Al Quaeda No 2. We Don't Kill Innocents

[AngusThermopyle]

This is rather interesting. He claims that Al Quaeda do not kill innocents and if any die it is because the agencies being attacked are using them as human shields. I suppose from his point of view he's speaking honestly, but when you consider that his point of view is probably coloured by fanaticism and hatred honesty becomes a rather moot point.

(CNN) -- The second-in-command of al Qaeda has said the terrorist group does not kill innocents and that its leader Osama bin Laden is healthy, according to a transcript of an audio tape released by radical Islamist Web sites.

www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/03/zawahiri.message/index.html?eref=rss_world

Edited April 3, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[M.Dancer]

When did the London Public Transport System become a military target and why were there human shields on it.....

...sarcasm not withstanding, but aside for the attacks on the Cole, has AL Q ever made it a point to attack military or strategic targets...

[Rue]

has AL Q ever made it a point to attack military or strategic targets...

If I'm not mistaken Billy Crystal's bretheren are strategic targets as are all civilians. What are you suggesting they engage in a battle with someone who would fight back? Are you crazy? They could get hurt or something.

[AngusThermopyle]

If I'm not mistaken Billy Crystal's bretheren are strategic targets as are all civilians.

Okay, I'll give you that one, Crystal and brethren do pose a huge threat to Al Quaeda, and yes, the Cole was a military target. Other than those I can't think of any other targets they've hit that are of a strategic or military nature.

What I find interesting is the idea that this inbred ignorant savage probably does believe what he is saying. Such is the conviction of the fanatic, they can rationalize their behaviour by claiming things that are obviously self serving lies.

[myata]

We (in a broad sense) went to Iraq and caused deaths of tens, if not hundred of thousands, innocents. Numbers any Al Quaeda could look up to. So?

[AngusThermopyle]

We (in a broad sense) went to Iraq and caused deaths of tens, if not hundred of thousands, innocents. Numbers any Al Quaeda could look up to. So?

Interesting. Could you be so kind as to show me which policy or mandate states that we (in a broad sense) went to Iraq in order to kill "tens, if not hundred of thousands, innocents". Not to mention the fact that there are very very few Canadians in Iraq and those who are serve in an advisory capacity, not a combat capacity.

You might want to make note of the fact that Iraqi's are the ones killing the vast majority of Iraqi's.

Oh yes, I almost forgot to ask. What does your comment have to do with the fact that the number two Al Quaeda wanker stated they don't target innocents?

Edited April 4, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[Rue]

We (in a broad sense) went to Iraq and caused deaths of tens, if not hundred of thousands, innocents. Numbers any Al Quaeda could look up to. So?

Myata I may disagree with you on many things but not one thing-it is a tragedy that Iraqi civilians have had to die. How much of that though is simply the fault of the US? DO you really believe if Hussein was still in power things would have not resulted in the continuing death of innocent civilians as well?

No Myata I can not defend the death of these innocent people. All I am saying is what if in the long run less end up dying then had the Americans done nothing? As well, for me Myata, I can't rationalize Hussein being allowed to engage in genocide of Kurds and kill thousands of his people and get away with it.

I also think Myata with due respect, much if not most of the deaths you see in Iraq are caused by terrorists not American soldiers and it has nothing to do with liberating Iraq and everything to do with these terrorists having contempt for their own people as much as they do any American or Westerner they try scapegoat for their problems.

But yes Myata, the killing of innocent civilians by anyone makes us all poorer for it and people have to be responsible for such actions and there is a fine moral line between terrorism and anti-terrorism at times.

[Guest American Woman]

....much if not most of the deaths you see in Iraq are caused by terrorists not American soldiers and it has nothing to do with liberating Iraq and everything to do with these terrorists having contempt for their own people as much as they do any American or Westerner they try scapegoat for their problems.

Before the U.S. attacked Iraq, terrorists weren't killing Iraqis by the thousands. The war brought al qaeda and terrorism to Iraq. So in that regard, it's not correct to say "it has nothing to do with liberating Iraq" because this is what comes of "liberating Iraq;" this is part of it. This is most definitely a side effect and a very real part of the war.

[Topaz]

Myata I may disagree with you on many things but not one thing-it is a tragedy that Iraqi civilians have had to die. How much of that though is simply the fault of the US? DO you really believe if Hussein was still in power things would have not resulted in the continuing death of innocent civilians as well?

No Myata I can not defend the death of these innocent people. All I am saying is what if in the long run less end up dying then had the Americans done nothing? As well, for me Myata, I can't rationalize Hussein being allowed to engage in genocide of Kurds and kill thousands of his people and get away with it.

I also think Myata with due respect, much if not most of the deaths you see in Iraq are caused by terrorists not American soldiers and it has nothing to do with liberating Iraq and everything to do with these terrorists having contempt for their own people as much as they do any American or Westerner they try scapegoat for their problems.

