Any reasonable reading of the koran leads to the same conclusion as this so-called sect did.
B.S. And I say this as someone who, I
promise you, has read the Qur'an many more times than you have.
Nonsense. Is America the only source of arms in the world? Hardly.
You're deliberately missing the point. The CIA trained and equipped Bin Ladin's group at one time. My understanding of the way things went down in Afghanistan back then was that the Soviet forces were
winning due to their ability to mobilize and use helicopters. Our AA missiles, given to the Mujahadeen, tipped the scales.
Do you disagree with this?
Whenever I see an armed terrorist, he's holding a Russian weapon, why's that?
Availability. You can make an AK in a hut in the desert for $14 or so.
To blame the global jihad against the West, because we supported them in Afganistan, is absurd.
<sigh> I'm not "blaming the west," I'm pointing out that there are unintended consequences involved. We didn't want the Soviets to get a foothold in the Middle East, so we found a bunch of untrained and ill-equipped fighters and gave them the training and equipment to hold off the Soviets. 30 years later these same folks are flying 747's into buildings on US Soil.
There is a connection here. That's the lesson of our foreign policy experiments over the last half-decade -- we're not capable, as a nation, of medding in foreign nations without later regretting the action. Most of the time, we made things worse.
The point is this: we're
still doing it -- short-term decision-making that's going to haunt us for a long time in the future. Your point of view with regard to rights vs the thread of terrorism is in the same vein -- you're making a bad decision.
We intervened on their behalf! And you're deep into "blaming the victim" here, we helped them, they turned on us, it's that simple.
We empowered people that, in hind-sight, maybe we wish weren't so empowered. They are who they are. They act the way they act.
We're foolish if we think things will go otherwise.
And with that non sequitur, you completely ignore what bin Laden actual words mean, and what his goals are.
<sigh>
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.
OK, tell me how this translates into "get out of Israel and convert to Islam so we can slaughter the Jews<insert evil laugh here>.
This statement seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe you're getting cconfused over terms like
sharia?
Means that because we don't roll over and become muslems, we're doomed. It has nothing to do with civil rights, which bin Laden mocks. Nice try to reinterprete the mass murderer's words as if he gives a damn about our rights though.
It looks like we speak the same words, and read the same text, and come to two very separate conclusions. I wonder if meaningful discussion is even possible with you.
See also: blaming Saudi Arabia (our "ally") versus blaming the US ("us").
However, you seem awfully eager to put blame on America where it is not warrented, and excuse some rather inexcusable actions.
Saying "9/11 was our own fault" (your interpretation of my words) and saying "these problems are greater than they would have been had we not meddled 30 years ago, and should serve as a warning against some of our current actions" are
not equivalent.
But you don't see a difference, do you?
And the simple fact is, if we do what bin Laden wants, then we'd have to abandon Israel. What do you think would happen then?
Ummm, we'd see nukes used in the middle east as Israel realizes they're on their own and aren't capable of holding everyone off without US help, and their treatment of the palestinian situation has alienated every single one of their neighbors?
Let's not even get started on the Isreal thing though. Too much thread veer.
It's a far cry from shaking someone's hand, and arming them.
Did you read the links, or just look at the pictures? Here's a quote that addresses a few points that have come up :
the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons.
Whassat look like to you?
Look at Saddam's Iraqi army, did America sell him all the Russian tanks...
If I had said that the US had provided
all of his equipment, then that would be a valid point. You said US support for Iraq was "a lie...pure crap." I posted links that referenced declassified documents that showed that the US
really didn't want Iran to win in the conflict, sent Rumsfeld to make nice, provided intelligence and military support, and looked the other way while US companies sold the ingredients for WMD's to Iraq.
I think I should get credit for the links. Maybe instead of a "total crap lie" it can be some other perjorative you come up with. Surprise me.
By the way, do you have any proof that the Patriot act, or TSA, or any other post-9/11 "security measure" has done anything to stop terrorism, or are you just putting faith in our leaders on this one? And does your failure to mention the WMD quote mean you're backing down on the "HE HAD WMDs!!!!" argument?
