a tad controversial

[Cloud No.9]

this thought occured to me after the release of the tape found after the spain bombings.

a few news reports quoted it as saying "more blood will flow" but one quoted it fully and showed it to be more saying something more like; if the war crimes and wars don't stop then more blood will flow.

this got me thinking about how we perceive al qaeda. i guess alot of people are givent he impression that they are a bunch of psychpaths trying to convert the whole world to islam. but i just don't see that anymore. it's like the saying about one mans freedom fighter being another man's terrorist. i'm now seeing them as freedom fighters and well..... more likeable. instead of seeing them as "fanatical fundamentalist terrorists" i see them as "dedicated deeply religious freedom fighters."

as well as this change in opinion other what they are i guess i've went a little further.

seeing now that they're were no wmd's in iraq after being shown the evidence that was given to the UN. which included supposedly emphatetic evidence of their existence through satallite photos which people must question now how they could possibly be wrong unless they were faked and if they were correct why couldn't the coordinates they were taken from followed too? also how the protests of millions of people were ignored to go ahead with the war and how the UN made useless.

when protest's become useless and politicians lie and betray the public they're are limitied options to take. there are politics but elections now can't be trusted in the US now they aren't internationally monitored. their's the law and international courts but america no longer obides by the geneva convention and won't join the world court making it impossible to try for war crimes.

or there is the last option. and sadly it is violence. i used to be pacifist but now i see no other option. if the world is to change then direct action is required. it's a sad fact that i think it has no came to this but at the end of the day i know that i'd rather fight against britain and america and britain than for them.

i believe now the only action open to people who truly what change but seek not to be terrorist is direct action. attacks on legitimate but not civillain targets such as the armed services and american interests (which are not occupied).

sorry if this was a bit of a rant and might be controversial but i think it's best if people know how other people are now feeling and what can be done to stop it growing and prehaps reverse it.

if this thread does get stopped which i imagine will happen i'm sorry for the upset.

sorry if this was a bit of a rant than

[The Captain]

While I do agree that every person's goals and actions depend on someone's perspective to them, I still can't deem anything Al Quada has done as "likeable" or even justified. The taking of innocent lives to prove a political point is evil. It doesn't matter how lofty your goals may be, it's still evil in my book if people are killed for no reason besides, they were in the way or had it coming when really, they had little to nothing to do with a matter. All terrorists that kill innocent people, are just villians. They are not freedom fighters because life, in my opinion is the ultimate freedom, and to take someone's life is completely out of the question.

This goes not just for Bin Laden and company, but any group of people who use fear and violence to invoke their beliefs on others. Peace, and understanding is the best way to fix the world. Not killing and blowing everyone up if you cannot have your voice heard.

I do predict you'll meet with some harsh criticism of your post, but if you keep it civil and everyone does keep an open mind, this thread should stay open.

Take care all.

[crono_logical]

Originally posted by Cloud No.9
instead of seeing them as "fanatical fundamentalist terrorists" i see them as "dedicated deeply religious freedom fighters."

Dedicated maybe, but I don't know if deeply would be the right word - if they were, they wouldn't consider things such as 9/11 in the first place. I think they've misunderstood something in the religion, which is what makes them extremists, and possibly quite rightly, terrorists, in the first place.

i believe now the only action open to people who truly what change but seek not to be terrorist is direct action. attacks on legitimate but not civillain targets such as the armed services and american interests (which are not occupied).

I think such attacks would be a far better way of going about doing things too. Political targets would be good too - after all, they're the ones in control and more responsible of what's going on that's despisable, not the general public.

[Cloud No.9]

about the whole killing thing. a study showed that only 2% of soldier shot to kill in the second world war. it's believed that this was because all human beings intinctively don't want to kill their own species for obvious reasons. it begs the question then as why do people kill on such a mass scale such as sept 11th or the holocaust. i guess then that too kill people you have to either feel under threat yourself, insane or are deeply dedicated to your cause.

just though i'd make my thoughts clear on that.

[Talus]

Originally posted by Cloud No.9
a study showed that only 2% of soldier shot to kill in the second world war.

Where did you get that number from? Can you show me a link to back this up?

[TheAbominatrix]

No one does anything in battle but 'shoot to kill'. You're preserving your own life there, not to mention whatever you're fighting for. I mentioned this 'statistic' to my dad (who fought in Vietnam) and it gave him quite a laugh.

As usual, this overall topic is rather disgusting. Do I think the U.S. should perhaps listen to these people more? Sure. But killing innocent civilians is never right. Murder is murder, whether it's for some great religious cause or psychotic ramblings. If I went off and murdered some kids because God told me to, it'd still be murder, and it'd still be wrong.

[Garland]

During WWII, I imagine time spent in basic training was minimal, and no near as well developed as it is today. War was different then. The US didn't aid the war with strategy and good technique. It aided the war with sheer manpower. We entered a war of attrition and had more people when the day was done. While 2% seems a little low, I'd imagine many of the soldiers (at least late in the war) were new, green recruits fresh off a minimal basic training, and thrown into combat stressful enough to make the bravest of people break down and cry. I can understand that a majority might not have the heart to kill. My history books paint WW2 as a classic example of a small elite force (Germany) taking on a much larger, but less efficient force (the Allies). Most of the time, movies and novels opt for the small force to win, but in this case, the Axis forces were completely outnumbered. Between Russia and the US, Germany couldn't produce soldiers fast enough.

[Dr Unne]

Cloud No. 9, if you truly believe what you say you believe, then you're about as evil as they are. I'll leave it at that, for the sake of civility, though I don't really believe your beliefs warrant civility.

[TheAbominatrix]

Originally posted by Dr Unne
Cloud No. 9, if you truly believe what you say you believe, then you're about as evil as they are. I'll leave it at that, for the sake of civility, though I don't really believe your beliefs warrant civility.

Well said.

[Big D]

All terrorist groups believe they are fighting for some legitimate cause. Land, power, religion, some combination of the above.
However, no "cause", regardless of how righteous it is, can ever justify the murder of innocents. This applies to freedom fighters, terrorists, and governments alike.
That's just about all I've got to say.

[EternalBahamut]

It is unfortunate that religion and war historically go hand in hand, I don't remember anyone going to war because they did not believe in god. Again, finding Al Quada liekable is like saying Hitler was a good guy except for all those people he had killed. I'm sure there must be some benefits to their beleifs and I'm also sure that the media has done their best to make us all see just the bad components of their organization but anything that promotes mass murder I will not be personally endorsing.

[Cloud No.9]

the 2% should have read 20%. more info about that can be found here

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...y/killing.html

i don't believe in al qaeda's methods of mass civillian killings but i do agree with many of their beliefs that seem to have not been told to make them appear like crazed murders. and i do believe that the direct acion that i discussed that would prevent more civillian casualites may be the only way to achieve certain goals.

[DocFrance]

Cloud No. 9 - be glad that you live in a country where you can say things like that. Then try to remember exactly why you can say the things you do.

[Nait]

Where DOES Cloud no. 9 live, anyhow?


And has someone noticed that Unne has been talused more and more?

[Cloud No.9]

i live in britain. and i have the right to say what i'm saying becuase people fought for it. and i don't expect such civil liberties to be "suspended" to me which all too much seems like the words that were used in 1933 Germany.