DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Cynthia on November 27, 2008, 02:22:22 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/26/india.attacks/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/26/india.attacks/index.html)
There but for the grace of God go some of my own relatives.
My brother-in-law has traveled to the region for the US gov. ...he and his team have stayed in the very hotel that was targeted.
So scary. I walked into their home tonight to embrace my new baby nephew the day before Thanksgiving...and I was met with stunned faces --- eyes glued to the television. Come to find out that the terrorist are calculated and once again targeting Americans. They aren't just "tourists". Many of them work for our own Government.
What's frightening is that there are many similar locations throughout the world.
Unfortunately, one of those Americans is my sister's husband. ( and used to be my own sis, but she has "retired" to have her precious babies)
She and her husband have traveled for the DOEnergy to Russia, Indonesia and Egypt. He still travels. God, I hope that focus in his job takes a back seat.
This is not something to take lightly.
-
When I travel, I avoid tourist hotels and anything in a tall building.
=======================================================
What the point is of staying in a large lookalike hotel with American prices and nothing typical of the place one is visiting beats Hell outta me.
Like the people who go on cruise ships mostly to go shopping and overeat and then come back with great pretensions of being world travelers. I suppose it's what they like, and they can have it.
-
Picture of the Week
(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/mumbai-attacks.jpg)
The Religion of Peace is changing lives in Mumbai, India this week,
where 101 innocents have been blasted or shot to death, 300 injured
and about 40 tourists taken hostage - all in the name of Islam!
-
You can blame Islam if you want to, but Islam says nothing about this sort of stuff. These are the actions of some severely warped individuals who happen to be Muslims.
Blaming this on Islam is like blaming Auschwitz on Jesus.
-
You can blame Islam if you want to, but Islam says nothing about this sort of stuff. These are the actions of some severely warped individuals who happen to be Muslims.
Blaming this on Islam is like blaming Auschwitz on Jesus.
Terrorism is just plain evil.
Evil does not belong to any one group...and it belongs to all groups. :(
-
and you can go on living in total political correct fantasy land and pretend these almost daily terror attacks like we just saw in India and all over the globe are somehow not connected to Islam. When reality is very clear that these people are targeting innocent civilians with these horrible attacks and their primary motivation is their religion which is Islam.
-
and you can go on living in total political correct fantasy land and pretend these almost daily terror attacks like we just saw in India and all over the globe are somehow not connected to Islam. When reality is very clear that these people are targeting innocent civilians with these horrible attacks and their primary motivation is their religion which is Islam.
You need to step out of the box in which you live, C4. No way. It's not based on Islam. It's based on crazy fanatical mentally ill minds......who literally are not of this world.
-
"You need to step out of the box in which you live, C4"
You need to step in to reality and quit holding political correctness on a higher pedestal than the truth.
No way. It's not based on Islam. It's based on crazy fanatical mentally ill minds......who literally are not of this world.
It is a fact that there are daily headlines of terror attacks targeting innocent civilians by people who freely admit
their primary motivation is their religion which is Islam. Governemnts all over the world are spending billions of
dollars to defend their citizens from this threat aimed at "infidels". (non-Muslims)
Islam has a MAJOR MAJOR problem within in it's midst of people using Islam as a motivation to kill innocent
civilans all over the world. To pretend that there is no connection with Islam is to deny reality.
-
How do the perpetrators of these acts start thinking that they are serveing Islam by makeing these killings?
-
Why Mumbai?
-
I understand that there is a large fraction of Packistanis who blame all of the problems they are haveing with the Taliban and USA on India.
-
Is it to anyone's advantage to have India and Pakistan in the midst of a flare up?
-
Why Mumbai?
Perhaps because their intelligence sucks? A weak spot in worldwide security with plenty of tourists?
-
Perhaps because their intelligence sucks? A weak spot in worldwide security with plenty of tourists?
Perhaps India has it's own version of PNAC. Perhaps India's Prime Minister has an agenda they want enacted that would require a Pearl Harbor type event to get the people behind it.
Or perhaps the opposition party wanted to hamstring the current administration by casting blame on them foralllowing this to happen on their watch.
-
Is it to anyone's advantage to have India and Pakistan in the midst of a flare up?
