Terrorists are pu**ies

[The Other One]

As long as you have a cause, liberals won't condemn it--they'll even try to justify it....as long as it's cloaked under the pretense of Free Speech...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml :

Cleric supports targeting children
By Rajeev Syal
(Filed: 05/09/2004)

An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Mohammed said: "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.

"As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay."

Mr Mohammed, 44, who lives in Edmonton, north London, but is originally from Syria, also claimed that the Chechen rebels were not responsible for the deaths of more than 350 people - at least half of them children - who are so far known to have died in Beslan.

"The Mujahideen [Chechen rebels] would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians," he said.

The father of seven came to Britain in 1985 after being deported from Saudi Arabia because of his membership of a banned group. He has since been given leave by the Home Office to remain in Britain for five years but the Government is reviewing his status.

He gave an interview yesterday to promote a "celebratory" conference in London next Saturday to commemorate the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, was infuriated by Mr Mohammed's comments. "That sounds to me like incitement and I will report him to Scotland Yard," he said. "It is an insult to most moderate Muslims, who are sick of people like this claiming to represent them."

One who publically incites violence against the citizens of a country should be arrested..if they are citizens, they should stand trial for inciting criminal violence and violating their fellow citizen's civil rights.. If they are immigrants, they should be deported within a week..

That fact that people are allowed to incite hatred and violence against the very countries that grant them permission to live there, give them and their families opportunities for a better life, or even worse permanent citizenship status, is a disgrace.

 

[Gonz]

kill Omar Bakri Mohammed before he multiplies & pollutes the planet with lies & filth.

 

[The Other One]

"I'm John Kerry and I was in Viet Nam--and I'm here to say that I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Either you're with the Muslims or you're with the Infidels

September 3, 2004 No.778

London Convention Will Celebrate 9/11

The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the extremist Islamic movement Al-Muhajiroun had announced a convention in London, titled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," to mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The organization had planned a similar anniversary event a year ago, called "The Magnificent 19 [Suicide Attackers]," but had cancelled it at the last minute. The following is a summary of the report:

Al-Muhajiroun leader Omar Bakri, a Syrian residing in London, told the paper by phone that the convention would feature Al-Qa'ida "surprises," with the screening of a never-before-shown video. He said that the convention will focus on "the anniversary of the division of the world into two great camps – the camp of faith and the camp of unbelief," and would take place September 11, 2004 from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Bakri added: "On this day, we will talk about the ramifications of these [9/11] operations for Afghanistan and Iraq… We want the world to remember this operation … that lifted the head of the [Muslim] nation." Bakri called 9/11 "a cry of Jihad against unbelief and oppression," and said that the aim of remembering it is to "revive the commandment of Jihad among the youth of the [Muslim] nation."

Bakri said that the convention will also feature a lecture about the Islamic religious roots of "slaughtering the infidels," that is, beheading foreigners in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and that there will be films by Al-Qa'ida, the Tawhid and Jihad organization, and the Brigades of the Two Holy Places in the Arabian Peninsula, and that there will also be a film on the most recent operations in Chechnya. He added that one of the speeches, by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, known to be Al-Qa'ida's military commander in Iraq, will be translated.

I don't understaaannnd this one. A call to revive the commandment of Jihad among the youth of the Muslim nation? Allahu akbar. You don't think they want to kill or convert everyone, now, do you?

 

[catocom]

how so? what if they want the death? they dont but think about it. we go there to "liberate" them. course its also not altrusitic. I am sure they know this too.

I don't understand the question.
What does "altrusitic" mean?

 

[HomeLAN]

altrusitic means giving to mankind as a whole. Charity.

Who wants to laugh first?

 

[freako104]

whats stopping you? I made my point. that if we keep interfering its not freedom. unless it is what they want. and why do you think I made the comment about being altruistic?

