PDA

View Full Version : Support the troops but not the war?



GuestFellow
01-14-2011, 06:16 PM
:sl:

I have been thinking about this.

I have met people who do not support the war but support the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. These people argue that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom. This view is also reflected by the mainstream media and nearly all politicians.

Of course, I disagree with this view. To me it does not make sense. The government plans the war and the soldiers put the plan into practice. The government cannot fight a war without an army.

Moving on, there's this claim that the soldiers are fighting for our freedom? Again, I do not understand how these soldiers are fighting for our freedom. It is not as though we are imprisoned by a foreign nation and these soldiers are coming to the rescue.

I see the soldiers as aggressors (Iraq and Afghanistan war), however, I do think some soldiers have been misled to fight in the war and I think some regret it. Then again, my sympathy lies to the innocent civilians who were killed for no reason and the refugees.

I also believe that if a soldier gets killed by the other side, its their fault. They have no one to blame but themselves. I cannot deny the right for the other side to defend themselves from the troops, these people want to live without a foreign presence.

To make it clear I am talking about the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So share your views.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
IAmZamzam
01-14-2011, 06:26 PM
The lie, "They're fighting for our freedom," has been the excuse for every single war the American powers-that-be have instigated in at least the last century or so, even in contexts where it makes even less sense and has even less of a basis in fact than it does now. And by "wars instigated" I may as well say "wars fought" because it's hard for me off the top of my head to think of a single one other than World War II in which the American side did not attack first.

The idea behind the expression, "I support the troops but not the war," is that there is no better way possible to support the troops than to protest their inclusion in a war that needlessly puts their lives at stake. It was an expression we used back during the days of protest when the Iraqi War started.
Reply

Perseveranze
01-14-2011, 07:02 PM
Originally Posted by Guestfellow
, I do think some soldiers have been misled to fight in the war and I think some regret it.
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Many of them do. Anyways, check this video out -



May Allah(swt) give His help to the innocent suffering. And I mean that for any war.
Reply

GuestFellow
01-14-2011, 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Many of them do. Anyways, check this video out -

:wa:

I will have to watch the video later, but it is good to hear that some soldiers have regrets.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Maryan0
01-15-2011, 01:18 AM
I think it's a bit contradictory to say you dont support the war but then on the other hand say the soldiers are fighting for your freedom.
I understand those who say they support their troops and want them brought back they cant exactly say they hate their troops and want them to die. If there was an Islamic kaliphate and they were fighting a war I saw as unjust I would still support the soldiers but I would be against the people who sent them there if that makes sense. Soldiers are soldiers after all. There are people above them that pull the strings not that that makes them blameless. :hmm:
Salam
Reply

GuestFellow
01-15-2011, 01:32 AM
^ Salaam,

I think people oppose war because no one wants to see anyone die from both sides. They probably confuse this with support. As for an Islamic state, if a ruler does start a war which is not permissible in Islam, I would not support the troops. Allah comes first.

Not supporting the troops does not necessarily mean you want them dead...
Reply

ICYUNVMe
01-15-2011, 02:09 AM
Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Not supporting the troops does not necessarily mean you want them dead...

To many people, it does. When you say that you're "against the war", that means that you're against the idea of the war and the people who put the plan into action. Being against the troops means you want them to fail, and in the context of war, that usually means death or imprisonment. And people who support the troops do not want to see that happen.

Based on that, I do think it is possible to support the troops but not the war. Any great military has a close-knit system and hierarchy. There is a trust between the fellow soldiers and their superior officers. And while joining the military is voluntary, not following through with orders once you join can be very damaging. They do the job that is asked of them, plain and simple. They are not the ones who orchestrate the plans.


Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
And by "wars instigated" I may as well say "wars fought" because it's hard for me off the top of my head to think of a single one other than World War II in which the American side did not attack first.

And this is just silly. I'm not gonna run through the list, but you might want to go over your history, because this is factually inaccurate.
Reply

Maryan0
01-15-2011, 02:13 AM
Originally Posted by Guestfellow
^ Salaam,

I think people oppose war because no one wants to see anyone die from both sides. They probably confuse this with support. As for an Islamic state, if a ruler does start a war which is not permissible in Islam, I would not support the troops. Allah comes first.

