Discussion » Nonsense » Al Qaeda in Yemen claims attack on U.S. airline

  • wrote:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/al-qaeda-claims-responsibility-attempted-plane-bom/

    WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula on Monday claimed responsibility for the attack on a U.S. airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day, saying it was retaliation for a U.S. operation against the group in Yemen.

    Federal authorities met Monday to reassess the U.S. system of terror watchlists to determine how to avoid the type of lapse that allowed a man with explosives to board the flight in Amsterdam even though he was flagged as a possible terrorist.

    In a statement posted on the Internet, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab coordinated with members of the group, an alliance of militants based in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

    Yemeni forces, helped by U.S. intelligence, carried out two airstrikes against al Qaeda operatives in the country this month. The second one was a day before Abdulmutallab attempted to bring down a Northwest Airlines flight as it prepared to land in Detroit.

    The group said Abdulmutallab used explosives manufactured by al Qaeda members. "He managed to penetrate all devices and modern advanced technology and security checkpoints in international airports bravely without fear of death," the group said in the statement, "relying on God and defying the large myth of American and international intelligence, and exposing how fragile they are, bringing their nose to the ground, and making them regret all what they spent on security technology."

    The group also released what it said was a photo of Abdulmutallab, smiling in a white shirt and white Islamic skullcap, overlaid on a graphic showing a plane taking off. In a second version of the same photo, he is shown with the al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula banner in the background.

    The claim of responsibility was dated Saturday but posted on Monday on a Web site frequently used by militants to disseminate their messages.

    The Obama administration has ordered investigations into how travelers are placed on watch lists and how passengers are screened, as critics and administration officials questioned how Abdulmutallab was allowed to board the flight. A senior U.S. intelligence official said authorities were reviewing the procedures that govern the lists, which could include how someone is placed on or moved between the various databases.

    "Why wasn't he flagged at a higher screening level?" Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on ABC's "Good Morning America." ''How did he get an explosive substance on to the plane? All of those are serious questions that we are now looking at."
  • wrote:
    It is dangerous to travel by plane.
  • DonkeyTonk
    DonkeyTonk wrote:
    Great bit of analysis there sun.

    I wish western media would stop working out that MUSLIM + TERRORISM = AL Qaeda.

    Young men get (perhaps rightly so) pissed off about the 100,000s of middle eastern lives that get destroyed by the west and I'm surprised people are shocked that these kinds of incidents are the results. The fact is the amount of lives the west have taken in the middle east is nothing compared to the amount of lives taken by Islamic "Terroists".

    In last years Gaza Conflict, over 1000 Palestinians were killed. Less than 20 Isralies were killed.

    Who are the bigger terrorists?
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    It's also dangerous to travel by automobile, train and zippy Vespa scooters.
  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:
    Agreed Richard.

    Also, roller blades can be pretty hazardous
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Don't forget about roller skates, motorcycles (both with and without sidecars), unicycles and Segways.
  • Tian 王倚天
    Not wearing the right footwear can really take it's toll over time, causing serious health affects. Not cushioning your shoes or wearing ones with poor stability can be pretty dangerous.
  • Notoro Kawabata
    muslim, corn flakes, honey nut's. respect each other taste, peace man!
  • Andrew Naramore
    Richard, your ignorance is astounding. You clearly lack an understanding of the GWOT (not overseas contingency operation....sorry Obama!) and of the Muslim world in general. Let me just point off a few things. First off, be careful of your terminology. Middle Eastern is not synonymous with Muslim. Secondly, what appears to be your justification for Islamic terrorism is totally incorrect. In this case the "Underpants Bomber" was from Nigeria, which isn't even located in the "Middle East", and therefore it would be difficult to see any sort of anger about the "100000s of Middle Eastern lives lost."

