The entire world is shocked to learn ...

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

That a group of peaceful muslims have claimed responsibility for the terror attack in New Deli, India which left 59 people dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173931,00.html

I am shocked and appalled that some fringe group claiming to be islamic has hijacked the peeaceful religion for violent purposes. This is absolutely without precident! (except for a few isolated incidents when islam was erroneously blamed for other terrorist attacks).

I am in utter dismay over this! Who could have predicted that muslims were actually behind this? Who I ask, WHO???????

 

[Hamza123]

I absolutley agree!

I am in utter dismay over this! Who could have predicted that muslims were actually behind this? Who I ask, WHO???????

Maybe... Fox news?

I wonder if it's as bad as a killing of maybe, thirty-thousand civilians?

http://iraqbodycount.net/

The only difference between the civilians killed in Iraq and the civlians dead in terror attacks is that the terrorists take responisbility, and it can be on tape.

 

[Outlaw2747]

There is still no excuse for the terrorists killing innocent people.

 

[Hamza123]

There is still no excuse for the terrorists killing innocent people.

Exactly, no excuse at all. Killings of the innocent is a henious crime. Comparing killings is wrong. Yet people seem to not care for one group. Kind of like comparing Civilian Casualties in Iraq in 9/11. There are 10 times more people dead in Iraq. I'm not asking to favour Iraq over those dead on 9/11, yet you must put into play both peoples. Yet people fail to see both sides of the story. Are the Iraqi Civilian Deaths not worth the ink, but they are for the bullets and billions of dollars put into killing them? Some people need to put there pride aside sometimes.

 

[Gray~Gal]

Well i am NOT defending any religion but most religions say they are peaceful and are doing "God's work" but then they blow someone up and its ok. Any religion who thinks God wants them to kill another person is WRONG and if its just individuals saying its their religion then that needs to be announced. Not all muslims, christians ......are good or bad.
But that group who blew up those ppl in New Dehli are NOT peaceful!
They will get whats coming to them. All we can do is wait or do something about it.

 

[Hamza123]

Five Arguments Against War​

In the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, many people find their feelings of sadness and shock mixed with anger and calls for war. But war would be horribly wrong for at least five reasons.



1. Guilt hasn't yet been proven.



As the New York Times acknowledged, "Law enforcement officials ... appear to have little solid evidence tying Mr. bin Laden's group to the attacks" (NYT, 20 Sept. 2001). If we believe in law and justice, when crimes are committed we don't advocate that victims who have a strong hunch about culprits impose punishment. We demand proof. We reject vigilantism. We reject guilt by association. This is elementary and uncontestable, except when fear and the drums of war cloud consciousness. In the case of September 11, though an Islamic or Middle Eastern connection seems clear, there are many extremist groups that might have been responsible. To rush to punitive judgment, much less to war, before responsibility has been determined violates basic principles of justice. Guilt should be proven, not suspected.





2. War would violate International Law.



International law provides a clear recourse in situations of this sort: present the matter to the Security Council, which is empowered under the UN Charter, the fundamental document of contemporary international law, to take appropriate action. The Security Council has met and unanimously denounced the terrorist attacks, passing a strong resolution. But the Security Council resolution did not -- despite what Washington might claim -- authorize the use of force, and especially not a unilateral use of force. The resolution ends by saying that the Council "remains seized of the matter," which as former UN correspondent Phyllis Bennis notes, is "UN diplo-speak" meaning that "decision-making remains in the hands of the Council itself, not those of any individual nation." To be sure, the UN Charter allows countries to act in self-defense which would permit the United States to shoot down a terrorist plane, for example. But it has long been clear UN doctrine that self-defense does not allow countries to themselves launch massive reprisal raids -- precisely because to allow such reprisals would lead to an endless cycle of unrestrained violence.