Not supporting the troops does not necessarily mean you want them dead...
Allah does come first of course...I dont know it's confusing. I believe I would support muslims soldiers even if they were fighting an unjust war that doesnt mean I would condone the unjust war or support the leaders that sent them there. I think the people who make the decisions at the top are more to blame. Not to say that makes the soldiers innocent, they do have a choice even if their choices arent the easiest ones. I just sympathize with those who are fighting to bring their troops home.
I agree with this saying
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. ~George McGovern
Salam
Reply

GuestFellow
01-15-2011, 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe
When you say that you're "against the war", that means that you're against the idea of the war and the people who put the plan into action. Being against the troops means you want them to fail, and in the context of war, that usually means death or imprisonment. And people who support the troops do not want to see that happen.
I actually agree. It makes more sense. Not supporting the war does mean you want the troops to fail. Along what you said, failure could also include that you want the troops to lose the war.
Reply

Trumble
01-15-2011, 11:46 AM
The whole thing depends just what you mean by 'support'. There is no contradiction in opposing a war while hoping that if it proceeds casualties are kept to a minimum, be they civilian or military. I don't think there's anything contradictory in wanting 'your' side to win a war you oppose as long as you are in it, although that would depend to a large extent on circumstances and the nature of the war (WW2 would be rather different from Afghanistan or Vietnam in that respect). Many people opposed to war have in fact voluntarily served in them as medics and such.

The contradiction arises when 'support' means not just concern for the troops welfare and safety, but support for violent actions they initiate in pursuing the war and support for the political decisions that ultimately resulted in such actions.
Reply

ahsan28
01-15-2011, 02:24 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
There is no contradiction in opposing a war while hoping that if it proceeds casualties are kept to a minimum, be they civilian or military.
Given the lethality of the current weapons and the designs of the recent wars in both countries in which air has been used at an unprecedented scale, how can we even think of minimizing casualties and exercising restraint from degradation of civil infrastructure?
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-15-2011, 05:12 PM
Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe
This is just silly. I'm not gonna run through the list, but you might want to go over your history, because this is factually inaccurate.
It's entirely possible that I forgot a thing or two, but if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to believe what the government (and ultimately, by proxy, history books) claim. You'll notice the claims are always biased in our favor, as in any country.
Reply

ICYUNVMe
01-15-2011, 05:44 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
It's entirely possible that I forgot a thing or two, but if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to believe what the government (and ultimately, by proxy, history books) claim. You'll notice the claims are always biased in our favor, as in any country.
You can ignore the conflicts in which the details are hazy. But there are many, many conflicts in which one would have to be deliberately blind to ignore the facts. For example, the Korean War. Sure, the US took a side, but not until after the conflict between the UN-Supported Korea and the China-Supported Korea started fighting.

Vietnam was another situation in which the US involved themselves after the fact. (You can of course argue the wisdom of these moves in retrospect, but the fact of the matter is, the US didn't start these conflicts.

Also, the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's how it started.

Not to mention all of the additional places in which the US deploys troops into situations where there is civil unrest, like Africa. The US didn't start those either.
Reply

Junon
01-16-2011, 12:20 AM
Salaam

Manage to (paraphrase) part of a talk that discusses this subject

The slogan "Support Our Troops"

The point of public relation slogans like 'support our troops' is that they dont mean anything, they mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa.

Of course there was an issue 'do you support our policy?' but you dont want people to think about the issue, thats the whole point of good propoganda.

You want to create a slogan that nobodys going to be against, everybody will be for it because nobody knows what it means because it doesnt mean anything, but its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, namely 'do you support our policy?' and thats the one your not allowed to talk about

So you have people arguing about 'do I support the troops?' you know of course I support them and so on, then you've won, thats like americanism and harmony, were all together, you know empty slogans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DdWmWUa_8

Pick your favourite bad guy from history (eg. Hitler) as they were fighting their wars of conquest and domination they no doubt demanded that their own populations 'support our troops' regardless of the crimes they commit in their name.

Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe
You can ignore the conflicts in which the details are hazy. But there are many, many conflicts in which one would have to be deliberately blind to ignore the facts. For example, the Korean War. Sure, the US took a side, but not until after the conflict between the UN-Supported Korea and the China-Supported Korea started fighting.

Vietnam was another situation in which the US involved themselves after the fact. (You can of course argue the wisdom of these moves in retrospect, but the fact of the matter is, the US didn't start these conflicts.

