Amrozi to miss his chance at martyrdom
- Thread starter Angela Harlem
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
And people wonder why I say retroactive terror laws are not the answer.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Makes you wonder what the hell we are exactly fighting for. How long until we can all admit this is fucked? When exactly will the world start addressing the actual problem?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The actual problem behind Islamic terrorism in SE Asia being what exactly? (Please Don't Say the "root cause" of terrorism is poverty or ignorance, I know your smarter than that,)
Last edited:
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Martyr is too good of a word for this individual.
MARTYT
NOUN: 1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
This simply wanted to kill.
MARTYT
NOUN: 1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
This
simply wanted to kill.
A_Wanderer said:
If one is looking for a "root" cause, you'd probably have to dig thousands of years into the past. I think we'd all admit that even the smallest event links into a chain reaction for the future, which is why I think the doctrine of "war" to ensure "peace" is as much folly today as it was during the Cold War. We might destroy the enemies of today, but we're sowing the enemies of tomorrow. Of course, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this; this may be why the classic "good vs. evil" conflict is unsolvable.
Pray tell...what do you consider the "root cause" is? I'm quite amused that you've taken "poverty" and "ignorance" out of the equation like that, and I'd agree with you to a point. I'm one to believe that life is about achieving balance, whether consciously or subconsciously, knowing full well that "balance" is unachievable. After all, when people talk of the "end of the world," what they are really looking to is the end of conflict and homogeneity of belief. Of course, if 5+ billion people need to be smote to achieve that homogeneity, gosh darn we'd better have it!
But I digress. The existence of terrorism may be the end result of such a large inequity in power and wealth, which is heavily skewed towards the United States, and, subconsciously, terrorism is an ill-fated attempt at equalizing power, but, as we know, terrorism doesn't particularly have the ability to do that, so they are little more than a lethal nuisance.
You can observe attempts at redistribution of power at all levels of society. The reason why I think America is so divided is that we're unsure as to where the power is. Conservatives believe they're crusading against the liberal power in America (as evidenced by the ridiculous gay marriage amendment), and liberals believe they're fighting against conservative power in America (as evidenced by "Fahrenheit 9/11"). We're so bombarded with media messages encouraging us to hate each other that that's probably why we're anything but united these days.
Well, whatever. Take this for what you will.
Melon
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Allright firstly terrorism is a means of warfare, originally it was to describe the actions of partisan groups fighting the French but the context I am discussing is basically violence to achieve political propaganda.
Poverty, ignorance and illness have existed since the beginning of time so if we wished to say that they are the root causes of terrorism we would need evidence. I cannot see a broad pattern of people who are opressed reacting violently, there have been revolutions to be sure but in the vast majority of cases the people are supressed and they don't do a thing about it. This can be seen in many situations where a state could opress civilians and they couldn't resist, im thinking here of Tibet, Armenia, People suffering under The Soviet Union etc. now we can see that people do not just resort to violence when they are opressed we should look at when people do resort to violence, in this case I must say against civilians because that is what I am discussing. Classic example here is the Palestinians, they were offered a state in 1948 and they refused under the misguided belief that the Arab armies would be able to conquer all of Israel for them, this didn't eventuate, they kept negotiating through the UN and conducted minor attacks using the Fedayeen but it was all relatively small scale. Then in the 60's they started to use hijackings to draw attention to their cause. This worked beutifully because as soon as they siezed a plane and killed a few Jewish or American passengers the world payed attention, if they were captured then they could just hijack another plane and demand a release, between 1969 and 1975 it was a revolving door system of hijackings and it gained them more political ground than any diplomacy. Knowing the tactic of terrorism worked the Black September group was able to stage the Munich Massacre, this was a work of brilliance, people around the world started to ask if people were willing to die for their cause then it must be good because of course only someone who was really badly opressed could ever go about targeting innocent athletes, within two years of this Arafat and the PLO was declared the representative of the Palestinian People and the PLO was granted observer status at the UN. This is a tremendous achievement and one that has not been extended to other nations of people who live under opression or don't have a state, there is no Kurdish observer at the UN, the only logical reason is that they were not able to grab the worlds attention to their plight under Turkey and Saddam because their terrorism wasn't rewarded unlike Palestinian terrorism which has gotten them everything they have, billions of dollars of aid money (going into Arafats pocket), internationla reciognition, demonization of Israel as a zionist colonialist power among many, the ability to refuse very generous peace deals and still remain the victim and disproportionate sympathy around the world for their cause which is no worse than that of millions of other people around the world.
