NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=bush+plans+major+speech&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&fl=0&x=wrt
http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/47679.asp

http://www.bestposters.ru/db/BFP1178.jpg

And that's one of the major reasons he was re-elected: he is correct about that. :p

ocean, face it - you won't be happy until Osama Bin Laden rules the world, and all non-believers in his way are enslaved or slaughtered.

ocean, face it - you won't be happy until Osama Bin Laden rules the world, and all non-believers in his way are enslaved or slaughtered.I wont be happy untill you provide the 65% Link you promised. :D :D ;) :D

...face it :p

That's not entirely correct. No action by the US could be reasonably interpreted as provocation by Al Quaeda, but Al Quaeda isn't reasonable.

Al Quaeda is half crazy and half ruthless evil. They've got a plan to take over the Muslim world and from there spread their control to the rest of the world, and they're ruthless in pursuing that, but they're also batshit insane in that they think that attacking the US and spreading an ultra violent and repressive form of Islam is going to help accomplish their goal.

I wont be happy untill you provide the 65% Link you promised. :D :D ;) :D

...face it :p

I'm so glad I heard the story on NPR this morning that the Palestinians have their own chavs now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4947467

I'm so glad I heard the story on NPR this morning that the Palestinians have their own chavs now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4947467
I heard that same story on Morning Edition. I found one thing encouraging. One kid said that they see HAMAS and PIJ not as liberators but as gangs. Maybe we should ship them some rap CDs, baggy jeans and cheap gold jewlery to speed up the process of Palestinain Chavification.

That's not entirely correct. No action by the US could be reasonably interpreted as provocation by Al Quaeda....

...*snipcolor of your pink sunglases...

I heard that same story on Morning Edition. I found one thing encouraging. One kid said that they see HAMAS and PIJ not as liberators but as gangs. Maybe we should ship them some rap CDs, baggy jeans and cheap gold jewlery to speed up the process of Palestinain Chavification.

We got some Suicide Bombers up in hurrr, up in hurrr, up in hurrr...

I heard that same story on Morning Edition. I found one thing encouraging. One kid said that they see HAMAS and PIJ not as liberators but as gangs. Maybe we should ship them some rap CDs, baggy jeans and cheap gold jewlery to speed up the process of Palestinain Chavification.
It was an encouraging story.

Ocean, however, will take exception to the fact that Hamas is thought of by some Palestinians as a bad thing. He'll say it was actually a fake story compiled by Jews, or that the people interviewed were either Jews or Jew lovers.

It goes both ways. Irak didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and the US, although certainly a presence in the Middle East that has not always been on the good side, hadn't committed perverse attrocities against Islam, at least not to deserve terrorist attacks.

I think everybody is just so touchy.

color of your pink sunglases...
That is soooo bogus! ( To coin a phrase! ) :p

It goes both ways. Irak didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and the US, although certainly a presence in the Middle East that has not always been on the good side, hadn't committed perverse attrocities against Islam, at least not to deserve terrorist attacks.

I think everybody is just so touchy.

As far as I'm concerned, they started the killing. So we should be expected to finish it.

color of your pink sunglases...
Actually my sunglasses were like a steel gray color, but I haven't been able to find them in a couple of weeks.

Oh, and you're going to criticize me for my outlook on the world? I think mine's alot more balanced than your view. I can boil down your point of view in two sentences.

"The USA is EVIL!" and "Radical Muslims are always the poor,oppressed, righteous victims so their actions are always excusable."

Actually my sunglasses were like a steel gray color, but I haven't been able to find them in a couple of weeks.

Oh, and you're going to criticize me for my outlook on the world? I think mine's alot more balanced than your view. I can boil down your point of view in two sentences.

"The USA is EVIL!" and "Radical Muslims are always the poor,oppressed, righteous victims so their actions are always excusable."

* high fives DC *

That is soooo bogus! ( To coin a phrase! ) :pfine...let me try with a different degree of words...

That's not entirely correct. No action by the US could be reasonably interpreted as provocation by Al Quaeda, but Al Quaeda isn't reasonable.DCD says that he Judges his (own side) past actions as "reasonable"...At the same time he says the other side cannot be allowed to judge US past actions...because they(other side) don't have a notion of "reasonable" anyways.

He is declaring himself the Judge, the Gov AND Defense attorneys..he is even declaring himself the only expert capable to define "reasonable" .

He is declaring himself the Judge, the Gov AND Defense attorneys..he is even declaring himself the only expert capable to define "reasonable" .

And you aren't declaring yourself the Judge of Reasonable? Eh?

fine...let me try with a different degree of words...

DCD says that he Judges his (own side) past actions as "reasonable"...At the same time he says the other side cannot be allowed to judge US past actions...because they(other side) don't have a notion of "reasonable" anyways.

He is declaring himself the Judge, the Gov AND Defense attorneys..he is even declaring himself the only expert capable to define "reasonable" .
Dude, I've always admitted to the fact that the US's actions have often been motivated by our own interests and sometimes have been unethical. Yet you've accused me of seeing the world through rose colored glasses. I've been much more reasonable than you if I do say so myself, and I'm sure most people who've seen our exchanges would agree.

Still, the harm we've done has primarily been in Latin America, not in the Middle East. We've provided aid and support to middle eastern governments. That's why Al Quaeda hates us. They need to overthrow those governments in order to place the region under extremist islamist rule with OBL as the new caliph. Our aid, military and financial, to the governments in the region stands in their way. Please show me one action by the US that can justify Al Quaeda's attacks against us. Just one is all I ask.

And you aren't declaring yourself the Judge of Reasonable? Eh?I always take both sides viewpoints into consideration...

You should try that sometimes ;)

Dude, I've always admitted to the fact that the US's actions have often been motivated by our own interests and sometimes have been unethical. Yet you've accused me of seeing the world through rose colored glasses. I've been much more reasonable than you if I do say so myself, and I'm sure most people who've seen our exchanges would agree.

Still, the harm we've done has primarily been in Latin America, not in the Middle East. We've provided aid and support to middle eastern governments. That's why Al Quaeda hates us. They need to overthrow those governments in order to place the region under extremist islamist rule with OBL as the new caliph. Our aid, military and financial, to the governments in the region stands in their way. Please show me one action by the US that can justify Al Quaeda's attacks against us. Just one is all I ask.
Well said! :)

Dude, I've always admitted to the fact that the US's actions have often been motivated by our own interests and sometimes have been unethical. Yet you've accused me of seeing the world through rose colored glasses. I've been much more reasonable than you if I do say so myself, and I'm sure most people who've seen our exchanges would agree.

Still, the harm we've done has primarily been in Latin America, not in the Middle East. We've provided aid and support to middle eastern governments. That's why Al Quaeda hates us. They need to overthrow those governments in order to place the region under extremist islamist rule with OBL as the new caliph. Our aid, military and financial, to the governments in the region stands in their way. Please show me one action by the US that can justify Al Quaeda's attacks against us. Just one is all I ask.

If I may take the point further:

Some EU nations could be similarly blamed for how Africa is turning out - but I don't see Africans flying airliners into EU skyscrapers.

Some EU nations could be blamed for the way the whole Middle East turned out to be artificially defined nations - but I don't see anyone beating the drum about that.

The US has really abused Central America (as well as South America) over the years. Not to mention places like Haiti, which suck largely because of long term US policies.

But I don't see any Salvadoreans blowing themselves up in public in the US. In fact, I live in a town where there are thousands of them - and they all LIKE the US - and some were former rebels.

It turns out then, that most people, even if abused by a former colonial or interventionist power, don't feel like talking their son who has cerebral palsy, or their pregnant daughter, into blowing themselves up at a checkpoint.

They pick up their lives and move on. Doing that completely removes the urge for a country like France to intervene in the Ivory Coast, or the British to have to retake the Falklands, or the US to go gallivanting around the world dropping smart bombs.

Still, the harm we've done has primarily been in Latin America, not in the Middle East.ever heard of the SAVAK?
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=savak&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2

and that is just one example.

ever heard of the SAVAK?
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=savak&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2

and that is just one example.

And how long ago was SAVAK? And what people did it affect - Shias.

Osama is a Sunni. And he never mentions Savak. And in fact, he mentions Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death.

As far as I'm concerned, they started the killing. So we should be expected to finish it.
Irak? The Taliban? The whole of Islam? And it's not like the US has covertly and overtly supported governments that have killed or oppressed their own people.

As I say, it goes both ways.

Irak? The Taliban? The whole of Islam? And it's not like the US has covertly and overtly supported governments that have killed or oppressed their own people.

As I say, it goes both ways.
What ...
























... EVER! :rolleyes:

And how long ago was SAVAK? And what people did it affect - Shias.

Osama is a Sunni. And he never mentions Savak. And in fact, he mentions Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death.Osama .... mentions Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death.have a Link?

ever heard of the SAVAK?
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=savak&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2

and that is just one example.
Yeah, I've heard of SAVAK. What does Shiites in Iran have to do with Sunni arab terrorists? If OBL got his way he'd kill or convert every Iranian to his brand of Sunni Islam. So the Shah and SAVAK are clearly not provocation to Al Quaeda. They hate the Shiite Muslims almost as much as they hate the USA. Try again.

have a Link?
Sierra BHP speaks the truth. Remember over the summer Sunni Pakistanis who supported OBL blew up a couple of Shiite mosques? Or does your selective memory only take note of crimes commited by those who recieve US support?

Irak? The Taliban? The whole of Islam? And it's not like the US has covertly and overtly supported governments that have killed or oppressed their own people.

As I say, it goes both ways.

Separate issues.

1. The Taliban are essentially members of al-Q. Most of their leadership was not native Afghan. So, in retaliation for 9-11, removing the Taliban from power and killing or capturing most of their leadership is justified.
2. Invading Iraq was not a good idea. However, it's already happened. Note that there is not a single monolithic insurgency (although that's how the mainstream media plays it). There are multiple Sunni groups, including al-Q, who do not all cooperate. And there are multiple Shia groups. Who don't cooperate with any of the Sunni groups. In fact, the people taking major casualties in the current insurgency are not US troops, not Iraqi troops, not insurgents - but citizens who happen to be around when a bomb goes off. Those people probably can't stand the insurgents OR the US troops.
3. As for nations who have covertly or overtly supported governments who killed people - so what? Did the former Soviet Union do it? Yes. So they deserve to have a planeload of civilians flown into the Kremlin? Did France do it? Hey - they blew up Greenpeace members who were unarmed and doing nothing illegal at the time of their deaths - should environmentalists get a case of the ass and blow themselves up in a crowd of tourists under the Eiffel Tower?

have a Link?
http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper941.html

Everyone who is allied with Osama hates Shias and kills them when they get the chance.

