Why People Go Crazy

[revolutionindia]

Ever wondered what happens in a terrorist mind

Why the people in beslan killed so ruthlessly

Why they hate other people so much

why they hate america and othter nations

Graphic images
Dead people,mutilated bodies,etcetc

Viewer discretion advised

Courtsey US,India,russia

effects of uranium depleted bombs used by US (http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/depleteduraniumcatastrophe.htm)

sanctions (http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/genocide.htm)


Kashmir india (http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/kashmir/index.htm)

Bsonia (http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/bosnia/index.html)

Homepage of muslim massacres (http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/)

While some o you may say this is propoganda

If you are illiterate and looking for some anchor and direction in your life
YOu can look at these photos and become a terrorist

[Professor Moneybags]

You've reversed cause and effect : The reason they were bombed in the first place was because they were terrorists. These are not civilized people and show no respect for anyone's rights. Take Bin Laden and 9/11. He reckoned it was all retalliation because the US "oppressed" his people. It is arse; he doesn't give a shit about "his people", as evidence from the Taliban regime shows.

[Intifada]

These are not civilized people and show no respect for anyone's rights.

And I suppose the Americans are civilised and care about everyone's rights?


He reckoned it was all retalliation because the US "oppressed" his people. It is arse; he doesn't give a shit about "his people", as evidence from the Taliban regime shows.

I agree that bin Laden doesn't care about the "his people", but how are these people recruited? Why do they become so pissed off that they would think about not only killing others, but themselves too?

The way in which the US acts and abuses the rights of innocents, not only in the middle east but almost everywhere in the world, will only breed more hatred of America. That is why, for example, people in Brazil, Greece, the Middle East and the Far East celebrated when those two planes flew in the World Trade Centres.

I'm afraid you reap what you sow.

[Danton]

Give me corrupt, exploitative, capitalist bastards over these fucking barbaric Allah sucking headhunters any day..

[fernando]

What does Iraq have to do with Bin Laden, September 11 and terrorism? Okay the terrorist attacks have started when the US imperialists occupied Iraq, so bombing a country with bombs containing uranium turns these people into terrorists ;)

Why do people hate the US? A Yank would say that the enemies of the US are jalous of their wealth and prosperity. However this is far from the truth.

Just take a look here, the reasons why 89 countries hate the US:
http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm

[/\______/\]

If you think Osama Bin-Laden and chums care about the people of the middle east you are very naive and mistaken.

Fundamentalist parts of Islam operate in the exact same way as Fundamentalist sections of Christianity operate, which certainly is not a reaction to any injustices brought upon them. They have built up their own structure of reality, where everything confirms and reinforces their belief and values - conservatism and intolerance.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 8 2004, 07:12 PM
You've reversed cause and effect : The reason they were bombed in the first place was because they were terrorists. These are not civilized people and show no respect for anyone's rights. Take Bin Laden and 9/11. He reckoned it was all retalliation because the US "oppressed" his people. It is arse; he doesn't give a shit about "his people", as evidence from the Taliban regime shows.
Uh... the deformed kids I saw in those pictures are terrorists?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 11 2004, 02:04 PM
Uh... the deformed kids I saw in those pictures are terrorists?
No, they're just an excuse for it.

[Intifada]

No, they are a reason for it.

That is what creates the will to take revenge.

[/\______/\]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:50 PM
No, they are a reason for it.

That is what creates the will to take revenge.
So you seriously think that the Islamic fundamentalists who are the ringleaders for the middle-easts terrorist groups do what they do because they care about their fellow citizens?

[Intifada]

So you seriously think that the Islamic fundamentalists who are the ringleaders for the middle-easts terrorist groups do what they do because they care about their fellow citizens?

No you fucktard.

I have already stated that the leaders of terrorist groups don't give a shit about the people. Those who commit acts such as suicide bombings are desperate and want revenge.

When they see how their people are being killed and maimed almost everyday, they will see reason to take revenge.

[/\______/\]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:17 PM

No you fucktard.

I have already stated that the leaders of terrorist groups don't give a shit about the people. Those who commit acts such as suicide bombings are desperate and want revenge.

When they see how their people are being killed and maimed almost everyday, they will see reason to take revenge.
So the terrorists are not justified. Many, most, democrats vote for them because they feel it is a progressive party and not corrupt like the Republicans. When in fact the leadership is just another bunch of opportunist liars. Does this mean that the democrat party is ok, because the people lower in the chain have sincere intentions? No, it doesn't.

And the same applies for these terrorist groups. Just because the people on the ground who perform the acts might be doing so out of revenge or to stop further killings somehow, doesn't mean the groups are justified. The leadership, the people who actually control the groups, act solely to further their own fundamentalist religion.

[Intifada]

So the terrorists are not justified.


And the same applies for these terrorist groups. Just because the people on the ground who perform the acts might be doing so out of revenge or to stop further killings somehow, doesn't mean the groups are justified. The leadership, the people who actually control the groups, act solely to further their own fundamentalist religion.

No, you fool, terrorism is not justified. I was not trying to provide a justification for the way in which suicide bombers act. I was giving you an explanation of why they resort to such actions.

The fact is that the invasion and occupation of places such as Iraq, will only aggravate terrorist acts against innocents. By killing and maiming innocents, you will only create more extremists willing to die and kill for their beliefs. If you act in the same ruthless and fanatical manner as the terrorists, you will only deepen and prolong the vicious cycle of violence.

As long as the West remains ignorant of the causes of terrorism, the cycle of violence will continue.

[revolutionindia]

The mind that created the problem will never be able to solve the problem.

The west will never find a lasting solution for terrorism

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Just take a look here, the reasons why 89 countries hate the US:

So why aren't Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Africans hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings or conspiring to kill Westerners and/or Americans?

[Danton]

Cuban-Americans practically invented plane hijackings and have perpetrated them against Cuba on numerous occaisons but that's beside the point, which is that these suicidal maniacs are motivated not by a sense of justice for their people but by demented bloodlust, seething religious hatred and a ludicrous belief that they will be somehow rewarded with nubile young tarts in their own private fantasyland.
They are in short, INSANE! :blink:

[fernando]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 03:36 AM

So why aren't Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Africans hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings or conspiring to kill Westerners and/or Americans?
That you hate the US isnt automatically that you hijack planes and fly them into buildings...

