That's "pop a CAP". If you are going to talk Gangsta, get it right. LOL.
I just find it ironic that he basically has a gripe with a huge portion of the world, but his focus is the US, as if we have some control over the Russians or the Indians.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
OG: India is inherently included by the jihadi scum. So don't you worry. India is in the same boat as Russia, US, Western Europe, Philipines, Indonesia.
Someone needs to pop a cop in his ass.
[/QUOTE]
And I remember when ppl saw him in Kashmir. How come? Did Kashmire suddenly became independent or do you admit Kashmir being a part of Pakistan?
Yes, indeed. Assassination of Ghandis are examples 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
And apparently Muslim extremists are at their best as well. Whoever this is on this tape praising the bombing of Bali and hostage taking of Moscow as "defense of their religion" is full of crap. Defense of their religion indeed. The people they murdered had nothing to do with any assault on their religion whatsoever.
...
[/QUOTE]
Agree totally.
Also:
"The people (in Afghanistan) some regime bombed to oblivion had nothing to do with any assault on their towers whatsoever".
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Awam ki Awaz: *
Also:
"The people (in Afghanistan) some regime bombed to oblivion had nothing to do with any assault on their towers whatsoever".
[/QUOTE]
Actually that had nothing to do with a defense of religion. It had to do with the defense of the world against Muslim extremism.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Actually that had nothing to do with a defense of religion. It had to do with the defense of the world against Muslim extremism.
[/QUOTE]
Afghans who were killed by mistakes Air strikes.
Does world got any evidence they were extremists? Or would you like to share your evidence?
Its amazing how these tapes pop up every time it would be good for the US to renew the public's spport for there campaigns. I dont really care if OBL is alove or not, he does however make things a lot more interesting.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
Does world got any evidence they were extremists? Or would you like to share your evidence?
[/QUOTE]
Tune in to Al-Jazeera. Mr. Muslim Extremist #1 provides all the proof you need. Or wait... was this tape fabricated by CIA like all the others?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Actually that had nothing to do with a defense of religion. It had to do with the defense of the world against Muslim extremism.
[/QUOTE]
Seminole,
I think Awam Ki Awaz is referring to what the US calls, the 'collateral damage' (i.e. innocent civilians killed in this conflict).
It works both ways, you know.
Just as innocents were killed in twin towers on 9/11, so many innocents were killed all over Afghanistan in the later months by US bombings. And more innocents were killed in Bali just as many innocents are killed in Palestine or Israel.
Ideally, in any conflict the only loss of lives should be of military personnel. Since we don't live in an ideal world, so leaders on both sides will continue to take decisions which result in the loss of lives for innocent civilians.
The problem with Al-Qaida is that its invisible. Its not like a country, where US warplanes can go and bomb, like they plan to do in Iraq. These Al-Qaida operatives are presumably all over the place, including possibly some US cities. While it makes it harder for them to be caught, they continue to attack any and all targets they can find, including civilian and military.
Since neither US nor Al-Qaida seem to adhere to any due process of law (e.g. the missile fired in Yemen & bombings in Bali and elsewhere, respectively), so it seems like the law of the jungle out there. Whoever is able to strike the other is doing it at will.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I think Awam Ki Awaz is referring to what the US calls, the 'collateral damage' (i.e. innocent civilians killed in this conflict).
[/QUOTE]
While I respect that and your thoughtful reply, my post was taken out of context. It was within the subject of this thread and bin Laden's mission -- his use of "defense of his religion" as an excuse to purposely target innocent civilians. If he and his followers were as righteous as he thinks they are, he could find other ways to further Allah's will than indiscriminate murder.
All that being said, I still don't buy that the 2 situations (US defeating Taliban and "defending one's religion") are comparable. While the anesthetic term of "collateral damage" involves the tragic loss of life, it is the ugly stepchild of wars. Wars have always been around and they have always been deadly and destructive. But what these extremist fools are doing isn't war-- it's a sick manipulation of religion that tells them to focus on killing innocent civilians. And in my book (and probably in someone else's that matters a hell of a lot more than mine) that is not the moral equivalent of the unintentional and unavoidable killing of civilians.