The US has really abused Central America (as well as South America) over the years. Not to mention places like Haiti, which suck largely because of long term US policies.

But I don't see any Salvadoreans blowing themselves up in public in the US. In fact, I live in a town where there are thousands of them - and they all LIKE the US - and some were former rebels.

That's because we share pretty much the same European philosophy of descentralized power and struggles all around, meaning that it's all a natural thing as long as individual freedoms are more or less respected.
The Middle East comes from a much more monolithic culture which sees every intrusion at the national level as a grave offense.
Does not justify the attacks, of course, but explains a bit why we see it as an exaggerated reaction and why Latin Americans wouldn't do the same.

That's because we share pretty much the same European philosophy of descentralized power and struggles all around, meaning that it's all a natural thing as long as individual freedoms are more or less respected.
The Middle East comes from a much more monolithic culture which sees every intrusion at the national level as a grave offense.
Does not justify the attacks, of course, but explains a bit why we see it as an exaggerated reaction and why Latin Americans wouldn't do the same.
Which is a damn good reason to westernize the Middle East. The world's getting smaller and if they're going to react to any interaction with terrorism there's going to be alot of problems for them.

It was an encouraging story.

Ocean, however, will take exception to the fact that Hamas is thought of by some Palestinians as a bad thing. He'll say it was actually a fake story compiled by Jews, or that the people interviewed were either Jews or Jew lovers.

what, is (s)he a member of Hamas or something?

Have we got ourselves a terrorist on our hands?

what, is (s)he a member of Hamas or something?

Have we got ourselves a terrorist on our hands?

No, he just thinks that any Arab militant is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the microwave oven.

No, he just thinks that any Arab militant is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the microwave oven.
He also seems to think that the USA and Israel are the biggest sources of evil in the world.

... should environmentalists get a case of the ass and blow themselves up in a crowd of tourists under the Eiffel Tower?
Hell! I'd pay to see that! :D

http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper941.html

Everyone who is allied with Osama hates Shias and kills them when they get the chance.


Fist paragraph of your "source"(if we can call it that)...says
____________________________________________________________
"In my despatch of February 16, 2004, from Israel, I had stated as follows: "The Falluja raid has come at a time when there are reports of..."
____________________________________________________________

So I have to ask... this weird Site is funded from Israel?

BTW... its "dispatch"..NOT "despatch"...they need hire better writers.

Fist paragraph of your "source"(if we can call it that)...says
____________________________________________________________
"In my despatch of February 16, 2004, from Israel, I had stated as follows: "The Falluja raid has come at a time when there are reports of..."
____________________________________________________________

So I have to ask... this weird Site is funded from Israel?

BTW... its "dispatch"..NOT "despatch"...they need hire better writers.
And the second paragraph says

. To understand the anti-Shia massacres at Karbala and Baghdad in Iraq ( about 180 fatal casualties) and at Quetta in Pakistan's Balochistan (41 killed )

The source does chronicle the massacres of Shiite Muslims at the hands of Sunni extremists. Unfortunately you couldn't get past the first paragraph. Don't ask for a source if you lack the ability to make use of it.

1. The Taliban are essentially members of al-Q. Most of their leadership was not native Afghan. So, in retaliation for 9-11, removing the Taliban from power and killing or capturing most of their leadership is justified.

Agreed. And most of the world agreed, too. Even most of Islam.


2. Invading Iraq was not a good idea. However, it's already happened. Note that there is not a single monolithic insurgency (although that's how the mainstream media plays it). There are multiple Sunni groups, including al-Q, who do not all cooperate. And there are multiple Shia groups. Who don't cooperate with any of the Sunni groups. In fact, the people taking major casualties in the current insurgency are not US troops, not Iraqi troops, not insurgents - but citizens who happen to be around when a bomb goes off. Those people probably can't stand the insurgents OR the US troops.

Agreed. But see? It means the US provided the spark for a new round of killing to start. Sure, the terrorists are still accountable for their own actions, but they found the invasion a handy excuse, just like Bush found 9/11 a handy excuse to invade Iraq. That's what I mean by saying it goes both ways. The really difficult part is getting it to stop.


3. As for nations who have covertly or overtly supported governments who killed people - so what? Did the former Soviet Union do it? Yes. So they deserve to have a planeload of civilians flown into the Kremlin? Did France do it? Hey - they blew up Greenpeace members who were unarmed and doing nothing illegal at the time of their deaths - should environmentalists get a case of the ass and blow themselves up in a crowd of tourists under the Eiffel Tower?
I don't agree with the actions of terrorism, but it doesn't help anyone to try to delude themselves by saying "hey, I was just standing here minding my own business when this guy comes and hits me in the face," when in truth you've been throwing pebbles at the guy.

Disproportionate reaction? Yes. Does it deserve punishment? Yes. Was it totally unexplainable? No.

Fist paragraph of your "source"(if we can call it that)...says
____________________________________________________________
"In my despatch of February 16, 2004, from Israel, I had stated as follows: "The Falluja raid has come at a time when there are reports of..."
____________________________________________________________

So I have to ask... this weird Site is funded from Israel?

BTW... its "dispatch"..NOT "despatch"...they need hire better writers.

No, it's not from Israel. And in fact, if you follow the link near the top about his former paper on Osama, you'll find some rather critical talk about the US's role in Pakistan.

So, it's not Israeli, and it's not from the US.

Osama is a Sunni. And he never mentions Savak. And in fact, he mentions Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death.

Whicj kinda kills Sierra's grand delusion that all Muslims want the new Caliphate to wipe out the west. Not that it matters but hey...

Whicj kinda kills Sierra's grand delusion that all Muslims want the new Caliphate to wipe out the west. Not that it matters but hey...

You obviously never read my posts. I do not and have not said that "all Muslims want the new caliphate".

As a long time reader of the works of Zangi, I already know that only a subset of Sunnis could possibly subscribe to such an idea. To a Shia, world jihad can only become an obligation (in order to spread Dar al-Islam) when the occultation of the Twelfth Imam ends.

Not that reading what I post matters to you...

And the second paragraph says...to be honest...If Its not a well established source I usually do not read it...I simply do not have the time.

There is enough good sources like the BBC that will confirm that Muslims have killed Muslims before...and they will kill themselves again...(the same can be said about Christians...BTW, I am not aware about the Jews)

but I am still waiting for Sierra to post a link that proves Osama ever said "Shias are non-Muslims worthy of death."

Osama .... mentions Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death.

to be honest...If Its not a well established source I usually do not read it...I simply do not have the time.

There is enough good sources like the BBC that will confirm that Muslims have killed Muslims before...and they will kill themselves again...(the same can be said about Christians...BTW, I am not aware about the Jews)

but I am still waiting for Sierra to post a link that proves Osama ever said "Shias are non-Muslims worthy of death."
And you think you're going to find such a quote carried by a news organization? Sorry pal, it's either going to come from an islamist website, or a site like that one provided by Sierra BHP. So, you're basically going to ignore all evidence presented against you.

to be honest...If Its not a well established source I usually do not read it...I simply do not have the time.

There is enough good sources like the BBC that will confirm that Muslims have killed Muslims before...and they will kill themselves again...(the same can be said about Christians...BTW, I am not aware about the Jews)

but I am still waiting for Sierra to post a link that proves Osama ever said "Shias are non-Muslims worthy of death."

In Osama's own words:
"You keep saying "Servants of Allaah!", and you don't even know what that statement truly means. I am going to start calling you "Slave of dust", because the Caliphs whom you worship and kill other Muslims for were created from dust.

Servants of Allaah! The animosity of the Shee'ah towards the people of the Sunnah is severe. This animosity has been ingrained in their souls since the time they took the belief of corrupt partisanship as a rule and path for their religion.

First of all, Shiism is not a religion. It's just a foolish Muslim sect, just like the modern Sunnis, Sufis, Yazidis, etc... All of these sects are wrong, because like yourself, they have littered Islam with their dung! Islam is very simple and peaceful, and it is certainly innocent from the fanatics:

And you think you're going to find such a quote carried by a news organization? Sorry pal, it's either going to come from an islamist website, or a site like that one provided by Sierra BHP. So, you're basically going to ignore all evidence presented against you.so far he has yet to present any link at all ... Quoting Osama making that statement...
Osama .... mentions Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death.

Here's the BBC link showing what al-Qaeda thinks of Shias.

Oh, and Bin Laden IS the head of al-Qaeda...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3525957.stm

"(They are) the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy and the penetrating venom.

"The unhurried observer and the inquiring onlooker will realize that Shi'ism is the looming danger and the true challenge. They are the enemy. Beware of them. Fight them."

Some of the hostility demonstrated in the letter to the Shias can be explained by the traditional antagonism between Shias and Sunnis. Osama Bin Laden and his followers are Sunnis.

Strategy for conflict

But the letter also goes beyond any doctrinal differences. It lays out a military strategy in which four enemies are identified - Americans, Kurds, Iraqi security forces and the Shias.

Of the latter, the letter says: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in (their) religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies...and bare the teeth of the hidden rancour working in their breasts."

I am now waiting for Ocean to say that the BBC is a biased source.

"The BBC is a biased source."

Oh, woops, I'm not Ocean.

*repeatedly bangs head on monitor. Screen smashes. Computer shuts down. Cannot find the link 'Submit Reply.'*

That's not entirely correct. No action by the US could be reasonably interpreted as provocation by Al Quaeda, but Al Quaeda isn't reasonable.

Al Quaeda is half crazy and half ruthless evil. They've got a plan to take over the Muslim world and from there spread their control to the rest of the world, and they're ruthless in pursuing that, but they're also batshit insane in that they think that attacking the US and spreading an ultra violent and repressive form of Islam is going to help accomplish their goal.

Amen.

so far he has yet to present any link at all ... Quoting Osama making that statement...
Yeah, and so far you haven't given me one legitimate reason for Al Quaeda to attack the USA. Remember, I asked first. Then you brought up Iran, which Al Quaeda doesn't care about. Nice way to shift the subject.

Yeah, and so far you haven't given me one legitimate reason for Al Quaeda to attack the USA. Remember, I asked first. Then you brought up Iran, which Al Quaeda doesn't care about. Nice way to shift the subject.

Took me a while to find the BBC quote.

