are we being lied to about the threat of terrorism?

true.

but i don't think 9/11 is a good comparison, being one of (if not the) worst terrorist attack on american soil.

my point was

a) terrorists hate us, and want to hurt us.
b) they are not against using suicide bombers to do so.
c) they are not only out to get "the big score" (ie: killing thousands at a time) they can kill 10 or 20 at a time, and think it's worth while.
d) it's very easy for them to get into america (especially through mexico), and easy for them to either get, or make weapons.

so, why aren't they? i think it's fairly obvious we're being lied to.

Not at all.

As someone put it in another thread, if we pull out of Iraq now, it will give them time and a safe haven to congregate and form a counter-attack plan on the US. But if we continue, they'll be so busy trying to avoid our troops, that they won't even have time to formulate another 9/11 attack.

That simple.

Also, the threat of Terrorism is VERY real. Have you forgotten the lesson of 9/11 so soon already? People just think this is a game, when it isn't. These b******s play for keeps. If they see an opening to attack us again, you can bet they'll sure as hell take it.

I don't like this war as much as anyone, but what choice have we? It's either this or a terrorist attack our home turf again.

Its not a game, but these b**ches are playing for keeps.

Iraq wasn't exactly a great country before we got there, but it was atleast controled chaos. Now it is just chaos. What is going in that country is 100% our fault.
 
Not at all.

As someone put it in another thread, if we pull out of Iraq now, it will give them time and a safe haven to congregate and form a counter-attack plan on the US. But if we continue, they'll be so busy trying to avoid our troops, that they won't even have time to formulate another 9/11 attack.

That simple.

Also, the threat of Terrorism is VERY real. Have you forgotten the lesson of 9/11 so soon already? People just think this is a game, when it isn't. These b******s play for keeps. If they see an opening to attack us again, you can bet they'll sure as hell take it.

I don't like this war as much as anyone, but what choice have we? It's either this or a terrorist attack our home turf again.

Jesus Christ, where do I begin?

First off, Iraq was not, let me repeat : was not a breeding ground for terrorists before we invaded. Saddam may have been a threat (20 years ago, mind you) but Al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. If I recall correctly, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Egyptian and Saudi. I don't believe a single one was Iraqi. It makes me absolutely sick to hear that some people in this country actually think that 9/11 and Iraq are related in any way, except that 9/11 gave Bush his opportunity to invade Iraq, which he's been licking his lips about since his dad's administration. Terrorist cells started popping up in Iraq only after we completely destabilized the country.

Secondly, your argument that our troops are somehow keeping them busy is utterly ridiculous. For one thing, you assume that every terrorist in the world is in Iraq, which is not even close to true. If any terrorist group wanted to plan an attack, they could do so from any number of safe locations outside of Iraq. And it's not like it took a whole army to accomplish the 9/11 attacks. Attacks like that can still be pulled off by relatively small groups and our invasion of Iraq has not decreased that threat, it has in fact increased it.

And what are we supposed to do, stay in Iraq forever? Are we supposed to just stay and try to quell the civil war we started while the real issue goes unaddressed? This whole "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" rhetoric is insulting. First, we're not fighting "them", if "they" are the actual terrorists involved in 9/11. Also, "they" could still attack us, regardless of our military presence in Iraq. T

You're right on one thing : 9/11 was a tragedy and we learned some lessons from it, but none of those lessons involved Iraq. We seem to have given up on finding Bin Laden (remember him?) and we've focused all this military power on a place that wasn't a threat to us. It's truly beyond belief.


I close with this because I think many people still don't understand : Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, the war in Iraq is not "fighting terrorism".
 
Iraq wasn't exactly a great country before we got there, but it was atleast controled chaos. Now it is just chaos. What is going in that country is 100% our fault.

It isn't fair to say that it is 100% our fault. Our actions in Iraq were the mere catalyst that thas caused the chaos in Iraq. It's the ****e militias, the Sunni insurgency, al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the Iraqi government twiddling their thumbs expecting us to do everything for them is also responsible for the problems.
 
Jesus Christ, where do I begin?

First off, Iraq was not, let me repeat : was not a breeding ground for terrorists before we invaded. Saddam may have been a threat (20 years ago, mind you) but Al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan, NOT Iraq. If I recall correctly, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Egyptian and Saudi. I don't believe a single one was Iraqi. It makes me absolutely sick to hear that some people in this country actually think that 9/11 and Iraq are related in any way, except that 9/11 gave Bush his opportunity to invade Iraq, which he's been licking his lips about since his dad's administration. Terrorist cells started popping up in Iraq only after we completely destabilized the country.
Did I say it was? I said it was a SAFE HAVEN, not a breeding ground. And yes, it was allied with the Terrorists, otherwise Zarquarie(SP?) wouldn't have had his Al Queada TERRORISTS based their and given free run of the country.

Secondly, your argument that our troops are somehow keeping them busy is utterly ridiculous. For one thing, you assume that every terrorist in the world is in Iraq, which is not even close to true. If any terrorist group wanted to plan an attack, they could do so from any number of safe locations outside of Iraq. And it's not like it took a whole army to accomplish the 9/11 attacks. Attacks like that can still be pulled off by relatively small groups and our invasion of Iraq has not decreased that threat, it has in fact increased it.
No, I don't. Hell they all may be in Iraq, but as I said, they're so busy trying to avoid us, that they don't have time to congregate in one spot and make plans. Consider them divided, if you will. Actually, it took 5 YEARS with all their resources to plan 9/11. And where was this being planned? In one place; Afganistan. That was where they were based, where, at the time, they didn't have to worry about the US chasing them down and distracting them from planning anymore attacks.

And what are we supposed to do, stay in Iraq forever? Are we supposed to just stay and try to quell the civil war we started while the real issue goes unaddressed? This whole "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" rhetoric is insulting. First, we're not fighting "them", if "they" are the actual terrorists involved in 9/11. Also, "they" could still attack us, regardless of our military presence in Iraq.
No, but do we literally HAND them the time to attack us again? And the Iraq civil war was their LONG before we came into the picture. Shiite and Kurdish rebels were fighting a 1-5 fight against Saddam and the Sunnis long before we got involved. Of course the Liberal mainstream didn't bother to tell you that little fact, did they?

Second, Al Quaeda and it's supporters are still based there, are they not? So technically, we ARE fighting the same people who carried out 9/11. The Insurgents are basically SUPPORTERS of Al Quaeda, then they must also be classed with them as collaberators of terrorism, should they not?

You're right on one thing : 9/11 was a tragedy and we learned some lessons from it, but none of those lessons involved Iraq. We seem to have given up on finding Bin Laden (remember him?) and we've focused all this military power on a place that wasn't a threat to us. It's truly beyond belief.
Apparently not, otherwise you and the rest of the American people would take the Terrorist threat seriously instead of thinking it's just one big game. And what good is Bin Laden? Like I said in another thread, he's nothing now. It would be a big waste of resources to track him down when he no longer has any influence on Al Quaeda's actions, wouldn't it?

Yeah sure, Iraq wasn't a threat even though it's government supported(Where do you think they got their weapons from? The Dollar Store discount bin?) and allowed Al Quaeda free run of the country and allowed them to continue to carry out planning for other Terrorist attacks.


I close with this because I think many people still don't understand : Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, the war in Iraq is not "fighting terrorism".
^

Do some research buddy. If we are currently fighting Al-Quaeda and their supporters in Iraq, then yes, the war in Iraq IS fighting terrorism. Not everything involved with terrorism revolves around 9/11, genius.
 
Did I say it was? I said it was a SAFE HAVEN, not a breeding ground. And yes, it was allied with the Terrorists, otherwise Zarquarie(SP?) wouldn't have had his Al Queada TERRORISTS based their and given free run of the country.
iraq was in no way assosciated with terrorists or al quaeda (sp?). terrorists of that nature only started springing up in iraq AFTER the US lead invasion. and most of these terrorists are just iraqi's who dont want the US in their country, and are not planning any huge jihads against the US itself.

No, I don't. Hell they all may be in Iraq, but as I said, they're so busy trying to avoid us, that they don't have time to congregate in one spot and make plans. Consider them divided, if you will. Actually, it took 5 YEARS with all their resources to plan 9/11. And where was this being planned? In one place; Afganistan. That was where they were based, where, at the time, they didn't have to worry about the US chasing them down and distracting them from planning anymore attacks.
you need to realize that theres a vast difference between 'al quaeda' and 'al quaeda in iraq'. al quaeda is bin laden loyal terrorists who have no connection to iraq, but have carried out terrorist attacks such as 9/11 against the US. al quaeda in iraq is a completely seperate organization that has no official affiliation with the other and only sprung up after the US lead invasion. these terrorists are just fighting to get the US out of their country (as mentioned above). these are the terrorists we are fighting in iraq, these are the terrorists that exist BECAUSE we invaded iraq. these are the terrorists who are NOT trying to wage jihad against america proper, just american troops who essentially invaded their country. the terrorists who are actually trying to wage war against our country is not the ones we are fighting in iraq. and our war in iraq would actually do little to deter them from directly attacking the US again. (and im not saying we arent actively fighting al quaeda proper elsewhere, because we are....but it aint happening in iraq)

No, but do we literally HAND them the time to attack us again? And the Iraq civil war was their LONG before we came into the picture. Shiite and Kurdish rebels were fighting a 1-5 fight against Saddam and the Sunnis long before we got involved. Of course the Liberal mainstream didn't bother to tell you that little fact, did they?
we hand the country to the iraqi government to fight for its own freedom and democracy at their expense, not ours. and while the religious factions of iraq were at odds before we got there, they were FAR MORE controlled. it was only after our invasion of the country that have allowed them to wage an all out war that is claiming the lives of innocent iraqi's and american troops at a disgusting rate that never existed before.

Second, Al Quaeda and it's supporters are still based there, are they not? So technically, we ARE fighting the same people who carried out 9/11. The Insurgents are basically SUPPORTERS of Al Quaeda, then they must also be classed with them as collaberators of terrorism, should they not?

no, and they never were.

Apparently not, otherwise you and the rest of the American people would take the Terrorist threat seriously instead of thinking it's just one big game. And what good is Bin Laden? Like I said in another thread, he's nothing now. It would be a big waste of resources to track him down when he no longer has any influence on Al Quaeda's actions, wouldn't it?
bin laden's presence still holds massive influence, even if he is no longer directly involved with planning terrorist attacks. he is a figure head, a hero to those who wish to wage jihad against the west, the poster boy for terrorism. taking him alive would be a great embarassment to his followers (though, its true someone else would just fill the void. though, probably not nearly as succesful). killing him would only make him a martyr though, and likelyembolden his supporters. i dont think bin laden is too much of a direct threat anymore, but he's still a problem.

Yeah sure, Iraq wasn't a threat even though it's government supported(Where do you think they got their weapons from? The Dollar Store discount bin?) and allowed Al Quaeda free run of the country and allowed them to continue to carry out planning for other Terrorist attacks.
uh...iraq DIDNT support al quaeda OR give them free run of the country. saddam was a power hungry dictator. do you really think he'd allow such a powerful and seperate organization, who paid him no allegiance nor served him any purpose, free run of his country?

Do some research buddy. If we are currently fighting them and their supporters in Iraq, then yes, the war in Iraq IS fighting terrorism.
you might want to take some of your own advice, as to avoid looking like an uninformed ass.
 
Your reply is so wrong on so many levels that I don't even have the time to address all of it. But I will say this; just because the people in Al Quaeda are not involved with Osama it does not mean that they're not terrorists, so don't give me that BS. I can say the same about Iran's dictator, yet he also supports Al Quaeda and it's allies vehemently. And you say that Al-Quaeda is not in Iraq, apparently CNN says otherwise; http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editori...r=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=ne&_lid=135&_lnm=hm+mc+videos

Ive wasted enough time in this thread. Apparently these people who think Al Quaeda without Osama aren't Terrorists will never be able look past their own overbiased opinions.

Goodbye.
 
Your reply is so wrong on so many levels that I don't even have the time to address all of it. But I will say this; just because the people in Al Quaeda are not involved with Osama it does not mean that they're not terrorists, so don't give me that BS. I can say the same about Iran's dictator, yet he also supports Al Quaeda and it's allies vehemently. And you say that Al-Quaeda is not in Iraq, apparently CNN says otherwise; http://home.bellsouth.net/s/editori...r=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=ne&_lid=135&_lnm=hm+mc+videos

Ive wasted enough time in this thread. Apparently these people who think Al Quaeda without Osama aren't Terrorists will never be able look past their own overbiased opinions.

Goodbye.

dude, did you just ignore everything i just said? that link you posted goes to a video that you need an account and password to watch. but judging from the title of the video, and the fact that it features zarqawi, its not about 'al quaeda' (the terrorists who pulled off 9/11 and are an actual threat to the US, headed by Osama)....its a video about 'al quaeda in iraq', which are iraqi insurgents who DID NOT EXIST before the US lead invasion in iraq, they existed AFTER we invaded, they exist BECAUSE we invaded. they were NO THREAT prior to the invasion. which means, if iraq housed no terrorists who had nothing to do with 9/11 and were NOT a threat to the US in anyway, then WHY did we invade iraq? why did we not focus our efforts accordingly, to the existing terrorists who actually perpetrated 9/11, who ARE a threat to the US, and who are NOT (and never were) operating in iraq nor in assosciation with?

Good riddance.
 
dude, did you just ignore everything i just said? that link you posted goes to a video that you need an account and password to watch. but judging from the title of the video, its not about 'al quaeda' (the terrorists who pulled off 9/11 and are an actual threat to the US, headed by Osama)....its a video about 'al quaeda in iraq', which are iraqi insurgents who DID NOT EXIST before the US lead invasion in iraq, they existed AFTER we invaded, they exist BECAUSE we invaded. they were NO THREAT prior to the invasion. which means, if iraq housed no terrorists who had nothing to do with 9/11 and were NOT a threat to the US in anyway, then WHY did we invade iraq? why did we not focus our efforts accordingly, to the existing terrorists who actually perpetrated 9/11, who ARE a threat to the US, and who are NOT (and never were) operating in iraq nor in assosciation with?

Good riddance.
Yeah, because it was complete BS about how there are two seperate Al Quaeda's, which is as false as John Kerry's word. So look on CNN's homepage! It's bound to be there if it's not anywhere else.

Al Quaeda is still a Terrorist group, it doesn't matter who leads it. And yes, Al Quaeda is IN Iraq. There are no two 'seperate' groups, there is Just Al Quaeda and it allies the Insurgents. Osama is no longer the leader of Al Quaeda! Al Quaeda is still the same ONE group that planned the attack on the US, and they're in Iraq! The Insurgents are allied with them, they are collaborators with the one and only Al Quaeda and are also Terrorists, who must be eliminated. Al Quaeda is still one group, it doesn't matter where they are!:whatever:

Do I have to spell it out for you or hold your hand? Jesus Christ....
 
Yeah, because it was complete BS. So look on CNN's homepage! It's bound to be there if it's not anywhere else.

Al Quaeda is still a Terrorist group, it doesn't matter who leads it. And yes, Al Quaeda is IN Iraq. There are no two 'seperate' groups. Osama is no longer the leader of Al Quaeda! Al Quaeda is still the same ONE group that planned the attack on the US, and they're in Iraq! The Insurgents are allied with them, they are collaborators with the one and only Al Quaeda and are also Terrorists, who must be eliminated. Al Quaeda is still one group, it doesn't matter where they are!:whatever:

Do I have to spell it out for you or hold your hand? Jesus Christ....

dude, its an undeniable proven FACT, 'al quaeda' and 'al quaeda in iraq' are two seperate organizations. and even if parts of 'al quaeda' are now in iraq, they werent there before we invaded! so why did we invade? in fact, all evidence has shown that no terrorist groups were operating in iraq before the invasion. so why did we invade? they are only there now because we invaded! so why did we invade? there were NO insurgents in iraq to ally with 'al quaeda' UNTIL we invaded! they now exist BECAUSE we invaded! our invasion CREATED terrorists! so again, why did we invade iraq? (and if you are even capable of answering appropriately, try to do so with legit reasoning that isnt blinded by your ignorant misguided B.S.)

by the way, didnt you say you were leaving?
 
dude, its an undeniable proven FACT, 'al quaeda' and 'al quaeda in iraq' are two seperate organizations. and even if parts of 'al quaeda' are now in iraq, they werent there before we invaded! so why did we invade? in fact, all evidence has shown that no terrorist groups were operating in iraq before the invasion. so why did we invade? they are only there now because we invaded! so why did we invade? there were NO insurgents in iraq to ally with 'al quaeda' UNTIL we invaded! they now exist BECAUSE we invaded! our invasion CREATED terrorists! so again, why did we invade iraq? (and if you are even capable of answering appropriately, try to do so with legit reasoning that isnt blinded by your ignorant misguided B.S.)

by the way, didnt you say you were leaving?
More BS. So? We still have a bone to pick with them, do we not? When started the war on terror, we weren't just concentrating on Al Quaeda(The one and only), we made a promise to elminate ALL terrorists, which the American people have forgotten so soon. Why? Why would they come in there AFTER we invaded? Wouldnt that ruin their element of surprise by being so close to our troops? More BS from you. Terrorists existed long before we invaded, otherwise we wouldn't have had 9/11, would we?

I am answering with logic, YOU are the one who is coming in here with this BS SPECULATION of yours about there being TWO Al Quaeda's, when there is only one TRUE Al Quaeda and the Insurgents, who are allied with Al Quaeda, but are in no way a seperate Al Quaeda themselves.

That's all your 'logic' is; speculation. Which means you sure as hell don't have a rock to stand on in your case.

I think Ive made my point very clear now. Thanks for your help.:yay:
 
More BS. So? We still have a bone to pick with them, do we not? When started the war on terror, we weren't just concentrating on Al Quaeda(The one and only), we made a promise to elminate ALL terrorists, which the American people have forgotten so soon. Why? Why would they come in there AFTER we invaded? Wouldnt that ruin their element of surprise by being so close to our troops? More BS from you. Terrorists existed long before we invaded, otherwise we wouldn't have had 9/11, would we?

I am answering with logic, YOU are the one who is coming in here with this BS SPECULATION of yours about there being TWO Al Quaeda's, when there is only one TRUE Al Quaeda and the Insurgents, who are allied with Al Quaeda, but are in no way a seperate Al Quaeda themselves.

That's all your 'logic' is; speculation. Which means you sure as hell don't have a rock to stand on in your case.

I think Ive made my point very clear now. Thanks for your help.:yay:

would you mind coming back when you're able to recognize and give credence to what is actual undeniable FACT? because once you're mentally capable of doing so, you will realize how incredibly flawed and unrational your statements are.
 
would you mind coming back when you're able to recognize and give credence to what is actual undeniable FACT? because once you're mentally capable of doing so, you will realize how incredibly flawed and unrational your statements are.

Last time I checked, yours and my opinions don't count as fact, which is exactly why I'm not using my opinions on this matter.

Thanks, but when I want some advice, I'll ask someone who's intelligent enough to atleast know how to start a sentence with a capital letter.

This has been fun and all, but I need some rest. Goodnight.
 
thats the problem, though. im not stating opinion, im stating fact. and you're spouting misguided and flawed statements.
 
I have a feeling if the head of the CIA openly admitted that the Bush administration misled the public about 9-11 and Iraq, people would still believe/support everything Bush says about the surge.

The democracy experiment has failed yet again. Resistance is futile.
 
Get to know your Presidential Candidates...
"We are mischaracterizing terrorism. Terrorism has been with civilization from the beginning. And it will be there to the end. We're going to be as successful fighting terrorism as we are fighting drugs with a war. It doesn't work. What you have to do is to begin to change the whole foreign policy."
-Mike Gravel
:up:
 
what really irks me is when people claim that because al-zarqawi was possibly in iraq before we invaded that saddam must have not only known about him, but was also supporting him. that's such a foolish line of thinking. first of all, zarqawi wasn't affiliated with alqaeda at the time, so there were absolutely no ties between saddam and al qaeda. second, just because someone who might be associated with al qaeda is in another country doesn't mean that country is supporting them or even aware that they're there. for proof to that claim, look at the u.s. we had several of the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 training in our flight schools here. were we aware of some of them? yep. were we supporting them? i seriously doubt it.
 
Get to know your Presidential Candidates...

-Mike Gravel
:up:



THE PROBLEM OF TERRORISM (excerpt - the "Conduct of War" and the error of "Seeking World Dominance")


Address by: Imam W Deen Mohammed – March 26, 1995 @ North Shore Congregational Israel Synagogue




I thank God that Islamic lead*ership almost one-hundred per*cent totally condemns the victim*izing of the innocent to get atten*tion to one's cause. Not enough of us are being heard. One of our Imams, a leading Imam and con*venor of our national convention and of our national shuraa for my particular congregation and di*rector of our school in Atlanta, Georgia, Imam Plemon El-Amin is present here today. We attended an occasion hosted by a Christian organization in New York and were invited to write an article on terrorism in the Utne Reader magazine on that occasion in New York. We accepted, arid I gave the responsibility to Imam El-Amin, who addressed the issue of terror-ism in that article. I think he did an excellent job, because he didn't just address the Muslim respon*sibility to his Muslim discipline. He also appealed to the Jewish person's heart. That we both re*spect the obligations on us as fol*lowers of our religion.


We know that war is an ugly thing. We know that Israel has done some ugly things in the Middle East. We are happy to know that Israel is finding cir*cumstances in the world that in*vite it to consider a Gentile/gentle image for itself. I personally have faith in the new leadership there. I believe that we are going to be successful; peace is going to pros*per there. We must understand that everybody who picks up a gun and says "I'm going to defend my cause" is not necessarily an authority in his religion that he claims.


We have some who think that the law of qisas is to be applied everywhere and in all situations. But according to the translator of Qur'an into English, Abdullah Yusef Ali, the law of qisas is lim*ited to civil issues, lie dislikes even using the English transla*tion of retribution for qisas. He says "retribution" seems to be'a term too strong. I have looked at the meaning and I believe that the purpose of qisas is to litigate wrong, to lessen injury, to lessen pain, to litigate the harm that was done - but not in war with an enemy. It is because the victim or a member of your family has been killed by another family. The pic*ture here is that the victimizer and the victim are both Muslims. It is when someone gets angry and they fight and one kills the other. But this doesn't cover acci*dental death. This covers only something that can be charged to the person.


In our religion, something that wasn't intentional cannot be charged to you. If it is proven that it wasn't intentional, you can't be charged with that. You can only be charged with what you know*ingly did, which you yourself could have stopped or prevented. If I run over a person with a car and kill a person and had no intention of doing that, the law of qisas doesn't apply. I don't owe anyone. But, if I were negligent, that's something different. And if some*one is always crying and the ex*cuse that they give is that "it was an accident," I say to them: "You're having too many accidents for me to excuse it as an accident." You reach a point where you can't even excuse the accident, because the person is negligent.


This law of qisas has been wrongly applied. I believe that many of our leaders in Islam, some of our Imams, wrongly perceive this legal measure and apply it in the situation for the Israelis and the Palestinians and for those who support them with arms as ter*rorists throughout the world. It is a big mistake! My final word in addressing terrorism is that any person, no matter how desperate their situation, no matter how much their hearts are paining because of wrong that has been done to them, there is no justifica*tion for them to make innocent people the target of their terror or the target of their violence. Mus*lims all throughout this world have to stand up on the principle of Islam, the conduct established for Muslims in the Qur'an. We have to stand upon that and let the world hear us condemning our Muslim brothers or women or children who are guilty of such.