    However most of what I just said is immaterial, because I knew what you meant (you were still wrong though). Here is where you are incredibly wrong and misguided: this 23 year old was carrying out an al-qaeda attack (al-qaeda already took credit). Most of these sophisticated attacks are conducted by terrorist organizations affiliated or belonging to al-qaeda. No 23 year old on the planet knows the weaknesses of the airport security well enought to exploit it with an underwear bomb. He obviously had training and support (which he did in Yemen). Furthermore, you seem to justify these attacks by blaming the west for 100,000s of deaths that occur in the "Middle East." You're a fool, for the majority of the murders that occur in the "Middle East" are attacks from Islamist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Look at Iraq...Coalition troops have killed far fewer innocents than the several hundred Islamist groups that TARGET innocent civilians. Spare me the liberal meme blaming the U.S. for this. Also, forget about Gaza...Hamas' leadership is just as responsible for those 1000 lives seeing as they provoked an attack by launching rockets into Israel. Also, Israel is not the West, so please do not blame the Western World for their behavior.

    Get a clue "bruddah." (Dog the Bounty Hunter)
  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    no religion allows murder of inoccents islam in particular ,then andrew u r justifing the israelian attack on Gaza i mean u know how many inoccents dided in those attacks , if u don't then let me tell u b/w 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. More than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water, while 4,000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless; 80 government buildings were hit in gaza air stirkes 2008.
    u think its not TERRORISM ....?????

    secondly wht think of WAR AGAINTS TERROR...??
    I think the name should b WAR FOR OIL....

    In Afghanistan more than 706,899 people were killed n 1,354,229 were injured till last year..... this is war againts terror of war FOR terror...??
    n then u know wht they did with iraq.

    P:S :-m not here to support those f***in members of Al qaeda ,no one should supports them

  • Andrew Naramore
    Ahlan Fahad,

    I'm not justifying Israel's actions in Gaza. What I said is the Hamas is just a culpable for the Israeli invasion last year. Don't be delusional sadiqi....Hamas launched those rockets knowing damn well that the Israel would respond with a heavy hand. They provoked that invasion on purpose. They clearly did this to bolster their support in Gaza and the West Bank. As you certainly know, Fatah and Hamas are competing for power in Palestine, and Hamas has always sought to be the Palestinian party of resistance. Needless to say, Hamas gambled innocent Palestinian lives for a political power play...they are JUST AS GUILTY as Israel. I'm not arguing that the Israeli response was disproportional. Anyone who can read and understand numbers knows that. However, don't tell me that Hamas didn't start that war on purpose.

    Secondly why is the Global War on Terror a war for oil? Is there oil in Afghanistan? Where is all of the money coming in from Iraqi oil? Where are the massive contracts? If you could track down this money I'd be grateful, considering the U.S. national debt is above 10 trillion dollars. If this is a war for oil, why haven't we invaded Iran, Venezuela, Mexico?, Saudi Arabia, etc.? These are all countries that have access to a great deal of oil. You have no evidence to back that Kharah you've been telling me. Stop lying. If you don't understand me, insa.

  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    Afghanistan ... Uranium / gold / drug money(drug n alcohol was baned in Talibans time) diamonds etc...
    Iron full of oil..... n wht USA is doing in Kuwait .... only for oil money....

    ok now just answer my simple questions .
    Who give weapons to taliban in 1970's?
    Who give weapons to Sadam to attack Iran?
    Why Osama Bin Ladin was hero of usa before 1998?
  • wrote:
    Fahad Hashmi:
    The answer is CIA in the United States.
    I believe there are two major terrorism groups, one is Fundamental Religious Extremist, and the other is CIA, haha
  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    ya Sun ....
    thats CIA ....
    they made taliban's against USSR n then try to destroy them (which the can't)
    they made Osama for that now they wanna kill him coz he is not there MAN anymore.
    they give weapons to Sadam n then kill him coz he was also going down the track.
    9/11 was just a f**kin drama to attack Afgahistan.
  • Andrew Naramore
    Fahad,

    Give me a f*cking break. If Afghanistan were full of natural resources like you claim, it wouldn't be destined to remain such a sh*thole without a future. The United States didn't invade Afghanistan for drugs and gold (seriously where do you come up with this?). Also the Taliban currently uses drug money to help fund its insurgency, so they are not exactly pious true believers (that and they murder innocent people...sharmutas the lot of them). Needless to say, you have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you are not representative of the Muslim world, because your hatred or dislike of the U.S. is based on sheer ignorance.

    Let me answer your questions:

    Who give weapons to taliban in 1970's?
    -Nobody...the Taliban didn't exist until 1994...if you're referring to the "Muj" we didn't supply them covertly until the 80s and those are two different entities.

