Jump to content

Home

Islamic Fascism


Good Sir Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But we didn't attack "Palestine" over Bin Laden did we?

 

Sorry if I missed the connection. I thought the Afgahnistan connection was precisely because the Taliban CLAIMED to have Osama Bin Laden, and offered to turn him over but only under certain conditions, and since we (the United States) refused to accept those conditions, we invaded, and Bin Laden got away (nobody really knew where, but it was never claimed that we should go to war with Iraq because Osama was obviously hiding there... rather we claimed that Saddam had designs against the United States and her allies in his building of "weapons of mass destruction" and had "ties to Al Qaeda").

 

According to News reports, we actually engaged in combat with "Al Qaeda gurreillas" in Afgahnistan.

 

Anyway, it seems that we knew Osama was in Afgahnistan. We didn't know or ever claim that he was in Iraq. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

And just before anyone jumps to any conclusions (as I take leave of the forums for awhile to do my real work that I keep putting off!), I was against the invasion of Afgahnistan as well (even though I was not sad to see the Taliban go, I didn't feel we really improved things much over there, and some of my friends were put in harm's way thanks to that failed war even though I didn't know it at the time)... I would have been in favor of diplomacy and/or special forces rooting out Bin Laden in that case. But I think we had far more initial justification for going to war with Afgahnistan than with Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To cover your points to the best of my knowledge:

 

No, America did not invade Palestine because of September 11. Palestinions were show celebrating the attacks right after they took place, before Bin Laden claimed responsibility on his video tapes. Bin Laden, as everyone knows, was the leader of the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan and had allied themselves with the terrorist network Al Qaeda.

 

How did Bin Laden escape? Well popular theory had him cornered by British forces but Bush wanted America to be the ones to capture him. He had been placed at the Khyber Pass and along the Pakistani boarder, and for all we know he could be in American custady awaiting the right time for his capture to become public, when it would benefit Bush the most. Okay, that isn't going to happen, but the point is your guess as to where Bin Laden is really would be as good as mine.

 

A connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was made to bolster support for war in Iraq. This claim was iffy at best, to the best of my knowledge the most it came to was Al Qaeda getting information from the Iraqi military rather than any such alliance.

 

As for justification to go to war, with every expert saying that the way it's been done is outdated and war the likes of which we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq it should have been done diffirently. A classic example is American forces fighting war the traditional way only to be slaughtered by the Insurgents who use gurilla tactics and are much more suited to being fought against with special operations groups who have been trained to fight this way, rather than the grunts who storm in like it's Omaha all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told myself I wouldn't respond again tonight, but I couldn't help myself. ;P

 

Forgive me... anyway.

 

Bin Laden, as everyone knows, was the leader of the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan and had allied themselves with the terrorist network Al Qaeda.

 

Was this sarcasm? Bin Laden was a Saudi Arab. He had no known position in the Taliban government. Rather it was acknowledge that the Taliban government supported Al Qaeda in their country, if in nothing else, than sheltering them (as they did with Bin Laden... otherwise why pretend you have the power to hand him over but choose not to because the proper conditions are not met, instead of just giving him over or saying you don't even have him).

 

A lot of theories were put forth as to where Osama was really (some placed him in Ethiopia, leading people to speculate that the movie "Blackhawk Down" was created as propaganda to get people to support a planned war in Ethiopia under the guise of the "war on terror"). A lot of conspiracies theories existed that Osama was still a US agent, or that he was already dead, and you still have people questioning every video of him that comes out (it's just a look-alike!, etc).

 

My point is, while Osama was an Al Qaeda leader, not a Taliban leader, he was associated with them in a very tangible way, and thus that war in Afgahnistan had a far better claim to the "War on Terror" and 9/11 than the Iraqi war ever did. Thus we'd be wrong to equate the two as somehow identical (except in that they've both been failures in achieving our alleged goals there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no, it wasn't sarcasm. I'll just double check my facts, he was in fact one of the founders of Al Qaeda and demanded that Muslims indiscriminatly kill Westerners and their currupt Eastern allies, citing military bases on their land as the cause like I said in another thread (from Wikipedia). Also...

