Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do non americans see our war?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 7:10:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I now a few people here are not from america, and still have opinions on our war with iraq/ afghanistan.

How do you guys see it... justified or dumb?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 8:41:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 7:10:00 AM, comoncents wrote:
I know* a few people here are not from america, and still have opinions on our war with iraq/ afghanistan.



How do you guys see it... justified or dumb?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:25:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 7:10:00 AM, comoncents wrote:
I now a few people here are not from america, and still have opinions on our war with iraq/ afghanistan.



How do you guys see it... justified or dumb?

I am British and am one of the few socialists I know that has always been in favour of both conflicts - though I do believe our European neighbours should have committed far more troops and resources than they have.

My only caveat is that these actions are seen as unbalanced in the wider Middle East because no sanctions are applied to Israel who are a nuclear power and who have also committed serial war crimes against innocent Arab civilians, such as those in Gaza last year which were officially described as such by the UN.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 9:59:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 9:25:32 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 10/6/2009 7:10:00 AM, comoncents wrote:
I now a few people here are not from america, and still have opinions on our war with iraq/ afghanistan.



How do you guys see it... justified or dumb?

I am British and am one of the few socialists I know that has always been in favour of both conflicts - though I do believe our European neighbours should have committed far more troops and resources than they have.

My only caveat is that these actions are seen as unbalanced in the wider Middle East because no sanctions are applied to Israel who are a nuclear power and who have also committed serial war crimes against innocent Arab civilians, such as those in Gaza last year which were officially described as such by the UN.

wow, i find that surprising.

thank you, great info.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 11:42:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Iraq -

1) Oil. Duh.

2) Look at a map. America now have a land route between Turkey and Saudi Arabia, her allies.

3) Bush needed more scapegoats

Afghanistan:

1) Iran now cornered.

2) Terrorists now attack India from Pakistan
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 12:34:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 12:25:19 PM, feverish wrote:
They somehow became our wars too and I am definitely not in favour of them.

that seems to be true... our wars are your wars...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 2:18:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The War in Afghanistan was needed, and I'm proud that my country came to the United States' side when it was needed. I don't think there was a single country against the United States in the aftermath of September 11th. Afghanistan was a proper cause, with proper goals and good ideas in mind.

But, alternately, I'm proud that my country did not come to the side of the United States when Bush asked for allies to invade Iraq. A war that was not only based on lies perpetrated by the US administration, but took funds and attention away from the Afghan theatre, where it was actually needed. Iraq was a completely pointless, monetary-black-hole war and it destroyed the United States' perception as a fair world power where other states could reasonably trust your intentions. Regardless of Cheney's or Fox News' assurances, Iraq and the decline of American influence in the world will be Bush's legacy, and I frankly think it is deserving.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 3:11:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 2:18:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
The War in Afghanistan was needed, and I'm proud that my country came to the United States' side when it was needed. I don't think there was a single country against the United States in the aftermath of September 11th. Afghanistan was a proper cause, with proper goals and good ideas in mind.

But, alternately, I'm proud that my country did not come to the side of the United States when Bush asked for allies to invade Iraq. A war that was not only based on lies perpetrated by the US administration, but took funds and attention away from the Afghan theatre, where it was actually needed. Iraq was a completely pointless, monetary-black-hole war and it destroyed the United States' perception as a fair world power where other states could reasonably trust your intentions. Regardless of Cheney's or Fox News' assurances, Iraq and the decline of American influence in the world will be Bush's legacy, and I frankly think it is deserving.

i agree with this... i would be proud as well.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2009 7:22:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 7:10:00 AM, comoncents wrote:
I now a few people here are not from america, and still have opinions on our war with iraq/ afghanistan.



How do you guys see it... justified or dumb?

I'm from Australia and because our Prime Minister couldn't take his mouth of Bush's c*ck long enough to say "no", we got dragged into "your" war as well. That's how I see it.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2009 10:08:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Being Canadian I'm 100% in support of the "war" in Afghanistan. It was fully justified in my opinion and I think that bringing our troops home before their mission of implementing a stable democracy while rooting out violent extremists in the country is finished, would be a gross injustice to the men and women who gave their lives for that purpose. The Taliban needed to be removed from 'legitimate' power.

