patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,248,114 comments by 14,884 users - Patrick, stereotomy, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 321 - 360 of 2,849 Next » Last » Search these comments
Strategist
2015 Apr 7, 4:11pm
Which is why you are evil. It would be evil to torture even the guilty, but there were many innocent people tortured and killed at Gitmo. Some people were sent there because some neighbor with a grudge over sheep lied about them being terrorists.
If you are a member of Al Qaeda you are guilty as hell. Let them prove their innocence, as American civil rights must not apply to them.
What about the 22 Uighurs who spent years in Gitmo despite being innocent of any crimes? Are you glad they were hurt as well?
Yup. Many Gitmo prisoners simply rejoined the terrorist groups when released. Even Baghdadi, the greatest ISIS terrorist was an American prisoner who was released. How did that work out?
Just shoot them.
I acknowledge it's existence. Hey, don't blame me, I wasn't even born then.
I blame you for misinforming people of history, both long past and recent. And yes, you were born before Gitmo and drone attacks, so you statement is an outright lie.
If you want to blame me for Gitmo and drone attacks, fine. I proudly take full credit.
Not only are you morally bankrupt, but you are a fool as well. The only way to protect your rights and your family is to protect everyone else.
By not protecting the rights of terrorists is how we can protect ourselves. Giving full protection and civil rights to these wack jobs would only make lawyers rich.
So if only for selfish reasons, you should oppose the guilty until proven innocent beyond any doubt policy you currently embraced. It is inevitable that it will be used against some of your descendants.
I disagree. Speeding is the only crime I have ever committed. My philosophy...don't hurt anyone and no one will hurt you.
Strategist
2015 Apr 7, 4:14pm
he missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen.
I visited the site later, once I was able to bear the pain of seeing where he sat in his final moments. Local residents told me his body was blown to pieces. They showed me the grave where they buried his remains. I stood over it, asking why my grandchild was dead.
Nearly two years later, I still have no answers. The United States government has refused to explain why Abdulrahman was killed. It was not until May of this year that the Obama administration, in a supposed effort to be more transparent, publicly acknowledged what the world already knew — that it was responsible for his death.
Facts are a bitch aren't they?
What makes you think they were innocent? I'm glad they were blown up.
Strategist
2015 Apr 7, 4:21pm
No one, not even me. My response was to strategist's ridiculous lie, "We did not kill any innocent civilians."
That statement is true. Innocent people getting killed in drone attacks is collateral damage. The blame goes to the terrorists we are trying to target, not to us.
We are just better than everyone else who have been major players shaping our world over the last 100+ years.
Bullshit. America committed multiple genocides, had slavery, apartheid (although we called it "segregation"), lynchings, state-sanctioned violence against gays and ethnic minorities, forced sterilization, lethal medical experiments on innocent civilians, literal highway robbery by police including kidnapping threats. We have the highest incarceration rate, the most violent police forces, and we still have state-sponsored slavery! We might not be any worse than the other empires of the past 100 years, but we're certainly not better. Arrogance isn't the same thing as moral high ground.
Quit harping on the past. We don't abuse human rights anymore, but some people do. Lets stop them. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 7, 5:54pm
Like I said, we aren't perfect - we are just the best.
Actually, we're 21st and Ireland is 1st and on promoting prosperity and equality we're an embarrassing 53rd considering we're the richest country in the world. You see, dummy, these things can and are actually measured. You can measure contributions to humanity and come up with objective rankings for everything. Just because you are a nationalist, someone who irrationally views his country as better than all others despite any evidence to the contrary, doesn't mean your whitewashing and quite frankly bigoted view of America is accepted by anyone else.
I strongly recommend that you read The Good Country Index thoroughly. It has great, detailed measurements of benevolent action.
Oh, and by the way, it's the Republican Party that wants to decrease what good-will America does abroad and replace it with constant warfare. So if you actually gave a shit about America being the good guy, you'd never vote Republican.
And there you have it. According to the deep thinking from Dan, Islam is not responsible for radical Islamists terrorism around the world,
Islamist terrorists were all created by Republicans!
Another bold-face lie by socal2. I never said anything remotely like Islam is not responsible for terrorism. Having to lie about your opponent's position and statements is the ultimate sign that your position is wrong.
What I said was that specific Republicans, Reagan and Bush, created specific terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda and ISIS respectively, as unintended consequences of their unethical and illegal actions. This is something you did not refute because you cannot. Reagan's support of Al-Qaeda (formally called Mujahideen) empowered this terrorist group and lead to 9/11. Reagan had no problem using terrorists to fight the Soviets, foolishly believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The problem with that philosophy is that once your first enemy is defeated, your "friend" becomes a greater enemy.
It is also indisputable that ISIS is the direct and predictable result of the power vacuum and chaos created by Bush's invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam Hussein as well as the death and destruction he spewed across the Middle East while doing so. Had Bush's invasion never happened, ISIS would not even exist today.
Furthermore, responsibility is always multiplied, never divided! Islam is 100% responsible for Islamic terrorists, and Republicans are also 100% responsible because they created these terrorists through their evil policies. Both are 100% responsible.
Most importantly, your white washing of America's role in creating terrorism only serves to harm our national interests, our safety, and our children. Acknowledging that specific bad policies, created by Republicans, have increased terrorism is absolutely critical to preventing future terrorist attacks. One must learn from mistakes or repeat them! Your denial of our government's role in creating terrorism ensures that our government will continue creating more. That makes you as dangerous as the terrorists themselves.
Was Bush behind 9/11 too??
No, but he is responsible for it. He received a report entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US and choose to ignore it. That makes him criminally negligent.
If Clinton or Obama had let 9/11 happen on their watch, you'd be calling for their impeachment.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 7, 6:06pm
If you are a member of Al Qaeda you are guilty as hell. Let them prove their innocence, as American civil rights must not apply to them.
You are an idiot. First, they weren't members of Al-Qaeda, you moron. Second, the American justice system should be upheld in all judicial proceedings regardless of the citizenship of the accused. Third, none of them were even accused of anything. They were simply held and torture without charges.
What about the 22 Uighurs who spent years in Gitmo despite being innocent of any crimes? Are you glad they were hurt as well?
Yup. Many Gitmo prisoners simply rejoined the terrorist groups when released. Even Baghdadi, the greatest ISIS terrorist was an American prisoner who was released. How did that work out?
Just shoot them.
The Uighurs weren't terrorists and this was known for years. They were kept in Gitmo because the Bush administration couldn't figure out where to send them since China wouldn't take them back.
So you just proposed shooting completely innocent refugees. You deserve to see the same happen to your family.
I acknowledge it's existence. Hey, don't blame me, I wasn't even born then.
I blame you for misinforming people of history, both long past and recent. And yes, you were born before Gitmo and drone attacks, so you statement is an outright lie.
If you want to blame me for Gitmo and drone attacks, fine. I proudly take full credit.
