Support the troops?

Since when has OBL become a representative of all muslims?

the people he recruits are the victims of capitalism.

 

People, fail to realize this two hated each other, like fasicsts hate libertarians.

 

spel it

 

is that spelt right english teacher .......... would"nt know english accents cozyerdont plazzy ........teach me english cooloner

 

arrows are good points shithead.

 

and the thread woz

 

grow up ........ 5" 7 lad and standing on a ladder 23 foot .......grow up ...........man you really are a shithead

 

It is a misconception that the US created UBL and the Taliban. While the US did provide funding that was funneled through Pakistan, most of the support to UBL was provided by the Saudi government. UBL was an organizer and financier, and with the assistance of the Saudi government his MAK funnelled money, arms, and fighters from around the world into Afghanistan. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were not only funded by the US, but were also heavily funded by China, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The US government did not leave Afghanistan in "shambles". It is not as if they were conducting military operations and "pulled out" after the defeat. After the defeat of the Soviets, the fighting still continued. Many of the Mujahideen groups began to fight against each other. After years of fighting a Afghan mullah organized religious students to form an armed movement. These students were taught strict Islamic Fundamentalism in madrasahs in Pakistan (which were funded by Saudi Arabia). This organization became known as the Taliban. The popularity of the Taliban grew, along with its members, and became the new government of Afghanistan. It should be known that just because the Taliban became the form of government, it has nothing to say of the many tribal areas and warlords that control areas of Afghanistan.
The Afghan Mujahideen did accept support from the US, but it was always the position of bin Laden that he did not want support from the US CIA. bin Laden did not want support from the US in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Somalia, or Bosnia. bin Laden saw the "interference" of infidels in Muslim affairs as disrespectful to Islam. The presence of the US military (among them female soldiers) in Mecca was viewed as the most sacrilege.

The UN would never santion a force organized by bin Laden to provide military support. It is also not as simple as Bush I ignoring bin Ladens offer to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. bin Laden also never felt abandoned by the US, in fact he expressed his displeasure in the US involvement in Muslim affairs.

 

The US funded the mujahadeen and provided them with training. Once the fighting ended, Afghanistan was left in shambles b/c the countries who funded them (ie the US) stopped their funding. Afghanistan had no viable economy, no rule, and the country was chaos. The radical group from the mujahadeen, the Taliban, said they could fix the country.

Read Plato. According to him, when a nation is in chaos, the people cry out for a leader who can restore law and order. That is what the Taliban did, they claimed they could restore the peace by providing "Islamic" law, their radical verision. Perhaps if the countries, yes the US, had provided post war funding and helped the country rebuild itself through NON military methods, then the Taliban might not have taken power. Hmm, something to consider...

Maybe you misread my post. I wasn't justifying his motivation, but rather putting them in context. Not too many people do that, they just say "He's an evil man!" Yeah, way to have perspective.l

Just curious, but what do you think Bin Laden's motivation is?

Peace and love

 

50% Extreme religious beliefs
50% Psychopath

 

bin Laden has always been eager to bring Jihad. This is kind of interesting. The MAK I mentioned above was founded in 1984 by bin Laden and a man named Abdullah Azzam. The MAK was critical in raising funds, recruiting fighters, and dispersing funds. The MAK worked in close cooperation with the ISI (Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence), which was the agency that the CIA funneled money into. (This is the CIA-al Qaeda link that people relate to.)

After the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan, there was a difference in opinion as to which direction the MAK would go. Azzam wanted to use the connections and wealth it had created to help install a pure Islamic government in Afghanistan. bin Laden wanted to use the MAK to fund his global jihad. Azzam was killed in a car bombing and bin Laden went on to assume control of the MAK, which later would become one with al Qaeda.

During the Soviet-Afghan war, the MAK had approxiamately 30 sources within the United States in which it was receiving funding through. One of the top offices were within the Alkifah Refuge Center and the Al Farooq Mosque. These centers harbored individuals which were linked to the 1993 WTC bombing and the New York "Day of Terror" plot. Many of these MAK centers went on to provide funding and harbor individuals involved in 9/11.

Another misconception of bin Laden is that he is a wealthy Saud who uses his millions to fund terror plots. While there is a slight truth to this, most of the funding is traced back to organizations such as the MAK, mosques, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Tracing funding for terror ops is difficult because much of the funding is from donations. Zaakah is one of the five pillars and is currently around 2.5-5% of the annual income. This money is donated to the Mosques and gets distributed from there.