But ok...in the 80ties Peruvian groups hunted down US businessmen with bazookas :lol:

We hate the US, but we are still economically dependant on them, so we dont hijack planes etc yet...Iraq or Saudi Arabia for example have more than enough oil to survive, they dont really need the US.

[DaCuBaN]

So why aren't Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans and South Africans hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings or conspiring to kill Westerners and/or Americans?

Well, according to the US government, they are! Have you checked the list of nationals incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/guantanamo_nationalities.html) recently?

Britons, Danes, French, Aussies, Sudanese, Swedes, Russians - shall I go on?

Suffice to say, it's not just "those damn towel-heads" who're trying to blow up your "country".

[LSD]

Nobody is saying that there is a simple explanation to terrorism, except perhaps George W. Bush.

"They can't stand freedom, the evil-doers. They hate what America stands for."

It sounds nice, but it's mostly crap.


Danton, Capitalist Lawyer, no one here is saying that terrorism is justified or moral, but unless you understand the cause you can never prevent it.

If you genuinely want to save lives than you must understand that the motivation that is leading people to try and take them. Why is recruitment to Al Quaeda at record levels? Why aren't the Iraqi people "free"?

It isn't a simple problem. It has a lot to do with history, a lot to do with politics, and yes, a lot to do with religion.

People in the middle east and around the world genuinely believe that the US is a threat to them and to their people. In manny ways they are right, in some way they are wrong, but it is the perception that matters because the more the US insists on bombing them, the more convinced they become. When the US then invades and occupies arab and moslem countries...it only reenforces this belief.

The people who do the "grunt" word in terrorist organizations, the people who actually kill and die for them, they are not idealogues or imsane, they're desperate. They live miserable pathetic lives, they are poor and hungry and they see their people, once the pinacle of human achievment as poort and hungry around them. Whereas Moslem civilization once lead the world, now they see it surrounded and surpased by the west. And then they see a modern, well-fed, technological, western army occupying Palestine and occupying Saudi Arabia and occupying Afghanistan and occupying Iraq.

They believe that the US is the greatest threat to their people and they let themselves be convinced that there is a better life they can go to. It's all the same equation. In their minds, their lives are miserable because of the US, so if they die in hurting the US, maybe there's something better...

What makes the whole thing even more complex is that they're laregly right!

The US does have a history of creating and supporting despotic regimes in the arab world, and the US is occupying a whole bunch of arab countries. So when propaganda meets fact...it's doubly concinving.


"The persian gulf contains 60% of the world's known oil reserves"

For more than a century now, western desire for oil has lead to arab subjucation at the hands of American and British and French corporations. Some of the most brutal regimes in Arab history were either created or maintained by the west: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran. And as long as this practice continues, so will recruitment to terrorists.

The interest of these terrorists are very insular. Despite Bush's rhetoric, no group honestly wants to "take over the world" or "defeat America". Granted, the leaders are motivated by religious fervor, but it is a very geographic fervor. They seek to create a theocratic empire, much like the empire that existed 1200 years ago. The men and women that these leaders attract, however, only want a better life. Often they are propagandized to believe that this sort of theocracy would be that better life, but the motivation that leads them into these groups in the first place, is very secular and very human.

If the US and her "allies" were to leave, the lives of these people would probably not improve, the "damage is done". But the target would be gone. The same people who now join organizations to kill Americans would now have and enemy that is much closer and much more defeatable. Without foreign aid, the oppresive governments that the west supports would crumble.

What would replace them?

I don't know.

At this point, it might well be a fundamentalist state, but for many, that would be better than what they have today. And in the end, that regime will fall as well. It is the natural development of a people left to themselves.

The entire world is terrified of the US today, they believe that the US is the single greatest threat to world peace? Why? Because "they can't stand freedom" or because they can't stand the US?

When a child starves in Saudi Arabia or is shot in Iraq, before they slowly and painfuly die, do you really think it's "freedom" that they hate?

[revolutionindia]

Truly outstanding post that is sure to have the cappies and imperialists running for cover

Won't be seeing them for some time now :)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:07 PM
The fact is that the invasion and occupation of places such as Iraq, will only aggravate terrorist acts against innocents. By killing and maiming innocents, you will only create more extremists willing to die and kill for their beliefs. If you act in the same ruthless and fanatical manner as the terrorists, you will only deepen and prolong the vicious cycle of violence.

As long as the West remains ignorant of the causes of terrorism, the cycle of violence will continue.
What's the solution then, hot shot ?

[Professor Moneybags]

"They can't stand freedom, the evil-doers. They hate what America stands for."

It sounds nice, but it's mostly crap.

Emphasis mine.


They live miserable pathetic lives, they are poor and hungry and they see their people, once the pinacle of human achievment as poort and hungry around them.

So I guess it is all out of jealousy after all. They're not the world leaders they used to be, so now they're having tantrums and flying planes into buildings because of it. Sorry, but that's the problem with Islam- it's oppressive and does not respect anyone's rights, especially not those of other faiths. The problems these countries are facing are entirely self-inflicted. They don't want to believe it though, and now they're looking for scapegoats.

They're like cavemen who want to live in a high-tech society and still want to behave like cavemen. It isn't going to happen.


And then they see a modern, well-fed, technological, western army occupying Palestine and occupying Saudi Arabia and occupying Afghanistan and occupying Iraq.

Have you ever seen a modern, well-fed, technological, Islamic army ? Why do you suppose that is ?


The entire world is terrified of the US today, they believe that the US is the single greatest threat to world peace? Why? Because "they can't stand freedom" or because they can't stand the US?

When a child starves in Saudi Arabia or is shot in Iraq, before they slowly and painfuly die, do you really think it's "freedom" that they hate?

Don't underestimate them. Freedom is as alien a concept to them as being decapitated for drinking whiskey is to us.

Freedom is the philosophy of "the infidel"; to accept it is to become the enemy you hate. Some of them would rather cut their own throats than accept it.

[RedAnarchist]

What is your definition of Freedom, Moneybags?