Iraq is a different story. MASSIVE error in judgment on the part of the Bush administration based on vague and faulty "intelligence". Once they realized there were NO WMDs they decided to try to cover their asses by hanging Saddam for unrelated crimes and trying to mask it as an extension of the 'War on Terror'. In my opinion we should have invaded North Korea instead.

At 10/6/2009 9:25:32 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:

I am British and am one of the few socialists I know that has always been in favour of both conflicts - though I do believe our European neighbours should have committed far more troops and resources than they have.


Why?? It wasn't their war to begin with. You should be grateful for any support you did get... especially in Iraq. It would have been nice if they decided to help out a bit more but you can't expect them to just drop everything and come running to your side whenever you want them to.

That's part of the problem I have with conservative Americans. So many of them feel that us Canadians somehow 'betrayed' their friendship because we decided not to blindly follow them into a war nobody wanted, like we have some kind of obligation to them because we're neighbours. This isn't grade school anymore. Peer pressure is for the weak. Coalition of The Willing? Give me a break. The US and Britain (and Australia) is hardly a coalition.... well actually I guess I forgot Poland :P (props to any other non-Americans who get that reference)

And that's my rant for the day.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2009 11:33:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/6/2009 7:10:00 AM, comoncents wrote:
I now a few people here are not from america, and still have opinions on our war with iraq/ afghanistan.



How do you guys see it... justified or dumb?

Well unfortunately you have dragged your pets into the war as well, such as Britain. I wonder how much Blair was paid, but in truth pretty much any British PM would have sold as out.

These, very briefly are my opinions on 'your' war(s).

They are unprovoked, unjustified legally, morally and militariily, they are against the wrong target, they are counter productive in that they are making your enemy stronger, your generals do not understand how to win the war or when they do they are overruled by mentally deficient politicians, they are little more than wars of Imperialism. Iraq is to America what the Transvaal Republic was to Britain.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Frenchy
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 6:57:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm French and live in the carribean sea on a little Island called Martinique.

I agree with Volkov opinion too. France supported and still support the Us Army in Afghanistan but when the war broke out in Iraq we didn't understand at all. There was an aim in afghanistan: capture Ousama BenLaden and his talibans and spread the right of democracy in countries. We saw the Iraq war as a big wastes of men and money that could have been useful il Afghanistan.
We were also shocked during several years by the incredible anti-french feelings. It hurt us because we knew that we are linked since the birth of the United States. More generally, the G.Bush's administration gave a very bad reputation of your country.
Well time passed and many things have changed. The Obama's era open ed a new kind of relationship because our ideas are closer tahn before. However the French army has some difficulties to adapt its way of working to the american's one.
When we land in a country we land with general ideas of democracy; we respect the other culture and we estimate that it's the job of the inhabitants to build their own democracy and adapt it to their own culture. For the Us army it is different and less cool to my mind. US army land in a new america... The US soldiers arrive with teir own culture and want to enforce it. They bring macdonals, when they destroy civilians house in mistakes so they give dollars (without thinking of what the money will pay...sometimes weapons that will kill their mates later), and they let civilians with weapons like in america (unbelievable in a warfare area!), and I don't talk about the drugs crops which are stupidly ignored (no one thought about rebuilding the country from the interrior and change its "from and to mouth" economy?) . These exemples are not the only ones. Of course I don't say French and other armies are better, but I often see dangerous behaviours. Most of the time the US army seems to forget that the american model isn't the only one and not necessarily the best too.
thank you for tolerating my bad english ;)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 8:46:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It hurt us because we knew that we are linked since the birth of the United States.
No you weren't.

