India terrorists executing non-muslims, and pics

[googe]

More info from the india terrorist incident:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Mumbai/Turkish_couple_let_off_by_terrorists_for_being_Muslims/articleshow/3766609.cms

On the other hand, his business partner, Meltem Muezzinoglu, and her husband, Seyfi, both Turks, when faced with the same situation, decided to dash out of the restaurant and head upstairs instead. When terrorists laid siege to the hotel, the Muezzinoglus were held hostage.

"I was in the Indian restaurant at the Oberoi on Wednesday night, when we heard a couple of gunshots. This was followed by another round of shots,'' said Arpaciouglu. Diners ducked under their seats in panic. "One of the hotel staff, a lady whose hand had been wounded in the firing, led a group of us to safety. Though she was bleeding, she took charge of the situation, and led us out of the restaurant, to safety.''

The Muezzinoglus, however, found themselves in a hostage situation, along with a group of foreigners. That night, they shared a room with three foreigners - all women. Two machine-gun-wielding terrorists stood guard over them the whole night.

All the hostages were asked to reveal their religion. When the Muezzinoglus said they were Muslims, their captors told them that they would not be harmed. The other three Caucasian women were removed from the room next day, and the terrorists informed the Muezzinoglus that they had been shot.

to be fair, since a common question is, why don't other muslims condemn the attacks:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08334/931601-82.stm

some amazing photo coverage of the last few days:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/mumbai_under_attack.html


Late Wednesday night, Mumbai, India found itself the target of a ferocious terrorist attack, and the situation remains unresolved even now, three days later. According to reports, upwards of 60 young men entered Mumbai in small inflatable boats on Wednesday night, carrying bags filled with weapons and ammunition, and spread out to nine locations to begin their attacks. Lobbing grenades and firing their weapons, they entered hotels, a railway station and several other buildings, killing scores and wounding even more. As of this moment, the identity of the attackers has yet to be definitively determined, though there are reports indicating some of the gunmen were Pakistani - at least nine of them have been killed, nine more arrested. As of this writing, there were a reported 151 people killed from 11 different countries - though nearly 100 were Indian. More than 300 injuries have also been reported - those numbers may yet rise as several hostage situations still exist in the city.

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m01_17174147.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m05_17178177.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m09_17175275.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m11_17175269.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m23_17186829.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m24_17185145.jpg

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m30_17180041.jpg

More pics at the link above

[/////AMG]

Damn, crazy pictures.

I'm sure we will see a lot more pitures now that the hostages have been released and its now all over.

[HiTempguy1]

Does this worry anybody? I don't mean muslims, or indians, or any of that shit.

What is there to stop similiar situations from happening anywhere? It seems small and organized. Whats to stop 100 people from going to Vancouver and screwing shit up? What about in New York? If people were actually determined, do you think people could essentially rampage a city (and the government wouldn't be able to do anything)?

[1997GSR]

wow. strong comments at the bottom of that link :eek:


9/11
Madrid
London bombings
Bali bombings
Israel
Kashmir
What is the common denominator? It's not the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists that are doing all this. It's the Muslims.
While not all Muslims in the world are terrorists, every terrorist is Muslim.
When attacks occur on their own people, they start crying and whining, but when Muslims attack non-Muslims and carry out terrorist violence, their silence is deafening.
The truth is, as many here have pointed out, that Islam instructs its believers to kill others. It is pretty much the only religion that does this. In Christianity, "thou shalt not kill", Judiasm is peaceful, Hindus don't even kill animals, Buddhists are ultra-nonviolent.
The time has come to rid the world of Islamic fundamentalism. Muhammad was a terrorist himself....
I am sick of Muslim apologists who stay quiet when these types of episodes occur.
If that jackass Muhammad was not born, the world would be a better place. And if there was no partition in 1947, the world would never have faced this much terrorism.
India-U.S.-Israel: United We Stand

[5fivespeed]

^Wow.

[googe]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Does this worry anybody? I don't mean muslims, or indians, or any of that shit.

What is there to stop similiar situations from happening anywhere? It seems small and organized. Whats to stop 100 people from going to Vancouver and screwing shit up? What about in New York? If people were actually determined, do you think people could essentially rampage a city (and the government wouldn't be able to do anything)?

ya, good question, what if they went to new york and flew planes into buildings or something

(btw it was only 12 people in india)

[OH-EIGHT]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Does this worry anybody? I don't mean muslims, or indians, or any of that shit.

