StarGateWars Forums

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Almost38 wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Almost38 wrote:u ccan make the same argument for when al quadi attacks or any terrorist organization

no, you can't.
you can, in a pinch, use it for the attack on the pentagon (in a pinch, cause the passengers of the airplane were not "collateral-damage". it was absolutely certain that they will die).
but the attack on the WTC? what martial porpuse did that serve?

attack the world TRADE center that was an economic target every militsry attacks civilians targets during a war u have to sure the bombing of the bus was an act of terrorism im not supporting any of these attacks

Contrary to popular belief, the amount of trade going through the WTC was pretty insignificant. A street-side bank saw more traffic. The attack on the World Trade Center, if for economic reasons, was comparable to carpet bombing Kabul because the local ice cream man was a 'target of economic opportunity'. Your remark doesn't work.

Hitchkok wrote:

Juliette wrote:Al Qaeda doesn't attack military targets. Insurrectionists in Afghanistan and Iraq attack military targets, these are regrettable, but not criminal. Al Qaeda attacks targets of opportunity, preferably civilians. That is criminal.
Given their goal, it is the most logical course of action, but that doesn't make it any less criminal.

BTW, what IS their goal?

Show how marvellously civilised muslims are. Didn't you hear? "Brothers of the Faith, today we have struck a blow against the Heart of the Great Shaitan." That was, as I recall, the first reply by Al Qaeda to the attacks on the WTC. Clearly a crusade/jihad/holy war. And crusade/jihad/holy war are aimed at killing as many infidels as you can. Us Westerners should know this, we've done it before. Against your (hitchkok's) people too, I believe?

its not all Muslim that are terrorist

this is true and important to remember.
i do not believe Julli intented to imply that they were.

Almost38 wrote: history is written by the victor simply said anything can be made out to look bad and the attack was econmic the stock market and our eceonmy stoped even if for just a moment

the attack was not economic, and even in an all out war an attack on civilian buildings not immediatly serving the war effort is not legitimate.
attacking an iron mill to stop production of tanks? an act of war.
attacking a residential/commercial area? a crime of war.

all depends on your point of vew village used to be burn and pillaged bc they didnt agree with a religion and that was a crusade and the 2 warring side in the muslim relgion have been going at it forever

Christians had to give excuses to bring war alongside religion. After all, Byzantine empire refused to give religious purposes in their war, they didn't want to mix both. On the other hand, Islam was born in tribal wars in Arabia, which is quite different than where Christianism comes from. It came from a roman province, and thus pax romana was in place there, roman legions took care of order, unlike arabian desert, were tribes were fighting to keep their possessions. That's why Islam has warriorish inside its culture since start unlike christianism. And they also used that to expand their belief as far as they could mainly in VII-VIIIth centuries.
And those roots are heavily exploited by those radical groups, which are also the ones puppeting the demonstrations in western countries as well as eastern countries every time there's something "against" Islam (remember the caricatures outcome).
Some muslims refuse completly to stick by this, and assimilate themselves to nation they live into (if western) and just keep basics of their religion, as long as it doesn't come in conflict with republic's laws (which prevail over religions in many western countries). They are saddened to see how fundamentalists can cause damages both to non muslims, but also to islam as a whole, giving it bad image. And of course saddened to see such growing amount of silly people following the obscure and archaic side of islam instead of following the modern ones. Even those modern sides are infiltred by the fundamentalists in an attempt to trap people into their radical opinions. Use of terror and massive propaganda (in spite of causing more harm to the religion than causing good, but they are good at hiding this) to get more and more followers in their side, and silencing the modern muslim side which is also a great threat to fundamentalists' success to conquer.
They can also acquire the unsure ones sympathy with their excessive propaganda displaying the west as enemy of the whole islamic world, while pushing on the other hand for this hostility. In short, they manage to diabolize something to their potential and already acquired followers they themselves created for the most part.