 

"On May 20, 1997, brother Generals Abdul Malik Pahlawan and Mohammed Pahlawan mutinied from under Uzbek warlord Rashid Dostum's command and formed an alliance with the Taliban. Three days later, Dostum abandoned much of his army and fled from his base in Mazar-i Sharif into Uzbekistan. On May 25, Taliban forces, along with those of the mutinous generals, entered the undefended Mazar-i Sharif. That same day, Pakistan recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, followed by recognition from Saudi Arabia the following day."

 

Also from Wiki. Yep, Bin Laden was Saudi, I don't believe that was brought up before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, don't put the idea in their heads.
Sigh. Too late.

 

Anti-invasion-of-Afghanistan protesters and conspiracy theorists have been deeming it a forgery since day one.

You claimed that Osama Bin Laden was the "leader of the Taliban."
Bah, so did I (thought admittedly not here).

Turns out I don't know everything after all. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Osama's almost total lack of involvement with the taliban have to do with this thread?

 

Aside from him taking credit for September 11 and issuing more threats from the Taliban and Al Qaeda? This is one example of an Islamic facist, someone who preaches intolerance and Jihad. You know why they don't want military bases on their land? Because it would interfere with their crusade against the entire world. This isn't mine but it's worth sharing.

 

America, allies with America, with Iraq, against terrorism, western countries, Al Qaeda want you dead because they hate the west. We saw that with September 11, with Bali since Jimaar Islamiah is an ally of Al Qaeda, Spain, London, Indonesia again. Christians, they want you dead because you do not follow Islam, we saw that with the terrorist attacks I just mentioned. Israel, they want you dead because you are an example of the west working, they are meant to be a supporter of terrorist attacks against Israel and have said of their condemnation of Israel. Jews, Al Qaeda want you dead for the same reason they want Christians dead, when you look at Palestine you see Al Qaeda celebrating every Jew killed. Eastern countries, they want you dead because you are not Muslim, we saw that with Bali and you could make a case with Eqypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Muslims, Al Qaeda want you dead because you are not militant enough, we saw this with the above attacks and when one of the London bombings as specifically targeted in a Muslim suberb.

 

Now that is Islamic facism. It is the cancer that is eating away at the Muslim religion that has to be removed, much like pedophile priests should be cut off and eradicated from the Christian faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

much like pedophile priests should be cut off and eradicated from the Christian faith.

 

No argument there, unless you meant literally exterminated. I oppose the death penalty on general principle.

 

 

Now that is Islamic facism. It is the cancer that is eating away at the Muslim religion that has to be removed,

 

And so the thread begins again, move away from the tangent about whether religion itself is evil this time? (there's a thread for that now of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument there, unless you meant literally exterminated. I oppose the death penalty on general principle.

 

They should be, they deserve it. But they of all people will know they'll get their just desserts when they are deader than Elvis, for them it's a fitting justice to be judged the way they preach God judges.

 

And so the thread begins again, move away from the tangent about whether religion itself is evil this time? (there's a thread for that now of course)

 

Hope so. Religion whichever one you choose to believe isn't without it's problems but there's nothing wrong with it that cannot be fixed by, say, weeding out the individuals who promote homosexual genocide or terrorist acts in the name of Allah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
While I consider Islam to be fundamentally similar to all religions, I am willing to concede that, at the moment and on balance, it does seem less reformed than many of the other religions.

 

However what gets me confused is that all the people who make the most fuss about islamic law, islamic states and islam being unreformed are the ones who want to promote christian law, christian states and "traditional christian values".

(Eg: They want everyone to get married. they don't like homosexuals either, they don't beleive in the advances in science like evolution, they want religin taught in schools, etc..)

 

And I'd argue that Islam HAS been as reformed as christianity, if not more so, at numerous points in history. The fact it has recently become more traditional, isolationist and extreme is as a result of two things. (1) Saudi influence. (2) The effects of american foreign policy.

 

hopefully our muslim brothers can shrug off these effects and go back to being leaders in medicine, science, literature and other fields.

 

 

Frankly, it was British duplicity in the form of the Balfour Declarations circa WW1 that are to a large degree responsible for the whole palestinian-israeli problem. American foreign policy didn't really factor in till much later as an exacerbating factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...