Bhutto and Al Qaeda

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Ever heard of the phrase, "Apples and oranges"?

Well, at least we know Al Qaeda has other reasons then for killing. Here I'd thought from things said in this forum you all believed they only attacked the United States because we interfered in foreign countries, not because we represented and gave people a taste of true freedom. Now, Bhutto, she was trying to give women more equality and freedom, in much the same way we show how women are free here, that doesn't sound nearly close to anything like... oh... wait. Right..apples and oranges.. right.

Ok uBeR, you seem to have an idea why they killed her, since you say it's not the same as why they attack the US. Did it have anything do with her spreading the ideas of freedom and equality?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Nuk3m

Oh no, Scuzzy is on the loose again. Someone hand me my tranquilizer gun. Lets put this big kitty down before he starts trouble.

Yeah, those pesky terrorists. Always going around killing people, not keeping in line with the excuses liberals have helped them propogate. Why can' they keep to a schedule? Kill X for Y so we can say it's really Z's fault. Can't they keep that straight? Why'd they have to go off and kill someone for seemingly the same reasons that others have seen for years! Pesky Terrorists, stay FOCUSED!!!

It's easy to say, "They had no other way to get their point acrossed but kill civilians, the US military is too strong". Guess the people that killed Bhutto had no other course too, huh?

[Hica]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

What could she have done to make Al Qaeda not kill her?

Two things: she could have not opened the sunroof in the car she was in, and she could have stayed seated instead of standing up out of said sunroof and waving to the crowd.

[uBeR]

Good call.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Hica

Two things: she could have not opened the sunroof in the car she was in, and she could have stayed seated instead of standing up out of said sunroof and waving to the crowd.

That made her accessible at that time. It seems clear that Al Qaeda was gunning for her. If not then perhaps another time?

[Icarus]

Most of Pakistan has little or no media access (tv/internet etc) so it is pretty vital for politicians to get out and about among the people to get their message known and therefore elected. Unfortunately this makes them much easier targets for nutcase twatends with shooters and semtex.

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I don't see how that can be. She was still from that country wasn't she? I thought they didn't care about her cause of equal rights, or being a woman, or any of that stuff. They just kill people for having bases in Saudi Arabia and external people interfering in other countries. Surely there is something she did that had something to do with external people taking over Pakistan, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered, right? I mean, if the US leaves the middle east Al Qaeda would go away, because our policies are what created and cause them to be in Jihad. How was Bhutto linked to our sinister plans?
Scuzzy

If the US leaves the middle east then it would make no fucking difference to Al Qaida . There will always be another excuse to blow shit up . The existence of Israel , socialism , the USA , democracy , female equality , social evolution , justice , not having a beard , not wearing a bag on your head , green smarties , funny cartoons and so on .

They are fundamentally opposed to the western way of life and no amount of compromising on our part will change that view. We and anyone else that agree with or follows any part of that "western" ideology is a target for the radical islamic twats irrespective of their nation, religion or sex.

[zSilver_Fox]

I get it now. Scuz' is being facetious again. You old dino you... But I do agree.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Icarus

If the US leaves the middle east then it would make no fucking difference to Al Qaida . There will always be another excuse to blow shit up . The existence of Israel , socialism , the USA , democracy , female equality , social evolution , justice , not having a beard , not wearing a bag on your head , green smarties , funny cartoons and so on .

They are fundamentally opposed to the western way of life and no amount of compromising on our part will change that view. We and anyone else that agree with or follows any part of that "western" ideology is a target for the radical islamic twats irrespective of their nation, religion or sex.

The points I've made aren't my own, they are others in the forums. zSilverFox is right when he believes I am taking the alternative opinion to make a point. I agree with your statements Icarus, and it's clear that even those that are in a belief that Al Qaeda has only done what it does because of US policy find it difficult to rationalize this apparent "turn of events", hense the "Oh it's a completely different situation" comment, but nothing to back it up.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

The points I've made aren't my own, they are others in the forums. zSilverFox is right when he believes I am taking the alternative opinion to make a point. I agree with your statements Icarus, and it's clear that even those that are in a belief that Al Qaeda has only done what it does because of US policy find it difficult to rationalize this apparent "turn of events", hense the "Oh it's a completely different situation" comment, but nothing to back it up.

Scuzzy

Nothing to backup the claim that assassinating a politician is different from flying planes into buildings as an attack to a country?

Where do I begin?

[Nuk3m]

Oh Allah... Please help us come together as a Muslim nation.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Where do I begin?

Well, I'm glad you asked uBeR. Here's a list for you to start on:

1) It's been said that Al Qaeda only attacks the US Civilian population because of our foreign policy. We have been blamed by some for making them so angry for medaling in the affairs of other countries and this was their only recourse. (All their other attempts at sit-ins, writing campaigns, elections, and petition drives having failed) Given that situation, if Al Qaeda truly is only resorting to violence as a means of political change, what made Bhutto so impossible to change via elections, negotiation, etc? She didn't have a military, she wasn't "invading" other countries, she wasn't messing in other countries foreign affairs.

2) On the other hand, it has been the contention of some people that Al Qaeda simply does not care for freedom, womans rights, and democracy.

a) Wouldn't you agree that Al Qaeda's record of violence, bring jihad, and own words support that argument?

b) If they are against these things, how would you negotiate a peaceful accord with them?

c) How could Bhutto have negotiated a peaceful accord with them and not gotten herself killed, while still getting the freedom and democracy she has been reported to want?

[Ihmhi]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I don't see how that can be. She was still from that country wasn't she?

