"Were the events of 9-11 a terrorist attack or an attack on terrorism?"

[McBraeyer]

First Off, Islam even SAYS to kill non Muslims if they refuse to become Muslim. I've read the Koran or what ever, a muslim teacher we had was like jumping around saying shit in Arabic when 911, really happy about it..so I walk into the class and I'm like

'I swear to my gods, some one will shoot you for being a muslim'

and she was like 'You do not understand Islam! You will read the Koran'

and I read it for that trimester, and the religion is very brutal..its kinda..wierd..because every one is like 'its actually peaceful..' Till you read about 'KILL THE NON MUSLIMS!' part of it..

Secondly, the USA did not FORM the Al-Queda. They provided Afghanni freedom fighters with weapons. Not only that, we also put Fidel Castro in power during the same time, we put a dictator in charge in Korea etc, whats your point? I mean, shiet, the USA assasinated political leaders during that time, so did Russia...really, the only thing we did during then, was throw weapons into the middle east, Russia woulda done it for us..

Forgot to Add... Jihad is an Islamic word, an Islamic idea, and the Europeans did not declare it. The Europeans declared a war on the Middle Eastern populace who refused to give back Jeruselam (SP). The Muslims declared Jihad, which literally Means Holy War. In Islam, it is a movement to defend one's holy lands. There is no offensive movements in the basis of Jihad, which the Muslims them selves actually plotted to take against europe. I forgot the man's exact name, but one of the Islamic leaders in the Crusades was a prince of the middle east, kind, gentle, and he him self, a die hard Muslim, was going to attempt to invade Europe and destroy it. Thus, even from an early time, Islam was an inherently unstable religion. Mahammad died from Rabies, or at least, there is alot of evidence he had them...

But Hey, I'm just Fascist scum, who reads history, and can rip apart almost any religion that has militant involvements.. After all, what can I say, its fun. I mean christianity is worse then Islam by far... beyond destroying their own codes, they also balantly blame other religions for their atrocities..

[Zalyckron]

If one declares war, then one declares war no matter how holy it is.
You're in here to discuss terrorism and instead you're calling a nation unstable because they themselves had ambition and conquest?
You aren't basing your facts on anything, you ramble out 2 sentences about its past and the basis for one of their movements, thats just you being a fuckwhit.

And I would hardly think you're a facist but just some kid whose been wandering between forums too much.

[McBraeyer]

Actually, I am basing my information on alot of things. Even the Islamic fanaticals whom are the ones ordering and carrying out these attacks scream it is the Jihad still. Not only that, when the hell has the Middle East been stable? Let us think, almost never.

Europe declared a war to regain jerasulem, which not only had been unrightfully over ran, they were also committing atrocities on the indigineous population of it. If you ever read any thing, they slaughtered Jews any time they could.

Not Only That Zal, the Middle East is not a Nation, its what we like to call a Region, specifically, it has basis on the cultural identity associated with the Muslims. The Middle East has hated the Western world before modern age, as they have been kicked around for being foolish for an awful long time.

Like Hitler picked on the Jews, the Western world decided Islamic, they continually tried to invade, start wars, etc. They had the worst attrocities against humanity beside the Inqusition (which is a different topic) Thus, in the Modern Age, islamic fanaticals who wanted the old way of life back, tried to attack the Western World.

The Middle East used to be very complex and well off, but then again, they also did Honor Killings etc still. I mean its obvious the whole damn thing is destined to come apart when they argue about killing their wives for looking at some one in public.

----- Some one with the intelligence to research history please debate with me, I'm getting a headache from people who think the Islamic world is actually stable..

PS: As a Fascist, I promote the Norse, Cherokee, and Gaelic people over all others, believe in a massive armored fist to enforce my idealogy, and believe in promoting one's culture over all others. How am I not a Fascist? Fascism in it self is the intense belief in one's cultural identity, and thus, extreme Nationalism, and a massive military force. Nazi Germany was a F-A-S-C-I-S-T

[Evonus]

First Off, Islam even SAYS to kill non Muslims if they refuse to become Muslim. I've read the Koran or what ever, a muslim teacher we had was like jumping around saying shit in Arabic when 911, really happy about it..so I walk into the class and I'm like

'I swear to my gods, some one will shoot you for being a muslim'

and she was like 'You do not understand Islam! You will read the Koran'

and I read it for that trimester, and the religion is very brutal..its kinda..wierd..because every one is like 'its actually peaceful..' Till you read about 'KILL THE NON MUSLIMS!' part of it..