But yes Myata, the killing of innocent civilians by anyone makes us all poorer for it and people have to be responsible for such actions and there is a fine moral line between terrorism and anti-terrorism at times.

Wait a minute, are you saying that if Hussein was still ruling and if GW never invaded that there would still be 500,000 - a million Iraqis dead? That a fifth of the population would have left Iraq anyways? Just remember where Hussein got the chemicals to kill the Kurds! How many Iraqis have been killed by the bombing of the US especially Fallujah???

[myata]

Interesting. Could you be so kind as to show me which policy or mandate states that we (in a broad sense) went to Iraq in order to kill "tens, ....

That's the fatal flaw in the argument. One should be (and is, at least in our, Canadian, legal system) held responsible for the result of their action, not the intent. If good intentions were to be an excuse, all those pedofiles who exude nothing but pure love, should go free (and maybe even commended? ). Our arch ancestors already knew quite well how (and who) paves the road to hell. But we're so slow to learn ... even what we routinely preach to others.

[myata]

Myata I may disagree with you on many things but not one thing-it is a tragedy that Iraqi civilians have had to die. How much of that though is simply the fault of the US? DO you really believe if Hussein was still in power things would have not resulted in the continuing death of innocent civilians as well?

...

Rue, there's a deep wide gap between helping somebody, and taking control of their lives. What we're doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places, is and by far, the latter. There's many options, tools, strategies to keep a dictator at bay. Contain them, so that people themselves, using their own judgment, timing, and methods would deal with them (dictators) appropriately. What we're doing achieves nothing. All these deaths, which by far exceed anything that Saddam (in his later years, after first war), or Al Quaeda, managed to do, are for nothing; because they aren't for a purpose; don't lead anywhere (unlike e.g struggle for freedom that writes itself into history of the country); just debris, dust raised by our thoughtless goodness (if that is, it's genuine foolish goodness, and not some behind the scene political, or economical, interest).

[AngusThermopyle]

That's the fatal flaw in the argument.

Actually the fatal flaw was when you said we are in Iraq killing tens of thousands etc. etc.

It has been pointed out to you that aside from a handfull of advisors we actually aren't in Iraq. Perhaps you meant to say that the handfull have killed tens of thousands etc. etc. Either way it is a patently false statement.

Edited April 4, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[myata]

Sure, if you insist on the narrow definition of "we", then "we" aren't also any significant victim of Al Quaeda (e.g. by far, order of magnitude less significant when e.g. Air India bombing). If "we" 've nothing to do with Iraq, why should the same "we" worry about moral propositions of Al Quaeda?

[AngusThermopyle]

worry about moral propositions of Al Quaeda?

Who's worried? Not me. Amused would be more like it. Perhaps a little astounded, not much though. Pretty much anything these guys do is irrational and despicable. I never realised you were such a big fan of AQ and OBL.

From what you're saying one gets the impression that the deaths of some Canadians are really no big deal, I could be wrong but that is the impression you give. Most peculiar.

[myata]

I never realised you were such a big fan of AQ and OBL.

Wow! The standard reflex response #1 of a warmonger stuck hard against the wall with no hope of any intelligent argument!

From what you're saying one gets the impression that the deaths of some Canadians are really no big deal, I could be wrong but that is the impression you give. Most peculiar.

I understand, it takes effort (and intelligence) to understand what others are saying. Perhaps, reading it again could help? There's always hope.

[AngusThermopyle]

then "we" aren't also any significant victim of Al Quaeda

Nope, no standard answers here. As far as I'm concerned one Canadian death at the hands of these people is one to many. From what you wrote I'm getting the no big deal impression, rather than make feeble attempts at insults, perhaps you should actually think about what you wrote.

As for the fan impression. What else am I to think? I'm talking about this no. 2 mans perceptions of their deeds and you're spinning off on some totally unrelated tangent about dead Iraqi's. It appears you are trying to distract from the subject and excuse the actions of these animals, so, yes, it appears that you are an apologist for Al Quaeda. As I said, perhaps you should try re- reading what you wrote before going on about comprehension and lack of anything intelligent to say.

[Guest American Woman]

I understand Myata's point. Even though we aren't "targeting" Iraqi civilians, our actions are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, and we proceed with our actions knowing full well that innocent civilians are going to die. When we drop a bomb on any area where there are civilians, we are dropping a bomb on them too, and they die too. And as I already pointed out, al qaeda wasn't in Iraq killing thousands of civilians before we started the war and they moved in. Our actions brought that on. We have people saying in effect 'better them than us,' so I fail to see how that is any more 'morally wonderful' than what this #2 is saying. And no, that is in no way defending him-- it's being critical of others' line of thought along with his.