3. War would be unlikely to eliminate those responsible for the September 11 attacks.



If bin Laden is indeed the evil genius responsible for the September 11 attacks, is it credible that he and his top aides would be so bumbling as to wait around for the U.S. military to exterminate them? We know they have already abandoned their training camps (NYT, 19 Sept. 2001). They may have relocated themselves to some unknown caves in the Afghan mountains, they may have moved into various Afghan villages, blending in with the population, or they may even have left the country entirely. Are U.S. bombers and cruise-missiles really going to find bin Laden and unknown associates? It's doubtful that Washington has good intelligence as to their whereabouts; when the U.S. launched cruise missiles at bin Laden in 1998 -- with the advantage of surprise -- its information was out of date and he was already gone. It's likely to be even harder to find him and his lieutenants now. War is hardly the most effective way to pursue the perpetrators and they are hardly likely to be its primary victims.





4. Huge numbers of innocent people will die.



It was precisely the fact that the September 11 attacks killed large numbers of civilians that made the attacks terroristic and so horrific. If it is immoral to slaughter thousands of Americans in an effort to disrupt the U.S. economy and force a change in U.S. policy, it is no less immoral to slaughter thousands of Afghans in an effort to force the Taliban to change its policy. The United States is moving large numbers of warplanes and missile-launching vessels into the region, yet there are hardly any military targets in Afghanistan for them to attack. It is inevitable that civilians will bear the brunt of any major campaign -- civilians who, in their vast majority, probably are ignorant not only of the recent terrorist assault on the U.S., but probably even of bin Laden himself. Ground forces might be less indiscriminate, but it's hard to imagine that Washington's military plans won't involve the massive application of force, with horrendous human consequences.



While the image of bombers flying over Afghanistan and bombing a people whose average lifespan is about 45 years of age and who are suffering terrible deprivation already -- not least due to the Taliban, which the U.S. helped create and empower -- is horrifying enough, it is important to realize that death and deprivation come in many forms. Even without widespread bombing, if the threat to attack the civilian population or outright coercion of other countries leads to curtailment of food aid to Afghanistan, the ensuing starvation could kill a million or more Afghans by mid-winter. Is this the appropriate response to terror?





5. War will reduce the security of U.S. citizens.



What drives people to devote -- and even sacrifice -- their lives to anti-American terrorism? No doubt the causes are complex, but surely deep feelings of anger and frustration at the U.S. role in the Middle East is a significant factor. If the United States goes to war some terrorists may certainly be killed, but so too will many innocent people. And each of these innocent victims will have relatives and friends whose anger and frustration at the United States will rise to new heights, and the ranks of the terrorists will be refilled many times over. And the new recruits will not just come from Afghanistan. To many Muslims throughout the Middle East, war will be seen as an attack on Islam -- and this is one reason that many of Washington's Islamic allies are urging caution. Significantly, the New York Times reports that the "drumbeat for war, so loud in the rest of the country, is barely audible on the streets of New York" (NYT, 20 Sept. 2001). Their city suffered unbearable pain, but many New Yorkers know that the retaliatory killing of people in the Middle East will not make them any safer; on the contrary, it is likely to lead to more, not less terror on U.S. soil, and in any event, would wish the same pain on still more innocent people.



The dynamic of terror and counter-terror is a familiar one: it leads not to peace but to more violence. Israel's response to terrorism hasn

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

1. Guilt hasn't yet been proven.

All of islam is guilty.

2. War would violate International Law.

**** International law.

3. War would be unlikely to eliminate those responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Peace is even less likely.

4. Huge numbers of innocent people will die.

Not really... Huge numbers of muslims will die.

5. War will reduce the security of U.S. citizens.

Strange, Am I the only one that's noticed that most of the terror has shifted to Iraq?

 

[eisanbt]

All of islam is guilty.