Also, the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's how it started.

Not to mention all of the additional places in which the US deploys troops into situations where there is civil unrest, like Africa. The US didn't start those either.
I have to disagree. For example the US was involved covertly in Vietnam in the 1950s then eventually invaded (south) Vietnam when it realised the Vietnamese population wouldnt support its favourte dictator.

CIA were inolved in propping up and destabilising countries like Angola and Zaire when it suited its interest.

And the main reason for the Gulf war was to maintain control of the energy resources of the Middle East.

A good book that summarises the US rather sordid record of interventions all over the world.

Reply

Darth Ultor
01-16-2011, 12:44 AM
I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.
Reply

Ramadhan
01-16-2011, 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by Boaz
I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.
I was like you at first.

But the longer US occupation of Afghan goes, the more I'm not convinced that the mission was only about capturing bin laden.
How many trillion dollars and miltary forces spent?
how many bin laden captured? 0

it is downright unreal.

Only the most naive believe afghan is only about bin laden.
Reply

Darth Ultor
01-16-2011, 01:58 AM
I said ORIGINAL mission, not CURRENT. Now we're just dealing with the Taliban. The Taliban were never our enemy. They were a regime that made the Saudi Royals seem humane, but they were never a threat. We did what we had to do. We got the man who actually planned the attacks (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) and he will be dealt with accordingly. We destroyed the al-Qaeda training camps. We should not linger there any longer than necessary. Afghanistan does not forgive foreign military presence.
Reply

Woodrow
01-16-2011, 03:27 AM
It is probably very difficult for a non American to understand how it is possible to support the troops without supporting the war. To understand it may help to know who a typical American Ground Soldier is. Most likely he is a very young man fresh out of high school. Often from a small town far removed from the major American Cities and with little knowledge of the world outside his home town. He has been raised and taught that America has never been an aggressor and does not get involved in foreign wars except when asked to by an oppressed people who live in fear of a tyrant aggressor. He has been taught that America is a generous land, quick to come to the aid of those less fortunate. He sees the military as a liberating force much appreciated by the defenseless. He sees the goal of the military to be one of saving lives, not taking them.

Upon indoctrination into the military he is taught that the land he is being sent to is very backwards and the people are not educated. He is taught he will most likely be seen as being the aggressor and as an invader instead of as being the savior. He is taught this is because the people have been surpressed and do not understand we are there to help them.

The personal intent of an American soldier is usually good and full of compassion, however he is usually ignorant of the true purpose of being there and believes that all the negative things said about Americans are the result of the people being brain-washed.

So this is how it is possible to want to support the troops and not support the war. The support for the troops being that they remain safe and cause no damage to any innocent people. That they return home safely and live to learn the truth, so that they in turn can help change American policy towards other nations. They can become part of the solution and learn not to be pawns of the aggressor.
Reply

جوري
01-16-2011, 05:04 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
It is probably very difficult for a non American to understand how it is possible to support the troops without supporting the war.
Nationalism.. which Einstein summed best in his 'Nationalism is an infantile disease' one should gauge in a war out of necessity paying attention to proper ethics of warfare not to attain personal goals, not to subjugate other people not to steal the wealth of nations but to establish justice. I don't expect that any western nation really has any understanding of that, they're all driven by greed love of self and personal interests.. today I was marveling about a news clip I saw of this British journalist mocking the Taliban and their poppy fields.. how soon they forget a sovereign nation which they forced into opium trade?
Reply

Pygoscelis
01-16-2011, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Nationalism..
... is a form of Tribalism.


LOL :D
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-16-2011, 03:15 PM
You can hide behind the less specific meaning to the word "conflict" but that doesn't change the fact that it was almost always the American side starting the actual war, making the initial move that acted as the official first battle or whatever. There's hardly been a single nation in history who hasn't had some claim to some kind of conflict pre-existing the actual war (which of course they're never, ever responsible for themselves): if there wasn't one then there would be no reason to go to war. Nor is it very honest to use a war that started between two other countries before Uncle Sam butted in as an excuse: it's still butting in, when not having been physically attacked themselves by either side before that.
Reply

Darth Ultor
01-16-2011, 03:26 PM
I don't think Switzerland ever fought a war. They guard the Pope with spears and just hold the bank accounts of every criminal and terrorist organization in the world.
Reply

جوري
01-16-2011, 03:49 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
.. is a form of Tribalism. LOL

Which you're very much a willing participant.. born and bred-- enjoy!
Reply

Zafran
01-16-2011, 04:03 PM
Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe
You can ignore the conflicts in which the details are hazy. But there are many, many conflicts in which one would have to be deliberately blind to ignore the facts. For example, the Korean War. Sure, the US took a side, but not until after the conflict between the UN-Supported Korea and the China-Supported Korea started fighting.

