Let's hear it!

[CrAz3D]

I think most mid-east Muslims see us as a threat, only the radicals are blowing themselves up in order to stop us

[leet_muffin]

If anything bin Laden should blow up Saudi Arabia, they're the ones that gave the finger to bin Laden.
Anyhow doesnt that article say they want to kill us?

They want to kill us cause we're there and we're a threat to islam

How does it say that we are a threat to Islam?!

[CrAz3D]

cause bin laden saw us as a threat when we moved into saudi for the gulf war...we were on sacred ground

[BigAznDaddy]

well i had a bonfire yesterday people showed up with beer, cigars and wood. it was pretty cool until the cops showed up and everyone ran for their lives. also someone thought it would be a good idea to throw a basketball into the fire and sure enough it blew up and coals were going everywhere. also there were some fine girls there. but yeah overall pretty cool till assholes came and i smoked my first cigar

[trust]

I think most mid-east Muslims see us as a threat, only the radicals are blowing themselves up in order to stop us

Do you really? Well, I think you're wrong. Why? Because we aren't there acting as missionaries challenging their belief system...we are there trying to protect them from people who want nothing but to oppress and harm. I think you would find a large majority of them (meaning the non-terrorist ones) appreciate what we have done, they for once are getting [free] elections, they get luxuries like cell phones, non-government run television, etc. Stuff that wasn't allowed under the previous administration. Sure there are a lot of killings in protest, but they aren't going to be tortured for losing a soccer game like under the previous administration. I wholeheartedly support helping these people and will argue it tooth and nail, as it's something I'm passionate about. Sure the war isn't going as planned, and more people are dying than anticipated, but the cause is sound. And before anybody goes into how WMD's were not found, chemical weapons were actually found. But I see the humanitarian reasoning as an acceptance reasoning for further involvement, and think this war would be more supported if it were the original reasoning given to the public.

BTW:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3643302267116250023&q=iraq+woman++america&hl=en
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1024-20.htm

But this is for the POLITICS forum. MODERATORS?

[BigAznDaddy]

O and besides the bonfire thing i drove for the first time with a manual. it was pretty cool except for first gear which was very jumpy... also i did not stall once the whole trip from work to my house.

[CrAz3D]

I think most mid-east Muslims see us as a threat, only the radicals are blowing themselves up in order to stop us

Do you really? Well, I think you're wrong. Why? Because we aren't there acting as missionaries challenging their belief system

What are planned parent hood, the feminist radio station, and other alike organizations doing there?

...we are there trying to protect them from people who want nothing but to oppress and harm.

Who are we liberating/protecting them from?  Saddam?  I'm sure they all hated him because he was secular and ruled that way (not within the islamic faith)

I think you would find a large majority of them (meaning the non-terrorist ones) appreciate what we have done, they for once are getting [free] elections, they get luxuries like cell phones, non-government run television, etc. Stuff that wasn't allowed under the previous administration.

Of course they like that stuff.  Even the 'non-terrorists' (I like to use radical muslims) like free elections because they know that they'll be elected.  Look at the Iranian revolution!

I wholeheartedly support helping these people and will argue it tooth and nail, as it's something I'm passionate about. Sure the war isn't going as planned, and more people are dying than anticipated, but the cause is sound. But I see the humanitarian reasoning as an acceptance reasoning for further involvement, and think this war would be more supported if it were the original reasoning given to the public.

helping them?  If we REALLY wanted to help them we'd allow them to govern themselves COMPLETELY (re: Iraq) and allow whichever side to kill the other side.  Also, our humanitarian views are not their humanitarian views.  Our liberal society is disgusting to them.  Women flaunting themselves, people dissenting from religion.  Most of our humanitarian views are exact opposite of theirs.  I'm sure they'd be happier with covered up women, no secularism, and things of that nature

[trust]

Well planned parenthood makes sense, I'm not too in the know on Iraqi radio I just know it used to be completely government controlled and now it isn't.

Who are we liberating/protecting them from?  Saddam? 

Obviously we liberated them from Saddam, and we're protecting them from his supporters and those that utterly oppose any sort of individual rights or a democratic state. Sure, Saddam had elections but your family was killed if you didn't vote for him - I think that's more the reason they hated him, that and the whole torture chamber thing. Who knows though, maybe Iraqi's like being tortured...apparently they're too uncivilized for you to think they want or care about freedoms.

helping them?  If we REALLY wanted to help them we'd allow them to govern themselves COMPLETELY (re: Iraq) and allow whichever side to kill the other side.  Also, our humanitarian views are not their humanitarian views.  Our liberal society is disgusting to them.  Women flaunting themselves, people dissenting from religion.  Most of our humanitarian views are exact opposite of theirs.  I'm sure they'd be happier with covered up women, no secularism, and things of that nature

Your statements are so far fetched it blows my mind. Help them by letting them kill each other? Yeah, that's good for a fledgling democracy..full blown civil war. American forces are having a hard enough time with their guerrilla style warfare, do you think they'd have any chance from the terrorists just swiping up power and then all of our efforts would have been wasted because the same people would be back in power. While some of our society may not suite them due to religious beliefs that doesn't mean they have completely opposite humanitarian ideals, you're very quick to group the general law-abiding Iraqi's into the same group as the radicals we're fighting, seemingly just to make whatever point you're trying to make (anti-war?) Just because they live in Iraq doesn't mean they want to be oppressed, yeah, even the women. Look at Iran, Iran is a theocracy true but they have a ton of individual freedoms and rights and it has a very very western/Americanized culture. Women wear jeans, smoke cigarettes, do whatever.

Are you saying the Iranian muslims and the Iraqi muslims are completely different and only Iranians want freedoms, making Iraqi's the only people ever who didn't try to gain more freedom? I don't think so.

[CrAz3D]

They didnt support Saddam Hussein, he was, basically, an infidel just like us.  He didnt rule by Islamic law, he ruled in his own dictatorship.  The insurgents now want Americans gone, they aren't Saddam supporters.


uhm, excuse me, but didnt the US of A go through a civil war?  It seems to me that many countries go through some sort of inside revolution before becoming somewhat stable.

Also, if the radical muslims were in power and attacked us we would have a state to retaliate against, some some obscure group of persons that hide.

Aren't Iranian and Iraqi muslims different based on their stand point of the decendency of Muhammad?  Also, Iraqis want freedom too, I'm sure.  But I doubt that they want what we're trying to give them...they'd like a theocracy as well, I'm sure. 

[leet_muffin]

I think most mid-east Muslims see us as a threat, only the radicals are blowing themselves up in order to stop us

Do you really? Well, I think you're wrong. Why? Because we aren't there acting as missionaries challenging their belief system...we are there trying to protect them from people who want nothing but to oppress and harm. I think you would find a large majority of them (meaning the non-terrorist ones) appreciate what we have done, they for once are getting [free] elections, they get luxuries like cell phones, non-government run television, etc. Stuff that wasn't allowed under the previous administration. Sure there are a lot of killings in protest, but they aren't going to be tortured for losing a soccer game like under the previous administration. I wholeheartedly support helping these people and will argue it tooth and nail, as it's something I'm passionate about. Sure the war isn't going as planned, and more people are dying than anticipated, but the cause is sound. And before anybody goes into how WMD's were not found, chemical weapons were actually found. But I see the humanitarian reasoning as an acceptance reasoning for further involvement, and think this war would be more supported if it were the original reasoning given to the public.

BTW:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3643302267116250023&q=iraq+woman++america&hl=en
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1024-20.htm

But this is for the POLITICS forum. MODERATORS?

The same was said about Vietnam. My father, who was in infantry, and communicated often with the VC/SV, said they really couldn't care less.

Another thing: We're invading their religion, as Crazed says, but they appriciate it as Trust says? Makes plenty o' sense.

cause bin laden saw us as a threat when we moved into saudi for the gulf war...we were on sacred ground

So they want to kill us? The people over in America who have nothing to do with it? And, again, why haven't they? And, again, need a source.

[CrAz3D]

They dont care about killing us, they just want to bomb us to make us leave them alone.  Why else did they hit major symbolic targets instead of a larger population?
Normally aren't there like tens of thousands of people working in the WTC builds?  ...but the terrorists only killed 3000 which includes the firemen.  They could've killed SO MANY more if they really wanted to.

[trust]

THE ENTIRE IRAQI POPULATION ISNT ATTACKIGN US OMG.

[CrAz3D]

THE ENTIRE IRAQI POPULATION ISNT ATTACKIGN US OMG.

when i say people attacking us i mean radical muslims

[leet_muffin]

Okay, do you know what Al Qaeda wants?

...to kill americans/westerners

They dont care about killing us, they just want to bomb us to make us leave them alone.  Why else did they hit major symbolic targets instead of a larger population?
Normally aren't there like tens of thousands of people working in the WTC builds?  ...but the terrorists only killed 3000 which includes the firemen.  They could've killed SO MANY more if they really wanted to.

Next time, just say no. It's alot easier.

[trust]

yay! I graduated.

nice amount of grad money too, woohoo.