Miliant Islamists really DO hate freedom...

[Admiral_K]

Hey dumb-fuck, the ambiguous definition of freedom is one of the very things wrong with the idiotic Bush rhetoric that you keep defending!

I've already explained multiple times what I meant by the term "freedom". I was referring to the American Ideal of freedom which is what Bush meant when he said that these groups "hate freedom".

I hear everyday some new piece about how Bush "hates freedom" from one liberal or another. I'm not here to defend Bush.

Yes you are. You stated that very clearly in your first post: that the Bush administration's idiotic explanation for the motives of the terror groups was correct.

Regardless of who made the statement, that doesn't change the fact that it is TRUE. And NOWHERE did I imply it was the sole motivation of terrorists, or militant islamists as a whole. That being said, you cannot deny that it is a motivation of these groups.

However, I was sick and tired of seeing these militants labeled as "Freedom fighters" by radical left wingers when "freedom" is what they are fighting to prevent.

I don't see things in the "black and white" shade you seem to. I don't equate someone pushing domestic policies, with someone blowing up those of their countryment who don't bow to their will.

And how does this refute my point about how Bush's rhetoric is bullshit, and your defense of it is also bullshit?

The person who made the statement is irrelevent. If I'd said "Kerry was right, these groups hate freedom" or "Bin Laden was right, these groups hate freedom" the fact would remain that THESE GROUPS HATE FREEDOM.

The freedom to do things which offend their "traditional values". Forgive me if I don't see how this principle of yours is not just as applicable to Bush as it is to them. A difference of degree is not a difference of principle.

Shades of grey mike... Shades of grey...

Bush more or less stays inline with the American ideal of freedom. The militant groups blatantly piss on it. Therefore, from my point of view, they hate freedom.

Remember the Taliban Mike? Thats the type of government these extremists want. And we all heard about what tremendous "freedom" the afghans had under them...

See above.

Answered

They think it is right because that is what has been drilled into them by their government and religious leaders. And thats what will continue to be drilled into them if these extremists succeed. Part of what comes with the freedom to change, is the freedom to do nothing. However, without the freedom to change, then there will never be any reform in the middle east.

Nice pie-in-the-sky reasoning. You honestly believe that the people of that region would gladly stampede into the modern era if left "free" to do so, even though the use of force has been necessary several times in order to keep Turkey from sliding into one of those Islamic fundie states? I would have thought that the Iraq war clusterfuck would have eliminated the kind of childish naivete that we heard from neo-cons before the invasion, but it appears that this is not the case.

Its not what I believe mike, rather what I know. I know that without the freedom to change, then change will not occur. I have no doubt it may take a generation or two, but if you give people the freedom to grow and change as they can with democracy then you at least have a chance.

Nice strawman, fucktard. You're not being called a Bush apologist for "disagreeing in any way"; you're being called a Bush apologist for defending his bullshit.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

You honestly think that's a workable rebuttal?

It is just as workable as your baseless criticism.

Bush may oppose certain "freedoms" but he isn't out there killing those gays and lesbians who are getting married in defiance of his views. He isn't sending abortion doctors to Guantanamo Bay.

Irrelevant to the question of whether he can be said to "hate freedom" based on your own logic, hence making his rhetoric about the terrorists' motivations completely meaningless as well as grossly oversimplified.

I've already explained multiple times that by "freedom" I was referring to the American ideal of freedom. It is the American ideal of freedom that Bush is talking about when he says that these groups hate freedom, not the anarchists view of freedom.

And Again you attempt to strawman my argument into meaning that the sole motivation for terrorists and their activitys is because of their hatred for freedom. I've never said anything of the sort. It is a complex issue, of which this is merely a component.

The Militants in Iraq aren't out there campaigning for issues they feel to be important. They are saying flat our "oppose us and we will fucking kill you".

How is that different from "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists"?

The difference is target selection.

IF you want to go by the true anarchist definition of freedom, then yes I guess you could say "Bush hates freedom". And as I've said before, this label is in fact placed on him by many left wingers.

Bush has been ignoring the Supreme Court's rulings on what he can and can't do with suspects. It hardly takes an "anarchist" definition of freedom to say that he sees it as an obstacle.

Give me a specific example of what you mean by "ignoring supreme court rulings". Actually, as a matter of fact don't bother. It is irrelevent to the discussion at hand and I shouldn't have addressed it in the first place.

But as I said, you can't look at it in simple black and white where black=black and white=white terms. You have to view things in variations if hatred of freedom were a disease, then Bush's hate is a mild sore throat with a stuffy nose, and the Militants hate is full blown Ebola.