================================
Al Qaeda's main focus is in instigating chaos. In what two countries could chaos get moe people's bowels in an uproar?
Of course, since Hindus and other non-Muslims control India, and they greatly outnumber Muslims there, it is unlikely to be an eventual advantage of Muslims.
-
Perhaps because their intelligence sucks? A weak spot in worldwide security with plenty of tourists?
Perhaps India has it's own version of PNAC. Perhaps India's Prime Minister has an agenda they want enacted that would require a Pearl Harbor type event to get the people behind it.
Or perhaps the opposition party wanted to hamstring the current administration by casting blame on them foralllowing this to happen on their watch.
Interesting consideration. And certainly it bears thinking about, because the lack of ANY intelligence "chatter" beforehand, as they are claiming, seems nearly impossible given how well the attacks were organized.
-
If one wants to scare Americans, bombing Oklahoma City won't do. You need to bomb NYC.
The same applies to Mumbai in Indla.
-
If one wants to scare Americans, bombing Oklahoma City won't do. You need to bomb NYC.
The same applies to Mumbai in Indla.
If you want to unite and galvanise the population of a country against you , I suppose.
Isn't this Al Quieda proveing that it has learned little from its mistakes?
-
Al Qaeda is very much like Juniorbush when he invaded Iraq. Neither had definable, achievable goals. Saying that "we are going to create a modern, democratic Iraq" is about the same as saying "we are going to restore the Islamic Caliphate". Vague and difficult to define.
It is perceivable that Iraq may someday become a modern democracy. It is not really perceivable that a single medieval Caliphate will ever reign over even the Islamic part of the world.
On the other hand, if Al Qaeda wants to create martyrs in a series of attempts to punish infidels, then that is clearly attainable. The problem is that it is eventually useless.
-
Al Qaeda is very much like Juniorbush when he invaded Iraq. Neither had definable, achievable goals. Saying that "we are going to create a modern, democratic Iraq" is about the same as saying "we are going to restore the Islamic Caliphate". Vague and difficult to define.
The difference being; One group was much more of an aggressor while the other was a defender of a particular "ideology".
The lack of a well defined "goal" takes a backseat to the original "intent" of the two.
-
When I travel, I avoid tourist hotels and anything in a tall building.
=======================================================
What the point is of staying in a large lookalike hotel with American prices and nothing typical of the place one is visiting beats Hell outta me.
Like the people who go on cruise ships mostly to go shopping and overeat and then come back with great pretensions of being world travelers. I suppose it's what they like, and they can have it.
I would postulate that having Americans travel abroad in any form is an advancement over Americans who do not. Americans need to travel abroad in order to obtain a better perception of how it really is overseas. Even staying "Americanized" is better than them staying at home and advising their politicians on international affairs without it.
-
Is it to anyone's advantage to have India and Pakistan in the midst of a flare up?
================================
Al Qaeda's main focus is in instigating chaos. In what two countries could chaos get moe people's bowels in an uproar?
Of course, since Hindus and other non-Muslims control India, and they greatly outnumber Muslims there, it is unlikely to be an eventual advantage of Muslims.
80% of the population in India is Hindu with around 11% Muslim and others including Christians.
-
It is not really perceivable that a single medieval Caliphate will ever reign over even the Islamic part of the world.
Oh! Why not?
On the other hand, if Al Qaeda wants to create martyrs in a series of attempts to punish infidels, then that is clearly attainable. The problem is that it is eventually useless.
I totally agree with that, but what is keeping the people with the potential to make that choice from perceiving this? What makes it seem so easy to convince young guys that they are serving Islam and advancing their nation by dieing with blood on their hands? What excuse does their leadership have for being so obtuse?
-
Is there a "weakness" in the theology undergirdnig Islam that so many in that religious realm today perform these acts?
-
Is there a "weakness" in the theology undergirdnig Islam that so many in that religious realm today perform these acts?
My opinion is not an expert opinion on this , but I think that it is hard for an Islamic person to criticise an attempt to spread Islam by force of arms because Mohammed himself did so.
-
>>Is there a "weakness" in the theology undergirdnig Islam that so many in that religious realm today perform these acts?<<
There's a weakness in the educational systems in the countries where Islam is practiced.
