75 yr old woman sentenced to 40 lashes for mingling.

[S.A.M.]

So all of those women and children in the marketplace bombings are all ....collaborators?? ....vicious fighters who must be eliminated??

Baron Max

No, they are patsys of the Americans

Well, when General Petraeus says that they're merely applauding these tribes from the sidelines, he's lying. I mean, while we were embedded with the Americans, we saw American military commanders hand wads of cash to tribal militias. And when he says that they are facilitating their integration into the country’s security forces, what he means is they're pressuring Iraq's government to incorporate these militias wholesale into the police forces. In fact, that's one of the promises that these tribes are given, that after working with the Americans for a few months, they'll become Iraqi police, be armed by the Iraqi state and be put on regular payroll. So it's completely disingenuous, what he’s saying.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain who these militias are in Anbar province that the US troops are working with.

RICK ROWLEY: Well, it's been widely reported that these are former insurgents who were fighting Americans in the past. And that, you know, is troubling for American soldiers. But the far more troubling issue for Iraq is that many of these groups are war criminals who are responsible for sectarian cleansing in the region.

We spent a month and a half in the country, and we crisscrossed Iraq. I was traveling with David Enders and met with the production support of Hiba Dawood, and we found entire communities of refugees who had been displaced by exactly the same tribes that the US had been working with in other parts of the country.

So, you know, it's one thing for Americans to call this a reconciliation process and say that, you know, we're fine with working with people who used to be fighting with us, but it's an entirely different thing for them to be funding groups who are already responsible for sectarian cleansing and are arming themselves for a sectarian civil war.

http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=565

 

[S.A.M.]

This is the 21st Century, SAM, laws are a lot different now than in the past.

Oops, wait, Iraqis and Afghanis are so far behind the rest of the world that they wouldn't know shit about laws, would they. Seems a trend for all Muslims, don't it ....like that American Muslim who cut of his wife's head?!

Revenge is mine, sayeth the Muslims of the world.

Baron Max

Yeah, the new world laws condone invasion and occupation as defence and torture as a Patriot Act.

 

[Baron Max]

No, they are patsys of the Americans

All those women and children in the marketplaces of Iraq are ....patsys for the Americans? Why? Because they go to the marketplace to buy food for their families????

You're a good one, SAM. And you can see, from your latest posts, that you're doing nothing but defending Muslims killing other Muslims. They aren't fighting a resistance, they aren't fighting occupiers, they're just plain murdering their own people ........and you defend them for it.

SAM, you should be ashamed ....honestly, you should hang your head in shame.

Baron Max

 

[scott3x]

War is necessary for all people facing occupation.

Why? Because your pride is hurt?

No because occupation breeds resistance. Let someone move into your house, even a parent against your wishes and you'll know it.

S.A.M. has a point. Ofcourse, frequently people move from one occupation to another. The Taliban weren't wanted by many, but they had the connections and the weaponry (in no small part supplied by Uncle Sam) to get most of Afghanistan anyway. Saddam may not have started out as an american satellite, but he drew heavily on the americans for his war on Iran. Then Uncle Sam and its coalition of the willing decided that the Taliban must go. Something about an Osama guy that allegedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks. The FBI never pinned it on him though; not enough evidence, you see. But in those days, the american government wasn't so concerned about things such as evidence. Anyway, off they went to conquer Afghanistan, I mean, 'liberate' it, and nab that Osama. Well they occupied, I mean 'liberated' it, but no Osama. He probably died shortly after the occupation, but that hasn't stopped the U.S. war machine from not only staying in Afghanistan, but also invading Iraq 2 years later and digging in there as well.

Now they say that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the 9/11 mastermind. From what I've heard, the guy they have in prison isn't even Khalid, but a man with severe mental disturbances. Why not have the real Khalid in prison? Well, as some may recall that Osama denied having anything to do with 9/11; then there was a video that allegedly has him confessing, but many, myself included, don't believe that man was Osama at all. If the real Osama had nothing to do with it, I'm wiling to wager that his underling had nothing to do with it as well. So perhaps they killed the real Khalid and replaced him with a guy who has trouble even talking coherently.