I blame you for lying as I said. However, your statement above shows how absolutely morally bankrupt Christians are. And some Christians, such as you, are every bit as bad as the most radical Muslim and for the exact same reason. You are a terrorist wannabe, but you don't have the balls to be one, so you play chicken-hawk armchair quarterbacking. Unfortunately, idiocy like yours only serves to compromise the safety and well-being of all Americans and the rest of the world by enabling the most retarded politicians to have their hands on the tools of war.
You are damn lucky your god doesn't exist. If it did, you'd be destined for hell.
By not protecting the rights of terrorists is how we can protect ourselves.
First, there is absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. Second, there is amble counter-evidence that shows committing atrocities only emboldens terrorists and helps terrorist recruiting. Third, in your complete disregard for the human rights of the guilty, you also disregard the human rights of the innocent. Following your philosophy, since some Americans are murderers, all Americans should be shot and killed and god can sort them out. You are truly despicable.
So if only for selfish reasons, you should oppose the guilty until proven innocent beyond any doubt policy you currently embraced. It is inevitable that it will be used against some of your descendants.
I disagree. Speeding is the only crime I have ever committed. My philosophy...don't hurt anyone and no one will hurt you.
Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. We've already seen that people who don't hurt anyone get hurt, even tortured and put to death, by the system you're advocating. The fact that you are mentally incapable of acknowledging an empirically demonstrated fact just illustrates how hopelessly stupid you are.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 7, 6:08pm
What makes you think they were innocent? I'm glad they were blown up.
You are glad that innocent children, who had nothing to do with terrorism, were blown up. One day, it will be your children or grandchildren and some asshole in the Middle East will say he's glad they were blown up. You and he are basically the same person.
Strategist
2015 Apr 7, 6:58pm
I blame you for lying as I said. However, your statement above shows how absolutely morally bankrupt Christians are. And some Christians, such as you, are every bit as bad as the most radical Muslim and for the exact same reason. You are a terrorist wannabe, but you don't have the balls to be one, so you play chicken-hawk armchair quarterbacking. Unfortunately, idiocy like yours only serves to compromise the safety and well-being of all Americans and the rest of the world by enabling the most retarded politicians to have their hands on the tools of war.
You are damn lucky your god doesn't exist. If it did, you'd be destined for hell.
I'm an atheist just like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. They are my heroes. My greatest hero is Charles Darwin. Just because I think Muslims are the real threat and not Christians does not make me a Christian. You think Christians are the real threat and not Muslims, which would make you a Muslim if I use your logic.
You called me an idiot, terrorist, murderer, torturer, liar, despicable, dangerous, destined for hell, my family will be shot, same as a radical Muslim. All in a single post.
this has got to be a Patnet record.
Strategist
2015 Apr 7, 7:12pm
He was mean to me.
Get used to it, he is mean to me multiple times a day.
I'm not the only one?
Actually, we're 21st and Ireland is 1st and on promoting prosperity and equality we're an embarrassing 53rd considering we're the richest country in the world. You see, dummy, these things can and are actually measured.
The dumb - it hurts. So Ireland is #1 on your list? The same country that was fucking neutral against the Nazis in WWII and sympathetic to a number of Islamist terrorist groups in the 20th century. That Ireland? I am talking about the whole sweep of the 20th/21st century - not just an "average of 2010" to measure a country's contribution to mankind. America's contributions in liberating and protecting millions of South Koreans from Stalinist hell alone eclipses every good deed Ireland has done for other people in its history. The millions of Africans Bush saved from HIV in the last 10 years also eclipses Ireland's contribution to humanity outside their borders.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28605888/ns/world_news-africa/t/aids-battle-burnishes-bushs-legacy-africa/
What I said was that specific Republicans, Reagan and Bush, created specific terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda and ISIS respectively,
BTW - here is Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor "Zbigniew Brzezinski" first meeting with the "Taliban" in 1979 and offering support to defeat the Communists. I guess in the hackish world of Dan - that means Democrats first created the Taliban?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/kYvO3qAlyTg
You seem to have pretty racist and white-man colonial thinking to assert that Islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS are just a bunch dumb animals cooked up in an American lab or something. They do have an ideology that goes back long before America's founding.
"The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse."
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
No, but he is responsible for it. He received a report entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US and choose to ignore it. That makes him criminally negligent.
What pray tell was Bush to do with that super detailed intelligence? Prevent every Muslim citizen from flying? Shut down the airlines? Start droning Afghan wedding parties?
What a hack.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Apr 7, 7:43pm
.
And now the public wants to see boots back on the ground to fight ISIS. What does that tell you? Should American leadership run foreign policy by snap polls of the people who can't find half of these countries on a map?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232759-poll-americans-want-congress-to-pass-aumf
Let me twist your logic back on you: You say most Americans are too dumb to find these countries on a map, but we should listen when the majority of these dumb Americans say they want some boots on the ground.
And just because Americans can't find these countries on a map, doesn't mean our leaders are correct. For example, have we received the free oil to pay the cost of the removal of Saddam and the Occupation of Iraq?
Strategist
2015 Apr 7, 7:46pm
No, but he is responsible for it. He received a report entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US and choose to ignore it. That makes him criminally negligent.
What pray tell was Bush to do with that super detailed intelligence? Prevent every Muslim citizen from flying? Shut down the airlines? Start droning Afghan wedding parties?
What a hack.
As per Dan, prevent the 911 attack by doing....
No drone attacks.
No patriot act.
No profiling.
No spying.
No NSA
No CIA
No airport security
No nothing.
Yup, that should work.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Apr 7, 7:55pm
What's the Difference between a Radical Muslim and a Moderate Muslim according to the USG?
The latter work with us on our latest meddling scheme, the former doesn't - but probably did in the recent past. So Saudi Arabia, despite a total lack of even flawed democracy, complete subjugation of women, and a long track record of financing world terror, is Moderate. Iran, which has a flawed democracy, women work outside of the home, drive and need no constant male family member companion, doesn't assign 100 lashes for those who make the briefest and lightest critique of religious police, and a track record of financing terror mostly against Israel and Saudi Arabia, are "Radicals".
Pretty sure McCain and the "neocons" didn't want to leave a void in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan after we booted out their psychopathic leaders. The chaos we are seeing in the Region today is largely due to the vacuums Obama created.
Vacuums? It was the same shit in Afghanistan and Syria, where we backed the fundies against the secularists, and now find the fundies we helped are assholes?
Turkey undergoing ‘authoritarian drift’ under Erdogan – HRW
http://rt.com/news/191444-turkey-human-rights-watch/
Hey, you're sourcing from Russia Today, great. Erodgan elected or not? Anybody not 100% Western Bootlicker is authoritarian, I forgot. Even if he broke the power of the military to interfere in elections and the justice system. Just like a moderate Muslim is any Muslim who at the time is doing what we want (or vice-versa), even though they're worse than Radical Muslims in practice (Saudi Arabia vs. Iran). Was Lee Kwan Yew an authoritarian, or just elected over and over and over and over again (then ruling through his protege and children as "Senior Minister" and "Mentor Minister").
