Why don't Muslin leaders condemn the actions of terrorists?

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

Since the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his condemnation only really applies to Catholics. Many Christians do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I'm sure you knew that though, or did I miss some further sarcasm somewhere along the line?

There are only two good reasons to kill. One is if your convinced that "God wants you too", and the other is when you are forced into a "kill or be killed" situation.

The Muslim terrorists/insurgents are convinced that God is on their side. On the other hand, the majority of our troops are killing because they are in a survival situtation.

Ignore the paraellels between this war and Vietnam, but we are heading the same direction. The leader of N. Vietnam said early on in the war that we will tire of killing them before they tire of dieing. He was right and the same thing is going to happen here.

It is immaterial what rthe Muslim leaders say, they will do as they please as soon as we leave, so AFAIAC the sooner we leave the better. Does anyone really believe that the Kings and Princes are going to give up their power to create a democracy?

I have no doubt that Kerry has the right plan to get us out of there the fastest. Quit hogging the best contracts for the USA and get the rest of the world to start putting troops in, instead of taking them out like they are now. GWB is despised by the majority of the world, even by many of his "allies". If the rest of the world doesn't care what happens, then why should we??

emm... the Muslim insurgents are actually Iraqis and referring people by their faith is incorrect. No Iraqi came to the United States to kill because they believe "God is on their side". On the contrary, the majority of our troops are not killing because they are in a survival situtation... they're there as an occupation force, and to occupy a foreign land means crushing those who oppose by any means. Funny how you term raining bombs from the sky as "kill or be killed".

Sorry, poor expanation on my part. I thin the "insurgents" are Muslim, but I don't believe they are in any way the majority and did not mean to imply that they are. While we are shamefully killing many innocent Iraqi's with bombs, are tropps are being killed on the ground in survival situations. We aren't losing pilots, we're losing ground troops.

The only chance of getting out of this situation is for the rest of the world to get involved, and I don't beleive that GWB can crack that nut, but think Kerry has a good chance to get support. I still don't think we can stop the terrorism until the Iraqi's can do their own fighting. They resent our presense and just don't care if our troops die, the same as much of our country doesn't care about the innocent Iraqis being killed by our bombs.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan
Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

I've done some research on your post history in P&N and notice that when you begin losing an argument you consistently use name-calling as a diversionary tactic, and as a tactic in general simply when you have nothing of substance to reply with. Apparently you are under the false impression that this tactic will work on me as well, and that by your mighty power of suggestion it somehow magically becomes true. It's rather hilarious indeed.

hahah. You can carry on your searches. Fact is not only I but quite a bit of others have seen how big a bigot you are. And you still fail to condemn terrorist actions of others and do not reply to the substance of my posts.

Thanks for verifying my reply. You did a wonderful job of backing up my statement 100% percent.

A note to you as well: Terrorist actions of others is not the topic here. The topic of this thread is questioning the condemnation of terrorism by Muslims. If you want to discuss your own OT offshoot, start another thread. Otherwise it comes off as nothing more than the diversion strawman that it actually is.

Thanks for playing. Now please drive through.

Stop circling around my posts. I and many others have repeatedly stated that Muslims have and do condemn terrorists actions as well as terrorism. Your incessant lying again shows your closed mind and your bigoted nature.

I'm not "cirling" anything. Stop with the ridiculous ad hominem attacks and false characterizations. I've already replied to the contention that "Muslims do condemn terrorism" mor than once and have not had one satisfactory reply to rebut my claim as of yet.

A note to you: Stop falsely criticisng others if you cannot back up your words and do the same thing you falsely accuse others of not doing.

I have backed up my words. You have either ignored them or respond with insults instead. Respond to my contention or stop responding altogether and knock it off with the blustery BS as well.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

Since the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his condemnation only really applies to Catholics. Many Christians do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I'm sure you knew that though, or did I miss some further sarcasm somewhere along the line?

There are only two good reasons to kill. One is if your convinced that "God wants you too", and the other is when you are forced into a "kill or be killed" situation.

The Muslim terrorists/insurgents are convinced that God is on their side. On the other hand, the majority of our troops are killing because they are in a survival situtation.