[LSD]

Have you ever seen a modern, well-fed, technological, Islamic army ?

Yes! ...in the 12th century. :D


Why do you suppose that is ?

I don't quite understand what you're asking me...


Don't underestimate them. Freedom is as alien a concept to them as being decapitated for drinking whiskey is to us.

Who exactly is "them"?

Arabs? Moslems? Towell-heads?

Who is it to whom freedom is "alien"?

As I recall there was an arab, Moslem, democratic, and "free" country in the middle east. It was called Iran. Do you recall what happened to that country?


Freedom is the philosophy of "the infidel"; to accept it is to become the enemy you hate. Some of them would rather cut their own throats than accept it.

And you know this from your long talks with terrorist leaders, do you?

How many terrorists have you interviewed? How many of their supporters?

Have you even been to the middle east?


Before you presume that "they" consider freedom to be their enemy, you might want to actually speak with "them" and find out.


Sorry, but that's the problem with Islam- it's oppressive and does not respect anyone's rights, especially not those of other faiths.

*cough* crusades, spanish inquisition *cough*


the problems these countries are facing are entirely self-inflicted. They don't want to believe it though, and now they're looking for scapegoats.

So Iran "self-inflicted" a US lead coup?
Saudi Arabia "self-inflicted" billions of US aid for its despotic rulers?
Kuwait "self-inflicted" billions for its despotic rulers?
Iraq "self-inflicted" US weapons for Saddam?

Wow....these "self-inflictions" seem to involve the US a lot....


So I guess it is all out of jealousy after all. They're not the world leaders they used to be,

No!

You're oversimplifying it again. That's part of the problem. But if the west would stop interfering now, it wouldn't be an issue.


What's the solution then, hot shot ?

For the momment, leave the rest of the world the fuck alone!

The rest of us really don't want to be "liberated"!

[DaCuBaN]

For the momment, leave the rest of the world the fuck alone!

The rest of us really don't want to be "liberated"!

I'll second that. The US needs to get it's tail between it's legs, and fuck off back to their own continent like the 20th century never happened. Quit screwing things up for everyone else. :P

[Osman Ghazi]

The problems these countries are facing are entirely self-inflicted.

No, mostly, they are inflicted on their people by their corrupt leaders, who stay in power thanks to foreign money and arms.

However, if you consider a country to be a single biological entity, rather than a society that is made up of millions of people, than yes, it is partly 'self-inflicted'.

But the other part is an infection; a foreign invasion, if you would.


As I recall there was an arab, Moslem, democratic, and "free" country in the middle east

Actually, Iranians are persian, not arabic. Arabs are only about 3% of the population.


Have you ever seen a modern, well-fed, technological, Islamic army ?

You're joking right? Iraq and Iran carried on an 8-year war that cost the lives of millions of people, and you think they didn't feed or arm their armies? Thousands of artillery peices, hundreds of tons of deadly gas poisons? That's not 'technological enough for you? Your ignorance is astounding, yet you have so many 'brilliant' insights on moslem culture.

Oh, and a few words of wisdom: "Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[gaf]

first crazyness is relative like terrorisme is
second what make a diference between a terrrorist and state, is inyour mind
third there is no diferrence between state and terrorisme, since it is your choice
4th well. freedom is options .options is choices not terrorism ........
don't say it's absurd because it is.
and we live in.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

MoneyBags, I can't understand why you continue "debating". You're obvious very close minded and not interrested in improving the living conditions of people. Nor do you have an opinion of your own to argue over.

I have read quite some posts of you and I can't see any difference between your opinion and that of the gov't and mainstream media.

Really, if I am interrested in knowing the excuse of the Capitalist Countries for cutting budget on education, sports and liberating people, who they afterwards refer as sick, suicidal maniacs. If I am interrested in that, I switch on the t.v and if I am interrested in other opinions I come to a.o Che-lives.

Let's keep it seperated. You have your dreamworld, I have my reality.

If it's hard for you too understand how military oppression can lead to despair and suicide, then you shouldn't be here.

Unlike the image that you have, the Coalition troops are not seen as liberators, by the Iraqi people, nor do the people appreciate the random imprisonment, beating and killing. Same goes for the Kurds, Chechens, Palestinians, Afghans, Kashmirs etc.

I don't expect you to understand this, I only expect you to leave to some conservative board and "enlighten" them with your FOX intellect.

[Professor Moneybags]

MoneyBags, I can't understand why you continue "debating". You're obvious very close minded and not interrested in improving the living conditions of people.

That presupposes that that is my purpose in life. It isn't. Not directly. It's also begging the question that what you are advocating actually improves people's living conditions. It doesn't.


Nor do you have an opinion of your own to argue over.I have read quite some posts of you and I can't see any difference between your opinion and that of the gov't and mainstream media.

It is my own opinion. You opinions sound like Michael Moore's, does that mean you get all of yours from him ?

(snip the other crap)


If it's hard for you too understand how military oppression can lead to despair and suicide, then you shouldn't be here.

Spare the crocodile tears. You didn't give a toss about "military oppression" when Saddam was putting people into plastic shredders. It's only an issue now because it's convenient. The islamo-fascists (insurgents) are just trying to fill in the power vacuum left by the Saddam dynasty and they don't do suicide bombings out of "desperation", they do it as part of their religion (or what they interpret as their religion).

And you sympathize whith them. Why ? Because you percieve them to be attacking "capitalism", which you too hate. This coincidence has not gone unnoticed.


Unlike the image that you have, the Coalition troops are not seen as liberators, by the Iraqi people, nor do the people appreciate the random imprisonment, beating and killing. Same goes for the Kurds, Chechens, Palestinians, Afghans, Kashmirs etc.

How are any worse than what was there before ? Why, because America is the "great satan" and the American people "the infidel". The insurgents don't mind despotism of any kind, just so long as it's in the name of Allah and that they are in charge of it.

(Snip the ad-hominem)

[gaf]

personaL=spam

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

That's why people come to this board. Discuss what the best methods are in improving people's lives. I don't mind, that you are a Capitalist, but obviously you do not share in this strive and do not belong here.

And I didn't presume that you were interested in improving people's lives, it really doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that you are self-centered.