For the same reason we are not bombing London, Paris or Germany for sending their Muslim fanatics to the Middle East to play jihad. All these countries have radical Imams radicalizing young Muslims.
Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islamic Extremism. Kill the King, kill the Princes, seize their bank accounts, and radical Islam will be forgotten in a decade. It only continues due to Saudi Arabian funding of Madrassahs throughout the Islamic World and beyond. No matter how much they overtly lie about cleaning up their act:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Apr 7, 7:57pm
As per Dan, prevent the 911 attack by doing....
No drone attacks.
No patriot act.
No profiling.
No spying.
No NSA
No CIA
No airport security
No nothing.
Yup, that should work.
A bit of a Strawman, Dan didn't say NO CIA, Spying, Airport Security, etc.
How come the Brits didn't go to the extremes they're going to now with the IRA? Who attacked much more often with more deaths in outside AND inside Eire than any terrorist attack on the UK has.
Kill the King, kill the Princes, seize their bank accounts, and radical Islam will be forgotten in a decade.
I wish.
Trust me, I am no fan of the Saudis and their Wahhabi ideology. But it is beyond naive to think that that Sunni (let alone Shia) radical and apocalyptic Islam will disappear if the Saudi Royals and Gulf monarchs are wiped out. FFS - Al Qaeda, ISIS and the various Iranian supported Shia groups all want to see the Saudi Royal family gone because they think they are too secular and modern.
Face it, we are forced to deal with the least worst crazy of the bunch. There are only bad and worse options in that Region in terms of allies. The rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan at least pay lip service to try and keep the crazies of their coreligionists at bay and aren't brazenly pursuing nukes, chanting death to America or taking US hostages.
Frankly, it is probably not a bad thing to see so much of the Muslim/Arab world's Sunni/Shia split manifest itself in the current fighting that is forcing Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt to have some skin in the game. The Islamists are too busy fighting these countries than trying to knock down buildings in New York City.
A bit of a Strawman, Dan didn't say NO CIA, Spying, Airport Security, etc.
Then what the fuck was he saying?
Only total hacks claim Bush could have done something to stop Al Qaeda in his first few months in office what Clinton failed to do in 8 years despite numerous Islamist attacks on his watch (WTC93, Khobar, USS Cole, African Embassies.....).
Strategist
2015 Apr 7, 8:21pm
A bit of a Strawman, Dan didn't say NO CIA, Spying, Airport Security, etc.
How come the Brits didn't go to the extremes they're going to now with the IRA? Who attacked much more often with more deaths in outside AND inside Eire than any terrorist attack on the UK has.
The IRA did not go worldwide. They only went after the Brits and Protestants. Islam is taking on the whole F*&*&(&%^ world. :(
The IRA also did not take slaves, behead journalists or anything even close. There is no comparision.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 7, 11:47pm
Wow the amount of bullshit from CIC, strategist, and socal2 is staggering. I could write ten pages about how transparent and easily disproved their lies are, but it's late, so I'll summarize...
You called me an idiot, terrorist, murderer, torturer, liar, despicable, dangerous, destined for hell, my family will be shot, same as a radical Muslim. All in a single post.
That's not even a parsable sentence, but yes, you are an idiot and your policies would get your family shot. Get an education.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Get used to it, he is mean to me multiple times a day.
pussy
So Ireland is #1 on your list?
Actually, it's #1 on an objectively measured list of countries ranked by overall contributions to humanity. The metrics are broken down into specific areas, all of which are amply explained. If you lack the reading skills necessary to comprehend this list, that's on you.
The same country that was fucking neutral against the Nazis in WWII and sympathetic to a number of Islamist terrorist groups in the 20th century. That Ireland?
And yet that still puts it light-years ahead of a country that practiced genocide and slavery for over a hundred years (several hundred if you include pre-revolutionary times) as well as supporting and arming terrorists and despots in South America who tortured and killed millions, and itself tortured innocent people, and performed lethal medical experimentation on unsuspecting citizens. So yeah, America still looks like shit compared to your complaints about Ireland.
Feel free to continue on your tirade about how America is better than every other country despite doing far worse things. I love making you look the idiot with historical facts.
America's contributions in liberating and protecting millions of South Koreans from Stalinist hell alone eclipses every good deed Ireland has done for other people in its history.
The Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought for self-interest not for the benefit of the people, and in both wars America committed many atrocities including raping women and girls and the massacre of civilians. And you're calling that the shining example of American high morality? Christ, that's like calling the Nazi ethnic cleansing a plus.
BTW - here is Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor "Zbigniew Brzezinski" first meeting with the "Taliban" in 1979 and offering support to defeat the Communists. I guess in the hackish world of Dan - that means Democrats first created the Taliban?
Ah, a childish attempt to redirect blame to distract from the blame due to Reagan and Bush. Regardless of what Jimmy Carter did, Reagan gave massive arms to Al-Quada and empowered them and Bush's actions indisputably lead to the creation of ISIS and its rise to power. Throwing in a red herring doesn't change these facts. Sure, Carter was foolish to align with them, but the damage he did was utterly insignficant compared to Reagan and Bush, and any blame he gets does not subtract from the blame Reagan, Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party hold for going down the path that led to 9/11 and for the rise in terrorism.
You seem to have pretty racist and white-man colonial thinking to assert that Islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS are just a bunch dumb animals cooked up in an American lab or something.
You're racist words, not mine.
They do have an ideology that goes back long before America's founding.
A half truth is the worst kind of lie. Yes, Islam is evil just like all religions including Christianity. Yes, the evilness of Islam goes back before America's founding.
However, to ignore the effects of U.S. policy on the creation of terrorism is to jeopardize our national security and public safety. Your nationalist arrogance is not worth more than a single American life. So you are doing a disservice to our country by pretending that the evil and unlawful actions by our government such as slaughtering children does not have any effect of increasing terrorism. It is also a ridiculous idea that shows your complete lack of understanding of human nature.
When you blow up a six-year-old girl with an arm going one direction, a leg going another, part of her torso ending up here, and her head ending up there... When you do such a despicable act, it does have a psychological impact on the dead girl's family and community. They start to make them see YOU exactly as the monster you see in them. The CIA calls this Blowback.
Even if you are a spineless, immoral scumbag -- which clearly you are -- you should still be aware of blowback because it threatens your safety.
To put it in terms that a caveman like you could understand
...let me introduce you to the concept of "blowback," which author Chalmers Johnson explained as "another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows," which basically means that when you punch someone in the face, odds are very good that you're going to get punched back, and maybe they land that counterpunch, or maybe they don't, but that fist is going to come whistling at your face, count on it, and if it misses, there is always another fist, curled and hard and ready to fly...
Ignoring blowback is neither patriotic nor wise.
What pray tell was Bush to do with that super detailed intelligence?
He could have taken the CIA intelligence seriously instead of planning the Iraq War.