What is there to stop similiar situations from happening anywhere? It seems small and organized. Whats to stop 100 people from going to Vancouver and screwing shit up? What about in New York? If people were actually determined, do you think people could essentially rampage a city (and the government wouldn't be able to do anything)?

well the gov't can always call in the military...
probably declare martial law too... (or war measures act, whatever its called here)

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by OH-EIGHT


well the gov't can always call in the military...
probably declare martial law too... (or war measures act, whatever its called here)

That's what happened in India and 150 people still died...

And India is probably better positioned to deal with this type of stuff.

[Redlyne_mr2]

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m11_17175269.jpg
Crap... it's going down at the Louis Vuitton store.

[7thgenvic]

Originally posted by 1997GSR
wow. strong comments at the bottom of that link :eek:


9/11
Madrid
London bombings
Bali bombings
Israel
Kashmir
What is the common denominator? It's not the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists that are doing all this. It's the Muslims.
While not all Muslims in the world are terrorists, every terrorist is Muslim.
When attacks occur on their own people, they start crying and whining, but when Muslims attack non-Muslims and carry out terrorist violence, their silence is deafening.
The truth is, as many here have pointed out, that Islam instructs its believers to kill others. It is pretty much the only religion that does this. In Christianity, "thou shalt not kill", Judiasm is peaceful, Hindus don't even kill animals, Buddhists are ultra-nonviolent.
The time has come to rid the world of Islamic fundamentalism. Muhammad was a terrorist himself....
I am sick of Muslim apologists who stay quiet when these types of episodes occur.
If that jackass Muhammad was not born, the world would be a better place. And if there was no partition in 1947, the world would never have faced this much terrorism.
India-U.S.-Israel: United We Stand


This should be interesting to see how this comment pans out on Beyond

[EK 2.0]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2

Crap... it's going down at the Louis Vuitton store.



That's what I was thinking...

[5hift]

I was reading on CNN that the remaining terrorists were caught up in a running gunbattle through a maze of corridors, rooms and halls and were holding off India's Elite Black Cat Commandos with defensive cover and formations indicating they were highly trained soilders themselves.

This part really got to me though

"The gunmen had set parts of the 105-year-old hotel ablaze as they evaded scores of India's best-trained commandos. They left bodies in their wake, some with grenades stuffed into the mouths or concealed underneath."

Stuffing live grenades into the mouths of people you have already killed? Man this is fucked up.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by googe


ya, good question, what if they went to new york and flew planes into buildings or something

(btw it was only 12 people in india)

Are you making fun of me, or being serious? I hope you take my question seriously, as I would hope you were using the WTC attacks as an example, rather than a reason to ridicule.

Are you saying 12 people killed 150+ people and the Indian government can't take them out?

[10secondpaki]

the biggest terrorist act was when the non Muslim , Seik Terrorists took down Air India, all put together in Canada. Yet they are the people who run our airport security checks..

And they all walked away free.

Canada will not forget the victims.

[googe]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Are you making fun of me, or being serious? I hope you take my question seriously, as I would hope you were using the WTC attacks as an example, rather than a reason to ridicule.

Are you saying 12 people killed 150+ people and the Indian government can't take them out?

I was kidding, because you kind of asked "what if" for something that already has happened, as if you forgot the wtc attacks :)

and yes, 12 (reports vary between 12 and 18) terrorists did kill 200. its not that difficult when you attack unarmed people in a crowded place. supposedly theyre all dead now except 1, who is in custody.

[eb0i]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/mumbai_11_28/m11_17175269.jpg


If they would have combined sheets, the sheets would have reached the ground...

[Wehbeast]

What a crock of shit :thumbsdow Killing people because their not muslim? :thumbsdow Islam doesn't tell you to kill people because they are not muslim.


While not all Muslims in the world are terrorists, every terrorist is Muslim.

:bullshit:

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Wehbeast
What a crock of shit :thumbsdow Killing people because their not muslim? :thumbsdow Islam doesn't tell you to kill people because they are not muslim.



:bullshit:

No but you see, when white people blow up a village full of kids, that's not terrorism, it's liberation.

[B20EF]

While not all Muslims in the world are terrorists, every terrorist is Muslim.

I guess the Oklahoma bombing was too far back for this guy to remember

[Canmorite]

Crazy photos. What a truly sad event...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Antonito


No but you see, when white people blow up a village full of kids, that's not terrorism, it's liberation.

Do you really think that a *insert democratic nation of white people here* would really just go and blow up a village full of kids just cause?

[bspot]

^It's been happening all the time recently.

I'm a white guy that will admit it. When you look at the shit that has happened in the middle east, if you were on the other side of lots of it you would see it as nothing more than a terrorist attack.

[randedge]

Originally posted by bspot ^It's been happening all the time recently.

I'm a white guy that will admit it. When you look at the shit that has happened in the middle east, if you were on the other side of lots of it you would see it as nothing more than a terrorist attack.