Note on the Muslim Brotherhood: This is an organization which most people rarely speak of. Its existance is not widely known and its involvement is greatly overlooked. The Brotherhood is as some would say, the hand up Mona Lisa's skirt.

Little off-topic, but an interesting tidbit at that.....

 

Oh i believe both are VERY faithful to there interpretation of the doctrine they subscribe too.
Both cast a dark shadow over there individual faiths..and those they are supposedly representing..

 

Justwow,

If you believed half the crap you're posting, you'd be over there fighting, rather than supporting our troops from a nice, safe, distance.

 

what are you talking about... ?

I wondered how long it would be before the ol' 'go enlist' would be trotted out.

 

is a serial killer still human? why show a murdering troop more sympathy than a serial killer? because the government says its ok?

 

I feel a bit miffed now - why not me

I did not quite say that..infact i never even got close to saying that.
I said' 'dark shadows' thats ALL..
I would consider the actions of Bush to be a darn sight more 'acceptable' than 'OBL'.. The ideologies or how they have 'warped their religions' is a darn sight diffferent.
I don't see ANYTHING positive from OBL.. i can at least see many many positives from Bushs actions..[along with the other coallition and Iraqi contributors ofcourse]

 

thanks.. i feel special now.

 

Best support for our troops is shove those piece of shit M-16 rifles up the politicians and goverment high brass ass and give them a rifle that dont jam in the sandy conditions.

 

No apologies necessary, Dude, that's the beauty of it, everyone's here to speak their minds. I'd rather you think I'm a completely uninformed asshole than not think at all...

I agree it's a horrible way to think, and maybe I'm cynical, y'know? It's also possible you give these guys too much credit. After all that shit that happened in New Orleans, do you think the Bush Administration really gives a shit about the general public? They're either incredibly incompetent or incredibly callous and inhumane, I suggest they're both...

...and I hope I didn't give the impression that I think "the end is near" or something, the change I describe would happen over time, and the government would somehow justify it as they always do, we need to suck it up and be patriotic, right? I get a kick out of how Bush proclaims we have an addiction to foreign oil, yet instead of investing in developing technology for greener, more sustainable energy sources, they're now trying to open up the Arctic to drilling (it's actually a done deal, isn't it?)...

...and for some reason, I'm still seeing an abundance of SUV's on the roads, too many people thinking locally (about themselves) and acting globally (wasting senseless amounts of energy)...

 

Glad you feel that way, i am rarely 'enraged' enough to be rude.. but i was just stunned by your post. Being here some time, it takes a lot nowadays.

Local mismanagment and the fact BUsh was not piloting a 'airbus' capable of lifting 1 million people out of danger.. is what was going on and what people found wrong.
The storys of 'Bush incompetence' were written the day before the hurricane even hit i would imagine [i can be as cynical a you]..

Erm well a little bit...

I'm from a smallish town in England..its a bit difficult for me to be 'patriotic'... to a foreign nation

I think it is a balancing act.. also you can't focus on the negative and ignore the positive... i think pitted against each other we could both find compelling information and programmes that we would deem either positive or negative.. the point being .. mmm well i hope you see my point ?.



Having survived the U.S. Senate budget resolution process against all odds, language that calls for opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development is moving to the next arena in Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate the proposed blueprint for the FY2007 federal budget during the week of March 26.


http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/16811993.shtml

Not sitting on hands doing bugger all..
http://www.epa.gov/Sustainability/index.htm
http://www.times-online.com/articles/2006/03/24/news/07klj.txt

debated over here also...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4830164.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=380759&in_page_id=1766&in_a_source=&ito=1490

I agree that people generaly are not the best for 'energy efficiency'.. i'm no saint.. but i try. If the state comes down hard it's 'Draconian' if the state is soft..well it is just deemed soft.

From what i read i reckon both are goverments are doing quite a lot..
Even though 'my' nation produces a poultry 2% of the worlds carbon emmitions..it STILL needs to look as if it is 'switched on' and should perpetuate 'cleaner thinking' globaly..
Those emerging nations [China India etc], could if not managed properly.. take over as the 'polluters of the world'.