The day of 9/11 he could have responded to the crisis instead of making sure Bin Laden's family got out of the U.S. as quickly as possible. That traitor Bush gave comfort and support to the enemy while people were still dying in the wreckage of the towers. Where is yours and strategist's outrage over this?
And then Bush let Bin Laden himself go free. It wasn't until Obama that Bin Laden was killed.
It's a DOUBLE bitch slap!!
I see you're copying my retorts. Well, that is an improvement. Now if only you could come up with something original.
Strategist says
As per Dan, prevent the 911 attack by doing....
No drone attacks.
No patriot act.
No profiling.
No spying.
No NSA
No CIA
No airport security
No nothing.
Yup, that should work.
Another Straw Man argument demonstrating your weak-ass position.
Nothing done since 9/11 would have prevented 9/11. Not even the rape scanners and the secure theater at airports.
However, it would have been trivial to prevent 9/11. All one has to do is lock the god-damn cockpit door. I've said that a million times. If the cockpit door was locked, 9/11 would not happen, period. Absolfuckinglootly period.
Furthermore, even absent all terrorism, the damn cockpit door should be locked anyway so that fat asshole in first class who had too many Mint Juleps and thinks he can fly the plane better than the pilot.
Another thing, on each of the planes hijacked there were plenty of able-bodied men who did not stand up and beat the shit out of the terrorists only because they knew they would be arrested if they had. After 9/11, no one would prosecute passengers for taking down hijackers, and that's why there will never be another hijacking with shit weapons like plastic box cutters. You'll need at least a gun and even then the passengers will probably take you down.
9/11 could easily be prevented without violating any human rights. And nothing our government did with the NSA or the USA Nazi Patriot Act has done anything to improve our security. Right now a terrorist could blow up a civilian plane by sending a bomb through air mail and triggering it to go off when the plane reaches a certain altitude using a smart phone. Commercial passenger planes still carry air mail and its not subject to nearly the scrutiny that your genitals are at the airport. That's a fucking security hole right there.
Strategist
2015 Apr 8, 7:15am
9/11 could easily be prevented without violating any human rights. And nothing our government did with the NSA or the USA Nazi Patriot Act has done anything to improve our security. Right now a terrorist could blow up a civilian plane by sending a bomb through air mail and triggering it to go off when the plane reaches a certain altitude using a smart phone. Commercial passenger planes still carry air mail and its not subject to nearly the scrutiny that your genitals are at the airport. That's a fucking security hole right there.
That's why we need the Patriot Act and the spying and the profiling to prevent terrorist acts. It's information and intelligence that will give us a heads up to any looming terrorist threat. Israeli airlines are safer simply because they do everything you say should not be done.
Hey Zzyzzx, if you were dictator what would you do withDan?
Nothing done since 9/11 would have prevented 9/11.
Yet we haven't had another 9/11. How does that work?
Again, what specifically could Bush have done in his first 7 months in office to prevent 9/11?
Regardless of what Jimmy Carter did, Reagan gave massive arms to Al-Quada and empowered them and Bush's actions indisputably lead to the creation of ISIS and its rise to power.
Using your logic, "Regardless of what Bush did, Obama gave massive assistance to the Islamists by recklessly pulling every last troop out of Iraq which indisputably lead to the creation of ISIS and its rise to power."
There was no ISIS when Bush was in office. When Obama took office, Iraq was largely pacified at great costs. The Region was optimistic with the "Arab Spring" occurring in numerous countries. People were protesting in the streets in Iran trying to change their government. We had finally turned a corner and secularists and democracy advocates across the Region were speaking out.
Here is Joe Biden back in 2010 claiming that Iraq will be the Obama Administration's "greatest achievement".
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tLteUGkvpOc
But Obama wanted to pull every last troop out so he could have a 2012 campaign talking point regardless of the warnings he was given by virtually everyone in the Region. What's a little genocide as long as Obama got re-elected - right?
Face it Dan - Obama owns the mess he made. Everything he touched turned to shit. Virtually every corner of the planet is worse off than what it was in 2008. You can't name a single foreign policy success in 6 years.
Actually, it's #1 on an objectively measured list of countries ranked by overall contributions to humanity. The metrics are broken down into specific areas, all of which are amply explained. If you lack the reading skills necessary to comprehend this list, that's on you.
Yeah - amply explained alright. Love this little qualifier on their FAQ page.
"Q: This is surely a very incomplete picture of the world. You can’t possibly reduce a country’s entire contribution to humanity and the planet down to 35 indicators.
A: We know, we know. But it’s a start, and we welcome constructive contributions. It will probably never be possible to give a complete answer on any of these issues, but it’s surely better to get the debate going than to keep silent."
http://www.goodcountry.org/faq
Again, Bush's HIV policy in Africa alone saved more human lives than Ireland's entire contribution to humanity outside their borders. What has Ireland done to save 9 million African lives? Ireland's Bono gets it:
"U2 front-man and activist Bono, who criticized Bush on the Iraq War, nonetheless expressed his admiration for the Republican president on an appearance on the Daily Show last year, telling Stewart that Bush did an "amazing" job in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
"I know that's hard for you to accept," Bono said to a surprised crowd and host, "but George kind of knocked it out of the park. I can tell you, and I'm actually here to tell you that America now has 5 million people being kept alive by these drugs. That's something that everyone should know."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/george-w-bushs-legacy-on-africa-wins-praise-even-from-foes/
Dan8267
2015 Apr 8, 12:17pm
That's why we need the Patriot Act and the spying and the profiling to prevent terrorist acts.
We had the information necessary to stop bin Laden before 9/11 and before the vile Patriot Act. Furthermore, that Orwellian Act has done nothing to improve our safety.
Yet we haven't had another 9/11. How does that work?
Not that good at reading, are you? I'll repeat it.
However, it would have been trivial to prevent 9/11. All one has to do is lock the god-damn cockpit door. I've said that a million times. If the cockpit door was locked, 9/11 would not happen, period. Absolfuckinglootly period.
Another thing, on each of the planes hijacked there were plenty of able-bodied men who did not stand up and beat the shit out of the terrorists only because they knew they would be arrested if they had. After 9/11, no one would prosecute passengers for taking down hijackers, and that's why there will never be another hijacking with shit weapons like plastic box cutters.
Using your logic, "Regardless of what Bush did, Obama gave massive assistance to the Islamists by recklessly pulling every last troop out of Iraq which indisputably lead to the creation of ISIS and its rise to power."
Leave the logic to me. You're not good at it.
There was no ISIS when Bush was in office.
Consequences of policies are not immediate. Only children under five think that in order for A to cause B, B must happen within seconds after A.
The rise of ISIS due to Bush's policies and wars is well-documented and has been thoroughly discussed on real news sources (read not Fox).
socal2 says
Face it Dan - Obama owns the mess he made.
There's a lot to complain about Obama -- he's simply Bush with a darker skin tone -- but the mess was made by Bush and the Republicans. The fact that Obama hasn't cleaned up the mess doesn't absolve Republicans of the responsibility for the mess. And Obama is a Republican in all but skin color and lapel. So I have no motive to defend him, but we sure as hell aren't going to accept another Republican administration after the shit they pulled last time.