So in the beginning Palestinian terrorism was rewarded and it brought massive political gains, this has continued ever since and the Palestinians have devised the "Suicide Bomber" as the ultimate propaganda piece. By brainwashing youths into blowing up innocent people it forces many to think that Israel must have caused it because nobody would give up their life unless things were really, really unimaginably bad. It plays off the way any normal person thinks and reverses it so that when a suicide bombing takes place the bomber himself is the victim (of Israeli opression etc.) and the Israeli state is responsible because it "created" him. This works wonderfully and if you go to any International Solidarity Movement website you can see its effectiveness.
Bin Laden is a different type of monster, he is a religious fanatic. Raised in a well off Saudi family he went to Afghanistan to aid the mujahadeen in their fight against the Evil Atheists in the 80's. Since then he has plotted to deliver attacks to the so called "enemies of Islam" and in the end wipe them from the face of the planet. He has no real goals to achieve through terrorism other than the end of the world. Al Qaeda is a death cult, it preaches the apocalypse and all these attacks are designed to bring it about. He will excuse his terror by labling it as a crusade against Jews and Christians but at heart it is just there to kill. They are masters of propaganda because Bin Laden knows that he cannot achieve his quest without gathering the means to do so. This is done by toppling decaying corrupt governments in the Middle East and over the Islamic World and establishing regimes sympathetic to his cause (simmilar to the Taliban). If he can do this then his ability to deliver deadly attacks to Western Targets goes up exponentially, this is why he is going after Pakistan, in the event of a coup in Pakistan against Musharraf by Islamist elements they would find themselves in posession of a nuclear arsenel, this nuclear arsenel could find itself being delivered to some of the more attractive targets (Tel Aviv, New York, London) and if used properly could precipitate the very "clash of civilizations' and nuclear armageddon that he desires.
Terrorism is a political tool, it gains public sympathy for your cause and brings your grievances to the front of everybodies mind. For Bin Laden this is a massive success, he desires to topple the Saudi Government, to do this he has to get the US Government to cease supporting them ergo he picks Saudies as the majority of his hijackers. Now when people ask themselves in the west who the real enemy is may will say Saudi Arabia and then exert political pressure on their own governments to stop supporting the House of Saud, Michael Moores own film makes it abundantly clear that Saudi connections to America is the equivalent of George Bush aiding Bin Laden therefore any truly patriotic American must stop him, it is achieving a goal of Osama bin Ladens by proxy and many people have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
Ultimately terrorism is a means to an end, the modern era of terrorism as a weapon to be used against civilians was started by the Palestinians and it worked wonderfully, it gave them press coverage and reciognition and has encouraged terrorism to be used by hundreds of other groups ever since. It gives a maximum political gain for minimal economic and military cost therefor the "poor mans warfare" is and will continue to be used by those seeking political goals but lack the devices or the will to negotiate properly.