Any statment calling a quasi-connected mass all the same is simply ignorent. The simple fact is, you're worng. Unless you can show me how everyone (or even the majority) of islamics are terrorists then you're argument has absolutly credit and is no more then a 'statment'(A thesis maybe) as it holds no value in the rule of belief (Believe only what you have evidence for. And quoting the Qu'Ran is not proof, the traditional texts of any religion is almost never followed so strictly. Even in christianity, most people have the sense to disregard the Bullshit and take the good, the same is true for Islam)

**** International law.

Good argument...

Peace is even less likely.

So since theres a slightly better chance of somehow destroying all terrorists and those to come, which is simply impossible since you can't kill evil with a tank (Or a bible), we should embark on a war against the intangable which will result in the deaths of countless good people without even the slightest possibility of success. I see you've thought that one through.

Not really... Huge numbers of muslims will die.

And since you know that the kind Iraqi man who works at the local restaurant, and his kid who enjoys playing soccer with his friends while mother watches, Are all EVIL MONSTERS OUT FOR YANKEE BLOOD, which again you have proof of, we should just wipe them all out via cruise missles with the goal of ending their 'threat', the one that dosn't exist. No thats not terrorism at all.

Strange, Am I the only one that's noticed that most of the terror has shifted to Iraq?[/QUOTE]

You mean where the war is? The one being wagged against an enemy using terrorist tatics? That IS odd...Thank you for enlightning me to that and bringing attention to the fact that there was SO much terrorism in the US before you went off to war. Facinating really

 

[cybacaT]

Hameater

When we point out that muslims are causing more terror, you refer to Iraq...which is kinda ironic. Because you see the insurgents and others in Iraq doing most of the killing are MUSLIMS also! These are the freaks targetting innocent men, women and children. These muslims are the ones bombing lollie drops to kill little kids. These muslims are the ones that killed a kid recently, then strapped a bomb to it's dead body so they could blow up the grieving parents when they arrived.

Coalition troops do kill some innocent people, but it's never targetted and always accidental. And the numbers shrink in comparison to those deliberately killed by muslim terrorists.

Indonesian terrorism - muslims.
Iraq - muslims.
Egypt - muslims.
Malaysia - muslims.
Thailand - muslim insurgents.
The list goes on - it's getting to the stage where the term muslim is almost redundant - if you say terrorist then the assumption is it's a muslim because 99% of the time it is...

 

[Hamza123]

Hameater

When we point out that muslims are causing more terror, you refer to Iraq...which is kinda ironic. Because you see the insurgents and others in Iraq doing most of the killing are MUSLIMS also! These are the freaks targetting innocent men, women and children. These muslims are the ones bombing lollie drops to kill little kids. These muslims are the ones that killed a kid recently, then strapped a bomb to it's dead body so they could blow up the grieving parents when they arrived.

Coalition troops do kill some innocent people, but it's never targetted and always accidental. And the numbers shrink in comparison to those deliberately killed by muslim terrorists.

Indonesian terrorism - muslims.
Iraq - muslims.
Egypt - muslims.
Malaysia - muslims.
Thailand - muslim insurgents.
The list goes on - it's getting to the stage where the term muslim is almost redundant - if you say terrorist then the assumption is it's a muslim because 99% of the time it is...

My name is Hamza FYI. The majority of terrorists claim to be Muslim but the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

Coalition troops do kill some innocent people, but it's never targetted and always accidental. And the numbers shrink in comparison to those deliberately killed by muslim terrorists.

I concur.

Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

More info..

Findings include:
Who was killed?
24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
When did they die?
30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).
Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
What was the most lethal weaponry?
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).
How many were injured?
At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.
Who provided the information?
Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.
Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

Yes I do understand these are accidental casualties. I also understand that what terrorists do are diliberate and thats when you hit rock bottom.

 

[tizz]

hhhmmm And the assholes at WACO said they were Christian, and I suppose ALL christians were behind Jonestown. Anyone can proclaim themselves to be anything, hell Fallauto says he is the supreme chancelor of the planet. So I suppose you think he is?

oy vey