That was taken completely out of context. And things taken out of context can make any culture look bad. Let me fill in the gaps for you.

61st verse:
And arm against them, as much of a strike force and as many fighting horses you can call up, so that you will scare the enemy of God, and your enemy - and those besides them, who you don't know.

62nd verse
But if they (the enemies) tend to peace, you shall tend to peace as well.

Secondly, the USA did not FORM the Al-Queda. They provided Afghanni freedom fighters with weapons. Not only that, we also put Fidel Castro in power during the same time, we put a dictator in charge in Korea etc, whats your point? I mean, shiet, the USA assasinated political leaders during that time, so did Russia...really, the only thing we did during then, was throw weapons into the middle east, Russia woulda done it for us..

The U.S. started Al-Queda, and put Bin Ladin into power. They also started the Taliban. Yes, we did put Castro into power in Cuba, because he was better than there previous dictator. We also put Arrevalo into power in Guatemala and then took out his successor ten years later. Why did you bring Latin America into this again?

Forgot to Add... Jihad is an Islamic word, an Islamic idea, and the Europeans did not declare it. The Europeans declared a war on the Middle Eastern populace who refused to give back Jeruselam (SP). The Muslims declared Jihad, which literally Means Holy War. In Islam, it is a movement to defend one's holy lands. There is no offensive movements in the basis of Jihad, which the Muslims them selves actually plotted to take against europe. I forgot the man's exact name, but one of the Islamic leaders in the Crusades was a prince of the middle east, kind, gentle, and he him self, a die hard Muslim, was going to attempt to invade Europe and destroy it. Thus, even from an early time, Islam was an inherently unstable religion. Mahammad died from Rabies, or at least, there is alot of evidence he had them....

But Hey, I'm just Fascist scum, who reads history, and can rip apart almost any religion that has militant involvements.. After all, what can I say, its fun. I mean christianity is worse then Islam by far... beyond destroying their own codes, they also balantly blame other religions for their atrocities..

Oh, I'm sorry, the Christians didn't start a Jihad, they started a Crusade. Forgive me! Oh, and about the Muslims actually taking actions against Europe. So if someone invades you time and time again, kills your people, pillages your crops, and just commits acts of atrosity against you, you don't think that your government would do something about it?

I think you need to hit the books again kid.

Actually, I am basing my information on alot of things. Even the Islamic fanaticals whom are the ones ordering and carrying out these attacks scream it is the Jihad still. Not only that, when the hell has the Middle East been stable? Let us think, almost never.

How about when Europe was in the dark ages, and Europe relied on Muslim teachers and their knowledge of the classical world to start their Rennozonce. Europe started going uphill after the fourth crusade when they began to bother from the muslims.

Europe declared a war to regain jerasulem, which not only had been unrightfully over ran, they were also committing atrocities on the indigineous population of it. If you ever read any thing, they slaughtered Jews any time they could.

Unrightfully overran. Incase you failed geography Jerusalem is in the middle east. Besides that, the Christians were the ones that used to kill Jews during the Inquisition. The Muslims actually used to live in peace with them before the Jews became westernized and domineering.

Not Only That Zal, the Middle East is not a Nation, its what we like to call a Region, specifically, it has basis on the cultural identity associated with the Muslims. The Middle East has hated the Western world before modern age, as they have been kicked around for being foolish for an awful long time.

I think that the Europeans trying to wipe them out for not being Christian is cause enough for hate.

Like Hitler picked on the Jews, the Western world decided Islamic, they continually tried to invade, start wars, etc. They had the worst attrocities against humanity beside the Inqusition (which is a different topic) Thus, in the Modern Age, islamic fanaticals who wanted the old way of life back, tried to attack the Western World.

Can you really blame them?

The Middle East used to be very complex and well off, but then again, they also did Honor Killings etc still. I mean its obvious the whole damn thing is destined to come apart when they argue about killing their wives for looking at some one in public.

So did westerners. President Andrew Jackson shot a man for insulting his wife.

----- Some one with the intelligence to research history please debate with me, I'm getting a headache from people who think the Islamic world is actually stable..

PS: As a Fascist, I promote the Norse, Cherokee, and Gaelic people over all others, believe in a massive armored fist to enforce my idealogy, and believe in promoting one's culture over all others. How am I not a Fascist? Fascism in it self is the intense belief in one's cultural identity, and thus, extreme Nationalism, and a massive military force. Nazi Germany was a F-A-S-C-I-S-T

I think I know enough about history to take you apart.

