. And yes, I am a CONVERT and I believe Islam is the only religion that you can find INNER Peace as well as happiness among ANY person with a different religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cookiebooger+Jun 2 2005, 04:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cookiebooger @ Jun 2 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Third. It's called JIHAD. A misinturpretted JIHAD. It was given from Osama Bin Laden who is neither Muslim, Jew, Christian nor any other religion. His crew are all SAINTS, DEVILS. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm, could you clarify this please?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush issued a memorandum on Feb 7, 2002 stating that the war on terror wasn't against a nation state, and "unlawful combatants" don't qualify as prisoners of war and therefore aren't subject to the Geneva Convention. I haven't been able to dig up a copy of the precise memo text, but it's supposedly included in page 6 of Jim Schlesinger's report on Abu Gharib.
So, both sides having tossed out Geneva, posting its text here doesn't help much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically, this is correct. However, Japan has been judged by the US for warcrimes violating the Geneva Convention, although they have declared themselves not bound to the treaty anymore prior to WW2. Just because it does not fit the current situation anymore, you cannot simply declare yourself not affected by treaties you signed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Behavior is controlled by the individual.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply wrong. There is no such thing as individual behavior in our society anymore. Not on a scope as it would matter on the great picture.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Likewise - if you are a muslim and offended by it - display it in a suitable manner. First of all - check all your facts. If your going to make a stink - be informed about it. In this case, they didn't do that... they were wrong. There was no descecration as described by Newsweek... only hearsay. Then, right your congress people and complain... right the policy makers... That is their job. Join the war effort and become the guard who doesnt disrespect the koran.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to see your reaction if somewhere someone would burn bibles. It would lead to an outcry, demonstrations and what not. As long as there are incidents like violent attacks on medical personnel involved in abloutions, you should be careful with recomendations about suitable behavior.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's a book, not a person. Tad bit of a difference, eh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe a bit of translation is in order.
<i> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></i>
The article refers to the PERSON as the one under protection of the conventions. Read: the detentioned combatant. Said persons are to be trated humanely under all circumstances, including not being discriminated in regards of their religion. Burning their holy book is considered discriminating that particular religion. Get it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually thanks to Cagey the whole geneva convention is thrown out on its arse right there.
Since both sides are not playing by the rules, the rules no longer apply. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I wrote before, just because the circumstances change, you cannot simply ignore a treaty you singed. Creating a gray zone by inventing the term "illegal combatant" is just an easy way to avoid these restrictions, like building a detention camp on foreing ground to deliver prisoners to the jurisdiction of allies that do not hesitate to practice questionable interrogation tactics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What do you think of when you hear of criminals getting thier limbs cut off?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Want to make a guess as of how many children lost limbs because of dud ornance dropped in the various countries during the various US interventions in the last 30 years? There are more sides to the coin than you discribe.
For example: those people bombing the people joining the police force. Ever thought about from what pool of volunteers the the new police force is recruited? Think about this for a bit , maybe you get at what I am hinting.
Well this is the thing. He thinks he has like a prior knowledge of Islam. He told fictiual things to his following Mosque leaders and people that Jihad had to be done with violence, corruption and ablution. Osama Bin Laden is the main reason why we are at war.
A friendly warning: This is a discussion, not a morallizing forum. So, Pepe, Cookie, please zip up and move on. Nobody in here is gonna benefit in any way from 'Your religion is worse than mine!' mudfests. If you feel that a quarter of the world's population - <i>any</i> quarter of the world's population can be judged as simply as "good" or "evil", odds are this just isn't the forum for you.
[edit]I knew I couldn't stay out of this.