Poverty, ignorance and illness have existed since the beginning of time so if we wished to say that they are the root causes of terrorism we would need evidence. I cannot see a broad pattern of people who are opressed reacting violently, there have been revolutions to be sure but in the vast majority of cases the people are supressed and they don't do a thing about it. This can be seen in many situations where a state could opress civilians and they couldn't resist, im thinking here of Tibet, Armenia, People suffering under The Soviet Union etc. now we can see that people do not just resort to violence when they are opressed we should look at when people do resort to violence, in this case I must say against civilians because that is what I am discussing. Classic example here is the Palestinians, they were offered a state in 1948 and they refused under the misguided belief that the Arab armies would be able to conquer all of Israel for them, this didn't eventuate, they kept negotiating through the UN and conducted minor attacks using the Fedayeen but it was all relatively small scale. Then in the 60's they started to use hijackings to draw attention to their cause. This worked beutifully because as soon as they siezed a plane and killed a few Jewish or American passengers the world payed attention, if they were captured then they could just hijack another plane and demand a release, between 1969 and 1975 it was a revolving door system of hijackings and it gained them more political ground than any diplomacy. Knowing the tactic of terrorism worked the Black September group was able to stage the Munich Massacre, this was a work of brilliance, people around the world started to ask if people were willing to die for their cause then it must be good because of course only someone who was really badly opressed could ever go about targeting innocent athletes, within two years of this Arafat and the PLO was declared the representative of the Palestinian People and the PLO was granted observer status at the UN. This is a tremendous achievement and one that has not been extended to other nations of people who live under opression or don't have a state, there is no Kurdish observer at the UN, the only logical reason is that they were not able to grab the worlds attention to their plight under Turkey and Saddam because their terrorism wasn't rewarded unlike Palestinian terrorism which has gotten them everything they have, billions of dollars of aid money (going into Arafats pocket), internationla reciognition, demonization of Israel as a zionist colonialist power among many, the ability to refuse very generous peace deals and still remain the victim and disproportionate sympathy around the world for their cause which is no worse than that of millions of other people around the world.
So in the beginning Palestinian terrorism was rewarded and it brought massive political gains, this has continued ever since and the Palestinians have devised the "Suicide Bomber" as the ultimate propaganda piece. By brainwashing youths into blowing up innocent people it forces many to think that Israel must have caused it because nobody would give up their life unless things were really, really unimaginably bad. It plays off the way any normal person thinks and reverses it so that when a suicide bombing takes place the bomber himself is the victim (of Israeli opression etc.) and the Israeli state is responsible because it "created" him. This works wonderfully and if you go to any International Solidarity Movement website you can see its effectiveness.
Bin Laden is a different type of monster, he is a religious fanatic. Raised in a well off Saudi family he went to Afghanistan to aid the mujahadeen in their fight against the Evil Atheists in the 80's. Since then he has plotted to deliver attacks to the so called "enemies of Islam" and in the end wipe them from the face of the planet. He has no real goals to achieve through terrorism other than the end of the world. Al Qaeda is a death cult, it preaches the apocalypse and all these attacks are designed to bring it about. He will excuse his terror by labling it as a crusade against Jews and Christians but at heart it is just there to kill. They are masters of propaganda because Bin Laden knows that he cannot achieve his quest without gathering the means to do so. This is done by toppling decaying corrupt governments in the Middle East and over the Islamic World and establishing regimes sympathetic to his cause (simmilar to the Taliban). If he can do this then his ability to deliver deadly attacks to Western Targets goes up exponentially, this is why he is going after Pakistan, in the event of a coup in Pakistan against Musharraf by Islamist elements they would find themselves in posession of a nuclear arsenel, this nuclear arsenel could find itself being delivered to some of the more attractive targets (Tel Aviv, New York, London) and if used properly could precipitate the very "clash of civilizations' and nuclear armageddon that he desires.
Terrorism is a political tool, it gains public sympathy for your cause and brings your grievances to the front of everybodies mind. For Bin Laden this is a massive success, he desires to topple the Saudi Government, to do this he has to get the US Government to cease supporting them ergo he picks Saudies as the majority of his hijackers. Now when people ask themselves in the west who the real enemy is may will say Saudi Arabia and then exert political pressure on their own governments to stop supporting the House of Saud, Michael Moores own film makes it abundantly clear that Saudi connections to America is the equivalent of George Bush aiding Bin Laden therefore any truly patriotic American must stop him, it is achieving a goal of Osama bin Ladens by proxy and many people have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
Ultimately terrorism is a means to an end, the modern era of terrorism as a weapon to be used against civilians was started by the Palestinians and it worked wonderfully, it gave them press coverage and reciognition and has encouraged terrorism to be used by hundreds of other groups ever since. It gives a maximum political gain for minimal economic and military cost therefor the "poor mans warfare" is and will continue to be used by those seeking political goals but lack the devices or the will to negotiate properly.
Salome
you are what you is
really?A_Wanderer said:
I think I need some new lessons in history from you
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Did Jews in Nazi Germany go about blowing up innocent German Civilians?
Did East Timorese drive carbombs into government buildings in Jakarta?