Point 2. You have no idea what my opinion is. Unlike you, I do read people's posts/articles. If you had read my posts and Micheal Moore's writings, you would have noticed that Micheal Moore is not revolutionary, nor Anti-Capitalistic.

Point 3. Point out a post, in which I plead support to Saddam Hussein or Muslim fascists. If you had read posts of mine or even knew my opinion slightly, you would have known that I am against Saddam, Muslim fascists, US imperialism.

Unlike what Bush made you believe. There are more then 2 sides in this war.

Point 4. I do not support muslim-facists, or any type of facist. Unlike you, I have been into war. Sorry to disrupt you, but maybe you have noticed that Afghanistan has been in war for the past 24 years. Yes, I know "Spare the crocodile tears", but I can't help to hate them for killing a lot of my beloved ones.


How are any worse than what was there before ? Why, because America is the "great satan" and the American people "the infidel". The insurgents don't mind despotism of any kind, just so long as it's in the name of Allah and that they are in charge of it.

As you would have known, if you had read my posts. I am not muslim, nor do I refer to America as "the great Satan", but this "towelhead" as you would probaly call me, doesn't pick the lesser evil. I understand that your democracy works on this very principe.

Yes, every 4 years the American Workers have to decide which of the twin parties is likely to fuck them less.

Now. Why don't you read my posts and if you don't read them why debate me?

BTW: do you consider yourself racist? For assuming that every "towelhead" is muslim-facist? Or is that patriotic thing to do?

[Professor Moneybags]

And I didn't presume that you were interested in improving people's lives, it really doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that you are self-centered.

The "others vs self" dichotomy is a popular myth, almost as popular as the mind vs body dichotomy.


You have no idea what my opinion is. Unlike you, I do read people's posts/articles. If you had read my posts and Micheal Moore's writings, you would have noticed that Micheal Moore is not revolutionary, nor Anti-Capitalistic.

Apart from the war, you don't have a clue what my opinons are either.


Point out a post, in which I plead support to Saddam Hussein or Muslim fascists. If you had read posts of mine or even knew my opinion slightly, you would have known that I am against Saddam, Muslim fascists, US imperialism.

If you are against Saddam, then why are you against the war ? All talk and no action isn't going to achieve anything. And don't go thinking that "democracy" or "negotiations" would have removed him, that would be naive.


Unlike what Bush made you believe. There are more then 2 sides in this war.

Which are those ?


I do not support muslim-facists, or any type of facist.

You don't support them- until they become the lesser of two percieved evils.


BTW: do you consider yourself racist? For assuming that every "towelhead" is muslim-facist? Or is that patriotic thing to do?

You lot always try to play the race card. The insurgents and those supporting them are the muslim-fascists. Everyone else was smart enough to realise that the sooner the shooting stops, the sooner the great satan leaves their country.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

If you are against Saddam, then why are you against the war?

Because the only real victims of Hussain's and Bushies dirty games are the proles. I have no reason to believe that Saddam or George cares about the people of Iraq. So why would I support (war) efforts of either of them?

There are numerous other sides. The radical Islamists, the Iraqi's who are fed up with both Saddam and the Bushies, the Communists and Socialists just to name a few.


You don't support them- until they become the lesser of two percieved evils.

Again, I have serious reason to suspect you of racism. What makes you believe that I would do such a thing. You know nothing about me, except that I am a "towelhead" (or is "sandnigger" the fashionable thing to say), so on what do you base this accusation?


The insurgents and those supporting them are the muslim-fascists. Everyone else was smart enough to realise that the sooner the shooting stops, the sooner the great satan leaves their country.

Not al insurgents are radical muslims or even religious. On what do you base this "fact" of yours?

I refuse to call the US, the great Satan.

And when the US leaves, they put a puppet government in place. A prospect that most Iraqi's are not waiting for. So why would they stop their armed resistance.

Remember, the Iraqi people don't have good experiences with US puppets. Maybe you have heard of mister Saddam Hussain, CIA agent and Iraqi President at the same time.

----

Out of curiousity. Could you even name one major thing on which you disagree with your government.

[Professor Moneybags]

There are numerous other sides. The radical Islamists, the Iraqi's who are fed up with both Saddam and the Bushies, the Communists and Socialists just to name a few.

Communists and socialists, as well as Palestinian terrorist groups have been the main beneficiaries of the Hussein regime. Who has the most to lose ?


Again, I have serious reason to suspect you of racism. What makes you believe that I would do such a thing. You know nothing about me, except that I am a "towelhead" (or is "sandnigger" the fashionable thing to say), so on what do you base this accusation?

How is this racism :


You don't support them- until they become the lesser of two percieved evils. ?


Not al insurgents are radical muslims or even religious. On what do you base this "fact" of yours?

I refuse to call the US, the great Satan.

The US is an occupying, not an invading army and there are no Baathists to keep them ignorant of this fact, so then reason do they have for fighting ? What exactly are they hoping to achieve ?


And when the US leaves, they put a puppet government in place. A prospect that most Iraqi's are not waiting for.

As opposed to what ? Saddam ? Another Ayotolla ?


Out of curiousity. Could you even name one major thing on which you disagree with your government.

Religion, medicine, abortion, homosexuality, protectionism....

[Raisa]

If people are raised around war their whole lives, it makes it that much easyer for them to go be a warrior, in the same fashion that someone who is raised around drinking their whole lives has an easyer time becoming a drunk.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Communists and socialists [...] have been the main beneficiaries of the Hussein regime. Who has the most to lose ?

I challenge you to proof that.

It's well known that Saddam wasn't "friendly" to Socialists and Communists. Iraqi Communists and Socialists were the target of torture, excecution, intimidation, inprisonment.


You don't support them- until they become the lesser of two percieved evils.

What reason do you have to believe this?


The US is an occupying, not an invading army and there are no Baathists to keep them ignorant of this fact, so then reason do they have for fighting ? What exactly are they hoping to achieve ?

The US led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003 and is currently occupying Iraq. So YES the US Army is an invading one. Nice facts you have there.

The reason that they are fighting and will continue fighting is the occupation.


As opposed to what ? Saddam ? Another Ayotolla ?

Saddam was an US puppet.