Your post fills me with hope. It really does. I'm not being facetious nor am I kidding.

Maybe it's just beyond - Far too many right wing, 'the west is always righteous', and 'we are the epitome of civilization', kind of people here - but everytime I visit, I can't help but get the distinct feeling that ths place is getting too xenophobic for my tastes. Which is why I couldn't hold back any longer and bust out a 'shit, I hope this civilization goes down soon enough' in another post.

[/////AMG]

Originally posted by 10secondpaki
the biggest terrorist act was when the non Muslim , Seik Terrorists took down Air India, all put together in Canada. Yet they are the people who run our airport security checks..

And they all walked away free.

Canada will not forget the victims.

Whats that got to do with this? :confused:

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by /////AMG


Whats that got to do with this? :confused:

Giving an example of how not all terrorist acts are carried out by muslims?

While the statement is true in that the worst terrorst attack against Canada was carried out by sikh extremists, the key word is extremists -- I sure as hell don't view their actions as representative of the sikh population, just as I don't view the actions of terrorists who claim to be muslim to be representative of other muslims.

[/////AMG]

^ If thats his example fair enough.

You are right that it is all down to fundamentalism.

But I'm sure its a true fact that most of these attack since 9/11 have been Islamic fundamentalists, right?

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by /////AMG
^ If thats his example fair enough.

You are right that it is all down to fundamentalism.

But I'm sure its a true fact that most of these attack since 9/11 have been Islamic fundamentalists, right?

Well, the ones that we hear about, yes. But I stopped trusting the media years ago.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by eb0i


If they would have combined sheets, the sheets would have reached the ground...

haha - you're TOTALLY right! They can make one hell of a butter chicken dish, but when it comes to escaping hotels they're totally inept. :)

Seriously - regarding the Muslims - I think it is unfair to condemn the Muslim religion based on the fact that most terrorists are, in fact, Muslim. There is a lot of shit you guys don't even know about or hear about, keep in mind. For example - who here know (there will be a few) that South Philippines is a very unsafe place for white people to visit? There are a lot of bombings down there, and kidnappings of foreigners who venture in the area. Guess what religion the extremists are? Yup.

My limited understanding of the religion is that it is actually completely peaceful. It's the extremists who fuck it all up, and it's unfortunate that they bring suspicion to those who practice the religion peacefully.

RIP to those who died in this horrible event.

[1997GSR]

Originally posted by Kloubek


haha - you're TOTALLY right! They can make one hell of a butter chicken dish, but when it comes to escaping hotels they're totally inept. :)

Seriously - regarding the Muslims - I think it is unfair to condemn the Muslim religion based on the fact that most terrorists are, in fact, Muslim. There is a lot of shit you guys don't even know about or hear about, keep in mind. For example - who here know (there will be a few) that South Philippines is a very unsafe place for white people to visit? There are a lot of bombings down there, and kidnappings of foreigners who venture in the area. Guess what religion the extremists are? Yup.

My limited understanding of the religion is that it is actually completely peaceful. It's the extremists who fuck it all up, and it's unfortunate that they bring suspicion to those who practice the religion peacefully.

RIP to those who died in this horrible event.

i agree about painting the whole religion with the same brush. it isn't right.

but i think some people are curious as to why muslims stay silent when stuff like this happens. very few speak up against these people are who are tarnishing their religion.

there has been talk of these guys being training and funded by pakistan. if that is true, then between this and pakistan harbouring known terrorists, something needs to be done. imo

[randedge]

Interesting how India has a mish-mash of NATO and Russian weapons. Still, cool to see FN FAL. Such a damn sexy rifle!!! Held one when I was in the reserves though I never fired. Felt a lot more like a proper rifle than the toy like M16 family (where the C7 is based off of) During my time, they were already out of service, but my regiment kept a few in the armory.



I love just love the FN FAL.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20081128/capt.cps.oit34.281108143238.photo04.photo.default-512x349.jpg


And it's a little odd seeing it along side the AKM.
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20081127/capt.cps.oim53.271108131913.photo01.photo.default-512x293.jpg


Back in the day, these two were duking it out in the African bush and other Shadow wars of the 1960's when forces supported by either the US or the Soviet Union would fight against each other - effectively acting as testing grounds for the small arms that these two superpowers manufactured.

[w_man]

Its not that Muslims dont condemn this stuff ... they ALL condemn it and very openly. The only difference is that not every one gets on the news. When they are upset, its all over the news, when they condemn, only a few make it on the news .. its whatever sells i guess.