Seminole,
I thought you were discussing the issue of collateral damage, its clear that you wish to discuss the aspects of religious revenge as espoused by Osama Bin Laden. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
While most educated people on this forum will argue that OBL is the worst of the scum (Americans) and a bad example of extremist and violent Islam (Muslims); to his followers and millions of Arabs his message resonates very well, because he has successfully managed to bring the whole spectrum of Muslim suffering under one umbrella and championed himself as the one entity who is willing to take on the oppressors.
The examples he gives are very real, the suffering is real and the complicity of Muslim rulers is also very real. While his ultimate intentions are unclear and his methods are very controversial, he makes a case that since regular Muslim armies are unwilling to fight this war, so he and his operatives will fight the oppressors (everywhere) in whichever way they can.
So, on one hand they will attack and kill US marines in Kuwait (arguably a legitimate target), they will also blow up oil tankers, nightclubs and theatre-houses. Why? Because they seemingly can't do much damage on military targets so they will attack wherever they can. US on the other hand, is a democratic country, a recognized world power, and tout the values of due process and moral highway, and in this war, even they have resorted to terrorist-like attacks by launching missile on cars and bombing out wedding receptions. When Israel drops a bomb in a heavily populated apartment building, they know they will kill many innocent civilians, but they still do it. In your mind, it maybe self-defense, in the minds of millions of Muslims, it is pure terrorism. Doesn't matter if the culprits wear a green beret and uniform, or shalwar-kameez and a hood. All these acts are terrorism.
Evil begets evil. You can question who started what. The pain and sufferings of Palestinians and Kashmiris started way before Osama was even born. These are not new issues.
I don't support for one minute any terrorist activities, be they carried out by Al Qaida or US or Israel or anyone else. Had the world been a fair place, we wouldn't even be discussing this. There would be mechanisms in place to resolve all conflicts peacefully. Unfortunately, we are not in a utopia. And people like Osama Bin Laden and George Bush will continue to take measures or direct such measures that result in more conflicts and more deaths.
And if the US never went to war becausae of the inevitable and regretable outcome of "collateral damage" -- the "terrorist activities" of the Germans of WWI, Nazis and Japanese Empire of WWII, or Cold War Communists- would have gone unchecked. That would have been a shame as you and I wouldn't been able to have this free discussion right now, living in free and open socieities, not subject to the rule of a religious zealot. It would be like Pat Robertson on coke and Jack Daniels, bombing the crap out of Muslims wherever they lived or shopped.
.. so many innocent people died in USA and Afghanistan and this coward is still alive!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Tune in to Al-Jazeera. Mr. Muslim Extremist #1 provides all the proof you need. Or wait... was this tape fabricated by CIA like all the others?
[/QUOTE]
Now, you just have changed the whole topic.
I was referring to Afghans killed in Wedding Ceremony by Air Strikes. Were they Extremists? Answer that!
How about a movie on his escapades?
I have given a great deal of thought to the concept of “collateral damage”. The phrase is horrible in it’s coldness and inhumanity. Let’s call a spade a spade and call it “the unintended killing of innocent people in combat”. I know a lot of military people, and they are fathers, friends, husbands and just plain normal people. Many of these people are very highly educated, and have a very fine global view. They understand that the killing of innocent people in combat is a terrible byproduct, and each and everyone of them would avoid it if they had the means. Unfortunately no weapon yet created has the ability to distinguish precisely an enemy from an innocent.
With that said, the key word above is, “intentional”, or “intended”. Here is where the terrorist loses any moral clarity. Perhaps one of the worst examples of this is the following article on Bali.
