Why is diplomacy crucial in the fight against terrorism?

[russ_watters]

How do you define major.

Actually, the key was "quite some time": as in - after the "war on terror" started.

Are any of the attacks on the US you listed after 9/11 outside of Afghanistan or Iraq?

 

[russ_watters]

Computergeek - no. Just no. I think you already know that virtually all of what you said is wrong, so I don't think I need to explain why.

 

[ComputerGeek]

Computergeek - no. Just no. I think you already know that virtually all of what you said is wrong, so I don't think I need to explain why.

I think you do.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, no, he's never said that. He has said kill the people who are infadels in the holly land. He said he would stop his jihad if the US government left the middle east and did not have any affairs with Israel.

Bin Laden has very specific workable goals as per stated above.

I post his "open letter to the west" about once a month, as people make that erroneous claim about once a month: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

That's right, the #1 thing Bin Laden demands from us is that we convert to Islam.

And that's just one speech - the quotes Warren provided are telling, and a google will give you more.

Have people just forgotten whom Bin Laden is or is it purposeful forgetting in order to facilitate Bush/USA-bashing?

It is true that one of his first demands, way back in '96 was that we pull out of Saudia Arabia. And we are out of Saudia Arabia. But he always has new demands for us. His existence is tied to his ability to use us as an enemy.

 

[jimmie]

His existence is tied to his ability to use us as an enemy.

Perhaps the others' existence is tied to one's ability to use the other as an enemy.

Within a co-dependant relationship, an "olive branch" threatens the existence of both one and the other.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hey, why not straight from jesus mouth as well?

Um... you do realize you're quoting the old testament, right?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Congratulations, you just took the Quran out of context more than anyone I have ever seen on PF.

OK, let me put 5:33 in context for you.

Our messengers came to [the Children of Israel] with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and seek means of nearness to Him and strive hard in His way that you may be successful. Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment. They would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have a lasting punishment. And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Quran 5:32-5:38 Shakir translation)

 

[Cyrus]

Your quote still has nothing to do with your argument, re-read what I told you the first time. Where do you see it say kill innocent people? You did not read my first post, and you are STILL misquoting the quran.

Russ, if you read what he wrote carefully, you will see that he said that he wants to convert the US, but he did not say he was fighting the US because they are not yet converted. He said they are fighting for the reasons of occupation and corruption. He said, "what we are calling from you", not "why we are killing you" Why we are fighting you was in question (Q1). Re-read it with more care. His calling for you to convert is no different than the mormons, or christians, that go house to house trying to convert everyone. They are also, "calling" america to convert, but his fighting america is for a different reason.

 

[alexandra]

While there has been an increase in terrorist attacks inspired by al-Qaeda's "successful" 9/11 attack, only 3 have have required coordinated planning (Madrid train attacks, London train attacks, and Jordan hotel attacks) and I don't really think al-Qaeda leadership was able to contribute much more than inspirational support to any of the three.

The marginalization of bin Laden would weaken the al-Qaeda terrorist movement, but his death probably wouldn't affect terrorism overall. Al-Qaeda isn't the first Middle East terrorist group to come along. The PLO has been around since 1964 and were always able to mount many more attacks per year than al-Qaeda. If al-Qaeda falls out fashion, the next group to accomplish a captivating attack will take their place (PLA had the Munich Olympics attacks; al-Qaeda had 9/11).

This is the point I was trying to make in a previous post too: eliminating the 'leadership' does not actually solve the problem. As long as the underlying conditions that are causing poverty, suffering, alienation and resentment exist, new leaders will rise. These organisations/movements have popular support, and this support is not based on the personalities of their leaders. To take a historical example, Hitler ('evil leader') would not have come to power had not the objective conditions of poverty, suffering and resentment existed to create his power base.

 

[alexandra]

...he said that he wants to convert the US, but he did not say he was fighting the US because they are not yet converted. He said they are fighting for the reasons of occupation and corruption. He said, "what we are calling from you", not "why we are killing you" Why we are fighting you was in question (Q1). Re-read it with more care. His calling for you to convert is no different than the mormons, or christians, that go house to house trying to convert everyone. They are also, "calling" america to convert, but his fighting america is for a different reason.