    Who give weapons to Sadam to attack Iran?
    -Several different countries. The U.S., French, Russians, etc. (the Russians practically outfitted the entire Iraqi army...why didn't the Iraqis drive around Abrams tanks and shoot M-16s? Think about that.) Either way who outfitted their army is irrelevant. I don't see how that factors into any discussion....


    Why Osama Bin Ladin was hero of usa before 1998?
    -Osama Bin Laden was never a hero in the U.S.....ever. He may have indirectly received funds through the U.S. (we gave money to Pakistan which in turned allowed the ISI to hand out the cash, weapons and munitions to which ever group they chose. However most of this money went to Afghans like Hekmatyr and not "Arab Afghans" like Osama Bin Laden who could afford to support themselves [Bin Laden's family is super rich]). Regardless, he was never a hero, and people were never singing the praises of Bin Laden. Americans were just not aware of Al-Qaeda until 1998. Previous terrorist attacks like the 1993 WTC attacks were perpetrated by non-affiliated terrorists like Ramzi Yousef and later terrorist attacks like the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing didn't even make it on the radar screen of most Americans (do any Americans remember that? thought so).

    Anyway n00b, you should quit talking.




  • Andrew Naramore
    "9/11 was just a f**kin drama to attack Afgahistan"

    Where is your evidence to support your claim? That's a ridiculous claim to make. It's also an incredibly offensive thing to say, so I suggest you tread lightly. Sharmuta!
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Word, Andrew. As someone with a degree in IR with a concentration in Middle Eastern issues, I couldn't have said it better myself.

    And Fahad, as an American, I find statements like "9/11 was just a drama to attack Afghanistan" at best, woefully ignorant and at worst, an inhumane statement.

    Actually, I think pretty much any humane person would find that offensive.

    There are plenty of great books out there that may help you join the reality-based community. I'd recommend Stephen Kinzer's "All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" as a good starting point.
  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    @Andrew
    so u claim that usa never help "mujahidin" against russia..... comeon man go n read history in 1970 usa helped them ... ok i believe that they help them indirectly through ISI n same is the case with Bin Ladin , he was CIA's fav. that time ....
    even after that war he had v gud relation with americans...

    n u know when americans got problem with Bin Ladin .... it was in 1990's when Bin Ladin starts his Anti- American campaign , coz he was against presence of US army in Saudi Arabia .

    now come to 9/11
    in those attacks 19 hijackers were involved n the amazing thing was in flight manifest there was no Arab names(coz they were arabs).
    1 passsport was found in flight 11 which was of one of the hijackers... wow man wht a miracle ....goes through those fire balls through the plane it comes down 2 the ground n nothing happend to it.... ?????

    several of these 19 man r still alive ...eg:
    Abdualaziz Al Omari ..... reported by The telegraph 9/23/2001

    January 2001:
    Bush Adminstration ordered CIA to back of investigations against Bin Ladin family (source BBC newsnight nov 7 2001)

    in pentagon attack
    no seats no lauguage no bodies nothing but brikes n lime stone .
    the offical report was that the fuel of the plane produce intense heat vaporise the whole plane.... the flight 77 had to engines n made of aluminium n weighs 6 tons each , n it is impossible that the whole 12 fuckin ton of these metals vaporise by fuel of the plane .

    WTC buliding 7 :
    if u can see the video recording , its same as the controlled demolation . u can see that demolation of the middle column first n then sides ones giving safe LANDING to the buliding . the offical explanation was FIRE . No buliding collapse coz of fire before or after 9/11 .
    n the 9/11 commission report admit the fact they they can't determine the demilation of WTC b7.
  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    this is not the first time when americans start some kinda wars to get wht they want.
    let me take u guys back to the history. 3 wars of usa are
    world war 1
    world war 2
    vietnam

    world war 1:1914
    In may 7th 1915 ,ship called Lusitania was sanked in German's controlled waters in which 1260 people lost they lives...
    this was also planned by american's n england (general gray n colonel house)
    n this caused the wave of angre among american n finally enters the war .

    world war 2:
    7 sep 1914 attack on pearl harbor took place . 4 days before the attcak australian told usa about invasion of japanese towards pearl harbor but .... .. n 2400 us soldiers died in that attack n finall they were in.