Also about the guy who wrote that ridiculous article about all terrorists being muslims ... this is the reason why sometimes you wonder about 'freedom of speech'. Him calling Mohammad a 'jackass' is like some Muslim calling Jesus 'pickled dick' .... when a writer can stay away from name calling, it MAYBE worth a read.

It's funny how it's terrorism when some make-belief muslims in the middle east act up and fight the people harboring their country but when the crooks on wall street misguide a global mass causing a global recession while they get rich ... is considered a simple 'economic downturn'. Anyways, this is getting off topic i suppose.

[FlySi]

9/11 (AMERICANS AND JEWS)
Madrid (AMERICANS AND JEWS)
London bombings (AMERICANS AND JEWS)
Bali bombings (AMERICANS AND JEWS)
Israel (AMERICANS AND JEWS)
Kashmir (AMERICANS AND JEWS)

[Antonito]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Do you really think that a *insert democratic nation of white people here* would really just go and blow up a village full of kids just cause?

Do you really think that muslim extremists blow up stuff "just because"?

[ZEDGE]

Originally posted by Antonito


Do you really think that muslim extremists blow up stuff "just because"?

I love when people rationalize terrorism. :thumbsup:

P.S.

Fuck religion.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by ZEDGE


I love when people rationalize terrorism. :thumbsup:

P.S.

Fuck religion.

If that's what you took from what I wrote.....:facepalm:

[01RedDX]

.

[HiTempguy1]

Do you really think that muslim extremists blow up stuff "just because"?

I'd like you to explain to me WHY it would EVER be in the best interest of the US, or Canada to blow up some kids even if they are doing it for some sort of "diabolical" plan they have :rofl:

And if you are justifying that the extremists (of any sort) have ANY reasonable argument to thier actions, then the USA definitely does as well. Good god, the extremist lovers on beyond :thumbsdow

[Antonito]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I'd like you to explain to me WHY it would EVER be in the best interest of the US, or Canada to blow up some kids even if they are doing it for some sort of "diabolical" plan they have :rofl:

And if you are justifying that the extremists (of any sort) have ANY reasonable argument to thier actions, then the USA definitely does as well. Good god, the extremist lovers on beyond :thumbsdow

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I don't know what the fucking reasoning is, go ask George Bush why they're doing it. Oh, wait, it's the same answer it always is. 9/11. Are you unaware that there is a war on Iraq going on? You should go read a newspaper or something. It's been happening for a while now.

And extremists have some similarly BS reason for doing it, "America is on our land, America is stealing our oil"

Actually, it's funny, Americas reasoning turned out to be 100% bullshit, while extremist reasoning is at least factually correct if you twist it enough.


I can't tell if you're just incredibly stupid and really think I'm apologizing for terrorists, or if you are playing stupid because you know you're wrong, and hoping that if you say I'm a terrorism apologist, I'll get scared and run away.

[OH-EIGHT]

the war in the mideast is bullshit
why doesnt the US invade cuba?
BECAUSE THEY NEED OIL MORE THAN THEY NEED CIGARS

the US doesnt give a shit about saudi arabia either just because the saudi gov't is friendly with them, even though saudi society is far more oppressed

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Antonito


:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I don't know what the fucking reasoning is, go ask George Bush why they're doing it. Oh, wait, it's the same answer it always is. 9/11. Are you unaware that there is a war on Iraq going on? You should go read a newspaper or something. It's been happening for a while now.

And extremists have some similarly BS reason for doing it, "America is on our land, America is stealing our oil"

Actually, it's funny, Americas reasoning turned out to be 100% bullshit, while extremist reasoning is at least factually correct if you twist it enough.


I can't tell if you're just incredibly stupid and really think I'm apologizing for terrorists, or if you are playing stupid because you know you're wrong, and hoping that if you say I'm a terrorism apologist, I'll get scared and run away.

No Antonito, I am getting sick of you always playing the "oh, they have their reasons too" idea. You act like you know whats going on, so I called you on it. You basically say its all about the oil. I am well aware that there is a war going on in Iraq, and I am well aware that the country was being ran by a dictator that FUCKING gassed his own people. Yes, it was shitacular info about the weapons being used as a reason to invade. I never said that the Iraq war was a good one to be in, in fact, I don't think I've referred to Iraq in this thread.


No but you see, when white people blow up a village full of kids, that's not terrorism, it's liberation.

THIS statement right here is what I had a problem with. Even if it was about the oil (who knows, mabye it is!) it is not like the US goes around bombing villages for shits and giggles. It is well known that the militants/terrorists use innocent victims like women and children to hide among (not all the time). What the hell would you do in that situation? Damned if you do (killing innocent people), damned if you don't (not very nice people get away or kill you). You always argue for the terrorists, ALWAYS is what I am getting at. Sounds like an apologist if I ever heard one. Mabye if you were a bit more unbiased you wouldn't be such a piss off.

