Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Obama needs to get real about Guantánamo

Scroll to see replies

Reply 220

indigoblue

Aphotic Cosmos

No, it's costing the US trillions. We don't have trillions to spend.

I was using "us" to describe the western allies

Reply 221

Oralloy

Aeolus

Source?

The historical record.

You can't show a single instance in the past hundred years of the US government targeting civilians.

I don't deny that we have an occasional war criminal (My Lai for example). But that was not US government policy.

Aeolus

Where is the source for these assumptions? It is true he wishes to creat an Islamic Empire within the Arabian Peninsular. But where are your sources that this will be opressive to muslims under their control etc.. etc..

Hardly an assumption. And he wants the world, not the Arabian Peninsula.

Here are some sources to testify how they treat Muslim women under their control:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27713077

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/15/pakistan-swat-deal-grave-threat-rights

Al-Qa'ida's attacks on Muslims of the "wrong" faction (Shia and Sufi Muslims for instance) also would count as oppression of a lot of Muslims.

Given their genocidal tendencies toward non-Muslims and extreme violence they've already exhibited toward other branches of Islam, I would guess that any non-Sunni Muslims would have some problems if they were ever conquered by al-Qa'ida.

Aeolus

He specifically names the Arabian peninsular and Isreal as his goal. How could you possibly come to the conclusion that he want's to conquer the world? Oh no wait i forgot how naive and prone to swallowing the first thing you are told you are.

You might want to learn about the subject and maybe actually prove a point about it before you run around calling other people naive.

As for knowing he wants to conquer the world, the caliphate they talk about would rule over all historically Muslim regions. That may not be the entire world, but it is a good chunk of it.

And when a crazed religious zealot wants to conquer a major chunk of the world and commit genocide against anyone who doesn't conform to his radical ideas, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that he wants the rest of the world in the name of his God as well.

Aeolus

Again, repeating yourself ignorantly isn't gonna make it true :rolleyes:

Nothing ignorant about me telling the truth.

And there is no need to make the truth true.

The truth is true by definition.

Aeolus

Yes it does..

No it doesn't.

Reply 222

Oralloy

Aeolus

Right, i think it's time to make an addition to my ignore list. :rolleyes:

*Reminds self not to attempt intelligent debate with children again*

Don't be silly. The character of my response was entirely justified by the character of what I was replying to.

Reply 223

Oralloy

Aeolus

Thankyou very much for proving my point :h:

I didn't prove your point. I pretty soundly disproved it.

Aeolus

Osama wants the US and the west out of the Middle East, he believes the oil wealth belongs to the followers of Islam to sell for themselves not the corrupt Kings of Saudi Arabia. He says that they will no longer sell oil exclusively to the US (or in dollars see :redface:

il hegemony). He also names the aggressiveness of Isreal as a major reason he wages war on the west. In no way does he advocate a global caliphate or an evil Islamic Empire as you so ignorantly put it.

Nope. He referred to the Caliphate he wants to form. I put it in all caps so it would be hard to miss.

Nothing ignorant about me pointing out the truth.

And given Osama's likely thoughts as to who would make a good Caliph, his desire to "save the oil for the Caliphate" is hardly altruistic.

Aeolus

Why did you just provide a quote that totally backs up my arguments? :mmm:

I didn't. I provided a quote that totally demolished your arguments.

Aeolus

That would be all well and good if the US was a champion of democracy. However your quote verges on hypocrisy considering the US supports and has supported a myriad of Authoritarian dictatorships and terrorist regimes.

Whether or not the US supports such regimes has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that al-Qa'ida violently rejects democracy and civil rights (and thus it can accurately be said that they hate our freedom).

But since you brought it up, we have from time to time had to support some unpleasant people who we would rather not have anything to do with. Sometimes it is necessary to do so in order to confront an even greater evil.

Aeolus

I agree that is terrible, but that is not the reason the US wages war in the middle east.

I wasn't offering it as the reason we are waging war. I was offering it as evidence that they do in fact hate freedom.

Aeolus

Where is this evidence?

Evidence that Osama and company want to commit genocide against non-Muslims under their control:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010616072830/in.news.yahoo.com/010524/43/wnkm.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20010620225945/www.abc.net.au/ra/newsdaily/s301675.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/may01/afghan_5-22.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61457-2001May22
http://web.archive.org/web/20010628004645/www.genocidewatch.org/talibanlabelspost.htm

Aeolus

So arre the Saudi Royal family, so are the Governments who passed the Terrorist act in the UK and the Patriot act in the US. So are the North Koreans, so is the Syrian Government.

The Saudis are certainly against freedom, but they are not attacking us.

We may well have to do something about North Korea and Syria.

Anti-terrorism laws in the US and UK are hardly obstacles to freedom.

Aeolus

Yet we choose to invade the middle east to fight Al Qaeda, a group which poses less of a threat than any organisations named above. :hmmmm:

We fight al-Qa'ida because they did 9/11.

Reply 224

Oralloy

indigoblue

America and Britain will not win this war.

Yes we will.

indigoblue

Pull out.

No.

Reply 225

Captain Crash

Oralloy

The historical record.

You can't show a single instance in the past hundred years of the US government targeting civilians.

Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Tokyo? Hamburg?

Not to mention all the instances Aelous showed earlier.

Reply 226

Aeolus

Oralloy

I am retarded.

Fine then. Ignorance is obviously bliss in your case. Maybe you might open your eyes a little bit once you hit high school. :h:

Reply 227

Kreuzuerk

Oralloy

Yes we will.

No.

How old are you?

Reply 228

SOAD_MONGOOSE

Oralloy

Yes we will.

No.

I don't understand what there is to "win"! You don't "win" these sorts of wars. You "win" thousands of civilian deaths, you "win" future potential threats to national security, you "win" oil..

Reply 229

indigoblue

Like America "won" in Vietnam or previously in Iraq?

I fully agree America has the ability to obliterate any enemy, but you can't just force a country round to your way of thinking. America has already paralyzed Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Iraqis and Afghans do not believe America is totally innocent. After all, the US were the ones who put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place. It reeks of hypocrisy.

Britain needs to be defending ourselves from domestic Islamic threats, we can set a much better example for the world without invasion