 

[Gonz]

If they keep terrorizing we keep "imterfering" as you so aptly put it'

Eric, there are over three hundred thousand unearthed decaying bodies that have already been exhumed & DNA charting is currently underway. Would you be willing to go to the door of any relative of those dead people & tell them they got what they wanted? How about the presumed 750,000+ more bodies yet to be unearthed? How about instead you go to the family members of the Iranian soldiers that were gassed in the 80's. Do you think their family members will agree it was by choice? Maybe the familys of the girls, not women, girls who were raped while their father, mother, brother, sisters were forced, at gun point, to watch. Those girls are forever defiled. Did they ask for whatever they got?

I bet to them our actions were and are justifiable and possibly even altruistic.

 

[freako104]

doubtful that it was altruistic. some people would choose death in some situations(some for religious reasons or honour or something like that). I think most people know that altruism is a BS concept. that if we are there it is in our benefit somehow. and helping them is jsut a part.

 

[Gonz]

I think most people know that altruism is a BS concept.

Then those people are sad indeed. Altruism is a wonderful concept & a great act. Try it.

 

[freako104]

wonderful idea yes but almost never used. there is almost always if not always some agenda. helping others is not always the intention

 

[catocom]

how so? what if they want the death? they dont but think about it. we go there to "liberate" them. course its also not altrusitic. I am sure they know this too.

Oh, OK.
The extra "i" threw me. "altrusitic" vs "altruistic"
I couldn't fine it in the dictionary.

anyway
If they want death to only themself, I say more power to um, but they want death
to people that don't want premature death.
I think the US gives it's fair share of charity. How many "billion" is it now that
has been "given" to Iraq now to try and help them rebuild? (and Afghanistan)
I know, you want to make the point that we're just paying for what we destroyed, huh?
I think less than 2 billion would have taken care of that. Nope we're helping
build an infrastructure like they've never had before.
Furthermore I believe it's the minority (terrorist) that want death, not the majority,
and Democracy will be fought for by this country, for the whole world, if the
"majority" of the people want it in those places. I'm sure of it.

 

[freako104]

to rebuild yes but think of our reasons for being there. to kill people(albeit the terrorists deserved it but thats another debate). thats not altruistic. Iraq: too many reasons. Oil, power, possible connections to terrorism, WMDs. we only gave the liberate the people after the others didnt pan out.

 

[catocom]

we only gave the liberate the people after the others didnt pan out.

Oh, but no my man.
The pres. gave that as another reason at the same time as the wmd thing.

 

[freako104]

thats odd. It wasnt said until after it didnt pan out

 

[Gonz]

You may not have listened but it was said. There were quite a number of feasible, reasonable reasons, most weren't heard over the din from the left as they were holding their thumbs in their ears, wiggling their fingers for effect & yelling BLAHBLAHBLAHWE CAN'T HEAR YOUBLAHBLAHBLAH.

Rather childish if you ask me.

 

[freako104]

umm no I listened. I heard what was said when it was said.

 

[catocom]

umm no I listened. I heard what was said when it was said.

OK ok, I'll do some diggin' and find you a link.

 

[Shadowfax]

You may not have listened but it was said. There were quite a number of feasible, reasonable reasons, most weren't heard over the din from the left as they were holding their thumbs in their ears, wiggling their fingers for effect & yelling BLAHBLAHBLAHWE CAN'T HEAR YOUBLAHBLAHBLAH.

Rather childish if you ask me.

oh, if we start generalizing again: part of the problem was also that the right kept yelling WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ARE THERE!! MOBILE LABS!! MAYBE NUKES!! EVIL!! so hard that all attention was taken off the other reasons to go to war. or have you already forgotten that? probably yes, since it's more convenient now.

coming from somebody who agrees on the war in Iraq, mind you.

 

[Gonz]

I remember quite clearly. I still stand by the contention that there are wepons & they're hidden or moved out of country. In the unlikely event he destroyed them, as per his agreement with the UN Security Council, without somehow providing proof of this action then he's still in violation.

If you dig back through these threads you'll notice that while I was scrreaming there were WMDs I was also pointing out, heavily, that that was not the be all & end all for reasoning. There were a number of other conditions for war & our resident commie pinko fag liberal & his commie pinko fag liberal associate were the ones that wouldn't let it go.

 

[freako104]

OK ok, I'll do some diggin' and find you a link.

dont waste your precious time