    Vietname war:
    Attack on US destoyers by vietnamese PTs never happened n was stage to start anew war. later former defence secretory Robert Strange McNamara said that attacks by PTs was mistake . in this war 58000 american n 3,000,000 vietnamese lost the lives...

    so 9/11 was also a jump start for so called war against terror . it was used to start to war .
  • Andrew Naramore
    Fahad stop being an idiot. I said we never supported the TALIBAN not the "muj." DO NOT TELL me they are the same. Ahmad Shah Massoud, Gulbudin Hekmatyr, Ishmail Khan, etc. were mujahideen. All three of those soviet era "mujahideen" fought against the Taliban during the 1990s. There is a difference. As a Muslim, if you believe that the Taliban are true mujahideen, than you are an apostate or "kafir" my friend. Just kidding, but you're an idiot if you think that.

    Bin Laden was never a favorite of the CIA. The CIA rarely, and I mean rarely gave money, weapons, ammunition etc directly to mujahideen groups. In the few instances in which this occurred, aid was given to Massoud/Rabbani's group. The ISI mostly gave the money to mujahideen. Once again, this money was given to AFGHANS not rich Saudi wannabe mujahideen (Bin Laden's a pussy face it).

    Seriously cut out the "9/11 was an inside job" bullsh*t. Not only is it offensive and dumb, but you're really testing my patience boy. Read this article:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

    The United States started World War I? World War II?

    Actually it was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that set into to course the events of World War I. It was actually a Serbian terrorist group known as the Black Hand that assassinated the Archduke....not Woodrow Wilson. Sorry buddy.

    World War II (depending on whether you believe World War I really ended...another argument for another time) started when the Germans invaded Poland in 1939. Once again the U.S. had no hand in starting that war. If you're referring to the U.S. looking for a reason to enter a war, it doesn't need to fabricate b.s. Self interest is the reason all countries/people fight, and if you think otherwise, you're a fool. That being said, the U.S. did not allow its sailors to be sacrificed as a means to enter the war. We declared war on Germany without any provocation (other than a declaration of war on their part, but they did not attack us), so why would we sacrifice American lives in Hawaii to declare war?

    Ah yes...the Vietnam War! Forget about Gulf of Tonkin incident (the incident you alluded to). If you knew anything about the region, you'd know that American troops were fighting in Vietnam well before that! In fact the U.S. practically used the French as a proxy force (we footed a heavy bill to aid those "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys"....j/k). However during the late 50s and early 60s we sent "advisors" to "train" the ARVN troops in South Vietnam. This obviously happened well before 1964. In fact there were tens of thousands of American troops "advising" in Vietnam prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Hmm... I'll let you draw the conclusion.

    Anyway you need to put away the "America is the Great Satan" kool aid, and start looking elsewhere to place the blame.

  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    @Thorstan
    m from Pakistan.n btw its not mu brainwashing these r some facts which i can deny .

    @Andrew
    A 2004 BBC article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC claimed:

    "During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.''


    Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan

    In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden appreciated the United States help in

    Afghanistan. On CNN's Larry King program he said

    Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

    Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

    Bandar bin Sultan: Right.

    Munir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations from 2002 to 2008, wrote in a letter published in the New York Times on January 19, 2008:

    "The strategy to support the Afghans against Soviet military intervention was evolved by several intelligence agencies, including the C.I.A. and Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. After the Soviet withdrawal, the Western powers walked away from the region, leaving behind

    40,000 militants imported from several countries to wage the anti-Soviet jihad. Pakistan was left to face the blowback of extremism, drugs and guns.

    then to vietnam war:
    8/4/1964 ... 2 American ship report that they r behin attacked by PTs. president Lyndon B. Johnson immediatley accouned an unprovoked attack on vietnam asking congress to authorize opertaion in east asia.n they gave him the permission.However documents diclassified from national security agency 2005 confirms that the attack never took place . on august 10 Johnson singed the arregement ,this degree was the door way for US to offically walked into vietnam.

  • Andrew Naramore
    Fahad,

    You completely misunderstand those quotations, and accept them as fact. Let me break this down for you brother.

    "Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.''

    Some analysts BELIEVE is the imperative word. They BELIEVE he received training from the CIA. There is no further elaboration on your end, and I can only speculate as to the rest of article. However, that quotation is not an affirmative statement, but rather speculation on the part of analysts. You need to read critically.