Even if you are a Muslim, if you are an American Muslim, then you can be a target.

If you're a person who converted to Shia Islam but was born in America, you are just as likely to get picked up by a death squad in some Middle Eastern country and executed.

After all, if you truly believe in Allah then you should not fear dying and be proud that you're a martyr.

There are Islamic extremists who believe everyone in the world should be Muslim, but there is also a subset of extremists who believe everyone should be Muslim and Arabic, and kill the rest.

[uBeR]

Is anyone here saying that al-Qaeda is not a callous group of radical extremists who have no mercy for human life, commit insensible and wholesale murder, are intolerable to differing ideas, and have no respect for rights and freedom of others? I don't think so. So you can take that strawman and shove it.

"Are Americans to blame for 9/11?" "Aren't you just blaming the victims?" No. Of course not. But just like in a homicide, you look for a motive--but you aren't blaming the person who's been murdered.

"Muslims have a long memory. Americans, unfortunately, do not." How can you, with a straight face, say our presence in the Middle East since the middle of the last century has had absolutely no consequences? How can you ignore your own Central Intelligence Agency, who themselves discuss the idea of blowback for our involvement in the internal affairs of other nations? How can you ignore your government-sanctioned, nonpartisan Commission delegated to investigate the attacks? And how the hell can ignore the own, self-declared motives of the perpetrators? In 1996, bin Laden himself wrote, in his first fatwa, which you conveniently ignore, Scuzzy, that American troops need to get out of Saudi Arabia. In his second fatwa, he declared death to America because the "United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

You can listen to the politicians who say we were attacked simply because they hate people who vote--whereas the perpetrators say nothing to this regard. Or you could listen to Michael Scheuer, who has been studying bin Laden for over a decade, who sez, "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live." I challenge Scuzzy, Innoc, Backstabber, or whomever, to find a document, peer-reviewed literature, or expressions from the terrorist that say they attacked us because they hate our lifestyle.

"What does Bhutto have to do with all of this?" Well, refer to my first paragraph. Political assassinations are not rare. Was the death the result her being a woman, or did her support for the U.S. involvement in the Middle East and being "the most precious American asset, which vowed to defeat [the] mujahideen" have something to do with it? I don't know, really. What I know is that this cowardly act of violence is a tragic loss for the Pakistani people and its democratic process.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

In 1996, bin Laden himself wrote, in his first fatwa, which you conveniently ignore, Scuzzy, that American troops need to get out of Saudi Arabia. In his second fatwa, he declared death to America because the "United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

...
And how the hell can ignore the own, self-declared motives of the perpetrators?

For the exact same reason I didn't believe Hitler when he said the Jews were the cause of everyone's troubles. He knew he could rally people to offer him power by finding someone he could convince them were the cause of all their woes.

It's convenient to come up with "reasons" why you should kill a group of other people, "Just send me $19.95 and you'll get a copy of Fatwa's and You. Order today and get a free copy of How to make people blow themselves up for you with virgins at absolutely no cost." Don't be so damn gullible and believe everything Bin Laden tells you.

Do you honestly believe that if every American left the middle east we would be left alone? Do you believe the middle east would be a better place without the stability America provides? Would the members of Al Qaeda just say, "Well, glad that's over, let's go to work in the oil fields and sell oil to America now, I'm so happy they left."

Scuzzy

[YomMamasHouse]

He isn't saying the US' persistent intervention in the Middle East justifies Bin Laden's condonement of terrorist actions. He is saying he had a motive, and that motive is not the fact that the US is a country of freedom and equality, it is because the US doesn't give two shits if it overstays its welcome in other countries.

[DarkeN_HellspawN]

because she was pro-west and she did not have good enough security and she died. She could have forged a better Pakistan but since Musharff looks like the bad guy and possibly is he might finally destroy all of the infidels on the afghan border and chase al queda out. If he can pull Osama Bin Laden out then I will not care about him staying in power forever unless he stops giving a terrorist body count for a few months. Give me bodys or give me death. Terrorists bodies that is........

dh

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

1) It's been said that Al Qaeda only attacks the US Civilian population because of our foreign policy.

By whom?

US foreign policy is a primary motivating factor behind Al Qaeda's attacks on US interests. It is not the only such factor.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

2) On the other hand, it has been the contention of some people that Al Qaeda simply does not care for freedom, womans rights, and democracy.

Are these people contending that US foreign policy is not a motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions against US interests?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

For the exact same reason I didn't believe Hitler when he said the Jews were the cause of everyone's troubles. He knew he could rally people to offer him power by finding someone he could convince them were the cause of all their woes.

So your contention is that bin Laden, the son of a billionaire, does not really care about US intervention in the Middle East and is only attacking US interests for personal gain? Or power? Or the opportunity to live as a fugitive..?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Are these people contending that US foreign policy is not a motivating factor in Al Qaeda's actions against US interests?

Originally Posted by ekiM

So your contention is that bin Laden, the son of a billionaire, does not really care about US intervention in the Middle East and is only attacking US interests for personal gain? Or power? Or the opportunity to live as a fugitive..?

First answer my questions ekiM, then I'll answer yours. I'm not going to play the "answer questions with questions" game with you in this thread. If you don't want to, fine, go trolling somewhere else. Afterwards I have answers to both of the above, and look forward to actually having a debate of substance with you.

Scuzzy

[DarkeN_HellspawN]

that I caught hell for proposing to create alternative fuel from the bodys of killed terrorists. I still do not see the issue with it except from the smell that might come from your exhuast. It is still as clean as running on Hydrogen in my eyes. Go figure that the hog dogs burnt.

dh