Ignore the paraellels between this war and Vietnam, but we are heading the same direction. The leader of N. Vietnam said early on in the war that we will tire of killing them before they tire of dieing. He was right and the same thing is going to happen here.

It is immaterial what rthe Muslim leaders say, they will do as they please as soon as we leave, so AFAIAC the sooner we leave the better. Does anyone really believe that the Kings and Princes are going to give up their power to create a democracy?

I have no doubt that Kerry has the right plan to get us out of there the fastest. Quit hogging the best contracts for the USA and get the rest of the world to start putting troops in, instead of taking them out like they are now. GWB is despised by the majority of the world, even by many of his "allies". If the rest of the world doesn't care what happens, then why should we??

emm... the Muslim insurgents are actually Iraqis and referring people by their faith is incorrect. No Iraqi came to the United States to kill because they believe "God is on their side". On the contrary, the majority of our troops are not killing because they are in a survival situtation... they're there as an occupation force, and to occupy a foreign land means crushing those who oppose by any means. Funny how you term raining bombs from the sky as "kill or be killed".

Sorry, poor expanation on my part. I thin the "insurgents" are Muslim, but I don't believe they are in any way the majority and did not mean to imply that they are. While we are shamefully killing many innocent Iraqi's with bombs, are tropps are being killed on the ground in survival situations. We aren't losing pilots, we're losing ground troops.

The only chance of getting out of this situation is for the rest of the world to get involved, and I don't beleive that GWB can crack that nut, but think Kerry has a good chance to get support. I still don't think we can stop the terrorism until the Iraqi's can do their own fighting. They resent our presense and just don't care if our troops die, the same as much of our country doesn't care about the innocent Iraqis being killed by our bombs.

The insurgents are Iraqis. Almost all Iraqis follow the Islamic faith. Again, referring to a people by their faith and attributing their actions solely to their faith is wrong. As for the "majority" argument, that can be debated. These "insurgents" did not pick up arms against Saddam, but are actively fighting against the occupation forces. Citizens of cities such as Najaf, Falluja, Basra, Baghdad who are all fighting against the occupation forces can hardly be termed a minority. Our troops are definitely being killed in survival situtations - survival for the Iraqis. Almost all of the Iraqi casualties are usually from bombings, or by artillery fire from tanks and the like. Not many Iraqis are killed by standing troops except at checkpoints.

 

[Sultan]

I'm not "cirling" anything. Stop with the ridiculous ad hominem attacks and false characterizations. I've already replied to the contention that "Muslims do condemn terrorism" mor than once and have not had one satisfactory reply to rebut my claim as of yet.

Yes, you are circling. Your reply to my contention was that the sentiments are different from the words. Thats laughable. As for Muslims to please the West so that you are satisfied, thats a ridiculous demand. Many countries with majority Muslim populace are already doing their utmost to weed out terrorism from their soil, like Pakistan - action in South Waziristan, and Saudi Arabia - reforms in religious educational systems and curbs to prevent flow of money to terrorist linked organizations.

Again, your claims are ridiculous that the Muslims do not speak out against terrorist actions or terrorism on the whole.

The above is enough rebuttal to your false claims, but again, it depends on whether you in your own mindset are willing to accept it or not.

I have backed up my words. You have either ignored them or respond with insults instead. Respond to my contention or stop responding altogether and knock it off with the blustery BS as well.

You have not backed up your words and are just false criticising others on not doing something that you dont do yourself. Your links to an unknown author and an unknown organization, even to Muslims are not evidence to your false claims.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sultan

The insurgents are Iraqis. Almost all Iraqis follow the Islamic faith. Again, referring to a people by their faith and attributing their actions solely to their faith is wrong. As for the "majority" argument, that can be debated. These "insurgents" did not pick up arms against Saddam, but are actively fighting against the occupation forces. Citizens of cities such as Najaf, Falluja, Basra, Baghdad who are all fighting against the occupation forces can hardly be termed a minority. Our troops are definitely being killed in survival situtations - survival for the Iraqis. Almost all of the Iraqi casualties are usually from bombings, or by artillery fire from tanks and the like. Not many Iraqis are killed by standing troops except at checkpoints.

I guess we need to define insurgents and terrorists. I assume you mean insurgents = Iraqis and terrorists = outsiders? That would be true for the majority, but not all. I can't blame the insurgents for fighting for their country, but I think they would be better off to fight against the terrorists. If they want us out, then help us. I think the vast majority of Americans want us out ASAP also.