"U2 front-man and activist Bono, who criticized Bush on the Iraq War, nonetheless expressed his admiration for the Republican president on an appearance on the Daily Show last year, telling Stewart that Bush did an "amazing" job in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Yeah, and rightfully so. But that doesn't make up for Bush's crimes against humanity. Hitler built the Autobahn and fixed Germany's economy. He still doesn't get to go down in history as a good guy.
That's a summary???
If I had to go over every stupid statement you made and list every reason why it is stupid, the post would have been 50 pages long. When you give a mountain of outrageous lies, even a summary is going to be long.
Dan, if you use more than three sentences that end other than dot-dot-dot, it makes you wrong. Don't you know that?
Yes, it's amazing how the people with stupid, ill-founded opinions also happen to have poor reading and writing skills. It's almost as if there's a connection between being an ignorant dumb ass and not having an education.
However, it would have been trivial to prevent 9/11. All one has to do is lock the god-damn cockpit door. I've said that a million times. If the cockpit door was locked, 9/11 would not happen, period. Absolfuckinglootly period.
So in the first 7 months of Bush's presidency, he could have ordered all of the commercial airlines to spend millions retrofitting their airplanes with armored doors? Had commercial airplanes ever been used as suicide bombs before? Did the intelligence you cite suggest this was the plan? Why didn't Clinton order this move in his 8 years in office? Al Qaeda was already attacking US interests and the 9/11 hijackers were already in the country getting flight lessons when Clinton was still in office.
Another thing, on each of the planes hijacked there were plenty of able-bodied men who did not stand up and beat the shit out of the terrorists only because they knew they would be arrested if they had. After 9/11, no one would prosecute passengers for taking down hijackers, and that's why there will never be another hijacking with shit weapons like plastic box cutters.
What does this even mean in terms of blaming Bush? Are you saying Bush should have spent his first 7 months in office telling the American people to be ready to beat the shit out of any suspicious Arabs acting funny on airplanes?
Consequences of policies are not immediate. Only children under five think that in order for A to cause B, B must happen within seconds after A.
Anyone with half a brain knew what the consequences would be if Obama pulled every last troop out of Iraq. And ISIS pretty much started gaining ground within months of Obama's reckless pull out decision. Even when ISIS was rampaging through Syria and Iraq, Obama was calling them the JV team still not comprehending the enormity of the mess he facilitated.
If you were against the Iraq war from the start and believe that America owned every last death perpetrated by Muslims killing each other since 2003 - than morally you are obliged to support a responsible draw down and not leave a total void allowing ISIS to butcher their way to power and destroy the gains that were made in the previous 6 years.
Obama and the Democrats own ISIS and the chaos in the Middle East.
Ancient Christian communities could survive the plague, the Middle Ages, Ottoman Empire, WWII...............but they can't survive the age of Obama and 21st Century Islam.
curious2
2015 Apr 8, 2:25pm
Ancient Christian communities could survive the plague, the Middle Ages, Ottoman Empire, WWII...............but they can't survive the age of Obama and 21st Century Islam.
Are you saying that Christians don't have an omnipotent deity on their side? This may come as news to the people who wrote the Republican platform in 2012, although losing by a landslide should also have been a clue, along with their convention getting disrupted by a hurricane.
HydroCabron
2015 Apr 8, 2:28pm
Ancient Christian communities created the Dark Ages out of the Roman Empire.
Ancient Christian communities created the Dark Ages out of the Roman Empire.
I thought it was the Joooos?
Either way, we just need to sit back and do nothing while Islamists ethnically cleanse every last religious minority (including Israel) out of the Middle East. Then all will be just swell.
Yeah, and rightfully so. But that doesn't make up for Bush's crimes against humanity.
Really? Over 5 million human beings are alive today thanks to Bush's initiative in Africa and that number is growing by the day.
What exactly were Bush's "crimes against humanity"? His inability to stop Sunnis and Shias in Iraq from butchering each other?
According to the UN, Clinton's "Oil for Food" program was responsible for killing 500,000 Iraqi babies. Liberating Iraq from Saddam cut that death toll by more than half and gave the majority of Iraqis a chance of self-rule.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Dan8267
2015 Apr 8, 4:32pm
Over 5 million human beings are alive today thanks to Bush's initiative in Africa and that number is growing by the day.
You just pulled that statistics out of you ass?
Even if it were true, it wouldn't make up for the million plus people that Bush killed in his illegal wars. Saving ten lives does not make up for taking one.
But if you want to play numbers, again Christianity is a vile evil. Christianity has been causing about 1.3 million deaths per year in Africa due to its dogma prohibiting the use of condoms.
According to the UN, Clinton's "Oil for Food" program was responsible for killing 500,000 Iraqi babies.
The Iraq sanctions have been one of the most vile and despicable policies in recent history, but you need to get your facts right.
1. The sanctions were passed in 1990 when George Bush, Sr. was president.
2. It was these sanctions that caused the deaths of a half a million Iraqi babies, not the food for oil program, which was terrible for other reasons.
A senior U.N. official said Friday about half a million children under the age of 5 have died in Iraq since the imposition of U.N. sanctions 10 years ago (in 1990).
Anupama Rao Singh, country director for the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), made the estimate in an interview with Reuters.
``In absolute terms we estimate that perhaps about half a million children under 5 years of age have died, who ordinarily would not have died had the decline in mortality that was prevalent over the 70s and the 80s continued through the 90s,'' she said.
A UNICEF survey published in August showed the mortality rate among Iraqi children under 5 had more than doubled in the government-controlled south and center of Iraq during the sanctions.
3. It was a UN policy passed by the Security Council and backed by the Bush, Sr. administration.
4. In fact, the policy was a direct result of the first Iraq war waged by Bush, Sr.
Also, I have to call complete bullshit on you in using "Iraqi babies" as political chips when you don't give a rat's ass about them. If you did, you would have opposed the wars in the Middle East, which have directly killed millions and impoverished hundreds of millions indirectly lowering their lifespans. You would also have to completely oppose drone strikes and bombings of cities and villages. You clearly don't. As such, you are being an disingenuous little shit using the corpses of babies for political leverage. And that's pretty fucking immoral.
indigenous
2015 Apr 8, 4:36pm
The Iranian Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech and
walked out into the lobby of the convention center where he was introduced to a
U.S. Marine General.
As they talked, the Iranian said,"I have just one question about what I
have seen in America ."
The General said, "Well, anything I can do to help?"
The Iranian whispered, "My son watches this show called Star Trek and in
it there is...
Kirk who is Canadian, Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, Uhura
who is black, and Sulu who is Japanese, but there are NO Muslims.
My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Iranians,
Iraqis, Afghans, Egyptians, Palestinians, Saudis, Syrians, or Pakistanis on
Star Trek."