Cookie, what you describe there is a tad simplified. Bin Laden's ideology is based on the conservative middle-eastern tradition, which includes such things as the Sharia and has its roots in Islam, though both concepts are as comparable as the teachings of the Bible and medieval European society. It is not so much a life based on the Koran bin Laden demands, it's a life based on the tradition that claims to be founded on the Koran. In so far, it's not so easy to declare bin Laden "a liar" and be done with it. What he says has long and old roots - which does not say anything about the claim's truth, but indicates a few things about its weight in a given society. bin Laden claims to live the only true way a Muslim could live. And while many won't agree, upbringing runs deep in all of us, and makes us weary of dismissing claims we consider - rationally - preposterous.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Osama Bin Laden is the main reason why we are at war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. Bin Laden is but a symptom of a failed and yet ever repeated foreign policy. Bin Laden is one of the various "ex-allies" of the various US presidents that were politically engaged in the middle east. Saddam was another such "ex-ally" and the new "democratic" Shiite government of Iraq will be the next.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jun 2 2005, 04:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jun 2 2005, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A friendly warning: This is a discussion, not a morallizing forum. So, Pepe, Cookie, please zip up and move on. Nobody in here is gonna benefit in any way from 'Your religion is worse than mine!' mudfests. If you feel that a quarter of the world's population - <i>any</i> quarter of the world's population can be judged as simply as "good" or "evil", odds are this just isn't the forum for you.
[edit]I knew I couldn't stay out of this.
Cookie, what you describe there is a tad simplified. Bin Laden's ideology is based on the conservative middle-eastern tradition, which includes such things as the Sharia and has its roots in Islam, though both concepts are as comparable as the teachings of the Bible and medieval European society. It is not so much a life based on the Koran bin Laden demands, it's a life based on the tradition that claims to be founded on the Koran. In so far, it's not so easy to declare bin Laden "a liar" and be done with it. What he says has long and old roots - which does not say anything about the claim's truth, but indicates a few things about its weight in a given society. bin Laden claims to live the only true way a Muslim could live. And while many won't agree, upbringing runs deep in all of us, and makes us weary of dismissing claims we consider - rationally - preposterous.[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well said Nemesis. Thanks for the straightening out.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jun 2 2005, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 2 2005, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Osama Bin Laden is the main reason why we are at war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. Bin Laden is but a symptom of a failed and yet ever repeated foreign policy. Bin Laden is one of the various "ex-allies" of the various US presidents that were politically engaged in the middle east. Saddam was another such "ex-ally" and the new "democratic" Shiite government of Iraq will be the next. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He was a soldier in an army we supplied with weapons to defend themselves from the Soviets. He wasn't hand-picked by the CIA or anything to be our representative in the middle east. In other words, he's not an "ex-ally", he just happened to be there at the time.
[edit] <!--QuoteBegin-cookie+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cookie)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just know that all of the countries will turn against America and just Nuke it. America is becoming too evil. NOT saying AMERICANS are evil, the GOVERNMENT is evil, dispicible and vile. They need to change the system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The very fact that you and everyone else can openly say things like this (or worse, remember that video in the OT forum of the "Forsake the Troops" guy?) and NOT be dragged out into the street by the police and killed leads me to think we've got the edge when it comes to political systems. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 2 2005, 09:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 2 2005, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He was a soldier in an army we supplied with weapons to defend themselves from the Soviets. He wasn't hand-picked by the CIA or anything to be our representative in the middle east. In other words, he's not an "ex-ally", he just happened to be there at the time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He was a known and supported commander - the CIA trained him, as far as I know. After Afghanistan, he received support in creating the structures for guerillia attacks on Soviet interests throughout the middle eastern world. These structures later became Al Quaeda. I'd argue that the CIA knew rather well who they were dealing with and putting into an exposed position there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jun 2 2005, 04:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 2 2005, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Osama Bin Laden is the main reason why we are at war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. Bin Laden is but a symptom of a failed and yet ever repeated foreign policy. Bin Laden is one of the various "ex-allies" of the various US presidents that were politically engaged in the middle east. Saddam was another such "ex-ally" and the new "democratic" Shiite government of Iraq will be the next. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, damn us to hell for helping him and his...people...keep the Soviets out of their land.
