Why does Al Queda hate US? - Page 3

August 22nd, 2004  
Nope wasnt that, but that looks interesting
August 22nd, 2004  
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Nope wasnt that, but that looks interesting
Looks kind off scary to me....
August 24th, 2004  
David Hurlbert
RnderSafe, I agree Al Queda dislikes all Western and even Eastern societies. At the bottom of the pyramid Al Queda is composed of uneducated egotistical religious zealots who, for the most part, have been socialized to hate all other religions. My concern is how these fundamental Islamic extreme religions have infiltrated the vast majority of free societies. Ironically, democracy, the very tool that has allowed this silent invasion, is also the only means of successfully combating these chaotic religions that desire destruction.
August 24th, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
Originally Posted by 1217
Looks kind off scary to me....
The press doesn't pay too much attention to Al Queda's statemements. CNN may only publish a sentence or 2. I finally got my wife to read a complete statement from Bin Laden. She was shocked and wondered why the whole message wasn't given to the public by the press.

People tend to think that the Al Queda threat just came out of no where. I guess people forgot that Bin Laden announced a reward for killing Americans back in 96 or around that time. Maybe if the press would stess Al Queda's threats a bit more, people would understand the nature of the beast.
September 6th, 2004  
Originally Posted by Pai Mei
o k......

What about the right to bear arms? I mean should every person in america have the power to take someone's life?
Absolutely, The Constitution of the United States of America gives every citizen the "right to keep and bear arms and shall not be infringed".

The right to have a gun does not, by any means, give the right (power) to take anothers life. What the right does do is provide a means to DEFEND ONES OWN LIFE when threatened by an aggressor.

As well as provide a defense from "enemies, foreign and domestic".

What is the first action of those that would take control of a people?


You would be well advised to study world history in relation to overthrow of civilizations.

September 6th, 2004  
Jason Bourne
Pai Mei, the right to bear arms does not give us the right to go and shoot people for the hell of it, without the right to bears arms mass amounts of bloodshed would insue.

My European friends like to, very knowingly, tell me that the Columbine shootings of several years back show how gun ownership poses a danger to citizens. Yet in truth this slaughter is a fine case in point -- against gun control. Because one of these boys came from a family that felt firearms ownership was immoral. And both of the killers used illegally obtained weapons (with the man selling the guns to them now in jail). So this incident would be best for anti-gunners to avoid as it is a clear demonstration that gun control can't and doesn't work.

Anti-gunners (when they don't resort to name calling at this point) might argue that these firearms were obtained because guns are unregulated in the US; well, for starters our guns are highly regulated. But there's a catch: You can never have enough gun control to keep firearms out of a nation, unless you're willing to create a totalitarian state.

Even if total gun control could be achieved, the contention that it would end needless slaughter is easily proven false any number of times, and was well demonstrated in April 2002 by the tragic shooting and killing of two students, 13 teachers, a school secretary, and a police officer in Erfurt, Germany. This nation has very strict gun control and still these things happen, in this case the end result was more children dying than had in Columbine.

As one CNN reporter wrote, "Germany already has strict laws governing the right to a gun, but experts say the country is awash with illegal weapons smuggled into the country from eastern Europe and the Balkans." ("Mourning for victims of German school rampage," CNN, April 26, 2002.)

Here in the US, Washington, DC, has some of the most strict gun laws in the US. The men now charged with the DC sniping spree (of 2002) should not, according to recent reports, have owned firearms. One was possibly dishonorably discharged from the military and most certainly was under a restraining order as well as a warrant for failure to appear in court, any one of which made it illegal for him to own a firearm. The other suspect is an illegal alien. Under US federal law, neither of them should have had firearms. It was illegal for them to have them.

Yet they did. Why?