What reason do the Iraqi people have to believe that there will be change this time? Every US installed puppet has always been a dictator!

Islamic republic, Socialist State, a federation of Anarchist collectives... There are many options. But above all let the Iraqi's decide for themselves, it's the democratic way.

[Professor Moneybags]

I challenge you to proof that.

It's well known that Saddam wasn't "friendly" to Socialists and Communists. Iraqi Communists and Socialists were the target of torture, excecution, intimidation, inprisonment.

Wasn't friendly, huh ? (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA16004) Perhaps he was killing off his rivals.

Beneficiaries of Saddam's regime include :

-Yugoslav Left party - 9.5 million barrels of oil.
-George Galloway (Socialist Stooge- former member of the British labour party) - 1 million.
-Socialist Party (of Yugoslavia) - 1 million barrels.
-The Romanian Labor Party - 5.5 million barrels.
-The Bulgarian Socialist Party - 1-2 million barrels.
-The Slovakian Communist Party - 1 million barrels.
-The 8th of October Movement (Brazilian communist group) - 4.5 million barrels.
-PLO (yes, that PLO) - 4 million barrels. (And they said Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.)
-The Social Democratic Party (of Ukraine)- 1 million barrels.
-The Communist Party (of Ukraine) - 6 million.
-The Socialist Party (of Ukraine) - 1 million.
-The (Belarus) Liberal Party (you can bet it doesn't stand for economic liberalism) - 1 million.
-The Communist Party (of Belarus)- 1 ton.
-There are too many Russian beneficiaries to list, but I think you get the idea by now.

For someone "not friendly" to socialists and communists, he sure seems to be giving out lots of oil to them.


The US led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003 and is currently occupying Iraq. So YES the US Army is an invading one. Nice facts you have there.

Superb equivocations too. The US "invaded" and "occupied" Germany in 1945, does that mean...?


Islamic republic, Socialist State, a federation of Anarchist collectives... There are many options. But above all let the Iraqi's decide for themselves, it's the democratic way.

So a dictatorship is acceptable, providing the Iraqi people elect it ?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It looks like he supported the enemy of his enemies, because the list contains numerous Capitalists as well.

Meanwhile he conducted a reign of terror on Communists in Iraq.
http://countrystudies.us/iraq/113.htmp


Superb equivocations too. The US "invaded" and "occupied" Germany in 1945, does that mean...?

Number of differences:

- Germany declared war on the US - Iraq didn't (The US was forced to fight against Germany, but they didn't have to invade Iraq)

- Germany was very powerfull, had the best military in the world - Iraq had not. -They had even trouble fighting Kurdish militias.

- Iraq didn't form a threat in anyway. They didn't have WMD's nor the transportation means to target them at the US. Germany ofcourse did form a threat.


So a dictatorship is acceptable, providing the Iraqi people elect it ?

It's called democracy. All you can do is trying to persuade people in rejecting the dictatorship. Welcome by the club, that's what I am trying to do.

Invading with an army and forcing your will on the people, makes you the dictator. No matter what your intentions are.

[Tasha]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2004, 01:14 PM
So I guess it is all out of jealousy after all. They're not the world leaders they used to be, so now they're having tantrums and flying planes into buildings because of it. Sorry, but that's the problem with Islam- it's oppressive and does not respect anyone's rights, especially not those of other faiths. The problems these countries are facing are entirely self-inflicted. They don't want to believe it though, and now they're looking for scapegoats.
Please rethink your post you do not seem to know much of Islam. I dont know much myself but I do know that it is the only religion that recognizes and accepts other faiths (christians jews) contrary to what you have suggested. To attack this religion like this is a typical generalization. Do we demonize all christians for the atrocities commited by the crusades?? Do we demonize the jews because of their zionist counterparts?

[synthesis]

If you are against Saddam, then why are you against the war ? All talk and no action isn't going to achieve anything. And don't go thinking that "democracy" or "negotiations" would have removed him, that would be naive.

No one would say that if they were informed as to the real history of American imperialist policy. I'll put it to you simply since you seem to have comprehension problems: you can't trust the same apparatus that would propel a party such as the Ba'athists to power to make "better" decisions for the Iraqi people. The current Iraqi president executed two dissidents with his own hands recently. So much for "Operation Iraqi Freedom".


Communists and socialists, as well as Palestinian terrorist groups have been the main beneficiaries of the Hussein regime. Who has the most to lose ?

You aren't that stupid.

[Professor Moneybags]

It looks like he supported the enemy of his enemies, because the list contains numerous Capitalists as well.

The list doesn't contain any capitalists. (Capitalist does not mean "the rich", not does it mean "owns a company".)


- Germany declared war on the US - Iraq didn't (The US was forced to fight against Germany, but they didn't have to invade Iraq)

"Forced" ? Yeah, right. America is a very long distance away for Germany to start sending its bombers over.


- Germany was very powerfull, had the best military in the world - Iraq had not. -They had even trouble fighting Kurdish militias.

This isn't relevent to the argument.


- Iraq didn't form a threat in anyway. They didn't have WMD's nor the transportation means to target them at the US. Germany ofcourse did form a threat.

As mentioned, Germany did not pose a direct thtreat to the US. If you see someone getting beaten in the street for no reason, who has the right to retalliate on his behalf ? Anyone who wants to.


It's called democracy. All you can do is trying to persuade people in rejecting the dictatorship. Welcome by the club, that's what I am trying to do.

That's not going to be much good when dealing with Hussein/Hitler types. The problem is, although what you are trying to persuade people to do is fair enough- that's a long-term goal. The Iraqi's attitude isn't going to change without a change of government; 20 years of Saddam's brainwashing isn't going to go away overnight.


Invading with an army and forcing your will on the people, makes you the dictator. No matter what your intentions are.

I question what they are actually forcing. You can't force someone to be free, just as you can't force someone to think for themselves.

[DaCuBaN]

"Forced" ? Yeah, right. America is a very long distance away for Germany to start sending its bombers over.

Try the sea. The UK couldn't stop the U-Boat divisions - of which some officers I believe applied and were granted US citizenship on the grounds that they entered the military - from sneaking out under their guard (despite the massive minelaying operation that took place in the North/Norwegian Sea and the English Channel) they just slipped on under.