    "Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan"

    I am not here to argue that the CIA provided assistance to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. However, you need to remember that the aid and material that reached the "Arab-Afghans" (as the foreign mujahideen are commonly called) was given by the ISI. While the CIA provided weapons, money, etc. to the Mujahideen, it was the ISI who decided who received assistance. Furthermore the ISI physically delivered the aid. This is why men like Hekmatyr received the vast majority of weapons, ammunition and money, and men like Ahmed Shah Massoud were left to their own devices. The point to take away from this, is that while the US provided the goods, the Pakistanis decided who get them. Therefore to come to the conclusion that "Bin Laden was the CIA's man" during the Afghan jihad is erroneous.

    "40,000 militants imported from several countries to wage the anti-Soviet jihad. Pakistan was left to face the blowback of extremism, drugs and guns."

    Please...the author of that quotation knows very little about the history of radical Islam. Prior to the Afghan Jihad, it was not as if Islamic extremism existed in Pakistan. In November of 1979, Pakistani students attacked and destroyed the US embassy in Islamabad. Furthermore, contingents of the ISI and the military fostered the growth of radical groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any terrorist group operating in Kashmir for instance does so with the blessing and assistance of the ISI. It's the same with the Taliban. If you are looking to place the blame for the birth of the Taliban, look no further than your own people. The ISI not only provided aid, training, and logistical support but also tactical command/support of Taliban units. Your country harbors terrorists like Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Jalaluddin Haqqani and the rest of the Quetta Shura. However, I'll stop the Pakistan bashing there, only because the Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. in my former professor and a great human being.

    Regarding the Vietnam War remark you made, you clearly read nothing that I said.

    I understand why Thorstan said you were brainwashed....you clearly lack the ability to read and think critically. Even though you've been thoroughly "pwn3d", you still do not understand. Continue to bask in your ignorance and blame America for all of the ills in the world.

    GWB '04!!!!
  • Joakim Lund Rangel
    No matter what side you support (or believe) in this matter, one of the big mistakes done in the past decade is the "War on Terror" crap. Terror is a war strategy and you simply can not go to war against a strategy.

    And if we shall blame anyone for the creation of this propaganda I think its impossible not to point fingers at the US.
  • №❶ Passioη
    The word "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" is not appropriate
  • Andrew Naramore
    Blame the US for terrorism? Haha! With all due respect, you do not understand radical Islam. Trace back the roots of radical Islam (i.e. Salafism). I'd start with writings of men like Ibn Taymiyya in the 13th century. Ibn Taymiyya is the ideological forefather of all Islamic terrorism. But why stop there. Men like Abul Ala Maududi, Muhammed ibn Abd-al Wahhab, Jamal al-Din Afghani, and Sayid Qutb continued to foster a strict, radical interpretation of Islam, which is practiced/preached by men like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The ideology has always been there my friend, and it's not America's fault for its creation.

    War on Terror crap? The phrase "war on terror" is a rhetorical device used to provide a name for the fight against Islamic terrorism. It could be called "Overseas Contingency Operation" or "War Against Man Made Disasters" (thanks for that brilliant name Obama), but the tactics and strategy employed will be the same. If you have a problem with the name, that's simply nitpicking.

    Terror is not a " war strategy." Strategy is an overarching goal, and tactics are the means by which the success is achieved. Terror, in case of Islamic terrorism is the tactic employed to achieve success in their strategy. The goal of radical Islam (whether Salafist, Wahhabist, Revivalist, etc.) is to establish a global Caliphate governed by Shariah law. Now that you understand the meaning of this word, it's not so difficult to see how one can combat it.

