Why Bomb Afghanistan?

[LayZie G.]

What are you on about? I haven't mocked any ET.

Are you sure? I think you deserve to revisit your previous post and give yourself another try, won't you?

 

What does it mean for you to mock something?

 

When you make the almighty as unreal and an impossible thing, something that believers imagine, you are in fact mocking, thats a fact.

 

When you call allah Nur's imagined friend, you are in fact insinuating that Allah is not real and those that believe Allah are crazies. Thats how I interpreted your post and quite frankly, I thought it was beneath you and unbecoming of you.

 

You are right in that Nur inserted Allah into the discussion about conspiracy theories, which I asked him to directly speak of the issue and to share his position on the subject and I warned you not to fall for the bait, which is why I quoted John Donne but it doesn't mean that you have the right to mock Allah.

 

To believe in Allah means recognizing good over evil, believing in judgement day, knowing that this life is not promised. Believing in Allah means that you are totally submitting to the authority of Allah in this life and the next. I believe that Allah is watching over me, I believe that he listens to my daily prayers and I make no excuse for my beliefs(never have and never will) and its insulting of you to think that I'm somehow 'atoning for my so called sins" over an observation I made on another thread long after I responded to you here.

 

Lastly, I dont think I would have felt complete as a human being and at peace with myself if I did not have faith in Allah.

 

 

I'm quite surprised about you. This is out of character behavior for you. Which leads me to suspect that you're atoning for your sins in the Holy Trinity thread. I'm strapped for time now so we'll respond to that thread another time.

Out of character because I'm a believer and I asked you to be careful of the slippery slop you have entangled yourself in?

 

In case you are wondering, I have never been out of character. I've always been consistent and spoken the truth. Yes, I have been a champion of the little guy but it doesn't mean the little guy can ridicule Allah's existence and get away with it.

 

 

PS: I think you should retract your earlier statement and go on with the discussion and call it a day.

[nuune]

^^ Layzie, Maashaa Allaah, haduu qaadan waayo intaas aad u sheegtay, hade ogoow waxaad la hadleeso banii aadam maskax ku socda ma ahan, innahum illaa kal ancaami weeyan oo waliba balhum adhall, marka ha isku daalin qof summun bukmun cumyun , waa fogaadey ee Ilaahay xaqa ha tuso, xataa haduu yaqaano qaabka loo doodo waxbey ahaan laheed.

[Johnny B]

Ehem ehem .. war bal uyara kaadsha.

 

Firstly, Ilaahey ha ina wada hanuniyo ( haduu jiro ), secondly, annaguna aanu is fahamno.

 

saas waaye sheekadu, ma fahminoo?!

Somalis without "Ciyaal xamar" weligood isma fahmayaan

 

First off is cawaale, my close freind.

Cawalka , sxb horta ku bishaareyso , Arbacada 5-0 ka yar ma idinka badin doono., teeda kale , qofka aan Aaminsaneyn in ilaah jiro , tanag maran maaha, waa uun sidey adiga kula tahay, adiga unbey kula tahay hadii Sawirka ilaah ee lagugu anqariyay aad weydo , in aad gorof ( wax maran ) ahaan lahayd, laakin runtu sidaa maaha.

Runtii, dadkeenan aan aaminsaneyn jiritaanka Ilaah, kalsooni iyo wanaag badan baa ina dhex jiifa,Hadii dhib nagu dhaco, sabata uu u dhacay iyaa inoogu filan qanac, uma baahnin in aanu isku sabarsiino ama isku qancino in Ilaah sheekada ka dambeyo, xitaa hadii Barcelona oo aanu aad u taageerno laga badiyo, sababtii looga badiyay ayaanu ku qanacnaa, moojee in aanu Ilaah baa halkaa mariyay oo sidaa arrinka ka dhigay,ku qanacno uma baahnin,sida dadkiina jiritaan Ilaah aaminsan aad dhib iyo wanaagba (inta badan wanaaga) aa qoorta Ilaah u gelisaan, hadaba sidaa ula soco sxbow.