Edit-
(I didn't change any of my post). I am not looking for a fight Antonito. I didn't really mean to call you an apologist (I shouldn't have, that doesn't get a discussion anywhere). What I am getting at is just that you are always "the US is in the wrong!" and I am pretty sure they have been in what most would consider the right a lot (but NOT always). I understand that you think they have ulterior motives, but I think for the most part they went in with solid intentions. Was oil part of the picture? No doubt (at least in the back of their minds). You should consider that the US wouldn't have had to go in if there truly was no reason (crazy ass dictator). Like I said, damned if, damned if not.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


No Antonito, I am getting sick of you always playing the "oh, they have their reasons too" idea. You act like you know whats going on, so I called you on it. You basically say its all about the oil. I am well aware that there is a war going on in Iraq, and I am well aware that the country was being ran by a dictator that FUCKING gassed his own people. Yes, it was shitacular info about the weapons being used as a reason to invade. I never said that the Iraq war was a good one to be in, in fact, I don't think I've referred to Iraq in this thread.


THIS statement right here is what I had a problem with. Even if it was about the oil (who knows, mabye it is!) it is not like the US goes around bombing villages for shits and giggles. It is well known that the militants/terrorists use innocent victims like women and children to hide among (not all the time). What the hell would you do in that situation? Damned if you do (killing innocent people), damned if you don't (not very nice people get away or kill you). You always argue for the terrorists, ALWAYS is what I am getting at. Sounds like an apologist if I ever heard one. Mabye if you were a bit more unbiased you wouldn't be such a piss off.

This is pretty confusing. I do? Wow, I never realized. I'm sure you have all sorts of examples. I'll wait until you point them out before I really get into this.

However, you're still missing the point. I'm not arguing for the terrorists. I mention several times in this thread that their excuses are BS (including saying that the oil excuse is BS, I don't know why you keep saying that I mentioned that as a major point). What I'm arguing is against the people who say that muslims are the only race/religion on earth that ever blows up innocent people, or "terrorize" the world.

They're not. If you think they are, you're a fucking idiot.



Originally posted by HiTempguy1

Edit-
(I didn't change any of my post). I am not looking for a fight Antonito. I didn't really mean to call you an apologist (I shouldn't have, that doesn't get a discussion anywhere). What I am getting at is just that you are always "the US is in the wrong!" and I am pretty sure they have been in what most would consider the right a lot (but NOT always). I understand that you think they have ulterior motives, but I think for the most part they went in with solid intentions. Was oil part of the picture? No doubt (at least in the back of their minds). You should consider that the US wouldn't have had to go in if there truly was no reason (crazy ass dictator). Like I said, damned if, damned if not.

Not all the time. Mostly just on this really huge fuck up.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't? What the fuck kind of bullshit is this?

If they do (which they did).....hundreds of thousands dead, including more Americans than were killed by all the muslim terrorist attacks on American soil ever, probably a trillion dollars in spending, a country that still may or may not get back to the quality of life it had before hand, a country that is now a terrorist playground...etc, etc, etc. We've been through this.

If they don't.....nothing happens.

Yeah, damned if they don't :rolleyes:

[1997GSR]

:facepalm:

[mark4091]

Originally posted by Antonito


No but you see, when white people blow up a village full of kids, that's not terrorism, it's liberation.


:facepalm:

[BigMass]

Just face the facts. “Terrorism” is the ONLY way any oppressed people are ever going to be able to fight back in the world of today. It’s reality. Nobody can build an army and fight on equal terms against the US, Russia, Britain etc. Imperialist countries need to stop whining and accept the consequences of their actions.

Just like innocent people die when cluster bomb is dropped on a wedding party in Afghanistan. I feel equally bad for all the dead innocent people on both sides.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

THIS statement right here is what I had a problem with. Even if it was about the oil (who knows, mabye it is!) it is not like the US goes around bombing villages for shits and giggles. It is well known that the militants/terrorists use innocent victims like women and children to hide among (not all the time). What the hell would you do in that situation? Damned if you do (killing innocent people), damned if you don't (not very nice people get away or kill you). You always argue for the terrorists, ALWAYS is what I am getting at. Sounds like an apologist if I ever heard one. Mabye if you were a bit more unbiased you wouldn't be such a piss off.


So I guess you wouldn’t feel that badly if Iraqis or Afghanis used cruise missiles to take out a Lockheed Martin factory in the US and kill innocent workers. Because killing with technology is more civilized than killing with a suicide bomb right?

Also terrorist hide amongst innocent people? I don’t see George Bush or Dick Cheney on the frontlines do you? You're the one with the biased view.