    Radical Islam is an ideology which can be defeated. One can fight against an ideology, as we saw with the near destruction of Communism as an ideology during the 20th century.
  • Andrew Naramore
    The word "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" is inappropriate? Hahaha why on Earth would you say that? Is it offensive or something?
  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    @Andrew

    sorry 4 late rply , i was busy with my last xam....
    so here r ur anwers

    i know that ISI provoid mujhindin with all those THINGS but from where they get it.... of course for CIA .
    CIA and Mossad carried out a covert transfer of Soviet-made weapons and Lebanese weapons captured by the Israelis during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 and their subsequent transfer to Pakistan and then into Afghanistan.

    then come to Ahmed Masoud:
    After the Taliban publicly executed Mohammed Najibullah, Massoud n the Northern Alliance received increasing assistance from India. India was particularly concerned about the Islamic militancy in its neighborhood n consequently provided substantial aid to the Northern Alliance—US$70 million in aid including two Mi-17 helicopters, three additional helicopters in 2000 n US$8 million worth of high-altitude equipment in 2001.Furthermore, the alliance also received extensive aid from Iran because of their opposition to a strong Sunni Taliban government..

    n bro don't call Kashmir movement as terrissom ,if one attacks ur home wht u gonna do ... the answer is defend urself n ur home same is the case with kashmir.i call them freedom fighters n i think u know how indians get in this situation.n Pakistan always had a soft corner for those freedom fighters till Musharaf Banned those organization due to political pressure from USA.


    "40,000 militants imported from several countries to wage the anti-Soviet jihad. Pakistan was left to face the blowback of extremism, drugs and guns."

    u don't believe this ... its all coz of Soviet war that now Pakistan is in this situation.

    '' In November of 1979, Pakistani students attacked and destroyed the US embassy in Islamabad''.
    this was an attack by students at the embassy enraged by a radio report claiming that US had occupied Khana Kaaba in Mecca.

  • Andrew Naramore
    "I know that ISI provoid mujhindin with all those THINGS but from where they get it.... of course for CIA"

    Well if you know this, then you wouldn't say the Bin Laden was the CIA's guy.

    "then come to Ahmed Masoud"

    Yeah...he received assistance AFTER the Afghan Jihad, which does not validate your argument. The point I was making was that the ISI decided who received what goods.

    "n bro don't call Kashmir movement as terrissom"

    The Kashmiri movement is full of terrorists. I guess those members of Lashkar-e-Taiba who shot up Mumbai last year were just defending their homes right? Give me a break. I guess all of the foreign Jihadists/terrorists that come to fight in Kashmir are just defending their homes. This isn't necessary, but I'll use the sarcasm tag for our non-native English speakers.

    /sarc

    "this was an attack by students at the embassy enraged by a radio report claiming that US had occupied Khana Kaaba in Mecca."

    And attacking and destroying an embassy is not an act of extremism? I know why the attack happened, but I don't see how your explanation makes it seem as if Pakistan is any less radical. Lashkar-e-Taiba? Jaish-e-Muhammed? Harakat ul-Ansar? The Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Pakistan is crawling with Islamic terrorist groups, many of which operate with the military's/intelligence service's blessing! However don't blame the Soviets for Pakistan's problems....

    Blame the Pakistanis. Maybe if your military stopped viewing Afghanistan as necessary for strategic depth in the event of an Indian invasion (which will never be necessary unless Pakistan goes down the sh*tter) it would not have issues with Islamic fundamentalists! The ISI and the military still continue to believe that India is the biggest threat, and so they continue to support and foster Islamism as a "covert" (it's not really covert everybody knows) tool to fight India. If the ISI didn't allow/encourage Jihadists to fight in Kashmir, the Jihadists probably would've gone to Bosnia/Chechnya, etc to fight the next war. There is no utility in my speculation however. Pakistan didn't face "blowback" from Islamism...it made it far worse by supporting it. Don't blame the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan for Pakistan's fight with extremism, blame your leaders for striking a deal with the devil (i.e. the Taliban) for the sake of "security" against India.




  • Fahad Hashmi
    Fahad Hashmi wrote:
    so u mean v r doing all the terrissom .... wow wow...

    wht the f**k US had done with iraq, bombing innocent people , in Afghanistan ...
    wht abt Israel about everyday killing couple of Palestinians .
    u have some reason fror that.... ?
    n ya India is always the mean thread for us , wht they r doing in Afghanistan n blochistan ? just read the newspapers n see wht their general is saying abt attacking pakistan n china ? they r biggest thread fro us .
  • Andrew Naramore
    "so u mean v r doing all the terrissom .... wow wow..."

    Hahaha! I never said that. I said that the people you should blame for your present security situation are the Pakistanis. I never said Pakistanis are only responsible for terrorism. I would never make such a case, because that's not even true.

    "wht the f**k US had done with iraq, bombing innocent people , in Afghanistan.."