Did the ANC embark on widespread systematic attacks on innocent whites?
Do Tibetans slice the heads off Chinese hostages and broadcast them around the world?
Most opressed people will not react violently to the civilian populations of their opressors because they are being opressed, it is conducted by groups who have learnt the political impact of such actions will aid their cause. This works especially well against liberal democracies because unlike authoratarian regimes they do not just go out and exterminate any troublesome groups in the wake of an attack.
Fundamentalist terrorists have goals and ideological aims that motivate them, here are some quotes from various Islamist Propaganda pieces that can attest to these goals and why poverty and social ills are not the "root cause" of their violence.
Governance on Earth
These are not the words of people who desire to see peace and harmony for their people, they are motivated out of an ideological hatred of all that stand in the way of their messed up beliefs and will exterminate them as such, it is abundantly clear from their own messages and what we have seen in history that terrorism against civilians is more of a politcal weapon than act of despiration and by reversing the responsibilty from the terrorists themselves to these "root causes" that the west supposedly created we are simply encouraging furthur violence.
The entire point I am making is that fixing world poverty and alleviating third world debt are very noble and good things to do and they will save hundreds of millions even billions of people and they must be done for the sake of humanity but in this War on Terror we must deal with an enemy that is bent on exterminating all of us and if they gain WMD then they will not hesitate to use them on the most attractive targets. They will not be appeased or negotiated with, we cannot stall them by giving into their demands because they will just make more demands and come back stronger and infict more damage. They must be fought and we can do it if we reciognize who the enemy is (millitant Islam from the lowliest accomplice like Amrozi up to the highest echelons of Saudi politics and Islamic "spiritual" leaders that incite violence the world over, especially against Jews and "white meat") and have an agressive campaign to eliminate their training camps, capture their leaders and operatives and cutoff the financial, operational and spiritual support that they recieve from "benevolent Muslim charities" the world over. If we combine this with a global plan to encourage disamament of nuclear weapons and reduction of stockpiles and transform the Arab actors into a real player in the world with democracy and liberty then the problem of massive scale terrorism that threatens the existence of free and open civilizations will not be as much of an issue as it is today.
Did East Timorese drive carbombs into government buildings in Jakarta?
Did the ANC embark on widespread systematic attacks on innocent whites?
Do Tibetans slice the heads off Chinese hostages and broadcast them around the world?
Most opressed people will not react violently to the civilian populations of their opressors because they are being opressed, it is conducted by groups who have learnt the political impact of such actions will aid their cause. This works especially well against liberal democracies because unlike authoratarian regimes they do not just go out and exterminate any troublesome groups in the wake of an attack.
Fundamentalist terrorists have goals and ideological aims that motivate them, here are some quotes from various Islamist Propaganda pieces that can attest to these goals and why poverty and social ills are not the "root cause" of their violence.
--Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, Join The Caravan
--Sheikh Abu Hamza Al-Masri, Allah's
Governance on Earth
--Muhammad 'Abdus Salam Faraj, Jihad: The Absent Obligation
These are not the words of people who desire to see peace and harmony for their people, they are motivated out of an ideological hatred of all that stand in the way of their messed up beliefs and will exterminate them as such, it is abundantly clear from their own messages and what we have seen in history that terrorism against civilians is more of a politcal weapon than act of despiration and by reversing the responsibilty from the terrorists themselves to these "root causes" that the west supposedly created we are simply encouraging furthur violence.
The entire point I am making is that fixing world poverty and alleviating third world debt are very noble and good things to do and they will save hundreds of millions even billions of people and they must be done for the sake of humanity but in this War on Terror we must deal with an enemy that is bent on exterminating all of us and if they gain WMD then they will not hesitate to use them on the most attractive targets. They will not be appeased or negotiated with, we cannot stall them by giving into their demands because they will just make more demands and come back stronger and infict more damage. They must be fought and we can do it if we reciognize who the enemy is (millitant Islam from the lowliest accomplice like Amrozi up to the highest echelons of Saudi politics and Islamic "spiritual" leaders that incite violence the world over, especially against Jews and "white meat") and have an agressive campaign to eliminate their training camps, capture their leaders and operatives and cutoff the financial, operational and spiritual support that they recieve from "benevolent Muslim charities" the world over. If we combine this with a global plan to encourage disamament of nuclear weapons and reduction of stockpiles and transform the Arab actors into a real player in the world with democracy and liberty then the problem of massive scale terrorism that threatens the existence of free and open civilizations will not be as much of an issue as it is today.