German U-Boats were attacking US ships ferrying supplies to Europe prior to Japan attacking Pearl Harbour. The US was in reality at war from 1940 onwards - y'all just stuck your fingers in your ears until the truth really hit home. Japan and Germany were closely allied after all.

However, in your defense, as far as the technicalities of war go, Germany in fact declared war on the US, as a direct result of the US declaring war on Japan.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The list doesn't contain any capitalists. (Capitalist does not mean "the rich", not does it mean "owns a company".)

And here we go!

Russian Orthodox Church
Calgary-based Oilexco company
Shaker Al-Khafaji
Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua
French-Iraqi Export Club
Glenco Re
Taurus
Rosneftegazetroy
Alcon
Finar Holdings
West Petrol
Salvatore Nicotra

Hopefully, you get it. If you read further, then you notice that this is only a fraction. I had just arrived at Italy and it seems like there are much more.

Companies and capitalists got a lot of oil barrels. He was funding the enemy of his enemies and of course friends.

And here is an undeniable capitalist

The Russian state itself received 1,366,000,000 barrels

Even if you take the Ayn Rand definition of Capitalist. Which btw is not the most common definition of Capitalist. Then you still have a vast quantity of Capitalists.

Only taken out of Russia.

Liberal Democratic Party
Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party


"Forced" ? Yeah, right. America is a very long distance away for Germany to start sending its bombers over

The US had to fight with Germany, simply because it was under attack by Germany. As mentioned earlier, large U-Boat pacts were operating along the east-coast of the US. From New York to Texas, they were active. Not to mention that after conquering the UK, Nazi-Germany would have set up to invade the US.

German bombers of New York isn't such an unthinkable scenario. If the UK had fallen into Nazi-German hands, then so would have Iceland. With the fast development of bombers in those days, especially qua action-radius. It wouldn't have been such an unthinkable scenario. And believe me the UK wouldn't make a chance, if Nazi-Germany had carried out the planned invasion.

This time, it was actually true. The US was acting in self-defense.


This isn't relevant to the argument.

This is very relevant, because Germany had the military power to pose a threat. While Iraq under Saddam Hussein, was the weakest country in the region. The first gulf war and the 12 year bombing that followed on, destroyed all important military structures. Iraq did not form a threat to the US.

I gave you a whole series of arguments, against the invasion. You have failed to give me one.

Proof me wrong on this. Iraq didn't form a threat to the US and Nazi-Germany did. Iraq didn't attack the US, Nazi-Germany did. That's what justified the invasion of Nazi-Germany and didn't justify the invasion of Iraq.


That's not going to be much good when dealing with Hussein/Hitler types. The problem is, although what you are trying to persuade people to do is fair enough- that's a long-term goal. The Iraqi's attitude isn't going to change without a change of government; 20 years of Saddam's brainwashing isn't going to go away overnight.

Then you say this. Which contradicts the above.

You can't [...] force someone to think for themselves.

Installing a new government in order to force people to think in a new way, is nothing more then a dictatorship and you can't expect anything else then resistance against it.

It's very chauvanistic to think that you're right and they are wrong and that therefor you have the right to force people to think otherwise. Forcing people to think in your way, is dictatorship.

So, how is your mindset different from dictators? That's what dictators do, forcing people to think in their way. No matter what the goal is.

That's why I reject Stalin. Altough that I agree on the goal (Communism), I do not agree with his dictatorial method.

[Professor Moneybags]

You are arguing that churches, industry and businesses are all intrinsically capitalist. This is false.

The original argument was about whether or not Saddam was friendly with communists. He clearly seem to be- providing they pose no threat to his own position.


And here is an undeniable capitalist

The Russian state itself received 1,366,000,000 barrels

Russia is socialist.


Even if you take the Ayn Rand definition of Capitalist. Which btw is not the most common definition of Capitalist. Then you still have a vast quantity of Capitalists.

If we take the Ayn Rand definition of Capitalist, we would still have zero, unless you can provide quotes to prove otherwise. I'm not interested in common definitions, which are often contradictory and defined by non-essentials, I'm interested in correct ones; there is only one form of capitalism : Laissez faire. Anything else would be a comprimise with some form of statism.


Liberal Democratic Party
Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party

Niether of which promote capitalism.

(You must have a very maleable definition of capitalism, I'll say that much.)


Installing a new government in order to force people to think in a new way,

What are they actually forcing on them ? Freedom ? Isn't freedom defined by the absence of force ? The absence of force is not force.


is nothing more then a dictatorship and you can't expect anything else then resistance against it.

It's not much of a dictatorship if no force in being applied.


It's very chauvanistic to think that you're right and they are wrong and that therefor you have the right to force people to think otherwise.

I said in my last post : You can't [...] force someone to think for themselves.


Forcing people to think in your way, is dictatorship. So, how is your mindset different from dictators? That's what dictators do, forcing people to think in their way. No matter what the goal is.

How can I be a dictator by promoting freedom ? That sounds terribly Orwellian.

Again, what am I forcing on them ? I'm beginning to realise that you see absence of force as an initiation of force, which seems to be a common trait amongst you. It's not a phenomenon restricted to debates about regime changes, either.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Companies and industries are often capitalist. are capitalist. Churches often protect capitalism by justifying it with "this is how god wants it" rubbish.

Russia is not socialist. The Russian economy is in private hands and getting further into private hands. Obviously not socialist.

No Laissez-fairez capitalism is a form of Capitalism, it's not the Capitalist form.

My fault, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is extreme rightwinged and not liberal.

But Vladimir Putin does promote Capitalism. An authoritian form of it nonetheless, but still he does promote Capitalism.


How can I be a dictator by promoting freedom?

Like, I said the goal doesn't matter. Stalin was trying to set up Anarchism by force. Which is ofcourse rubbish.

This is what I don't understand. You support the invasion of Iraq. You agreed on that Iraq didn't form a threat to the US. And you are even against forcing people. So what's your goal then?

[Professor Moneybags]

Companies and industries are often capitalist. are capitalist.

But not always.


Churches often protect capitalism by justifying it with "this is how god wants it" rubbish.