Vietnam was another situation in which the US involved themselves after the fact. (You can of course argue the wisdom of these moves in retrospect, but the fact of the matter is, the US didn't start these conflicts.

Also, the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's how it started.

Not to mention all of the additional places in which the US deploys troops into situations where there is civil unrest, like Africa. The US didn't start those either.
The US had no right to intervene in all if these wars mentioned - they frankly have nothing to do with the US. So whats the US doing there in the first place other then expanding the empire.
Reply

MustafaMc
01-16-2011, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.
In that case, why don't you refute the scientific evidence calling into question the 'official' story as detailed on ae911truth.org a website hosted by architects and engineers.

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
  14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.
Reply

ICYUNVMe
01-16-2011, 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The US had no right to intervene in all if these wars mentioned - they frankly have nothing to do with the US. So whats the US doing there in the first place other then expanding the empire.

Hey, if it were me, I would have let all of these other countries rot. I don't care. But I'm not the president. As I said, you can challenge the wisdom of those decisions, but that wasn't the point. My post was in response to the poster who said that America "starts" all of the wars.
Reply

جوري
01-16-2011, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe
who said that America "starts" all of the wars.

Zionists should be given some credit in that too..
here is very recommended reading by Miles Copeland-- for those who prefer proper analyses over mass hysteria!

Reply

noorseeker
01-16-2011, 06:27 PM
What if I dont support the war , but support the taliban

tut tut ,now now ,that would make me a sympathiser of terror, cant have that now.

How do you support people that have killed women and children .
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-16-2011, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
In that case, why don't you refute the scientific evidence calling into question the 'official' story as detailed on ae911truth.org a website hosted by architects and engineers.

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
  14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.
Not that again!!

I don't want to bother, just read this.
Reply

GuestFellow
01-16-2011, 11:32 PM
Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe

Based on that, I do think it is possible to support the troops but not the war.
I disagree.

Being against the troops means you want them to fail, and in the context of war, that usually means death or imprisonment. And people who support the troops do not want to see that happen.
This does not explain how it is possible to support the troops but not the war. In order for a soldier to survive he must follow the orders he receives, otherwise he will be in trouble. He must fight the ''enemy'' in order to succeed thus fulfilling the objectives of the war. How is this not supporting the war?


And while joining the military is voluntary, not following through with orders once you join can be very damaging.
Following orders has consequences too.

Four Hours In My Lai

They are not the ones who orchestrate the plans.
No one said the soldiers orchestrated the plans. However, the soldiers do put the plan into practice. These soldiers are responsible to some extent.

Originally Posted by Trumble
The whole thing depends just what you mean by 'support'.
Yes, that is a good starting point.

There is no contradiction in opposing a war while hoping that if it proceeds casualties are kept to a minimum, be they civilian or military.
Yes, most people want the war to end quickly with casualties kept at a minimum.

Originally Posted by Boaz
I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.
I think people are naive to beelieve the US planned a massive invasion of Afghanistan to capture one man and to defeat a small group of men known as Al Qaeda. A country of such strategic importance...how can the US miss such a golden opportunity.


I said ORIGINAL mission, not CURRENT. Now we're just dealing with the Taliban. The Taliban were never our enemy. They were a regime that made the Saudi Royals seem humane, but they were never a threat. We did what we had to do. We got the man who actually planned the attacks (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) and he will be dealt with accordingly. We destroyed the al-Qaeda training camps. We should not linger there any longer than necessary. Afghanistan does not forgive foreign military presence.
Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was water-boarded. The majority of people would admit to anything while be tortured. I would not accept evidence that came from torture.