As before, differences of degree do not equate to differences of principle. And your principle is bullshit: you claim that the Bush Administration's idiotically simple-minded characterization of Islamic terrorist motives is actually correct based on this "we don't like democracy" line; such a wildly gesticulated non sequitur that it is difficult to even see how you ever argued for the connecting logic except to simply say it is so.

Your blatant mischaracterization of my argument is growing tiresome.

You state: you claim that the Bush Administration's idiotically simple-minded characterization of Islamic terrorist motives is actually correct based on this

I've stated nothing of the sort. Nowhere have I implied that the islamic militants hatred of American style freedom is their sole motivation for their actions. It is merely a component of the whole. If you deny that their belief has any influence on their actions then you are a blind fool.

[Admiral_K]

Lets make this as simple as possible:

Do you deny that these Islamic Militant groups, based on their own actions and statements, would stomp all over freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to choose ones own governmental leaders? Do you deny that these groups would establish a Taliban style government if they had the chance?

If you answer No, then from MY point of view they hate Freedom.

[Plekhanov]

Congratulations that last post surpassed even your usual standards of idiocy, please do explain how you can possibly argue that the West “left the Middle East alone” prior to any of the atrocities you so readily real off?

Good Christ, you are annoying. Either you can't read, or you deliberately misinterpret my posts. First you think you start off with insults, then you misread the post. How in the fuck do you read that I said the West "left the Middle East alone?" You have the reading comprehension of an ADHD-ridden six year old. You are an absolute waste of time to be arguing with Plekhanov.

Well lets examine the last few posts that led up to this shall we and maybe you can explain to me where my comprehension is letting me down.

You attempted to strawman an aspect of my argument:

What are you even arguing, in any case? That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

Sadly you couldn't even rebut your own strawman so I called you on your patently incorrect statement:

That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

Really when did they prove this? Which “actions and statements” were these?

So then in response to my demand that you provide some evidence of the past “actions and statements” of the terrorists that had already proven they wouldn't “leave the US alone if the US left them alone” you reeled off this:

The first World Trade Center bombing? The airplanes flown into the World Trade center? The attack on the USS Cole? Pan-Am Flight that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland? The murders of Iraqis who are supporting the elections? The murders of Iraqi police candidates? The attacks on American embassies in Africa? The attempt to smuggle bombs into Washington State by Ahmed Ressam in 2000? The murder of a 25 year Iraqi citizen of British descent?

A list of atrocities that occurred after decades of imperialistic US interference in the Arab world which simply show how Arabs have reacted to US (and more generally western) interference. The fact that you clearly don't understand this just shows how tragically clueless you are.

A piece of advice for you you dumb fucking apology for a Bush apologist, read some history before you come on a board where other posters know what the hell they are talking about because you clearly don't know a thing about Western involvement in the Middle East outside what Fox News told you.

[Big Phil]

Congratulations that last post surpassed even your usual standards of idiocy, please do explain how you can possibly argue that the West “left the Middle East alone” prior to any of the atrocities you so readily real off?

Good Christ, you are annoying. Either you can't read, or you deliberately misinterpret my posts. First you think you start off with insults, then you misread the post. How in the fuck do you read that I said the West "left the Middle East alone?" You have the reading comprehension of an ADHD-ridden six year old. You are an absolute waste of time to be arguing with Plekhanov.

Well lets examine the last few posts that led up to this shall we and maybe you can explain to me where my comprehension is letting me down.

You attempted to strawman an aspect of my argument:

What are you even arguing, in any case? That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

Sadly you couldn't even rebut your own strawman so I called you on your patently incorrect statement:

That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

Really when did they prove this? Which “actions and statements” were these?

So then in response to my demand that you provide some evidence of the past “actions and statements” of the terrorists that had already proven they wouldn't “leave the US alone if the US left them alone” you reeled off this:

The first World Trade Center bombing? The airplanes flown into the World Trade center? The attack on the USS Cole? Pan-Am Flight that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland? The murders of Iraqis who are supporting the elections? The murders of Iraqi police candidates? The attacks on American embassies in Africa? The attempt to smuggle bombs into Washington State by Ahmed Ressam in 2000? The murder of a 25 year Iraqi citizen of British descent?

A list of atrocities that occurred after decades of imperialistic US interference in the Arab world which simply show how Arabs have reacted to US (and more generally western) interference. The fact that you clearly don't understand this just shows how tragically clueless you are.

A piece of advice for you you dumb fucking apology for a Bush apologist, read some history before you come on a board where other posters know what the hell they are talking about because you clearly don't know a thing about Western involvement in the Middle East outside what Fox News told you.