Last edited:
Salome
you are what you is
you failed to mention anything of human history before the last 60 yearsA_Wanderer said:
when you oppress people will lash back as soon as they see the slightest opportunity
that's human nature
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Like what The US War of Independence? That was not terrorism because it was not directly waged against British civilians sitting in tea houses in London, it was fought by revolutionaries against a defined enemy.
Spanish partisans resisting French invasion in the 1800's was fought brutally as they resisted an occupying force however they did not go out and muder French civilians.
People resist violently, that is true however terrorism is a calculated move against civilian targets that pose no threat to the opressed and it is designed to bring their cause into the public conciousness by forcing people to ask what could drive somebody to muder. That is why terrorism works and that is why it propogates, 9/11 is the result of 40 years of capitulation and rewarding of terrorism. It is a modern beast that is different to resistance and by trying to rationalize terrorism as legitimate resistance you are becoming an apologist for it, I know you do not support terrorism however your attitude that the fault lies with us for "occupying" and "opressing" fundamentalist Islam is most certainly the mindset that Bin Laden intended to create in the minds of western civilians.
The fact is that modern terrorism which is violence to achieve a political propaganda is a beast of the latter 20th century and it was used most successfully by the Palestinians. There is a difference between resistance and terrorism. Passive resistance to an occupying power and civil disobedience are methods, violent resistance by fighting the occupying power when it moves against you is also legitimate however targeting civilians and only civilians in the name of drawing attention to your cause is terrorism. Many many groups have resisted without using terrorism and that is the point that I am illustrating, it wasnt until the mass media existed and people could have this stuff beamed into their living rooms that hijackings and large scale mass murder could have as much impact and political fallout
Spanish partisans resisting French invasion in the 1800's was fought brutally as they resisted an occupying force however they did not go out and muder French civilians.
People resist violently, that is true however terrorism is a calculated move against civilian targets that pose no threat to the opressed and it is designed to bring their cause into the public conciousness by forcing people to ask what could drive somebody to muder. That is why terrorism works and that is why it propogates, 9/11 is the result of 40 years of capitulation and rewarding of terrorism. It is a modern beast that is different to resistance and by trying to rationalize terrorism as legitimate resistance you are becoming an apologist for it, I know you do not support terrorism however your attitude that the fault lies with us for "occupying" and "opressing" fundamentalist Islam is most certainly the mindset that Bin Laden intended to create in the minds of western civilians.
The fact is that modern terrorism which is violence to achieve a political propaganda is a beast of the latter 20th century and it was used most successfully by the Palestinians. There is a difference between resistance and terrorism. Passive resistance to an occupying power and civil disobedience are methods, violent resistance by fighting the occupying power when it moves against you is also legitimate however targeting civilians and only civilians in the name of drawing attention to your cause is terrorism. Many many groups have resisted without using terrorism and that is the point that I am illustrating, it wasnt until the mass media existed and people could have this stuff beamed into their living rooms that hijackings and large scale mass murder could have as much impact and political fallout
Salome
you are what you is
humanity has always been a cruel race
we may even have softened up a bit during the last couple of centuries
if we think we could profit from someone else's pain/death/missery and we think we can restrict negative results should we fail than we will lash out
we always did
whether the motives are political, religious or whatever
we have always been brutal in trying to get what we want
we may even have softened up a bit during the last couple of centuries
if we think we could profit from someone else's pain/death/missery and we think we can restrict negative results should we fail than we will lash out
we always did
whether the motives are political, religious or whatever
we have always been brutal in trying to get what we want
Last edited:
A_Wanderer has apparently never read the classic treastise on colonization and revolution by Frantz Fanon "The Wretched of the Earth".
I think a little more learning and a lot less proselytizing by some would be greatly appreciated.