The General leaned toward the Iranian Ambassador, and whispered in his
ear, "That's because it takes place in the future..."
Dan8267
2015 Apr 8, 4:46pm
Kirk who is Canadian
BLASPHEMY! William Shatner is Canadian! Kirk is from Riverside, Iowa! How dare you post something incorrect about StarTrek on the Internet. I will have legions of nerds hunt you down and then find someone to beat you up.
indigenous
2015 Apr 8, 4:48pm
William Shatner
Actor
William Shatner is a Canadian actor, singer, author, producer, director, spokesman, and comedian. He gained worldwide fame and became a cultural icon for his portrayal of James T. Kirk, Captain of the ... Wikipedia
Born: March 22, 1931 (age 84), Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Montreal, Canada
Spouse: Elizabeth Shatner (m. 2001), More
Children: Melanie Shatner, Lisabeth Shatner, Leslie Carol Shatner, Peter Shatner
Strategist
2015 Apr 8, 7:58pm
That's why we need the Patriot Act and the spying and the profiling to prevent terrorist acts.
We had the information necessary to stop bin Laden before 9/11 and before the vile Patriot Act.
How could we have stopped Bin Laden? I really want to know.
indigenous
2015 Apr 8, 8:13pm
How could we have stopped Bin Laden? I really want to know.
A part of it was:
Clinton, the Ever-Clever Bastard
But Clinton, the ever-clever bastard, was more insidious. Little, systematic changes were undertaken to destroy America's intelligence agencies.
Let me explain. A regular NewsMax reader, "Roger," was a CIA spy in the Mideast.
I met him almost two years ago. Roger wanted to tell me why a gung-ho American quit the CIA in disgust. Roger said the CIA was not interested in recruiting spies.
Clinton and company knew they could not just tell the CIA to stop recruiting spies. That would look stupid and embarrassing.
So they just changed the rules of how spies are recruited, raising the bar on requirements to such a high degree that the most valuable spies could never meet CIA standards and couldn't work for us.
Previously, I wrote how Clinton effectively stopped the recruitment of Chinese nationals by demanding that only high-ranking embassy officials could be recruited – knowing this is almost impossible.
Roger told me that. Roger reminded me again of this today. He noted that Clinton policies reached their zenith under CIA Director John Deutch and his top assistant, Nora Slatkin. The pair ran Clinton's CIA in the mid-1990s and implemented a "human rights scrub" policy.
Here's how Roger described it in an e-mail Tuesday evening: "Deutch and Nora, Clinton's anti-intelligence plants, implemented a universal 'human rights scrub' of all assets, virtually shutting down operations for 6 months to a year. This was after something happened in Central America (there was an American woman involved who was the common law wife of a commie who went missing there) that got a lot of bad press for the agency.
"After that, each asset had to be certified as being 'clean for human rights violations.'
"What this did was to put off limits, in effect, terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who would have info on these kinds of people."
Roger says the CIA, even under new leadership, has never recovered from the "Human Rights Scrub" policy.
Perhaps that was the intention.
But we, the American people, Congress, and honest media need to examine all of these issues, now and quickly. If we don't, we risk even more grave dangers than those that we just lived through.
Dan8267
2015 Apr 8, 8:31pm
How could we have stopped Bin Laden? I really want to know.
Then read my previous posts. How many times do I have to repeat something for you to comprehend it?
Here's some further reading.
9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
or the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.
"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.
"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.
Yet, this was the plot to the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen which aired on March 4, 2001 just six months before the 9/11 attacks. Maybe Al-Qaeda got the idea from this TV show.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9rsMG2hHsLo
Hell, they even got the part about 9/11 being used to trump up military spending to counter the drop due to the cold war ending.
Strategist
2015 Apr 8, 9:00pm
How could we have stopped Bin Laden? I really want to know.
Then read my previous posts. How many times do I have to repeat something for you to comprehend it?
Here's some further reading.
In other words....
As per Dan, prevent the 911 attack by doing....
No drone attacks.
No patriot act.
No profiling.
No spying.
No NSA
No CIA
No airport security
No nothing.
Yup, that should work.
You have no solutions, do you? Just blame, accusations, bullshit, and politics. But no solution.
indigenous
2015 Apr 8, 9:05pm
If this country would get over the warmongering shit, it would make more sense to spend on human intelligence and take out the terrorists like they did with Bin Laden.
We used to do that quite well but since Clinton not so much. Mi6 and Mossad seem to be quite good? Yet we have infinitely more resources...
« First « Previous Comments 321 - 360 of 2,849 Next » Last » Search these comments
A Call to the Muslims of the World from a Group of Freethinkers and Humanists of Muslim Origins
Dear friends,
The tragic incidents of September 11 have shocked the world. It is unthinkable that anyone could be so full of hate as to commit such heinous acts and kill so many innocent people. We people of Muslim origin are as much shaken as the rest of the world and yet we find ourselves looked upon with suspicion and distrust by our neighbours and fellow citizens. We want to cry out and tell the world that we are not terrorists, and that those who perpetrate such despicable acts are murderers and not part of us. But, in reality, because of our Muslim origins we just cannot erase the stigma of Islamic Terrorism from our identity!
What most Muslims will say:
Islam would never support the killing of innocent people. Allah of the Holy Qur'an never advocated killings. This is all the work of a few misguided individuals at the fringes of society. The real Islam is sanctified from violence. We denounce all violence. Islam means peace. Islam means tolerance.
What knowledgeable Muslims should say:
That is what most Muslims think, but is it true? Does Islam really preach peace, tolerance and non-violence? The Muslims who perpetrate these crimes think differently. They believe that what they do is Jihad (holy war). They say that killing unbelievers is mandatory for every Muslim. They do not kill because they wish to break the laws of Islam but because they think this is what true Muslims should do. Those who blow-up their own bodies to kill more innocent people do so because they think they will be rewarded in Paradise. They hope to be blessed by Allah, eat celestial food, drink pure wine and enjoy the company of divine consorts. Are they completely misguided? Where did they get this distorted idea? How did they come to believe that killing innocent people pleases God? Or is it that we are misguided? Does really Islam preach violence? Does it call upon its believers to kill non-believers? We denounce those who commit acts of violence and call them extremists. But are they really extremists or are they following what the holy book, the Qur'an tells them to do? What does the Qur'an teach? Have we read the Qur'an? Do we know what kind of teachings are there? Let us go through some of them and take a closer look at what Allah says.
What the Qur'an Teaches Us:
We have used the most widely available English text of the Qur'an and readers are welcome to verify our quotes from the holy book. Please have an open mind and read through these verses again and again. The following quotes are taken from the most trusted Yusufali's translation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an tells us: not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (5:51), kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (9:5). The Qur'an demands that we fight the unbelievers, and promises If there are twenty amongst you, you will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, you will vanquish a thousand of them (8:65). Allah and his messenger want us to fight the Christians and the Jews until they pay the Jizya [a penalty tax for the non-Muslims living under Islamic rules] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (9:29). Allah and his messenger announce that it is acceptable to go back on our promises (treaties) and obligations with Pagans and make war on them whenever we find ourselves strong enough to do so (9:3). Our God tells us to fight the unbelievers and He will punish them by our hands, cover them with shame and help us (to victory) over them (9:14).