I can see why he would want to kill thousands of our innocent civilians...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He was a soldier in an army we supplied with weapons to defend themselves from the Soviets. He wasn't hand-picked by the CIA or anything to be our representative in the middle east. In other words, he's not an "ex-ally", he just happened to be there at the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was and is the head and founder of the army you supplied AND trained in guerillia warfare. What now has formed Al Quaeda are the remnants of those volunteers that went to Afghanistan and fight the enemies of Islam (the sovets, at that time). When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered the Saudi Royals his assistance in liberating Kuwait. That was before he found a new target when the US forces and the Saudis agreed on maintaining US military presence in the area even though it was part of the initial agreement that the US forces would leave arabic soil after the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can see why he would want to kill thousands of our innocent civilians...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See my above statement about inncocent arabic victims US interventions. Those called "collateral damadge" in the media..
Before we drag this out to another "who is more wrong" discussion, just answer yourself one question:
Take Saudi Arabia. Imagine a country which has the highest production capability of the worlds single most important strategic recource of our time. Now imagine this country in huge foreing debt since Desert Storm because of financial compensation to the US.
Now why does, in order to maintain its <i>extremely</i> large and <i>extremely</i> extravagant royal family (and to pay off foreing debts), this country lower their citizens income from oil revenues instead raising the oil prize?
Find the answer to this question and you find the answer to the question as why Bin Laden, heir to one of the richest Saudi houses, does prefer sitting in a cave and make bad video takes to burning his peoples money like the rest of the saudi nobility.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jun 2 2005, 06:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jun 2 2005, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 2 2005, 09:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 2 2005, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He was a soldier in an army we supplied with weapons to defend themselves from the Soviets. He wasn't hand-picked by the CIA or anything to be our representative in the middle east. In other words, he's not an "ex-ally", he just happened to be there at the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He was a known and supported commander - the CIA trained him, as far as I know. After Afghanistan, he received support in creating the structures for guerillia attacks on Soviet interests throughout the middle eastern world. These structures later became Al Quaeda. I'd argue that the CIA knew rather well who they were dealing with and putting into an exposed position there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The CIA may have trained him, but if he had not been there, they would have trained whoever was. They didn't say, "Oh, look, Osama bin Laden looks like a good guy, let's make him the leader." The reason this is important is because that's basically what we did with Saddam, and it's just good to know that we didn't screw up the exact same way twice.
Also, <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered the Saudi Royals his assistance in liberating Kuwait. That was before he found a new target when the US forces and the Saudis agreed on maintaining US military presence in the area even though it was part of the initial agreement that the US forces would leave arabic soil after the war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Saudis wanted us to stay just as much as we wanted to stay there. Blame world politics for this one, not the US.
First, CIA training was, as far as I know, only administered to higher-ups in the chain of command. Monetary support in the creation of a network hints at the intent of fitting bin Laden into a leading role, as well. Yes, the CIA worked with what was there. They did the same with Hussein and his Ba'aths, which existed before America came along.
Second, Saudi Arabia's royal house, which faces significant opposition from both fundamentalistic and intellectual circles considers and considered the US' army presence a cornerstone of its power over the country, much as Eastern Germany considered the Red Army source of its power. This has little to do with world politics and more with the fact that the Saudi government runs a course that is of bigger benefit to the US than the own country: Open the pipelines and let it flow, with no plans for the time after the oil. So, yes, the US' humble servants want the US to stick around. I'd say that this is the US government's responsibility for taking that servant in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Saudis wanted us to stay just as much as we wanted to stay there. Blame world politics for this one, not the U<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Royal Family of Saud wanted US forces to stay.... not the political opposition and their leaders. Nobody asked the people as what they thought about this.They were told the US would leave after the war. World politics does have nothing to do with this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The CIA may have trained him, but if he had not been there, they would have trained whoever was. They didn't say, "Oh, look, Osama bin Laden looks like a good guy, let's make him the leader." The reason this is important is because that's basically what we did with Saddam, and it's just good to know that we didn't screw up the exact same way twice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course the CIA would have trained another one. The outcome would be similar.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and it's just good to know that we didn't screw up the exact same way twice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Can you tell me as how the US did <i>not</i> screw up twice? Of course, Saddam was such a good investment, I forgot.