Negativity in this world will never be eliminated by others who are just as negative - it will just perpetuate an unending cycle of violence and hatred.
To end violence around us, we must first end the violence inside of us.
Otherwise our efforts to better life will fail, unless we really aren't interested in Peace and Justice.
"Be the change that you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
I think a little more learning and a lot less proselytizing by some would be greatly appreciated.
Negativity in this world will never be eliminated by others who are just as negative - it will just perpetuate an unending cycle of violence and hatred.
To end violence around us, we must first end the violence inside of us.
Otherwise our efforts to better life will fail, unless we really aren't interested in Peace and Justice.
"Be the change that you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I would rather fight and die free than be a peaceful dhimmie. These comprehend only one peace. the peace of the grave. They will not stop until each and every person who doesn't support them is wiped from the earth. The mindless hatred of these fundamentalists is a direct threat to each and every one of our lives and there is no truly peaceful solution to this hatred. It is the same hatred that spawned The Final Solution and The Killing Fields, the illogical piece of humanity that desires death and destruction above all else, it must be stopped or else more will suffer. Fighting them can remove the threat and solve the problem, often war is a solution to greater evil and it ensures that the freedoms that we hold dear can not only survive but they can spread around the world. Is that so bloody wrong, to want to see mass murderers brought to justice and to move the world forward in peace without the fear of random savagery hanging like a dagger over innocent people.
Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism War Has Never Solved Anything
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants
-Thomas Jefferson
What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called.
-John Stuart Mill
Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism War Has Never Solved Anything
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants
-Thomas Jefferson
What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called.
-John Stuart Mill
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
It would be interesting to see a study on the economic and educational background of the fundamentalist who fall for this propaganda. I guarantee you that the ones with bombs strapped to themselves aren't wealthy or educated.
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
The indonesian government must be pretty stupid if they thought this would work. It's pretty sad when a government in charge of protecting the constitution doesn't know its contents.
A_Wanderer said:
A bit of a stretch there on the above statement. American slavery was ended with war, that's for sure, and how smart of the North to force the Southern states to ratify the constitutional amendments before being readmitted into the union. Otherwise, I'm sure, blacks would still be slaves and conservative folk would be using ridiculous Bible passages to maintain the status quo (remind you of a certain present constitutional amendment situation?). So, yes, war is certainly necessary at times, and fascism was tumbled by war...if you only count Nazi Germany and Italy. Spanish fascism survived until the death of Francisco Franco in the 1970s, so I guess war didn't end fascism really: just the best known examples of it.
And communism? Pray tell...how did war end communism? World War II gave the Soviet Union a stranglehold over Eastern Europe, and war certainly didn't tumble the Soviet Union. In fact, I would say that communism was almost wholly unaffected by war. The Korean War didn't end communism (it's still there in North Korea) and we lost the Vietnam War. The "domino effect" certainly didn't last long, and only Vietnam is still currently communist. China is just as "communist" as ever, even if they represent probably the worst in communism and capitalism all in one currently. Don't forget Cuba either...still as communist as ever.
Pardon me, I guess. I just really hate "bumper sticker" statements of any ideology.
Melon
deep
Blue Crack Addict
A_Wanderer said:
No, a few years later they started blowing up innocent people in British Palistine.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
International terrorists need money to move around without arousing suspicion. Look at the most wanted ones, the ones with the expertise to make bombs and plan hijackings, they are usually well off and they are willing to die for their cause. I say again look to the 9/11 hijackers I did not see men who crawled out from some hovel in Afghanistan and went to attack the west they were well off Egyptians and Saudies who could travel easily and without suspicion, they lived in the west and did normal things and this all points to the fact the most dangerous terrorist is not going to be some dumb kid told to strap a bomb to himself it is the well of man who is above suspicion, the point that only the poor and ignorant "fall" for the Islamist message is totally wrong and any look at Saudi Arabian society and where their loyalty lies will attest to that (For example the obscene actions of their security forces, the ongoing support for Terrorism and the way that they just ignored a westerner bleeding to death on the footpath after he was shot). You cannot just make blanket statements without any evidence to support it, you must deal with the real world and look at the way the enemy operates and what motivates them before being able to say what causes terrorism.
Last edited:
