Originally Posted by islamiclife

I don't know how hostility is defined in your dictionary but all we have to do is look at the foreign polices of the USA and west in general to refute your dreamy comment.

1 - Supporting corrupt leaders and regimes
2 - Trying to liberalize Muslim world
3 - Supporting Israel occupation
4 - Aiding in wars to cause disunity among Muslims
5 - Supporting media propaganda against Islam and Muslims

If this is not hostility then I wonder what it is!? And then you people wonder why Muslims hate you

All of this was happening before 9/11; 9/11 was simply an excuse to go out with the full plan. If we open our eyes we can see this but if we want to remain blind and pretend that it is not happening then that is a different story.

It is funny that on one said these kuffaar will bash about bad things in Muslim world but on other side they will support the people who are cause for all of bad things. What an irony!

1) As I said, that is for the the whole Earth. The US has been doing that in many countries, from South Korea to South Vietnam. It's not exclusively an Islamic thing.
2) No offense, but I hardly think that America is much interested in liberalizing the Middle East. It hardly cares that much for the people of the region. All the US wants to do is have friendly countries to it in the Middle East and countries that will flog US goods. America doesn't care whether a government is liberal or totalitarian, so long as it keeps friendly and allows a free market.
3) I'd agree with this, I would also say it's the most valid reason on the list.
4) Which wars? The Iran-Iraq war is all I can think of, and the US didn't play a very large role in that at all. I think from memory a US war ship was destroyed. That's as far as it went.
5) Really? Are there many examples of this pre 9/11? I'd love to see them if there were.

LOL I couldn't have regurgitated that media fed crap better myself

Do you ever get tired of such lacklustre comments? It seems all you really ever seem to add to a conversation is claims the media is corrupt and biased and that the Taliban are actually lovely people, despite all the killing and stuff (all, it should be noted, without any sources or facts!) I suppose that's a characteristic of you: even in the face of overwhelming defeat from members posting sources and facts, you still persist in such trivial commentaries!

Originally Posted by Supreme

All the US wants to do is have friendly countries to it in the Middle East and countries that will flog US goods.

lol

-------------

Originally Posted by Supreme

1) As I said, that is for the the whole Earth. The US has been doing that in many countries, from South Korea to South Vietnam. It's not exclusively an Islamic thing.

this shows the nature of your character and lack of insincerity. Instead of admitting your mistake and trying to be humble sometime you play with irrelevant points just to prove that 'I won as I was right". People like you operate on two principles

1) I am always right
2) If I am wrong go back to 1

Now to tackle your point, so what if USA has been attacking other countries beside Muslims? Who was even saying that USA is hostile ONLY to Muslim countries!? You constructed your argument on a flawed straw man point. You said that USA has been pretty friendly with Muslim countries before 9/11 but we just proved you wrong. The argument is not whether USA is only hostile to Muslims rather the argument is whether USA became hostile to Muslims after 9/11.

Originally Posted by Supreme

2) No offense, but I hardly think that America is much interested in liberalizing the Middle East. It hardly cares that much for the people of the region. All the US wants to do is have friendly countries to it in the Middle East and countries that will flog US goods. America doesn't care whether a government is liberal or totalitarian, so long as it keeps friendly and allows a free market.

then you live in a diseny land world. The whole war on terrorism was based upon this idea of liberalizing Muslim world so that the Muslim 'barbarism' ideals, i.e., jihad, hadoud laws, etc., are eradicated. This is has been admitted by top authorities of USA. Why do they support and bring corrupt leaders so that crooked domocracy can be forced on people instead of Shari'ah? Would USA want jihadis in power and rulers who will rule their people by Shari'ah?

Originally Posted by Supreme

3) I'd agree with this, I would also say it's the most valid reason on the list.

good, so this proves that USA has been hostile to Muslims even before 9/11.

Originally Posted by Supreme

5) Really? Are there many examples of this pre 9/11? I'd love to see them if there were.

amount is irrelevant here; it doesn't matter whether few examples or many examples. And I personally don't have the time to do the research and hopefully those who are into politics can find something for you.

Originally Posted by Italianguy

No ...actually I don't watch too much tv, so maybe i miss some. I only watch some Christian channels, and I found a Islamic channel I watched for awhile, A show called "The Deen Show" ....I think thats what it was called? But now I cant find the channel?

bro, just in case you didn't notice, that was not directed to you.

Originally Posted by Italianguy

I can't say yes or no I'm not there.

that is fine but they are always bringing intellectually challenged people like current president of Pakistan, the guy who on paper proved that he was insane few years ago to save himself from money theft and fraud. Or dictators like previous President of Pakistan and many other similar kind of leaders who are corrupt from top to bottom. They support these kinds of people for two reasons 1) Shari'ah is not implemented in its true sense and 2) their agendas of plundering resources and occupation are served

Originally Posted by Italianguy

Does Islam teach hate of Christians? or non-believers? Just asking

bro, I have answered this question. I said: "As far your question, then generally speaking, yes, we do hate non-Muslims because of their disbelief in Allah, His last Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and His message."

Originally Posted by Italianguy

Sorry, i didn't see this response before i replied before. Thanks for the respect

no worries,

Originally Posted by Lynx

Any Afghan living in Afghanistan would testify that the Taliban did/do such things. But Muslims are too self righteous to ever criticize what the Muslim world does IF they have the chance to badmouth the West. It's quite sad.

Yeah? Who is the taliban according to you? Do you know that the actual taliban have disassociated themselves from groups that have done things against shariah, such as drug traffickers etc

Maybe you're blind but you'll find plenty of threads critising the 'Muslim world' on here alone, nearly every muslim country has been critisized here for their faults, its only places like afghanistan that have our support because of the muslims there wanting to implement and live by true islamic law

Originally Posted by aadil77

Yeah? Who is the taliban according to you? Do you know that the actual taliban have disassociated themselves from groups that have done things against shariah, such as drug traffickers etc

Maybe you're blind but you'll find plenty of threads critising the 'Muslim world' on here alone, nearly every muslim country has been critisized here for their faults, its only places like afghanistan that have our support because of the muslims there wanting to implement and live by true islamic law

I know Muslims criticize other Muslims but they only do that when they don't have a Western force to criticize instead. In any case I was just making a general statement that was partially a joke. Partially.

And by the Taliban I am referring to the group in general. I know there are good and bad in the Taliban but they as a military/political group are oppressors AND they are just as much of a foreign pest that NATO is. Taliban are Pakistani/Arab puppets.

Just my own opinions based only what I see happening. The purpose I see for the USA to be in Afghanistan:

1. Fear of China, China is the country with the greatest ability to cripple the USA economically and militarily. It is the only country with enough man power to occupy the USA.

2. To keep China from becoming a mechanized military power is to keep them from having the fuel sources to run such

3. China has signed some of the largest oil leases in History with Iran and Iraq

4. To get the oil to China will require railroads and pipelines through Afghanistan

The USA goal is to stop China from getting the oil.

This can be done by keeping Afghanistan in turmoil and no major agreement on a central government. Some possible ways to do this:

a. Keep a USA military presence in Afghanistan.

b. get the Taliban mad enough at foreign intrusion that they will fight any Chinese presence in Afghanistan

Plan b seems to be the attempt now. Give the Taliban ongoing military equipment and even pay the Mujaheddin, keep the Taliban convinced that Chinese invaders will be even worse than American invaders. Negotiate a treaty with the Taliban in which the Taliban will get get both monetary and military equipment support from the USA. Pull the USA out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban fight the Chinese, thereby avoiding any military confrontation between China and the USA.

The Taliban gain the appearance of being the Victors

The USA avoids war with China

The Taliban and the USA are both happy with the result.

Afghanistan remains in turmoil as Chinese workers attempt to build pipelines etc.

No pipelines get completed.

Life for the average Afghanistan resident remains a life of warfare. Only losers are the innocents, again.

Originally Posted by islamiclife

As far your question, then generally speaking, yes, we do hate non-Muslims because of their disbelief in Allah, His last Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and His message.

No, we hate their rejection, but we will treat them with respect if they are not hostile to Muslims. To believe or reject is their choice.

Woodrow,

While the effects on China may be a (very) minor factor, I don't believe that they are a major factor by any means. I don't know anyone personally that would even bring up China when talking about why we are there, and I don't think either administration looks at this pipeline as of such huge importance that we needed to invade a country over it. You would need a conspiracy of massive proportions to be over there for that reason and yet have the mainstream press completely oblivious.

Originally Posted by titus

Woodrow,

While the effects on China may be a (very) minor factor, I don't believe that they are a major factor by any means. I don't know anyone personally that would even bring up China when talking about why we are there, and I don't think either administration looks at this pipeline as of such huge importance that we needed to invade a country over it. You would need a conspiracy of massive proportions to be over there for that reason and yet have the mainstream press completely oblivious.

I have not seen any other logical reason for the US to be there. The US has no need for the minerals there, and it would have been much cheaper to have bought the mineral rights. the US does not make any profit from the mid east oil, it is the big 7 oil companies that make the profit. Stupid for the US to be spending all this money unless there is something desperately needed or will serve the US government. There is nothing needed, the only concern for the region I can see, is it's location as a route for China to get oil.

None of the Presidents involved have petitioned congress for war time powers to increase the number of troops he can deploy into combat. It appears all that is being done there is to keep the country disrupted.

Afghanistan is a very strategic region if China is going to get the Iraq and Iranian oil, it has contracted to buy.