You screwed up more than twice btw. ... The Shah was another such failure.The Iranians still fly US F14 jets sold to Iran prior to the revolution ...
The Saudis are the same bunch of corrupt puppets that will eventually fall, bringing a radicalized and fundamential oppositon in charge.
The new Iraqi government is the next liability the US are building up. Do you honestly think the Shiites did forget how the US abandoned them to become sloughtered by Saddams Republican Guard after they were encouraged to overthrow Saddam in Desert Storm? Do you honestly think they trust the US farther they can throw them? Do you think they uphold or adapt our values? Do you think they will side with the US against Iran? Are you aware that the Iranian Ayatollahs are Shiites too? How naive are you?
Legat, unless we have Mr. Bush among us, I'd prefer if you did not adress the US administration by 'you' in here. It kinda blurs the line <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Cookiebooger+Jun 2 2005, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cookiebooger @ Jun 2 2005, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fifth. Muslims' are NOT EVIL, BAD, SAINTS. Muslims are peacefull, kind and are only looking to find inner peace with GOD. So if I were you, I'd go to a library, READ about them before you say ANYTHING about them. And yes, I am a CONVERT and I believe Islam is the only religion that you can find INNER Peace as well as happiness among ANY person with a different religion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You might want to tell that to the people who are killing and exploding "in the name of" Islam.
Yes, before anyone starts, I'm aware that the Muslim religion is inherently peaceful. Pretty much every religion ever conceived is peaceful. It's how people interpret it that messes the whole thing up. And in modern times, the Media messes up other people's perceptions of religion.
Say 99% of all muslims are lovely, peaceful people (a stupidly high percent for any group of people, but whatever) who help each other out, wouldn't hurt a fly, give money to charity etc... They don't make the news. The other 1% runs into a room screaming "for allah" (or any other stereotype you want, it doesn't really matter at the moment) and detonates a bomb strapped to his chest, taking out everyone in the room, and you get "MUSLIM EXTREMIST KILLS 15 INNOCENTS!" plastered accross newspapers and websites everywhere. That doesn't really improve Johnny Average's opinion of Muslims in general
Also, the fact that you can completely ignore these people acting "in the name of" your religion, and then condem the entire American army and it's government for the actions of what can only be a very small minority, is amazing.
Comments
As to the "supposed" desecration of said Holy Book, considering that both Amnesty International and the Red Cross have both come out with similar statements to that which Newsweek retracted, I think its highly unlikely that the desecration was a ruse. The issues at Guantanamo bay may be larger or smaller than we believe, but I think its pretty clear that at least <i>something</i> happened.
<!--QuoteBegin-Foxtrot Uniform+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Foxtrot Uniform)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> prove that they did it and that these TERRORISTS aren't lying about it. TERRORISTS.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless you are being sarcastic, this remark really irks me. Terrorists you say? Have they been convicted of terrorism? Have they even been TRIED for terrorism? No, and its unlikely that that will ever happen. Its really an ugly situation involving guantanamo bay at the moment, and has been since this whole fiasco started.
It does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, no it doesn't. From your own post, and properly bolded this time:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be <b>treated humanely</b>, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a book, not a person. Tad bit of a difference, eh?
Since both sides are not playing by the rules, the rules no longer apply. :-)
Since both sides are not playing by the rules, the rules no longer apply. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cyndane, you need to remember, its not jus Iraqis imprisoned at Guantanamo. This is a case with far more than "2 sides"
you should always play by the rules, cheating makes more people cheat, if you cheat because someone cheat, you are as bad as the cheater or even worse, as you make the rest cheat
/Edited for clarity
WTH are you talking about <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
/Edited for clarity <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was actually a major part of US justification for not applying the Geneva Convention--the other side of the conflict wasn't state sponsored; Geneva applies to prisoners of war, but most of those nations have not declared war, so the detainees were (allegedly) acting as independant agents rather than state soldiers.
I'm not remotely comfortable with the suspention of Habeas Corpus when dealing with cases like Guantanamo since I believe that it in effect creates concentration camps (even if the prisoners are treated humanely, they are being held without trial); I do believe, however, that the US would be entirely justified in holding Guantanamo detainees to the same standard as criminal suspects in the US legal system rather than the standard applied to prisoners of war.
you should always play by the rules, cheating makes more people cheat, if you cheat because someone cheat, you are as bad as the cheater or even worse, as you make the rest cheat <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Playground rules, applied to international politics. Brilliant!
Wouldn't said nuking consequently kill millions of Americans?
Our system of government is just fine, if you absolutely hate the man in charge, you can say so. You also only have to put up with one man for no more then 8 years. We have innumerable freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution, which I might add, is one of the most brilliant documents ever conceived, however it is not holy.
Our system has its flaws and it’s only as good as the people who participate but it sure beats the heck out of every form of government in the Middle East.
What do you propose we switch to, an Islamic Theocracy ruled by some religious nut-job who hates woman?
Seriously though, what should we change, Bush is gone in 2 more years and I'm sure you hate him. Maybe you'll like the next guy, maybe I don't care what you like, and it’s my right.
/Edited for clarity <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was actually a major part of US justification for not applying the Geneva Convention--the other side of the conflict wasn't state sponsored; Geneva applies to prisoners of war, but most of those nations have not declared war, so the detainees were (allegedly) acting as independant agents rather than state soldiers.
I'm not remotely comfortable with the suspention of Habeas Corpus when dealing with cases like Guantanamo since I believe that it in effect creates concentration camps (even if the prisoners are treated humanely, they are being held without trial); I do believe, however, that the US would be entirely justified in holding Guantanamo detainees to the same standard as criminal suspects in the US legal system rather than the standard applied to prisoners of war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, what we have now is the creation of a gray area between Prisoner of War and civil criminality, without the protections afforded to either. No wonder its driving human rights groups up the wall.
Lets do a little litmus test...
What do you think of when you hear of criminals getting thier limbs cut off?
Rape in the name of family honor?
One man is worth two women.
Mass Graves.
Mohammeds favorite wife? <span style='color:white'>*cough* Oversimplification. *cough*</span>
"I just know that all of the countries will turn against America and just Nuke it."
Suicide bombings in buses
Bombing the people trying to join a police force of a fledgling country.
Opposition to democracy.
Now - when I think of "evil" - and the very worst kind... my thoughts turn to that type of behavior - and who are the people exhibiting that type of behavior?
I'll give you a clue - not America.
Lets do a little litmus test...
What do you think of when you hear of criminals getting thier limbs cut off?
Rape in the name of family honor?
One man is worth two women.
Mass Graves.
Mohammeds favorite wife? (*cough* pedophile *cough*)
"I just know that all of the countries will turn against America and just Nuke it."
Suicide bombings in buses
Bombing the people trying to join a police force of a fledgling country.
Opposition to democracy.
Now - when I think of "evil" - and the very worst kind... my thoughts turn to that type of behavior - and who are the people exhibiting that type of behavior?
I'll give you a clue - not America. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, they amputate the body parts for assurance that the person will not steal again. It also shows to people what happens when this is done.
Second. It's spelled Muhammad. And yeah he had FIVE wives. He loved them all dearly with the same compassion and dearness.
Third. It's called JIHAD. A misinturpretted JIHAD. It was given from Osama Bin Laden who is neither Muslim, Jew, Christian nor any other religion. His crew are all SAINTS, DEVILS.