    Hahaha you don't even try to defend what happened in Mumbai! Don't change the subject by saying "Americans are terrorists" and "Israelis are terrorists." Use a little introspection. These "freedom fighters" mercilessly slaughtered 173 and wounded hundreds more in Mumbai, and you don't even address that? Furthermore, there are countless attacks upon India that don't even make it into the Western media. Furthermore, your "freedom fighters" have been attacking PAKISTANI military installations (not to mention civilian locations) inside of Kashmir and elsewhere in Pakistan. The men you support, are clearly terrorists. They PURPOSELY target innocent civilians. Do not forget that.

    Regarding the United States and Israel, it's incredibly sad that innocent people are killed because of the attacks that they carry out against their respective Islamist enemies. However, there is a significant difference between Lashkar-e-Taiba, al-Qaeda, Tehrik-e-Taliban, and the rest of the scum of the Earth (i.e. the other unnamed Islamic terror organizations) and the US Military and the IDF. The actions of both militaries are governed by what are known as the Rules of Engagement (ROE). The rules exist to preserve civilian lives. Believe it or not, the U.S. Military seeks to avoid civilian casualties and preserve innocent life. On the other hand, groups like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba (and many more) seek to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties. Their INTENT is to kill as many innocent people as possible! There is a clear difference. That does not make the loss of innocent life more palatable, but there is significant difference between the actions of the two. If you cannot see that, you are clearly blind.

    In regard to India, you fail to examine the issue critically. Does India possess a larger existential threat to Pakistan? Of course. India has nuclear weapons and a military that would kick Pakistan's ass (again). However, the India/Pakistan conflict appears to be a regional cold war that will most stay cold. Both sides have a lot to lose in an all out conflict. There is a reason why India didn't retaliate (although they had the right to in my opinion) after Mumbai. Meanwhile, you have Islamic terrorists within your country who attack civilians, the government, and the security apparatus of your country and threaten to destabilize the country. Tell me who is the bigger threat?

    The funny thing, is that the people you support as "freedom fighters" are the ones who are most likely going to get Pakistan drawn into a costly war against India. The last thing Pakistan needs is a repeat of 1971, and if another war breaks out, I assure you Pakistan will lose.
  • Candy Q
    Candy Q wrote:
    @Andrew, ~warm applause here~~
    WAR ON TERROR is for justice beyond controversy. By fighting terrorism, innocent people are finally protected from disasters that would come out of nowhere. I thought it was an obvious fact but people just keep surprising me.
    I don't have any problem with any religion, but when people use religion as a tool to brainwash their people for political purposes, it becomes a whole different story. how on earth can anybody defend the action of brainwashing children to turn them into suicidal bombers? Which is unbelievably sad but happening.
    Last but not least, I truly hope one day China would make a further step fighting terrorism, not only taking care of it domestically, but also as what Wu Jianmin(the former foreign minister of China) has mentioned last week, encouraging increased participation in the world peace-keeping operations. It shouldn't be just the U.S. and a couple others versus terrorism. Don't take me wrong but I am a "racist" against racists and terrorists.
    PEACE
    Candy
  • Yuki Inés
    Yuki Inés wrote:
    damn! I am writing an article today whole day for this underwear bomber!!
  • Candy Q
    Candy Q wrote:
    @Thorstan:
    Thx, really flattered here~~Guess I'm becoming a good student finally~~ha~~have fun
  • I Live In Beijing
    wowowow......long topics , its been a long conversation between u guys...but still no body gave an answer about that who is fighting and they are fight for what , oils , minerals , etc...but let me educate u that i read somewhere after 2035 or 2050 the US will not have any oil and thats y they are doing all this...but if u both have relegion then let me tell u about one another thing that this is not the war of oil and terrorism , this is the war of thursting a community and which community that i wont mention here and if u all guys know the history then i think i dont need to tell and another thing which fahad didnt mention up there that israel is giving arms and other things to the other countries , but let me ask u people what they have they are still not a country yet ....and how they can do all these things and by the law they are not allow at all to give arms and its not bad to make ur power strong but just to cover up they are just making an issue of terrorism , see the example of pakistan , u all consider that its a terrorist country but dont the CIA thinks that its happening just because of thier f**** planning that they did before and my bros this is a game and those who are running this they are not humans and i particularly say that they are f*** people . anyways lets see what will happen and the report which was issued later 9/11 that is proved that the security incharge of WTC was the brother of bush and he wasnt there that time and it wasnt a public or and kind of holiday , y the half of people were absent that day....and where was the smoke coming from before hitting the buildings...anyways have fun guys and keep talking about this....
  • Candy Q
    Candy Q wrote:
    @Problem Creator
    I've read about this CONSPIRACY THEORY too.
    First of all, these theories are perfect for some really cool movies, but in reality, I would take a second thought before I buy it.
    Secondly, I would love to believe that by 2035 we would've been offered new energy options. This is 25 years we are talking about. So creating wars for the oil need for the future doesn't sound so solid to me, I believe many ppl feel the same about this.
    But thanks for sharing and "educating" us.
    That was just what I thought, so no offence.
    Peace.
  • I Live In Beijing
    wow u r involved in it , but it is not that cool as u people think , ask those countries who are suffering and i think u forgot now a days movies are based on these stories not these which come from the movies and at least we can only ask for peace and if u like to read international news then u will come to know that how many countries are literally protesting for peace . but still life is hell for them and they are going through for nothing and these people they even dont know what to do ...no body guide them and the powerful countries are just letting these down...anyways i agree we want PEACE.
  • Stanley Zarretta
    Wow this Nigerian kid, is making waves, should be in the Guinness book of record, the 1st underwear bomber to ever exist, I just hope this is not also a ploy by the US to invade Nigeria as well, since we have a little OIL, SOS, SOS, SOS,
    If the fight against terror is a new brand name for OIL war. have fun Guys
  • Andrew Naramore
    Hahaha thanks for the "education" Mr. Lover. You managed to ramble for an entire paragraph without saying anything. Spare everyone the "war for oil" meme that is spewed by the uninformed and the ignorant. As I mentioned before there is no oil in Afghanistan, and there are few, if any, valuable natural resources as well (Other than poppy which can be cultivated and converted to Heroin! Wait a second! That's a conspiracy theory you can use! J/K). Thank you Thors for the re-posting...read the entire thread before posting people! It makes for a better discussion.