Ocean always wants to narrow down your potential sources by saying that everything outside of the BBC or al-Jazeera is invalid. And when you do post a BBC quote, he then ignores it.

I bet he was really surprised during the fall of Baghdad. Al-Jazeera was reporting that no American troops were in Baghdad, parroting the Iraqi Information Minister - when on every other channel, you could see US vehicles all over Baghdad.

Ocean probably thought that all of that was faked.

"The BBC is a biased source."

Oh, woops, I'm not Ocean.

*repeatedly bangs head on monitor. Screen smashes. Computer shuts down. Cannot find the link 'Submit Reply.'*
No...You are not Ocean...But you nation name is kinda cool...
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif :)

I am now waiting for Ocean to say that the BBC is a biased source.I thought you were waiting for me to say al-Zarqawi is NOT Osama.

maybe I am overestimating you :D :D ;) :D

either way you are going to wait a long time... :p

I thought you were waiting for me to say al-Zarqawi is NOT Osama.

maybe I am overestimating you :D :D ;) :D

either way you are going to wait a long time... :p

al-Qaeda is al-Qaeda. Are you going to say it isn't?

Took me a while to find the BBC quote.

Ocean always wants to narrow down your potential sources by saying that everything outside of the BBC or al-Jazeera is invalid. And when you do post a BBC quote, he then ignores it.

I bet he was really surprised during the fall of Baghdad. Al-Jazeera was reporting that no American troops were in Baghdad, parroting the Iraqi Information Minister - when on every other channel, you could see US vehicles all over Baghdad.

Ocean probably thought that all of that was faked.the BBC its its not the only good source for the Iraq war...that BBC is a fine organization with almost no bias...

The BBC is not wrong...what is wrong is the way you seem to say Osama is Zarwagi.

they are 2 differnt people.

Better yet - if Bin Laden is the head of al-Qaeda, then Zarqawi works for him.

Do you honestly think that Zarqawi would get money and weapons and people from Bin Laden's organization by contradicting Bin Laden?

Or by toeing the line, and carrying out Bin Laden's policy?

Do you honestly think that Zarqawi would get money and weapons and people from Bin Laden's organization by contradicting Bin Laden?LOL...

The war on terror is a mess...Money comes and goes...Sometimes from AlQuaeda ..or from the Pentagon ..or from the CIA ..or From Israel ..or from the Saudi Royals .... giving money to some middle-men...hoping its going to be used as promised....

Do you honestly think that you actually know with-out-a-doubt the exact sources of Zargawi's resources?

The CIA needs a man like you.

LOL...

The war on terror is a mess...Money comes and goes...Sometimes from AlQuaeda ..or from the Pentagon ..or from the CIA or From Israel ..or from the Saudi Royals giving money to some middle-men...hoping its going to be used as promised....

Do you honestly think that you actually know with-out-a-doubt the exact sources of Zargawi's resources?

The CIA needs a man like you.

Link - and since you got to select BBC as the only source you'll regard as valid, I'll hold you to a BBC only link.

You'll have to show me:

1. Bin Laden is not in charge of al-Q.
2. Zarqawi is not part of al-Q - OR - he is part of al-Q and Bin Laden lets him do whatever he wants.

You'll notice, that regardless of your LOL, it's al-Q policy to kill Shias and regard them as really bad people.

Fist paragraph of your "source"(if we can call it that)...says
____________________________________________________________
"In my despatch of February 16, 2004, from Israel, I had stated as follows: "The Falluja raid has come at a time when there are reports of..."
____________________________________________________________

So I have to ask... this weird Site is funded from Israel?

BTW... its "dispatch"..NOT "despatch"...they need hire better writers.

Oceandrive, I think you are losing it. :(

Read the full article. Says this at the bottom
==============
The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-Mail: corde@vsnl. com
=============

His name is B.Raman. He is a very respectable analyst and his analysis have always come true.

The site is not a "weird" site. It is called South Asia Analysis group which has many analysts writing about conflicts in south Asia.

The site is a tremendous resource on various groups operating in the region.

Btw, in Indian english, despatch is commonly used instead of dispatch.

Link - and since you got to select BBC as the only source you'll regard as valid, I'll hold you to a BBC only link.

You'll have to show me:

1. Bin Laden is not in charge of al-Q.
2. Zarqawi is not part of al-Q - OR - he is part of al-Q and Bin Laden lets him do whatever he wants.

You'll notice, that regardless of your LOL, it's al-Q policy to kill Shias and regard them as really bad people.

I'm personally not getting into the whole 'link' argument, but Zarqawi doesn't necessarily have to be part of AQ... his group could merely be tied to AQ via the 'base' (ie basic) ideology that 'The Base/Al-Q' is.

They hated each other in the past- BL was in East and South Afgh. while Z worked from East Afgh. and never unified under one leader then- one ideology maybe, but not leader.

Think of them as two leaders working from the same hymn sheet.

I'm personally not getting into the whole 'link' argument, but Zarqawi doesn't necessarily have to be part of AQ... his group could merely be tied to AQ via the 'base' (ie basic) ideology that 'The Base/Al-Q' is.

They hated each other in the past- BL was in East and South Afgh. while Z worked from East Afgh. and never unified under one leader then- one ideology maybe, but not leader.

Think of them as two leaders working from the same hymn sheet.

The same hymn sheet that apparently is OK with killing Shias.

the BBC its its not the only good source for the Iraq war...that BBC is a fine organization with almost no bias...

The BBC is not wrong...what is wrong is the way you seem to say Osama is Zarwagi.


BS.

BBC is also biased. Especially their south Asia desk.

Examples include calling the Bombay blasts as militant attacks with the many gratuitous references while calling the London attacks as terror attacks.

Compare to Fox news et al, BBC is better. But they ain't "a fine org with almost no bias".

And that's one of the major reasons he was re-elected: he is correct about that. :p

No. No he's not. Look at Osama bin Laden's Fatwa on America(a pre-9/11 document). He details three specific reasons why Al Quada has targeted us. First, our support of Israel, second our wars, sanctions and other various aggressive actions on muslim states(mainly Iraq), and thirdly the maintaining of troops in muslim nations - most aggregiously in Saudi Arabia(a valid interpretation of the Qu'ran is that non muslims should not be allowed in Arabia. The Prophet said something to that effect on his deathbed I believe).

You can WISH that Al Quaeda is just a bunch of lunatics targeting us because of <insertcrappyflagwavingrepublicantalkingpointhere>, but in general you'd be wrong. People don't just get pissed off and fly planes into buildings, regardless or religion. Humans are just not wired to destroy themselves at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot.

It's not a goal of a world Caliphate, because they could have easily started with a smaller, less powerful country. Hell, that would have been the smart thing to do. And before anyone spouts it anyway, if they were just doing this because 'they hate freedom,' they would go after the freest nation on earth - the Netherlands. Legal drugs, prostitution, polygamy, pornography, gay marriage, the list goes on... if they just hated freedom, Amsterdam would be a battlefield, not London and New York.

We brought much of this on ourselves. And our failure to even acknowledge that possibility is just throwing fuel on the fire. People don't call America 'arrogant' for no reason either...

The same hymn sheet that apparently is OK with killing Shias.

Well, i mean 'basic' hymn sheet. Just think about this theory for a moment- Al Q is not a physical group, but a handbook- A guide how to wage war against an enemy- this basic guidebook tells you what they are afraid of, what their weaknesses are, shows you how to hit them the most efficiently and most effectivley.

Now it is up to each group to apply these methods to their enemies in the way they see fit- whether it be Western govts, or apostate govts. its open to interpretaton. Bin Laden has dominated the scence by saying "This is our interpretation and this is how XYZ will do things" and XYZ do them and they work.

But, others might want to interpret this 'handbook' differently. Z being one of them, JI in South Asia being another one, Hamas being a third and so forth. They don't all agree with each other, but they all use their own interpretations of the overall 'base' handbook.... called The Base.

Just a theory.
;)

Compare to Fox news et al, BBC is better. But they ain't "a fine org with almost no bias".dude...do not compare them to FOX...its going to make them look like angels...the voice of God...the absolute truth... etc

Any news org would look great compared to FOX.

:D :D :cool: :D

dude...do not compare them to FOX...its going to make them look like angels...the voice of God...the absolute truth... etc

Any news org would look great compared to FOX.

:D :D :cool: :D
FOX's news is fine, it's problem is that it is primarily PTV - pundit television.

Well, i mean 'basic' hymn sheet. Just think about this theory for a moment- Al Q is not a physical group, but a handbook- A guide how to wage war against an enemy- this basic guidebook tells you what they are afraid of, what their weaknesses are, shows you how to hit them the most efficiently and most effectivley.

Now it is up to each group to apply these methods to their enemies in the way they see fit- whether it be Western govts, or apostate govts. its open to interpretaton. Bin Laden has dominated the scence by saying "This is our interpretation and this is how XYZ will do things" and XYZ do them and they work.

But, others might want to interpret this 'handbook' differently. Z being one of them, JI in South Asia being another one, Hamas being a third and so forth. They don't all agree with each other, but they all use their own interpretations of the overall 'base' handbook.... called The Base.

Just a theory.
;)


Considering the historical animosity of Sunnis and Shias, which goes back to the early days of Islam, and considering that no member of al-Q is a Shia, nor are there any branches of al-Q which are Shia, and considering that Wahhabism is a branch of Sunni Islam that subscribes to the militant obligations of Islam as outlined by Zangi during the First Crusade, and that Shias do not, by any stretch of the imagination subscribe to those same militant obligations (except after the return of the Twelfth Imam), it would appear that one of the fundamental aspects would be hatred of Shias.

I already posted quotes from Osama. Direct translations from the Arabic.

And I posted the Zarqawi BBC link.

Al-Q members have no problem killing Shias. And think of them as traitors to Islam.

FOX's news is fine, it's problem is that it is primarily PTV - pundit television.

If you haven't noticed, most American TV news is pundit television.

The so-called "anchors" for the broadcast networks are pundits.

Dan Rather was a pundit. A pundit pretending to be an unbiased news source.

considering that no member of al-Q is a Shia, nor are there any branches of al-Q which are Shia,


Al-Q members have no problem killing Shias. And think of them as traitors to Islam.


1: not being nitpicky.... but how do you know... ;) You didn't think US citiznes would be members of the Taliban... or British citizens would bomb their own people....

2:So that in fact kinda backs up my theory that AQ isn't necessarily a physical group- but an ideology that groups use to attack others- whether it be Shias, apostates or Westerners.