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by BigMass


Because killing with technology is more civilized than killing with a suicide bomb right?


:rofl:

You forget one fundamental thing. One purposely targets civilians, the other does not. If the United States wanted to kill everything living with their technology they would have done so already and with fantastic results. 100% efficiently I would dare say.

[kaishen]

its big news here in singapore when a 28 yrs old female lawyer was shot in the head and abdomen when the terrorist raided the hotel.

http://profiles.friendster.com/1275770

what a shame. innocent lives are lost

[Antonito]

Originally posted by mark4091



:facepalm:

Brilliant

:facepalm:

[turbotrip]

Originally posted by Antonito


No but you see, when white people blow up a village full of kids, that's not terrorism, it's liberation.

:werd: but not just white people, any non-muslim people

[ragu]

Originally posted by turbotrip


:werd: but not just white people, any non-muslim people
^^+1 to that; if you do your research you'll find that there are barely any muslim groups in top ranked terrorist groups in india/pak.
You'll never even hear half of the shit that happens in that region since media that is dominant here wouldn't ever show it....so I can somewhat understand the biased and ignorant opinions.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Toms-SC


:rofl:

You forget one fundamental thing. One purposely targets civilians, the other does not. If the United States wanted to kill everything living with their technology they would have done so already and with fantastic results. 100% efficiently I would dare say.

You could argue that a lot of the Afghanis and Iraqis are in fact civilians that took up arms to defend their country, plus you cannot compare the US military with those in countries the US invades.

How is someone in Afghanistan supposed to fight back against an 18 year old FPS geek piloting unmanned drones from an aircraft carrier or a base inside the US? How are they supposed to fight back against F22s?

You say the US doesn’t target civilians, but if civilians picked up a gun to defend themselves they would be labeled “terrorists” and no longer “civilians”. How convenient coming from a country that prides itself on arming the population incase of just such a crisis. Also just because you have a written policy of not targeting civilians, I would argue that a vast majority of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were infact civilians.

Don’t forget that the west is also very adapt at killing people in third world countries through many other more efficient means besides war. Economic warfare and social engineering work wonders.

[3g4u]

:facepalm: at all the terrorist sympathizers in this thread. Your guy's BS is getting old and outdated like the loser terrorists you support.:thumbsdow

[googe]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Do you really think that a *insert democratic nation of white people here* would really just go and blow up a village full of kids just cause?



Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I'd like you to explain to me WHY it would EVER be in the best interest of the US, or Canada to blow up some kids even if they are doing it for some sort of "diabolical" plan they have :rofl:


you're right, thats a weird thought. its hard to imagine anyone would do that, let alone the US.

Pop quiz, the following describes one, and only one country, which is it?

1) The only country to ever conduct an attack with a nuclear weapon
2) The only country to ever conduct 2 attacks with a nuclear weapon
3) The only country to ever use a weapon of mass destruction
4) The country responsible for the single largest single act of devastation to all life in history, killing about 200,000 - 300,000 people, and nearly erasing 2 cities from the map entirely in a matter of seconds
5) A country that did 1-4, deliberately targeting non-military targets, not even pretending to target military targets, but for the sole purpose of maximum devastation for "psychological effect", specifically aimed at the most densely civilian populated areas, which top officials of the time, as well as now, agree was completely unnecessary

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7114/258/1600/117714/hiro1.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Nagasaki_1945_-_Before_and_after_%28adjusted%29.jpg/547px-Nagasaki_1945_-_Before_and_after_%28adjusted%29.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7114/258/400/422707/hiroshima-damage.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7114/258/400/251577/bischof.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/7114/258/400/725528/16-2.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/y/U/hn13.gif



Radiation deaths were still occurring in large numbers in the following days. "For no apparent reason their health began to fail. They lost appetite. Their hair fell out. Bluish spots appeared on their bodies. And then bleeding began from the ears, nose and mouth".

Doctors "gave their patients Vitamin A injections. The results were horrible. The flesh started rotting from the hole caused by the injection of the needle. And in every case the victim died".



By August 8, 1945, newspapers in the US were reporting that broadcasts from Radio Tokyo had described the destruction observed in Hiroshima. "Practically all living things, human and animal, were literally seared to death," Japanese radio announcers said in a broadcast captured by Allied sources.


"If they do not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." -President Harry Truman


Heh, 9/11? We think that's a big deal?

I'm not a sympathizer or apologist by any means, but by any definition of the word terrorism, the US easily has the largest terrorist attack on their resume.


Originally posted by Toms-SC


:rofl:

You forget one fundamental thing. One purposely targets civilians, the other does not. If the United States wanted to kill everything living with their technology they would have done so already and with fantastic results. 100% efficiently I would dare say.

you're right, but you're forgetting one more fundamental thing. they did.

