NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, alot of things about their thinking bug me, but this one occured to me last night.

On the public radio program "The World" they played a brief clip of a muslim extremist from England who said that the bombings were retaliation for UK involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can see Muslims being angry about Iraq, but Afghanistan? Afghanistan harbored a terrorist organization that had attacked NY twice, two African embasies, and the USS Cole. Then they refused to turn over the leadership of that organization to face justice.

Do the extremists really think that the US and it's friends (Thanks UK, Australia, Poland, Germany, France, et al. for your help and support after 9/11) should just accept attacks and never seek to bring the attackers to justice just because they're located on "Muslim land"?

Ahh, I wouldn't know. But maybe they're against that innocents are accidently bombed alongside the terrorists.

Ahh, I wouldn't know. But maybe they're against that innocents are accidently bombed alongside the terrorists.
The extremists? They don't seem to care about the innocents who get blown up by suicide bombers.

Note that I'm not talking about the average Muslim, I'm talking about the extremists. Also, Afghanistan was given the option of turning over Osama and his boys but refused to do so.

Terrorism gains support and therefore strength through oppresion - perceived or real. The muslim extremist ministers exploit any controversial decision made by our government against remotely islamic nations, of which Afghanistan counts as one. It also lets them suggest that the 'coalition of the willing' is working its way across the islamic world, starting with the soft targets and moving through to harcore nations like Iran. By showing the progression from Afg. to Iraq and feeding from the stories of possible 'war crimes' (abu grave, etc.), the muslim clerics can scream their propaganda and, eventually, gain support as people feel they must act against our 'oppressive' governments. It's like the opposite end of the spectrum to what I expect to see in England in the near future - a backlash against Islam in the form of increased recruiting by partyies such as the BNP and National Front. The extremists seek to control and spread their hatred amongst larger numbers of people so as to gain power. Some people may believe that the UK/US govts. are horrific totalitarians when it comes to Iraq, but the majority of new followers would just feel some form of injustice against the general situation and feel they have nowhere else to turn.

So basically, while some feel we deserve everything we get, others will just be in a brief state of anger against the US/UK, hence they turn a blind eye to this situation.

Ahh, I wouldn't know. But maybe they're against that innocents are accidently bombed alongside the terrorists.

So, in retaliation they target innocents. Is that a justification?

Hey hey, like I said. I wouldn't know. I'm not them.

So, in retaliation they target innocents. Is that a justification?
Exactly. They say that their actions are in the name of Islam yet their religion condemns violence against the innocent and on a bigger scale, revenge in general.

On the public radio program "The World" they played a brief clip of a muslim extremist from England who said that the bombings were retaliation for UK involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is not the reason for the bombings in London, Madrid, etc. It is the excuse. If there were no war in Iraq or Afghanistan, they find some other excuse. These radicals will not be happy until all infidels are out of all Muslim countries, and all countries are Muslim, and the world is under Sharia law.

I've always hated the thinking of extremists. Their views on vengance, retaliation, destruction and terror have always filled me with a rage. I am always a very peaceful guy (I don't even like swatting bugs), but when I hear that innocent and unarmed people are slaughtered, and that the murderers feel justified in their acts of violence by some higher purpose (be it race or God or whatever), I want to see them dead.

I then realize that retaliating in kind would be allowing us to stoop to their level. What we need is justice, not revenge.

Any point that calls for the wanton deaths of the innocent, is no longer a point that is worth making.

Also, Afghanistan was given the option of turning over Osama and his boys but refused to do so.

i don't remember exactly, but it seems to me that they didn't flat out refuse. i think they wanted to see some evidence or something first. and probably a bunch of other conditions, at least one of which was silly enough that there was no hope of the u.s. ever agreeing to it. i don't doubt that they wouldn't have extradited him even after being shown evidence, but i don't recall that the u.s. even bothered with the pretense before the bombing kicked off.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]
I can see Muslims being angry about Iraq, but Afghanistan? Afghanistan harbored a terrorist organization that had attacked NY twice, two African embasies, and the USS Cole. Then they refused to turn over the leadership of that organization to face justice.QUOTE]

Yeah, but Afhanistan was starded by the west, the west helped Osama end Taliban people, so that they could ruin Afghanistan and make their sick dreams come true, the americans gave the extrimists the oppertunity to take away the futere og the afghani people, do you think women were wearing burkas[or what its called] during commie[Soviet] time.....