Hey fucknut, I'll clue you in on something. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I have never watched Fox News. I'd be a pretty sorry Bush apologist with that voting and viewing record, now wouldn't I? Your only goal, ass monkey, has been to try to label me something that I am not. You could try to grow a brain, but that might be painful with your head shoved up your ass like it is.

You seem to have the opinion that the US started everything and is the cause of all terrorism throughout the world, and that Muslim extremists are simply responding to US actions. This is pretty sad, sorry, left-wing extremist bullshit. It's sort of like the dipshits who argue that the USSR opposed the USA only because the USA started it, or that Japan was justified in starting WWII because of US trade embargoes.

"Imperialistic US interference" What the fuck? Did this come straight out of "The Little Book of Communist Terminology?" There is more to international politics, terrorism, and international relations than "The US is bad." Of course you seem to think that everyone in the fucking world simply reacts to the U.S.'s evil actions, and that they wouldn't bother anyone otherwise.

Your every argument has been a nitpick and has revolved around the argument that militant Islam is simply reacting to Western aggression. This is utter bullshit, but I suppose you wouldn't realize this given the level of brainwashing you seem to be suffering from. You also prefer to attempt to label me as a Bush apologist and ignore the long history of Muslim aggression than to actually attempt a coherent argument.

Anyone who takes the position that Islam is simply reacting to Western aggression, and has NEVER behaved aggressively before is an utter moron. And before you mention it, moron, I recognize that Western democracies have acted aggresively without provocation in the past. Try to come up with a coherent argument that consists of something other than anti-US propaganda about the "imperialistic." I already know that you aren't able to, so I'll expect to see more left-wing propaganda here shortly.

[Plekhanov]

Admiral_K seeing as how you place such unconditional trust in unsubstantiated statements apparently made by terrorists groups how do you respond to this statement by Bin Laden last year.

Updated: 6:10 a.m. ET April 15, 2004

Following are excerpts from an purported audio tape by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden broadcast by Arab television stations on Thursday, as translated by Reuters.

This is a message to our neighbors north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.

advertisement
What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all and we do not accept that you monopolize it for yourselves, and knowledgeable nations will not accept that their leaders risk their security.

Be aware that if you describe us and our actions as terrorism then you should describe yourselves and your actions that way as well.

Our actions come in response to your actions of destroying and killing our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. It is enough to witness the event that shocked the world, the killing of the elderly, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, God have mercy on him, and we pledge to God to take revenge on America, God willing.

Under what grace are your victims innocent and ours dust and under which doctrine is your blood and our blood water? Reciprocation is just and he who starts is more unjust.

As for your leaders, and those who adopt their strategy, who insist on ignoring the real problem of the occupation of all of Palestine and who exaggerate in lying and denying our right to defend ourselves and to resist, they have no self-respect and belittle the faith and minds of people.

Their fallacy increases the shedding of your blood instead of stemming it. A review of the deaths in our land and your land reveal an important truth which is that there is injustice done to both us and you by your leaders who send your sons, despite your objections, to our land to kill and be killed.

It is in the interest of both parties not to give a chance to those who shed the blood of nations for their limited personal interest and obedience to the gang of the White House.

This war earns millions of dollars for big companies, whether those who manufacture weapons or those involved in reconstruction such as Halliburton and its sisters and daughters. And it becomes very clear who benefits from igniting the fires of this war and bloodshed, it is the traders of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind a curtain.

President (George W.) Bush and leaders in his sphere, big media institutions, and the United Nations which entrenches the relationship between the veto masters and the General Assembly slaves, are all instruments in deceiving and abusing people.

All of them are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous and difficult member, and we insist, God willing, on continuing to fight them.

Based on this, and to deprive war traders of opportunities, and in response to the positive reactions reflected in recent events and public polls showing that most European people want a truce, I urge the faithful, especially scholars, clerics and traders to establish a permanent committee to build awareness among Europeans of the justice of our causes, foremost Palestine, and make use of the vast media resources.

I offer a truce to them (Europe) with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including (participating) in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world.

This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. And the announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.

Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its (war’s) sons and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it.

Stop shedding our blood to save your own and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands. You know matters will escalate the more you delay and then do not blame us but blame yourselves. Rational people do not risk their security, money and sons to appease the White House liar.

The killing of Russians came after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the killing of Europeans came after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The killing of Americans on the day of New York came after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian peninsula and their killing in Somalia came after they invaded it in an operation to ’restore hope’, so we returned them without hope, thank God.

It would seem that he claims to be blowing westerners up not because “he hates freedom” but because he hates western inference in what he perceives to be the ”Muslim World”. So I'm just wondering Admiral is Bin Laden's speech also the gospel truth and a definitive statement as to why Muslim terrorists do what they do or are such unsubstantiated statements only reliable when they back up Bush's rhetoric?

[Justforfun000]

It would seem that he claims to be blowing westerners up not because “he hates freedom” but because he hates western inference in what he perceives to be the ”Muslim World”. So I'm just wondering Admiral is Bin Laden's speech also the gospel truth and a definitive statement as to why Muslim terrorists do what they do or are such unsubstantiated statements only reliable when they back up Bush's rhetoric?

I guess I'm playing devils advocate here...but wouldn't it be fair to say that Bin Laden is probably not really espousing his full views? I mean he may be speaking of the muslim world, but Islam at it's heart states quite clearly that the whole WORLD should be converted to be muslim. So ultimately, would it not follow that eventually he would expect the rest of the world to eventually follow suit?

[Big Phil]

Admiral_K seeing as how you place such unconditional trust in unsubstantiated statements apparently made by terrorists groups how do you respond to this statement by Bin Laden last year.

Updated: 6:10 a.m. ET April 15, 2004

Following are excerpts from an purported audio tape by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden broadcast by Arab television stations on Thursday, as translated by Reuters.

This is a message to our neighbors north of the Mediterranean Sea with a proposal for a truce in response to the positive reactions which emerged there.

advertisement
What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all and we do not accept that you monopolize it for yourselves, and knowledgeable nations will not accept that their leaders risk their security.

Be aware that if you describe us and our actions as terrorism then you should describe yourselves and your actions that way as well.

Our actions come in response to your actions of destroying and killing our people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. It is enough to witness the event that shocked the world, the killing of the elderly, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, God have mercy on him, and we pledge to God to take revenge on America, God willing.

Under what grace are your victims innocent and ours dust and under which doctrine is your blood and our blood water? Reciprocation is just and he who starts is more unjust.

As for your leaders, and those who adopt their strategy, who insist on ignoring the real problem of the occupation of all of Palestine and who exaggerate in lying and denying our right to defend ourselves and to resist, they have no self-respect and belittle the faith and minds of people.

Their fallacy increases the shedding of your blood instead of stemming it. A review of the deaths in our land and your land reveal an important truth which is that there is injustice done to both us and you by your leaders who send your sons, despite your objections, to our land to kill and be killed.

It is in the interest of both parties not to give a chance to those who shed the blood of nations for their limited personal interest and obedience to the gang of the White House.

This war earns millions of dollars for big companies, whether those who manufacture weapons or those involved in reconstruction such as Halliburton and its sisters and daughters. And it becomes very clear who benefits from igniting the fires of this war and bloodshed, it is the traders of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind a curtain.

President (George W.) Bush and leaders in his sphere, big media institutions, and the United Nations which entrenches the relationship between the veto masters and the General Assembly slaves, are all instruments in deceiving and abusing people.

All of them are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous and difficult member, and we insist, God willing, on continuing to fight them.

Based on this, and to deprive war traders of opportunities, and in response to the positive reactions reflected in recent events and public polls showing that most European people want a truce, I urge the faithful, especially scholars, clerics and traders to establish a permanent committee to build awareness among Europeans of the justice of our causes, foremost Palestine, and make use of the vast media resources.

I offer a truce to them (Europe) with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including (participating) in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world.

This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. And the announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.

Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its (war’s) sons and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it.

Stop shedding our blood to save your own and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands. You know matters will escalate the more you delay and then do not blame us but blame yourselves. Rational people do not risk their security, money and sons to appease the White House liar.

The killing of Russians came after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the killing of Europeans came after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The killing of Americans on the day of New York came after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian peninsula and their killing in Somalia came after they invaded it in an operation to ’restore hope’, so we returned them without hope, thank God.

It would seem that he claims to be blowing westerners up not because “he hates freedom” but because he hates western inference in what he perceives to be the ”Muslim World”. So I'm just wondering Admiral is Bin Laden's speech also the gospel truth and a definitive statement as to why Muslim terrorists do what they do or are such unsubstantiated statements only reliable when they back up Bush's rhetoric?

You're using Osama bin Laden as a reference? For fuck's sake...

[Justforfun000]

You're using Osama bin Laden as a reference? For fuck's sake...

LOL!!! For some reason, the way you said that was indescribably funny.

[Plekhanov]

Hey fucknut, I'll clue you in on something. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I have never watched Fox News. I'd be a pretty sorry Bush apologist with that voting and viewing record, now wouldn't I? Your only goal, ass monkey, has been to try to label me something that I am not. You could try to grow a brain, but that might be painful with your head shoved up your ass like it is.

You might not have voted for him but you sure as hell are defending his moronic analysis of the reasons for Islamic terrorism therefore you are a Bush apologist.

You seem to have the opinion that the US started everything and is the cause of all terrorism throughout the world, and that Muslim extremists are simply responding to US actions. This is pretty sad, sorry, left-wing extremist bullshit.

I never argued that nor did I ever say that the US was only aggressor on the western side, quit strawmanning.

It's sort of like the dipshits who argue that the USSR opposed the USA only because the USA started it, or that Japan was justified in starting WWII because of US trade embargoes.

I never said that did I though, well done a straw man and red herring rolled into one.

"Imperialistic US interference" What the fuck? Did this come straight out of "The Little Book of Communist Terminology?"

Yes obviously I question US and more generally Western foreign policy in the middle east therefore I'm a communist

There is more to international politics, terrorism, and international relations than "The US is bad." Of course you seem to think that everyone in the fucking world simply reacts to the U.S.'s evil actions, and that they wouldn't bother anyone otherwise.

More strawmanning I never said that, what I did do is question your bullshit assertion that Islamic terrorists had in someway proven that they would be attacking us even if we had “left them alone” will you please quit bitching and actually provide some evidence for this absurd claim.

Your every argument has been a nitpick and has revolved around the argument that militant Islam is simply reacting to Western aggression.

Yes of course the fact that Lockerby, the 1st World Trade centre Bombing and so forth occurred decades after the US had been bloodily involved up to it's armpits in the middle east is just a “nitpick” to your proof about the motives for “Islamic terrorism”

This is utter bullshit, but I suppose you wouldn't realize this given the level of brainwashing you seem to be suffering from. You also prefer to attempt to label me as a Bush apologist and ignore the long history of Muslim aggression than to actually attempt a coherent argument.

I'm well aware of the history of friction between Islam and Christendom (as it then was) and then later on Europe then the West and that both sides have been aggressors it just so happens that for well over 100 years the West has been by far in the ascendant and in most if the recent conflicts the aggressor.

Anyone who takes the position that Islam is simply reacting to Western aggression, and has NEVER behaved aggressively before is an utter moron.

Good job I never said that then, more straw manning.

And before you mention it, moron, I recognize that Western democracies have acted aggresively without provocation in the past. Try to come up with a coherent argument that consists of something other than anti-US propaganda about the "imperialistic." I already know that you aren't able to, so I'll expect to see more left-wing propaganda here shortly.

First off take the trouble to look over my posts in this thread and you'll see that I repeatedly talk about Western and not just US actions, I'm in no way anti-American it's just that as the premier power at the minute the US not unsurprisingly does the most imperial meddling and consequently comes in for most criticism. Anyway all the mud you're slinging is just an attempt by you to get away from having to back up your previous and patently absurd claim that:

What are you even arguing, in any case? That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

So will you please do so, quit avoiding the issue and provide some evidence of the “actions and statements” that prove this.

[Plekhanov]

It would seem that he claims to be blowing westerners up not because “he hates freedom” but because he hates western inference in what he perceives to be the ”Muslim World”. So I'm just wondering Admiral is Bin Laden's speech also the gospel truth and a definitive statement as to why Muslim terrorists do what they do or are such unsubstantiated statements only reliable when they back up Bush's rhetoric?

I guess I'm playing devils advocate here...but wouldn't it be fair to say that Bin Laden is probably not really espousing his full views? I mean he may be speaking of the muslim world, but Islam at it's heart states quite clearly that the whole WORLD should be converted to be muslim. So ultimately, would it not follow that eventually he would expect the rest of the world to eventually follow suit?

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting for a second that we should take Bin Laden's (if it really was him on the tape) word on anything and I'm emphatically not suggesting for a second that we should have taken up his offer of a “truce”.

What I am doing is wondering how those such as Amiral K and Sanchez who seem to believe that the website cited by Fox News conclusively proves Bush's “they hate freedom” bullshit deal with an entire statement apparently by Goldstein himself which provides a very different explanation for Jihadi terrorism.

You're using Osama bin Laden as a reference? For fuck's sake...

Well Bin Laden is a terrorist who considers himself to be some kind of a “holy warrior” he (apparently) made a statement in which set out what he saw as reasons for Muslims violently attacking the West.

This is a thread about the motives behind “Islamic Terrorism” the op of which cited statements purportedly made by Muslim terrorists, it's really quite bizarre that you should find it so shocking that I reference some more evidence of a similar nature?