Bali Bomber Expresses Delight Over Blasts
Wed Nov 13,11:10 AM ET
By Achmad Sukarsono
BALI, Indonesia (Reuters) - Smiling and waving at reporters, a fresh-faced Indonesian who has admitted being one of the Bali bombers, on Wednesday told of his delight at the attacks and said he went sightseeing in the days before the blasts.
Wearing police-issue shorts and a blue T-shirt with the word “detainee” splashed across his back, Amrozi looked relaxed as more than 100 reporters and cameramen watched the national police chief question the prime suspect in the attack.
Police chief General Da’i Bachtiar said Amrozi was not in Bali when the bombs exploded on the night of October 12, ripping through part of the famous Kuta Beach tourist district and killing nearly 200 people, many of them foreign tourists.
His work done, Amrozi had already gone back to his home village in East Java.
“After he was there, he heard on the radio there had been a bomb explosion in Bali. He said he felt delighted that his bomb had successfully exploded in Bali,” Bachtiar told a news conference.
“He was certainly happy with the explosion, and hoped it was in accordance with the objective that had been hoped for.”
The bombers wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, Amrozi has previously said, although Australians bore the brunt of the deaths among foreign tourists.
Bachtiar gave the fullest account yet on Wednesday of the events leading up to the explosions on October 12, which have been tied to Jemaah Islamiah, a militant Southeast Asian Muslim group that has been linked to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda.
He also named four additional suspects in the hunt for the bombers. That brought to seven the number of named suspects, including Amrozi, out of 10 Indonesians police have been hunting.
Amrozi is the only one arrested so far.
FOOT SOLDIER
Police identified a brother of Amrozi, Ali Imron, as the one who parked a bomb-laden minivan in front of the Sari nightclub on October 12, where it soon exploded in a massive fireball.
Amrozi, aged around 40 although he looks 10 years younger, has admitted owning the minivan and buying much of the explosives used to make the car-bomb. There were also two smaller blasts.
Bachtiar painted a picture of Amrozi as a foot soldier among the group of bombers, taking orders from others. Bachtiar said the bombers often used text messaging when communicating.
He said Amrozi claimed he did not assemble the car-bomb, but said he saw explosive materials along with two handphones with cables sticking out of them at a safehouse in Bali.
“He wanted to ask his friends what all this would be used for, but they said ‘you don’t need to know, this is our business’. After that he was taken around Bali for sightseeing before going back to (East Java),” Bachtiar said.
It was Amrozi’s first trip to Bali.
With the vast media contingent looking on, Bachtiar questioned Amrozi for more than an hour. Amrozi often smiled, and laughed occasionally. He certainly appeared relaxed.
Amrozi’s occasional quips, usually a play on village language, brought laughter from police standing by, and the odd smile from Bachtiar.
Journalists were not allowed to ask questions, and only photographers and cameraman could go past a glassed-off area at Bali’s police headquarters where Bachtiar and Amrozi sat at a plain table.
There was a hiccup when the police tape recorder did not work.
PRAISES POLICE ON PROBE
After previously coming under international criticism for not taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough, Jakarta has been under enormous pressure to make progress in the Bali probe.
Earlier this week police said Amrozi was a student of Abu Bakar Bashir – the alleged spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiah.
Police detained Bashir last month over a series of church bombings in Indonesia in 2000 and a plot to kill President Megawati Sukarnoputri, but have not tied him to the Bali blasts.
He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
“…He (Amrozi) idolized the teachings of his own brother Mukhlas, Abu Bakar Bashir and Jafar Umar Thalib. From all the preachers, their teachings impressed him most,” Bachtiar said.
Thalib is head of the recently disbanded Laskar Jihad militant group while Mukhlas is part of Amrozi’s large family.
Bachtiar said Amrozi recounted how he worked in Malaysia on and off from the mid-1980s, where he listened to sermons by Bashir, who had fled Indonesia to avoid authoritarian rulers.
“There, he started to gain an awareness and a desire to oppose those who oppress Muslims,” said Bachtiar.