I'm not willing to have Americans killed for Iraqi freedom. We got rid of Saddam and now we need to bring our people home. Bush's plan was a disaster, but it is too late to do anything about that now. Let's bring some stability to the country so the "occupiers" can get the hell out. Then theIraqi's can fight it out themselves, and may the best plan win.

You seem to be changing your story as the argument goes on. While the majority of the Iraqis want us out, I don't believe that the majority of the Iraqis are active insurgents. In a few areas, maybe. What would you have us do, lay down our guns and leave? We have lost many lives and it would be nice to have something positive come out of this besides ousting Saddam. If the Iraqi's don't want a Democracy, and an election can't take place in January as promised, then I'd say it's time to retreat. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Sultan

The insurgents are Iraqis. Almost all Iraqis follow the Islamic faith. Again, referring to a people by their faith and attributing their actions solely to their faith is wrong. As for the "majority" argument, that can be debated. These "insurgents" did not pick up arms against Saddam, but are actively fighting against the occupation forces. Citizens of cities such as Najaf, Falluja, Basra, Baghdad who are all fighting against the occupation forces can hardly be termed a minority. Our troops are definitely being killed in survival situtations - survival for the Iraqis. Almost all of the Iraqi casualties are usually from bombings, or by artillery fire from tanks and the like. Not many Iraqis are killed by standing troops except at checkpoints.

I guess we need to define insurgents and terrorists. I assume you mean insurgents = Iraqis and terrorists = outsiders? That would be true for the majority, but not all. I can't blame the insurgents for fighting for their country, but I think they would be better off to fight against the terrorists. If they want us out, then help us. I think the vast majority of Americans want us out ASAP also.

I'm not willing to have Americans killed for Iraqi freedom. We got rid of Saddam and now we need to bring our people home. Bush's plan was a disaster, but it is too late to do anything about that now. Let's bring some stability to the country so the "occupiers" can get the hell out. Then theIraqi's can fight it out themselves, and may the best plan win.

You seem to be changing your story as the argument goes on. While the majority of the Iraqis want us out, I don't believe that the majority of the Iraqis are active insurgents. In a few areas, maybe. What would you have us do, lay down our guns and leave? We have lost many lives and it would be nice to have something positive come out of this besides ousting Saddam. If the Iraqi's don't want a Democracy, and an election can't take place in January as promised, then I'd say it's time to retreat. Let the chips fall where they may.

Who do you refer to as terrorists in Iraq? If the "outsiders" aid the insurgents, why are they the terrorists? If that is the case, our military forces are the outsiders, are they not? Maybe the insurgents are fighting against who they think are the terrorists. After all, our forces have resulted in over 10000 civilian Iraqi deaths.

I thought Americans are dying there because of WMD I'm sure we'll manage to have stability forcing ourselves to be in a country when the people dont want us to be there. I say call our forces back now. We made a hellish mistake to go there in the first place. We put our tails between our legs in Vietnam and ran, didnt we?

I am not changing my story at all. I never claimed all 23 million of Iraqis are insurgents. Getting rid of Saddam was in no way a good action. At the least, when he was the head, the country was stable and was under UN supervision so that they couldnt produce any WMD. But ofcourse, Bush and his power hungry cabinet wanted more.

I agree with you about retreat. Thats the only way out.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

Since the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his condemnation only really applies to Catholics. Many Christians do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I'm sure you knew that though, or did I miss some further sarcasm somewhere along the line?

No, but you may have noticed that Catholics pay little attention to what the Pope has to say.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Who do you refer to as terrorists in Iraq? If the "outsiders" aid the insurgents, why are they the terrorists? If that is the case, our military forces are the outsiders, are they not? Maybe the insurgents are fighting against who they think are the terrorists. After all, our forces have resulted in over 10000 civilian Iraqi deaths.

I thought Americans are dying there because of WMD I'm sure we'll manage to have stability forcing ourselves to be in a country when the people dont want us to be there. I say call our forces back now. We made a hellish mistake to go there in the first place. We put our tails between our legs in Vietnam and ran, didnt we?