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Nationalism.. which Einstein summed best in his 'Nationalism is an infantile disease' one should gauge in a war out of necessity paying attention to proper ethics of warfare not to attain personal goals, not to subjugate other people not to steal the wealth of nations but to establish justice. I don't expect that any western nation really has any understanding of that, they're all driven by greed love of self and personal interests.. today I was marveling about a news clip I saw of this British journalist mocking the Taliban and their poppy fields.. how soon they forget a sovereign nation which they forced into opium trade?
:sl:

I agree.


Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe
Hey, if it were me, I would have let all of these other countries rot.
How nice of you.

Originally Posted by nightstar
How do you support people that have killed women and children .
It does not happen to them, so they don't care.
Reply

جوري
01-16-2011, 11:44 PM
Originally Posted by Guestfellow
It does not happen to them, so they don't care.

That actually sums it up quite well.. so long as they're far far away from this they don't give a dam n. Civilians are 'war casualties' looting national treasures hardly gets a noble mention.. entire economies collapsing is only a plus.. so long as they can fill their bellies with beer and bacon.. Only when their own economies start collapsing and their job market crashes do they feel a little bite, which of course can be fast remedied by invading another foreign nation and stealing its wealth, justifying it with all sorts inane slogans.. 'freedom fries' '711' pickled pork feet.. whatever new thing they feel suddenly passionate about!

:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
01-17-2011, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
How do you explain the super high technology explosive, nano-thermite, and its signature residue, micro-spherules of elemental iron, in the WTC dust?
Reply

YusufNoor
01-17-2011, 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
:sl:

Muslims are innocent of 9-11, NIST is a part of the Commerce Department. google Kevin Jones.

IF you prefer to believe kaffirs INSTEAD of Muslims:

the 9-11 commission Report was brought to you by Condi Rice's best friend, Phil Zelikow; a DE FACTO member of the Bush Administration.

n 1989, in the George H. W. Bush administration, Zelikow was detailed to join the National Security Council, where he was involved as a senior White House staffer in the diplomacy surrounding the German reunification and the diplomatic settlements accompanying the end of the Cold War in Europe. During the first Gulf War he aided President Bush, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Secretary of State James Baker in diplomatic affairs related to the coalition. He went on to co-author, with Condoleezza Rice, the book Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft , an academic treatment of the politics of reunification, which was published in 1995
In late 2000 and early 2001, Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team. After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board [PFIAB], and worked on other task forces and commissions as well. He directed the bipartisan National Commission on Federal Election Reform, created after the 2000 election and chaired by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, along with Lloyd Cutler and Bob Michel. This Commission's recommendations led directly to congressional consideration and enactment into law of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.[4]
i would try to convince you, but perhaps you favor some government agency...

you know...instead of the TRUTH!

inna lillahi wa inna lilayhi rajiun

:wa:
Reply

GuestFellow
01-17-2011, 12:38 AM
Please lets not turn this into a 9/11 debate.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2011, 12:39 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
i would try to convince you, but perhaps you favor some government agency... you know...instead of the TRUTH!

It would be rather low to stoop down to that same level of the all too frequent jibes our dear brother aims at Muslims on board or at large.. but sometimes you wonder where his head and priorities are?!
Reply

MustafaMc
01-17-2011, 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Please lets not turn this into a 9/11 debate.
I understand your point, but I couldn't let slide this post without replying:
Originally Posted by Boaz
I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.
However, can anyone reasonably 'support the troops' in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unmanned killer drones in Pakistan without going back ultimately to 9/11?
Reply

Ansariyah
01-17-2011, 01:11 AM
Theres no distinction betweeen a Government & Its troops. Cause at the end of the day the troops are fighting in the name of that goverment, they're all joined as one. There are alot of people out there who think that being a soldier is a cool thing, we see it in movies, on the news. Theres just this general 'hero' image thats attached to a man in uniform. People can be senseless Patriots. They dont know what goes on in the real world, n honestly alot of them dont care. They rather cheer for their 'men in uniform' same way they cheer for their fav football team.
Reply

YusufNoor
01-17-2011, 03:10 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


It would be rather low to stoop down to that same level of the all too frequent jibes our dear brother aims at Muslims on board or at large.. but sometimes you wonder where his head and priorities are?!
:sl:

i've shown much of the evidence of the truth of 9/11 to MANY, MANY non-Muslims. NONE believe the Bush Administrations lies any more!

some of the 1st words my mom asked me when she came to visit were, "what do you think of them wanting to build a Mosque at ground zero?" i replied, "let me show you a few things. THEN you tell me if you want to ask me the same question!"

