So what do you think they are 'fighting' for, then? [/b][/quote]Well if you've read my political posts over the years in regards to the War On Terror, I think that I have been very clear as to what I think the terrorists are fighting for. If you've read my posts over the past few years you would not need to ask a question like that of me.

But out of respect for you I will indulge you once again and try to sum it up for you in one paragraph:

They're fighting for the extremist belief that all non Muslims are 'infidels' and are 'the great satans' who need to be destroyed. They are not fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi or Afghany people. They are fighting and attacking coalition forces and civilians out of sheer fanatasism and in hopes to just wipe out anything and anyone that does not adhere to their twisted and demented doctorine. They intentionally blow up innocent Iraqi and Afghany people in there fight. And no true freedom fighter intentionally blows up the poeple that he or she claims to be fighting for.


And being that you even had to ask me that question, after all that I've continually said here on these boards, I have to believe that you already have a different opinion than mine as to what YOU think they are fighting for.

So I ask you two questions ;

1) Do you consider the terrorists who are fighting our coalition forces in Iraq to be freedom fighters / minutemen type soldier?

2) What do you think that they are fighting for?


Don Cardi

enzo do u think that terrorrists are fighting for some kind of freedom? They are pieces of shit who dont deserve any kind of recognition because all they want to do is kill people and preach the twisted religious shit that they believe in.

we should show what humanitarians that we really are and give them their wishes by bombing as many of them as we could so that they could go to the 72 virgins that are waiting for them.


ds

Well, yes, they are fighting for freedom, I think.

But that doesn't mean I agree with their definition of freedom, and the way they go about it.

DC with all respect I think your questions oversimplify the situation.

There are real insurgents in Iraq. They are Sunnis from the old Baathist regime who are afraid they are going to lose their control of the country to the Shia;;; there are the Shia who have been the majority of the population who think they will get screwed again, and to a lesser extend some kurds who want an independent state. Many of these people do not trust the United States, and they believe we are there to occupy them forever (rightly or wrongly).

The Terrorists are another story. It is in their interests to keep the insurgency going. That is why Zarqawi blew up the Shiite mosque....to get the Shiites mad at the Sunnis.
The Al quaeda forces in Irag have no interest in building up that country, they want to see it devolve into chaos and force the US out.

At this point the US is in a very delicate position because we have to foster some trust among the groups of insurgents and do what we can to keep these people from having a civil war. I will not go into my usual diatribe about the stupidity of this operation, because we are there and we are stuck with it. I think the release of people from Abu Grahib was a good start, and I am encouraged by the offers the Iraqi Government is making about offering an amnesty to insurgents who will lay down their weapons. The only hope in Iraq is that the people there realize it is in thei best interests to put aside tribal differences and rebuild their country into what could be a rich, oil producing place.

The Al Quaeda there will do everything in theor power to make sure this does not happen, and slowly those people need to be found out, and executed. If we can get some of these militias to lay down their arms, it might get easier to determine who the minutemen are and who the terrorists are. I suspect there are fewer Al Quaeda there than we think.

DonT,

I fully understand that there is an insurgency in Iraq that are fighting for exactly what you point out in your post above.

However that does not mean that those who may have originally started out as insurgents, afraid of losing their country haven't resorted to 'terrorist' tactics. If some of these people sincerely started out as insurgents who were fighting to keep hold of their country, and eventually began to use terrorist tactics by carrying out suicide bombings in market places along with kidnappings that result in torture and beheadings, does that make it ok because they are NOT a part of AL Qeada? The bottom line is that too many of the anti-war newspapers, newscasters and public figures have thrown this fake covering over our enemies by trying to paint them as freedom fighters. Therefore many people have been tricked into believing that those we are fighting over in Iraq are NOT terrorists just because the Cindy Sheehans, the media in general and those in the public eye have replaced the term terrorist with insurgent.

Again, I realize that some are insurgents who are afraid of losing thier country to a foreign occupation, but where I have to disagree with you is when you said that there are more insurgents in Iraq than there are terrorists. I think that it is the other way around.

And just to clear this up, I believe that Enzo was talking about terrorists, and that is why I replied what I did to him and asked him what I asked.


Don Cardi

If these people didn't have a cause to fight for, then they wouldn't have anything to keep themselves busy. They live for doing just this type of thing, year after year after year.

I see your point, but I think it is the influence of people coming from Iran, Syria and God knows where else that is stirring it up tp the point that the insurgents will resort to these tactics.

What is scary is that we can draw a parallel between this and the scene in GF II where the rebel blows up the police captain and Michael realizes that "they could win" because the police captain is paid a salary, and the terrorist isnt.