Also, this is of course not the reason that made the taliban people attack the west, but it gives a little more deapth.....


Also placing bombs in a city is nothing worse then bombing it from a F-15E, so terrorisam is just low tech war, and not high tech war :p

Something about the thinking of extremist muslims that bugs me

Now, I may be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure "thinking" and "extremist <anything>" probably don't belong in the same sentence.

They certainly never appear in the same brain.

That is not the reason for the bombings in London, Madrid, etc. It is the excuse. If there were no war in Iraq or Afghanistan, they find some other excuse. These radicals will not be happy until all infidels are out of all Muslim countries, and all countries are Muslim, and the world is under Sharia law.

Saddams iraq, how ever evil and so on, was not under sharia law, it was a secular state. One of saddams, dont know what it was but ministers[foren relations] was christian......................................

So blaming moslems as a whole is cind of strange, and there is no terror in iraq...

American troops are not civilien targets :rolleyes:

Also taking out pipelines police stations is not terror..

Terror is attacks on civilian targets with the intend to spreqad fear...

Something al-quida did on 911, and something the US did againgst iraq for a decade...

And before you call me an saddam lover, let me tell you this, i am not, saddam is an asshole, all i have listed here are fects, saddam was not an moslem extrimist, but a fachist, lie an Arab editon of moselini, and i hope saddam sufferes the same punishment [to those of you who dont know Moselini a.ka il duche was hanged up-side-down and shot severel times when he was captured by the commies :D ]

Yeah, but Afhanistan was starded by the west, the west helped Osama end Taliban people, so that they could ruin Afghanistan and make their sick dreams come true, the americans gave the extrimists the oppertunity to take away the futere og the afghani people, do you think women were wearing burkas[or what its called] during commie[Soviet] time.....

Also, this is of course not the reason that made the taliban people attack the west, but it gives a little more deapth.....


Also placing bombs in a city is nothing worse then bombing it from a F-15E, so terrorisam is just low tech war, and not high tech war :p
WHAT!?

That is not the reason for the bombings in London, Madrid, etc. It is the excuse. If there were no war in Iraq or Afghanistan, they find some other excuse. These radicals will not be happy until all infidels are out of all Muslim countries, and all countries are Muslim, and the world is under Sharia law.
Yeah, but part of making that a reality is to insist that terrorists can strike the west, but the western nations can't go into muslim lands to pursue the terrorists. Somehow when we try to get justice it's a great affront to them.

That pisses me off. If you take action against someone you aren't supposed to be shocked when they try to retaliate. It's kind of arrogant to think that your enemy will just accept your attack and not strike back for fear of offending you. That's what bugs me.

i don't remember exactly, but it seems to me that they didn't flat out refuse. i think they wanted to see some evidence or something first. and probably a bunch of other conditions, at least one of which was silly enough that there was no hope of the u.s. ever agreeing to it. i don't doubt that they wouldn't have extradited him even after being shown evidence, but i don't recall that the u.s. even bothered with the pretense before the bombing kicked off.
Of course they wouldn't extradite him. Hell, they wanted evidence? How about the video he made to take credit for 9/11?

American troops are not civilien targets :rolleyes:

True, but specifically waiting to attack a military target until they are surrounded with innocent civilians, certainly is an act of terrorism.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]
I can see Muslims being angry about Iraq, but Afghanistan? Afghanistan harbored a terrorist organization that had attacked NY twice, two African embasies, and the USS Cole. Then they refused to turn over the leadership of that organization to face justice.QUOTE]

Yeah, but Afhanistan was starded by the west, the west helped Osama end Taliban people, so that they could ruin Afghanistan and make their sick dreams come true, the americans gave the extrimists the oppertunity to take away the futere og the afghani people, do you think women were wearing burkas[or what its called] during commie[Soviet] time.....

Also, this is of course not the reason that made the taliban people attack the west, but it gives a little more deapth.....