-
Is there a "weakness" in the theology undergirdnig Islam that so many in that religious realm today perform these acts?
“The understanding of the issue of Jihad of the current days Islamic scholars who are called Maulvi, and their method of presentation of this issue to the common people is definitely wrong. Its only outcome is that they, with their passionate speeches, turn barbaric natured human beings into beastly people, and strip them off all the noble qualities of human beings. This is exactly what has happened. I know for certain that the sin of all the unjustified killings by these unwise and selfish men, who are unaware of the hidden reasons for the need of wars by Islam in its early age, is on the neck of these Maulvies who secretly teach them the matters that lead to painful carnages.”
http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Religious_Terrorism_Causes_and_Remedies-20081006MN.html (http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Religious_Terrorism_Causes_and_Remedies-20081006MN.html)
-
The difference being; One group was much more of an aggressor while the other was a defender of a particular "ideology".
When you put it this way, I'm not seeing a difference. Both are aggressors, both are defending a particular ideology.
-
Islam, like Christianity, speaks of a Messiah (who, however, is human, not an offspring of Allah), and the eventual conversion of everyone to Islam.
The Messiah (Mahdi) has apparently not yet come, though there have been impositers. The conversion of everyone to Islam, like the conversion to Christianity, will almost certainly never happen. There is too much conflicting cultural baggage for this to occur.
-
My opinion is not an expert opinion on this , but I think that it is hard for an Islamic person to criticise an attempt to spread Islam by force of arms because Mohammed himself did so.
============================
Mohammad was the final and most important Prophet. That gave him special permission.
-
The difference being; One group was much more of an aggressor while the other was a defender of a particular "ideology".
When you put it this way, I'm not seeing a difference. Both are aggressors, both are defending a particular ideology.
Al Qaeda is very much like Juniorbush when he invaded Iraq.
The 9-11 terrorists were aggressors based on their ideology, yes true. They were not defending a nation that was under attack, however, as was Bush. When Bush decided to "fight back"...albeit not the best of ideas...it was in response to the aggressors. ...thus defending a nation under attack.
If Bush had made the logical choice to ONLY attack Al Quaeda based terrorist groups in Afghanistan, then we would be talking about the act as defensive not aggressive.
XO seems to put Bush and Al Queda in the same category. I just disagree. Sure, Bush was defending democracy, according to the members of government who allowed him to continue on with this war, but he did not attack a country defending an ideology just for the sure hell of it. ...just for the sake of hate.
-
JUniorbush attacked Iraq because he was trying to complete the job his Pappy didn't complete. It had nothing to do with 9-11 because Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
Saddam was no threat to democracy in the US, or any other American residing in the US.
Al Qaeda attacked the US because it was an ally of the corrupt absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia, had stationed troops in Arabia against the dictates of the Koran, and the troops had tried to win converts to Christianity by passing out Arabic New Testaments.
My main point here was that both Juniorbush and Al Qaeda had no defined attainable goals, and no adequate contingency plans of what to do once Iraq was invaded, or the bomb destroyed the buildings.
-
JUniorbush attacked Iraq because he was trying to complete the job his Pappy didn't complete. It had nothing to do with 9-11 because Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
I agree with the first part of that , not the second.
The status quo in Iraq was not a good one Saddam had an ongoing program to stifle and reduce his opposition time was not on our side but on his , bringing the situation with Saddam to a close was a good idea.
Absent the motivation and mobilisation produced by the 9-11 attack there might not have been the same ability to attack Saddam , Bush might have been stuck with the ongoing low level war that Clinton was running.
-
Of course, Juniorbush USED the 9-11 attack and the ignorance of the American people to invade Iraq.
But no Iraqi had a thing to do with 9-11. There are lots and lots of really bad governments on the Earth, but none of them rules a country with as much oil as Iraq has.
-
Of course, Juniorbush USED the 9-11 attack and the ignorance of the American people to invade Iraq.
But no Iraqi had a thing to do with 9-11. There are lots and lots of really bad governments on the Earth, but none of them rules a country with as much oil as Iraq has.
Bush was mislead, stupid, if you will.