There is little in the church that justifies capitalism. "Rich people are going to hell unless they give everying they have to the poor." is not a capitalist-friendly message.


Russia is not socialist. The Russian economy is in private hands and getting further into private hands. Obviously not socialist.

The Russian economy is in very much in government hands, being nationalized more by the day.


No Laissez-fairez capitalism is a form of Capitalism, it's not the Capitalist form.

It is the form of capitalism, any other system contradicts it's essential characteristics in someway.


My fault, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is extreme rightwinged and not liberal.

But Vladimir Putin does promote Capitalism. An authoritian form of it nonetheless, but still he does promote Capitalism.

Given your maleable definition of capitalism, it's unlikely that is true.


Like, I said the goal doesn't matter. Stalin was trying to set up Anarchism by force. Which is ofcourse rubbish.

Anarchism was the last thing he was setting up.


This is what I don't understand. You support the invasion of Iraq. You agreed on that Iraq didn't form a threat to the US. And you are even against forcing people. So what's your goal then?

Liberating them from oppression.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is little in the church that justifies capitalism. "Rich people are going to hell unless they give everying they have to the poor." is not a capitalist-friendly message.

Funny how most of the clergy are filthy rich. It must be God's reward. :rolleyes:


Liberating them from oppression.

Yes, I suppose shooting people does liberate them from oppression... it also liberates them from that terrible affliction known as 'life' :angry:

[cormacobear]

Similair deformities are begging to rise among the children of Gulf War 1 veterans.

So by Moneybags own logic the US doesn't care about it's own citizens.

Similiar deformities occurred, and are still occuring, in Vietnam from the use of agent orange. The US government was forced to pay a meager compensation to their own soldiers afflicted, however they have not given a single cent in compensation to the Vietnamese victims, who were supposedly their allies.

Cheney and Wolfowitz were planning the invasion of Iraq during Clintons term.

They did it to bypass Iraq's contractual oilfield commitments with Russia and France. That's why those two countries threatened to veto any UN approval of the war.

Not one single lie told to the world or the american people, as a reason for invading, holds any water when you look at the date they began working on the invasion.

Try reading "It's the Crude, Dude" by Linda McQuaig. It includes the documentation proving this.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Those companies listed by me are Capitalist, because their goal is profit. The few exceptions, do not account here.

Religions are the "moral" justification for the exploitive rulers.

Even tough there are some parts in the a.o the bible which are anti-capitalist. There are more parts who encourage dictatorship and capitalism.

Here is a nice manual in the bible on slavery

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

What's even a more stronger case, then your one passage. Is the fact that the Church has always claimed that "God" has put people in the economic place that they deserve.

Russia is not socialist. Socialism is very broad, but the least of requirements is running a society for the common "good".

Therefor Russia is not socialist, because it's run in the interest of the few (Putin and his business and former KGB pals).

Taken from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...11285&dict=CALD (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11285&dict=CALD)

capitalism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people

Yes Russia's economic system is based on private ownership. With a little social system built around it, to keep the working class happy.

Stalin was on his way to put up Communism. Communism beeing stateless, classless, leaderless is essential Anarchism. I used the term Anarchism to show the contradiction with his authoritive governing.

Liberating them from oppression.

:lol: :D :P

I had to use it all, for such a meaningless statement.

A little review shall we...

The Coalition invaded Iraq, removed a hated regime. Only to replace it another one.

So have the Iraqi's been liberated?

Let me answer with "You can't force someone to be free".

But what is that force of 130,000 still doing there, forcing "liberation"?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:15 PM
Yes, I suppose shooting people does liberate them from oppression... it also liberates them from that terrible affliction known as 'life' :angry:
I don't think that is a wise issue for any communist to start bringing up.

[Professor Moneybags]

Those companies listed by me are Capitalist, because their goal is profit.

So is the goal of everyone who works. Even the communist ones.


Religions are the "moral" justification for the exploitive rulers.
Even tough there are some parts in the a.o the bible which are anti-capitalist. There are more parts who encourage dictatorship and capitalism.

Or maybe it's just a list of contradictions.


Russia is not socialist. Socialism is very broad, but the least of requirements is running a society for the common "good".

Therefor Russia is not socialist, because it's run in the interest of the few (Putin and his business and former KGB pals).

Socialism isn't in the interest of the many anyway even if it was run with that intention.


Taken from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...11285&dict=CALD (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11285&dict=CALD)

capitalism [Show phonetics]
noun [U]
an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people
Don't give me that, I'm sure I've provided my definition of capitalism here before; that one is a little too basic and is asking to be taken out of context.


Yes Russia's economic system is based on private ownership. With a little social system built around it, to keep the working class happy.

In other words, Russia's economic system is based on private ownership, with considerable violation of that private ownership. It is therefore a mixed system, lying somewhere between capitalism and communism. I call that socialism.


The Coalition invaded Iraq, removed a hated regime. Only to replace it another one.

Hated by whom, exactly ?


So have the Iraqi's been liberated?

Consensus (or not) of a governing body tells us nothing about the nature of the governing body, or it's stance on freedom.


But what is that force of 130,000 still doing there, forcing "liberation"?

To get rid of those who don't want people to be free. Has it occured to you that these insurgents might actually be fighting the present government for power ? Might they be trying to take control of Iraq themselves ? Perhaps they are trying to set up another Iranian-style theorcracy. The number of militant islamists involved and carrying out the kidnappings/executions as well as the rise of these previously unheard of "mullahs" would certainly suggest this.

If they took charge of Iraq, that certainly would increase the risk of terrorism globally. Remember that it's not just the US that has been hit either...

[gaf]

monney bags
if they took charge of Iraq, that certainly would increase the risk of terrorism globally. Remember that it's not just the US that has been hit either...


i don't know and you don't know too... and pax americana doesn't mean peace.....
since they can no get it home how can it be achieve there with a charge.?.......
may be illusion of freedom.? and terrorism is relative like freedom is with war ,and i don't speak other democracy.

[DaCuBaN]

Russia's economic system is based on private ownership, with considerable violation of that private ownership. It is therefore a mixed system, lying somewhere between capitalism and communism. I call that socialism.

