"We are Muslims We love peace, but peace on our terms"

#1
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Investiga...=1115448&page=1

Sept. 11, 2005 ? In an apparent Sept. 11 communiqu? broadcast on ABC News, an al Qaeda operative threatens new attacks against cities in the US and Australia.

"Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, God willing. At this time, don't count on us demonstrating restraint or compassion," the tape warns. "We are Muslims. We love peace, but peace on our terms, peace as laid down by Islam, not the so-called peace of occupiers and dictators."
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#4
You could replace 'Muslims' with any religious, political or empirical group in history and you'll have an accurate assessment of the way that war propaganda works.

Peace and war are mutually exclusive, no matter the bearer of the bomb or the intent behind it.
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#6
coconutman said:
Muslims IMO are totally different breed.
Technically they are. :)

In all seriousness though, these so-called Muslims who spew terrorist propaganda are just another breed of war monger. They are everywhere throughout history and the language is the same as the rest of the war mongers ... many a Christian has waged war in the name of peace, too.

Do you know any Muslims? I do, and the ones I do know are just regular people. We disagree on the notion of religion (I'm atheist, with the same disagreements with other religions) but beyond that we are more or less the same.

But it's in the interest of the Western media to make sure never to portray their good side, as a whole. Like, did Fox News report that a Muslim organisation donated $1 million to Katrina relief, sent it directly to a Christian church group?

As an example.
 
#7
I have plenty of Muslim friends. And it's not like they are all Americanized but do believe in their relgions and do the things that muslims do. All of them are between 20-24. . Nobody judges them because they are just too cool for that. It's like saying Germans are Nazis or Russians are commies.
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#8
I think Middle Eastern culture (not specifically Muslim I don't think) is so much different than ours that it's hard to relate to. I especially can't imagine being a woman there ...

But the notion of 'war in the name of peace' isn't unique to Muslims ... all cultures, races and religions have said the same at some time or another. Just the usual public relations bits that convince otherwise nice people to accept the ideas of killing and of being killed.

The quote in the original post can be found - with slightly different wording - in quotes from many world leaders today. I'm sure I could find plenty of them from Bush's mouth.
 
#9
I agree religion is the root of many conflicts. However, I don't see 19 baptist boys getting together to fly a few jetliners into buildings. MAY'N!!
Muslims are the most radical followers on earth. I'm tried of hearing how they are just like everyone else. BS, they are a brutal culture and have been for thousands of years. Thank god for the most part they are a 3rd world society.
Cruel bastards mostly, towards women, childern, other religions and even other MUSLIMS.
Nut keep an eye on those cool 20-24 year old muslims. Their probably here for a reason!
 
#10
The Saudis are one of the most repressive governments in the world, will confiscate your Holy Bible at customs and fostered the culture of hate to send 15 of 19 terrorists to attack the United States and yet George Bush kisses their collective asses' and most of you guys continue to metaphorically kiss his ass! This would be funny if not so tragically sad!
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#13
TONY MONTANA said:
I don't see 19 baptist boys getting together to fly a few jetliners into buildings.
True.

What you see instead are tens of thousands of baptist boys singing God Bless America while they drop bombs on innocent civilians.

What's the difference?
 
#14
xpanda said:
True.

What you see instead are tens of thousands of baptist boys singing God Bless America while they drop bombs on innocent civilians.

What's the difference?
Well said X! Both are wrong and both have been duped and brainwashed by their leadership!
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#15
ZZ CREAM said:
Well said X! Both are wrong and both have been duped and brainwashed by their leadership!
You know, I was watching this documentary last night on the Rwandan massacre of the 90s ... it's really the same formula every single time. Small group of power-mongers organise their society to celebrate war, weapons, aristocracy. None of this benefits the people personally (how could endangering your life benefit you personally?) but somehow we are convinced of this ... the exaggeration of the 'great enemy' who is 'threatening our freedom' to mobilise people. For the Rwandans, it was the Tzutzis (sp?) for the Bin Ladens it's the West, for the Americans it's been the Reds, the Japs, the Gooks, now the Muslims.

Stupid. All across the board, stupid.
 