God dammit dude. Did I call them "minute-men" or freedom fighters? Fuck no. Really, be silly politically with others' posts, but I asked you a simple question, and through your post, I assume your answer is.....you don't know. Why couldn't you simply admit honestly, as JESUS would do, that you don't know? I mean not like I would be a bitch against you, because hey, I figure you or somebody might know, but whatever.

BTW Don Cardi, look up "insurgency" in the fucking Webster Dictionary, which unless you want to call it a liberial media outlet, is what it is:

Main Entry: in·sur·gen·cy
Pronunciation: -j&n(t)-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency

Really, DC, I'm sorry if I write like I'm pissed, but when you warp your posts into assumptions about me, then you've lost me.

P.S. - What else should I call them besides "people"? Arabs? Ragheads? Camel Jockeys? Madmen? I could have simply listed them as terrorists or meatbags or water flesh or whatever....besides, can't people be both evil and good?

Grazie consigliere.

My opinion about the true goals of Jihadi terrorists is the same as yours on some aspects, but in some I disagree with you.
I kind of agree with what Capo said: the definition of freedom; which is not something that is totally, a 100% the same in all cultures and countries; is different for you than it is for Arabs in Syria, it's different for me than it's for Bush.

Anyways, to give a overall view of what I think I don't have the time these days, I'm busy and typing a text in English that is a bit longer than a one-line post takes some time for me. Maybe I'll give my opinion later...
I hope you understand.

Nowhere in the Qur'an is there any mention of the prospect of meeting with 72 virgins in Heaven after committing an act for the holy Jihad. Double-J stated that there actually is something like this in the Qur'an but that it's about 72 raisins.
I never read the Qur'an so I don't know what the truth is, but I know for sure no one (not even the craziest ultimate religious Jihadi bastard) would blow himself up just to fuck 72 raisins. :p
So I don't think they're fighting for raisins, and also not for virgins.

Enzo,

I understand what you are trying to say and I understand that you are busy with schoolwork, which needs to come first. But I look forward to what you have to say sometime in the future.


As for the mention of 72 virgins, well there is a passage that makes reference to that. I've posted an explaination in the past along with the section of the Quoran that it is in.

But like everything else this passage has been twisted by the extremists and made to suit their finatatical beliefs.

If I ever find the time, I will locate that passage for you and PM it to you.


One thing that I must say about you Enzo. At least you've shown that you can give an intelligent discussion/ debate without having to resort to the same old rhetoric, fingerpointing and whining that two others have done in this thread. I guess that they really cannot present a strong case for why they believe what they believe or stand up for what they represent, so it is easier for them to live in the past and wallow in something that they believe was 'stolen' from them when in truth it really wasn't because the people of my great nation voted in an election and put into office the ONLY man that was right for the job. TWICE!


Don Cardi

Is there really Koran scholars who believe that the passage is meant to imply 72 raisins? I've seen reference to this on the boards twice now, but I heard the thing about the raisins on a Robin Williams comedy album and thought he just made it up as a joke, judging from the laughter in the audience afterwards. It seems about as believable as many other facets of religion, so I suppose it could be true. Unless of course, someone just happened to hear the same sketch I did and tried to pass off the joke as their own. :rolleyes:

Stuff like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.s html

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

I have no objection to the man being religious, but the thing is that "his" God may not be the "right" God or the "real" God, and the things that "his" God are telling him may be incorrect.

Also, while the issues you cite - Gay Marriage, Abortion, Stem Cells - may not be exclusively religious issues, I believe that the basis for people's opinions on those issues is grounded in their religious beliefs.

And there's a lot of middle ground between being amoral and a religious zealot - you don't have to be one or the other.

I personally am not at all religiously inclined, but that certainly does not make me amoral.

I'm not saying he's not intelligent, like thinking he's stupid.

I just don't think he's a man of exceptional intelligence, which I believe is a necessary requirement for a successful presidency.

And it's not only liberals - which I am absolutlely not BTW - who believe that.

Altho I very often disagree with don tommasso, finding him way too radical for my taste, sadly I must agree with him with his comments about how you consistently bring comments about the poster to the discussion, rather than comments about their posts.

But at least I can rest assured that although I choose not to engage in a pissing contest with you, I can out-piss you any time I care to.

With a few simple maneuvers I can alter the direction, distance, and intensity of my pissing, while you, unfortunately, are fairly limited in those areas to a simple and unimaginative flow in the same direction, with the same limited intensity, and always traveling pretty much the same distance, depending on how low you care to get to be closer to the target.