Fourth. Who gave YOU the right to decide who's a "pedophile" just because he loved his wife in his time being? NOT ME, NOT GOD, NOT ANYONE in this forum. So if I were you sir I'd apologize for that remark.
Fifth. Muslims' are NOT EVIL, BAD, SAINTS. Muslims are peacefull, kind and are only looking to find inner peace with GOD. So if I were you, I'd go to a library, READ about them before you say ANYTHING about them. And yes, I am a CONVERT and I believe Islam is the only religion that you can find INNER Peace as well as happiness among ANY person with a different religion.
Hmm, could you clarify this please?
So, both sides having tossed out Geneva, posting its text here doesn't help much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Technically, this is correct. However, Japan has been judged by the US for warcrimes violating the Geneva Convention, although they have declared themselves not bound to the treaty anymore prior to WW2.
Just because it does not fit the current situation anymore, you cannot simply declare yourself not affected by treaties you signed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Behavior is controlled by the individual.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply wrong. There is no such thing as individual behavior in our society anymore. Not on a scope as it would matter on the great picture.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Likewise - if you are a muslim and offended by it - display it in a suitable manner. First of all - check all your facts. If your going to make a stink - be informed about it. In this case, they didn't do that... they were wrong. There was no descecration as described by Newsweek... only hearsay. Then, right your congress people and complain... right the policy makers... That is their job. Join the war effort and become the guard who doesnt disrespect the koran.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would like to see your reaction if somewhere someone would burn bibles. It would lead to an outcry, demonstrations and what not. As long as there are incidents like violent attacks on medical personnel involved in abloutions, you should be careful with recomendations about suitable behavior.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's a book, not a person. Tad bit of a difference, eh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe a bit of translation is in order.
<i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></i>
The article refers to the PERSON as the one under protection of the conventions. Read: the detentioned combatant. Said persons are to be trated humanely under all circumstances, including not being discriminated in regards of their religion.
Burning their holy book is considered discriminating that particular religion. Get it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually thanks to Cagey the whole geneva convention is thrown out on its arse right there.
Since both sides are not playing by the rules, the rules no longer apply. :-)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I wrote before, just because the circumstances change, you cannot simply ignore a treaty you singed. Creating a gray zone by inventing the term "illegal combatant" is just an easy way to avoid these restrictions, like building a detention camp on foreing ground to deliver prisoners to the jurisdiction of allies that do not hesitate to practice questionable interrogation tactics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What do you think of when you hear of criminals getting thier limbs cut off?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Want to make a guess as of how many children lost limbs because of dud ornance dropped in the various countries during the various US interventions in the last 30 years? There are more sides to the coin than you discribe.
For example: those people bombing the people joining the police force. Ever thought about from what pool of volunteers the the new police force is recruited? Think about this for a bit , maybe you get at what I am hinting.
I'd look at Google for more info.
[edit]I knew I couldn't stay out of this.
Cookie, what you describe there is a tad simplified. Bin Laden's ideology is based on the conservative middle-eastern tradition, which includes such things as the Sharia and has its roots in Islam, though both concepts are as comparable as the teachings of the Bible and medieval European society. It is not so much a life based on the Koran bin Laden demands, it's a life based on the tradition that claims to be founded on the Koran.
In so far, it's not so easy to declare bin Laden "a liar" and be done with it. What he says has long and old roots - which does not say anything about the claim's truth, but indicates a few things about its weight in a given society. bin Laden claims to live the only true way a Muslim could live. And while many won't agree, upbringing runs deep in all of us, and makes us weary of dismissing claims we consider - rationally - preposterous.[/edit]
Incorrect. Bin Laden is but a symptom of a failed and yet ever repeated foreign policy.
Bin Laden is one of the various "ex-allies" of the various US presidents that were politically engaged in the middle east. Saddam was another such "ex-ally" and the new "democratic" Shiite government of Iraq will be the next.
[edit]I knew I couldn't stay out of this.
Cookie, what you describe there is a tad simplified. Bin Laden's ideology is based on the conservative middle-eastern tradition, which includes such things as the Sharia and has its roots in Islam, though both concepts are as comparable as the teachings of the Bible and medieval European society. It is not so much a life based on the Koran bin Laden demands, it's a life based on the tradition that claims to be founded on the Koran.
In so far, it's not so easy to declare bin Laden "a liar" and be done with it. What he says has long and old roots - which does not say anything about the claim's truth, but indicates a few things about its weight in a given society. bin Laden claims to live the only true way a Muslim could live. And while many won't agree, upbringing runs deep in all of us, and makes us weary of dismissing claims we consider - rationally - preposterous.[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said Nemesis. Thanks for the straightening out.
Incorrect. Bin Laden is but a symptom of a failed and yet ever repeated foreign policy.
Bin Laden is one of the various "ex-allies" of the various US presidents that were politically engaged in the middle east. Saddam was another such "ex-ally" and the new "democratic" Shiite government of Iraq will be the next. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was a soldier in an army we supplied with weapons to defend themselves from the Soviets. He wasn't hand-picked by the CIA or anything to be our representative in the middle east. In other words, he's not an "ex-ally", he just happened to be there at the time.
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-cookie+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cookie)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just know that all of the countries will turn against America and just Nuke it. America is becoming too evil. NOT saying AMERICANS are evil, the GOVERNMENT is evil, dispicible and vile. They need to change the system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The very fact that you and everyone else can openly say things like this (or worse, remember that video in the OT forum of the "Forsake the Troops" guy?) and NOT be dragged out into the street by the police and killed leads me to think we've got the edge when it comes to political systems. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
He was a known and supported commander - the CIA trained him, as far as I know. After Afghanistan, he received support in creating the structures for guerillia attacks on Soviet interests throughout the middle eastern world. These structures later became Al Quaeda. I'd argue that the CIA knew rather well who they were dealing with and putting into an exposed position there.
Incorrect. Bin Laden is but a symptom of a failed and yet ever repeated foreign policy.
Bin Laden is one of the various "ex-allies" of the various US presidents that were politically engaged in the middle east. Saddam was another such "ex-ally" and the new "democratic" Shiite government of Iraq will be the next. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, damn us to hell for helping him and his...people...keep the Soviets out of their land.
I can see why he would want to kill thousands of our innocent civilians...
He was and is the head and founder of the army you supplied AND trained in guerillia warfare. What now has formed Al Quaeda are the remnants of those volunteers that went to Afghanistan and fight the enemies of Islam (the sovets, at that time).
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered the Saudi Royals his assistance in liberating Kuwait. That was before he found a new target when the US forces and the Saudis agreed on maintaining US military presence in the area even though it was part of the initial agreement that the US forces would leave arabic soil after the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can see why he would want to kill thousands of our innocent civilians...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See my above statement about inncocent arabic victims US interventions. Those called "collateral damadge" in the media..
Before we drag this out to another "who is more wrong" discussion, just answer yourself one question:
Take Saudi Arabia. Imagine a country which has the highest production capability of the worlds single most important strategic recource of our time. Now imagine this country in huge foreing debt since Desert Storm because of financial compensation to the US.
Now why does, in order to maintain its <i>extremely</i> large and <i>extremely</i> extravagant royal family (and to pay off foreing debts), this country lower their citizens income from oil revenues instead raising the oil prize?
Find the answer to this question and you find the answer to the question as why Bin Laden, heir to one of the richest Saudi houses, does prefer sitting in a cave and make bad video takes to burning his peoples money like the rest of the saudi nobility.
He was a known and supported commander - the CIA trained him, as far as I know. After Afghanistan, he received support in creating the structures for guerillia attacks on Soviet interests throughout the middle eastern world. These structures later became Al Quaeda. I'd argue that the CIA knew rather well who they were dealing with and putting into an exposed position there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The CIA may have trained him, but if he had not been there, they would have trained whoever was. They didn't say, "Oh, look, Osama bin Laden looks like a good guy, let's make him the leader." The reason this is important is because that's basically what we did with Saddam, and it's just good to know that we didn't screw up the exact same way twice.
Also,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered the Saudi Royals his assistance in liberating Kuwait. That was before he found a new target when the US forces and the Saudis agreed on maintaining US military presence in the area even though it was part of the initial agreement that the US forces would leave arabic soil after the war. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Saudis wanted us to stay just as much as we wanted to stay there. Blame world politics for this one, not the US.
First, CIA training was, as far as I know, only administered to higher-ups in the chain of command. Monetary support in the creation of a network hints at the intent of fitting bin Laden into a leading role, as well. Yes, the CIA worked with what was there. They did the same with Hussein and his Ba'aths, which existed before America came along.
Second, Saudi Arabia's royal house, which faces significant opposition from both fundamentalistic and intellectual circles considers and considered the US' army presence a cornerstone of its power over the country, much as Eastern Germany considered the Red Army source of its power. This has little to do with world politics and more with the fact that the Saudi government runs a course that is of bigger benefit to the US than the own country: Open the pipelines and let it flow, with no plans for the time after the oil. So, yes, the US' humble servants want the US to stick around. I'd say that this is the US government's responsibility for taking that servant in the first place.
The Royal Family of Saud wanted US forces to stay.... not the political opposition and their leaders. Nobody asked the people as what they thought about this.They were told the US would leave after the war. World politics does have nothing to do with this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The CIA may have trained him, but if he had not been there, they would have trained whoever was. They didn't say, "Oh, look, Osama bin Laden looks like a good guy, let's make him the leader." The reason this is important is because that's basically what we did with Saddam, and it's just good to know that we didn't screw up the exact same way twice.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course the CIA would have trained another one. The outcome would be similar.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and it's just good to know that we didn't screw up the exact same way twice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Can you tell me as how the US did <i>not</i> screw up twice? Of course, Saddam was such a good investment, I forgot.
You screwed up more than twice btw. ... The Shah was another such failure.The Iranians still fly US F14 jets sold to Iran prior to the revolution ...
The Saudis are the same bunch of corrupt puppets that will eventually fall, bringing a radicalized and fundamential oppositon in charge.
The new Iraqi government is the next liability the US are building up. Do you honestly think the Shiites did forget how the US abandoned them to become sloughtered by Saddams Republican Guard after they were encouraged to overthrow Saddam in Desert Storm?
Do you honestly think they trust the US farther they can throw them?
Do you think they uphold or adapt our values?
Do you think they will side with the US against Iran?
Are you aware that the Iranian Ayatollahs are Shiites too? How naive are you?
edit: Nem was faster ...
edit 2: following Nems suggestion <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You might want to tell that to the people who are killing and exploding "in the name of" Islam.
Yes, before anyone starts, I'm aware that the Muslim religion is inherently peaceful. Pretty much every religion ever conceived is peaceful. It's how people interpret it that messes the whole thing up. And in modern times, the Media messes up other people's perceptions of religion.
Say 99% of all muslims are lovely, peaceful people (a stupidly high percent for any group of people, but whatever) who help each other out, wouldn't hurt a fly, give money to charity etc... They don't make the news. The other 1% runs into a room screaming "for allah" (or any other stereotype you want, it doesn't really matter at the moment) and detonates a bomb strapped to his chest, taking out everyone in the room, and you get "MUSLIM EXTREMIST KILLS 15 INNOCENTS!" plastered accross newspapers and websites everywhere. That doesn't really improve Johnny Average's opinion of Muslims in general
Also, the fact that you can completely ignore these people acting "in the name of" your religion, and then condem the entire American army and it's government for the actions of what can only be a very small minority, is amazing.