Also placing bombs in a city is nothing worse then bombing it from a F-15E, so terrorisam is just low tech war, and not high tech war :p
Since when have our aircraft intentionally targeted people on their way to work? The terrorists target the subways and office buildings intentionally. We try to hit our enemies and reduce civilian casualties.

Oh, and your point about the west helping the taliban and Osama to take power? Well you'd think they'd show a little gratitude. We hadn't done anything to harm them, we actually helped them. Given 20/20 hindsight maybe we should have let the soviets keep afghanistan.

Yeah, but Afhanistan was starded by the west, the west helped Osama end Taliban people, so that they could ruin Afghanistan and make their sick dreams come true, the americans gave the extrimists the oppertunity to take away the futere og the afghani people, do you think women were wearing burkas[or what its called] during commie[Soviet] time.....

Also, this is of course not the reason that made the taliban people attack the west, but it gives a little more deapth.....

Also placing bombs in a city is nothing worse then bombing it from a F-15E, so terrorisam is just low tech war, and not high tech war :p
Osama was not a fighter in afganistan. He was a little bitch there too. The elements that recieved aid were more like the northern alliance. There's an interview with a BBC reporter who was there at the time with the afghani forces who saw Osama before he got famous. He tells a story about how Osama was all dressed in white, and managed to be spectacularly clean in the middle of a desert war, demanding that the people doing the fighting kill the infidels (the people from the BBC). When they ignored him, Osama went back to his cot and had a crying fit. Why, he's a PUSSY. The only US aid the true crazies got came by way of Iran thanks to Iran-Contra.

Specifically, choosing to blow up a busload of children is a little bit different than attacking a carefully chosen military target with an airstrike. That you're unable to understand the vast gulf between those two choices doesn't speak well for your argument.

Also placing bombs in a city is nothing worse then bombing it from a F-15E, so terrorisam is just low tech war, and not high tech war :p

So deliberately targeting civilians in markets, subways, or on busses is no different from targeting a legitimate military target?

So blaming moslems as a whole is cind of strange, and there is no terror in iraq...]

I am not blaming Moslems, I am however blaming Moslem extremests.

So deliberately targeting civilians in markets, subways, or on busses is no different from targeting a legitimate military target?

American F-15s were targeting civilan targets in iraq!!

American F-15s were targeting civilan targets in iraq!!
Dude, at least try to get your facts straight. F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's not really used to hit ground targets. It's function is to shoot down enemy aircraft.

Osama was not a fighter in afganistan. He was a little bitch there too. The elements that recieved aid were more like the northern alliance. There's an interview with a BBC reporter who was there at the time with the afghani forces who saw Osama before he got famous. He tells a story about how Osama was all dressed in white, and managed to be spectacularly clean in the middle of a desert war, demanding that the people doing the fighting kill the infidels (the people from the BBC). When they ignored him, Osama went back to his cot and had a crying fit. Why, he's a PUSSY. The only US aid the true crazies got came by way of Iran thanks to Iran-Contra.

Specifically, choosing to blow up a busload of children is a little bit different than attacking a carefully chosen military target with an airstrike. That you're unable to understand the vast gulf between those two choices doesn't speak well for your argument.



Ehem, taliban fighters got stingers from CIA operatives, god demn...
The northern alliance got aid, but that was after 911, i talked about history, couse to understand the present you most know the past ;)

Also the military targets chosen by american fighters strangly enough included peoples homes, and bomb shelters :rolleyes:

Also starving a whole nation is more terror then a few bombs here and there, and might i add, iraq has NEVER done an attack on western soil, and never harmed you civilians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahh, I wouldn't know. But maybe they're against that innocents are accidently bombed alongside the terrorists.


So, then .... in retaliation ... they ... bomb more civilians?


Hmmmm, I think I'll pass on accepting that as a logical explanation of their vehement rage.

American F-15s were targeting civilan targets in iraq!!

If you say so I guess it's true. :D

Dude, at least try to get your facts straight. F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's not really used to hit ground targets. It's function is to shoot down enemy aircraft.

Primary function is air to air, secondary is air to ground.