Welll it's just great to hear that I "admonish" ( ) the comparison to Hitler.

Now I can sleep tonight. :rolleyes:

Yet you refuse to admit one's mistakes.

To paraphrase what some green sci-fi puppet would say..."Wisdom, you don't have yet, padawan!"

The first link, as I understand, is a documentary by two men who are recounting what the President said in a meeting, not necessarily a quote by Bush. But okay, if he said that, sure, that likely seems excessive, especially to the anti-religious lot.

The second link puts some of his quotes back into context, and establishes the fact that Bush is a religious man, while putting it into perspective. And the article is probably correct - "That said, to speak frequently and directly about religion in a divided America can itself be divisive. But America is a country in which the place of religion in the public sphere has never been fixed, and probably never will be." When Bush speaks frankly about his religion, its no surprise that many (left leaning) people either purposefully go into hyperbolic wall of separation seizures, or simply dismiss him as a zealot.

The third link, again, is a rehash of the first, with someone claiming what Bush said in a meeting. How reliable is that? I don't know. Keep in mind that it is from a Palestinian viewpoint (which is by and large anti-American), as well as being printed by the Guardian, the left-leaning paper of the UK.

This (Guardian, yes those liberals! :p ) article helps to explain the misconception - it seems to be terrorist leaders warping the minds of their followers into believing in some sacred reward for suicide attacks.

The raisins I've mentioned actually came from a discussion at my Uni during an international relations seminar, where an Islamic professor mentioned the translations of 72 "raisins" (which isn't necessarily an original idea, many had been saying this since the 72 virgins idea was thrown about) and I've always thought it ironic if these terrorists were "rewarded" with a box of Sunmaid's if upon reaching Allah.

Listen, if you've read any of my posts, you know how I am with regards to citing facts and such. I'm not going to steal his material. Though it is funny, I admit.

A bit of self-denial, my friend?

"Bombs over Baghdad,"
Double-J

Didn't Bush once make a comment about how he was "doing God's work"?

That statement alone I find rather scary.

Even if he did, it’s his personal faith, which came in the package when he was elected.

I personally don't see that as a problem. Since the issues in question are not exclusively decided by the President's religious beliefs, then the whole idea that he is too dependant on religion for guidance it somewhat moot, as the process to determine policy likely takes into account far more weighted issues or standpoints (ranging from public opinion to international response).

"And no religion too,"
Double-J

I hope you're right about that.

But we don't really know for sure exactly what he bases many of his decisions on, do we?

Do we ever really know for sure what exactly any President bases his decisions on?

"Where Does Love Go When It Dies,"
Double-J

God Talks to Bush all the time. He also talks to Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden. I wonder if he is giving them all the same advice, or if he is just messing with them.

Thanks, I look forward to see it.

Do we ever really know for sure what exactly any President bases his decisions on?

No, but when a president tells me what he's basing his decision on - a belief that he's doing "God's Work", I'm troubled by it.

Suppose we had a president who came out and said that he was basing his decisions on the answers he was getting from a Ouija Board? Or a psychic?

There are people who believe in that stuff you know.

Bush is perfectly entitled to be as religious as he wants to be, and in the absence of proof tot he contrary I can't argue that there is no God, or if there is the Christian God in which he believes in not the "real" or "right" one, contrary to what other of the world's religions may believe.

But just as I can't argue that God does not exist, I don't believe that anyone can successfully make the argument that he does.

Which makes religion and a belief in God strictly speculative and a matter of faith.

And I would prefer a president who made decisions based on facts, not faith.

I believe many decisions in the Reagan administration were made by a psychic.

While Bush envokes how a president should be; strong, decisive. He lacks the polished personna that a leader of the GREATEST NATION on earth needs. Fact is John Kerry would have crumbled under the stress of being president. I can't belive that jackass even became the democratic canidate.

One thing I do find extremely ass backwards is how the Rebulicans want a less involved Central Government, yet they want to tell us who we can marry, who we can have sex with, what we can do to our own bodies, who is allowed to become an American, and what we can say, listen too, and read.

In fairness to the other side, some decisions in the Clinton administration were made using crystal balls.

Oh, wait, they weren't crystal. Never mind.

And then there is Dubya... I think he just uses crystals in general.

Actually those decisions were not made by balls, but you're close.

I believe many decisions in the Reagan administration were made by a psychic. [/b][/quote]Gee, I guess it would have paid off if some Democrats would have listened in the last couple of elections. :rolleyes:

Thus the battle of the dung beatles fighting for the elephant shit, continues.......see the thrilling next chapter, Part 67889, next week on the same channel!

An excellent point, vote Libertarian in 2008!