Originally Posted by Xaccers
You know, I could have sworn that the Clinton administration used it's military might against a certain "chemical factory" long before 9/11 after a terrorist attack.
In fact, wasn't the Clinton administration quite active in anti-al qaida actions?
Why is the west not at war with Saudi Arabia where the majority of the hijackers came from or is this a sort of "pick and choose" war on terror?
Just so that we're not mistaken, are you saying that what most people consider to be terrorists are not evil? That the actions they take, blowing up civilians who just want to go about their business are not evil actions?
No. But then again are the colateral, non military, deaths of innocent civilians caught in a war "going about their business" in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever not evil actions also?
February 11, 1990
Remarkable, I don't recall the ANC who swept to power, ever denouncuing their, or his, actions.
When was he considered a freedom fighter by the west? And I don't mean the media, I mean by the US goverment, as from what I know he was never seen as that, just as a tool to cause the Russians problems.
They funded him and trained him. Now they feign shock at his actions? Come on.
Are you saying they should cow tow to the anti-west propaganda, like the dossier the danish imams took to the middle east with the sole purpose of causing outrage?
Read it again. We are all guilty of succumbing to propaganda.
Bovine excriment! A terrorist is not a freedome fighter! The only people who try that line are ones who try to justify what terrorists do!
Who the hell is trying to glorify war, oh hang on, the islamic extremists are with their calls for jihad, despite such calls being totally against the rules of jihad in the koran!
Read it again. The clue is in the bit about "mindset".
What comes after umpteenth?
Can anyone tell me?
Because last time I said for the umpteenth time, and no I have to say it again.
The images that were published by the newspapers are not the ones which caused the offence, the images of a man dressed up as a pig with the added caption "the true face of muhammad," a muslim praying while being humped by a dog, and muhammad portrayed as a demonic paedophile because of his 9 year old wife, in addition to the right wing anti-islamic propoganda are what caused the offence!
Other muslims who haven't even seen the cartoons, let alone the offensive images and documents, joined the objection because they were told as muslims they should object by other muslims, without really knowing what they're objecting to.
We don't all have your remarkable insight - nor am I discussing anything beyond the photographs published in the Danish papers and the fact that they, as reported worldwide beyond Leighton Buzzard, were the catalyst for the current protests.
Justifying terrorism again?
Pathetic.
|