[/////AMG]

^that is fucked up. I've never seen picture I think. What does it look like now? Probably not much different?

[dezmarez]

ya but the nuclear bombs stopped WW2,
how many more people do u think would have died if the war had kept going and the bombs were never dropped?

edit-just reading on a site about the bombings, pretty horrible stuff... http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html

[trikypenguin]

Originally posted by BigMass


So I guess you wouldn’t feel that badly if Iraqis or Afghanis used cruise missiles to take out a Lockheed Martin factory in the US and kill innocent workers. Because killing with technology is more civilized than killing with a suicide bomb right?

Also terrorist hide amongst innocent people? I don’t see George Bush or Dick Cheney on the frontlines do you? You're the one with the biased view.

Really? Are you serious? I don't see OBL or any of his high ranking commanders anywhere near the front lines, rather they are hiding out in a cave somewhere....i hardly call that the front lines. They have soliders on the ground that do their fight just as the USA does. Oh and since when do the american troops dress to blend in with the local populance? Mmmm thats right they don't, they also don't barricade themselves in hospitals or in buildings with women and children as shields......

[googe]

Originally posted by /////AMG
^that is fucked up. I've never seen picture I think. What does it look like now? Probably not much different?

most people havent, there were serious efforts to hide the imagery in both countries. not many pictures of it exist, but there are a handful. i didnt post pics of people, but picture a bunch of zombies with half their flesh seared off walking around. those are the ones that werent among the thousands that literally vaporized and disappeared in place. there are pics of shadows actually staining walls and roads where the people were standing, and all the clocks and watches found are frozen at 8:15 when the bomb detonated. pretty creepy :)

this is a pretty good enactment, with survivor accounts (with some actual photos worked in)
x9lwvImJqT0

its actually all rebuilt now. there are a few wrecked building remains left as historic sites, but these days its a nice city. gotta admire their response though - most people, after taking a hit like that, would be seeing red with rage. the japanese response was that they never want to see that happen again to them, their friends, or their enemies, and they have upheld a self-imposed ban to obtain, or participate in the manufacturing or use of nuclear weapons.


Originally posted by dezmarez
ya but the nuclear bombs stopped WW2,
how many more people do u think would have died if the war had kept going and the bombs were never dropped?

edit-just reading on a site about the bombings, pretty horrible stuff... http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html

japan had already lost, were out of resources, and were facing a USSR invasion. the top military generals at the time and various other officials agreed with that, but the president stubbornly ignored them.

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy

"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.

"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and Author of "Myths of August"

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[BigMass]

Originally posted by trikypenguin


Really? Are you serious? I don't see OBL or any of his high ranking commanders anywhere near the front lines, rather they are hiding out in a cave somewhere....i hardly call that the front lines. They have soliders on the ground that do their fight just as the USA does. Oh and since when do the american troops dress to blend in with the local populance? Mmmm thats right they don't, they also don't barricade themselves in hospitals or in buildings with women and children as shields......

Because they don’t NEED to? Get it?

I don’t even see how you can make a comparison. You assume US troops would act differently if the US was invaded, the US had no weapons outside of AK47s, RPGs and IEDs while the invaders had the technology to take out a whole battalion with one cruise missile using satellite technology.

US troops would try to blend into the population because if they stayed on bases they’d be exterminated within minutes of their positions being identified.

People act the way they do because of the situation they’re forced into. We made those people what they are. We created those murderers through our own murderous actions. We would act no differently had the roles been reversed. Trying to make comparisons when the situations are so different that it’s asinine. Try to see the situation from both sides.

Oh wait nm. lets turn off our brains. We're the good guys, they're the bad guys. Ok got it. thanks.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I'd like you to explain to me WHY it would EVER be in the best interest of the US, or Canada to blow up some kids even if they are doing it for some sort of "diabolical" plan they have :rofl:

And if you are justifying that the extremists (of any sort) have ANY reasonable argument to thier actions, then the USA definitely does as well. Good god, the extremist lovers on beyond :thumbsdow

I'm not condoning the killing of innocent civillians in any way, regardless of the 'reasons' behind it. However American forces are not always high and mighty on their moral horse. They have killed civilians for shits and giggles before, and not by accident.



The My Lai Massacre, approximately was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians and some of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on March 16, 1968. Some of the victims were sexually abused, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated.