You said As far as I'm concerned one Canadian death at the hands of these people is one to many, so I ask you-- what about one innocent Iraqi deaths at our hands? Is that "one too many" too?

[myata]

Nope, no standard answers here. As far as I'm concerned one Canadian death at the hands of these people is one to many.

Again, about Air India incident, in which many, many more Canadians perished. Where's is the righteous anger? Where's the holy, global march to eradicate the roots? Or, maybe, look here: what about Canadians who contracated, and died of, hep C or cancer, through negligence, or incompetence of other Canadians? In much higher numbers than those lost in twin towers? Why don't I hear the drums, to arrest and exterminate, forever??

No, I'm not setting one victim against another. Just showing things in the perspective. All deserve remeberance and sorrow; nobody - being used as a pretext by a bunch of rightwing warmongers to unleash atrocities far exceeding the original tragegy.

What's truly amazing is the mental (or intellectual maybe) flaw of the warmonger people, when they pick one pretext as the cause of all evil in the world, and drum it at each and every corner, while completely ignoring, no, excusing and glorifying much worser atrocitities committed by themselves (or their side), as pure goodness. But nothing new here.

Do you think for a minute that the titans of extermination, Hitler or Stalin, viewed themselves as monsters? Or, the saviours of humankind (their understanding thereof)? Do you think Bin Laden thinks of his troops as merciless murderers of innocents? No, they are in the holy liberation buseness. As the democracy bunch are in the one of the holy democratization... So why don't we, for a change, drop all the worseless explanations / justifications and only consider one simple and easily quanifiable measure: the result. Bodycount. With Stalin and Hitler, with their multimillion scores at the top of the grisly podium; followed by a few far eastern dictators (millions); skip; Saddam, with some tens to hundred thousands; and those who started the most recent democracy quest, right there, in the tie; (skip again) finally Bin Laden's bunch, some way behind (but the race is still on)..

There... I'm not interested what the buddies have to say; the result speaks for itself; if you can hear (and comprehend).

rather than make feeble attempts at insults..

Oh, I'm so sorry... Dont whine now... Insults, them must be the privilege reserved for exclusive use by your bunch...

[Wild Bill]

Oh, I'm so sorry... Dont whine now... Insults, them must be the privilege reserved for exclusive use by your bunch...

Perhaps you might consider the example of "rabble.ca", the self-proclaimed "home of progressive thought". I've been there and posted in what I thought was a polite and dignified fashion. Of course, I was questioning the views of most posters on that board.

Like you, I was challenged, sometimes vigorously. Unlike what you've experienced here, I was blasted with total ad hominem attacks using the strongest of profanity! Appeals to the moderator were a waste of time - they support such actions! Unless they've excised the threads and posts involved they are still there for anyone to see for themselves.

"Rabble", indeed.

This board is a LOT more "civilized" than most! You may find it disconcerting to be forced to make a better defense of your views but at least you won't be called every vile cuss word under the sun.

Be grateful for small mercies.

[AngusThermopyle]

Oh, I'm so sorry... Dont whine now... Insults, them must be the privilege reserved for exclusive use by your bunch...

Just cant get away from the attempts at insults can you?

Now, back to the question at hand. Is it possible that this guy (and by extension his cohorts) actually believes that what he is saying is true? Driven by ideology and fanaticism people can and will go to great lengths to justify their actions. In this case it boggles the mind that he could bend reality to the point where he actually believes what he is saying.

Now, do you have a comment on the topic? Or are you just going to try and go off tangent again with some specious attempt to relate perception of reality to body counts?

[myata]

Right, when you've got nothing to respond with, it always pays to restate the same thing and hope nobody noticed. No, won't be able to help you out there. But just in case it's a genuine severe case of innocent miscomprehension (however implausible it may seem), here, plain and digested, for the x - (and last) time:

Yes the guy believes what he's saying; Stalin, etc all believed what they were saying; it's not even hard to make yourself believe what you want to believe in; and the prophets of the world's democracry also believe in their holy quest; it's only a matter of measuring the result (millions; or thousands; tens of; maybe, hundreds; of innocent victims); by all notions of logic and reason the difference between prophets, gurus and leaders comes down to numbers they "produce"; there's nothing they (or anybody) can add to it;

[Rue]

Wait a minute, are you saying that if Hussein was still ruling and if GW never invaded that there would still be 500,000 - a million Iraqis dead? That a fifth of the population would have left Iraq anyways? Just remember where Hussein got the chemicals to kill the Kurds! How many Iraqis have been killed by the bombing of the US especially Fallujah???

Yes. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind had Hussein stayed in power by the time he was done there would be 500,000 dead but that is not the point. This reasoning you use that its o.k. to leave some psychotic mad man in office because it kills less people then trying to get rid of him, sorry I can't buy into that. Why? For a couple of reasons. Morality is not just dictated by one factor such as the one you seem to be relying heavily on-because if it was, it means none of us should do anything when people suffer and die.