[Big Phil]

What are you even arguing, in any case? That terrorists would leave the US alone if the US left them alone? They've already proven by their actions and statements that this is bullshit.

So will you please do so, quit avoiding the issue and provide some evidence of the “actions and statements” that prove this.

Okay dipshit, you need a list of Islamic aggression without provocation, here is a list:

- In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain.
- Shortly thereafter, between 630 and 632, Muslims conquered most of Arabia and Palestine.
- The Ottoman Empire invaded Christian Eastern Europe in the 16th Century, conquered the Balkans, Romania, Bessarabia, and Hungary, and were only stopped outside of Vienna in 1529.
- The Moghul conquest of India in the early 1600's

You want something more recent?

- Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.
- Muslim northern Sudan has conquered much of southern Sudan, literally enslaving its Christian and pagan population.
- Indonesian imperialism has occupied all of non-Islamic western New Guinea and incorporated into Indonesia.
- Muslim Indonesia has invaded and conquered Christian East Timor with horrible loss of life.
- Muslim Indonesia is currently stamping out Christians in the Celebes.
- Muslim Iraq invaded and occupied Muslim Kuwait in 1990
- Muslim Iraq invaded Muslim Iran and fought a war during the 1980's
- Muslim Northern Nigeria has been (and is currently) an aggressor against the Christian south.

You want something related to the US? Since you like to use Osama bin Laden, I'll use his own words.

- The triggers for bin Laden's/Al Qaeda's actions, as he himself has explained very clearly, were America's presence in Arabia during the Gulf War—a desecration of the Muslim Holy Land—and America's use of Saudi Arabia as a base for an attack on Iraq.

- Bin Laden's comments in a May 28, 1998 interview with ABC News:
"We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage cold wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than twenty-four hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. . . . The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers. . . . After a few blows, they ran in defeat. . . . They forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. [They] left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles."

Bin Laden's interview with Al-Jazeera after September 11:
"We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God. I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."


In other words, September 11 was a response to the American military presence in Saudi Arabia and its defense of Kuwait in 1991.

The following article includes the complete text of Osama bin Laden's "letter to America" as of November 24, 2002. In it, Osama blames all of his actions on the US, but the most telling part is the following snippet:

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

There are many other arguments he makes, which point out reaonable criticisms (not meddling in the Middle East, not supporting Russia in Chechnya, etc.), but I think his point is clear; He wants to establish an Islamic government in (at a minimum) the USA. To hell with the Constitution, to hell with freedom of religion, we should all become muslims and follow the whims of the Caliph.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie ... %2C00.html

[Darth Wong]

Your arguments would make sense if we were debating the question of whether Islamic fanaticism caused the 9/11 attacks. But according to George W. Bush, it was not Islam in any way. Instead, it was people "who hate freedom", which is a pathetic evasion of the truth that nobody wants to admit because it's politically incorrect to say something bad about a religion.

[Big Phil]

Your arguments would make sense if we were debating the question of whether Islamic fanaticism caused the 9/11 attacks. But according to George W. Bush, it was not Islam in any way. Instead, it was people "who hate freedom", which is a pathetic evasion of the truth that nobody wants to admit because it's politically incorrect to say something bad about a religion.

Georgie Bush is an idiot; I don't base my values on whether they agree with this deluded fool. That doesn't mean, however, that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations aren't opposed to democracy and freedom in both their countries and the Western democracies. They clearly are, as Osama bin Laden's statement above says.

[Coyote]

I'd be interested in knowing what the exact Arab word for "truce" was used in the offer to Europe and America. They have different words for different intents behind their truces.

To declare a jihad against infidels, and then later make a truce with the infidels, is against shari'a. There is, however, the truce known as "hudna", which is when a group of Mulims engaged in Jihad realized thay are outmatched-- they call a "hudna" which is specifically a truce for the purposes of building up forces for a later attack when the Muslim army is powerful enough to overcome the enemy.

They know that this concept doesn't translate into Latin-based languages and comes out as "truce" which sounds warm and friendly and reasonable... but it is just setting the stage for the next round of attacks.

Bush more or less stays inline with the American ideal of freedom. The militant groups blatantly piss on it. Therefore, from my point of view, they hate freedom.

The American ideal of freedom according to who? See, we're already wading into fuzzy borders of comprehension. I guarantee you that the American ideal of fredom means something entirely different to many different people... a white Southern Baptist male in a comfy, middle-class home in Oklahoma is going to have a completely different spin on that phrase than a Barrio kid in East LA, a Cherokee on a reservation, and an industrialist with two or three eight-figure-value homes around the country.