 

Second off is Gabadheyda Layzie,

Abti, Raamsade, khalad baad u fahamtay, Sheikh Nur baa Ilaah meesha soo dhex dhigay, isagoo ku andacoonaya in Ilaah uu qolyaha Nuur is xejinayo (waa Talibaanka ) taageero, sidaana ay guusha iyagu mar walba leeyihiin, Halkaa ayuu Raamsade kala qaaday oo xussusiyay Nur in isaga iyo qolyahan uu ku andacooday in Ilaah kaalmeeyo, ay Jabeen oo laga adkaaday, sidaa awgeedna uu arrinku laba mid yahay .

1: Waa marka hore e Ilaah baan markii horeba la jirin oo aan taageereyn,oo qolyaha kale taageerayay.( tani waa ta keentay in Raamsade isticmaalo eraygiisii wanaagsanaa ee ahaa " Ilaahaagaa yare sxbkaaya " )

2: Ilaah arrinkan kuma jiro , ragguna kala adkaa, qolyaha laga adkaadayna warkoodu waa tororog.

 

And last but not least, let me turn to Nuune.

waraa fiiri , nacalaa iskaarbahaag ku taalee , shimee naqatay seef la bood iyo ana-wey-kan Wahaabi-Shababi?, mowlaca macalin Nur, iyo zabtaa noo ballan ah.

Hammarkullen waa ka guuray , mar danbena igu arkimeydid.

 

Abkowyaasheen wexey yiraahdeen.

114 baan aqaan, kaa akhrisan maayaa ka weyn.

 

The bottom line of this thread and the whole farce of Nur is based upon the famouse conspiracy theory against Islam.

 

Inta Xiin, Baashe iyo Ngonge ay halkaa marmarayaan oo leeyihiin , " Allow Johnny ma yidhi", Anigu Nur kutiri kuteenkaa ka akhrisanmayo.

 

[nuune]

^^ Johny, hadalka badan intaad iska deyso, sxbkaa RAAMSADE ma ku raacsantahay the mockings and name calling uu Allah ula kacey, yes, or no, that post might not be there any longer, but you either agree with him, or disagree with him, maskax fayoow oo ka nabad gashey dhusuq, wasaqq iyo qurun hdalkii RAAMSADE ma aqbaleeso!

 

Waan ogahay inaad meeshaa ka guurtey, waana kuugu imaan meeshaad tagto ee summerkan ii sii gogol xaar awoowe anaa ku jilcin doonee, adigu ma aadan fogaan balse wali cayaalka xaafadaa tahay

 

 

hadaanse seef la bood ku noqdey telling the truth, then by all means, boqol seef la bood ayaan ahey oo baangado iyo mindiyo garbaha iyo dhabarkaba ku sito.

[Johnny B]

^Ma adig oo labadii wadaad ee Jahova wittness xiijiyay ayaa aniga hadal badi igu eedi kara?!!

 

Horta waa runtaa oo kuma raacsani sxbkey Raamsade in uu mock greyo ama uu ugu yeedho names wax aanu garaneyn waxa ay yihiin, ( waan ku ogahay , waxaad is leedahay , muu laakiinta ka daayo ) laakin, and to your disappointment Raamsade maskadiisu wey ka nabad gashay Dhusuq iyo wassaq labadaba, ee adna noo qafiifi oo garwaaqso,( waa tii la yidhi, Rag iska dhicin iyo rabbi ca cabsasho meel ma wada galaane), oo si fiican u debci karavatiga, ee garwaaqso in Nur halkaa iyo Ilaah doodii labadooda ka dhexeysay la galay.

 

Waa kuu diyaar gogoshi, waa kuu sii xaar xaaray qolkii adiga iyo mistress kagu aad ka degi leheydeen,Pizzaiadii aad ka cuni leheydeen ( walana Waffles iyo bancakes kuu dubin ) ee Tabliiq uun ha ii keenin.

 

 

lol @ mindiyo garbaha iyo dhabarkaba ku sito.

 

Ps.. weligaaba seef la bood aa ska eheyd , ee Tuujiye markii la arkay aa miskiin lagu mooday.

[genius pauper.]

~~`empty vessels make most noise!!!