all my mom could say was, "I wished I kept my Canadian citizenship!" she was actually quite horrified at the truth. she was near tears when watching Indira Singh.

and she DID NOT repeat the question!

the wars in Asia were planned BEFORE 9/11, for oil, drugs and $$$. AMERICA is turning into NAZI Germany [if not already there]. how can you support people murdering innocent people?

the troops are brainwashed, like most Americans. their goal? democracy? hardly! if they were pro-democracy, they'd try to to establish it it HERE! they are convinced that they need to kill Muslims and eradicate Islam.

but they are kuffar. that makes them easy to brainwash. a Muslim should know better! we are REQUIRED to seek the truth!

if Muslim CHOOSES to remain brainwashed, how do we get him/her to "stop drinking the fluoridated water?" eh?

shame on Muslims who deny the truth!

:sl:
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 03:15 AM
Originally Posted by Guestfellow
This does not explain how it is possible to support the troops but not the war.
And yet I've already explained that:

Originally Posted by Me
The idea behind the expression, "I support the troops but not the war," is that there is no better way possible to support the troops than to protest their inclusion in a war that needlessly puts their lives at stake.
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 03:21 AM
Why do people find it so hard to accept that "Muslims" really did hijack and crash those planes? Do they think it's the first time that people have done horribly unIslamic things in the name of Islam? Is everyone who accepts this unpleasant truth automatically brainwashed by the U.S. government? Really? Even though I have explained repeatedly, even in this very thread, how much I can't stand the U.S. government? I gave you a source and there are plenty more where that came from, feel free to ask or, for that matter, to look them up yourself. I wonder how many more Muslims would side with those who insist that the moon landing was fake had Neil Armstrong been a fanatic from a Middle Eastern country who gave a speech on the moon about American civilians everywhere needing to die.
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 03:23 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


It would be rather low to stoop down to that same level of the all too frequent jibes our dear brother aims at Muslims on board or at large.. but sometimes you wonder where his head and priorities are?!
Are you talking about me? Do you seriously believe that making jibes would be stooping to another person's level for you, instead of behaving so absolutely normally that nobody would ever possibly notice? Can you name me five posts of yours that don't take jibes at someone or other??
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 03:27 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
The wars in Asia were planned BEFORE 9/11, for oil, drugs and $$$. AMERICA is turning into NAZI Germany [if not already there]. how can you support people murdering innocent people?
Given how clear I've already made my position on the matter I'll assume that question isn't aimed at me, but as for the wars being planned, for all I know that could very well be the case but such an elaborate plot would never be necessary in that event, as the American government has never had much difficulty convincing the majority of the public that any war effort of theirs in the past was justified. All they have to do is stand there and lie; they'd never have to go to such elaborate lengths as a 9/11 conspiracy.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2011, 03:33 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Are you talking about me? Do you seriously believe that making jibes would be stooping to another person's level for you, instead of behaving so absolutely normally that nobody would ever possibly notice? Can you name me five posts of yours that don't take jibes at someone or other??

Of course you leader of the pack and torcher of the flame do you see any other descending prolegomenon around here?
here is 122 of mine one shot:
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...nt-review.html
another 87
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...nter-here.html

the first being the most visited thread on the forum :) amongst many others!.. would love to see something of yours this beneficial!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 03:38 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Of course you leader of the pack and torcher of the flame do you see any other descending prolegomenon around here?
Originally Posted by dictionary.com
prolegomenon: 1. a preliminary discussion; introductory essay, as prefatory matter in a book; a prologue.
2. Usually, prolegomena. (sometimes used with a singular verb) a treatise serving as a preface or introduction to a book.
Originally Posted by vale's lily
here is 122 of mine one shot:
So you honestly don't know how insulting and inflammatory every single thing you write here is? Really? All you ever do is pour vituperations upon everyone you come into contact with. I can only hope you're nicer in real life.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2011, 03:41 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
So you honestly don't know how insulting and inflammatory every single thing you write here is? Really? All you ever do is pour vituperations upon everyone you come into contact with. I can only hope you're nicer in real life.