Yes, here are the relevant passages:

While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

(a) You attacked us in Palestine...

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis...

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

 

[Cyrus]

I clicked on the link you gave WarrenPlatts, and its a bunch of ignorant *********. I think your link has no credability, and the authors have never taking a single history course on the middle east, and neither have you. It says its worried about Islam in the west spreading and taking civilization back to the 1400's? I think that nieve attiude will take us back to the 1400 from idiots like are on that website. Are you going to provide KKK links for us too? How about anti Jew links? I would recommend you go out and buy a textbook and read about history of the world, before posting any more asenine and stupid comments.

Your link actually says to distribute business cards that are printed

Don't believe the whitewash of Islam.

To citizens around the country...are you f'in serious that your backing up this nonsense?

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps the others' existence is tied to one's ability to use the other as an enemy.

Within a co-dependant relationship, an "olive branch" threatens the existence of both one and the other.

The US has existed since 1789, jimmie.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, if you read what he wrote carefully, you will see that he said that he wants to convert the US, but he did not say he was fighting the US because they are not yet converted. He said they are fighting for the reasons of occupation and corruption. He said, "what we are calling from you", not "why we are killing you" Why we are fighting you was in question (Q1). Re-read it with more care. His calling for you to convert is no different than the mormons, or christians, that go house to house trying to convert everyone. They are also, "calling" america to convert, but his fighting america is for a different reason.

Huh? That's pretty incoherent - he's "calling" us to convert, but not killing us because we don't?? That's his #1 beef!

Well, whatever - the Mormons: when was the last time they blew up a 100floor skyscraper (or two!) in order to convert the rest of us?

We don't have to speculate or interpret here, guys: OBL isn't MLK - you can directly attach the actions of both to their public statements. MLK called for non-violent protest and that's what he did. OBL is calling for death and that's what he does. If you want to disagree, then riddle-me this: why does Bin Laden kill Americans??

 

[Andy]

I think that the way to look at this is that any person can twist a source into saying something that you want to hear. People believe what they want to believe or what they have been told to beleive. I don't believe that Islam is a 'bad' religion but it does seem to be used as an excuse by the terrorists far too often.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Remember when Flip Wilson used to joke about how "The Devil made me do it" to absolve himself of personal responsibility for various nefarious acts? Well, the new line is "The Koran made me do it", only it's not a standup comedy routine--it's seriously being used as a defense argument in a criminal case. . . .
://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2001006,00.html[/URL]
[quote]COPIES of the Koran were handed to the jurors in the Abu Hamza trial yesterday as his defence argued that some of the cleric’s “offensive” statements were drawn directly from Islam’s holy book.
Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion. He said that the Crown case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was “simplistic in the extreme”.
He added: “It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.”
Mr Fitzgerald cited two verses of the book that Abu Hamza would rely on, among many others, as theological justification for the words that had led to him being charged. They were Chapter 2, verse 216 and Chapter 9, verse 111.[/quote]
Here are the passages the defense cites:
[quote]"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not." (Qu'ran 2[The Cow]:216 Pickthal Translation)[/quote]
Hey, what do you know? It's one of the verses I picked out of context yesterday! Must be a coincidence. . . .
[quote]Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph. (9:111 Pickthal)[/quote]

 

[ComputerGeek]

OK Cyrus, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
Q: Do you believe that the Qu'ran is the unerring word of God, er, er, I mean Allah?

You discredit a GOOD source and then post your silly sources that have absolutely no credibility.

Less hate, More acceptance of differences.

 

[ComputerGeek]

I think that the way to look at this is that any person can twist a source into saying something that you want to hear. People believe what they want to believe or what they have been told to beleive. I don't believe that Islam is a 'bad' religion but it does seem to be used as an excuse by the terrorists far too often.

And Christianity is used as a way to justify a lot of horrific actions as well.

what is your point?