The Qur'an takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and relegates those who disbelieve in Islam to hell (5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28), and orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (2:193). It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (14:17). It asks the Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace and that they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter (5:34). And tells us that for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods (22:19-22) and that they not only will have disgrace in this life, but on the Day of Judgment He shall make them taste the Penalty of burning (Fire) (22:9). The Qur'an says that those who invoke a god other than Allah not only should meet punishment in this world but the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to them, and they will dwell therein in ignominy (25:68). For those who believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire! (48:13). Although we are asked to be compassionate amongst each other, we have to be harsh with unbelievers, our Christian, Jewish and Atheist neighbours and colleagues (48:29). As for him who does not believe in Islam, the Prophet announces with a stern command: Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin. (69:30-37) The Qur'an prohibits a Muslim from befriending a non-believer even if that non-believer is the father or the brother of that Muslim (9:23), (3:28). Our holy book asks us to be disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unbelievers with great endeavour (25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to Hell (66:9). The holy Prophet prescribes fighting for us and tells us that it is good for us even if we dislike it (2:216). Then he advises us to strike off the heads of the disbelievers; and after making a wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives (47:4). Our God has promised to instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers and has ordered us to smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them (8:12). He also assures us that when we kill in his name it is not us who slay them but Allah, in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself (8:17). He orders us to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies (8:60). He has made the Jihad mandatory and warns us that Unless we go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish us with a grievous penalty, and put others in our place (9:39). Allah speaks to our Holy Prophet and says O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed (9:73).
He promises us that in the fight for His cause whether we slay or are slain we return to the garden of Paradise (9:111). In Paradise he will wed us with Houris (celestial virgins) pure beautiful ones (56:54), and unite us with large-eyed beautiful ones while we recline on our thrones set in lines (56:20). There we are promised to eat and drink pleasantly for what we did (56:19). He also promises boys like hidden pearls (56:24) and youth never altering in age like scattered pearls (for those who have paedophiliac inclinations) (76:19). As you see, Allah has promised all sorts or rewards, gluttony and unlimited sex to Muslim men who kill unbelievers in his name. We will be admitted to Paradise where we shall find goodly things, beautiful ones, pure ones confined to the pavilions that man has not touched them before nor jinni (56:67-71).In the West we enjoy freedom of belief but we are not supposed to give such freedom to anyone else because it is written If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good) (3:85). And He orders us to fight them on until there is no more tumult and faith in Allah is practiced everywhere (8:39). As for women the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and their husbands have the right to scourge them if they are found disobedient (4:34). It advises to take a green branch and beat your wife, because a green branch is more flexible and hurts more. (38:44). It teaches that women will go to hell if they are disobedient to their husbands (66:10). It maintains that men have an advantage over the women (2:228). It not only denies the women's equal right to their inheritance (4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the courts of law (2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Our Holy Prophet allows us to marry up to four wives and he licensed us to sleep with our slave maids and as many 'captive' women as we may have (4:3) even if those women are already married. He himself did just that. This is why anytime a Muslim army subdues another nation, they call them kafir and allow themselves to rape their women. Pakistani soldiers allegedly raped up to 250,000 Bengali women in 1971 after they massacred 3,000,000 unarmed civilians when their religious leader decreed that Bangladeshis are un-Islamic. This is why the prison guards in Islamic regime of Iran rape the women that in their opinion are apostates prior to killing them, as they believe a virgin will not go to Hell.
Dear fellow Muslims:Is this the Islam you believe in? Is this your Most Merciful, Most Compassionate Allah whom you worship daily? Could Allah incite you to kill other peoples? Please understand that there is no terrorist gene - but there could be a terrorist mindset. That mindset finds its most fertile ground in the tenets of Islam. Denying it, and presenting Islam to the lay public as a religion of peace similar to Buddhism, is to suppress the truth. The history of Islam between the 7th and 14th centuries is riddled with violence, fratricide and wars of aggression, starting right from the death of the Prophet and during the so-called 'pure' or orthodox caliphate. And Muhammad himself hoisted the standard of killing, looting, massacres and bloodshed. How can we deny the entire history? The behaviour of our Holy Prophet as recorded in authentic Islamic sources is quite questionable from a modern viewpoint. The Prophet was a charismatic man but he had few virtues. Imitating him in all aspects of life (following the Sunnah) is both impossible and dangerous in the 21st century. Why are we so helplessly in denial over this simple issue? When the Prophet was in Mecca and he was still not powerful enough he called for tolerance. He said To you be your religion, and to me my religion (109:6). This famous quote is often misused to prove that the general principle of Qur'an is tolerance. He advised his follower to speak good to their enemies (2: 83), exhorted them to be patient (20:103) and said that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). But that all changed drastically when he came to power. Then killing and slaying unbelievers with harshness and without mercy was justified in innumerable verses. The verses quoted to prove Islam's tolerance ignore many other verses that bear no trace of tolerance or forgiveness. Where is tolerance in this well-known verse Alarzu Lillah, Walhukmu Lillah. (The Earth belongs to Allah and thus only Allah's rule should prevail all over the earth.).Is it normal that a book revealed by God should have so many serious contradictions? The Prophet himself set the example of unleashing violence by invading the Jewish settlements, breaking treaties he had signed with them and banishing some of them after confiscating their belongings, massacring others and taking their wives and children as slaves. He inspected the youngsters and massacred all those who had pubic hair along with the men. Those who were younger he kept as slaves. He distributed the women captured in his raids among his soldiers keeping the prettiest for himself (33:50). He made sexual advances on Safiyah, a Jewish girl on the same day he captured her town Kheibar and killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives. Reyhana was another Jewish girl of Bani Quriza whom he used as a sex slave after killing all her male relatives. In the last ten years of his life he accumulated two scores of wives, concubines and sex slaves including the 9 year old Ayesha. These are not stories but records from authentic Islamic history and the Hadiths. It can be argued that this kind of behaviour was not unknown or unusual for the conquerors and leaders of the mediaeval world but these are not the activities befitting of a peaceful saint and certainly not someone who claimed to be the Mercy of God for all creation. There were known assassinations of adversaries during the Prophet's time, which he had knowledge of and had supported. Among them there was a 120 year old man, Abu 'Afak whose only crime was to compose a lyric satirical of the Prophet. (by Ibn Sa'd Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, page 32) Then when a poetess, a mother of 5 small children 'Asma' Bint Marwan wrote a poetry cursing the Arabs for letting Muhammad assassinate an old man, our Holy Prophet ordered her to be assassinated too in the middle of the night while her youngest child was suckling from her breast. (Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guillaume's translation The Life of Muhammad) page 675, 676).The Prophet did develop a 'Robin Hood' image that justified raiding merchant caravans attacking cities and towns, killing people and looting their belongings in the name of social justice. Usama Bin Laden is also trying to create the same image. But Robin Hood didn't claim to be a prophet or a pacifist nor did he care for apologist arguments. He did not massacre innocent people indiscriminately nor did he profit by reducing free people to slaves and then trading them. With the known and documented violent legacy of Islam, how can we suddenly rediscover it as a religion of peace in the free world in the 21st century? Isn't this the perpetuation of a lie by a few ambitious leaders in order to gain political control of the huge and ignorant Muslim population? They are creating a polished version of Islam by completely ignoring history. They are propagating the same old dogma for simple believing people in a crisp new modern package. Their aim: to gain political power in today's high-tension world. They want to use the confrontational power of the original Islam to catalyse new conflicts and control new circles of power.