"He fired at it [the baby] with a .45. He missed. We all laughed. He got up three or four feet closer and missed again. We laughed. Then he got up right on top and plugged him"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

THIS is the kind of shit that makes extremists - had this massacare happened in today's age we might have seen Vietnamese extremists as well.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by dezmarez
ya but the nuclear bombs stopped WW2,
how many more people do u think would have died if the war had kept going and the bombs were never dropped?

edit-just reading on a site about the bombings, pretty horrible stuff... http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html

^^ This

It's unfortunate the Americans had to drop the bomb, but lets face it - they knew the Japanese would NEVER stop until they were all killed. They had to flex their muscles a bit... again killing civilians should NEVER be an option so its tragic they did this, even if it did stop the war.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by hampstor



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

THIS is the kind of shit that makes extremists - had this massacare happened in today's age we might have seen Vietnamese extremists as well.

Keep in mind, a lot of the soldiers in Vietnam didnt want to be there. They weren't trained with the same discipline then as they are now. But I agree, thats a nightmare.

[bspot]

American military helicopters attacked a farm in eastern Syria close to the border with Iraq yesterday, killing eight people, the Syrian Government said. There was outrage in Damascus and the Foreign Ministry summoned the US and Iraqi envoys to protest about the operation.


An Iraqi security source in Baghdad also confirmed that eight people had been killed. The Syrian Government claimed that four children were among the dead.

Suleiman Ghadban, head of the hospital in Bou Kamal, said: “The hospital received seven bodies aged between 16 and 50 and three wounded, including the mother of the [deceased] family.”


So you wouldn't attack foreign soldiers if they were pulling this crap in your country?

No excuses will ever be made for my by the religious fanatics that carry out attacks (there are Christian religious fanatics that are just as bad as Muslim ones, perhaps not as wide spread because they aren't living in regions of poverty and turmoil). But you can see how people get sucked into these organizations growing up with their family members getting killed by foreign soldiers who you don't understand why they are even in your part of the world.

[dezmarez]

i think the whole argument is guys walking into railway stations and hotels and killing people...not people killing soilders with roadside bombs etc..

[bashir26]

Originally posted by dezmarez
i think the whole argument is guys walking into railway stations and hotels and killing people...not people killing soilders with roadside bombs etc..

You're making it seem like the countries in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't killed innocent people. The death toll in Iraq last year was over 600,000 vs 4000 americans.

I completely disagree with civilian killings, even Islam teachings go against civilian, woman, and children killings.

[ragu]

Originally posted by bashir26


You're making it seem like the countries in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't killed innocent people. The death toll in Iraq last year was over 600,000 vs 4000 americans.

I completely disagree with civilian killings, even Islam teachings go against civilian, woman, and children killings.

^^+1
After the sources googe presented, I am surprised all these people are still bringing up debate of terrorists vs war. The fact is that to justify your opinion you're saying, "it's okay to kill for oil/ dominance; but if suppressed people fight back, that is what you called terrorism"

Now I am obviously not saying what ever happened in Mumbai was right, obviously its pathetic and should've never happened but the debate over Iraq, AFG is pointless and we'll know what the truth really is....
Now I bet that you believe that 911 was not an inside job.:rofl:

[rps13_sx]

so this is what happening after the attacks:
http://forum.uncoverreality.com/audio-video/53042-hindu-mobs-brutally-attack-muslims-christians-presence-police.html
what a bunch of pussies

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by 10secondpaki
the biggest terrorist act was when the non Muslim , Seik Terrorists took down Air India, all put together in Canada. Yet they are the people who run our airport security checks..

And they all walked away free.

Canada will not forget the victims.

The biggest terrorist act was when the US dropped nukes on Japan.

It's amazing what you can do with a decent budget.

[Eleanor]

Wow, I missed this thread on the first go around.

Googe, I'm going to have to disagree with what you've posted. While it is true that the US is the only country in the world to use a nuclear weapon against another country, implying that that event makes them predisposed to killing civilians today is ridiculous. It's like saying that because the Germans killed a bunch of Jews 60 years ago, it makes them more likely to commit genocide now. Why didn't the Americans just nuke North Korea, or Vietnam, or Cuba? Because they learned their lesson after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are not intentionally bombing civilians, as much as some people would lead you to believe. Terrorists, however, are knowingly and intentionally killing civilians. There's a huge difference.

One last thing, I really hate it when people are like "Muslims should apologize for what Al-Qaeda is doing." That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Moderate Muslims should not be apologizing for the actions of their misguided peers, doing so would only imply that they had some involvement in the matter which they don't.

[Toma]

Terrorizing the civilian population the the MO of the US government.

They cannot and have not won a war without using the tactic.

[B20EF]

Originally posted by Eleanor
It's like saying that because the Germans killed a bunch of Jews 60 years ago, it makes them more likely to commit genocide now.

The Nazis didn't win the war. If they had I'll bet they would be more likely to commit genocide than any other group.