So there you have it; one more WMD for the public; that is, another Weapon of Mass Delusion, with which they can continue wars for reasons that never had anything to do with 9/11. This video, I believe, is far closer to who was truly behind 9/11, tying in a man who saw trillions dissapear from the U.S. treasury, something that Donald Rumsfeld mentioned a day before 9/11:
Dov Zakheim: 9/11 Mastermind?

 

[Ophiolite]

Ok, give me an example of where I have been unclear about my stance.

I haven't read all 1960 of your posts. I was not even aware you existed till I noticed your comments earlier in this thread.
Since you appeared to be declaring that Muslims need not condemn all violence and injustice your stance seemed quite clear.

All Muslims condemn terrorism, .

I have seen several Muslims in formal or informal interviews on TV not only fail to condemn it, but to applaud it. Are you unaware of this?
In my conversations with specific Muslims I have encountered the same instances, whether these conversations were in the UK, the Middle East, or Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.
Were these the majority of communications on the subject? Definitely not. Were there at least as many outright condemnations as there were explicit or implicit support? Regretably not. For the most part there is a loud, deafening silence, where there should be a loud, deafening condemnation.

All Muslims condemn terrorism, we are the main victims of it, whether by bomb attacks by unknown assailants,

Could we be more precise here please: bomb attacks by unknown Muslim assailants.

Why don't Westerners denounce the terrorism of their governments against us?

I have and I shall do so in future. The invasion of Iraq was a gross breach of international law, morality and common sense. You want Tony Blair tried as a war criminal? I'll vote in favour of that. I'd like nothing better than to see the sanctimonious prick spend the rest of his life in prison for having had the audacity to take my country into a war on patently false and contrived premises and generate the problems that the Iraq invasion generated.
I am most certainly not alone in my condemnation.

Do our civilians not matter?

Compare the number of those killed in isolated attacks in the West and those killed by the perpetual bombing campaigns in Muslim nations. Where is the denunciation?.

Right here. I am on record in this forum for condemning the gross overreaction of many Americans to the 911 attack. A country that allows tens of thousands of its citizens to be killed each year because they can't associate gun crime with the presence of guns; who allow tens of thousands more to be killed and mutilated because they tolerate drunk driving; and then gets upset because a fraction of this number are killed by an act of terrorism; such a country does not deserve what it gets, but it sure as hell needs to look more closely at its conscience.

We are the victims, and yet you expect us to only condemn those supposed Muslims who attack Western targets, but you want us to ignore the deaths caused by your own occupation armies?

Read my ****ing lips. How many times do I have to say it? Are you so wrapped up in your self righteous agenda that you cannot read? All injustices are to be condemned. All terrorism is to be condemned. All violence is to be condemned. And I am not hearing that universal condemnation from most Muslims, just that deafening silence.

Clear yet, or do you want me to sponsor you for remedial reading classes?

 

[spidergoat]

No because occupation breeds resistance. Let someone move into your house, even a parent against your wishes and you'll know it.

Resistence to what? Sounds like simple xenophobia to me. What if the occupiers are well-intentioned, do you shoot yourself in the foot to get rid of an occupying force that is actually doing good? We occupied France for a time, maybe it's just a Muslim thing?

 

[Ophiolite]

We occupied France for a time, maybe it's just a Muslim thing?

Ths Scots are still resisting the English two centuries on. The violence is such the annual football matches had to be abandoned a couple of decades ago, largely because the English still thought it was about football. Ths Scots knew it was the continuation of diplomacy by other means.

Sounds like simple xenophobia to me.

There's nothing wrong with xenonphobia. Too be honest I'm not to keen on argon or krypton either.

 

[(Q)]

War is necessary for all people facing occupation.

No, it isn't. There are alternatives to war, but you appear to not be interested in them in favor of your holy book's promotion of war.

And of course, Muslims are at war where there is no occupation.

 

[S.A.M.]