In 2000, Amrozi said he was asked to find explosive materials to be sent to Ambon city, riven by Muslim-Christian clashes at the time, which he knew would be used for bombs, Bachtiar said.
While happy about the Bali bombing, Amrozi did ask for forgiveness from his family for causing them trouble.
He also complemented police on their probe, expressing admiration that officers were able to make a sketch of him even though he had not been to the bomb site. Police did that thanks to a description provided over a motorbike Amrozi bought.
“He laughed at that, saying we were smart,” Bachtiar said.
The worst part of Bin Laden’s tape is his praise for attacks on innocents. There is only one attack on US soldiers, and perhaps you could call a tanker an economic target. But German tourists, cafes in Bali, theatre goers? The intent here is terror and revenge. I don’t care what legal system, or religion you espouse, this is evil. No matter what your cause, the INTENTIONAL murder of innocents makes your point of view less credible. And like it or not, this indiscriminate violence stains the people you purport to champion.
ATTACKS CITED ON TAPE
April 11, 2002, Tunisian island of Djerba
Bombing of Ghriba synagogue kills more than 20 people, mostly German tourists.
May 8, Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber kills 11 French navy experts, two Pakistanis.
October 6, off Yemen coast
Explosive-packed boat attacks French tanker, killing one crewman.
October 8, Kuwait island Failaka
Two Kuwaiti civilians fire on U.S. Marines, killing one and wounding another.
October 12, Indonesia island of Bali
Bombings at nightclubs kill at least 180 people.
October 23-26, Moscow
Chechen gunmen hold several hundred hostages inside theater. More than 100 killed, mostly by gas used by Russian special forces.
Who’s innocent?
in·no·cent Pronunciation Key (n-snt)
adj.
Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.
Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
Candid; straightforward: a child’s innocent stare.
Not experienced or worldly; naive.
Betraying or suggesting no deception or guile; artless.
Not exposed to or familiar with something specified; ignorant: American tourists wholly innocent of French.
Unaware: She remained innocent of the complications she had caused.
Lacking, deprived, or devoid of something: a novel innocent of literary merit.
n.
A person, especially a child, who is free of evil or sin.
A simple, guileless, inexperienced, or unsophisticated person.
A very young child.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=innocent
In today’s world when we all know what is happening around the world? what is it that makes us innocent?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Different: *
In today's world when we all know what is happening around the world? what is it that makes us innocent?
[/QUOTE]
Are you for real? Are you religious? Do you have a family?
OK, the legal term is non-combatants. If you have to define innocent as only a babe-in-arms, then you are part of the problem. The fact that the slaughter of "innocents" is somehow justified as a rational political exercise demonstrates a bankrupt moral fiber.
Do you not see a problem with INTENTIONALLY killing people who have done no harm?
Cowardly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
And if the US never went to war becausae of the inevitable and regretable outcome of "collateral damage" -- the "terrorist activities" of the Germans of WWI, Nazis and Japanese Empire of WWII, or Cold War Communists- would have gone unchecked. That would have been a shame as you and I wouldn't been able to have this free discussion right now, living in free and open socieities, not subject to the rule of a religious zealot. It would be like Pat Robertson on coke and Jack Daniels, bombing the crap out of Muslims wherever they lived or shopped.
[/QUOTE]
Some of us know how freely this board can act. How many rights it has and how many restrictions. Democracy? Just a label nothing else.
Don't spoil the topic.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Are you for real? Are you religious? Do you have a family?
OK, the legal term is non-combatants. If you have to define innocent as only a babe-in-arms, then you are part of the problem. The fact that the slaughter of "innocents" is somehow justified as a rational political exercise demonstrates a bankrupt moral fiber.
Do you not see a problem with INTENTIONALLY killing people who have done no harm?
Cowardly.
[/QUOTE]
Whom are you referring to? The victims of September 11? Bali bombings? What about Afghanis? Kashmiris? Chechens? Iraqis? What harm did they do? But the killings of people in these countries is unintentional... right?