Dear conscientious Muslims, please question yourselves. Isn't this compulsive following of a man who lived 1400 years ago leading us to doom in a changing world? Do the followers of any other religion follow one man in such an all-encompassing way? Who are we deceiving, them or ourselves? Dear brothers and sisters, see how our Umma (people) has sunk into poverty and how it lags behind the rest of the world. Isn't it because we are following a religion that is outdated and impractical? In this crucial moment of history, when a great catastrophe has befallen us and a much bigger one is lying ahead, should not we wake up from our 1400 years of slumber and see where things have gone wrong? Hatred has filled the air and the world is bracing itself for its doomsday. Should we not ask ourselves whether we have contributed, wittingly or unwittingly, to this tragedy and whether we can stop the great disaster from happening?Unfortunately the answer to the first question is yes. Yes we have contributed to the rise of fundamentalism by merely claiming Islam is a religion of peace, by simply being a Muslim and by saying our shahada (testimony that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger). By our shahada we have recognized Muhammad as a true messenger of God and his book as the words of God. But as you saw above those words are anything but from God. They call for killing, they are prescriptions for hate and they foment intolerance. And when the ignorant among us read those hate-laden verses, they act on them and the result is the infamous September 11, human bombs in Israel, massacres in East Timor and Bangladesh, kidnappings and killings in the Philippines, slavery in the Sudan, honour killings in Pakistan and Jordan, torture in Iran, stoning and maiming in Afghanistan and Iran, violence in Algeria, terrorism in Palestine and misery and death in every Islamic country. We are responsible because we endorse Islam and hail it as a religion of God. And we are as guilty as those who put into practice what the Qur'an preaches - and ironically we are the main victims too. If we are not terrorists, if we love peace, if we cried with the rest of the word for what happened in New York, then why are we supporting the Qur'an that preaches killing, that advocates holy war, that calls for the murder of non-Muslims? It is not the extremists who have misunderstood Islam. They do literally what the Qur'an asks them to do. It is we who misunderstand Islam. We are the ones who are confused. We are the ones who wrongly assume that Islam is the religion of peace. Islam is not a religion of peace. In its so-called pure form it can very well be interpreted as a doctrine of hate. Terrorists are doing just that and we the intellectual apologists of Islam are justifying it. We can stop this madness. Yes, we can avert the disaster that is hovering over our heads. Yes, we can denounce the doctrines that promote hate. Yes, we can embrace the rest of humanity with love. Yes, we can become part of a united world, members of one human family, flowers of one garden. We can dump the claim of infallibility of our Book, and the questionable legacy of our Prophet.Dear friends, there is no time to waste. Let us put an end to this lie. Let us not fool ourselves. Islam is not a religion of peace, of tolerance, of equality or of unity of humankind. Let us read the Qur'an. Let us face the truth even if it is painful. As long as we keep this lie alive, as long as we hide our head in the sands of Arabia we are feeding terrorism. As long as you and I keep calling Qur'an the unchangeable book of God, we cannot blame those who follow the teachings therein. As long as we pay our Khums and Zakat our money goes to promote Islamic expansionism and that means terrorism, Jihad and war. Islam divides the world in two. Darul Harb (land of war) and Darul Islam (land of Islam). Darul Harb is the land of the infidels, Muslims are required to infiltrate those lands, proselytise and procreate until their numbers increase and then start the war and fight and kill the people and impose the religion of Islam on them and convert that land into Darul Islam. In all fairness we denounce this betrayal. This is abuse of the trust. How can we make war in the countries that have sheltered us? How can we kill those who have befriended us? Yet willingly or unwillingly we have become pawns in this Islamic Imperialism. Let us see what great Islamic scholars have had to say in this respect.Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Qur'an into English wrote: Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon the fighting against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory [Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.] Dr. Sobhy as-Saleh, a contemporary Islamic academician quoted Imam Suyuti the author of Itqan Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an who wrote: The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient. [ Sobhy as_Saleh, Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al- Qur'an, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut, 1983, p. 269.]Dr. Sobhy, in a footnote, commends the opinion of a scholar named Zarkashi who said: Allah the most high and wise revealed to Mohammad in his weak condition what suited the situation, because of his mercy to him and his followers. For if He gave them the command to fight while they were weak it would have been embarrassing and most difficult, but when the most high made Islam victorious He commanded him with what suited the situation, that is asking the people of the Book to become Muslims or to pay the levied tax, and the infidels to become Muslims or face death. These two options, to fight or to have peace return according to the strength or the weakness of the Muslims. [ibid p. 270]Other Islamic scholars (Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, Ga'far ar-Razi, Rabi' Ibn 'Ons, 'Abil-'Aliyah, Abd ar-Rahman Ibn Zayd Ibn 'Aslam, etc.) agree that the verse Slay the idolaters wherever you find them (9:5) cancelled those few earlier verses that called for tolerance in the Qur'an and were revealed when Islam was weak. Can you still say that Islam is the religion of peace? We propose a solution.
We know too well that it is not easy to denounce our faith because it means denouncing a part of ourselves. We are a group of freethinkers and humanists with Islamic roots. Discovering the truth and leaving the religion of our fathers and forefathers was a painful experience. But after learning what Islam stands for we had no choice but to leave it. After becoming familiar with the Qur'an the choice became clear: It is either Islam or humanity. If Islam thrives, then humanity will die. We decided to side with humanity. Culturally we are still Muslims but we no longer believe in Islam as the true religion of God. We are humanists. We love humanity. We work for the unity of humankind. We work for equality between men and women. We strive for the secularisation of Islamic countries, for democracy and freedom of thought, belief and expression. We decided to live no longer in self-deception but to embrace humanity, and to enter into the new millennium hand in hand with people of other cultures and beliefs in amity and in peace.We denounce the violence that is eulogized in the Qur'an as holy war (Jihad). We condemn killing in the name of God. We believe in the sanctity of human life, not in the inviolability of beliefs and religions. We invite you to join us and the rest of humanity and become part of the family of humankind - in love, camaraderie and peace.
Arabic translation الترجمة العربية
See http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis and http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ for more.
Please copy this article, and distribute it as widely as possible, both online and physically. The future of humanity depends on it.