Resistence to what? Sounds like simple xenophobia to me. What if the occupiers are well-intentioned, do you shoot yourself in the foot to get rid of an occupying force that is actually doing good? We occupied France for a time, maybe it's just a Muslim thing?

Masada?

 

[spidergoat]

That's what I mean. Why is all occupation considered the same? The circumstances are always different, as are the intentions of the occupying force.

 

[S.A.M.]

Maybe what you need is an edifying occupation.

Were these the majority of communications on the subject? Definitely not. Were there at least as many outright condemnations as there were explicit or implicit support? Regretably not. For the most part there is a loud, deafening silence, where there should be a loud, deafening condemnation.

Its called media bias. Most notably a product of media manipulation, e.g. by Memri. Since most Muslims have access to it from Arabic, Urdu and local sources, they do not have the same perception of this "deafening silence". Its not hard, just google it

http://www.google.com/search?q=Musl...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[scott3x]

That's what I mean. Why is all occupation considered the same? The circumstances are always different, as are the intentions of the occupying force.

spidergoat, you have a point, however, I think S.A.M. makes a very good one as well:

Maybe what you need is an edifying occupation.

From everything I've heard of both the Afghanistan and the Iraqi occupation, the U.S. and co. went in for the wrong reasons and have since used excessive force in a fair amount of occassions. I'm reminded of a scene from the movie Three Kings, starring George Clooney and Ice Cube, where an Iraqi asks a captive soldier to imagine how he would feel if -his- wife and child were killed in a bombing; what the western world likes to call 'collateral damage', and we get a visual depiction of the imaginary scenario.

Anyway, all of this 'collateral damage' has resulted in scenarios that I find fairly predictable; both countries have developed strong resistances to the U.S. and co. occupation; some of the 'coalition of the willing' have already signalled that they're leaving soon and even the U.S. has signalled that it's trying to get out of Iraq.

 

[(Q)]

There are reports of great storms on the deep, strange creatures are heard raging from the depths of forests, in Taiwan a sheep gave birth to a cat, and the Earth itself is rent with violent cataclysm.

That would explain it, then.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

They should have just had her bound, gagged, and put in a cage for children to poke with sticks! She was old enough to know better! Slut!

 

[DiamondHearts]

Since you appeared to be declaring that Muslims need not condemn all violence and injustice your stance seemed quite clear.

Emphasis added.

You are right, I do not condemn all violence. I support violence against occupying armies by a native people in resisting the takeover of their lands. You should watch this movie called Braveheart, it depicts what I am talking about rather clearly.

As for injustice, I criticize all injustice, by whomever and from wherever it may originate. Nothing in my responses leads one to conclude that I support injustice.

Misrepresenting my views does not serve any purpose. Please ask for a clarification next time.

Could we be more precise here please: bomb attacks by unknown Muslim assailants.

As opposed to bomb attacks by known Western assailants backed by known Western imperialistic elites.

Right here. I am on record in this forum for condemning the gross overreaction of many Americans to the 911 attack. A country that allows tens of thousands of its citizens to be killed each year because they can't associate gun crime with the presence of guns; who allow tens of thousands more to be killed and mutilated because they tolerate drunk driving; and then gets upset because a fraction of this number are killed by an act of terrorism; such a country does not deserve what it gets, but it sure as hell needs to look more closely at its conscience.

My response was not serious, rather it is mainly issued to show you the ineffectiveness of forcing all Muslims or all Westerners to condemn crimes which they have no relation to. We are familiar that many Western citizens condemn the illegal invasion of Iraq, so to should most Westerners be aware that Muslims condemn misguided attacks against civilians, Western or in the Muslim world. These people are as Muslim as most of the members in this forum, that is they are not. They are criminals, attaching the word 'Muslim' is condemns 1.7 billion human beings who are trying to live normal lives.

All injustices are to be condemned. All terrorism is to be condemned. All violence is to be condemned. And I am not hearing that universal condemnation from most Muslims, just that deafening silence.

The deafening silence is imaginary. It does not exist. You can go to all the Muslim organizations' websites in your country and see that all of them have a link regarding their denouncement of unjust violence against civilians.