 

[Cyrus]

Huh? That's pretty incoherent - he's "calling" us to convert, but not killing us because we don't?? That's his #1 beef!
Well, whatever - the Mormons: when was the last time they blew up a 100floor skyscraper (or two!) in order to convert the rest of us?
We don't have to speculate or interpret here, guys: OBL isn't MLK - you can directly attach the actions of both to their public statements. MLK called for non-violent protest and that's what he did. OBL is calling for death and that's what he does. If you want to disagree, then riddle-me this: why does Bin Laden kill Americans??

Its no riddle, its flat out stated directly by OBL himself in the link that you provided. You are interpreting his paper as you see fit, and not on what he has explicitly told you are his reasons for fighting. HE said he is NOT killing americas because they are not converted.

the Mormons: when was the last time they blew up a 100floor skyscraper (or two!) in order to convert the rest of us?

That quote holds no weight, sorry. Because OBL did NOT blow them up because we did not convert, he blew them up because of politics and corruption that occurs in the middle east. I find it hard to see why you are debating me on this, when its a known fact on paper, even on the links that you yourself provided. Wheres the debate here? I really don't see one.

 

[Lisa!]

Remember when Flip Wilson used to joke about how "The Devil made me do it" to absolve himself of personal responsibility for various nefarious acts? Well, the new line is "The Koran made me do it", only it's not a standup comedy routine--it's seriously being used as a defense argument in a criminal case. . . .

It reminds me of this one!:yuck:

Anyway you can't blame God or Koran on what these people have done!

 

[Treadstone 71]

Hey, what do you know? It's one of the verses I picked out of context yesterday! Must be a coincidence. . . .

I fail to see any reason why you keep referring to Islam as if it were the source of all evil.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, the new line is "The Koran made me do it", only it's not a standup comedy routine--it's seriously being used as a defense argument in a criminal case. . . .

In a court case, the arguments are made to support your client's actions (or to deny them, depending on the legal strategy), and trying to distort things out of context is one of them. That something has been used to defend a criminal in trial does not lend credibility to the interpretation used. I would also expect that the prosecution in this case would have pointed out the misinterpretation as well.

It is not news that extremists of all varieties will seek out quotes from many sources to justify their actions. It doesn't mean they are using them in context either, or that the majority of followers of a particular religion agree with that interpretation.

 

[jimmie]

A Definition of Codependency
"Originally, codependency was used to describe a person whose life was affected as a result of being involved with someone who was chemically dependent" (Martin Bobgan, Twelve Steps to Destruction, p. 15). Today, however, definitions vary so greatly that it is often difficult to be certain what is being talked about. For example:
(a) "A codependent person is one who has let another person's behavior affect him or her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person's behavior" (Melody Beattie, Codependent No More, p. 31);
(b) "Codependency can be defined as an addiction to people, behaviors, or things. Codependency is the fallacy of trying to control interior feelings by controlling people, things, and events on the outside. To the codependent, control, or the lack of it, is central to every aspect of life. When it comes to people, the codependent has become so elaborately enmeshed in the other person that the sense of self -- personal identity -- is severely restricted, crowded out by that other person's identity and problems" (Love is a Choice, by Hemfelt, Minirth, and Meier, p. 11);
(c) "Codependency is the condition when your love tanks are running on empty" (Ibid., p. 38);
(d) "Codependency is a pattern of painful dependency on compulsive behaviors and on approval from others in an attempt to find safety, self-worth, and identity" (Definition used at the first national conference on codependency in 1989, Bobgan, p. 17).
Confused? Even Melody Beattie, the acknowledged spokeswoman for codependency admits: "There are almost as many definitions of codependency as there are experiences that represent it. In desperation (or perhaps enlightenment), some therapists have proclaimed, 'Codependency's anything, and everyone is a codependent'"

The US has existed since 1789, jimmie.

OK, let's start there.

Since 1789, how many co-dependant relationships has the U.S. had with an "other" particular entity represented with a particular name? How many of those "relationships" did the U.S. focus upon with their annual budget expenditures, and when they did allocate dollars for those "other" particular names, how many dollars were there?