I'm a conservative. I believe that all people are created equal, but do not necessarily retain this status as they age. I am pro big business, and GDP growth over worker rights and welfare. I believe in the promotion of old old traditions over new ideas. However, my beliefs are somewhat flexible, and as an atheist have been called a somewhat liberal conservative.

I don't think anyone really needed your definition of faccist, or mine for that matter. BTW.

[McBraeyer]

1.No, there is a passage in the Koran, that clearly says if they are not a muslim, and refuse to become one, that by force you may make them, and this, failing, you can kill them.

2. The USA technically started a resistance movement, not a terriost cell, Bin Laden was a trained soldier under the CIA's intervention, there is a difference.

3. I noted that the Islamic prince of the desert was going to invade Europe under the directive of JIHAD. Which is a DEFENSIVE MOVEMENT, not offensive. This is a very noticable contradiction, using defense to over run the rest of the known world.

4. Funny how alot of the middle eastern Knowledge stems from Greek-Roman era, when they were over ran by them, and large libraries set up. It was logical, the desert conditions helped slow the decay and degradation of materials used in that era, no CD roms back then.

5. Mohammad ordered the killings of Hundred of Jewish men and women via beheading for no reason other then they were Jews. Why? Technically, Israel is in the region of palenstine today, back then, the Muslims didn't like them, today they don't like them. Its a biblical reference to their chosen land, the Muslims lost it, how? Not quite sure, I bet it was some thing of being asorbed into Jewish society, some war, and hell, just leaving.

6. The Europeans never wiped out the Middle East for being on christian, in fact, if that was the goal of the Crusades, they failed miserably. Europe lost ground in the Crusades, Spain had a muslim strong hold, the Middle East didn't have much of any thing. Not only that, the actual purpose of the Crusades was to get a bunch of lesser knights/nobles killed off, because the next generation was going to get their land soon, and there was to many of them for the church to properly control. Don't believe me? Think about the Catholic church in that era for a bit.

7. Blame whom? Please elaborate.

8. That was a duel, completely allowed during the time period, honorable, and guess what? Jackson almost died from it. Not only that, if they still allowed duels, alot of people wouldn't ever open their mouth because I'd keep a brace of Mantons in my house just for dueling.

9. My reason for putting the defintion of a Fascist in there is because Zal clearly stated I'm not one, which is a lie, as if I could, I'd willingly rip apart the old governments, enforce the will of the new age Fuhrer, and essentially, throw every one back to WW2 so we could have another grand war.. Yes, I'm willing to reinstate the situation of WW2 because I feel war after vietnam isn't a true war..

PS: Honor killings is when a man kills his wife, daughter etc, to save family honor. It is still practiced today, and is a gruesome, disgusting, thing. If your daughter flirts in public, even so much as a single sentence such as: 'Hey cutie' They are up to die that night via burning alive, which is common. Having their eyes etc pulled out. Shot, bled to death, and many other things.

A duel on the other hand has to do with many things, and is two men taking a shot at 10 paces, or what ever they agree on, and thats that. A Sword duel is along the same lines, but with swords. It is a very honorable thing to do, as if a man insults your wife, challenge his intergrity, and willingness to back his statement.

[Evonus]

1.No, there is a passage in the Koran, that clearly says if they are not a muslim, and refuse to become one, that by force you may make them, and this, failing, you can kill them.

Care to find and paste it here?

2. The USA technically started a resistance movement, not a terriost cell, Bin Laden was a trained soldier under the CIA's intervention, there is a difference.

The U.S. would like you to believe so. The U.S. resorts to terrorism all the time, and this is just another example. Look at some source other than American ones. I'm sure you would find a rather different opinion than what you're posting.

3. I noted that the Islamic prince of the desert was going to invade Europe under the directive of JIHAD. Which is a DEFENSIVE MOVEMENT, not offensive. This is a very noticable contradiction, using defense to over run the rest of the known world.

So one guy was a hippocrite, your point? Doesn't mean they're all like that.

4. Funny how alot of the middle eastern Knowledge stems from Greek-Roman era, when they were over ran by them, and large libraries set up. It was logical, the desert conditions helped slow the decay and degradation of materials used in that era, no CD roms back then.

They overran them, because the Greeks and Romans were on their land.

5. Mohammad ordered the killings of Hundred of Jewish men and women via beheading for no reason other then they were Jews. Why? Technically, Israel is in the region of palenstine today, back then, the Muslims didn't like them, today they don't like them. Its a biblical reference to their chosen land, the Muslims lost it, how? Not quite sure, I bet it was some thing of being asorbed into Jewish society, some war, and hell, just leaving.