Because as in Columbine and Germany (as well as any other nation with even a bit of freedom), criminals by their very nature don't obey any laws they choose to ignore. If they so wish, they will have guns, even though it is illegal for them to and even though all the pacifists and politicians in the world maintain they should not. Gun controls don't keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Governments love to brainwash their citizens into thinking that disarming somehow will make them safer (that intellectuals who pride themselves on being open minded and such, is rather ironic -- they buy the party line hook whole hog). It does make a government safer and thus the lie continues. But it does nothing for the citizen, other than give him an excuse to hide like a coward at the first sign of danger (this latter perhaps being the real reason intellectuals are for gun control).

On the other hand, citizens with guns can win their freedom. We here in the US learned that in our Revolutionary War with Britain. We saw it happen again with the French resistance during WWII (who arguably put up more of a fight than the French army during those dark days). Once again it happened in Vietnam where poorly armed but determined men ran out first the French and then the Americans and Australians, though not without a terrible cost on all sides.

Likewise we saw the Afghans give the Russian invaders a good run for their money (and perhaps they will do the same for the US forces there as well). (I won't debate that the resulting governments were better than what the British, Yanks, or whoever might have imparted. Rather I want to make a point about these events.)

Determined peasants, armed with even rudimentary weapons, have a chance of taking back their lands from invaders (whether these invaders consist of a gang of punks from the bad side of town, or a major military power from halfway around the world). Anyone arguing this is not so, argues against all of history. Men with weapons can often preserve their freedom. Disarmed men can offer little struggle and their cause is lost to the first thug with a weapon.

Just ask those who called for freedom before the slaughter of these innocents in Tiananmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989. Unarmed, they were mowed down by guns and tanks. Without arms, they had no chance to win their freedom.

Lack of weapons makes you easy prey. With a firearm, you at least have the proverbial fighting chance. And you might even be able to secure your freedom.

Here's another thing that many governments want you to remain ignorant of: Gun control was tried throughout the world during the 20th Century and each time it was a disaster written in blood.

Governments hide these facts and brainwash their people into being meek sheep who gladly let "Mommy Government" take care of them (though often so poorly that were government leaders true mothers they would be jailed and most likely executed for their crimes).

I do not exaggerate. Each and every major genocide committed by a government against a minority population during the 20th Century was preceded by the disarming citizens. Gun control is an excellent idea if your goal is to protect a government and get rid of surplus populations; it is not ideal if you are interested in freedom or living into old age.

sorry that it is so long, but basically it tells that in every mass genocide in history the first thing that was done was disarming the civilians here are some true examples.

Ottoman Empire, Turkey, 1915-1917, 1.5 Million Armenians.

Soviet Union, 1929-1953, 20 Million Anti-Stalinists/Anti-Communists.

Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe, 1933-1945, 13 Million Jews, Gypsies, Christians, Gays, and Anti-Nazis.

China, 1949-1976, Anti-Communists, 20 Million Rural Populations, Pro- Reform Groups, 20 million, 1935.

Guatemala, 1960-1981, Maya Indians 100,000.

Uganda, 1971-1979, Christians and Political Rivals, 300,000.

Cambodia, 1975-1979, Educated Persons, 1 million.

Rwanda, 1994, Tutsi men, women, and children, nearly 1 million.

In all the above genocides, the public were disarmed before they were slaughtered.

I am very surprised Pai Mei.
A student of the White Eyebrow should know that(yes the White Eyebrow is a REAL Martial Art and it does kick ass) yes it was used in Kill Bill 2, well some of it was.

back to the topic, the AQ's hate us because we will not conform to their religion.
September 6th, 2004  
Pai Mei
Isnt the USA a first world country? i mean all those countries u listed are all either communist controled or third world. USA is a first world country , and is a democratic society so i doubt the people u put in office would want to slauter their own people. if u need to feel safe y not rely on police, DEA, FBI, CIA, SWAT, military police, National guard, Coast guard, Army, Navy, Air force etc....

i also think disarming people isnt such a bad idea i mean do u really want those wierd guys on the bus do own a gun?

especially people who live in suburban areas i mean dont some of those areas have security guards?