Was the U.S. aware that by acknowledging that particular name, and allocating budget dollars to that "other" thing, be it "the Communists", or "al Qaeda", or whatever, not only confirmed the existence and preserved the relationship of the "other" thing be it right or not right, but undermined the relationship and the health and welfare of the very citizens it intended to preserve?

Wouldn't it be nice if the U.S., and all other nations, were co-dependant to each other in a polite, play-nice, manner-filled, olive-branch-accepting world?

Perhaps then, and only then, each nation would be free from each other in a particularly refreshing way, so as to focus all budget dollars upon the relationship it has with its own citizen.

And by the looks of things around everywhere on the planet, including the planet itself, I say its time for everyone to accept an olive-branch, so that we the people can focus upon the big picture, and move forward.

 

[SOS2008]

I percieve Osama's little tape as a way of keeping the USA doing what it does best, throwing money at the situation and declaring victory because there have been no attacks on the U.S. soil since 9/11.

He says a few words and we spend billions. And we spend those billions on something that's effectiveness has no real way of being measured. We need to get more bang for our buck or we will run out of money before he runs out of words.

Bin Laden has said this is his strategy.

But what if there was another terrorist attack on U.S. soil? Would Bush become more popular or less? I'm sure bin Laden takes this into account. They won't do anything that will make Bush more popular--certainly I hope they wouldn’t, as I believe Bush would try for martial law.

 

[Moonbear]

Folks, stay on topic or this thread is going to be locked! (Yes, this is referring to everyone who has had their posts deleted or edited due to off-topic bickering, and anyone who was thinking of doing it again.)

 

[loseyourname]

Russ, if you read what he wrote carefully, you will see that he said that he wants to convert the US, but he did not say he was fighting the US because they are not yet converted. He said they are fighting for the reasons of occupation and corruption. He said, "what we are calling from you", not "why we are killing you" Why we are fighting you was in question (Q1). Re-read it with more care. His calling for you to convert is no different than the mormons, or christians, that go house to house trying to convert everyone. They are also, "calling" america to convert, but his fighting america is for a different reason.

Well gee, Cyrus, let's see what else he is asking us to do:

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

So basically we need to stop having sex, not allow homosexuality, stop all use of drugs, stop all forms of gambling, and no longer allow banks to collect interest on the money they loan out.

You see these as being workable goals somehow?

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

There's another great demand: end the separation of church and state and institute Islamic doctrine as federal law. Is that one workable?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

Here I'm not sure if he's simply asking us to disallow the collecting of interest or asking us to expel all Jews from the country (or at least from all positions of power within the country). Neither one seems all that workable.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

I'm not too sure about this one. US law does not allow the productions, trade, or usage of any drugs other than those with legitimate medical usage. Perhaps he thinks the DEA is just a sham that allows people to use even though it's officially illegal? Do you agree with that? What's the workable demand here?

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

Is this a workable demand? Should we retroactively throw Clinton in jail, or perhaps perform an "honor killing" on Monica Lewinski?

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

Okay, so we should close down Vegas and the New York Stock Exchange. A workable demand?

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

How dare we allow women to be employed as bartenders, restaurant servers, and airline attendants, much less as commercial models.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

What is the demand here? He doesn't seem to be speaking specifically of the porn industry, although he presumably wants us to shut that one down. I guess no more nudity in film, no more sexual language or innuendo on television? Do you consider this to be a reasonable, workable demand?

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

Okay, now the US invented AIDS. Is this because we've let ourselves be overrun with homosexuals or is this another Jew thing?

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.

(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

Okay, I can live with signing the Kyoto accords and reforming campaign finance. Still with the whole Jews controlling the country thing, though.

(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?

Well, it took something like three weeks after the last bomb was dropped until Japan finally surrendered, and there were isolated groups 30 years later that were still fighting, so I'm not sure he's being entirely historically accurate here. Also, given that Japan attacked us first, it's hard to see how we fought them purely for our own interest and profit. Perhaps it wasn't out of any principle as he says, but does he really believe that self-defense is not a good military justification?

(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.

(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!

Yeah, he might have somewhat of a point there. He is more consistent in that he just wants Islamic tyrrany everywhere.

(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possesses such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.

He's probably right here, but he's kind of the pot calling the kettle black considering that he wants us to allow Islamic nations hostile toward us to possesses nuclear weapons but does not even allow for the existence of Israel.

(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.

Well, let's see: he intentionally targets innocent people to bomb, attacks non-military targets, refuses to uniform his combatants, beheads prisoners, but we're the last ones to respect international law?

(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.

Well, this isn't technically accurate, since the US isn't using the international court to try anyone so far as I know. Then again, presumably if someone set up a special tribunal to try Bush for war crimes, he would not assent (of course, something gives me the feeling that Bin Laden would not himself recognize the legitimacy of any court that tried him).

Still, he might have a point, except that the events he cites all occurred in response to his attack on the US, so unless he is asserting backward causation, it's hard to see how these serve as justification for what he did.

(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"

He probably has an honest beef here. However, he earlier cited the ability of the American people to influence and choose their leaders as a justification for attacking civilians directly. I would guess that most Americans do not support secret prisons in Guatanamo, and many of them voted against Bush, yet he still feels justified in killing them.

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.

Well, here we go with an actual demand, finally after all the ranting. We need to have better manners, like calling for the death of all infidels, the eradication of Israel, and the suppression of sex and homos, I suppose.

(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

Here's a really workable demand: from now on let's allow Bin Laden to choose our allies for us.

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.

What's he referring to here? Military bases? Tourists? McDonald's? Israel?

(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.

Who does he mean? The House of Saud? I could live with no longer supporting them, but something tells me that a whole other host of murderous zealots would get pissed at us for that.

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.

Hey, Carter, Clinton, and even Bush now have tried to get some kind of settlement going between Arabs and Jews in Israel/Palestine, but if he won't even allow for the existence of Israel or the presence of Jews at all in his "holy land," what does he expect from us?

By the way, how do the inflated prices that the OPEC cartel sells oil at constitute "theft" on our part? It's not like Arab royalty doesn't profit from this and I don't see how it's reasonable to hold the American civilian public responsible for the fact that they don't distribute any of that wealth to their own people.

 

[Lisa!]

What's he referring to here? Military bases? Tourists? McDonald's? Israel?

Certainly he means US should stop meddling in middle east and other muslim countries!
Anyway I guess for doing all these changes you need a new peresident/leader ,and well who could be better than OBL?

 

[Andy]

What my point was is that any idiot can use the Qu'ran or the Bible for that matter as an excuse to blow some people up. Just like killing someone and then blaming south park.

 

[Cyrus]

Loseyourname, you just quoted everything from (Q2), which OBL himself said he was calling for America to do. That is different from (Q1) which is where he states why he is fighting america. You too are reading it how you see fit. Don't think I am supporting OBL or his positions, because I'm not, but I don't like the fact that you and russ are misinterpreting his words so they suit you how you like it. You are just flat out ignoring what OBL himself has TOLD YOU . So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why we he is fighting us, so I will put for you WHY he is fighting us, so that you can get your facts in order:

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:

Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.

Stop putting words in his mouth, ie, stop putting the anwser for (Q2) into (Q1), when they are totally different things.

 

[russ_watters]

Cyrus, you cannot separate the two. The first part is Al Qaeda's reason for existing, the second is what needs to happen in order for it to cease existing.

Stop ignoring OBL's words.

...and besides - much of what he says there is related to what he says in the second part. Ie:

The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged.

Pretty straightforward, isn't it? He wants to kill us because of the situation in Israel. This despite the fact that the US is virtually alone among the nations of the world in attempting to actually broker peace there - the PA owes it's existence to us. The elections happening there next week are happening because of the US.

And besides - he's painting a completely one-sided picture of the political situation (much of it flat-out lies, anyway) and your insistence on focusing on that part contradicts your earlier argument that he honestly wants to negotiate!

 

[Cyrus]

The first part is Al Qaeda's reason for existing, the second is what needs to happen in order for it to cease existing.

Nope, the first part (Q1), is Al Qaeda's reason for FIGHTING us, part (Q2) are things that they don't like about us or our culture that they think islam will solve for us. (which it won't, but I am not going into that here and now.) This link you provided makes no mention as to the reason for its existence. If you checked your facts, you would know that Al Qaeda origoinally was an offshoot of the mujahadeen to fight off the soviets in the 80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_qaeda

al-Qaeda (Arabic: القاعدة, el-Qā‘idah or al-Qā‘idah; "the foundation" or "the base") is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign comprised of independent and collaborative cells that all profess the same cause of reducing outside influence upon Islamic affairs.

Russ, please stop speaking for Al-Qaeda and putting your personal opinions and views as that of Al-Qaeda, when its factually not. They have already provided you with their philosophy. Al-Qaeda is not something that will cease exisiting if it achives its goals, think of it more like a political reform party.

Cyrus, you cannot separate the two.

Correction, I can separate the two. You are choosing not to. Appart from showing you hard EVIDENCE fom a link that YOU even provided ME, nothing I say at this point will make you change your mind. (Even if its HARD EVIDENCE STARING YOU IN THE FACE! )

Stop ignoring OBL's words.

I have done no such thing, I have done exactly the opposite. Look, if he was fighting us for the reasons of (Q2), there WOULD BE NO Q2! It would be part of Q1! Your argment REALLY eludes me!?

And besides - he's painting a completely one-sided picture of the political situation (much of it flat-out lies, anyway) and your insistence on focusing on that part contradicts your earlier argument that he honestly wants to negotiate!

No, I never said he wants to negotiate. I said that there are POSSIBLE ways of SOME negotation based on his demands. Let me explain, we can stop supporting corrupt governments in the middle east. Which we do, time and time again, so don't even think of arguing that we dont. We basically use the middle east to test our latest and greatest weapons, and let's be real here, EVERYONE who is edcuated on world politics knows this since the early 1980's. This is a known fact for 30+ years now.

He wants to kill us because of the situation in Israel.

Yes, as he sates that in (Q1), THAT argument I WILL accept from you.

This despite the fact that the US is virtually alone among the nations of the world in attempting to actually broker peace there - the PA owes it's existence to us. The elections happening there next week are happening because of the US.

Thats because other countries don't want to be major supporters of that bio-hazard of a situation and have people like OBL after them too, but now they are going after them (at a level unlike before).

 

[loseyourname]

Loseyourname, you just quoted everything from (Q2), which OBL himself said he was calling for America to do. That is different from (Q1) which is where he states why he is fighting america. You too are reading it how you see fit. Don't think I am supporting OBL or his positions, because I'm not, but I don't like the fact that you and russ are misinterpreting his words so they suit you how you like it. You are just flat out ignoring what OBL himself has TOLD YOU . So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why we he is fighting us, so I will put for you WHY he is fighting us, so that you can get your facts in order:

You said he made workable demands by which we could establish a truce, so I posted his demands. I'm asking you which of them you think are workable.

Jeez, Cyrus, I openly agreed with some of his demands, and actually said they were reasonable and workable. But many are not. I think I've been fairly even-handed here.

Stop putting words in his mouth, ie, stop putting the anwser for (Q2) into (Q1), when they are totally different things.

I was responding to your opinion that he was making workable demands. Q2 contains his demands. What am I doing wrong here? And how exactly did I put words in his mouth? I quoted every single word from Q2 to avoid quoting anything out of context, and I didn't add a single word to what I quoted.

Just to clear things up, this is what he said:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

I took this to mean that Q2 contains his demands, or, in his words, what he is calling us to do. Presumably if we do these things, we can have a truce of some sort. If you have a different interpretation of this, fine, but you don't need to be as combative as you've been and make it look as if I'm intentionally misrepresenting OBL. I'm doing my best to be thorough and accurate.

 

[Cyrus]

I was responding to your opinion that he was making workable demands.

If I said he was making workable demands, I appologize. I should have been more clear to say that SOME of his demands ARE workable.

Q2 contains his demands.

No, as I said above.

What am I doing wrong here? And how exactly did I put words in his mouth?

You are saying that they are his demands. He did not say they are his "demands." He said,

What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

Well, demands, yes and no. Its not literally a set of demands, not a checklist if you will, that he demands. His purpose has never been to dominate the world, making it all of Islam, or he would be fighting countries like china. So you have to be careful in how you interpret that statement. His purpose is to have an un-influenced islamic middle east free from all foreign powers and influences. Its more of formal complaint that he calls us to fix, as opposed to a list of set-in-stone demands.

If you have a different interpretation of this, fine, but you don't need to be as combative as you've been and make it look as if I'm intentionally misrepresenting OBL. I'm doing my best to be thorough and accurate.

You and russ are my buddies, I just like giving you guys a hard time

 

[loseyourname]

You are saying that they are his demands. He did not say they are his "demands."

Well, to be fair, you were the one to use the word "demands." I just found the closest thing in his letter to fitting the definition of that word, which was "what we call you to do."

His purpose has never been to dominate the world, making it all of Islam, or he would be fighting countries like china. So you have to be careful in how you interpret that statement. His purpose is to have an un-influenced islamic middle east free from all foreign powers and influences.

His largest beef really seems to be with the existence of Israel, and US support of it, along with the huge influence that he sees Jews as having over our government, media, and business institutions. It's not like he gave a minimum set of things we could do to get him to stop attacking us, so I just wanted to know what it was about any demand he had made that you found workable. It seems to me that nothing short of selling off all business interests in middle eastern natural resources, ending our support of Israel, Russia, and India, and withdrawing all military bases and troops in the region will do the trick (I don't really see what we could do about his Hitleresque Jewish conspiracy kick, so perhaps he'll let us slide there). Granted, 70% of his letter rambles on about western decadence and immorality, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here. If there is something else, something more reasonably and workable that you think we can do to get him to stop, what it is and why do you think this?

 

[Cyrus]

Well for one thing, we should stop holding double standards in the Middle East. Why can Israel have so many nuclear weapons, and other countries cannot? They are sovereign nations that can do whatever they want. They do NOT need the us government to tell them what to do, i.e. Iran. (Personally, I believe NONE of them should have any nuclear weapons. Not Israel, nor Iran, nor Pakistan nor India. )

Time and time again, the US policy is to support Iraq, give them weapons, training etc. Then they fight Iran. Then behind their backs they support Iran too, Remember Iran-contra scandal? Then they turn their backs on Iraq and attack Iraq. They do this time and time again. So its no wonder the Middle East does not hold the US in high regard. Most Americans seem to forget these policies, as they are only 'scandals' that happen on CNN and CSPAN for a few months, whereas in the middle east they are usually a major factor in wars that last several years and kill millions.

By stopping policies like that, you will stop people like OBL. People by nature are not hateful, there is a reason the middle east does not like the US, despite what people like FOX news might report.

 

[loseyourname]

Well for one thing, we should stop holding double standards in the Middle East. Why can Israel have so many nuclear weapons, and other countries cannot? They are sovereign nations that can do whatever they want. They do NOT need the us government to tell them what to do, i.e. Iran. (Personally, I believe NONE of them should have any nuclear weapons. Not Israel, nor Iran, nor Pakistan nor India. )

I agree with you there, but how exactly are we going to get Israel to give up it's nuclear weapons?

By stopping policies like that, you will stop people like OBL. People by nature are not hateful, there is a reason the middle east does not like the US, despite what people like FOX news might report.

Maybe. I'm not so sure, though. I know there are plenty of legitimate reasons for middle easterners to have gripes with US administrations from the past several decades, and the average citizen of the region is not by nature a hateful person. But we're not talking about the average citizen here. OBL and the other leaders of these groups don't seem to be quite so reasonable; they just seem like maniacs. Either that or extremely good actors. I think we're pretty close to being on the same page here, but I'm not about to give the leader of the world's current worst terrorist organization much benefit of the doubt. I also don't agree that Fox news is a person.