The second half of this made no sense. I never heard of Mohammed doing that. Got any proof?

6. The Europeans never wiped out the Middle East for being on christian, in fact, if that was the goal of the Crusades, they failed miserably. Europe lost ground in the Crusades, Spain had a muslim strong hold, the Middle East didn't have much of any thing. Not only that, the actual purpose of the Crusades was to get a bunch of lesser knights/nobles killed off, because the next generation was going to get their land soon, and there was to many of them for the church to properly control. Don't believe me? Think about the Catholic church in that era for a bit.

The crusades were a miserable failure. They were to take back Jerusalem and exterminate the muslims living there. Seeing how you can read Pope Urban II's mind I'm guessing you made the rest up.

9. My reason for putting the defintion of a Fascist in there is because Zal clearly stated I'm not one, which is a lie, as if I could, I'd willingly rip apart the old governments, enforce the will of the new age Fuhrer, and essentially, throw every one back to WW2 so we could have another grand war.. Yes, I'm willing to reinstate the situation of WW2 because I feel war after vietnam isn't a true war..

Ok. My mistake.

PS: Honor killings is when a man kills his wife, daughter etc, to save family honor. It is still practiced today, and is a gruesome, disgusting, thing. If your daughter flirts in public, even so much as a single sentence such as: 'Hey cutie' They are up to die that night via burning alive, which is common. Having their eyes etc pulled out. Shot, bled to death, and many other things.

A duel on the other hand has to do with many things, and is two men taking a shot at 10 paces, or what ever they agree on, and thats that. A Sword duel is along the same lines, but with swords. It is a very honorable thing to do, as if a man insults your wife, challenge his intergrity, and willingness to back his statement.

Oh, I'm sorry. I've never heard the term honor killing. But anyway, honor killings where a man kills his wife for honor are quite comon and always were, thanks to the code of courtly love. The bible has a commandment against adultry, and most men feel the need to take care of it themselves. As far as the daughter thing, that doesn't happen much in western society, but we have different beliefs. Doesn't make them wrong.

[McBraeyer]

Actually, I can't find an example of when the USA starts to terrorism, please find and paste it here. The USA Has used Covert Ops, which is NOT Terrorism, as it is a military action that requires stealth etc.

Terrorism is an attack meant to place fear in the hearts of the attacked people, and normally the attackers are suicidal, better to show your resolve by dying isn't it? I mean, if you die, you don't have to face the music of the harmed masses, hear the stories about families destroyed..

By All means, the true purpose of the Crusades worked, They got rid of many young knights who else wise, would have taken more land from their previous generation. Of Course the Catholic church was destined to die after the Crusades..

Honor killings are NOT common, I've never heard of a Reneissance man publically beheading his wife for looking at another male. There is a difference between sleeping with some one, and merely looking in their direction, Honor Killings are killing the female for LOOKING at another male. An unmarried female may be killed by her father for LOOKING at a male from across the street, for removing their veil, things like this, NOTHING serious..

Islam is very controlling towards females,more so then Early europe, or the South Pre Civil war. The Southern Female was little more then a slave that could live decently. That was said about southern females. And Islam is worse then that, they kill females before White Men killed their slaves. Thats how controlling it is..

[vadia]

Going back to the original topic: terrorism or an attack on a terrorist nation, I would argue that it could be both.  Terrorism: if defined as an attack on civilians, was practiced by both sides. 
So the U.S. has a history full of atrocities . . . few nations do not; are it’s atrocities worse than other nations in similar situations (such as The British, Roman, or Ottoman empires)?
If U.S. atrocities are worse than equivalent nations

But what is the definition of terrorism?
American Heritage Dictionary -
ter·ror·ism:      n.   The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By this definition the U.S. is not a terrorist nation (though I do not support the aforementioned cited atrocities).  They intend to fight wars as a means of forcing a decision – not as a psychological intimidation as described above.  (One could argue that it is worse to force the decision than to intimidate and coerce it)

In sum, two wrongs do not make a right.  And while the U.S. should defend itself from wrongs – it has a moral obligation to do so in a manner to decrease wrongdoing as much as possible (which fundamentally means that they have to think things through much more than they have been or they will end up stirring up more anger and increase long term wrong-doings).

May the Creator give wisdom to the leaders of the U.S. (and every other nation) to avoid wrong and cling to Good.  (And if you don’t believe in a creator, wouldn’t it be nice if the aforementioned were done despite your disbelief?)