1: not being nitpicky.... but how do you know... ;) You didn't think US citiznes would be members of the Taliban... or British citizens would bomb their own people....

2:So that in fact kinda backs up my theory that AQ isn't necessarily a physical group- but an ideology that groups use to attack others- whether it be Shias, apostates or Westerners.

The problem is, Ocean doesn't think that al-Q would have anything against Shias.

The people who did the train bombings were British citizens on paper alone. Not by birth and not by culture.

Even if it's not a coherent physical group it does have a coherent core ideology - as you pointed out. And part of that ideology identifies who the enemy is.

In this case, Shias are the enemy - as much as Americans are.

....So that in fact kinda backs up my theory that AQ isn't necessarily a physical group- but an ideology...I think AQ has become a huge Blanket for all kind of "Insurgents"...Anti-Status-Quo groups of all sorts...

Someone in this forum once compared AQ to a Multinational Franchise Corporation...like Nike.

It reminded me of a Tiger Wood TV-ad...young children saying "I am Tiger Woods"...
I picture young Iraqi teens that lost members(body or family)...saying "I am Al-Quaeda" or "I am Osama".

The thing is....several small groups do self-affiliate themselves with AQ...without ever really asking for permission of Head-Quarters (wherever that is)...

The problem is, Ocean doesn't think that al-Q would have anything against Shias.I do think some (self-Proclaimed) members of AQ do hate the Shias...or hate Iran...

but..did Osama ever say: "Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death." ???
Osama .... mentions Shias as being non-Muslims worthy of death.

I dont think so.

About Osama and Shias,

He (rather his ideology) does consider them kafirs. The Imam veneration of Shias is considered a shirk even amongst sunni circles. The wahabbi/salafi versions are even more puritanical and they even consider certain acts of sunnis themselves as shirk. Osama intends to lead muslims out of the new jahilya (the ideology of this new jahilya and the salafi movement to bring believers out of this is discussed here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314 ) and shias are in his list of people to be..err.led ..by force if necessary.

There are two specific instances I can quote to prove the anti-shia nature.

In the 80s, he lent his Arab militia to put down the shia revolt in the Gilgit areas of Pakistan. Many thousands were massacred.

When Taliban came to power, the Hazaras , a shia majority ethnicity, were massacred mercilessly. This remains one of the biggest tragedy of the recent Afghan history.

But I also have to mention that of late, there are no references against shias in his speeches because he has realised that he cannot take on everybody all at once and also he needs Iran's assistance in keeping the insurgency fuelled in Iraq.

About Osama and Shias,

He (rather his ideology) does consider them kafirs. The Imam veneration of Shias is considered a shirk even amongst sunni circles. The wahabbi/salafi versions are even more puritanical and they even consider certain acts of sunnis themselves as shirk. Osama intends to lead muslims out of the new jahilya (the ideology of this new jahilya and the salafi movement to bring believers out of this is discussed here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314 ) and shias are in his list of people to be..err.led ..by force if necessary.

There are two specific instances I can quote to prove the anti-shia nature.

In the 80s, he lent his Arab militia to put down the shia revolt in the Gilgit areas of Pakistan. Many thousands were massacred.

When Taliban came to power, the Hazaras , a shia majority ethnicity, were massacred mercilessly. This remains one of the biggest tragedy of the recent Afghan history.

But I also have to mention that of late, there are no references against shias in his speeches because he has realised that he cannot take on everybody all at once and also he needs Iran's assistance in keeping the insurgency fuelled in Iraq.


I might add that in Osama's writings, he mentions that the fighters can form temporary truces, or even alliances, with people they consider to be infidels, while they are fighting a country like the United States. Thus, he can offer a temporary truce to Spain, or to Shias - but eventually, they will return to kill or subjugate the ones with whom they had the temporary truce - as soon as strength allows.

Oceandrive, I think you are losing it. :(

Read the full article. Says this at the bottom
==============
The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-Mail: corde@vsnl. com
=============*snip

His name is B.Raman. He is a very respectable analyst and his analysis have always come true.

Btw, in Indian english, despatch is commonly used instead of dispatch.I don't really care if Indian "respected Analysts" keep speaking bad English...

What I want to know is if Indian "respected Analysts".../ Indian Gov retd. Cabinet members... If these Indian top Politicians usually report from Israel??

http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper941.html

...I mean its kinda a known fact that India is lately sucking to Israel and the Bush Gov...

but isn't this a bit of an extreme ass kissing?...more than the usual that goes down there...

You can WISH that Al Quaeda is just a bunch of lunatics targeting us because of <insertcrappyflagwavingrepublicantalkingpointhere>,they Hate our Freedoms :D :)
but in general you'd be wrong. Crap.. :headbang: :D

No. No he's not. Look at Osama bin Laden's Fatwa on America(a pre-9/11 document). He details three specific reasons why Al Quada has targeted us. First, our support of Israel, second our wars, sanctions and other various aggressive actions on muslim states(mainly Iraq), and thirdly the maintaining of troops in muslim nations - most aggregiously in Saudi Arabia(a valid interpretation of the Qu'ran is that non muslims should not be allowed in Arabia. The Prophet said something to that effect on his deathbed I believe).

You can WISH that Al Quaeda is just a bunch of lunatics targeting us because of <insertcrappyflagwavingrepublicantalkingpointhere>, but in general you'd be wrong. People don't just get pissed off and fly planes into buildings, regardless or religion. Humans are just not wired to destroy themselves at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot.

It's not a goal of a world Caliphate, because they could have easily started with a smaller, less powerful country. Hell, that would have been the smart thing to do. And before anyone spouts it anyway, if they were just doing this because 'they hate freedom,' they would go after the freest nation on earth - the Netherlands. Legal drugs, prostitution, polygamy, pornography, gay marriage, the list goes on... if they just hated freedom, Amsterdam would be a battlefield, not London and New York.

We brought much of this on ourselves. And our failure to even acknowledge that possibility is just throwing fuel on the fire. People don't call America 'arrogant' for no reason either...
Osama gets people to fly planes into buildings by talking about the "plight of the palestinians" or the "children dying because of Iraqi sanctions", but it's pretty clear that he wants all non-muslims out of muslim lands, and that includes western aid and support for governments that strike OBL as not muslim enough.

As evidence that OBL doesn't want to ease anyone's suffering, but rather to conquer more land and people in the name of his twisted religion one can point to his speeches where he speaks of reconquering Al Andalus (Spain), and to other Al Quaeda linked groups echoing this desire. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/13/wbusy213.xml

I don't really care if Indian "respected Analysts" keep speaking bad English...

What I want to know is if Indian "respected Analysts".../ Indian Gov retd. Cabinet members... If these Indian top Politicians usually report from Israel??

http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper941.html

...I mean its kinda a known fact that India is lately sucking to Israel and the Bush Gov...

but isn't this a bit of an extreme ass kissing?...more than the usual that goes down there...

Let's face it Ocean, if it conflicts with your world view of "Jews Are EVIL" and "The US Is So EVIL", you'll call it a bad source.

Osama gets people to fly planes into buildings by talking about the "plight of the palestinians" or the "children dying because of Iraqi sanctions", but it's pretty clear that he wants all non-muslims out of muslim lands, and that includes western aid and support for governments that strike OBL as not muslim enough.

But the reason people get in the planes and strap on the bombs is Palestine, or it's Saudi Arabia or wherever. Whatever OBL is after, his human resources come from their hatred of the US or Israel.

In other words, they are attacking us for Israel, they are attacking us for Iraq, just because the leaders aren't doesn't mean the people doing it aren't.

But the reason people get in the planes and strap on the bombs is Palestine, or it's Saudi Arabia or wherever. Whatever OBL is after, his human resources come from their hatred of the US or Israel.

In other words, they are attacking us for Israel, they are attacking us for Iraq, just because the leaders aren't doesn't mean the people doing it aren't.
Some of the people doing it are doing it for their religion. Not mainstream Islam, mind you, but rather a violent, oppressive and expansionist form of Islam. Whatever their motivation, they must be defeated. The US won't abandon it's democratic ally Israel, and won't allow one of the world's most important oil producing regions to be dominated by extremist muslims like OBL. As for the people who want to appease Al Quaeda, well, I guess the US and it's allies will save you from yourselves just like they did when you were flirting with Soviet communism.

American actions probably did provike the rage of al-Qaeda, but the same is certainly true turned the other way round. And besides, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

What ...

... EVER! :rolleyes:
This non-refutation is probably best ignored.


2. Invading Iraq was not a good idea.
What are you saying? I thought that you supported the invasion!

I don't agree with the actions of terrorism, but it doesn't help anyone to try to delude themselves by saying "hey, I was just standing here minding my own business when this guy comes and hits me in the face," when in truth you've been throwing pebbles at the guy.

Disproportionate reaction? Yes. Does it deserve punishment? Yes. Was it totally unexplainable? No.Well said. While the disproportionate reaction isn't "reasonable", rage isn't reasonable either.

What are you saying? I thought that you supported the invasion!

I support the effect, although I can't say that the effect was intentional.

The roach motel effect - it attracts thousands of insurgents to the ant heap we've overturned.

Politically, you can't keep killing them without losing some troops - which is politically bad.

It's much better to wage wars where you get to come home quickly, have a victory parade, and then the backlash becomes the problem of the next President.


The roach motel strategy is something you do when you make the mistake of thinking that Americans have a prolonged stomach for violence. They certainly have one for short term violence, but not for long term stuff.

Whatever their motivation, they must be defeated

And surely it's a far better solution to have some give-and-take? Say 50% od 'Al-quaieda' are in it because of the percieved injustices in Palestine. By getting a decent, peacekeeping force in place you could probably satisfy 90% of that 50% and in the process help the Middle east become a lot more peaceful.

OK, so I pulled all those numbers from nowhere but, to me at least, it seems that a UN force with the ablity to stop both sides going at each other would relieve some of the ill-feeling amongst Muslims.

And surely it's a far better solution to have some give-and-take? Say 50% od 'Al-quaieda' are in it because of the percieved injustices in Palestine. By getting a decent, peacekeeping force in place you could probably satisfy 90% of that 50% and in the process help the Middle east become a lot more peaceful.

OK, so I pulled all those numbers from nowhere but, to me at least, it seems that a UN force with the ablity to stop both sides going at each other would relieve some of the ill-feeling amongst Muslims.

The UN has presided over more massacres by either allowing or observing them since its inception than were committed by Hitler.

The perceived injustice that Palestinians see in Israel is its mere presence.