 

ultimum puzzle,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i am and am not just mean i was and I aint, if being is, i dont know what is, is,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

ninbo meeshu udhumo ayuu reerkii moodaa,

 

p.s. rag iska dhicin iyo RABI ka cabsasho meel ma wada galaan,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i thought only qofkii aaminsan RABBI inuu isticmaali karo this mahmaah, and this justifies jb knows the existence of RABBI

[Cawaale]

Johny Boy, waan hubay in aad imaaneysid wallahi(horta diinlaawayaasha Soomaalida ah yay ku dhaartaan? maxayse wallahi u sicticmaalan horta?). RSSBot maa tahay waa kaa yaabee. Sheekooyinkaan alaabahaaga waaye. saa u joogtid aa dalaq soo dhahee. :cool:

 

Waxaan rabaa in aan mid iyo laba kaa dhaho "Sabab iyo Sabab la'aan-ta, Aaminaadda Alle iyo Inkiraadeeda). Laakin inta aanan taas u gudbin, waxaan rabaa in aad ku xasuusiyo in aan comment-geygii hore ku dhahay ina adeerkaa "you wil be offended, hadii aan kuu sheego what do i think of you" oo ay ka mid aheed "gorofnimada" marka sxb warka hala qaraabeeyo, ninkaan naga qabo oo aan ka nasano isna hana nasto, sidoo kale tell him he won’t convert anyone to atheism by insulting them( i know why he is here). marka ma maqaldanahay sxb?

 

Arinta ku qancista qadarta alle(ee adigu aaminsaneyn)samaheeda iyo xumaanteedaba waxay u laabaneysaa qofka iyo Iimaankiisa, xatata dadka alle rumeysan dhexdooda ayaa ku sii kala fog. taasna ma rabi in aan waqti iyo bandwidth ku qasaariyo. laakin wax yar aan ku weydiiyo. Haddii aan ku dhaho "nin duulayaa iga horyimid xalay saq dhexe" ma i aaimneysaa? waxay u badantahay in aad i weydiineyso in aan soo sawiray iyo in kale? bal ka waran haddii aan kuu shegeo in aanan soo sawirin. waxay u badantahay in aadan i aamineynin(laga yaabee in aad i aamintid, haddii aad ogaato in aan cidda ahay). hadii aad maskaxda ka shaqeysiisid waxaa arkeysaaa in "Aaaminaadda lafteeda ay tahay " ku qancis" adigaa isku qanciyay in aad aamintid waxii kula quman sax? Adeeroow anagana waxii nala quman aan aminno noo daaya. Sheekadu isku ma xernee.

 

JB, Qoftii sijuuda ahayd aan ku weydii lahaay, laakin raggiinaan xishoodkaa idinku yar nooh(Dameereey dad ku xeer ma ahan ),Afkaa iska furahee haddaa rabtid. Marka ku weydiin maayo, waan ka gud baadaaya.

 

Nuune, in aad seefaha dhigtay aan kuu maleyhaayay "Awguuriyo" sxb. waxyaabahaan oo kale waa in seefo loo qaato mid warkeedaba daay.

[Nur]

God Help America!

[Nur]

War on Terror logic

By Glenn Greenwald

 

*

 

(updated below)

 

The U.S. war in (against) Pakistan continues to escalate, as Pakistanis attacked NATO tankers carrying fuel through their country to soldiers in Afghanistan last night, killing three people, an attack that was in retaliation for vastly increased U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan this month, which were ordered in alleged response to reports of increased Terrorist threats aimed at Europe, which, in turn, were in retaliation for the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan (as evidenced by the large numbers of individuals of Afghan descent involved in these plots). Jim White -- in a post this morning entitled "Stuck in Feedback Loop: Drone Strikes Provoke Terrorists Who Provoke More Drone Strikes" -- documents exactly the process at play here:

 

The situation in Pakistan appears to have reached a point where a positive feedback loop prompts continued escalation on both sides. The US sees drone attacks as its primary weapon and has stepped up such attacks in the belief that they will create more security for military actions in Afghanistan and disrupt planning of terrorist attacks on the West. Instead, the attacks appear to enrage the surviving targets, recruit more to their ranks and lead to more attacks.

 

What a surprise: bombing Muslims more and more causes more and more Muslims to want to bomb the countries responsible. That, of course, has long been the perverse "logic" driving the War on Terror. The very idea that we're going to reduce Terrorism by more intensively bombing more Muslim countries is one of the most patently absurd, self-contradicting premises that exists. It's exactly like announcing that the cure for lung cancer is to quadruple the number of cigarettes one smokes each day. But that's been the core premise (at least the stated one) of our foreign policy for the last decade: we're going to stop Terrorism by doing more and more of exactly the things that cause it (and see this very good Economist article on the ease with which drones allow a nation's leaders to pretend to its citizenry that they are not really at war -- as we're doing with Pakistan).

 

Speaking of counter-productive U.S. actions in Pakistan, this Washington Post article from Friday discusses the possibility that a coup could be engineered in that country to overthrow the current Government and replace it with one that is friendlier to U.S. interests:

 

U.S. officials pointed to recent signs that Pakistan's powerful army and opposition parties are positioning themselves to install a new civilian government to replace President Asif Ali Zardari and his prime minister in the coming months. . . . U.S. officials indicated that the administration has begun to contemplate the effects of a change, engineered through Zardari's resignation as head of his political party, the dissolution of the current coalition government, or a call for new elections under the Pakistani constitution, rather than any overt action by the military. Some suggested that a new, constitutionally-approved government that was more competent and popular, and had strong military backing, might be better positioned to support U.S. policies.

 

The article does not say that the U.S. is actively involved in those efforts, but it's very difficult to imagine American military and intelligence officials simply sitting passively by as a coup is underway in a country (like Pakistan) where we are so invested, just keeping their fingers crossed that it results in a new government "better positioned to support U.S. policies." Whatever else is true, it's very easy to imagine how such a coup -- resulting in a more U.S.-friendly government -- will be perceived in that country and around the Muslim world. That perception is unlikely to help reduce the threat of Terrorism.

 

For more on the growing U.S. war in (on) Pakistan, watch this quite good Rachel Maddow monologue from Thursday night:

 

 

 

UPDATE: Here's a reminder of what a 2004 Task Force convened by Donald Rumsfeld said about the actual causes of Terrorism and, specifically, the effects on Terrorism from our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The whole Report is worth reviewing, but among the highlights: (a) the "underlying sources of threats to America's national security" are grounded in "negative attitudes" towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and "the conditions that create them"; (b) what what most exacerbates anti-American sentiment, and therefore the threat of Terrorism, is "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" -- through our "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan"; and © "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies."

[Muriidi]

اليهود والنصارى يحاولون لشدة حسدهم لهذه الأمة إخراجها من الدين الحق إلى غيره من أديان الكفر، إما باتباع دينهم المحرف، وهذا ما يفعله المنصرون، وإما باتباع مبادئ كفر يبثها اليهود في أوساط المسلمين، بعناوين متنوعة، كالنوادي والأحزاب

 

 

web page

[Nur]

Chomsky: US-led Afghan War, Criminal

 

By Press TV

 

November 03,2010 "Press TV" -- Renowned Jewish-American scholar Noam Chomsky says US invasion of Afghanistan was illegal since to date there is no evidence that al-Qaeda has carried out the 9/11 attacks.

 

"The explicit and declared motive of the [Afghanistan] war was to compel the Taliban to turn over to the United States, the people who they accused of having been involved in World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist acts. The Taliban…they requested evidence…and the Bush administration refused to provide any," the 81-year-old senior academic made the remarks on Press TV's program a Simple Question.

 

"We later discovered one of the reasons why they did not bring evidence: they did not have any."

 

The political analyst also said that nonexistence of such evidence was confirmed by FBI eight months later.

 

"The head of FBI, after the most intense international investigation in history, informed the press that the FBI believed that the plot may have been hatched in Afghanistan, but was probably implemented in the United Arab Emirates and Germany."

 

Chomsky added that three weeks into the war, "a British officer announced that the US and Britain would continue bombing, until the people of Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban... That was later turned into the official justification for the war."

 

"All of this was totally illegal. It was more, criminal," Chomsky said.

 

The 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan was launched with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country.

 

Nine years on, however, the American and Afghan officials admit that the country remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the heaviest price.

[Nur]

“What is Al Qaeda? The truth is there is no Al Qaeda,”

Yemen’s Drive on Al Qaeda Faces Internal Skepticism

 

By MONA EL-NAGGAR and ROBERT F. WORTH

 

November 04, 2010 "NY Times" -- Nov, 03, 2010 -- SANA, Yemen — As Yemen intensifies its military campaign against Al Qaeda’s regional arm, it faces a serious obstacle: most Yemenis consider the group a myth, or a ploy by their president to squeeze the West for aid money and punish his domestic opponents.

 

Those cynical attitudes — rooted in Yemen’s history of manipulative politics — complicate any effort to track down the perpetrators of the recent plot to send explosives by courier to the United States. They also make it harder to win public support for the fight against jihadist violence, whatever label one attaches to it.

 

“What is Al Qaeda? The truth is there is no Al Qaeda,” said Lutfi Muhammad, a weary-looking unemployed 50-year-old walking through this city’s tumultuous Tahrir Square. Instead, he said, the violence is “because of the regime and the lack of stability and the internal struggles.”

 

That view, echoed across Yemen, is only partly a conspiracy theory. The Yemeni government has used jihadists as proxy soldiers in the past, and sometimes conflates the Qaeda threat and the unrelated political insurgencies it has fought in northern and southern Yemen in recent years. In a country where political and tribal violence is endemic, it is often impossible to tell who is killing whom, and why.

 

One thing is clear: Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has stepped up his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda in the past year, with far more military raids and airstrikes, including some carried out by the American military. His government has paid a price. On Saturday, a day after the discovery of the air freight bomb plot, Mr. Saleh said during a news conference that Al Qaeda had killed 70 police officers and soldiers in the past four weeks. That is a sharp increase over previous years, and some analysts have taken it as proof that Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based branch is growing.

 

But many Yemenis seem doubtful that Al Qaeda was guilty in all or even most of those killings, which took place in the same southern parts of the country where a secessionist movement has been growing for the past three years.

 

“We cannot differentiate between what is propaganda and what is real,” said Abdullah al-Faqih, a professor of political science at Sana University. “It’s impossible to tell who is killing who; you have tribal feuds, Al Qaeda and the Southern Movement, and the state is doing a lot of manipulation.”

 

In a sense, there are two narratives about Al Qaeda in Yemen. One of them, presented by both the Yemeni government and Al Qaeda’s Internet postings — and echoed in the West — portrays a black-and-white struggle between the groups. The other narrative is the view from the ground in Yemen: a confusing welter of attacks by armed groups with shifting loyalties, some fighting under political or religious banners, some merely looking for money.

 

The Yemeni authorities have long paid tribal leaders to fight domestic enemies, or even other tribes that were causing trouble for the government. That policy has helped foster a culture of blackmail: some tribal figures promote violence, whether through jihadists or mere criminals, and then offer to quell it in exchange for cash.

 

“Some of what looks like Al Qaeda is really terror as a business,” Mr. Faqih said.

 

Yemen’s tribes are often cast as the chief obstacle in the fight against Al Qaeda, sheltering the militants because of tribal hospitality or even ideological kinship. In fact, few tribal leaders have any sympathy for the group, and some tribes have forced Qaeda members to leave their areas in the past year.

 

In a statement released Tuesday, a group identifying itself as Al Qaeda members from the Awlaq tribe — one of Yemen’s largest — pleaded with their fellow tribesmen for support, noting that “we were deeply saddened to see the leaders, chiefs, and dignitaries of our community go personally to meet with the government envoy.”

 

Instead, Al Qaeda seems to thrive where tribal authority has eroded, or in the southern areas where hatred of the government is most intense. In many of the recent attacks, it is difficult to draw a line between Al Qaeda and angry, impoverished young men who have easy access to weapons.

 

This is particularly true of the secessionist movement in the south. “There are many unemployed young men and people with personal interests who rebelled against the state and against the movement itself,” said Saleh al-Hanashi, an adviser to the governor of Abyan, a southern province where the protest movement thrives and many of the recent killings have taken place. “They became these chaos-inciting groups. And these groups now in Abyan shoot at cars belonging to the state and do other destructive acts against the state.” This kind of vandalism is easily attributed to Al Qaeda, whether the group claims responsibility for it or not. The latest issue of the group’s English-language magazine, Inspire, features a banner headline on the front cover: “Photos From the Operations of Abyan.” Inside, there are gruesome pictures of burning Jeeps and dead Yemeni soldiers.

 

Many southerners view Mr. Saleh’s government as an occupying force, and while the secessionist movement’s leaders say they reject violence, some of its members may be willing to make common cause with jihadists. North and south Yemen, once separate countries, unified in 1990, then fought a bitter civil war four years later. Many in the south say they have been treated unequally ever since.

 

It is possible that the worsening carnage in southern Yemen, and Al Qaeda’s claims of responsibility for it, will eventually lead to a shift in perceptions and broader support for the government’s agenda. That is what happened in Saudi Arabia, where attitudes toward Al Qaeda were similar to those in Yemen until the group began carrying out bloody attacks in Saudi cities in 2003. Public opinion soon swung sharply against the jihadists, and by 2006 the Saudis had crushed the group.

 

That is far less likely in Yemen, with its terrible poverty and weak central government. For now, most Yemenis seem to dismiss reports of Al Qaeda killings as a “masrah,” or drama, staged by the government and its American backers. The suspicion runs so deep that any action by the Yemeni government seems to confirm it: counterterrorist raids are often described as punitive measures against domestic foes, and the failure to act decisively is derided as collusion.

 

“This latest episode with the packages is only making it worse,” said Mr. Faqih, the Sana University professor. “Many people think it was all about the elections in the U.S., or an excuse for American military intervention here.”

Mona El-Naggar reported from Sana, and Robert F. Worth from Beirut, Lebanon.

 

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

[LayZie G.]

Nur, how long ago did you create this thread?

 

How much time has passed since the United States invasion of Afghanistan?

 

Why do you insist on recycling views of bloggers more so than your own?

 

For example, the article above is entitled, "there is no alqaeda" etc etc, does that mean you agree with the views of its author?

 

Do you believe that the Alqaeda branch of the arabian peninsula is nonexistence? A phantom of sort?

 

Why is it that when you go out of your way to recycle sources, almost always there is one written by the gay blogger, glen greenwald?

 

If you post an article without a commentary or a follow up, an observer almost always reaches the conclusion that you are in full agreement with the points raised by an author on a particular subject, so much so that you left the work of the author to speal for itself....If you agree with his views(the disgruntled gay blogger who has a chip on his shoulder), who has a long history of being critical about U.S policy, both domestic and international, you are in a way supporting his lifestyle, in and outside of print, so which is it? (surely, a man doesnt get up in the morning wanting to crisis his government for its policies unless one is livid about his own role in the fabric of american society)

 

Do you not read with critical eye whenever you come across a sensational piece that has you falling off your chair? Why not question the motives of the author, why not provide me(the reader of this thread) a commentary...give me more to work with, dont let me reach my own conclusions ya NUR.

 

Finally, this brings me back to the reason why I keep coming back to this thread, which is that I'm looking to read something of value, which will start a healthy discussion about afghanistan/iraq/alqaeda, if there is one to be had but I can not tolerate reading recycled material from nugotary sources repeatedly, which is why I had to voice my concern over your selective reading.

 

In addition, I dont know if your remember, you and I got into 'it; a while ago over similar thread about a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who you very much respect and you were in support of his position about 9/11 theories, you found his arguement to be compelling. It was difficult to reason with you much less caution you aout questionable sources.

 

Finally, what is interesting is not what a blogger says but how convincing he is in his art and my question to you is how much of the trash posted above do you buy into?

 

Do you deny Alqaeda's existence? If the answer is yes, on what grounds?

 

 

...and on my last point, which is to say that we are not the tea party movement, we do know take things at face value. We do fact checks, we use logic and reason to reach our conclusions. We do not embrace views of others just because they mirror our very own biased. We have the right to be a skeptic, unless ofcourse, you are a tea bagger who reads a blog or two and reaches a decisive conclusion.

 

 

sincerely,

 

LayZieG

[Ismalura]

If you agree with his views(the disgruntled gay blogger who has a chip on his shoulder), who has a long history of being critical about U.S policy, both domestic and international, you are in a way supporting his lifestyle, in and outside of print, so which is it?

 

@ LazieG, actually posting somebody's work with out personal notes doesn't mean you support their life style it just means you agree with that particular piece of work; you may even disagree with the preceding or following blog on the same topic. That said, Nur should take some time to say something about the things he posts here.

 

On the issue on 9/11 I don't believe that it was an American conspiracy but America did cause it indirectly (like you pointed out earlier). What you do unto other will be done to you. I don't support violence of any kind but the US foreign policies are(and will be) the cause of its own downfall.

 

@ SOL admin why are there fools like Raamsade here airing out their ********* on SOL? I thought no one was allowed to insult Islam on these threads. Tolerance has its limits ee doqomadan mesha ha laga saaro.

[Nur]

LazieG

 

YOu write:

 

Nur, how long ago did you create this thread?

 

November 07, 2001

 

How much time has passed since the United States invasion of Afghanistan?

 

I am sure you can find that out

 

Why do you insist on recycling views of bloggers more so than your own?

 

Insist? who objected to it?

 

For example, the article above is entitled, "there is no alqaeda" etc etc, does that mean you agree with the views of its author?

 

Some of the views.

 

Do you believe that the Alqaeda branch of the arabian peninsula is nonexistence? A phantom of sort?

 

Al Qaeda is a runaway trade mark, anyone can use it for any reason from intelligence organizations to anyone unhappy with the US foreign policy.

 

Why is it that when you go out of your way to recycle sources, almost always there is one written by the gay blogger, glen greenwald?

 

Never checked the authors sexual orientation, Qowmu Lut's story in Quraan has it that they have been destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah. Sorry if I have posted someone you extremely hate for their sin. InshAllah I will try to be careful next time.

 

If you post an article without a commentary or a follow up, an observer almost always reaches the conclusion that you are in full agreement with the points raised by an author on a particular subject,

 

Almost always? any statistics to support this statement?

 

 

Do you not read with critical eye whenever you come across a sensational piece that has you falling off your chair?

 

I post topics that interest me, without agreeing with it 100%, and expect a response to start a discussion, but due to the totalitarian nature of the new world order, no one has responded to the thread, so, I took freedom to post more and more till I got your attention, which is very healthy no matter where you stand on the argument.

 

 

Why not question the motives of the author, why not provide me(the reader of this thread) a commentary...give me more to work with, dont let me reach my own conclusions ya NUR.

 

I would have done it if you throw in your two cents, you need two opposing views for criticism.

 

 

Finally, this brings me back to the reason why I keep coming back to this thread, which is that I'm looking to read something of value, which will start a healthy discussion about afghanistan/iraq/alqaeda,

 

It would help if you make your values known and respond to the content I posted, be specific sis.

 

 

I can not tolerate reading recycled material from nugotary sources repeatedly, which is why I had to voice my concern over your selective reading.

 

Never meant to torture you sis.

 

 

In addition, I dont know if your remember, you and I got into 'it; a while ago over similar thread about a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who you very much respect and you were in support of his position about 9/11 theories, you found his arguement to be compelling. It was difficult to reason with you much less caution you aout questionable sources.

 

 

Lazieg G, if you have an interest to debate the 911 story let me know, I will open a thread for it.

 

 

Finally, what is interesting is not what a blogger says but how convincing he is in his art and my question to you is how much of the trash posted above do you buy into?

 

You are not objective here sis, so far you have not objected to any statement with a sound counterpoint, whining is not a good way to air your opinion.

 

Do you deny Alqaeda's existence? If the answer is yes, on what grounds?

 

I have answered this above

 

 

...and on my last point, which is to say that we are not the tea party movement, we do know take things at face value. We do fact checks, we use logic and reason to reach our conclusions. We do not embrace views of others just because they mirror our very own biased. We have the right to be a skeptic, unless ofcourse, you are a tea bagger who reads a blog or two and reaches a decisive conclusion.

 

 

Please post your opinion that reflects all of the above, if you can think clearly, you shouldn't have any problem composing a logical answer.

 

 

sincerely,

 

Nur