The Quran itself declares: "5:32. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

One should differentiate legitimate resistance from terrorism, there is a vast difference between the two. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan today, there are numerous resistance groups which target only Western troops or their puppet native supporters. These are the ones we praise.

 

[Ophiolite]

You should watch this movie called Braveheart, it depicts what I am talking about rather clearly..

So you are talking about the gross distortion of history in order to make money. Braveheart! Don't make me laugh. It's an amusing comic book story with no relation to reality.

Misrepresenting my views does not serve any purpose. Please ask for a clarification next time.

Listen asshole, I have not misrepresented your views and resent such a blatant accusation. If you do not wish your views to misinterpreted learn to present them with greater clarity.

My response was not serious, rather it is mainly issued to show you the ineffectiveness of forcing all Muslims or all Westerners to condemn crimes which they have no relation to.

We live on a single planet. All are inter-related. Claiming otherwise is an immature cop out.

The deafening silence is imaginary. It does not exist. You can go to all the Muslim organizations' websites in your country and see that all of them have a link regarding their denouncement of unjust violence against civilians.

Really. Can you tell me where that link can be found on these Muslim sites?

http://www.umo-walsall.org.uk/
http://www.mrc.org.uk/mrc_foundation.html
http://www.islamispeace.org.uk/index.php

I gave up at this point.

One should differentiate legitimate resistance from terrorism, there is a vast difference between the two. For example, in Iraq and Afghanistan today, there are numerous resistance groups which target only Western troops or their puppet native supporters. These are the ones we praise.

Well that is clear. You are supporting the individuals who are bombing and shooting my countrymen and pretending it is noble. What is the goal of these 'resistance' fighters? To impose an outmoded, corrupt, mysoginistic, close minded distortion of Islam on their own countrymen.

I have nothing further to say to you that would not fall into the category of violent threat.

 

[DiamondHearts]

So you are talking about the gross distortion of history in order to make money. Braveheart! Don't make me laugh. It's an amusing comic book story with no relation to reality.

I assume then you are British, in that case check out Lion of the Desert starring Anthony Quinn. Unless of course you are Italian.

Really. Can you tell me where that link can be found on these Muslim sites?

http://www.umo-walsall.org.uk/
http://www.mrc.org.uk/mrc_foundation.html
http://www.islamispeace.org.uk/index.php

I gave up at this point.

I never heard of these organizations, except I am familiar with the last one. The first one seems to be a student organization catering mainly to Muslim students. The second one seems to be a Moon sighting organization, thus it would naturally not have such an unrelated statement.

The last one does indeed has a page entitled misconceptions of Islam: http://www.islamispeace.org.uk/itm.php?id_top=34

When I asked you to look up organizations I was referring to large organizations such as MCB: http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656

I'm sure there are other such organizations, though I am not familiar with British organizations in this regard. Perhaps you would like to ask some Muslims from the UK.

Well that is clear. You are supporting the individuals who are bombing and shooting my countrymen and pretending it is noble.

Your military is bombing and shooting my countrymen too. They invaded my people's land, what do you expect me to do? Sympathize with the exploiter and oppressor. Never. NEVER.

What is the goal of these 'resistance' fighters? To impose an outmoded, corrupt, mysoginistic, close minded distortion of Islam on their own countrymen.

Freedom from foreign occupation and exploitation. Freedom to decide to rule themselves by the laws they choose. Freedom to live their way of live without fear of being attacked for who they are.

We are Muslims, if you don't respect our customs, then leave our lands. We will always resist, its in our blood.

Long live the resistance. Freedom is close, and oppression and occupation is a thing of the distant past.

 

[S.A.M.]

You are supporting the individuals who are bombing and shooting my countrymen and pretending it is noble. What is the goal of these 'resistance' fighters? To impose an outmoded, corrupt, mysoginistic, close minded distortion of Islam on their own countrymen.

I have nothing further to say to you that would not fall into the category of violent threat.

I think its highly unrealistic to expect support for a mission that kills more civilians than so-called militants. I think its hubris to think you can bomb villages and not be attacked. I also think it is presumptuous to think that sending more troops to convert people who are born and die in the same village is an achievement. I think any reform in Afghanistan will have to come inspite of NATO and will not come because of any efforts on the part of people who do not understand anything about the people they are occupying.

Your countrymen are in a foreign country dropping bombs on villages. If the situation were reversed, what would you do?

The situation is very very simple. You are killing innocent people. You are not wanted there. You should get out. The demonstrations last week may have been conveniently ignored by the western media, but to the people who were demonstrating, it is a clear voice that says only, Get Out.


Here is statement fromAfghanis:

Some critics of the war have decried the continuity that Obama has shown with the policies of his predecessor. In a statement e-mailed to Asia Times Online, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) stated that "we can clearly see that there is no difference between Obama and Bush for our country".

According to RAWA, Bush and subsequently Obama's "wrong and devastated strategy ... has pushed Afghanistan and the region towards disaster and deeper conflicts". [10]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12738


You can follow the statements from Afghani women here

http://www.rawa.org/

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Perhaps if the "resistance fighters" would stop shooting at Americans... or blowing themselves up around embassies... or shooting/blowing up local "civilians".

We will get out. Perhaps this will be enough of a lesson. Next time we'll teach you what "terrorism" is all about. I'd say for every american killed by these uncontrolled fools we kill off one entire bloodline of a known terrorist supporter.

Nah. Too harsh. Call the troops home and gas the entire region thoroughly. More cost efficient, less chance of reprisals.

 

[S.A.M.]

Because if Americans were being bombed in their homes, that is what they would do?

According to RAWA:

The US "War on terrorism" removed the Taliban regime in October 2001, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism which is the main cause of all our miseries. In fact, by reinstalling the warlords in power in Afghanistan, the US administration is replacing one fundamentalist regime with another. The US government and Mr.Karzai mostly rely on Northern Alliance criminal leaders who are as brutal and misogynist as the Taliban.

RAWA believes that freedom and democracy can’t be donated; it is the duty of the people of a country to fight and achieve these values. Under the US-supported government, the sworn enemies of human rights, democracy and secularism have gripped their claws over our country and attempt to restore their religious fascism on our people.

Whenever fundamentalists exist as a military and political force in our injured land, the problem of Afghanistan will not be solved. Today RAWA's mission for women's rights is far from over and we have to work hard for establishment of an independent, free, democratic and secular Afghanistan. We need the solidarity and support of all people around the world.

http://www.rawa.org/rawa.html

Next time we'll teach you what "terrorism" is all about. I'd say for every american killed by these uncontrolled fools we kill off one entire bloodline of a known terrorist supporter.

Ironic. Really.

Instead of removing the cancerous lump of the Taliban and their Jehadi brothers from the framework of Afghanistan, the troops of the US and its allies are bombarding wedding and joy parties and showering bullets on our oppressed people, especially women and children. Furthermore, when such crimes are exposed they shamelessly and haughtily deny them, and when the matter is proved, an arrogant “sorry” is offered, which pours more salt on the wounds of the people.

As we have declared many times, the US government has no and will not have any genuine concern for the condition of freedom, democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan. It is ready to accept a more corrupt, destructive and anti-democratic government than the one in power now, provided that its stooges are the rulers. Therefore today, some top criminals are being consistently freed from the prison. This clearly shows that “democracy” and “freedom of women” do not hold even an iota of value for the US administration and its allies in Afghanistan. They are planning to install a government made up of Talib and Gulbuddini criminals; Khalqi and Parchami Quislings; lackeys of the blood thirsty Iranian regime from the “National Front”; and some other reactionary and treasonous elements related to the intelligence services of the West, so that even without direct military presence they would be able to control the country and save the country from becoming Iraq where the people rose against the US forces and its allies. If the US argues that it has not committed treachery, with the establishment of a government woven of the dirtiest enemies in the history of Afghanistan, they have committed the biggest possible treason against the Afghan nation, and they will not be able to justify this with any kinds of fabrications and cheatings.

http://www.rawa.org/events/sevenyear_e.htm