#16
You need a constant enemy so you have to keep ordering new and improved weaponry to keep the money flowing! With this war you get a double bonus, not only new defense appropriations but almost triple oil prices from just two and a half years ago putting mega-bucks in many pockets , here Saudi Arabia, and every where else that produces oil. These guys always espouse the lack of refinery theory as to new price hikes, so, if this is the case how come we put our international economy in the hands of so few men? Why are we not better prepared to deal with this lack of refineries. If it was not profitable enough, then the US Gov't should have built their own to insure world 'security'. That would have been a much better investment than getting kids killed for nothing in Iraq and nation-building when all W could talk about before was he would never nation build. It seems never is not very long a time!
 
#17
XPANDA, who are the innocent civilians? MAY'N! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
If you CANADIAN aren't careful we'll stop buying Maple syrup and throw you guys into a recession. LOL!
 
#18
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA, who are the innocent civilians? MAY'N! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
If you CANADIAN aren't careful we'll stop buying Maple syrup and throw you guys into a recession. LOL!
You better be careful, our Canadian Brethren may cut off your Molson and LaBatt's at the source! P.S. I think she may mean some of the many innocent civilians in Iraq that have been killed corrillarily, in Bushtalk!
 
#20
TONY MONTANA said:
ZZ, I drink BUD LIGHT the KING of BEERS made right here in the good ole USA. MAY'N! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!
That's like saying MD 20/20 is comparable to Dom Perignon! LOL! P.S. And that comes from someone who averaged a case of Bud every weekend for years!
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#21
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA, who are the innocent civilians? MAY'N! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!
If you CANADIAN aren't careful we'll stop buying Maple syrup and throw you guys into a recession. LOL!
Let's stick to the most recent aggressive war started by the US: Iraq.

To date, conservative estimates agree that at least 35,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. That is civilians, not Iraqi soldiers or insurgents, but civilians.

Three years ago, these 35,000 innocent Iraqi civilians were brushing their teeth, playing with their friends, having breakfast just like you and I. Now they are all dead.

Two of them include my friend's mother and niece. Both dead.

I can assure you that at no time did they conspire to fly a plane into any American buildings.
 
#22
X: I am sorry for you and your friends' losses of life! We seldom hear of these injuries and deaths and when we do it just makes one feel even more frustrated and worthless in trying to change things that should be taken for granted, but sadly are not. Once again, my sympathies to you and all others who have paid the ultimate price in another senseless war, over age old greed, avarice and power.
 
#24
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA , it's so good to have your assurance. Iraq started the war in 1991 and failed to comply with the sanctions. Blame SADDAM!! MAY'M!!
And who put this Saddam guy in power and propped him up during his war with Iran? And who had three months lead time before this Saddam guy mobilized in preparation for his attack on Kuwait and did nothing? Sounds like business as usual to me and the Bushies and the Saudis!
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#26
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA , it's so good to have your assurance. Iraq started the war in 1991 and failed to comply with the sanctions. Blame SADDAM!! MAY'M!!
True that Saddam failed to comply with the sanctions, and true that he may have given the 'impression' to 'some people' that he might be stockpiling WMD and getting ready to invade another country (I say this to appease your argument, not because I believe it, btw.) But once the US army walked in and took over the country in a matter of three weeks, with almost no resistance and certainly no attack by WMD, didn't that send a wee bit of a red flag that the justification of preemptive self-defense was completely and utterly off-base?

Would that not be the time to get the fuck out and stop killing people?

In civilised nations, we are only supposed to fight those who fight us. Absent that condition, we can only be labeled aggressors, war mongers.

Iraq never fought you.
 
#28
W and his buddies getting richer while brainwashed kids and innocent civilians die as Republican 'sheep' defend the cause is nothing new. Look at the War Between the States and you will see how 90% of the Southern troops fought to sustain slavery while very few percentage wise even owned slaves. Compares in my mind how Bushies, like Bush himself can never admit to wrong doing in any facet of their ruling periods. Amazing (Tony's word-LOL!) how quickly the US has fallen under Bush' regime in all phases of life and government and their blind allegiance will only make it worse when reality is finally admitted.
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#30
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA, you and I will never see eye to eye on politics. MAY'M! I wish the world could be like a JOHN LEENON song, but it's not.
If it's true that you wish their was less war and more peace in the world, then why don't you support peaceful endeavours?