Also, this is of course not the reason that made the taliban people attack the west, but it gives a little more deapth.....
The 'taliban people' attacked the west? When was that?

So blaming moslems as a whole is cind of strange, and there is no terror in iraq...
I wouldn't go as far as to say 'there is no terror in Iraq'. There most definitely is terror in Iraq.

Dude, at least try to get your facts straight. F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's not really used to hit ground targets. It's function is to shoot down enemy aircraft.
While the original creedo for the F-15 design team was "Not a pound for air-to-ground," the F-15E Strike Eagle varient is a long range fighter ment to be able to fight its way to a ground target, and destroy it.

That is not the reason for the bombings in London, Madrid, etc. It is the excuse. If there were no war in Iraq or Afghanistan, they find some other excuse. These radicals will not be happy until all infidels are out of all Muslim countries, and all countries are Muslim, and the world is under Sharia law.

You know that sounds exactly like the way a lot of Chritains think. And Christians have done far more damag to other cultures in the name of God.

Dude, at least try to get your facts straight. F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's not really used to hit ground targets. It's function is to shoot down enemy aircraft.

I forgot to put an "E" behind F-15, I think the F-15E is the air2ground and the others are air to air, anyway the choice of bombers is not the point here ;)

You guys have a fine airforce might I add :)

Also the military targets chosen by american fighters strangly enough included peoples homes, and bomb shelters :rolleyes:

Also starving a whole nation is more terror then a few bombs here and there, and might i add, iraq has NEVER done an attack on western soil, and never harmed you civilians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
snipped original message

Yeah, that's our strategy. We're planning to win hearts and minds by blowing up civilian homes. [/sarcasm]

Come on, do you really think we just decided to kill people who's deaths can only hurt our objectives? You're listening to too many crazy conspiracy theorists.

Sometimes civilian targets are hit. It's not intentional. Killing civilians does nothing to further our goals. It's counterproductive.

Oh, and Iraq wasn't starved by the US. Maybe by the profiteers in the oil for food scandal who routed money meant for food aid to Saddam's personal bank accounts, but not by the USA.

Oh, and Iraq wasn't starved by the US. Maybe by the profiteers in the oil for food scandal who routed money meant for food aid to Saddam's personal bank accounts, but not by the USA.
Not defending Dico's case but I wouldn't be surprised if it was happening in Guantanamo. I doubt it but I wouldn't be suprised.

While the original creedo for the F-15 design team was "Not a pound for air-to-ground," the F-15E Strike Eagle varient is a long range fighter ment to be able to fight its way to a ground target, and destroy it.
Got it. Still, why would the F-15 pilot knowingly waste his limited air to surface payload on civilian targets?

I forgot to put an "E" behind F-15, I think the F-15E is the air2ground and the others are air to air, anyway the choice of bombers is not the point here ;)

You guys have a fine airforce might I add :)
My bad. I was unaware that the F-15 was also used to attack ground targets. Still, do you think we really want to target civilians? How does that help us?

You know that sounds exactly like the way a lot of Chritains think. And Christians have done far more damag to other cultures in the name of God.

Yes, there have been and probably still are some Christian extremists just as there are some Moslem extremists. However, I do not believe a majority of either religion are extremists. So you point was..?

WHAT!?

Yeah, Dicohead makes some valid points. The Taliban is the government started by the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan while fighting Soviet occupation wth U.S. aid. We taught them all kinds of crazy shit, like ambushes, explosives, knocking out the HIN-D helicopters with stingers, RPG's and even old 8mm Mauser rifles that fire unjacketed lead rounds. We made them strong, and left them to thier own devices after Soviet withdrawal. These groups do not spring from Islam, they come from a black war waged against the Soviets.
Rather more interesting than 'they hate us because we are free!', which is a totally ridiculous argument.

My bad. I was unaware that the F-15 was also used to attack ground targets. Still, do you think we really want to target civilians? How does that help us?

All F-15's are now multirole, but the E version (Strike Eagle) has a dedicated RIO/bomadier in the back seat..

Yes, there have been and probably still are some Christian extremists just as there are some Moslem extremists. However, I do not believe a majority of either religion are extremists. So you point was..?

Don't be saying Muslim extremists want to take over the world without acknowledging the problems with Christianity(assuming you are Christian)

Ehem, taliban fighters got stingers from CIA operatives, god demn...
The northern alliance got aid, but that was after 911, i talked about history, couse to understand the present you most know the past ;)

Also the military targets chosen by american fighters strangly enough included peoples homes, and bomb shelters :rolleyes:

Also starving a whole nation is more terror then a few bombs here and there, and might i add, iraq has NEVER done an attack on western soil, and never harmed you civilians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. Taliban fighters got their Stingers from Iran, who got them from the CIA, as part of the exchange for hostages.
The people recieving American assistance, hetrogenous bunch that they were, were not the Taliban. Some of them joined up when the wind blew that way, but that probably had more to do with self-preservation than ideology. But the hardcore islamists, didn't need American aid as desperately, and were less inclined deal with the West. The Afghanis who did the brunt of the fighting, were in very desperate straights, and their ideological preferences took a back seat to more pragmatic concerns.

When a home, bomb shelter, school or mosque has armed thugs in it, it's not a civilian structure anymore. Americans consistantly, and overwhelmingly choose to kill people who want to fight and die, the islamists do everything they can to kill people who are completely unarmed and uninvolved, and give double points for children.

Saddam could have chosen feed the people. But he didn't as Stalinist dictators are wont to doing. Iraq has provided aid to Hamas, including the family of at least one bomber that killed and American.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Yeah, Dicohead makes some valid points. The Taliban is the government started by the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan while fighting Soviet occupation wth U.S. aid. We taught them all kinds of crazy shit, like ambushes, explosives, knocking out the HIN-D helicopters with stingers, RPG's and even old 8mm Mauser rifles that fire unjacketed lead rounds. We made them strong, and left them to thier own devices after Soviet withdrawal. These groups do not spring from Islam, they come from a black war waged against the Soviets.
Rather more interesting than 'they hate us because we are free!', which is a totally ridiculous argument.
Yeah, I know that part. The WHAT!?! was for the disfigured grammer and spelling.

Yeah, Dicohead makes some valid points. The Taliban is the government started by the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan while fighting Soviet occupation wth U.S. aid. We taught them all kinds of crazy shit, like ambushes, explosives, knocking out the HIN-D helicopters with stingers, RPG's and even old 8mm Mauser rifles that fire unjacketed lead rounds. We made them strong, and left them to thier own devices after Soviet withdrawal. These groups do not spring from Islam, they come from a black war waged against the Soviets.
Rather more interesting than 'they hate us because we are free!', which is a totally ridiculous argument.

ou make a good point but one of the reasons so many went to fight in Afghainstan against the Soviets was because of the rallying call to defend the muslim country against the invading infidel.

ou make a good point but one of the reasons so many went to fight in Afghainstan against the Soviets was because of the rallying call to defend the muslim country against the invading infidel.

I did not put it in because it does not have much to do with my post.

When a home, bomb shelter, school or mosque has armed thugs in it, it's not a civilian structure anymore. Americans consistantly, and overwhelmingly choose to kill people who want to fight and die, the islamists do everything they can to kill people who are completely unarmed and uninvolved, and give double points for children.

Saddam could have chosen feed the people. But he didn't as Stalinist dictators are wont to doing. Iraq has provided aid to Hamas, including the family of at least one bomber that killed and American.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Go figure Saddam payed the families of people who caused damage to a country that attacked him in the past. Also I highly doubt there is any sort of point system as far as deaths go and the islamists don't "do everything thy can" to cause damage to civilians as you will notice a rather high number of soldier deaths.

ou make a good point but one of the reasons so many went to fight in Afghainstan against the Soviets was because of the rallying call to defend the muslim country against the invading infidel.
Yeah, I saw a tape of Bin Laden saying that it was a mission to defend a Muslim state from the atheists.

Yeah, I saw a tape of Bin Laden saying that it was a mission to defend a Muslim state from the atheists.

Pretty much every country believes it is a mission to defend a _________ state against _________. This is nothing new.

Don't be saying Muslim extremists want to take over the world without acknowledging the problems with Christianity(assuming you are Christian)

I wouldn assume anything if I were you because assuming things can make an ASS out of U and ME.:D

I do not disputer there may be Christian fundamentalists who want Christianity to take over the world. However, I haven't seen or heard of any that are engaging in terrorism to do so in this day and age.

I wouldn assume anything if I were you because assuming things can make an ASS out of U and ME.:D

I do not disputer there may be Christian fundamentalists who want Christianity to take over the world. However, I haven't seen or heard of any that are engaging in terrorism to do so in this day and age.

Key sentence: In this day and age. Don't forget (and I do not think you did :) ) about the old Imperialist policies that exploited many regions of the world, believing that non Western Christians were savages and subhuman. Now, I do not mean that this was a Christian movement nor that it followed Christian ideals. However, those who carried it out considered themselves Christians, and often used thier religion as an excuse for atrocities that they committed in the name of making a buck. There is a difference.

No. Taliban fighters got their Stingers from Iran, who got them from the CIA, as part of the exchange for hostages.
The people recieving American assistance, hetrogenous bunch that they were, were not the Taliban. Some of them joined up when the wind blew that way, but that probably had more to do with self-preservation than ideology. But the hardcore islamists, didn't need American aid as desperately, and were less inclined deal with the West. The Afghanis who did the brunt of the fighting, were in very desperate straights, and their ideological preferences took a back seat to more pragmatic concerns.

When a home, bomb shelter, school or mosque has armed thugs in it, it's not a civilian structure anymore. Americans consistantly, and overwhelmingly choose to kill people who want to fight and die, the islamists do everything they can to kill people who are completely unarmed and uninvolved, and give double points for children.

Saddam could have chosen feed the people. But he didn't as Stalinist dictators are wont to doing. Iraq has provided aid to Hamas, including the family of at least one bomber that killed and American.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

oKEY, i HAVE SEEN tapes of an american giving stingers to taliban people, he had blue eyes[dont think a lot of iranians have that] anyway, to say that america did not build up taliban is misinformed..

And the other thing you sai, when a civilian structer is filled with military ppl, then it is no longer civilian yeah that is right...

But why should buildings in iraq, during the american decade long bombing be filled with soldiers :confused: Are they going to down a B-52 with their ak-47 and rpgs?? wtf? I am not talking about this iraq war, but about the american bombing campaig, and yeah, I would realy love to be wrong about more things ;)

Its ytrue saddam used a "little" bit on him self, palaces and so on, but what he used is not enough to feed 20 million people, yeah I am so wrong god demnet :p

oKEY, i HAVE SEEN tapes of an american giving stingers to taliban people, he had blue eyes[dont think a lot of iranians have that] anyway, to say that america did not build up taliban is misinformed..

And the other thing you sai, when a civilian structer is filled with military ppl, then it is no longer civilian yeah that is right...

But why should buildings in iraq, during the american decade long bombing be filled with soldiers :confused: Are they going to down a B-52 with their ak-47 and rpgs?? wtf? I am not talking about this iraq war, but about the american bombing campaig, and yeah, I would realy love to be wrong about more things ;)

Its ytrue saddam used a "little" bit on him self, palaces and so on, but what he used is not enough to feed 20 million people, yeah I am so wrong god demnet :p
I have only one question. What purpose does bombing civilian targets serve for the USA?

As for starving people, I havent ever heard of sanctions imposed by the US or UN that prohibit food and medical aid from reaching the target country.

oKEY, i HAVE SEEN tapes of an american giving stingers to taliban people, he had blue eyes[dont think a lot of iranians have that] anyway, to say that america did not build up taliban is misinformed..

And the other thing you sai, when a civilian structer is filled with military ppl, then it is no longer civilian yeah that is right...

But why should buildings in iraq, during the american decade long bombing be filled with soldiers :confused: Are they going to down a B-52 with their ak-47 and rpgs?? wtf? I am not talking about this iraq war, but about the american bombing campaig, and yeah, I would realy love to be wrong about more things ;)

Its ytrue saddam used a "little" bit on him self, palaces and so on, but what he used is not enough to feed 20 million people, yeah I am so wrong god demnet :p

Actually, many Iranians have blue eyes. Aryans (ring a bell?) dominated the Iranian Plateau for thousands of years, invaded India, went all over. As far as Americans giving direct assistance to the people who would later become the Taliban (and the NA). I yanked this quote from Wikipedia, which is pretty reliable. Emphasis mine:

Afghan Mujahideen

The most well-known, and feared, mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, and then fought against each other in the following civil war. These mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (under the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China.[1] Reagan referred to these mujahideen as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability." [2] In Western popular culture, the mujahideen were portrayed favourably in the popular actions films The Living Daylights and Rambo III. After the Soviets withdrew, the mujahideen broke into two loosely-aligned opposing factions, the Northern Alliance and the Taleban, which then engaged in civil war for control of Afghanistan.

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.

Actually, many Iranians have blue eyes. Aryans (ring a bell?) dominated the Iranian Plateau for thousands of years, invaded India, went all over. .

I knew they were aryan, i`m not that dumb ;)

But i did not know they had blue eyes, I tought blue eyes had cind of died out or becoume rare couse brown eye geens are dominant. I do know that in western parts of afghanistan, the aryan part of the populations often have green, and blue eyes..

This is off-topic, but educate me on the subject :)

I knew they were aryan, i`m not that dumb ;)

But i did not know they had blue eyes, I tought blue eyes had cind of died out or becoume rare couse brown eye geens are dominant. I do know that in western parts of afghanistan, the aryan part of the populations often have green, and blue eyes..

This is off-topic, but educate me on the subject :)

I didn't mean to be an ass, it is something that many people don't know, so it was all for clarity. :cool:

I didn't mean to be an ass, it is something that many people don't know, so it was all for clarity. :cool:

Yeah, no problem. A lot of people do think iranians are Arabs and so on, but do they have blue eyes, is it commen :confused:
Educate me god demnet :p

Actually, many Iranians have blue eyes. Aryans (ring a bell?) dominated the Iranian Plateau for thousands of years, invaded India, went all over. As far as Americans giving direct assistance to the people who would later become the Taliban (and the NA). I yanked this quote from Wikipedia, which is pretty reliable. Emphasis mine:

Afghan Mujahideen
Again, the Mujahideen were a very large and hetrogenious group. Even that which would come to be known as the Northern Alliance was far from a tightly controled organization with a single voice. Indeed in the recent war in Afghanistan some Northern Alliance leaders were favored by the allies over others. So while the Allies gave aid to The Northern Alliance, they did not give aid to all equally, let alone endorse every member and all they stood for.

The much larger Mujahideen was correspondingly much more diverse, and in that diversity much more extreme views were represented, as one would expect. So while the US provided direct assistance to the Mujahideen by assisting some of it's members, they did not endorse all of the members.

In fact, as other people have noted in interviews about their experiences in covering the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Osama's power depended largely on who was willing to listen to him.

The brutality of the otherguys writting, is just, .... good god. I'm not a stickler for spelling or grammer, but there are freaking limits.

Of course they wouldn't extradite him. Hell, they wanted evidence? How about the video he made to take credit for 9/11?

the video that was found by the u.s. in a house in afghanistan after the invasion?

Again, the Mujahideen were a very large and hetrogenious group. Even that which would come to be known as the Northern Alliance was far from a tightly controled organization with a single voice. Indeed in the recent war in Afghanistan some Northern Alliance leaders were favored by the allies over others. So while the Allies gave aid to The Northern Alliance, they did not give aid to all equally, let alone endorse every member and all they stood for.

The much larger Mujahideen was correspondingly much more diverse, and in that diversity much more extreme views were represented, as one would expect. So while the US provided direct assistance to the Mujahideen by assisting some of it's members, they did not endorse all of the members.

In fact, as other people have noted in interviews about their experiences in covering the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Osama's power depended largely on who was willing to listen to him.

The brutality of the otherguys writting, is just, .... good god. I'm not a stickler for spelling or grammer, but there are freaking limits.

Yeah...... and???? The group(s) as a whole had the benefit of support to some extent and training to some extant. We are in agreement.