For me, this blame everything on the US is bull. The inter-secretarian fighting between Muslims has killed and will continue to kill millions and that has nothing to do with the US as much as you keep using the US as a scapegoat to divert attention from that fact.

The US as a scapegoat does not change the fact that the majority of the Muslim world is run by facist dictators who rely on brutal political police forces to kill, torture and brutalize to keep people in line.

If the US is so evil, tell that to all the Muslims who come to the U.S. seeking the very things you seem to loath.

Did the US kill innocent civilians, yes. Should the Bush regime be criticized for using its military in a political exercise in Guantanamo Bay to deliberately violate the US constitution and make a mockery of it, yes. Should Chaney and Bush be criticized for a corupt contract free for all that has innundated Iraq with Haliburton parasites and a private security force larger then the US armed forces, yes.

But no, do not think for a second I criticize the US for throwing Hussein out and holding him to justice or for fighting terrorists. I criticize some of their policies and certain specific actions, but not their decision to do what everyone else wants done but did not have the integrity to do.

No the US is not the scapegoat for what ails Islam and Islamic society-fellow Muslims and their decision to use their religion as a pretense to engage in violence and terror is.

[White Doors]

That's the fatal flaw in the argument. One should be (and is, at least in our, Canadian, legal system) held responsible for the result of their action, not the intent. If good intentions were to be an excuse, all those pedofiles who exude nothing but pure love, should go free (and maybe even commended? ). Our arch ancestors already knew quite well how (and who) paves the road to hell. But we're so slow to learn ... even what we routinely preach to others.

Oops! speaking of fatal flaws.. suprised no one else picked this up, but I know myata leaves alot of fatal flaws on each of her posts..

Anyways, in the Canadian legal system, intent DOES matter. In fact, it is paramount.

Maybe you should look up 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, reckless homicide and accidents for a starter.

You should get some basic knowledge of Canadian laws before you pontificate to others. or at least, most people would.

No back to your regularly scheduled Al Quada excuses.

ps: I bet anyone here that Myata actually hates Harper more than Osamabeenhidin - no question in my mind actually. See the price of freedom that we pay?

[Peter F]

Yes. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind had Hussein stayed in power by the time he was done there would be 500,000 dead but that is not the point. This reasoning you use that its o.k. to leave some psychotic mad man in office because it kills less people then trying to get rid of him, sorry I can't buy into that. Why? For a couple of reasons. Morality is not just dictated by one factor such as the one you seem to be relying heavily on-because if it was, it means none of us should do anything when people suffer and die.

For me, this blame everything on the US is bull. The inter-secretarian fighting between Muslims has killed and will continue to kill millions and that has nothing to do with the US as much as you keep using the US as a scapegoat to divert attention from that fact.

The US as a scapegoat does not change the fact that the majority of the Muslim world is run by facist dictators who rely on brutal political police forces to kill, torture and brutalize to keep people in line.

If the US is so evil, tell that to all the Muslims who come to the U.S. seeking the very things you seem to loath.

I cannot agree. Yes, Saddam Hussien was a dork and fully deserved his fate. Yes, the USofA is one of the most enlightened and free countries on the face of this earth. Yes, the Iraqi's suffered at the hands if their own government - in far too many cases brutally so.

But - was the answer to that Civil war and a free-for-all bloody power struggle? Was regime change worth pulling the cork out of the bottle and letting the blood flow? What greater good has been served? Hated Saddam is dead and that fact justifies five miserable years of internecine battle and reciprocal atrocity? And we can't point accusitory fingers at America for that? They're in there like a dirty shit!

True, hind-sight is 20/20. Who could have forseen such things? Certainly not the Moron's who foresaw democracy flowing like honey.

Despite the USofA's good intentions the whole thing has gone south and thousands of Iraqi's are paying the price of those good intentions.

A fat log of good the good intentions of the west has done them.

[myata]

Morality is not just dictated by one factor such as the one you seem to be relying heavily on-because if it was,

So, whoever has a certain understanding of "morality" is free to impose it on others; even by force? As in forced conversions of conquistas; or enlightements of the age of colonizations; it was all done for the good of the barbarians (their souls if not their bodies), so it should be excused and maybe, even praized?

Nowadays we think that islamist governments aren't good for them people. So we feed and support friendly dictators to keep popular parties from getting anywhere near power. That's OK because our religion(s) is (are) moral, while theirs isn't, correct, Rue?

...it means none of us should do anything when people suffer and die.

As they continue to die now; and maybe, in greater numbers, than before (which is, in terms of numbers, true). So, where's the difference, Rue? In your feeling good about your "moral" decision?