Al Qaeda was not mislead....but lead by pure hate.
I still can not see how you can put them both in the same category.
-
Bush was mislead, stupid, if you will.
Al Qaeda was not mislead....but lead by pure hate.
I still can not see how you can put them both in the same category.
===========================
Al Qaeda felt that they were doing what Allah wanted, punishing the US for blasphemy. It looks like "pure hate" to you, perhaps, but not to them.
Juniorbush's stupid decisions caused more people to die than anything Al Qaeda has done. So with regard to quantity of people who died, and surely quantity of innocent people who died, Juniorbush is ahead by a lot.
The one guy who should have died, bin Laden, is still around.
To us here in the US, Juniorbush wears a suit and looks like a middle class American. Bin Laden dresses funny, talks funny, takes his shoes off and sticks his but in the air when he prays. And they say he did it all out of hate. But that is a distortion caused by us looking through the lenses of our culture.
-
The one guy who should have died, bin Laden, is still around.
How do you know that?
-
How do you know that?
=====================
He released a message recently on the US presidential election. If he were deceased, this would have been difficult.
There is a reward on his head, dead or alive. Do you really think he could die anonymously?
I don't.
The odds are that he is still alive and kicking, probably in Pakistan.
-
He released a message recently on the US presidential election. If he were deceased, this would have been difficult.
How do you know it was him?
-
How do you know it was him?
=========================
Didn't trusted experts affirm this?
What evidence, if any, do you have that Bin Laden is dead?
-
Didn't trusted experts affirm this?
What evidence, if any, do you have that Bin Laden is dead?
Who says they can be trusted?
And I have no evidence that Bin laden is dead, nor do I have evidence that he is alive.
-
Would it not be safe to assume that he is still around if voiceprints of his alleged recordings say they were made by him?
You have to figure in the benefits and disadvantages of the Al Qaeda leadership announcing his death (as a martyr) or his continued existence as a rallying point.
Also, there is a multimillion dollar reward for BL dead or alive.
I would probably not recognize him well enough to be sure myself, but someone could.
-
Would it not be safe to assume that he is still around if voiceprints of his alleged recordings say they were made by him?
Not necessarily.
You have to figure in the benefits and disadvantages of the Al Qaeda leadership announcing his death (as a martyr) or his continued existence as a rallying point.
There are benefits and disadvantages to announcing his death on this side of the battleground as well.
WHat good is 25 million if you won't be around to collect it?
-
I suppose we will just have to leave Bin Ladin in limbo, neither dead nor alive.
but not funny enough to be a zombie or a vampire.
-
I suppose we will just have to leave Bin Ladin in limbo, neither dead nor alive.
A modern day version of Shroedinger's Cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat).
-
he's dead, been dead for years
-
Doesn't this kind of undermine the government story of denying they had any suspicion?
Taj Mahal hotel owner: We had warning
* Story Highlights
* Taj had heightened security in response to warning, Tata group chairman says
* Increased measures wouldn't have stopped gunmen, Ratan Tata says
* Tata surprised at level of planning, familiarity with hotel shown by attackers
* "We're indignant, but we're not scared," Tata says of nation's resolve
From Taylor Gandossy
CNN
Watch the full interview with Ratan Tata on "Fareed Zakaria GPS" at 1 p.m. ET Sunday on CNN.
The Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, India, temporarily increased security after being warned of a possible terrorist attack, the chairman of the company that owns the hotel said Saturday.
But Tata Group Chairman Ratan Tata said those measures, which were eased shortly before this week's terror attacks, could not have prevented gunmen from entering the hotel.
"If I look at what we had ... it could not have stopped what took place," Tata said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria that will air Sunday.
"It's ironic that we did have such a warning, and we did have some measures," Tata said, without elaborating on the warning or when security measures were enacted. "People couldn't park their cars in the portico, where you had to go through a metal detector."
However, Tata said the attackers did not enter through the entrance that has a metal detector. Instead, they came in a back entrance, he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/29/india.hotel/index.html?eref=googletoolbar (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/29/india.hotel/index.html?eref=googletoolbar)
-
he's dead, been dead for years
How did he die? When? Where? How do you know this?
It's speculation.
