In America

[LeazesMag 0]

1. You can assume every one of my posts comes with the understanding that Al Qaeda are a bunch of murdering fucks who's actions I abhor and oppose with every fibre of my being.

 

 

2. I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

1. Very good.

 

2. Right. We're in agreement then that some form of action against al quaeda/Islamic terrorism was a necessity post 9/11. Getting certain Islamic countries that harbour/export terrorism to cooperate via talks I believe would be a very unrealistic proposition for various reasons. For one thing the worldwide sympathy you talk of doesn't exist as China and Russia do not view this issue in the same light as the U.S. and Britain. Secondly the talks didn't work with Middle Eastern players (Iraq) and still don't (Iran). You joke that you wouldn't get a second term but that is a point worth taking up as anyone who adopted these policies wouldn't gain a second term. It's just not a realistic proposal unless we live in an alternate universe.

 

With the Taliban occupying significant territory and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan I don't see how the NATO mission in Afghanistan could have been realistically avoided. I'll assume you are ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan prior to 2001, because if you have knowledge of it and advocated leaving it in that state then you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also. Any 'manhunt' of Al Quaeda would have lead there anyway, and with the hopelessly fragile and corrupt government in place and in the midst of a civil war, any diplomacy would have been an exercise in futility; the UF needed military support urgently. I would like to hear your arguments that non-intervention in Afghanistan would be a good strategy for the region/world. Given your statement 1. quoted there, your opposition to intervention in Afghanistan seems illogical at best.

 

I'd make the Point Paddock Lad already has and add that there's currently a policy in place of hunting and killing suspects (even US citizens) in any country, whether diplomatic ties exist or not.

 

The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities.

More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks.

 

I'd also say you're a bit of a condescending bell-end but you must know that already.

 

see my previous post.

[Happy Face 29]

The first sentence was a response to you. The rest was a more general point about what recently caused mass protests in the US compared to what caused todays protests in Afghanistan. People were claiming Muslims are far more keen to kick off, but I'd say less offence has been caused to christians from these two events.

 

Building a mosque 4 blocks from the WTC is not an incitement for terrorists....refusing permission and displaying religious discrimination is though. Burning korans is. Think I already posted this today...

 

Terry Jones, the Dove pastor, appears to want to prove Muslims are intolerant by provoking them to attack ‘Christians’ over the burning of their scripture. I.e., he thinks just like al-Qaeda, which wanted to provoke Christians to attack Muslims so as to demonstrate Christian imperialism. If what you want to do is spread hate and produce dead

 

As I stated in the first post you responded to, Christianity doesn't have an active sect whose aim and primary activity is to destroy western civilization. That's what separates Islam and those swathes of protesters from their Christian counterparts in the West.

 

As we covered in the Islamophobia thread I believe your citations of 'mass protests' regarding the debacle in New York is an exaggeration, but let's not get into that issue again, it was convoluted enough in that thread, we can agree to disagree.

 

In terms of comparing the levels of offence toward Christians/Muslims, I think this is getting a little into silly territory and is also irrelevant because we are ultimately dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism, as Christianity does not have a radicalized element which is actively seeking to murder Western society. You cite Terry Jone's proposed stunt as a reason behind Islamic terrorism. I can't help but feel that Osama Bin Laden's recruiting and radicalizing of young men into his cult of death is more relevant to creating terrorists than an American pastor engaging in crass and offensive (but well publicized) behaviour.

 

Finally your referral to the 'GZM debate' leads us back to my unanswered query: what do you feel would have been an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11?

 

 

You're making the same point I made with my 2 posts in the other thread. I've been very consistent about saying this pastor bell-end is a nobody whose stunt itself has no potency whatsoever, the coverage of this incident both increases his profile and ignore's the blame which should be placed with those with actual power. The media that should go after people with actual power this strongly are subservient to the White House and would never question their actions so strongly. As a fuckwit no-one gives a shit about, they can go after this dude without any worry of pissing anyone off or losing their job.

 

I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

see HF, when I see you and others stating things like this, you will then be the first person to squeal about their "rights" and "innocent until proved guilty" etc etc......fact is if you set up intelligence of individuals like this , it invariably "abuses their rights" as you would call it.

 

You can't seperate the two, they come hand in hand. You either accept it or reject it.

 

Where have I suggested their rights should be infringed?

 

The Uk dealt with years of terrorism by hunting the perpetrators, imprisoning them when found guilty, compensating them when the courts fucked up and generally trying to maintain the system of justice in place.

[Happy Face 29]

1. You can assume every one of my posts comes with the understanding that Al Qaeda are a bunch of murdering fucks who's actions I abhor and oppose with every fibre of my being.

 

 

2. I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

1. Very good.

 

2. Right. We're in agreement then that some form of action against al quaeda/Islamic terrorism was a necessity post 9/11. Getting certain Islamic countries that harbour/export terrorism to cooperate via talks I believe would be a very unrealistic proposition for various reasons. For one thing the worldwide sympathy you talk of doesn't exist as China and Russia do not view this issue in the same light as the U.S. and Britain. Secondly the talks didn't work with Middle Eastern players (Iraq) and still don't (Iran). You joke that you wouldn't get a second term but that is a point worth taking up as anyone who adopted these policies wouldn't gain a second term. It's just not a realistic proposal unless we live in an alternate universe.

 

With the Taliban occupying significant territory and harbouring Al Quaeda operatives in Afghanistan I don't see how the NATO mission in Afghanistan could have been realistically avoided. I'll assume you are ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan prior to 2001, because if you have knowledge of it and advocated leaving it in that state then you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also. Any 'manhunt' of Al Quaeda would have lead there anyway, and with the hopelessly fragile and corrupt government in place and in the midst of a civil war, any diplomacy would have been an exercise in futility; the UF needed military support urgently. I would like to hear your arguments that non-intervention in Afghanistan would be a good strategy for the region/world. Given your statement 1. quoted there, your opposition to intervention in Afghanistan seems illogical at best.

 

I'd make the Point Paddock Lad already has and add that there's currently a policy in place of hunting and killing suspects (even US citizens) in any country, whether diplomatic ties exist or not.

 

The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities.

More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks.

 

I'd also say you're a bit of a condescending bell-end but you must know that already.

 

see my previous post.

 

See my previous post.

[LeazesMag 0]

The first sentence was a response to you. The rest was a more general point about what recently caused mass protests in the US compared to what caused todays protests in Afghanistan. People were claiming Muslims are far more keen to kick off, but I'd say less offence has been caused to christians from these two events.

 

Building a mosque 4 blocks from the WTC is not an incitement for terrorists....refusing permission and displaying religious discrimination is though. Burning korans is. Think I already posted this today...

 

Terry Jones, the Dove pastor, appears to want to prove Muslims are intolerant by provoking them to attack ‘Christians’ over the burning of their scripture. I.e., he thinks just like al-Qaeda, which wanted to provoke Christians to attack Muslims so as to demonstrate Christian imperialism. If what you want to do is spread hate and produce dead

 

As I stated in the first post you responded to, Christianity doesn't have an active sect whose aim and primary activity is to destroy western civilization. That's what separates Islam and those swathes of protesters from their Christian counterparts in the West.

 

As we covered in the Islamophobia thread I believe your citations of 'mass protests' regarding the debacle in New York is an exaggeration, but let's not get into that issue again, it was convoluted enough in that thread, we can agree to disagree.

 

In terms of comparing the levels of offence toward Christians/Muslims, I think this is getting a little into silly territory and is also irrelevant because we are ultimately dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism, as Christianity does not have a radicalized element which is actively seeking to murder Western society. You cite Terry Jone's proposed stunt as a reason behind Islamic terrorism. I can't help but feel that Osama Bin Laden's recruiting and radicalizing of young men into his cult of death is more relevant to creating terrorists than an American pastor engaging in crass and offensive (but well publicized) behaviour.

 

Finally your referral to the 'GZM debate' leads us back to my unanswered query: what do you feel would have been an appropriate response to the threat of radical Islamism post 9/11?

 

 

You're making the same point I made with my 2 posts in the other thread. I've been very consistent about saying this pastor bell-end is a nobody whose stunt itself has no potency whatsoever, the coverage of this incident both increases his profile and ignore's the blame which should be placed with those with actual power. The media that should go after people with actual power this strongly are subservient to the White House and would never question their actions so strongly. As a fuckwit no-one gives a shit about, they can go after this dude without any worry of pissing anyone off or losing their job.

 

I would not have mounted a military invasion and occupation of 2 countries after 9/11. It would have been an intelligence led manhunt of al qaeda operatives, at the same time using the worldwide sympathy to put huge pressure on the middle eastern players to get talks to work.....and I would not have got a second term

 

see HF, when I see you and others stating things like this, you will then be the first person to squeal about their "rights" and "innocent until proved guilty" etc etc......fact is if you set up intelligence of individuals like this , it invariably "abuses their rights" as you would call it.

 

You can't seperate the two, they come hand in hand. You either accept it or reject it.

 

Where have I suggested their rights should be infringed?

 

The Uk dealt with years of terrorism by hunting the perpetrators, imprisoning them when found guilty, compensating them when the courts fucked up and generally trying to maintain the system of justice in place.

 

a certan Brazilian springs to mind here .......

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Afghanistan was the key area with regards to destabilizing the Mid-East region and protecting Al Quaeda due to the large Taliban control and the border with Pakistan/Iran. There is no comparison with Saudi Arabia in terms of instability of the two countries at that time, to suggest so is churlish and a silly comment really based solely upon the nationality of those flying the 9/11 planes.

 

Neither of you have offered up any arguments that non-intervention in the Afghan civil war would be a positive strategy.

 

I will cite again the last throes of the Afghan resistance to the Taliban before intervention.

 

"After several raids by the Taliban to northern Afghanistan, the Alliance was extremely weak and on its way to extinction. On September 9 2001, 2 individuals disguised as reporters exploded a bomb hidden in a camera that killed the Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood. This marked the death of the Northern Alliance as a Force in Afghanistan until October when the United States revived the Alliance to be used as a Ground Force from the North for their fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

 

With you two in charge Afghanistan would be controlled almost entirely by the Taliban with Bin Laden operating as a major player.

 

"From 1996 to 2001 Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri became a virtual state within the Taliban state. Bin Laden sent Arab fighters to join the fight against the United Front, especially his so-called Brigade 055.[11][15] Arab militants under Bin Laden were responsible for some of the worst massacres in the war, killing hundreds of civilians in areas controlled by the United Front.[16] Fighters of Brigade 055 were also known for committing collective suicide before running risk of being taken prisoners by enemy forces.[17]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_...E2%80%932001%29

 

 

Yet you still suggest that a 'manhunt' alone would suffice in culling the threat of radical Islamists, despite the fact that your proposal of non-intervention would lead to a Taliban-controlled nation working in cooperation with Al Quaeda on the border of Pakistan which also has a large Taliban contingent. That is just the start of it.

 

You're living in hippy dream land if you think we could have avoided the NATO mission

Edited September 10, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[PaddockLad 14626]

You've missed the point Mr Kunt.....If the US had been doing their job properly theyd have gone into Afghanistan in the 90s when the world and his wife knew they were hosting Al Qaeada who were in turn attacking the World Trade Centre in 93 and US Emabssies in Africa. The threat was real and they ignored it. You getting all gobby about the US shutting the door after the horse has bolted is a bit rich really.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

No gobbiness here, merely asking HF et al to state their cases for non-intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 - since that is what he is advocating, and it seems you were too - bearing in mind the recent history and current state of the country/region at that time. The fact that the US hadn't gone in in the period you refer to is irrelevant and has no bearing on my points. I said it would have been wise to intervene earlier.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

Afghanistan was the key area with regards to destabilizing the Mid-East region and protecting Al Quaeda due to the large Taliban control and the border with Pakistan/Iran. There is no comparison with Saudi Arabia in terms of instability of the two countries at that time, to suggest so is churlish and a silly comment really based solely upon the nationality of those flying the 9/11 planes.

 

Neither of you have offered up any arguments that non-intervention in the Afghan civil war would be a positive strategy.

 

What positives are you taking from the strategy of intervention? My positives from non-intervention would have been saving a trillion dollars and a million lives over the two wars. So intervention must have produced some glowing positives to justify that loss. I'd remind you the taliban and Osama are still going. Taliban leader Mullah Omar said on Wednesday victory is in sight.

 

Yet you still suggest that a 'manhunt' alone would suffice in culling the threat of radical Islamists, despite the fact that your proposal of non-intervention would lead to a Taliban-controlled nation working in cooperation with Al Quaeda on the border of Pakistan which also has a large Taliban contingent. That is just the start of it.

 

You're living in hippy dream land if you think we could have avoided the NATO mission

 

What's your definition of culling? I never said it would be eradicated, I believe it would be far less though. Suicide attacks have increased exponentially since 2001, how can you claim intervention worked?

Edited September 10, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

I'll assume you are ignorant

...

you are guilty not only of moral cowardice but gross stupidity also.

 

 

No gobbiness here

 

How conceited do you become when you get gobby then?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I wasn't referring at any point to the success of the intervention in Afghanistan, rather that in 2001 I believe it was a necessity. It is abundantly clear that Non-intervention would have lead to the complete takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in cooperation with Al Quaeda forces. From there we can only speculate as to what would have happened in regards to Pakistan, but none of the outcomes are good. The worst outcome would be the Taliban/Al Quaeda forces gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. If you care to refute the fact that the Taliban were on the verge of an almost complete takeover of Afghanistan by 2001 please do so, all the evidence I have seen on the matter points overwhelmingly to that being the case.

 

You remind me that the Taliban are still going, but their strength has been depleted significantly since 2001 in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. You mention Mullah Omar referring to impending victory; Mullah Omar was Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan from 1996-2001, guess what: he's not anymore. Afghanistan now has a chance of a government, obviously the problems and corruption regarding Karzai's government are well documented, I would say it is a progression from Taliban rule. If you disagree please state your case for giving the Taliban another chance at governing the country.

 

Suicide attacks have predictably increased since 2001 when the Taliban/Al Quaeda forces controlled the majority of Afghanistan. They generally target their enemy rather than each other, in this case their enemy being the NATO forces, newly established government, civilians, etc. As has been well documented this is the way the insurgents fight with IEDs and suicide bombings, in the case of Iraq the Iranian backed insurgents have stirred up sectarian violence by targeting mosques and so on. As a new society is being built in Afghanistan post Taliban rule it is obvious this will be targeted and exploited by them.

 

You seem to have completely ignored the implications of non-intervention and continue in your ridiculous belief that 'everything would have been fine and we'd have saved money and no one would have died!!' I would ask you to please consider what I mention in the first paragraph. I think it was a necessity to stop the Taliban gaining complete control of Afghanistan, and this was made possible through the NATO intervention. In that sense it worked.

 

The vast problems of the conflict have been well documented but that is a separate issue as the primary objective was achieved ie preventing Taliban rule. In that sense it worked. If you want to claim that the Taliban is stronger now than in the period 1996-2001 before the conflict, then please provide your evidence.

 

As for Iraq, separate issue. We will probably find more to agree on on that one. Also I noticed I used the phrase 'well documented ' a lot there, sorry about that.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

religion. lol

[Happy Face 29]

I wasn't referring at any point to the success of the intervention in Afghanistan, rather that in 2001 I believe it was a necessity. It is abundantly clear that Non-intervention would have lead to the complete takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in cooperation with Al Quaeda forces. From there we can only speculate as to what would have happened in regards to Pakistan, but none of the outcomes are good. The worst outcome would be the Taliban/Al Quaeda forces gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. If you care to refute the fact that the Taliban were on the verge of an almost complete takeover of Afghanistan by 2001 please do so, all the evidence I have seen on the matter points overwhelmingly to that being the case.

 

You remind me that the Taliban are still going, but their strength has been depleted significantly since 2001 in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. You mention Mullah Omar referring to impending victory; Mullah Omar was Head of the Supreme Council of Afghanistan from 1996-2001, guess what: he's not anymore. Afghanistan now has a chance of a government, obviously the problems and corruption regarding Karzai's government are well documented, I would say it is a progression from Taliban rule. If you disagree please state your case for giving the Taliban another chance at governing the country.

 

Suicide attacks have predictably increased since 2001 when the Taliban/Al Quaeda forces controlled the majority of Afghanistan. They generally target their enemy rather than each other, in this case their enemy being the NATO forces, newly established government, civilians, etc. As has been well documented this is the way the insurgents fight with IEDs and suicide bombings, in the case of Iraq the Iranian backed insurgents have stirred up sectarian violence by targeting mosques and so on. As a new society is being built in Afghanistan post Taliban rule it is obvious this will be targeted and exploited by them.

 

You seem to have completely ignored the implications of non-intervention and continue in your ridiculous belief that 'everything would have been fine and we'd have saved money and no one would have died!!' I would ask you to please consider what I mention in the first paragraph. I think it was a necessity to stop the Taliban gaining complete control of Afghanistan, and this was made possible through the NATO intervention. In that sense it worked.

 

The vast problems of the conflict have been well documented but that is a separate issue as the primary objective was achieved ie preventing Taliban rule. In that sense it worked. If you want to claim that the Taliban is stronger now than in the period 1996-2001 before the conflict, then please provide your evidence.

 

As for Iraq, separate issue. We will probably find more to agree on on that one. Also I noticed I used the phrase 'well documented ' a lot there, sorry about that.

 

Good to read a post like that, almost manages not to be patronising...almost.

 

I read a lot of Juan Cole and often post his thoughts (even in this very thread). He's the best writer on the middle east I've found, and he endorses your view entirely....

 

"Cole calls the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan "the right war at the right time," and credits it with breaking up a network of al-Qaeda training camps which posed a danger to the U.S. Cole later criticized Bush for leaving the job half finished in Afghanistan to go off and fight in Iraq."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole#Afghanistan

 

I think you can tell by the fact you had to ask the question 4 times that it's something I realise I'm not on the same page as all the best thinkers about. The wink about a second term should also display that I'm aware that not taking decisive action would have been dangerous and lily livered. But I'm being honest about it. I'm saying I personally could not decide to invade any country pre-emptively....nor would I run for president though.

 

"we can only speculate as to what would have happened in regards to Pakistan" - exactly, the existential debate as to what a tree-hugging divvy from South Shields would have done therefore seems moot. Even if the attack was justified at the time, it quickly went down the wrong path.

 

I don't see why my thoughts on Park 51 would necessarily lead you to pick this particular scab.

[Happy Face 29]

Speaking of Juan Cole, another excellent article on the anniversary of 9/11....

 

Top Ways 9/11 Broke Islamic Law

 

On the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, it is clear that al-Qaeda was a tiny fringe terrorist movement, not a globe-straddling threat to Western societies. The organization has been decisively disrupted and now lacks command and control. Its leader, Usama Bin Laden, has not been seen in a video since 2004, and is either dead or horribly disfigured. Its number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is dangerous only in the way that any other terrorist crank is, firing off crackpot messages to his dwindling band of followers from time to time. With the startling rise of anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States, fanned in large part by Republican Party fear mongering, it is worthwhile underlining the ways in which September 11 contravened Islamic values and Islamic law. (For a modernist, liberal interpretation, see this pdf file, “Jihad and the Islamic Law of War.”

 

1. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

 

2. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

 

3. In Islamic war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state.

 

4. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

 

5. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice. Sneak attacks are forbidden.

 

The World Trade Center had a mosque in it, which Bin Laden destroyed, and he killed dozens of innocent Muslims in the attack along with thousands of others. All of this is an abomination in Islamic law.

 

By the laws of classical Islam and the instructions of the Quran, then, the September 11 act of terrorism was illegal. It is not an affirmation of Islam but a departure from its laws of war. That is why, contrary to popular belief, Muslim authorities have roundly condemned al-Qaeda’s actions in no uncertain terms. See also the Amman statement, to which large numbers of prominent Sunni and Shiite leaders subscribed.

 

Al-Qaeda can legitimately be seen as not a Muslim group at all. Usama Bin Laden openly said of the hijackers that ‘those young men had no fiqh [islamic law]‘– i.e. they were lawless secret operatives rather than proper Muslims. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad when in the Philippines lived like James Bond, going to nightclubs with a pure silver cigarette lighter. Several of the hijackers frequented strip clubs. Ziad Jarrah was from a secular family and had a Turkish live-in girlfriend. Many of these operatives simply were not fundamentalists but rather an odd sort of Muslim nationalist. Bin Laden did not target the US because of its way of life, but because he said it imposed a boycott on Iraq in the 1990s that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, because it encouraged the Saudi regime to pump more oil than it should so as to keep the price low, because it stationed troops in the kingdom. Even if Bin Laden hadn’t been a crackpot with conspiracy theories, these points are not civilizational or religious issues. They are just politics.

 

Bin Laden wanted a big fight between the Muslim world and the United States. He wanted the US mired in Afghanistan. He is a nobody, leading a tiny group of cells now mostly disrupted. But the US has sunk itself into a quagmire of wars in a vast over-reaction to a terrorist attack. Without the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, al-Qaeda might well have just disappeared even further into insignificance than it did. And now, instigated by the Republican Party, US society is moving toward an Islamophobia that could well set it at odds with 1.5 billion Muslims.

 

Bin Laden is not a proper Muslim, and his actions contravened Islamic law. He is a Jim Jones-type cultist with a fringe, violent People’s Temple. Americans need to stop blaming Islam, and to recognize that most Muslims in the world are their friends, and that American Muslims are patriots and contributors to our well-being.

 

Every time Americans tear down Islam, Bin Laden gets a little bit of what he wanted.

 

http://www.juancole.com/2010/09/top-ways-9...slamic-law.html

[AgentAxeman 82]

I've just finished downloading the Koran. Would anyone like me to burn them a copy?

 

[Guest alex]

I've just finished downloading the Koran. Would anyone like me to burn them a copy?

 

[LeazesMag 0]

I've just finished downloading the Koran. Would anyone like me to burn them a copy?

 

 

naughty

[Park Life 70]

The Taliban WAS a creation of the CIA to fight the Russians, from that point on and along with channelling millions of dollars through the PIA (Pakistani intelligence), the outcome was going to be bad, it just took a little longer to find out. The problems in Afg stem indirectly, but importantly from the cash coming from Saudi Arabia and the 'hawallah' informal money system the general 'Jihad' is being fought with. The black economy supporting the various phoney wars around the globe is bigger than the economy of Italy and Spain combined and a lot of this cash stems from Saudi Arabia who continue to build religious schools in the new (old) Russian states and fund various other 'jihadi' type missions around the world. The war againt Afg is actually a war by proxy against Saudi Arabia and sections of Iran, Syria and Pakistani fundamentalists.

[LeazesMag 0]

shocking. Notice the white man being escorted away by the local police

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjqCYinXbw&feature=fvwk

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

Will probably be on the news at some point, but 6 people have been arrested in Gateshead in a pub this morning, the Belle (?) in Gateshead, for burning copies of the Koran oh dear...OB lifted them too.

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

23 September 2010 Last updated at 13:27

Share this page

 

* Facebook

* Twitter

* Share

* Email

* Print

 

Men arrested in Gateshead over suspected Koran burning

 

Six Tyneside men have been arrested after filming themselves apparently burning copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

 

Police said the men, all from the Gateshead area, were detained after a video appeared on the internet.

 

They were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and released on bail pending further inquiries.

 

Plans by a US preacher to burn copies of the Koran on 11 September resulted in widespread condemnation.

'Mutual respect'

 

In a joint statement, Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council said: "The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole.

 

"Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations."

 

Two men were arrested on 15 September and a further four on 22 September.

 

In the video a group of men are seen pouring fuel over what appear to be copies of the Koran and setting light to them.

 

Plans by a US preacher Terry Jones to burn copies of the Koran, sparked worldwide protests and brought condemnation from American president Barack Obama.

There ye are.

[Sonatine 10007]

Up on the Chronicle site now.

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-...72703-27327993/

[Ketsbaia 0]

Will probably be on the news at some point, but 6 people have been arrested in Gateshead in a pub this morning, the Belle (?) in Gateshead, for burning copies of the Koran oh dear...OB lifted them too.

 

Good. Thick fucking cunts.

[Mr Lahey 0]

 

[acrossthepond 707]

They look like mujahedeen already. They've got the LA-LA-LA-LA-LA noise down pat. All they need now are some great frizzy mullah beards.

[Gejon 2]