O and white eye brows is more of a legend and not commonly practiced in china. Ive never seen a guy actually practice the forms in any competition or demonstration or no a school that teaches it. If it is practised then it is very rare.

And i think Alqeda hates u the USA cause to them US culture goes against their beliefs
September 6th, 2004  
Jason Bourne
White Eyebrow isn't a show form, in order to learn it you hae to actually be hand-picked by a master from something smaller like say a Shaolin temple or something, it is very rare though.

The Ottoman Empire, it wasn't no 3rd world country at the time, it was a glorius nation of power and prestige, so was the Soviet Union and Germany at that time.

and you want a person who wants to take over America, HILARY ***** CLINTON(Ladies of the forum please excuse the language) she wants to become President so she can turn us all into slaves, not to mention if you want to ban guns then you not to bright, because you see if guns were made illegal well then only honest people would turn them in doesn't that make sense, if we passed a law to ban guns then i doubt that anyone who used them for bad purposes would turn them in now would they.

all that would happen is criminals would realize that they just got a big advantage on the Western front.

when i say on the western front i am only using it as a figure of speech so please don't get mad anyone.
September 9th, 2004  
bush musketeer
reasons they hate the us could be the millitary bases in parts of the arab world.

the palestinian situation.

helping to install govts for that will look after intrests of the us rather then there own people.

just like the english and french did in mesopotamia (iraq) after world war 1 they deliberatley broke promises they had made to the arab tribsmen during the war, which meant they then fought against the former allies to get there land back. the same happened in syria, transjordan and arabia.

people tend to remember those sorts of promises for a very long time.
September 9th, 2004  

Topic: Clarification please!!!

Firstly can I get some clarification is the question
Why does Al Quada Hate US? Is that us as in westerners?
or should it read
Why does Al Quada Hate the US?

I think you meant the second one but I think it should actually read as the first one why do they hate westerners. It all boils down to bully in the playground or posh kid scenario they look at us and see what we have which is a relatively peacefull society and relative prospertiy and jealousy ensues. Plus the fact that the majority of us are infidel non believers (in their eyes) and that when it comes to the middle east we always pick a side. We dont look at it objectively, look at the Israel situation one sides gets a lot of American aid, money weapons what do the others get nothing and it is because they are the aggressors. There is a reason they are the aggressors it is because they are being forced out of their homes its enough to piss anyone of.
But basically in the case of Al Quada they are just doing what they want to do because they are fundamentalists not muslims. They dont really care whats in the quran except if there is a camera around. Islam is a faith that is primaryly all about peace just like christianity (but that didnt stop us on the ol` murder, death, kill stakes in the crusades)
The crusades is another case in point they have long memories and i think its still pissing them off that the crusades even happened, but thats just my theory

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne
Pai Mei, the right to bear arms does not give us the right to go and shoot people for the h**l of it, without the right to bears arms mass amounts of bloodshed would insue.
I beg to disagree Jason the lack of a right to bear arms would not end up with a high body count yes there would still be killing but not on the scale your imagining. Look at England we dont have the right to carry a pen knife for christs sake let a loan a 9mm semi auto but there isnt body count in the 1000s, there is the usual death rate and murder rate for a western country. I think the police over here should carry guns but, not the civilians, as the majority of them wouldnt undergo any training except basic load, point and click demo they would get in the shop when buying. And as murphys law dictates " Proffesionals are predictable, The world is full of amateurs".
But I have noticed with police forces around the world generally where there are police that are armed (and I mean all of them, not just the QRF teams like SWAT or our own SO19) crime is generally lower you can actually walk a street at night no problems at all which I wish I could say the same for the UK as it is my nan refuses to leave the house after dark. And if we go to visit we have to phone her from our mobiles when we are parked on the drive because she wont come to the door