That's all well and good, but you would be incorrect in doing so. Russia, like the UK, like the US, like France, like Germany, like practically every nation on the planet is a mixed economy. Communism is synonymous with Anarchism, in that the state does not exist. Socialism is as far "left" as one can go whilst mantaining the state, not centrist as you imply.

You might not like hearing it of course, so your denial of it is understandable.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 17 2004, 01:19 AM
I don't think that is a wise issue for any communist to start bringing up.
why people go crazy?
Because they hang money in his "bag(s)" , draggin it along floor, the pain, can make one crazy, no?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Ridiculous.

Any attempt to debate with you has no perspective. Simply, because we do not share any believes. The least to even debate with me is interest in methodes to improve living conditions in the world. Otherwise, what is there to debate?

Please do not respond any further. Since I will not reply. I am tired of this continous fruitless dancing around.

You're very far from reality. Even the neo-liberals would laugh at you, with your ridiculous claim that every society with any government interfierence in business is socialist. The US is not socialist, that's the most idiot thing to believe and say.

And really. No, communists do not seek profit. The mere goal of industry and "business" in communism is to provide what is needed. Not self-enrichment.

You need to seriously study some on socialism, communism and other left ideologies before you come here and reject them all.

Invading a country, inwhich the majority of the population rejects you, is in no way liberation or even democratic. Even the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan gets more credibility on "liberating".

Terrorism, merrorism. The word terrorism has no meaning coming out of your mouth or that of any imperialistic power. The US has been always supporting terrorists who fit their business interests; Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden, the Arab kingdoms, Pol Pot.

The continous support of the US of kingdoms, alone should be enough evidence to reject the democracy myth. Or the overthrowment of many democractic elected and very populair government. Rather then that your hero Reagan takes pride in destroying hopes and efforts of complete nations.

Does the fact bother you that most people fear the US more then terrorists?
The chance that you get killed or tortured by the US or one of it's suck ups is much bigger then getting killed by terrorists.

Or that the continous recruitment flood for terrorist organisations, comes fort out of powerlessness. The powerlessness comes fort out built up frustrations due to oppressive governments. Of whom many are supported by the US.

Ever wondered what the motives are of those so called terrorists?

http://www.doublestandards.org/usmurder.html#nicaragu

Read carefull and you might come to new insights. However I expect you not to read it. That fits your closed mind agenda.

Untill you have read some on left ideologies, I do not want you to respond to any of my posts.

[Professor Moneybags]

Communism is synonymous with Anarchism, in that the state does not exist. Socialism is as far "left" as one can go whilst mantaining the state, not centrist as you imply.

Still trying to champion the myth that empowering the state will somehow make it "wither away" ? Sorry, it's not going to happen.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:53 PM
why people go crazy?
Because they hang money in his "bag(s)" , draggin it along floor, the pain, can make one crazy, no?
Calm down.

[Intifada]

Obviously Professor Moneybags, you don't understand why terrorists resort to such atrocious acts of desperation.

Keep thinking that killing innocents in far-away countries like Iraq will win the "War against Terror", just don't complain when the next attack hits your country. Don't cry. Don't ask "Why do they hate us so much?".

Until you and your dumbass of a President realise that the way the West is acting will only breed more terrorists, the world will simply become a more dangerous place to live in.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 18 2004, 03:44 PM

Communism is synonymous with Anarchism, in that the state does not exist. Socialism is as far "left" as one can go whilst mantaining the state, not centrist as you imply.

Still trying to champion the myth that empowering the state will somehow make it "wither away" ? Sorry, it's not going to happen.
Like I said, read!

I do not wish to empower the state, I abolish it as soon as possible. I am no Stalie

[Professor Moneybags]

You're very far from reality. Even the neo-liberals would laugh at you, with your ridiculous claim that every society with any government interfierence in business is socialist.

Then whose concept is it ? Government interventionism is not certainly not the work of capitalism.


The US is not socialist, that's the most idiot thing to believe and say.

It's not mostly socialist. It's a mixed economy, a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

<snip the blather>


Does the fact bother you that most people fear the US more then terrorists?

Fear in what way ? Who are the fearful ?


Or that the continous recruitment flood for terrorist organisations, comes fort out of powerlessness. The powerlessness comes fort out built up frustrations due to oppressive governments. Of whom many are supported by the US.

Ever wondered what the motives are of those so called terrorists?

Out of powerlessness, you say ? These terrorists wouldn&#39;t be the first bunch of thugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre) to go on the rampage out of frustrated power-lust, would they ? All dictators feel "powerless" and bully others to make them feel powerful, which would explain the levels of oppresion that were already endemic in the middle-east long before America&#39;s existence, as well as in Africa (where the law, where it exists, is as good as a "might makes right" doctrine). Pretending to "fight oppression" in the hope that it will somehow mask this power-lust isn&#39;t an original idea; many of your fellow travellers are typical examples of this and the facade rarely fools anyone.

These people are quite willing to remain big fish in their own little mud-holes, until they see some potential threat to their own power. In case you hadn&#39;t noticed, US culture is pretty widespread and is making inroads into the middle east, where Islamic theocracies reign supreme. Now comes the problem : The children in these places are starting to adopt western values and are rejecting Islam. We can&#39;t have that can we ? We can&#39;t have things like freedom of speech and non-islamic laws. That would put an end to our power-base and spell certain doom for our life-long meal tickets. Who is to blame for this ? The US. And what better way to teach these godless infidel yankees a lesson that to fly planes into their buildings ? That will teach them to pollute our culture &#33;

Have a little read of this (http://www.exile.ru/2004-June-10/war_nerd.html) too (it&#39;s relatively unbiased, unlike the link you gave me). It might give you an insight into the sort of people that are being dealt with. But then again anything is better than capitalism, right ?

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 18 2004, 11:46 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 18 2004, 11:46 PM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 06:53 PM
why people go crazy?
Because they hang money in his "bag(s)" , draggin it along floor, the pain, can make one crazy, no?
Calm down. [/b]
nah,,, i was just joking around~ :) ;)

[komon]

may be is crazyness in peace time different than crazyness in war times?

[revolutionindia]

I found one more graphic image of suicide bomb training

http://www.armyinkashmir.org/v2/images/big_cartoon29.jpg