An Exmple of Muslim Law...


Report: Iran Gay Teens Executed
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: July 21, 2005 11:00 am ET

(London) Two teenagers have been executed after a religious court found them them guilty of homosexuality according to pro-Democracy groups.

The Iranian Students News Agency reports that the executions took place on July 19 in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

One teen, ISNA says was 18, the other was a minor, believed to be 16 or 17. The organization ran a picture of what it said was the execution on its Web site.

The English language Iran In Focus also reported the executions, saying the teens were hanged in public in the city square. It quotes sources as saying the teens were executed for having sex with another minor but this could not be confirmed. The report does not name the victim. Under Sharia law the victim of a sexual assault must also be executed.

Both news services say that prior to their execution, the teenagers were held in prison for 14 months, severely beaten and given the lash 228 times.

A report of the executions was also carried on the website of the respected democratic opposition movement, The National Council of Resistance Of Iran.

Ruhollah Rezazadeh, the lawyer for the younger teen reportedly had appealed the death sentence but the Supreme Court in Tehran ordered him to be hanged.

Under the Iranian penal code, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be hanged.

Three other young gay Iranians are reportedly being hunted by police, but they are said to have gone into hiding and cannot be found. If caught, they would also face execution.

The British LGBT rights group OutRage has called for sanctions against Iran. The organization has called for western states to break off diplomatic relations, impose trade sanctions and treat Iran as "a pariah state".

"This is just the latest barbarity by the Islamo-fascists in Iran,” said OutRage spokesperson Peter Tatchell.

"The entire country is a gigantic prison, with Islamic rule sustained by detention without trial, torture and state-sanctioned murder.

"According to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979," said Tatchell.

Iran In Focus reports that members of Iran’s parliament are applauding the court for carrying out the death sentence on the teens.

"These individuals were corrupt. Their sentence was carried out with the approval of the judiciary and it served them right,” the publication quotes Ali Asgari, a member of the Majlis Party Legal Affairs Committee.

At least three men have been sentenced over the past month to death by stoning in Nigeria which also follows Sharia law in several provinces. (story)

In March a gay couple was beheaded in a public execution in Saudi Arabia. (story) The pair had been convicted of killing a blackmailer who had threatened to expose them to authorities. Hundreds of other gays have been rounded up by Saudi authorities in recent months. (story)

©365Gay.com 2005


Never use the words "thinking" and "Religious Extreamist" in the same sentace folks remember that. its the Muslim Clerics over here that piss me off the ones that almost openly condone the Terror attacks, there NOT british, if they were british they would outright comdeme the slaughter of there fellow britans, if out Govemnent.

"But y'see it's you English and you Americans invading our Muslims countries that's caused the bombings! You weren't talking to us when it was da poor Iraqis and poor Afghanis being killed, just when it's your English bein' killed!" -Young Angry Muslim Male

Is it thoroughly unreasonable to suggest that he f*ck off back to whichever of his Muslim countries that his parents or grandparents dragged themselves out of? I mean, his implication that he isn't british (when living in Leeds), combined with a refusal to condemn the murders in London, surely should be taken as grounds that he shouldn't be forced ENDURE to staying here under such an "opressive" Govenment! that they are quite happy to sponge off our Benift system I might add.

They might have been born here, but they were never loyal subjects of the Kingdom. They never acknowledged our social mores (I remember being sat on me pappy's knee and being told "Now, son, never be a terrorist - or a barrister - or a Republican", for example). They evidently don't acknowledge our moral codes, or our principles. Even when asked by government to condemn these attacks, their fellows can't bring themselves to say, without quid pro quo, that "These killers are toasting in the fires of Hell, whatever religion you hold with".

I hope the Sweeney Todd catch this lot (since it seems they haven't managed to blow themselves up this time) and use horrific and highly illegal forms of information-retrieval to get the required data out of them.

Yeah...... and???? The group(s) as a whole had the benefit of support to some extent and training to some extant. We are in agreement.
And the US had nothing to do with making Osama. That was the oil shieks who gave him money, which then made him powerful. Same thing with the Taliban.