They think it is right because that is what has been drilled into them by their government and religious leaders. And thats what will continue to be drilled into them if these extremists succeed. Part of what comes with the freedom to change, is the freedom to do nothing. However, without the freedom to change, then there will never be any reform in the middle east.

Go back and look at that again. It could be the US right up until the very end when you say specifically, "the middle east". Take the Pledge of Allegiance's "so help me God" phrase-- added in the 1950's as part of the anti-Communist hysteria. Now that he Communist hysteria is over, is it time to take that out? Maybe-- but the very suggestion brings howls of protest from people who don't want to change our "time-honored tradition".

Time honored from when? There are still people alive today who remember the nation that fought World War Two and defeated Nazism and Fascism without that phrase in there. And to be honest, if they want to be faithful to the "time honored tradition" they'd see to it that the phrase was taken out so that the Pledge would actually be more like the original document.

Religious extremists exist in the US, too. Many are trying to get Creation taught in schools. Restrictions on abortion have already been outlined in cases where even the mother's life may be endangered: "I don't care if you die, you're having that baby!" There may not be a black-robed Inquisitor standing over her in the delivery room saying those exact words, but the effect is the same.

To a lot of people, the religious extremists in the Middle East are ideological kin to the super-conservative Christian fundamentalist movement in the USA. Freedoms and rights to pursue happiness are being curtailed in the US by law instead of by Kalashnikov, but the effect is the same.

Velvet oppression is still oppresion to those who suffer from it. I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but we're saying that there is a lot more to it and you're missing the wider target. If one set of religious government extremism is bad, they should all be recognized for bad.

[Admiral_K]

Your arguments would make sense if we were debating the question of whether Islamic fanaticism caused the 9/11 attacks. But according to George W. Bush, it was not Islam in any way. Instead, it was people "who hate freedom", which is a pathetic evasion of the truth that nobody wants to admit because it's politically incorrect to say something bad about a religion.

Thats not completely accurate. While not blaming "mainstream" islam, he most certainly has laid at least some of the blame on the "perverted" militant islam that most terrorists ascribe to. And yes it may be an evasion, but to what end would it serve to insult the entire religion, when only a certain sect is at the heart of the problem.

Heres some excerpts from an article today on CNN.

(Sanchez might find this to be of interest as well)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html
In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire...

...Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic. But Iraqi groups including Sunni clergy that had earlier called for boycotting the January 30 vote now say they want to participate if a timetable is set for U.S. withdrawal

Two things are established within Bin Ladens statements. First: His goal is not to simply drive "infidels out of the holyland" it is to establish a "worldwide Islamic Empire". What such grandiose plans might entail is anyones guess.

The second thing we notice is that he re-iterates the apparent view of democracy as being "un-islamic". This would seem to present more evidence that this view is prevalent among Islamic Militants.

[Big Phil]

Your arguments would make sense if we were debating the question of whether Islamic fanaticism caused the 9/11 attacks. But according to George W. Bush, it was not Islam in any way. Instead, it was people "who hate freedom", which is a pathetic evasion of the truth that nobody wants to admit because it's politically incorrect to say something bad about a religion.

Thats not completely accurate. While not blaming "mainstream" islam, he most certainly has laid at least some of the blame on the "perverted" militant islam that most terrorists ascribe to. And yes it may be an evasion, but to what end would it serve to insult the entire religion, when only a certain sect is at the heart of the problem.

Heres some excerpts from an article today on CNN.

(Sanchez might find this to be of interest as well)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html
In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire...

...Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic. But Iraqi groups including Sunni clergy that had earlier called for boycotting the January 30 vote now say they want to participate if a timetable is set for U.S. withdrawal

Two things are established within Bin Ladens statements. First: His goal is not to simply drive "infidels out of the holyland" it is to establish a "worldwide Islamic Empire". What such grandiose plans might entail is anyones guess.

The second thing we notice is that he re-iterates the apparent view of democracy as being "un-islamic". This would seem to present more evidence that this view is prevalent among Islamic Militants.

But Admiral K, remember, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are merely responding to Western aggression. They don't have any problem with America, Europe or other Western cultures otherwise. They would never have bothered us if we hadn't meddled in their affairs, such as by allowing women to vote or not requiring everyone to convert to Islam and follow Islamic law. And heaven forbid we have the temerity to broadcast our sinful television programs into Islamic housholds, or respond to requests for military aid from an ally who was invaded by another country.

[Admiral_K]

Your arguments would make sense if we were debating the question of whether Islamic fanaticism caused the 9/11 attacks. But according to George W. Bush, it was not Islam in any way. Instead, it was people "who hate freedom", which is a pathetic evasion of the truth that nobody wants to admit because it's politically incorrect to say something bad about a religion.