    Don't worry Stanley. The United States won't invade Nigeria. Unless of course Nigeria becomes a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran, Syria, the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," Pakistan, etc.


    "I just hope this is not also a ploy by the US to invade Nigeria as well, since we have a little OIL,"

    Why would the United States employ a Nigerian al-Qaeda terrorist trained in Yemen to blow up an America bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas as a means to invade Nigeria? That is incredibly far-fetched, stupid, thoughtless and absurd. Using your silly reasoning, the U.S. would've invaded Iran, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ever other oil producing country in the Middle East under the guise of fighting Islamic terrorism.

    Lastly, " mad props" (as we say on the streets) to Candy Q for not drinking the "America Sucks" kool-aid that is passed around these days far too often by uninformed, ignorant people. Keep up the good work Candy!
  • Stanley Zarretta
    Thanks Andrew, i wish i am studying international politics, i will have loved to have you as a private tutor.
  • Andrew Naramore
    It's funny that we are talking about war for oil, particularly because there have been several important developments in the past month regarding Iraqi oil development contracts. Even though they are slightly dated (one month, one week respectively), the following articles document Iraqi oil development contracts:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8407274.stm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/middleeast/06iraq.html?ref=middleeast (oil contract info begins during the middle of the article)

    Needless to say, the United States was not awarded ANY of the major oil development contracts. If the U.S. invaded Iraq for Iraqi oil, why did we not rig the system for the major development deals? Although there are still oil contracts available, it seems that the U.S. would've sought and obtained at least some of the oil contracts in the south if that had been the sole purpose for the invasion.
  • Candy Q
    Candy Q wrote:
    To the ones who believe the "war for oil" idea,
    Another LITTLE edividence to back Andrew's post about "war for oil".
    The city of Daqing just sealed a contract with Iraq not long ago. In five years, the revenue of this project is expected to exceed half of what PTR states in there annual report. (I assume you understand what this actually means, but if u don't, I would love to help.) So I guess everybody can tell how attractive this contract is.
    US on the other hand, didn't participate in this, at all.
    Any surprise? Not for me.
    Peace.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc