BF2S Forums Guantanamo Bay Abuse - Revealed at Last

Spark wrote:

Really? Name one terrorist attack on the US in the US before 9/11.

ummm trade centre early ninties.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

iphtnax wrote:

Point out which bits xanthpi missed and I'll answer them for him.

How about you look for them yourself, you lazy bum? I remember you telling several other people to read the thread through before asking you stupid stuff. Goes both ways.

iphtnax wrote:

Oh I'm not a homophobe by the way.

Sure you aren't
I guess your other account got banned for nothing then.

You're the one here smoking my cock. You supply it. You're the needy one.


I got banned for the following:

The person who started the 'post your photo' thread looked a bit Kenny Everett-esque, so I called him a homo.

There was a boxer who was 'really into his body'. I called him a homo just to piss him off.

There was a vietnamese person. I said I wanted to fucky fucky him long time.

There was a good looking girl. I pointed out that she was probably a fat hairy old man in reality.

I'm not homophobic. I defend queers against Muslims.

Friluftshund wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well, let me ask, and I am not being a smart ass here:

Tell me some ideas you have to combat insane, radical, fanatics, whose only purpose is to destroy us and our way of life??............I seriously doubt the ole flower in the gun barrel trick is gunna work here

FINALLY!!! after 11 loooooong pages we just migh get to the debate part!

You lay down rules in that post of yours - all of them (muslims? middle-easterners?) are 1) insane, 2) radical 3) fanatics 4)all they want is to destroy us...

Friluftshund wrote:

1) I actually don't think there is anything wrong with their intellect

There is something wrong with the intellect of anyone who cannot work out for themselves that the concept of a god which sends down books and 'prophets' is ridiculous.

Friluftshund wrote:

2) Radical - yes, by our standards extremely radical

Correct, if radical is the right word for it.

Friluftshund wrote:

3) Fanatics - I don't know about that one

Muslims are not fanatics. They are just following their religion.

Friluftshund wrote:

4) Want to destroy us...

Correct.

Friluftshund wrote:

All they want is to preserve their own way of life and happiness from our interference.

Incorrect. Muslims have always invaded or terrorised the countries surrounding them.

Friluftshund wrote:

^^ that's the opposite side of your claim.

First of all we should try to find out why they are doing what they are doing, could it be they are raging against what they perceive as an attack on them?

They are acting in strict accordance with Islamic Law. the Qur'an teaches that any non-Muslim who does not submit to Islamic is be default attacking Allah. Hence, they must be counter-attacked by Muslims.

Friluftshund wrote:

If so, what would happen if we stopped attacking?

We would still be attacked, in accordance with Islamic Law. They would attack us more. Our weakness would inspire them to kill more of us.

Friluftshund wrote:

This is a solution which really hasn't been explored fully. take Iraq for example: "We need to stay and finish the job" <---- admirable quote, but why? Why do we need to stay there and further aggravate things?

If we leave Iraq to it's own devices, it will be taken over by Islamists and we will have to re-invade.

Friluftshund wrote:

I'm no fortune-lady, but who is to say that if we all pull out of Iraq and let them be happy isn't the way to go?

They will still attack us as per Isalmic Law, and we will have given them a base to get themselves organised.

Friluftshund wrote:

Will that mean they have won???

Yes.

Friluftshund wrote:

First of all: so what?! What if they "win"? Can't we swallow some pride in order to stop the war?

No. that would be studid. If defeatism is our aim, then we should also just release all the criminals in our societies of we are commited to letting our enemies win and living in fear.

Friluftshund wrote:

Second: It might not necesarily mean they win, it could mean that we'll stop losing people.

Soldiers are there to fight and possibly to die. Better a couple of thousand soldiers than a couple of million civilians.

You're actually very young, aren't you You have a very typically 'teen' attitude.

xanthpi wrote:

imortal wrote:

As to how I think we can end it... The probelm will not end until the more moderate muslims take back their culture.  We have to get them to police their own faith.  To do that, we have to show them a better way.  I goal to strive for.  By attacking them, directly or indirectly, we just firm opinions against us.  However, we need to suppress the violence long enough for those moderates to come to power and solidify their position.

You were doing so well, up until this last paragraph.

'Moderate Muslims' are not Muslims. They will not 'take back their own culture'. They have had plenty of chances to do this. They have failed. Well actually, they never even tried.

Islam is the problem. It will remain a problem whilst it exists.

I don't think it is advisable, possible, or moral to wipe out another religion.  People have been tearing after Jews for centuries, and they are still around.  Plus, then it becomes an issue of deciding what religions are acceptable.  I judge people, not faiths.

There MUST be a different way than straight destruction of Islam.  Look back to the Inquisitions; Christianity's metaphoric hands are not that clean either.  There are some relatively moderate clerics out there, trying to bring some sanity back to their faith.  They need to be nurtured while wiping out the militant ones.

However, if it is done from the outside, there will be a taint of meddling.  If it is done from the inside, then it is a different story.

I am not a pacifist; by no means.  However, there is a limit to what can be accomplished by violence.  That goes for everybody, not just us.

Cheers

xanthpi wrote:

imortal wrote:

As to how I think we can end it... The probelm will not end until the more moderate muslims take back their culture.  We have to get them to police their own faith.  To do that, we have to show them a better way.  I goal to strive for.  By attacking them, directly or indirectly, we just firm opinions against us.  However, we need to suppress the violence long enough for those moderates to come to power and solidify their position.

You were doing so well, up until this last paragraph.

'Moderate Muslims' are not Muslims. They will not 'take back their own culture'. They have had plenty of chances to do this. They have failed. Well actually, they never even tried.

Islam is the problem. It will remain a problem whilst it exists.

Uhhh.... Did you even READ what was posted just before?

Anyway...

"'Moderate Muslims' are not Muslims. They will not 'take back their own culture'. They have had plenty of chances to do this. They have failed. Well actually, they never even tried."

How many Muslims have you met?

ore this
http://hnn.us/articles/1283.html

Spark wrote:

Really? Name one terrorist attack on the US in the US before 9/11.

That doesn't count flights going into the US.

Those 3000 people WOULDN'T be dead if

A. You didn't vote in Bush

B. You didn't allow him to go to Iraq.

Simple as that.

I have a few.

1. 1993 WTC bombing. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 516469.stm

2. 1998 US Embassy bombing in Kenya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 131709.stm

3.  2000 Cole Bombing
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/D … 20611.html

4. 1983 Lebanon Bombing (there were two that year)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

5. 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 733321.stm

At http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html is list 25 terrorist attacks on American citizens/nation.  Only 7 have occured since Bush was elected in 2000. 

This site add two additional attacks. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255i.html

So is this proof that the 9/11 attacks were not because of Bush, who by the way did not do anything to make the world mad before then.  He was only in office of nine months, and was just getting "settled" in as President. 

As for your second statment.  The general public does not vote to have America go to war.  This is a decision made by our Congress.  The war in Iraq is UN war that is led by the US.  The US did not wake up one day and say "Let's see who can fight in a war today."  Also, considering that the war in Iraq started three years after 9/11, how did this justify the attacks? That is like saying if the United Kingdom was to have a war today, that the Subway Bombings in London was caused by the war.

Edit:  Adding sources to the dates that the 9/11 attacks occured and the day the US led forces attacked Iraq.

We all know that that September 11, 2001 (9/11) date.  Here is a source for the start of the Iraq war (2003):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm

Last edited by dubbs (2006-03-21 19:07:32)

xanthpi wrote:

You're actually very young, aren't you You have a very typically 'teen' attitude.

You're actually very gay aren't you You have a very typically "gay" attitude

dubbs wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

How wrong you are again. This is one of the rare occurences of my actually supplying a link.

http://solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20We … apshot.JPG

what about this then
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

The site you give here, stated that US companies, not the nation give support to Iraq.  The HNN site you gave did not directly say that the US gave chemical weapons to the US.  It stated that we suggested that they did not use chemical weapons.  I did not read the Washington Post link you posted because that article was dry and very borring.

the companies supplying Iraq with weapons ore equipment that can be used for making ABC weapons, have to have permisson from the goverment to do so.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

-Article 9
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-right … ught.shtml

After reading article 9, do you believe that the Christian convert in Afghanistan should live or die?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

-Article 9
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-right … ught.shtml

After reading article 9, do you believe that the Christian convert in Afghanistan should live or die?

I believe he converted by his own will, fully knowing the consequences.....It is not Americas business to protect him.......Remember....separation between church and state.......If he was converting to Islam from Christianity and being punished for it we wouldn't interfere.... There laws are not ours to question, or judge..this case does not compromise national security of the US.  Not our business.