China is now committed to many billions of dollars, just a few of the deals, and all of these require a pipeling through Afghanistan.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_387140.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov16.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021701117.html

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1031.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/wo...st/29iraq.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/...eal/index.html

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/oil/ira...ith-china-278/

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News...28-195050.html

It is not in America's Best interest for China to get the oil, There are not many ways to stop them. The best way would be to turn the people in the area against China, second best way would be to keep the region in a state of war.

I have not seen any other logical reason for the US to be there.

The Afghanistan government was harboring people that attacked the United States and killed thousands of people. They were allowing camps that were training people to coordinate and carry out further attacks. It would be illogical to not try to and stop this.

The fact that the president has not asked for wartime powers is not evidence that they are doing this to keep the country disrupted. In fact it would be a political bonanza for the president if he could claim victory and have a stable Afghanistan.

Not every war is based on economy.

Originally Posted by titus

The Afghanistan government was harboring people that attacked the United States and killed thousands of people. They were allowing camps that were training people to coordinate and carry out further attacks. It would be illogical to not try to and stop this.

Assuming that was all true. There should not have been any need for ground troops.

Originally Posted by titus

The fact that the president has not asked for wartime powers is not evidence that they are doing this to keep the country disrupops.ted. In fact it would be a political bonanza for the president if he could claim victory and have a stable Afghanistan.

Seems like the desire would have been to avoid another Vietnam. We should have learned from the Russians, that any conflict in Afghanistan would have to be fought and either won or lost within a month. If the fire power was not going to be used, it was a fool hardy to even go in.

There is no indication there was any intent for this to be anything except long term involvement and instability for Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan in 2001. China signed the first oil leases with Iraq in 1997. Yet has not been able to fully access any oil. the only purpose being accomplished in keeping Afghanistan and Iraq unstable is all plans for pipelines can not be completed.

Originally Posted by titus

Not every war is based on economy.

True, but every war impacts the economy. Right now outside of Afghanistan and Iraq another country being affected is China, which is facing a serious oil crunch soon. china needs an economically means of getting the oil they bought.

Assuming that was all true. There should not have been any need for ground troops.

The Taliban government was hostile and helping groups that were attacking the US. Surgical strikes would have done nothing, and neither would diplomacy.

Right now outside of Afghanistan and Iraq another country being affected is China, which is facing a serious oil crunch soon. china needs an economically means of getting the oil they bought.

The country being hurt the most economically by these wars is not China. Not even close.

It is the United States.

The United States has gone from having a budget surplus before these wars to having a budget deficit of over $1 trillion.

Trillion.

Do you really think that the US government is so afraid of China getting a pipeline that they willingly put their whole economy in the toilet and massively increased their national debt in order to do it?

If you want conspiracy theories then wouldn't it have been much much cheaper just to sabotage the pipeline every now and then with surgical strikes rather than start two wars as a cover?

Originally Posted by titus

The Taliban government was hostile and helping groups that were attacking the US. Surgical strikes would have done nothing, and neither would diplomacy.



The country being hurt the most economically by these wars is not China. Not even close.

It is the United States.

The United States has gone from having a budget surplus before these wars to having a budget deficit of over $1 trillion.

Trillion.

Do you really think that the US government is so afraid of China getting a pipeline that they willingly put their whole economy in the toilet and massively increased their national debt in order to do it?

If you want conspiracy theories then wouldn't it have been much much cheaper just to sabotage the pipeline every now and then with surgical strikes rather than start two wars as a cover?

Except after the pipeline is constructed, it would be Chinese property the surgical strikes would be directed against.

Rather than posting a bunch of links. Here is a blog with links to the sources I would be quoting from.

China has oil interests in Eurasia as well as in sub-Saharan Africa, which encroach upon Anglo-American oil interests.

What is at stake is the geopolitical control over the Eurasian corridor.

In March 1999, the U.S. Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America’s business empire along an extensive geographical corridor.

The successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent “militarization” of the entire Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as “protecting” pipeline routes and trading corridors. This militarization is largely directed against China, Russia and Iran.

Take a look at the maps above – then note how the army bases are in prime positions to protect the oil and gas pipelines.

That is what this ‘war’ is about.

The Afghanistan war is about securing the territory through which the oil and gas pipelines will have to pass through in order to ensure Russia, China and Iran are outmanouvered in the last great wars for the last of the global oil supplies on the planet.

Only yesterday the Independent reported that the Peak Oil process is even close than the ‘experts’ have been so far admitting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1766585.html

Source for blog: http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009...l-pipelines-2/

Regarding the national debt, It would be helpful to get China out of our hair.

What Nation do we owe the most money to?

HINT: http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Originally Posted by titus

The Afghanistan government was harboring people that attacked the United States and killed thousands of people. They were allowing camps that were training people to coordinate and carry out further attacks. It would be illogical to not try to and stop this.

And the US harbours war criminals like Dumbya and thousands of soldiers that have murdered scores of Muslims. What's your point? The Taliban were willing to negotiate to hand over Bin Laden and his associates. But the US started bombing them instead.