You seem like a fellow with a chip on his shoulder.. perhaps you feel a bit emasculated by all this? You've asked for five non-inflammatory posts and I have given you hundreds one shot.. this is your best come back? If you find my posts 'inflammatory' perhaps they're merited.. you should ask yourself what role you or others have played in that!

all the best
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 03:47 AM
You can't come up with anything better than the five-year-old's tactic of "if I'm really being such a jerk then it's only because you people are making me do it" (really just a variation of, "Well, he started it!") and then you ask me if I can't come up with better comebacks? That's rich.

I find it hard to believe that you're incapable of grasping just how inflammatory you really are, even though I'm far from the only person to bring it up. You're just in denial. No one can be this clueless about their own venomous belligerence.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2011, 03:53 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
You can't come up with anything better than the five-year-old's tactic of "if I'm really being such a jerk then it's only because you people are making me do it" (really just a variation of, "Well, he started it!") and then you ask me if I can't come up with better comebacks? That's rich. I find it hard to believe that you're incapable of grasping just how inflammatory you really are, even though I'm far from the only person to bring it up. You're just in denial. No one can be this clueless about their own venomous belligerence.

I notice yes that you and two other atheist turds often bring it up yes!.. I can understand how not being able to perch on a place of your micturate and pound extra hard on your chest can lead to these all too frequent meltdowns. Surely if you were as brilliant as all that you wouldn't condescend to this level of immaturity and then project it or are you too good to be true? Your job here isn't to concern yourself with other members, rather elucidate your point in a logical fashion. If you're unhappy with a post report it or are you afraid that your fits will be seen as just that along with your army of two atheist bandits!
you keep losing credibility and grounds and I don't even need an adjuvant army to validate that fact!

Don't test my resolve!

all the best
Reply

MustafaMc
01-17-2011, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
How do you explain the super high technology explosive, nano-thermite, and its signature residue, micro-spherules of elemental iron, in the WTC dust?
Yahya, since, you know absolutely everything, won't you kindly answer this single question with a reasonable answer?
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 04:03 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I notice yes that you and two other atheist turds often bring it up yes!..
Other atheists? I'll just chock that up to careless wording.

I can understand how not being able to perch on a place of your micturate...
Once again you seem not to know the meaning of the words you use. "Micturate" is a verb and it means "to urinate".

...and pound extra hard on your chest can lead to these all too frequent meltdowns.
For heaven's sake, woman, what are you even talking about?! What's preventing me from pounding extra hard on my chest while I stand in my own urine and why would I be doing that in the first place??? What kind of metaphor is that anyway?? What's wrong with you??

Surely if you were as brilliant as all that you wouldn't condescend to this level of immaturity or are you too good to be true?
I don't remember calling myself as brilliant as anything. And I can't help but find it a bit ironic that the person making Tarzan peepee jokes is calling me immature.

Your job here isn't to concern yourself with other members, rather elucidate your point in a logical fashion.
And I try to keep to that but you're constantly undermining my efforts by coming into every thread and trolling me and everyone else every single chance you get. I'm no angel myself but when it comes to forbearance and gentility compared to I'm frickin' Mr. Rogers.

If you're unhappy with a post report it or are you afraid that your fits will be seen as just that along with your army of two atheist bandits!
So the people I'm constantly not getting along with are my lackeys now? Has it occurred to you that maybe we're all forming the same conclusion about you independently? Do you often see people claiming that "everyone is in on this together, they're all against me!" for any other reason than not facing the facts about their own position?

you really don't want to test my resolve!
And now you're actually stooping to threats. Surely you don't think you intimidate me?
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Yahya, since, you know absolutely everything, won't you kindly answer this single question with a reasonable answer?
What gives you the impression that I think I know absolutely everything? For instance, I do not know the answer to your question. That's not a problem for me. Perhaps you can answer this one from the Loose Change Guide:

So, before we get back to the video, I'd like to propose a little thought experiment to the conspiracy believers. I've asked this before but no one has ever answered. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse?

And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels?
Source
Reply

MustafaMc
01-17-2011, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
What gives you the impression that I think I know absolutely everything? For instance, I do not know the answer to your question. That's not a problem for me. Perhaps you can answer this one from the Loose Change Guide:Source
No, I don't have an answer for that; however, the questions raised by scientific evidence should be examined rather than brushed aside and dismissed as part of a ridiculous 'conspiracy theory'. I don't have answers, only questions that aren't being properly answered.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2011, 04:14 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Other atheists? I'll just chock that up to careless wording.
Indeed, frequent complainers!