They're not willing to throw that away as a goal. Nor are they willing to give up an inch of Jerusalem. By the same token, the Israelis are not going to give up an inch of Jerusalem. They're at least willing to let the Palestinians stay on the isolated plots of land they already live on.

Neither is a satisfactory solution, nor will either party really compromise. If you force a settlement on them, you're still going to have terrorism.

And it would be rather difficult to force Israel. They have a modern, extremely competent armed force armed with nuclear weapons.

This non-refutation is probably best ignored.
Well, it was either that or say something that would get me deleated, so ... ( shrug ) sue me! :p

I don't really care if Indian "respected Analysts" keep speaking bad English...

Lol..and the Brits consider American English bad. :p


What I want to know is if Indian "respected Analysts".../ Indian Gov retd. Cabinet members... If these Indian top Politicians usually report from Israel??


He is not a politician. He is a bureaucrat.

His visit to Israel is his business. Tons of people visit Israel for various businesses. They ALL must be on the pay of the "zionists" :rolleyes:

And yes, let's attack the messenger. Yay !!



...I mean its kinda a known fact that India is lately sucking to Israel and the Bush Gov...

The global salafi movement has declared jihad on India, Israel and US. For them we are already the enemy. It does'nt matter what these three countries do, asskiss or not.

It is better that these three countries realise this and co-operate more on this front.

The Israeli supplied heat detection devices have been mounted on the LoC fence in Kashmir and it helps our troops to identify the infiltrators and kill them before they can do their jihad.

I don't care if you call that "asskissing". If "asskissing" saves the lives of Indian citizens, I will advocate that and I will also do that personally.

Oceandrive, here's your problem...

There is this global salafi movement. There is this Bush administration.

Now just because Bush Adm has used this threat to serve his agenda (Iraq invasion), DOES NOT mean that there is no threat from the caliphatists (Thank you Eutrusca for the word).

This is akin to the silly folks who say "I will kill xxx and eat xxx animal to piss off PETA". Now just bcoz you do not agree with PETA's policies (I don't) you do not have to become a meat-eater, don't you?

This is what you are doing here. Just because you are pissed off at Bush, you are underplaying the real threat that Bush claims to be responding to.

This is wrong and that's all I got to say to you on this. Good Day.

I might add that in Osama's writings, he mentions that the fighters can form temporary truces, or even alliances, with people they consider to be infidels, while they are fighting a country like the United States. Thus, he can offer a temporary truce to Spain, or to Shias - but eventually, they will return to kill or subjugate the ones with whom they had the temporary truce - as soon as strength allows.

Well, Mohammed himself did it. It is called the Hudaibiya treaty. Look it up.

Now just because Bush Adm has used this threat to serve his agenda (Iraq invasion), DOES NOT mean that there is no threat from the caliphatists (Thank you Eutrusca for the word).

< major snippage >

This is wrong and that's all I got to say to you on this. Good Day.
You're most welcome. Anyone who denies that there is a worldwide Caliphatist movement has their head up their fourth point of contact!

And surely it's a far better solution to have some give-and-take? Say 50% od 'Al-quaieda' are in it because of the percieved injustices in Palestine. By getting a decent, peacekeeping force in place you could probably satisfy 90% of that 50% and in the process help the Middle east become a lot more peaceful.

OK, so I pulled all those numbers from nowhere but, to me at least, it seems that a UN force with the ablity to stop both sides going at each other would relieve some of the ill-feeling amongst Muslims.
Yes, good, let's reinforce the idea that if one has a complaint the appropriate course of action is to kill a bunch of civilians. Oh, and the "injustice" being done to the Palestinians in the extremist muslim's eyes is that the Palestinians haven't been allowed to slaughter the Israelis and rape their women.* How does one compromise with extremists bent destroying the democratic state of Israel?



*Al-Buraik, a Wahhabi cleric, is closely tied to Prince Abdul Aziz Ben Fahd, the king's youngest son, and member of the Saudi delegation accompanying Crown Prince Abdullah on his current visit. Al-Buraik was the host of the two-day long telethon raising funds for Palestinians, which raised $109 million. He is also the host of "Religion and Life," a program on government television Channel One and on MBC television owned by Prince Abdul Aziz Ben Fahd. Al-Buraik said on the tape that the money raised would go to Palestinian fighters.

The following are excerpts of the tape:

On the situation in the Palestinian areas he said:

Oh Believer, it's a wish, as much as it is pains, but we have hopes that the situation in Palestine will explode. No one dies before their day. How many Muslims have died in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, and Kosovo!!

Is it too dear to us that among our honorable beloved die as martyrs? Their death dates were written before their birth. That they die as martyrs. "Say even if were at your home, those who will die will walk to their death."

Which is a better choice, to die on your bed, or to die perseverant, fighting, not retreating. Which is better to suffer long before death many days, or taste death quickly?

Which is better to suffer a slow death, or die as a martyr in your way to heaven. A death that you will be forgiven on the first drop of your blood.

Oh Palestinian Authority, don't you see that you are tested once or twice a year? Then you don't learned or repent.

Isn't time yet to wage jihad, and call for holy war. Isn't time that Muslim countries which normalized relations with the Jews to cancel everything that happened from Madrid to Oslo, and Why River, which forbids the supplying of weapons to Muslims in Palestine?

The agreements which canceled jihad, and disassociation from non-Muslims, should all be demolished.

It's a call to close all embassies opened for the Jews in the land of Islam; it is call to end normalization with Israel.

What international resolution that the Jew respected, prepared by Christians. On Jews and Christians he said: People should know that Jews are backed by the Christians, and the battle that we are going through is not with Jews only, but also with those who believe that Allah is a third in a Trinity, and those who said that Jesus is the son of Allah, and Allah is Jesus, the son of Mary.

About America he said:

I am against America until this life ends, until the Day of Judgment; I am against America even if the stone liquefies My hatred of America, if part of it was contained in the universe, it would collapse. She is the root of all evils, and wickedness on earth. Who else implanted the tyrants in our land, who else nurtured oppression? Oh Muslim Ummah don't take the Jews and Christians as allies.

Jewish women as slaves he says: Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?

To listen to the entire tape go to this link: http://media.islamway.com/arabic/images/lessons/burek/monkey.rm

And that's one of the major reasons he was re-elected: he is correct about that. :p
I beg to differ. If the silly sod is unaware of how involved America has been with Israel's habit of stirring up shit in the middle east he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the presidency in the first place.

I beg to differ. If the silly sod is unaware of how involved America has been with Israel's habit of stirring up shit in the middle east he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the presidency in the first place.
Beg all you like. It doesn't change anything.

I'm right. You're wrong. That's it! :D

In this case, I'm afraid you're dead wrong: supporting Israel is a red flag to every jihadist in the middle east. For fuck's sake, even most of the conservatives seem to agree with that. It may not be a legitimate greiviance in your book, but if Bush is incapable of grasping that they find it offensive (which appears to be what he's saying) then he isn't competent to do his job.

ah silly buggers,
the problem stems from the world's propping up of israel's budget. the states floats it to the tune of 30% and funds the major part of their military. as such, anyone who hates israel (hmm... who are their neighbours again?) would naturally see the u.s. as siding with the enemy.

so yes, in helping israel, the states "provoked" the agression towards them. is it warranted? totally depends what side of the fence you're on. me i personally don't give a shit. perhaps that's why i see it clearly.

ah silly buggers,
the problem stems from the world's propping up of israel's budget. the states floats it to the tune of 30% and funds the major part of their military. as such, anyone who hates israel (hmm... who are their neighbours again?) would naturally see the u.s. as siding with the enemy.

so yes, in helping israel, the states "provoked" the agression towards them. is it warranted? totally depends what side of the fence you're on. me i personally don't give a shit. perhaps that's why i see it clearly.
It's not warranted to any reasonable person. That's why I said in my first post on this thread that the USA has done nothing that a reasonable person would see as provocation for Al Quaeda's attacks.

ah silly buggers,
the problem stems from the world's propping up of israel's budget. the states floats it to the tune of 30% and funds the major part of their military. as such, anyone who hates israel (hmm... who are their neighbours again?) would naturally see the u.s. as siding with the enemy.

so yes, in helping israel, the states "provoked" the agression towards them. is it warranted? totally depends what side of the fence you're on. me i personally don't give a shit. perhaps that's why i see it clearly.
Doesn't the US also provide a lot of the military hardware? I'm told the jets used in the six day war that doubled the size of the country were manufactured in the 'States.

It's not warranted to any reasonable person. That's why I said in my first post on this thread that the USA has done nothing that a reasonable person would see as provocation for Al Quaeda's attacks.
If the USA was dealing with reasonable people, that would be a perfectly fair point. As it obviously isn't, the point doesn't really stand.

If the USA was dealing with reasonable people, that would be a perfectly fair point. As it obviously isn't, the point doesn't really stand.
That's why I characterized Al Quaeda as half ruthless evil and half batshit insane.

That's why I characterized Al Quaeda as half ruthless evil and half batshit insane.
Not bad. It's too bad, though, that there's only 100% available to work with! :D

ah silly buggers,
the problem stems from the world's propping up of israel's budget. the states floats it to the tune of 30% and funds the major part of their military. as such, anyone who hates israel (hmm... who are their neighbours again?) would naturally see the u.s. as siding with the enemy.

so yes, in helping israel, the states "provoked" the agression towards them. is it warranted? totally depends what side of the fence you're on. me i personally don't give a shit. perhaps that's why i see it clearly.It's not warranted to any reasonable person.A "reasonable" president would not use 911 to attack Iraq.

A "reasonable" president would not use 911 to attack Iraq.
True, but to be fair he used WMD more than anything to justify the Iraq war. Still doesn't mean I find him to be very reasonable.

And a reasonable voter wouldn't turn a blind eye to Saddam's fascist mass-murder state.

And a reasonable voter wouldn't turn a blind eye to Saddam's fascist mass-murder state.
Sudan's worse. They're on their second genocide and they actually do have strong links to OBL. We should be in Sudan right now, not Iraq.

And a reasonable voter wouldn't turn a blind eye to Saddam's fascist mass-murder state.

the war wasn't sold to the american public based on this -- it was on WMDs and terror links. if it were, perhaps more liberals would have supported the war (as with Bosnia).

You're most welcome. Anyone who denies that there is a worldwide Caliphatist movement has their head up their fourth point of contact!
Yes kids, be aware; there is ALWAYS a global enemy... facism, communism, drugs, terrorism, hippies.... :rolleyes:

God help you if you think outside the box and don't toe the line.. because there might just possibly be another logical explanation.

When the Islamic fanatics make enough of a nuisence of themselves to really convince the majority of Americans that they can actually do what they are babbling about , they will be wiped off the face of the earth . So maybe its a good thing they are just reguarded as a minor irritant . Despite the attack on N.Y. it seems they are just not taken very seriously . Otherwise how can you explain their continued existence ? The American people are just not pissed off enough ...yet . ;)

When the Islamic fanatics make enough of a nuisence of themselves to really convince the majority of Americans that they can actually do what they are babbling about ....you mean like...nuke New York?

When the Islamic fanatics make enough of a nuisence of themselves to really convince the majority of Americans that they can actually do what they are babbling about , they will be wiped off the face of the earth . So maybe its a good thing they are just reguarded as a minor irritant . Despite the attack on N.Y. it seems they are just not taken very seriously . Otherwise how can you explain their continued existence ? The American people are just not pissed off enough ...yet . ;)
I saw on Discovery that statistically, a person is more likely to die via a meteor shower, than via a terrorist bomb....

I'm right. You're wrong. That's it! :( oh noes !!

:D :D :cool: :D

you mean like...nuke New York?

Can you explain why so many people do not seem to care too much about them ?

I saw on Discovery that statistically, a person is more likely to die via a meteor shower, than via a terrorist bomb....

There are many statistical truths that most people disregard.

You're more likely to be killed falling in the shower, or crashing in your car.

There are a lot of other risks that people are unwilling to accept despite the fact that the odds are very low.

Take the idea of living next to a nuclear reactor. The odds are extremely low that there will be an accident - but who wants to take the chance?

It's all a matter of what people think - not what the real odds are.

Now, let's see. I wonder who funded and armed Osama to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.

Yes kids, be aware; there is ALWAYS a global enemy... facism, communism, drugs, terrorism, hippies.... :rolleyes:

God help you if you think outside the box and don't toe the line.. because there might just possibly be another logical explanation.
Actually a Swedish intelligence analyst specializing in terrorism agrees that OBL and Al Quaeda are trying to create a global Islamic caliphate. Click on the following link and then click the link that says "Bush asserts at least 10 al quaeda attacks foiled". There's an interview with the Swede in that clip. Clearly he's not a mouthpiece for the Bush administration.

http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/10/20051006.shtml

Actually a Swedish intelligence analyst specializing in terrorism agrees that OBL and Al Quaeda are trying to create a global Islamic caliphate. Click on the following link and then click the link that says "Bush asserts at least 10 al quaeda attacks foiled". There's an interview with the Swede in that clip. Clearly he's not a mouthpiece for the Bush administration.

http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/10/20051006.shtml

You'll never get Ocean to believe that. He thinks that everyone in the world except al-Jazeera is a mouthpiece for Jews or mouthpiece for Bush.

You'll never get Ocean to believe that. He thinks that everyone in the world except al-Jazeera is a mouthpiece for Jews or mouthpiece for Bush.
Yeah, but maybe Psychotic Mongooses will listen with an open mind.

You'll never get Ocean to believe that.Maybe he wont...But...

last time you said:
"Ocean, lets face it - you won't be happy until the Devil rules the world, and all of us enslaved or slaughtered."

Well you "almost" got me to admit it...A-l-m-o-s-t ...sooo close. ...it was razor thin close. :cool:

I truly wish you better luck next time. :p

keep playing the Lets-face-it-Ocean-Lotto ...one of this Sundays you may get lucky..you never know. :D

Maybe he wont...But...

last time you said:
"Ocean, lets face it - you won't be happy until the Devil rules the world, and all of us enslaved or slaughtered."

Well you "almost" got me to admit it...A-l-m-o-s-t ...sooo close. ...it was razor thin close. :cool:

I truly wish you better luck next time. :p

keep playing the Lets-face-it-Ocean-Lotto ...one of this Sundays you may get lucky..you never know. :D

Note that I didn't say "the Devil". I said al-Qaeda. Big difference.

Note that I didn't say "the Devil". I said al-Qaeda. Big difference.noted.

Can you explain why so many people do not seem to care too much about them ?
Because they're nobody's problem outside of the middle east. If you weren't propping up Israel they wouldn't give a shit about you.
Of course, this is inviting some bizarre rant about a Caliphate empire, but that isn't a lot more likely than Fred Phelps turning the 'States into a theocracy at this point.

I support the effect, although I can't say that the effect was intentional.
So why did you support it in the first place?

The roach motel strategy is something you do when you make the mistake of thinking that Americans have a prolonged stomach for violence. They certainly have one for short term violence, but not for long term stuff.
Americans are too weak. Toughen up! If you can't take the heat, don't enter the kitchen!

It's much better to wage wars where you get to come home quickly, have a victory parade, and then the backlash becomes the problem of the next President.
I'm sure this is how the politicians love it, but you? Not me certainly. I would prefer to see wars which get the job done, even if it takes a long time. WW2 was a good example. What if the Allies had just beaten the Germans back to the borders of Germany?

Well, it was either that or say something that would get me deleated, so ... ( shrug ) sue me! :p
If you can't argue without flaming, don't argue at all.

In this case, I'm afraid you're dead wrong: supporting Israel is a red flag to every jihadist in the middle east. For fuck's sake, even most of the conservatives seem to agree with that. It may not be a legitimate greiviance in your book, but if Bush is incapable of grasping that they find it offensive (which appears to be what he's saying) then he isn't competent to do his job.
Israel must be supported no matter what. Everyone around them is so bigotted that if the support was withdrawn, they would be attacked without mercy until they were driven into the sea.

Now, the IDF has some human rights issues that should be sorted out. That might pacify the Islamists somewhat. There will also be many who will not be satisfied until Israel is destroyed; with them there can be no compromise.

Yes kids, be aware; there is ALWAYS a global enemy... facism, communism, drugs, terrorism, hippies.... :rolleyes:

God help you if you think outside the box and don't toe the line.. because there might just possibly be another logical explanation.
All evidence points to the existence of a global Islamist movement in some form or another. There have been many Islamist atacks in four continents, and jihadist cells are being routed out all over in Europe, America and beyond.

Can you explain why so many people do not seem to care too much about them ?
It's because America is not under constant attack from them.

Now, let's see. I wonder who funded and armed Osama to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.
So the US Government has no right to try to correct the mistakes of the past?

Because they're nobody's problem outside of the middle east. If you weren't propping up Israel they wouldn't give a shit about you.
Of course, this is inviting some bizarre rant about a Caliphate empire, but that isn't a lot more likely than Fred Phelps turning the 'States into a theocracy at this point.
Well firstly I don't think that the jihadists are in any position to yet start a Caliphate Empire. But if left alone, they probably will be eventually. All they need do is to take over a medium/large Islamic country (Indonesia's Muslim youth are becoming ever more conservative) and go from there.

Fred Phelps' rhetoric is identical to that of the jihadists, but all he does is talk. He uses no physical force to back up his insane beliefs.

Bizarre rant..lol..

Ever heard of Syed Qutb? Maududi? Shah Waliullah?

Or the Khilafah movement of the 1920s to restore the Ottoman caliphate?

A caliphate is not as farfetched as it sounds. There was a caliphate just a hundred years back.

Like the cliche goes..those who forget history...

Bizarre rant..lol..

Ever heard of Syed Qutb? Maududi? Shah Waliullah?
Yes. Fred Phelps probably gets taken more seriously, on balance.

Or the Khilafah movement of the 1920s to restore the Ottoman caliphate?
Didn't work, did it? Most of these countries despise each other, and Islam is inadequete to yoke the contrary little buggers back together.

A caliphate is not as farfetched as it sounds. There was a caliphate just a hundred years back.

Like the cliche goes..those who forget history...
A hundred years back you couldn't get an effective painkiller when you were having surgery. Things change. Inflexible ideologies are incapable of coming to terms with this. This is one reason why the Caliphatists are just a bunch of imbeciles pissing in the wind.

Didn't work, did it? Most of these countries despise each other, and Islam is inadequete to yoke the contrary little buggers back together.



<snipped original>

Correction. Most of those countries' governments hate each other. That's why Al Quaeda wants to attack the US. The US supports those governments with financial and military aid. Al Quaeda thinks that forcing the US to disengage from the region will make the governments of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others much weaker and subject to being overthrown by Islamist movements in their countries. Then Al Quaeda will be the defacto ruler of the region because they're the command and control as well as the logistics organization that connects all those islamist groups. OBL, as leader of Al Quaeda becomes the ruler of the region. The new caliph.

Well firstly I don't think that the jihadists are in any position to yet start a Caliphate Empire. But if left alone, they probably will be eventually. All they need do is to take over a medium/large Islamic country (Indonesia's Muslim youth are becoming ever more conservative) and go from there.

Fred Phelps' rhetoric is identical to that of the jihadists, but all he does is talk. He uses no physical force to back up his insane beliefs.
Phelp's is representative of the desires of all Christians to the same extent that these dickheads are representative of the desires of all Muslims. It's quite a precise analogy.

As I remember the sequence of events went like this:

1) Soviet Union occupies Afghanistan
2) US allies with Bin Laden against Soviets
3) Soviets defeated, USSR crumbles
4) Iraq occupies Kuwait
5) US and Al Quaeda both offer help to defend Saudi Arabia
6) Saudis choose US and tell AQ to shove off, Bin Laden gets pissed
7) Bin Laden declares holy war against US over troops in Mecca
8) US laughs and says "yeah you and what army"
9) 9/11

Actually a Swedish intelligence analyst specializing in terrorism agrees that OBL and Al Quaeda are trying to create a global Islamic caliphate. Click on the following link and then click the link that says "Bush asserts at least 10 al quaeda attacks foiled". There's an interview with the Swede in that clip. Clearly he's not a mouthpiece for the Bush administration.

http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/10/20051006.shtml

Very interesting link- and a reputable one too. Thanks. Having said that- experts always differ ;) Thats the point of different opinions :)
But again, they both use the term 'Al Qaeda attacks'- in my above theory, that is still plausible: the ideology used behind the actual people who carry out the attacks would be the Al Q ideology, the 'handbook' of "how to attack the West". You can be Al Q in the sense that you follow the tactics set out by this ideology. Different groups can plausibly use this ideology/tactics to carry out highprofile attacks against apostates and Westerners, while not necessarily following Bin Laden or his cronies themselves.

Again, its just a spin off of the theory that it's not a physical group but a term used to describe a way of attacking the West.

While, I am not suggesting the global 'Caliphate' idea doesn't actually exist in the minds of some fundamentalists and activists- it cannot be Islamic for as we have already seen- Shias are 'expendable' to Bin Laden. Therefore it would be proper to call it a 'Wahabist Caliphate', as it would clearly not be representative of the Islamic faith on the whole.
(Just my opinion)

Thanks again for that link :)

Very interesting link- and a reputable one too. Thanks. Having said that- experts always differ ;) Thats the point of different opinions :)
But again, they both use the term 'Al Qaeda attacks'- in my above theory, that is still plausible: the ideology used behind the actual people who carry out the attacks would be the Al Q ideology, the 'handbook' of "how to attack the West". You can be Al Q in the sense that you follow the tactics set out by this ideology. Different groups can plausibly use this ideology/tactics to carry out highprofile attacks against apostates and Westerners, while not necessarily following Bin Laden or his cronies themselves.

Again, its just a spin off of the theory that it's not a physical group but a term used to describe a way of attacking the West.

While, I am not suggesting the global 'Caliphate' idea doesn't actually exist in the minds of some fundamentalists and activists- it cannot be Islamic for as we have already seen- Shias are 'expendable' to Bin Laden. Therefore it would be proper to call it a 'Wahabist Caliphate', as it would clearly not be representative of the Islamic faith on the whole.
(Just my opinion)

Thanks again for that link :)
You're welcome.

Yes. Fred Phelps probably gets taken more seriously, on balance.


Who is he? I am serious. I hear the name often in this board, but I honestly have no idea who he is.

Is he like Pat Robertson or worse?

Didn't work, did it? Most of these countries despise each other, and Islam is inadequete to yoke the contrary little buggers back together.

Does not mean that there won't be a movement for the same.

Does not mean that they will die trying and kill me in that process.

I, for one, am very interested in preserving myself.



A hundred years back you couldn't get an effective painkiller when you were having surgery. Things change. Inflexible ideologies are incapable of coming to terms with this. This is one reason why the Caliphatists are just a bunch of imbeciles pissing in the wind.

Things change.

Islam does'nt.

The modern salafi movement is all about leading muslims out of this new jahilya.

Since you know about Maududi, Qutb and Waliullah, can you tell me what is their views on the above?

Who is he? I am serious. I hear the name often in this board, but I honestly have no idea who he is.

Is he like Pat Robertson or worse?



Does not mean that there won't be a movement for the same.

Does not mean that they will die trying and kill me in that process.

I, for one, am very interested in preserving myself.




Things change.

Islam does'nt.

The modern salafi movement is all about leading muslims out of this new jahilya.

Since you know about Maududi, Qutb and Waliullah, can you tell me what is their views on the above?
Phelps is worse. Here's his site. http://www.godhatesfags.com/

If you can't argue without flaming, don't argue at all.
Good advice! Unfortunately, I have no intention of taking it. :p

Originally Posted by Sierra BTHP
The roach motel strategy is something you do when you make the mistake of thinking that Americans have a prolonged stomach for violence. They certainly have one for short term violence, but not for long term stuff.

If you want to beat terrorism you better think long term .

As I remember the sequence of events went like this:

1) Soviet Union occupies Afghanistan
2) US allies with Bin Laden against Soviets
3) Soviets defeated, USSR crumbles
4) Iraq occupies Kuwait
5) US and Al Quaeda both offer help to defend Saudi Arabia
6) Saudis choose US and tell AQ to shove off, Bin Laden gets pissed
7) Bin Laden declares holy war against US over troops in Mecca
8) US laughs and says "yeah you and what army"
9) 9/11
1) Soviet Union occupies Afghanistan
2) US allies with Bin Laden against Soviets [ Bin Laden's group was a very small one out of many "Mujahdeen" the US supported ]
3) Soviets defeated, USSR crumbles
4) Iraq occupies Kuwait
5) US and Al Quaeda both offer help to defend Saudi Arabia
6) Saudis choose US and tell AQ to shove off, Bin Laden gets pissed [ Bin Laden has been in a continuous state of "pissed-offedness" for most of his adult life ]
7) Bin Laden declares holy war against US over troops in Mecca [ As best I can determine, there have never been US troops in Mecca. Saudi Arabia, yes, but not Mecca. ]
8) US laughs and says "yeah you and what army"
9) 9/11 [ 9/11 would have happened regardless ]

As I remember the sequence of events went like this:

1) Soviet Union occupies Afghanistan
2) US allies with Bin Laden against Soviets
3) Soviets defeated, USSR crumbles
4) Iraq occupies Kuwait
5) US and Al Quaeda both offer help to defend Saudi Arabia
6) Saudis choose US and tell AQ to shove off, Bin Laden gets pissed
7) Bin Laden declares holy war against US over troops in Mecca
8) US laughs and says "yeah you and what army"
9) 9/11

I've heard it went more like this:

1) U.S. trains the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
2) USSR invades Afghanistan.
3) Mujahadeen trains bin Laden. U.S. encourages Jihad against the Soviets.
4) Soviets defeated, USSR crumbles.
5) U.S. abandons Afghanistan, leaving country in ruins and ripe for the Taliban.
6) Iraq occupies Kuwait, somewhat bolstered by U.S. support of Iraq in the '80s.
7) U.S. and Al-Qaeda both offer to help defend Saudi Arabia.
8) Saudis choose US and tell AQ to shove off, Bin Laden gets pissed
9) U.S. tells Iraqis to unite against Saddam; that the U.S. will be overthrowing Saddam.
10) U.S. does nothing as Saddam's tanks roll over united Iraqi opposition.
11) Bin Laden is further pissed.
12) U.S. troops make permanent stay in Saudi Arabia.
13) Bin Laden is even more pissed, declares holy war against U.S. over Afghanistan, Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
14) US laughs and says "yeah you and what army"
15) 9/11

13) Bin Laden is even more pissed, declares holy war against U.S. over Afghanistan, Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, and U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
14) US laughs and says "yeah you and what army"
15) 9/11
From where I am standing...Looks like BinLadden got the last Laugh.

That's not entirely correct. No action by the US could be reasonably interpreted as provocation by Al Quaeda, but Al Quaeda isn't reasonable.

Al Quaeda is half crazy and half ruthless evil. They've got a plan to take over the Muslim world and from there spread their control to the rest of the world, and they're ruthless in pursuing that, but they're also batshit insane in that they think that attacking the US and spreading an ultra violent and repressive form of Islam is going to help accomplish their goal.

But it does. Our campaigns there have promoted a hard right-wing fundamentalist revival in the Middle East. When Clinton was in office it looked like Iran was finally going to make some Democratic reforms. Now they're as fundy as they were when Carter was in office.

The fundy militias are having no problem recruiting in the wake of our attacks either. Especially since our strategy in Iraq seems to make the unwarranted assumption that once you conquer a city it somehow stays conquered.

Just like the DEA farms drug dealing here by always leaving enough of it to get started again so there's more traffic to stop next year, our president is farming terrorism. But he's doing it the way that aborigonies do it. Burn the land, and then the new growth that you're looking for will grow much faster. That's why Cheney says that we'll be in this war for "possibly decades." Because as long as he and his ilk have control they'll make sure that there's always new terrorism.

To say that Georgies strategy is winning the war on terrorism is like saying that our farmers' strategy is winning the war on corn. We kill both of them by the ton, but there always seems to be more.

But it does. Our campaigns there have promoted a hard right-wing fundamentalist revival in the Middle East. When Clinton was in office it looked like Iran was finally going to make some Democratic reforms. Now they're as fundy as they were when Carter was in office.

The fundy militias are having no problem recruiting in the wake of our attacks either. Especially since our strategy in Iraq seems to make the unwarranted assumption that once you conquer a city it somehow stays conquered.

Just like the DEA farms drug dealing here by always leaving enough of it to get started again so there's more traffic to stop next year, our president is farming terrorism. But he's doing it the way that aborigonies do it. Burn the land, and then the new growth that you're looking for will grow much faster. That's why Cheney says that we'll be in this war for "possibly decades." Because as long as he and his ilk have control they'll make sure that there's always new terrorism.

To say that Georgies strategy is winning the war on terrorism is like saying that our farmers' strategy is winning the war on corn. We kill both of them by the ton, but there always seems to be more.


At this point, it doesn't matter if we provoke al-Qaeda anymore. Their long term plan is to kill us. No matter how long it takes.

Zawahiri is the philosophical leader of al-Qaeda. It pays to listen to what he's saying, because he's the man with the plan.

They won't stop just because they win in Iraq. They won't stop there - they're going to kill off the Shias next. Inevitably, as Zawahiri says.

And they're going to take over the world. Eventually - that's their plan.

So it doesn't do you a flying damn how much you appease them.

U.S. Obtains Treatise By Bin Laden Deputy
Zawahiri Envisions Jihad on New Fronts

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; Page A20

The United States has obtained a letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the leader of Iraq's insurgency that outlines a long-term strategic vision for a global jihad, with the next phase of the war to be taken into Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, according to U.S. officials.

But the letter, described by one senior administration official as a "treatise" from Ayman Zawahiri, also warns Abu Musab Zarqawi against alienating the Islamic world, and virtually reprimands the Iraqi branch of al Qaeda for beheading hostages and then distributing videotapes, officials said.

Zawahiri also requests financial support from his ally in Iraq and then asks for more information about the insurgency there -- so al Qaeda is as informed as the United States about the activities, the officials said.

The senior administration official said the 13-page document is dated in early July and provides a "comprehensive look at al Qaeda's strategy in Iraq and beyond" with "chilling clarity."

U.S. officials said the letter was captured during counterterrorism operations in Iraq, but they were unwilling to specify how or when, and would provide only two quotes from it. The senior official said it has been authenticated "based on multiple sources over an extended period of time." They released information about the letter to four news organizations -- saying word of its existence had started leaking out to reporters -- on the same day that President Bush delivered a speech about the war on terrorism.

The letter of instructions and requests outlines a four-stage plan, according to officials: First, expel American forces from Iraq. Second, establish a caliphate over as much of Iraq as possible. Third, extend the jihad to neighboring countries, with specific reference to Egypt and the Levant -- a term that describes Syria and Lebanon. And finally, war against Israel.

U.S. officials say they were struck by the letter's emphasis on the centrality of Iraq to al Qaeda's long-term mission. One of the two excerpts provided by officials quotes Zawahiri, a former doctor from Egypt, telling his Jordanian-born ally, "I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

But bin Laden's deputy also purportedly makes clear that the war would not end with an American withdrawal and that anything other than religious rule in Iraq would be dangerous.

"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us," the letter reportedly says.

In one indication of tensions between the al Qaeda leadership and its Iraqi division, U.S. officials said, Zawahiri writes about the need to maintain popular support. He is critical of Shiite Muslims and says a clash between the Sunni-dominated movement and the Shiite sect is inevitable, officials said, but he rebukes the leader of Iraq's insurgency for its brutal tactics -- noting that hostages can just as effectively be killed with bullets rather than by beheading, officials said.

The letter may indicate al Qaeda's recognition of Muslim public opinion, said one Middle East scholar.

"If the letter's true, it's new because they haven't shown any particular avoidance of certain ruthless tactics. It says to me they are concerned about the way they are being perceived in the Muslim world," said Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution and the University of Maryland.

"The vast majority of people in the Arab world sympathize with al Qaeda only because it champions their issues and speaks their language and it's seemingly effective against their enemies. But most would not want al Qaeda to be the rulers. They would be repulsed to have someone like Zarqawi, who is beheading people, to head their government," he said.

Zarqawi appears not to have heeded the message, because insurgents have continued the beheadings, including two this week.

Bin Laden's deputy has spoken before about the broad plans for the al Qaeda movement. In a book smuggled out of Afghanistan in December 2001, Zawahiri said the goal of jihad is to establish a religious state throughout the Islamic world and "reinstate its fallen caliphate and regain its lost glory."

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

More from that letter by Zawahiri, the philosophical leader of al-Qaeda. By the way, Zawahiri admits that al-Qaeda is severely disrupted.

End beheadings – shoot hostages, orders al-Qaeda
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

AL-QAEDA has abandoned hope of defeating the US-backed Government in Afghanistan and instead is concentrating on driving American forces from Iraq, even if that means ditching its brutal methods.

According to the Pentagon, the strategy is set out in a 6,000-word letter sent by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, in July.

Al-Zawahiri warns al-Zarqawi that his brutal tactics, which include beheading Western hostages, killing hundreds of Shia Muslim civilians and murdering Iraqi officials, could alienate Muslim public opinion. He allegedly recommends shooting, not decapitating, prisoners.

The letter, which the US military claims was intercepted in Iraq, makes clear that al-Qaeda aims to spread jihad to other Arab states and Israel.

Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor, is al-Qaeda’s ideological head and responsible for its day-to-day operations. In August he claimed responsibility for the July 7 bombings. His letter offers al-Zarqawi advice on tactics and a grand vision for the next stage in the jihad against the West and its Middle Eastern allies.

He predicts victory in Iraq — which he calls the site of “the greatest battle of Islam in this era” — but insists that it is only the first stage of a campaign across the Arab world. He sets out how an Islamic Caliphate must be established in Iraq and then the war taken to neighbouring Syria, from there to Lebanon, then Egypt and finally a battle to destroy Israel.

He considers a clash between Sunni and Shia Islam inevitable but questions the wisdom of bombing Shia targets and reminds al-Zarqawi that half of the battle against America is being fought through the media.

However, beheadings and suicide bomb attacks against Shia targets have continued unabated. This could indicate that al-Qaeda lacks control over al-Zarqawi. Although respected among Islamic militants, al- Zawahiri is a fugitive living on the Afghan-Pakistani border, while bin Laden has not been heard of for nearly a year.

Al-Zawahiri admits that al-Qaeda’s lines of communication and funding have been severly disrupted.

But it does. Our campaigns there have promoted a hard right-wing fundamentalist revival in the Middle East. When Clinton was in office it looked like Iran was finally going to make some Democratic reforms. Now they're as fundy as they were when Carter was in office.

The fundy militias are having no problem recruiting in the wake of our attacks either. Especially since our strategy in Iraq seems to make the unwarranted assumption that once you conquer a city it somehow stays conquered.

Just like the DEA farms drug dealing here by always leaving enough of it to get started again so there's more traffic to stop next year, our president is farming terrorism. But he's doing it the way that aborigonies do it. Burn the land, and then the new growth that you're looking for will grow much faster. That's why Cheney says that we'll be in this war for "possibly decades." Because as long as he and his ilk have control they'll make sure that there's always new terrorism.

To say that Georgies strategy is winning the war on terrorism is like saying that our farmers' strategy is winning the war on corn. We kill both of them by the ton, but there always seems to be more.

Wrong , the success of Al Queda and the September 11 , attacks have prompted a revival of a movement that has existed for hundreds of years .
The war in iraq and Afghanistan has helped focus their attention . The existense of Israel had been the primary focus before the recent Iraq situation . Now by their OWN WORDS the greatest threat they face is democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan . They are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the region and can only succeed if conditions are worsened or the region is chaotic. Their strategy is to be the strongest of the fractions and survive and unite after the others weaken or destroy each other to rule . Old Arab and world history . Democracy in the region destroys their ambitions .
Hence they must resist it and destroy it . Iran is Shiite they have their own ambitions in the region and their own history of empire . Getting the United States out of the region is to their benifit in a multitude of ways . They are now , without the US involved the strongest and most influentual power in the region . Wake up and crack a book or something . :D
The Arabs and others in the region are tired of getting their ass's kicked , what did you expect ? They did at one time have great empires ...did you think they just forgot and gave up ? ;)

More from that letter by Zawahiri, the philosophical leader of al-Qaeda. By the way, Zawahiri admits that al-Qaeda is severely disrupted.

End beheadings – shoot hostages, orders al-Qaeda
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

AL-QAEDA has abandoned hope of defeating the US-backed Government in Afghanistan and instead is concentrating on driving American forces from Iraq, even if that means ditching its brutal methods.

According to the Pentagon, the strategy is set out in a 6,000-word letter sent by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, in July.

Al-Zawahiri warns al-Zarqawi that his brutal tactics, which include beheading Western hostages, killing hundreds of Shia Muslim civilians and murdering Iraqi officials, could alienate Muslim public opinion. He allegedly recommends shooting, not decapitating, prisoners.

The letter, which the US military claims was intercepted in Iraq, makes clear that al-Qaeda aims to spread jihad to other Arab states and Israel.

Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor, is al-Qaeda’s ideological head and responsible for its day-to-day operations. In August he claimed responsibility for the July 7 bombings. His letter offers al-Zarqawi advice on tactics and a grand vision for the next stage in the jihad against the West and its Middle Eastern allies.

He predicts victory in Iraq — which he calls the site of “the greatest battle of Islam in this era” — but insists that it is only the first stage of a campaign across the Arab world. He sets out how an Islamic Caliphate must be established in Iraq and then the war taken to neighbouring Syria, from there to Lebanon, then Egypt and finally a battle to destroy Israel.

He considers a clash between Sunni and Shia Islam inevitable but questions the wisdom of bombing Shia targets and reminds al-Zarqawi that half of the battle against America is being fought through the media.

However, beheadings and suicide bomb attacks against Shia targets have continued unabated. This could indicate that al-Qaeda lacks control over al-Zarqawi. Although respected among Islamic militants, al- Zawahiri is a fugitive living on the Afghan-Pakistani border, while bin Laden has not been heard of for nearly a year.

Al-Zawahiri admits that al-Qaeda’s lines of communication and funding have been severly disrupted.

This stuff cracks me up...you can post their own words until computers run out of ink..and you will still have those that refuse to believe it. They cant get it through their thick skulls that these people do not think like them . :D

Next you will be accused of spamming or making long ass post . :p

Facts need not apply .

Wrong , the success of Al Queda and the September 11 , attacks have prompted a revival of a movement that has existed for hundreds of years .


I'd have to disagree with that bit.

Bin Laden was getting nowhere by attacking soft targets. Embassies abroad, ships far away etc - in fairness, the general US public didn't really care, it was the other side of the world and it was mainly blacks that died in the embassies anyway (non-US citizens i mean :p ). Bin Laden was just another outsider with money to burn and a chip the size of the grand canyon on his shoulder.

He was getting nowhere attacking apostate states- he needed to garner support by 'uniting' Muslims against a common enemy.... which he saw as the US.

Now, what he needed was for the US to react REALLY strongly- like a wounded elephant- and thrash about enough so he could say "Hey, look. See, they ARE after you- now I'M your only saviour. Come to me..."

And the US/Britain walked straight into his trap... setting up what we have now.

Now, i don't blame the US for what it did- i'm just saying it was a perfectly executed trap to gain support for himself.

This stuff cracks me up...you can post their own words until computers run out of ink..and you will still have those that refuse to believe it. They cant get it through their thick skulls that these people do not think like them . :D


Refuse to believe what? I believe that they believe a Caliphate is possible... i just don't believe that the VAST majority of Muslims do.

Again, even in theory- it wouldn't be a Muslim Caliphate- it would be representative of a section of Islam- the 'destruction' of the Shia's shows that it is not representative of the whole faith.

A shaky theory- and a theory that can never be realised (nothing to do with the War on Terror mind, its just physically impossible in the modern world of nationalism and historical grievances for something as remote as that pipe dream to come to fruition) Heck, even Nasser couldn't do it with two countries- never mind a swathe of the world :p

I'd have to disagree with that bit.

Bin Laden was getting nowhere by attacking soft targets. Embassies abroad, ships far away etc - in fairness, the general US public didn't really care, it was the other side of the world and it was mainly blacks that died in the embassies anyway (non-US citizens i mean :p ). Bin Laden was just another outsider with money to burn and a chip the size of the grand canyon on his shoulder.

He was getting nowhere attacking apostate states- he needed to garner support by 'uniting' Muslims against a common enemy.... which he saw as the US.

Now, what he needed was for the US to react REALLY strongly- like a wounded elephant- and thrash about enough so he could say "Hey, look. See, they ARE after you- now I'M your only saviour. Come to me..."

And the US/Britain walked straight into his trap... setting up what we have now.

Now, i don't blame the US for what it did- i'm just saying it was a perfectly executed trap to gain support for himself.

Without a doubt he feels that by getting the United States to attack a muslim country he is furthering his aims . He and others like him have always used that tactic to their advantage . Its a staple of warfare throughout the history of the region . again my point is western thinking will not help you understand his very rational plan . And he was getting somewere by continuing his war with success after success with very few losses against the most powerfull nation in the world . He became great by defeating a great oponent. In his mind and the minds of the region he hopes to win support from . we might think his actions puny ...but to the people that count his actions are HUGE .