I am not changing my story at all. I never claimed all 23 million of Iraqis are insurgents. Getting rid of Saddam was in no way a good action. At the least, when he was the head, the country was stable and was under UN supervision so that they couldnt produce any WMD. But ofcourse, Bush and his power hungry cabinet wanted more.

I agree with you about retreat. Thats the only way out.

GWB should have waited longer for the rest of the world to get invloved. He sold the American people that Iraq had WMD's, but we now know they didn't. Then he wantee a reigme change, and now to set up a democracy. It's too late to change that now. We're there and it doesn't matter who likes it and who doesn't. I think we should stay their just long enough to have an election, and the get the hell out.

I don't care how you look at, but at this point in time Saddam being ousted was a good thing for Iraq and a positive thing for the rest of the world. I don't think it was worth the cost in American lives or the money we've spent on this war, but as I said it's in the past and we have to move on from here. We need to talk about what can be, not what was.

It's not too late to get the rest of the world involved in stabilizing Iraq. I think Kerry can do that with much better success then Bush. As I said earlier, I don't think a democracy is going to work because I don't believe the Kings, Princes, and Sultans want to give up their power. I'm willing to give the elections one shot, and that's it. If the Iraqi people aren't smart enough to take advantage of it, that's not
our problem.

I have to run now, but ignoring the past and what we should have done, what do you think we should do now? Later.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Sultan

Who do you refer to as terrorists in Iraq? If the "outsiders" aid the insurgents, why are they the terrorists? If that is the case, our military forces are the outsiders, are they not? Maybe the insurgents are fighting against who they think are the terrorists. After all, our forces have resulted in over 10000 civilian Iraqi deaths.

I thought Americans are dying there because of WMD I'm sure we'll manage to have stability forcing ourselves to be in a country when the people dont want us to be there. I say call our forces back now. We made a hellish mistake to go there in the first place. We put our tails between our legs in Vietnam and ran, didnt we?

I am not changing my story at all. I never claimed all 23 million of Iraqis are insurgents. Getting rid of Saddam was in no way a good action. At the least, when he was the head, the country was stable and was under UN supervision so that they couldnt produce any WMD. But ofcourse, Bush and his power hungry cabinet wanted more.

I agree with you about retreat. Thats the only way out.

GWB should have waited longer for the rest of the world to get invloved. He sold the American people that Iraq had WMD's, but we now know they didn't. Then he wantee a reigme change, and now to set up a democracy. It's too late to change that now. We're there and it doesn't matter who likes it and who doesn't. I think we should stay their just long enough to have an election, and the get the hell out.

I don't care how you look at, but at this point in time Saddam being ousted was a good thing for Iraq and a positive thing for the rest of the world. I don't think it was worth the cost in American lives or the money we've spent on this war, but as I said it's in the past and we have to move on from here. We need to talk about what can be, not what was.

It's not too late to get the rest of the world involved in stabilizing Iraq. I think Kerry can do that with much better success then Bush. As I said earlier, I don't think a democracy is going to work because I don't believe the Kings, Princes, and Sultans want to give up their power. I'm willing to give the elections one shot, and that's it. If the Iraqi people aren't smart enough to take advantage of it, that's not
our problem.

I have to run now, but ignoring the past and what we should have done, what do you think we should do now? Later.

I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I think both Bush and Kerry are equally stupid. i also think Bush is the more evil of the two.

I dont agree removing Saddam was a good thing. He never acted out against us Americans. Historically, the US government has used and misused him for its own purposes. I dont know how Iraqis saw him, but as long as they fight against us and did not fight against Saddam, I believe they tolerated him.

I see no way we can proper the mess we are in. Remember, its a country about the size of Texas, with an openly hostile 23 million population. We cant bribe them all, nor can we force them to submit to us. Count our losses and lets leave.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Yes, you are circling. Your reply to my contention was that the sentiments are different from the words. Thats laughable. As for Muslims to please the West so that you are satisfied, thats a ridiculous demand. Many countries with majority Muslim populace are already doing their utmost to weed out terrorism from their soil, like Pakistan - action in South Waziristan, and Saudi Arabia - reforms in religious educational systems and curbs to prevent flow of money to terrorist linked organizations.

Again, your claims are ridiculous that the Muslims do not speak out against terrorist actions or terrorism on the whole.

Grrrr...

You need to read once again what I have written previously. You've blindered yourself and are making the false assumption that I am claiming all Muslims never speak out against terrorism. I've tried numerous methods to make you understand that IS NOT what I have said, but you bull ahead regardless, insisting otherwise.

Let me know when you snap out of it and come back to reality as to my actual comments.

Thanks.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

Since the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his condemnation only really applies to Catholics. Many Christians do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I'm sure you knew that though, or did I miss some further sarcasm somewhere along the line?

No, but you may have noticed that Catholics pay little attention to what the Pope has to say.

As a former Catholic, I've noticed. The dichotomy between Vatican edicts and actual congregational behaviour are what drove me away from the Catholic Church in the first place. Well, actually, it was far more involved than that, but...

And Billy Joel was right...Catholic girls start much too late.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
emm... the Muslim insurgents are actually Iraqis and referring people by their faith is incorrect. No Iraqi came to the United States to kill because they believe "God is on their side". On the contrary, the majority of our troops are not killing because they are in a survival situtation... they're there as an occupation force, and to occupy a foreign land means crushing those who oppose by any means. Funny how you term raining bombs from the sky as "kill or be killed".

Many of these insurgents/terrorists are not Iraqi. Many of them use terrorism due to their faith.

Referring to people by their faith is correct depending on the situation. Muslim terrorists seems to be applicable in many situations just as many other ideologies can be used in other situations.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
emm... the Muslim insurgents are actually Iraqis and referring people by their faith is incorrect. No Iraqi came to the United States to kill because they believe "God is on their side". On the contrary, the majority of our troops are not killing because they are in a survival situtation... they're there as an occupation force, and to occupy a foreign land means crushing those who oppose by any means. Funny how you term raining bombs from the sky as "kill or be killed".

Many of these insurgents/terrorists are not Iraqi. Many of them use terrorism due to their faith.

Referring to people by their faith is correct depending on the situation. Muslim terrorists seems to be applicable in many situations just as many other ideologies can be used in other situations.

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk1.html

First evidence of foreign fighters in Iraq
By Robert Fisk in Sidon
07 December 2003


When the Lebanese police arrested Moammer Abdullah Aouama last month, they claimed they had caught one of the men behind a series of bomb attacks against American fast-food restaurants in Lebanon. He had, supposedly, been handed to the authorities by Palestinians in the huge Ein el-Helwe refugee camp in Sidon where he had been hiding. But the real story is a little different. Moammer Aouama, say Palestinian sources, was loyal to Osama bin Laden and was en route to Iraq when he was picked up by the police.

For weeks now there have been reports that Islamists in Ein el-Helwe - where thousands of Palestinians have turned to Sunni Islam for their political inspiration rather than the discredited nationalism of the past - have been travelling to Iraq to fight the Americans. One local Lebanese journalist believes that more than 100 fighters have left via Syria for Iraq, although Palestinians say the true figure is only in the dozens. Nevertheless, the exodus from the camp does provide some evidence that the Bush administration's insistence that "foreign fighters'' are arriving in Iraq has some basis in truth.

Aouama is a Yemeni and was captured with a Palestinian fighter, Ali Moussa Musri, both of whom are believed to have been involved in a Sunni uprising in northern Lebanon almost four years ago that was directly linked by the authorities to al-Qa'ida. According to Palestinian sources, the two men were to have passed across the Anti-Lebanon mountain chain into Syria and then, through the eastern desert, into Iraq.

Over the past three weeks, Lebanese and Syrian troops have been closing down many of the illegal tracks by which smugglers cross the mountains. At least 50 of them have been blocked by mounds of earth and cement along 35 miles of the joint border, following American accusations that fighters have been infiltrating from Lebanon via Syria into Iraq. While the new blockades - and the setting up of temporary police posts - have caused problems for contraband dealers who use cars and mules, individuals can still cross the frontier on the desolate mountainside.

For years, Iraqis and Kurds fleeing Saddam's regime have been smuggled across the border in the other direction to live secretly in the slums of Beirut; because it is host to an estimated 250,000 Palestinians in Lebanon, the government here never subscribed to refugee conventions and the Iraqis relied on the help of an unofficial refugee agency to provide them with money. Many now wish to return to Iraq. But ever since Saddam first called upon non-Iraqi Arab fighters to defend Iraq, young men have made their way from Lebanon to Baghdad. Palestinians and Syrians travelled to Iraq in the last days of the Anglo-American invasion and some were killed before the war ended.

At least 10 Palestinians from the Bourj el-Barajneh camp in Beirut travelled to Iraq to fight the Americans in March; others left from the Sabra and Chatila camp. Four of them died in the last battle for Baghdad and were fêted as heroes when their bodies were returned for burial.

But the new fighters reported to be leaving Sidon are a quite different phenomenon. Some are 40-year-old veterans of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon who see the American occupation of Iraq as unfinished business. Others, more religiously inclined, see their campaign as a holy war against both the US and Israel. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence, claims that between 200 and 300 have arrived in Iraq, mostly from Lebanon and Syria. The figure is probably an exaggeration. But the Palestinians of Ein el-Helwe are still armed and trained - not just with anti-aircraft guns but with hand-held ground-to-air missiles; a source of expertise for a resistance movement which is now clawing down American helicopters over Iraq.

And that was December 2003. Many more have been coming into Iraq since then.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
emm... the Muslim insurgents are actually Iraqis and referring people by their faith is incorrect. No Iraqi came to the United States to kill because they believe "God is on their side". On the contrary, the majority of our troops are not killing because they are in a survival situtation... they're there as an occupation force, and to occupy a foreign land means crushing those who oppose by any means. Funny how you term raining bombs from the sky as "kill or be killed".

Many of these insurgents/terrorists are not Iraqi. Many of them use terrorism due to their faith.

Referring to people by their faith is correct depending on the situation. Muslim terrorists seems to be applicable in many situations just as many other ideologies can be used in other situations.

So I imagine you reach that conclusion by checking these insurgents for their passports? :roll: Or apparently you have a mole within the Iraqi insurgent forces who give you all the information via satellite radio.

If you call ridding one's homeland of foreign forces an act of faith, then I cannot argue with your logic :roll:

I still dont see how you can dont equate carpet bombing with chopping heads off. Just because one is shown on television and not the other does not make either any less brutal.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
So I imagine you reach that conclusion by checking these insurgents for their passports? :roll: Or apparently you have a mole within the Iraqi insurgent forces who give you all the information via satellite radio.

No, it's been reported in newspapers around the world.

Did you check these Muslim terrorists for their passports? :roll:

If you call ridding one's homeland of foreign forces an act of faith, then I cannot argue with your logic :roll:

Again you show your fundamentalism. I didn't say that at all. I said that if you commit an act of terror based upon your faith then you are a terrorist acting upon your faith.

I still dont see how you can dont equate carpet bombing with chopping heads off. Just because one is shown on television and not the other does not make either any less brutal.

I see why you are so against calling these terrorists 'Muslim terrorists' or 'Muslim extremists'...because you are blinded by your religion so much that you are basically a sheep to it. It has created a great intolerance in you.

I didn't say there was any difference or not between anything like you are describing. Your intolerance and hatred of anyone non-Muslim is making your mind unstable. Back away from the fundamentalism and look at the argument in front of you instead of running circles around it.l

You have my pity.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

 

[Sultan]

No, it's been reported in newspapers around the world.

Did you check these Muslim terrorists for their passports?

And what newspapers are these? I dont need to check, since I never make such baseless arguments. I'm sure the newspaper journalists, foreigners as they are, are welcomed by these insurgents to come check their nationality, specially with the kidnappings of foreigners we hear of every day.

Again you show your fundamentalism. I didn't say that at all. I said that if you commit an act of terror based upon your faith then you are a terrorist acting upon your faith.

Are you the judge of who commits an act on what basis? So Mr. Bush said he BELIEVES that the world is better off without Saddam and therefore he invaded Iraq. That makes him a Christian terrorist?

The last beheading was carried out by a group of people who wanted the women to be freed. I gave you many examples of such other kidnappings and beheadings where the demands were of ransom or for the foreign presence to leave the country. Since you still insist on calling these people Muslim terrorists, you're just showing your own intolerism of Muslims.

I see why you are so against calling these terrorists 'Muslim terrorists' or 'Muslim extremists'...because you are blinded by your religion so much that you are basically a sheep to it. It has created a great intolerance in you.

I didn't say there was any difference or not between anything like you are describing. Your intolerance and hatred of anyone non-Muslim is making your mind unstable. Back away from the fundamentalism and look at the argument in front of you instead of running circles around it.l

You have my pity.

I believe we've had this argument before and your need to show hatred towards a religion by associating it with a religion has been seen by many. I dont appreciate your judgments about me and my faith, and since I do not attack you and your faith, whatever it is, please do the same.

Again, I do not hate non-Muslims, so I would like you to refrain from not putting words into my mouth. I expect more from a Vanderbilt educated person. Sadly, exceptions from good schools turn out to be clowns like you.

You have my pity.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sultan

I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I think both Bush and Kerry are equally stupid. i also think Bush is the more evil of the two.

I dont agree removing Saddam was a good thing. He never acted out against us Americans. Historically, the US government has used and misused him for its own purposes. I dont know how Iraqis saw him, but as long as they fight against us and did not fight against Saddam, I believe they tolerated him.

I see no way we can proper the mess we are in. Remember, its a country about the size of Texas, with an openly hostile 23 million population. We cant bribe them all, nor can we force them to submit to us. Count our losses and lets leave.

As a voting American, I have to chose between the Bush and Kerry in the next election. I think Kerry has a better chance of getting us out of Iraq the fastest and with the best results and I am doing my best to get him elected. To call them both equally stupid serves no purpose in this discussion.

Irregardless of whether removing Saddam was the smartest move or not, the fact is that he is in prison. He did make a feeble attempt to assainate "Bush, the father" and I would call that "acting out against Americans". Yes, he was used by America for American purposes, but he thought it was a good deal at the time. He must have had some loose srews when he invaded Kuwait, though. That is what caused his eventual downfall. The situation could perhaps have been handled better, but it is too late for that now. Even though i am liberal, I try to be a realist. God grant me the courage to change the things I can, the grace to accept things I cannot, and the wisdon to know the difference.

Just because the Iraqi people tolerated Saddam is no proof that the majority of the country supported him. He kept them in line with fear. As "occupiers" we could do the same thing but we won't, at least not if the American public knows about it.

Yes, we are trying to set up a "puppet" goverment, but we have promised elections in January. I believe they are trying to fullfill that promise. If GWB would have had a proper plan, he could have had the elections done by now and that would have secured his re-election. Maybe he has other plans we don't know about? I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past this administration. IMO, to not give the Iraqi people one shot at being self-governing would be an insult to the 1000 dead Americans.

You obviously don't see it that way and I really don't understand how, as an American you can have that point of view. It exactly attitudes like yours that convince me to get out ASAP (after the elections). Yes, Bush bungled the whole thing. It's too late to change that. Now let's pick up the pieces as best we can.

I guess I don't see that as forcing anyone to "submit", I see it as an opportunity for the Iraq people to get a small degree of control over their leaders. I don't think it will work because the neighboring countries obviously don't want it to work and are doing what they can to stop it, but who am I to condem it without at least giving it one shot to work??

Edit: Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

 

[Sultan]

1EZduzit

Some arguments against your statements:

Irregardless of whether removing Saddam was the smartest move or not, the fact is that he is in prison. He did make a feeble attempt to assainate "Bush, the father" and I would call that "acting out against Americans". Yes, he was used by America for American purposes, but he thought it was a good deal at the time. He must have had some loose srews when he invaded Kuwait, though. That is what caused his eventual downfall. The situation could perhaps have been handled better, but it is too late for that now. Even though i am liberal, I try to be a realist. God grant me the courage to change the things I can, the grace to accept things I cannot, and the wisdon to know the difference.

Come on man, read up on Kuwait's attack. Read for yourself the conversation between Saddam and the then US Ambassador to Iraq.

Just because the Iraqi people tolerated Saddam is no proof that the majority of the country supported him. He kept them in line with fear. As "occupiers" we could do the same thing but we won't, at least not if the American public knows about it.

I never said Saddam was supported. As occupiers, we are trying to do the same. However, we arent even being tolerated.

You obviously don't see it that way and I really don't understand how, as an American you can have that point of view. It exactly attitudes like yours that convince me to get out ASAP (after the elections). Yes, Bush bungled the whole thing. It's too late to change that. Now let's pick up the pieces as best we can.

What pieces will you pick up? Do you think there CAN be an election in January? America will be the laughing stock at this mock election. We have no control over a number of Iraqi cities, such as Najaf, Falluja, etc. Who will come out to vote when American targets themselves are not safe, let alone common Iraqis.

Besides, do you REALLY think this election will be fair? If it is, Iraq will very quickly turn into a fundamentalist, closed Islamic nation, thereby giving no chance to the US to establish military presence there. That will be political suicide. Another puppet government is to come, one that will only lead to more hostility amongst the Iraqis.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

Cluster bombs!=carpet bombing.

More distorted facts from you, which is no surprise to me whatsoever.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sultan
1EZduzit

Some arguments against your statements:

Irregardless of whether removing Saddam was the smartest move or not, the fact is that he is in prison. He did make a feeble attempt to assainate "Bush, the father" and I would call that "acting out against Americans". Yes, he was used by America for American purposes, but he thought it was a good deal at the time. He must have had some loose srews when he invaded Kuwait, though. That is what caused his eventual downfall. The situation could perhaps have been handled better, but it is too late for that now. Even though i am liberal, I try to be a realist. God grant me the courage to change the things I can, the grace to accept things I cannot, and the wisdon to know the difference.

Come on man, read up on Kuwait's attack. Read for yourself the conversation between Saddam and the then US Ambassador to Iraq.

Perhaps there was a way to get Saddam out of Kuwait without war, but to try and blame the Americans for Saddam being in Kuwait is ludicous. Did we tell him to invade? Show me the link.

Just because the Iraqi people tolerated Saddam is no proof that the majority of the country supported him. He kept them in line with fear. As "occupiers" we could do the same thing but we won't, at least not if the American public knows about it.

I never said Saddam was supported. As occupiers, we are trying to do the same. However, we arent even being tolerated.

Hmm...ask yourself, are we gassing people to death? Are we having people lined up and shot? Are we cutting people's heads off? I believe that most of the unrest is coming from the neighboring countries who don't want a democracy to succede because the leaders of those countries don't want the same thing happening in their country. I also believe they will eventually succeed. That doen't mean we shouldn't at least give it one shot to work. We not only owe it to our dead troops, but as the aggressors we owe that chance to the Iraqi people.

You obviously don't see it that way and I really don't understand how, as an American you can have that point of view. It exactly attitudes like yours that convince me to get out ASAP (after the elections). Yes, Bush bungled the whole thing. It's too late to change that. Now let's pick up the pieces as best we can.

What pieces will you pick up? Do you think there CAN be an election in January? America will be the laughing stock at this mock election. We have no control over a number of Iraqi cities, such as Najaf, Falluja, etc. Who will come out to vote when American targets themselves are not safe, let alone common Iraqis.

Besides, do you REALLY think this election will be fair? If it is, Iraq will very quickly turn into a fundamentalist, closed Islamic nation, thereby giving no chance to the US to establish military presence there. That will be political suicide. Another puppet government is to come, one that will only lead to more hostility amongst the Iraqis.

The country is still there. is it not? Those pieces, the infrastructre of the country, the civilization, the self-respect. Anything that can be salvaged. Becasue a few areas are controlled by others is not a reason to withold the election. I don't know if they can have the election by January, but I believe that with Iraqi cooperation that it can be done. Your argument is that the Iraqi people are not even safe from their own insurgents? LMAO. Then they are not insurgents, but terrorists. Will their goverment be a good representation of the Iraqi people? At least elections are a start in the right direction, even if that direction is to a fundamentalist goverment. If that's what the Iraqi's really want, here is their chance.

You say the elections won't be fair. Maybe not, but it won't be the Americans fault, it will be the "insurgents/terrorists" fault. If you think the goverment will be fundamentalist, then what are the insurgent/terrorists afraid of? Isn't that what they want??

You say it will turn into a closed Islamic nation. Then so be it. I stated previously that after the elections, let the chips fall where they may. You also say we should leave immediatley. Why? So the terrorists can set up their "puppet goverment"? It seems to me you are arguing yourself around in circles.

 

[Kadarin]

Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?