Once again you seem not to know the meaning of the words you use. "Micturate" is a verb and it means "to urinate".
That is exactly what I meant. Animals micturate on a place they deem their turf and then pound on their chest.. you didn't get that? how awkward for you!

For heaven's sake, woman, what are you even talking about?! What's preventing me from pounding extra hard on my chest while I stand in my own urine and why would I be doing that in the first place??? What kind of metaphor is that anyway?? What's wrong with you??
It isn't a metaphor, that is how we describe your primaeval behavior!


I don't remember calling myself as brilliant as anything. And I can't help but find it a bit ironic that the person making Tarzan peepee jokes is calling me immature.
Oh so you do get it now three sentences down? you're too funny!


And I try to keep to that but you're constantly undermining my efforts by coming into every thread and trolling me and everyone else every single chance you get. I'm no angel myself but when it comes to forbearance and gentility compared to I'm frickin' Mr. Rogers.
I couldn't give a dam n for your existence here-- don't blame your shortcomings and failures on other members. You undermine your own credibility by having none and referencing folks to websites as opposed to addressing their concerns head on, you can't bother to make a modest effort and yet feel your mere quarrels glorified pearls!
I have been on this forum since 2006, yes I am an active member, participating on a thread doesn't denote that I am trolling you, it means that you are pitiful narcissist which is something we have concluded for quite sometime now!


So the people I'm constantly not getting along with are my lackeys now? Has it occurred to you that maybe we're all forming the same conclusion about you independently? Do you often see people claiming that "everyone is in on this together, they're all against me!" for any other reason than not facing the facts about their own position?
I don't subscribe to the victims mentality it seems the passive aggressive episodes are only yours to keep.. the complaints do come from you and a couple of atheists indeed, there have been multitudes of complaints about you, but we're not all petty enough to bring it up on every post!


And now you're actually stooping to threats. Surely you don't think you intimidate me?
gadflies are usually squished not intimidated!

all the best
Reply

GuestFellow
01-17-2011, 11:28 AM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
And yet I've already explained that:
The idea behind the expression, "I support the troops but not the war," is that there is no better way possible to support the troops than to protest their inclusion in a war that needlessly puts their lives at stake.
:sl:

So by supporting the troops you are protesting their participation in the war because it puts their lives at risk?

o_o

It does not change the fact that supporting the troops means that you want them to succeed. In order for soldiers to succeed they must follow orders and fulfill the objectives of the war. In the process of following these orders, the enemy soldiers and civilians will be killed.
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 06:43 PM
vale's lily, take some lithium and then get back to me.

Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:sl:

So by supporting the troops you are protesting their participation in the war because it puts their lives at risk?

o_o

It does not change the fact that supporting the troops means that you want them to succeed. In order for soldiers to succeed they must follow orders and fulfill the objectives of the war. In the process of following these orders, the enemy soldiers and civilians will be killed.
You misunderstand me. What I was saying--and what the expression itself was actually supposed to be saying from the start--is that protestation of the war is the only true support for the troops, as it supports the true position that their lives should not be needlessly put at stake. Supporting the war means refusing to support the troops, as you're supporting the ruination and possible loss of their lives in a completely unnecessary war.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2011, 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
vale's lily, take some lithium and then get back to me.

That is more your cup o tea Mr. trazadone!

all the best
Reply

GuestFellow
01-17-2011, 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
You misunderstand me. What I was saying--and what the expression itself was actually supposed to be saying from the start--is that protestation of the war is the only true support for the troops, as it supports the true position that their lives should not be needlessly put at stake. Supporting the war means refusing to support the troops, as you're supporting the ruination and possible loss of their lives in a completely unnecessary war.
:sl:

Oh I get it now.
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-17-2011, 07:12 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
That is more your cup o tea Mr. trazadone!
I take Trazodone to get me to sleep, not for my mood.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2011, 07:19 PM
Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I take Trazodone to get me to sleep, not for my mood.

whatever you say!
Reply

Hossam Al-Deen
01-17-2011, 08:06 PM
It is immensely difficult for me to watch the YouTube video. I breakdown and get very upset on the stories of our suffering brothers and sisters. Especially the stories regarding gang rape, and the sexual abuse of our beloved and beautiful sisters. I am very sensitive to the treatment of women, and the abuse that they have encountered enrages me beyond words.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!