Thats not completely accurate. While not blaming "mainstream" islam, he most certainly has laid at least some of the blame on the "perverted" militant islam that most terrorists ascribe to. And yes it may be an evasion, but to what end would it serve to insult the entire religion, when only a certain sect is at the heart of the problem.

Heres some excerpts from an article today on CNN.

(Sanchez might find this to be of interest as well)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html
In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire...

...Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic. But Iraqi groups including Sunni clergy that had earlier called for boycotting the January 30 vote now say they want to participate if a timetable is set for U.S. withdrawal

Two things are established within Bin Ladens statements. First: His goal is not to simply drive "infidels out of the holyland" it is to establish a "worldwide Islamic Empire". What such grandiose plans might entail is anyones guess.

The second thing we notice is that he re-iterates the apparent view of democracy as being "un-islamic". This would seem to present more evidence that this view is prevalent among Islamic Militants.

But Admiral K, remember, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are merely responding to Western aggression. They don't have any problem with America, Europe or other Western cultures otherwise. They would never have bothered us if we hadn't meddled in their affairs, such as by allowing women to vote or not requiring everyone to convert to Islam and follow Islamic law. And heaven forbid we have the temerity to broadcast our sinful television programs into Islamic housholds, or respond to requests for military aid from an ally who was invaded by another country.

Don't forget about the whores and liquour our aid workers are bringing into islamic countries while helping clean up after the Tsunami!

[Big Phil]

It's awfully quiet in here... no responses?

[Darth Wong]

It's awfully quiet in here... no responses?

Don't be an asshole. Just because people have gotten bored with a thread doesn't mean they think you've won. No one has presented even a hint of a meaningful case to support Bush's idiotic "they hate freedom" explanation for the motives of Islamic terrorists. I believe that even the last few responses in favour of this position have been so evasive on that point that they speak for themselves. And those who say that the subject has changed are simply conceding that the original point was in fact wrong, which is all we need.

[Admiral_K]

It's awfully quiet in here... no responses?

Don't be an asshole. Just because people have gotten bored with a thread doesn't mean they think you've won. No one has presented even a hint of a meaningful case to support Bush's idiotic "they hate freedom" explanation for the motives of Islamic terrorists. I believe that even the last few responses in favour of this position have been so evasive on that point that they speak for themselves. And those who say that the subject has changed are simply conceding that the original point was in fact wrong, which is all we need.

WE can't even agree on the topic being argued apparently.

My position has been clear from the start: That by their own statements and actions, these groups have shown that they do hate freedom. That fact is evident by what they give as their reasoning for calling Democracy "unislamic". Similar statements from multiple sources (Bin Laden, other militant groups fighting in Iraq, etc) indicate that this is a prevalent feeling among those groups.

My primary contention is that these groups aren't "fighting for freedom" as some portray them, rather they are fighting for the establishment of a muslim dictatorship, similar to the one imposed by the Taliban. This government would crack down on freedoms of speech, religion, choice of government leaders, and a slew of other freedoms for all of Iraq's citizens, to say nothing of what would happen to women's rights.

I also said that this validated Bush's statement that these groups do hate freedom. Thats the ONLY thing I've contended regarding Bush's statements. I've not said that I agree with Bush's policys, or that all of his statements about these groups are correct, or that these groups "hatred of freedom" is their sole motivation. And yet that is what has been cast against me in a blatant strawman assault.

Essentially, its been one big ad hominem attack against Bush by people who hate Bush. Rather than taking the "These groups had freedom" statement on its own merits, they are trying to attack Bush's policies which are a complete red herring, or they try to mischaracterize my argument as some sort of endorsement of ALL of Bush's policies or statements. If anyone else had made the statement "these groups hate freedom" and then the evidence were presented as it has, then I don't think we would've even had a debate.

[Big Phil]

It's awfully quiet in here... no responses?

Don't be an asshole. Just because people have gotten bored with a thread doesn't mean they think you've won. No one has presented even a hint of a meaningful case to support Bush's idiotic "they hate freedom" explanation for the motives of Islamic terrorists. I believe that even the last few responses in favour of this position have been so evasive on that point that they speak for themselves. And those who say that the subject has changed are simply conceding that the original point was in fact wrong, which is all we need.

1. That is a highly convenient exuses (boredom), one which you lambast (properly) in all of your public debates with Darkstar and others of his ilk. When I'm asked to prove something, and I do, and then (conveniently) everyone grows "bored" with the discussion, that's highly suspicious.
2. My argument with Plekhanov had nothing to do with Bush and his idiotic explanations.