It's really not that hard to do ... all you need to do is insist that your military be used for self-defense and not vote for anyone who would use it otherwise, protest against those who fight aggressively, etc.

ps. If I haven't already said so, I appreciate that you call me May'M instead of May'N. :)
 
#31
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA, you and I will never see eye to eye on politics. MAY'M! I wish the world could be like a JOHN LEENON song, but it's not.
John's ex-wife says John was very violent and left him because of it. I bet Yoko kicked his ass though. LOL!
 
#32
XPANDA, the USA was attacked on 9/11 and maybe some things were done in the wake of the attacks that I don't agree with, but we are there now and that's not going to change for awhile. no matter how much we cry about it! I support the troops over there [some being my friends] MAY'M!

HEY ZZ, just for the record who was in office during the VIETNAM WAR?
 
#35
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA, the USA was attacked on 9/11 and maybe some things were done in the wake of the attacks that I don't agree with, but we are there now and that's not going to change for awhile. no matter how much we cry about it! I support the troops over there [some being my friends] MAY'M!

HEY ZZ, just for the record who was in office during the VIETNAM WAR?
Um, let me see. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon? What, you comparing them to Saddam?
 
#37
TONY MONTANA said:
ZZ, amazing!! LOL!! You know what I mean. The democrates were responsible for Vietnam. Don't bring IKE and NIXON into KENNEDY's mess. MAY'N!
You may be right, but I guarantee the Republicans did not miss a beat getting their hands in the massive cookie jar called VietNam. Neither side gave a damn about the killings on either side, that's why it went on forever. Nobody wanted to give up their piece of the pie.
Unlike now when George and his buddies are almost exclusively behind these war profits and loss of life!
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#38
TONY MONTANA said:
Yeah you leftys get really pissy when you don't get your way!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!! MAY'N!
I'm not a leftist, if that was directed at me.

Lots and lots of political ideologies out there that don't fit into the simple molds of right and left.

'The US was attacked on 9/11' gave you self-defense justification to go after your attackers. And that is all. Anything more than that - Iraq - is aggression, period. The excuse 'we're there and there's nothing we can do about that' isn't correct. It's propaganda.

You could leave. That's what you could do about it.

The fact that you don't support American troop withdrawal from Iraq only proves that peace also comes on your (nation's) terms, bringing us full circle back to the original post, and demonstrating the universality of the message.
 
#39
XPANDA, I know your a smart person, but surely you don't think we can JUST leave now? MAY'M!
This is a front line for killing terrorist and I'm all for the death of as many of those bastards as possible. You might want to check into those 35,000 civilian deaths and find out how many were killed by terrorists/insurgants. I would bet it's the majority!! VAST MAJORITY!!
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#40
TONY MONTANA said:
XPANDA, I know your a smart person, but surely you don't think we can JUST leave now?
That's exactly what I'm saying. So long as the US remains there, the US will be responsible for many of the deaths that occur. Should the US leave, and fighting continues, the US would not be (directly) responsible for those deaths.

You will hear protests that 'we can't leave if we expect peace' ... but of course that just means that we're waiting for peace on our terms. Right?

The invasion was a mistake (intentional, IMO) and the only right thing to do is put down your arms and go home.

This is a front line for killing terrorist and I'm all for the death of as many of those bastards as possible.
The majority of terrorist arrests/deaths over the past three years have originated in Pakistan, not Iraq. And the majority - VAST MAJORITY - of terrorists camping out in Iraq weren't there until your guys opened up the borders for them.

If you still justify this, then you are agreeing that it is okay to start a war in an innocent's backyard if it means your real enemy will come and meet you there. Only multiplying the 'innocence' factor of these casualties.

You might want to check into those 35,000 civilian deaths and find out how many were killed by terrorists/insurgants. I would bet it's the majority!! VAST MAJORITY!!
That is probably dead accurate. Doesn't matter tho. Those terrorists weren't there pre-March 2003. And insurgents, by their very definition, weren't there either. So who shall claim responsibility?

I mean, if you can blame this war on events that occurred in 1991, then surely you can see the domino effect of invasion-occupation-insurgency-terrorist magnet?
 
Top