THE CONDUCT OF WAR


I believe that my religion Islam, my Holy Book the Qur'an and my leader the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) exist for me in my life to influence me to the best and most excellent character, behavior and treatment of self and others. I believe that if I strive with a sin*cere heart, with an unselfish and untainted soul and spirit to live my religion to the fullest, I believe that I will be accepted by the great majority of decent persons on this earth as a fine human person, as a person that you would feel comfortable living next door to you. I believe that this religion inspires and urges me on to the most excellent human character and behavior.


The obligation is on persons responsible for the conduct of war, those government heads, gener*als of the army and soldiers under the generals. The obligation for us in Islam is on all of them from the top to the bottom to obey the discipline that Islam imposes upon those engaging in war. Whether our enemy respects it or not, we are to conduct ourselves according to what Islam dictates. We are not to come out of our Islamic character even as a war*rior to meet the challenge of an enemy. I'm not talking about Is*rael and Palestine. I'm talking about war makers, period, who feel nothing is too cruel for that kind of person: "All is fair in love and war." If we are confronted by this type of person, God does not allow us to come out of our charac*ter because of hatred for another people. We are still to obey" the demands for just behavior on us, whether we like the person or not - it doesn't matter. What matters is that we obey God.


I believe that the Muslim world had to fall behind the West mate*rially. The Muslims couldn't en*gage the West in the kind of war-the West was prepared for. I read in some publications that the Muslims lost control of much ter*ritory with the West, because they would not compete with the ad*vancements in the military, with the making of guns and other weapons. They chose to stick with their traditional weapon, the sword. Our Prophet obligated us that whenever we do anything, respect the rule of excellence and civilization on us. We are to do it with respect for what is excellent in the power of a human being, what is excellent for civilized people. So Muslims are just not prepared to do anything to com*pete with war makers.


I don't think we are here to compete with war makers. We are here to compete with peace makers. Maybe the war makers will get an advantage for a while, but in the long run we will be the victors, if we keep to Islamic eth*ics, Islamic demands on our conduct, whether it's as a civilian or as a member of government or as a person whose civil rights have been denied him or a community or nation who is imposed upon by another community or nation. If we hold to our moral conduct dic*tated for us in Qur'an and hold to our ethical conduct dictated for us in Islam, in the long run we will be the victors.


It is not necessarily by ourselves that well be victors, because there are people in the great religions that take the same position that I'm taking here. There are Chris*tians I've talked to and they take the same position. I've met Jews who take the same position. We don't like war. We don't like get*ting into the body of the savage at any time, for no period of time, no matter what the demands are on us. The Qur'an is also given to us by God for "healing what is in the hearts." I invite all Muslim lead*ers to register that verse in the Qur'an, that the Qur'an is for healing what is in the hearts.


We know that suffering in this world can sometimes warp our human form so that we are not capable any more of upholding our good human life. The Jews have suffered as a people in Ger*many under Hitler and the Nazi "Regime. The extent of their suffering is such that would threaten the very human nature of those victims, especially the descen*dants of those victims. We are to have compassion, and we are to be on the side of the suffering people always. I also remind you that the Palestinians, too, have suffered greatly and their scars too are deep. We have to have compassion on all the victims of war and the victims of conflict in this world. "The Qur'an is a heal*ing for what is in the hearts."


Allah says to us that any who desire a dominance, God will deny it. Desiring a dominance doesn't mean that it is wrong to have a dominance. But don't desire that, don't be selfish. I've heard so many Muslim preacher's preaching about Islam is going to be the dominant religion and they are trying to excite all of us to stand upon that. They say Islam must dominate on this earth, that the Muslim nations must dominate non-Muslim nations. They say the Islamic religion must replace all other religions. That's incorrect! I don't have *to say that to these scholars, they know that's incor*rect.


Allah says: "Any who desire a dominance or corruption, it will be denied." Both the dominance and the corruption will be denied. Many people desire to get a domi*nance through corruption. Oth*ers would like to get a dominance so that they can corrupt. Either way, if you want that, God says that He denies you that.


Islam is also against giving our*selves to extremism. Terrorism is an extreme. To not be aware of it as an extreme, as a danger, and not discuss it with our leaders and in our mosques when we meet, tells me that there is something wrong with us. More of us have to address this issue of violence by terrorism.


KINDNESS TO ENEMIES


We have examples of religious tolerance, and I will point to just two. The first is our Prophet Muhammed. When he succeeded because of God's will, when he became the victor in the wars that he had to fight, he returned to his native city Mecca, the venerable city, and he could have asked for retribution. He could have taken reprisals if he wanted to. Instead, he asked the citizens if they would accept the peace - not Islam, "The Peace." He didn't require a Sabian to become a Muslim. He didn't require a Christian to become a Muslim. He didn't require a Jew to become a Muslim.


Prophet Muhammed required that a savage give up his sav*agery, including his idols that he worshipped and that fed his sav*agery. He took the same position that great leaders of Christianity and Judaism took. And that is that the world should not be in the hands of savages. You have an obligation under God to spare the world the rule of savages or the oppression of ignorance. That was his position. He didn't ask that they become Muslims, and that's the mistake we make, too. He asked that they accept "The Peace." Isn't this what any civi*lized nation or any government would ask of those whom it's in a conflict with? If the conflict is re*solved and they want to remain there in the country and enjoy the benefits of the country, they have to accept the peace.


To accept the peace means to accept the order that supports, preserves and protects the peace. If they would do that, they would have citizenship and have no fear for their property and their lives. The Prophet said: "What has hap*pened is forgiven, if you will ac*cept the peace. Let there be no more bloodletting. As we see David of Judaism and similar to that, we see Prophet Muhammed having the power to wipe out his enemies, if he wanted to. But he said, "Let the, bloodletting stop. Spill no blood, if you accept the peace, you have the same protection here that other citizens have. Have no fear for your property or for your lives." It was kindness to enemies, in the name of peace and for the sake of peace down, the road.



Can't we do things to make a better world for the future, even if it hurts us to do it right now? It is a big sacrifice; but look at what it will give us down the road. I'm happy to say that Robert G. Mugabe, prime minister of Zim*babwe in 1980 and head of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), follows the same principle. He believes that much of the conflict can be resolved for South Africa and the continent of Africa, if the parties would accept that same position.


Saladdin was a great Muslim general and also a doctor of medi*cine. There was a film produced where Saladdin met with Rich*ard the Lionhearted. It showed the Muslim general being kind to his enemy in war by giving, him medicine. Saladdin sneaked into the enemy's camp and found Ri*chard the Lionhearted sick with a health .problem. Yet, Saladdin treated him, because he was a doctor and was a Muslim. But, when he met Richard the Lion-hearted on the battlefield, I'm sure that he didn't threat him with anything but the sword, and that's different. So we have great ex*amples of kindness to enemies. We Muslims have to be aware of that, because that is also guidance for us.


In my conclusion, I want to say that we all are guilty, Muslims and Jews. And we know it. Let us do what our scriptures ask us to do. Seek to have the best behavior before God and man. Be attracted to that appetite and aspirations. God tells us in the Quran: "And take the best there of. . ." Why? Because it's no simple matter to give people direction or a pattern for their individual lives and for their national life. That's no small thing. In serving the great in*volved, complexed needs of man in the.society, there are passages there in Qur'an, that if we take them out of context, then it can contribute to our deformity, to our madness.


God encourages us to stay in our best form and be motivated by the best human motivations and to be attracted to the best there of. Certainly, there is war justified in the Qur'an. But if I just look at that which is telling me that I am justified to fight my enemy, if I just dwell on that and just read that passage every day, pretty soon I'll come out of my Muslim character and my whole life and nature will be spoiled. Then I've become worse than any people that I may be in conflict with.


Thank you very much. Peace be on you. As-Salaam-Alaikum
 
Well Blade, Motown basically owned you, but I still gotta say some stuff, because I really think you're incredibly misguided here.

Did I say it was? I said it was a SAFE HAVEN, not a breeding ground. And yes, it was allied with the Terrorists, otherwise Zarquarie(SP?) wouldn't have had his Al Queada TERRORISTS based their and given free run of the country.

Iraq was not a safe haven for terrrorists and was not allied with terrorist groups, period. There is no discussion here.

No, I don't. Hell they all may be in Iraq, but as I said, they're so busy trying to avoid us, that they don't have time to congregate in one spot and make plans. Consider them divided, if you will. Actually, it took 5 YEARS with all their resources to plan 9/11. And where was this being planned? In one place; Afganistan. That was where they were based, where, at the time, they didn't have to worry about the US chasing them down and distracting them from planning anymore attacks.

"They". You keep referring to terrorists (which you even turn into a proper noun later in this post) as one, unified group. That's so far off base I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Then you say that our invasion of Iraq has "divided" them. But since there were no terrorist groups in Iraq before, all we've done is corral some extremist groups together in a destabilized country. And you refuse to recognize that these people could easily leave Iraq and go plan another attack in another country. Like say, Afghanistan, which we seem to have forgotten about.

No, but do we literally HAND them the time to attack us again? And the Iraq civil war was their LONG before we came into the picture. Shiite and Kurdish rebels were fighting a 1-5 fight against Saddam and the Sunnis long before we got involved. Of course the Liberal mainstream didn't bother to tell you that little fact, did they?

They still have "the time to attack". Us having troups in IRAQ has nothing to do with stopping terrorism in the rest of the Middle East. And it's the rest of the Middle East that we need to worry about. Yes, there were problems in Iraq before we got there, but there was by no means an all-out civil war, and that's what we have today.

Second, Al Quaeda and it's supporters are still based there, are they not? So technically, we ARE fighting the same people who carried out 9/11. The Insurgents are basically SUPPORTERS of Al Quaeda, then they must also be classed with them as collaberators of terrorism, should they not?

No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times : NO. Al Quaeda is not based in Iraq, nor has it ever been. That is a fact, not an opinion. We are not fighting those responsible for 9/11. I know it's hard, but Iraq is not Afghanistan. I know the average idiot can't keep those two straight, but you gotta try.

And do you remember what this war was about in the first place? Weapons of mass destruction - or wait, was it bringing democracy to Iraq? I can never keep it straight because our President seems to change his mind about it every ****ing day.

Apparently not, otherwise you and the rest of the American people would take the Terrorist threat seriously instead of thinking it's just one big game. And what good is Bin Laden? Like I said in another thread, he's nothing now. It would be a big waste of resources to track him down when he no longer has any influence on Al Quaeda's actions, wouldn't it?

This part just made me laugh. You're saying that the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't worth pursuing, but Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with terrorism, is worth fighting a war over?

Yeah sure, Iraq wasn't a threat even though it's government supported(Where do you think they got their weapons from? The Dollar Store discount bin?) and allowed Al Quaeda free run of the country and allowed them to continue to carry out planning for other Terrorist attacks.

Again, straight up lies. None of that is even remotely true.

Do some research buddy. If we are currently fighting Al-Quaeda and their supporters in Iraq, then yes, the war in Iraq IS fighting terrorism. Not everything involved with terrorism revolves around 9/11, genius.

I need to do some research? You can't even tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. I hardly blame you though, considering our own president can't either.

Obviously not all terrorism has to do with 9/11, but people like you apparently believe that 9/11 and Iraq are related, which is utterly false. So stop trying to make a connection where there isn't one.
 
okay, so my friend and i were just talking about crap in general, blah blah blah, and i brought up a good point that i'd like to ask your thoughts on, i'll make it short and sweet:

okay, so, terrorists hate america so damn much, right? and according to bush, if we pull out of iraq, the terrorists win, and we'll "have another 9-11" on our hands... um... so, what's stopping the terrorist from hitting us now? how does us being in iraq stop terrorists from blowing some stuff up? how hard can it be, if the insurgants in iraq can kill 10 or so soldiers a day, via suicide bombing in a lot of cases, (proving they're not out to only kill thousands at a time) to kill people over here? especialy given out very lax border policy? if some high school kid can find out how to make pipe bombs via the internet, get guns, etc, and kill a bunch of kids that picked on him, why aren't we being attacked more? how hard wold it be for a terrorist to make a bomb and go to a mall or something?

my point is, are we being lied to about the actual threat of terrorism? is the government using fear to keep us compliant about being in iraq (among other things)? if we pulled out right now, how would america be any less safe than it is now?

if the terrorists wanted to get us so bad, then why aren't they? it would be so easy.


Store Clerk Helps Feds Bust 6 in Alleged 'Jihad' Plot to Kill U.S. Soldiers at Fort Dix

Tuesday, May 08, 2007
service_ap_36.gif

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. — Ever since Sept. 11, U.S. authorities have asked the public to be vigilant, urging, "If you see something, say something."
In January 2006, a store clerk in New Jersey saw something.
A group of men had brought him a video showing them firing assault weapons and chanting, "God is Great!" in Arabic. They wanted him to transfer the footage onto a DVD.
So he said something, calling the Mount Laurel Police Department, who in turn contacted the FBI.
And thus began the downfall of one of the most thoroughly infiltrated and documented group of terrorism suspects in recent history — six men from Yugoslavia and the Middle East who were charged Tuesday with plotting to slaughter scores of American soldiers at Fort Dix and perhaps other military installations in the Northeast.



Yeah..........it's all just a figment of our imaginations!!!! :dry:


What is wrong you??
 
^^^its kinda scary that these guys werent caught because america is so smart....but rather because they were so stupid. if they didnt make that one stupid move, its quite likely they could have succeeded in their intentions.

and either way, its no doubt that terrorism is a threat, we all know and agree with that. the question is, to what degree is it a threat?
 
either way, its no doubt that terrorism is a threat, we all know and agree with that. the question is, to what degree is it a threat?

exactly...i think the US government made terrorism from the middle east out to be more dangerous to America than they really are. i'm not saying that they AREN'T dangerous but the US government made it sound like we need to be on alert 24/7.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"