EnMasse

[al-Qa'bong]

Apparently not religion:

[Hondo]

[unionist]

[Hondo]

What these people say to your face is generally not the what they really believe.
_________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." Winston Churchill

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill[/size]

[TS.]

[Tehanu]

Gawd. Okay, Hondo, that's earned you a 24-hour break. When and if you come back, we expect you to follow the Acceptable Use Policy. Also, a reminder of not citing entire articles, so I'm going to edit that one down for you.

If anyone wants to read that charming article in all its original glory, I think the link is here. It keeps crashing my browser, though, so unless it's just me, be warned.

[al-Qa'bong]

I by no means am calling for Hondo to be suspended or banned or anything, but saying that "The Muslims" are aiming at world domination is every bit as hateful as saying that "The Jooz" run the world.

I'm not even unhappy to see this sort of thing crop up on EnMasse, as it gives credence to my belief that anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racism is the 21st century antisemitism.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[anne cameron]

Increasingly ironic and even increasingly scarey how so many people seem to be forgetting that one person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist".

As for people saying something other than what they really mean...you know I've long felt that way about politicians in general and neo-con politicians in particular.

At some point some people are just going to have to come to grips with the reality that you can't kick the shit out of people, rip off their natural resources, manipulate their governments, cause wide=spread poverty and not have a few people get quite determinedly pissed off about it all.

Muslim world domination? Jeebus, now I'm just not going to sleep at all.

And here all this time I've been worrying about the spread of capitalism!

Well, just shows to go ya, I guess.

[Diane Demorney]

^anne:
It's always something... /end Roseanne Roseannadanna voice.
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.

[anne cameron]

RIght, and if it isn't one thing, it's another!

[Senor Magoo]

[Diane Demorney]

[TS.]

[voice of the damned]

[Senor Magoo]

Fair enough. Now I regret not excluding those groups whose ideologies and dogma are as rigid and perfect as any religion, and effectively take the place of one (eg: eco-terrorists).

That said, anyone got anything on #1 and #2? What, if not religion, drives Osama? And please, no laughable answers like "he saw sadness throughout the world and vowed to do something about it".

Seriously... what's his deal, if NOT religion?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[al-Qa'bong]

In his own words, Osama is defending his homeland.

Resist the new Rome

[bshmr]

[al-Qa'bong]

I have that original announcement, from the fall of 2001, bookmarked somewhere else. I'll post it later, although I've posted it on both babble and EnMasse already.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Senor Magoo]

[al-Qa'bong]

Jihad is a method, not a motivation.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[voice of the damned]

[voice of the damned]

Oh, one more thing from the interview...

[anne cameron]

Well, okay OBL sounds like someone who is pretty snarled up in a particular religious viewpoint. Sorta like Billy Graham. Or that bizarre woman who runs "God Camp". Or maybe even Dubya.

But I think that's a kind of excusatory rhetoric. If they hadn't glommed on to God in some form it could as easily be mega-vitamin therapy.

Their vocalizations come through their particular filter but without the background of exploitation and interference in government... they'd just be wandering around in the desert eating locusts dipped in honey.

And I think this purported "saudi government" would fall before next Tuesday if it wasn't for the US keeping it propped up.

It's munny munny munny. That's all. Just munny.

[al-Qa'bong]

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

[Searosia]

Magoo:

[bshmr]

The translation, offered by al-Qa'bong, differs from those I was familiar with. The Guardian cites The Observer which apparently explains thus:

[al-Qa'bong]

Someone upthread mentioned the government of Saudi Arabia and its relationship with the US. Since using logic, providing historical context and citing current examples usually don't work in responding to "arguments" like this...


_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[al-Qa'bong]

[anne cameron]

I find it very telling that Osama and many others who are often linked to him as his "followers" refer to the coalition of the willing as "crusaders". I'm not sure they're entirely off base about it, and I often wonder how much the influence of the right-wing X-ian contingent is a driving force in the expanding nastiness. They don't quite use the term "crusade" but ...

[Rufus Polson]

As I recall in Afghanistan they initially were going to until it was pointed out this would be terrible optics.

[al-Qa'bong]

Bush called his war on Arabs and Muslims a "crusade" in the first days of the war. For obvious reasons his handlers immediately tried to downplay this slip, although Bush's campaign fundraisers praised Bush for his crusade a few years later.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Wee Mousie]

In my opinion, what drives leaders of terrorist groups into acts of terror is the desire for a reaction. Whether Usama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh, they are both part of an overlooked, marginalized group. They want to count, be noticed.

At one time al Qaeda was the darling of the CIA. It receiving money, arms, training and covert praise for their efforts against the Russians in Afghanistan. Then the Russians left, and al Qaeda no longer had a purpose.

The one thing you soon learn about organizations, is that most organizations resist being disbanded. The OSS did not disband after the successful conclusion of the Second World War. The March of Dimes did not disappear when polio was defeated. Al Qaeda did not dissolve following the pull out of Russian troops from Afghanistan. They all looked around for a similar campaign to occupy their special talents, and kept on trucking.

The OSS transformed itself into the CIA. The March of Dimes assigned itself a new mission, to prevent premature birth, birth defects and infant mortality. Al Qaeda turned from its success at driving Russians out of Afghanistan to driving all infidels (especially Americans) out of their holy lands (especially Saudi Arabia).

Once the leaders had chosen a new direction, they needed the right kind of publicity to attract followers to their cause. Throughout the 1990s al Qaeda targeted American resources with four attacks, first on American servicemen in Aden, Yemen (1992) then on the World Trade Center, New York City (1994), a bombing at the US embassy in East Africa (1998) and a suicide attack against the USS Cole (2000). In the midst of these four events Bin Laden as the leader of al Qaeda issued a fatwa against the United States(1996) and, in concert with other Islamic leaders, as the World Islamic Front for Combat Against the Jews and Crusaders (1998).

Except for eliciting “measured responses” from the American military and standard legal prosecution, where applicable, by the American Department of Justice, these efforts went unnoticed, or barely lasted the requisite length of time to qualify as a nine-day-wonder.

It was only with the 911 attack that Bin Laden and al Qaeda got, not only sufficient recognition, but the right kind of response. When the Bush Administration sent infidel (American) troops into Afghanistan (and then Iraq!) al Qaeda got a threat that all (not just a few extremists) could appreciate.

In the six-and-a-half years since the 911 attack, we have only the Bush Administration’s word for it that al Qaeda has attempted to replicate their success. There really is no need. The reaction to the original attack has been sufficient to keep al Qaeda in business, growing in power, in men and materials. Bin Laden does not particularly need to strike in the US again.

Bin Laden's only fear is that something might persuade the west to pack up and leave the middle east. Were that to happen, then, just as in the Afghanistan of 1990, al Qaeda will have been so successful it will have put itself out of business again. At that time they will either have to strike in the US again, or find a new enemy.

It is funny how one of Bush’s canards does prove to have a twisted sort of logic. Until American troops leave Iraq, and stop inflaming Arab sensibilities, there is less need for a sound homeland defence.

They won’t have to defend themselves from al Qaeda, seeking another reaction, here at home until they quit infuriating potential al Qaeda followers, over there, in Iraq.
_________________
Relieve The Troops — Bring Them Home Now!

[Senor Magoo]

[al-Qa'bong]

Yeah, just as Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. These terrorists were so unpopular they had to become heads of state.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Senor Magoo]

And once they became heads of state (ie: received some popular support) did they stop building nail bombs in their basements?

That doesn't exactly hurt my point.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[elmateo]

No Magoo is right, because once they become truly popular we start giving them other labels. In the US they were called the "Continental Army" and "founding fathers". But I guess we have to qualify popular a bit more - popular amongst those who construct the acceptable "truth".

[al-Qa'bong]

[DTA]

American Foreign Policy would be the short answer. They have interfered with, threatened and over threw governments all over the world in the last 100+ years and they continue to do so.

I am actually surprised there has not been more repercussions on US soil. Not that I want it to happen but they can not keep doing what they are doing and expect nothing to happen.

The Taliban were ok when they were fighting the Russians, Saddam was there man when he was fighting Iran, the Saudi's better watch out as they really do not know who they are in bed with, but they should know, so I guess they ain't to bright.

As long as Dictators like Batista, Saddam, Kings of Saudi etc do as they are told by their masters in Washington, all is well, cross Washington and watch out. You will be branded a terrorist.

Thats why guys like Fidel and Hugo get admiration from people like me, even though they are not perfect but they kicked out and kept out American Imperialism unlike Harper.

I think many in the 'Arab' world look at Osama in the same way. Although I like Fidel, Che, Poncho, Hugo a lot more than Osama, I do understand Osama's motives to an extent. But I do not condone killing innocent people just like I do not condone the US killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Cartman]

[elmateo]

I am surprised that there has been no violent outrage over New Orleans. The amount of utter crap people there had to and continue to deal with is a testament to the patience of the American people for their own political system. Tens of thousands are homeless/losing their homes!

They have a law that says if you do not make your flood damaged house look pretty, and the city has to bulldoze it for you then you lose ownership to the city. Oh and the notice is 30-days and if you live out of state, say in I don't know Houston, a FEMA trailer, or your cousin's house out of state you'll lose a few days on the postage time.

[Wee Mousie]

[elmateo]

Pirates were a menace ...

I feel it has a lot more to do with how we legitimate some sorts of violence and not others. In its current variety, we like to use weapon types as the determinant, because technology is simple yet effective qualifier. Expensive military technology = wealthy = good guy. Cheap home made bomb = poorer = bad guy. Harder to do when the pinnacle of modern weapons was a sword and a horse (though I am sure efforts were made along those lines with shinny armour signifying an acceptable conveyor of violence).

[Senor Magoo]

[anne cameron]

And if he's got something the war bird wants he'll have "liberated" his people. If he doesn't have Gold/Oil/Drugs he's a terrorist, if he has access to them he's a hero.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

[Senor Magoo]

I'm getting the sense that this thread was intended to be less about discussing terrorism and more about reiterating that "The U.S. is the REAL terrorists!"

Instead of trying to define or discuss terrorism on its own terms, the left seems perenially content to let the United States define it, and then say "No, that's incorrect!"

Did Timothy McVeigh not have something the U.S. government wanted, and is that why we call him a terrorist? Will members of EarthFirst and ALF become heads of state if they get popular support? Is arson considered a high-tech weapon or low-tech, for the purposes of labelling?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[elmateo]

Heaven forbid people condemn "violence" and point out that these distinctions of violence are constructed to give legitimacy of one kind of violence. If they do that they are just being anti-American... or is that just the latest of a list of Magoo defined labels?

[al-Qa'bong]

I think it's best to ignore magoo's worthless posts in this regard. After all, a guy who writes this:

[Senor Magoo]

[elmateo]

[Senor Magoo]