-
he's dead, been dead for years
How did he die? When? Where? How do you know this?
It's speculation.
He will die eventually , supposeing him to be mortal.
Will his guardians feel compelled to tell us about it then?
-
He will die eventually , supposeing him to be mortal.
Will his guardians feel compelled to tell us about it then?
===============================================
Name one infamous person whose death was concealed for any appreciable length of time.
I can't think of any.
-
He will die eventually , supposeing him to be mortal.
Will his guardians feel compelled to tell us about it then?
===============================================
Name one infamous person whose death was concealed for any appreciable length of time.
I can't think of any.
Jesse James and Butch Cassidy
-
Jesse James and Butch Cassidy
Everyone knows that Robert Ford shot Jesse James and the exact day on which it happened.
Butch Cassidy was a celebrity after they made a movie about him many, many years later, and his death was pretty well known as well. There were only several hundred witnesses.
-
Jesse James and Butch Cassidy
Everyone knows that Robert Ford shot Jesse James and the exact day on which it happened.
Butch Cassidy was a celebrity after they made a movie about him many, many years later, and his death was pretty well known as well. There were only several hundred witnesses.
If you wanted to retire from bank robbing , how else to get Pinkerton off your trail ?
Getting a body as a substitute would not have been all that hard for Jesse James and none of the people present at the shooting of Butch Cassidy knew him personally.
Elvis ,of course, became an oligarch and is running things with the other oligarchs from behind the curtain.
Osama has good reason to fake his own death, I would be surprised if he hasn't considered it.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=826839 (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=826839)
http://everything2.com/e2node/How%2520to%2520disappear%2520completely%2520and%2520never%2520be%2520found (http://everything2.com/e2node/How%2520to%2520disappear%2520completely%2520and%2520never%2520be%2520found)
Hehehehe I can just see a shorn Bin Laden trying to join the French Foreign Legion.
-
Obama has good reason to fake his own death, I would be surprised if he hasn't considered it. ???
I think you've lost it there, plane
-
I'm sure he meant Osama.
-
I'm sure he meant Osama.
Yes I did.
If President Obama doesn't succeed in catching Ossama Bin Laden , I am afaraid that he is going to have to put up with the worlds most irritating typo as a common event.
That is motivation for sure .
Pardon me as I change the original.
-
I'm sure he meant Osama.
Interesting, because when I read "Obama", it made me think about another "issue". It seems that if Obama dies before Inauguration Day, Bush will be prez for two more years. Is that true?
So, for a split second I thought.....hey, perhaps he might want to hide and reappear. {grimace}
Crazy thinking, I am sure.....but sometimes, sound bites and thread bites do that to ya....back to work....nite.
-
It seems that if Obama dies before Inauguration Day, Bush will be prez for two more years. Is that true?
no
20th amendment:
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
-
It seems that if Obama dies before Inauguration Day, Bush will be prez for two more years. Is that true?
no
20th amendment:
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
Well, go figure. When you hear rumor from another person......it's to be "checked out". The sad thing is that it was from a teacher's assistant at school. She was also one who stood up and told the kids that Bush was a bad guy.....I shoulda known.
::)
-
How did he die? When? Where?
what does that matter?
How do you know this?
I don't, but I suspect he is rotting somewhere.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Politics/20060923-torturedosama.jpg)
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_terror_02_11.asp (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_terror_02_11.asp)
-
How did he die? When? Where?
what does that matter?
===========================
I asked that because I wondered if you could continue to invent totally unsusbstantiated factoids. Turns out you just aren't that creative. (sigh)
How do you know this?
I don't, but I suspect he is rotting somewhere.
As I suspected you were simply speculating.
by the way, Osama, born March 10, 1957, is too old to join the French Foreign Legion. Also, he is a diabetic.
-
I asked that because I wondered if you could continue
to invent totally unsusbstantiated factoids.
LOL...Now thats funny coming from the biggest propogator of loon theories concerning President Bush.
Do you have any proof that Bin Laden is alive?
If so please prove he is alive.
-
I suggest he is alive until there is proof that is isn't.
It would be wisest to assume this in the interests of defense, would it not?
As for loon theories, your thermonuclear attack on Iran is a tad overdue. isn;t it?