A monarchy was linked, that lost shortly afterward, to a Revolution that lost to someone else, so on and so forth

A modern Frenchman that is loyal to the government claiming a link to the birth of the United States because of the actions of Loius XVI is like a modern Vietnamese loyal to the current government claiming a link to the US in the Cold War because of the actions of South Vietnam, except with more steps in between.

When we land in a country we land with general ideas of democracy; we respect the other culture and we estimate that it's the job of the inhabitants to build their own democracy and adapt it to their own culture.
Anyone who lands with TROOPS in a foreign country on the grounds of respect for the majority of inhabitants thereof needs to rethink one or both clauses.

and I don't talk about the drugs crops which are stupidly ignored
Drug crops in Afghanistan are destroyed as a matter of official US policy. Ignoring them would probably have superior results, frankly.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 8:31:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 8:46:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Anyone who lands with TROOPS in a foreign country on the grounds of respect for the majority of inhabitants thereof needs to rethink one or both clauses.

I see what you're saying, but that's not always the case (think Poland in WWII).

Anyway, I agree with Brian and Volkov on this one.
President of DDO
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 8:35:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am pro war. I think war only makes things better, thus I think us being in those countries is a good thing
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 8:38:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/13/2009 8:35:25 AM, philosphical wrote:
I am pro war. I think war only makes things better, thus I think us being in those countries is a good thing

Disagree.... all of our wars are mostly boarder wars... we should allow the country to handle it...

if you are pro war... have you ever been in one... i have... it is not fun to have a soldier die in arms when you can't save his life...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 9:06:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Poland was effectively inhabited by Germans for the purposes of war, who were larger than the Polish by population :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 1:49:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/13/2009 8:35:25 AM, philosphical wrote:
I am pro war. I think war only makes things better, thus I think us being in those countries is a good thing

How do you justify this idea?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 9:54:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Who said that you have the right to spread democracy in other countries? Who said democracy was the best form of government? Do you think finding Osama bin Laden (either he doesn't exist as we know him, or he isn't doing what the ignorant politicians say) is justifying the war in Afghanistan? Do you think Taliban is a greater threat to the Afghans than the Western forces? Who said that Taliban's ideology (that Afghanistan must be under Islamic rule) is bad? How would a Western country react if Saudi Arabia invaded it because it thought democracy was bad and that a president is bad, and a dictator is good? Don't try to make it look like it is justified. It can never be justified. Iraq was for oil, and the Bush-administration knew that Iraq did not have any WMDs, and they also knew that an invasion immediately is not the right thing to do at all, but to investigate further (if they actually suspected that Iraq had WMDs, but they knew it didn't). The war in Afghanistan is something terrible and unjust, but you cannot realize it due to what the media and the mindless politicians tell you. Bush did not mind invading two Muslim countries, just as he did not mind blowing up the twin towers, and then blamed it on cavemen who cannot even spell 'New York'. The truth will be clear one day, but it will be too late because millions of lives will be lost, lives will be ruined, countries will suffer economically, and whatnot.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 12:08:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 9:54:39 AM, Mirza wrote:
Who said that you have the right to spread democracy in other countries? Who said democracy was the best form of government?

They don't have the right to spread democracy, but democracy is the best system available. Please don't tell me you think otherwise.

Do you think finding Osama bin Laden (either he doesn't exist as we know him, or he isn't doing what the ignorant politicians say) is justifying the war in Afghanistan?

Uh, yes, Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, who propped up Osama, who coordinated 9/11. I see the links there.

Do you think Taliban is a greater threat to the Afghans than the Western forces?

Show me the atrocities committed by Western forces on Afghanis vs. Suppression of woman and strict enforcement of backward Islamic law?

Who said that Taliban's ideology (that Afghanistan must be under Islamic rule) is bad?

Uh, everyone with a stable mind.

How would a Western country react if Saudi Arabia invaded it because it thought democracy was bad and that a president is bad, and a dictator is good?

They wouldn't praise it, and I do believe America and other coalition fought in a certain 1991 gulf war when a certain dictatorship invaded a certain democracy. Please fill in the blanks.

Don't try to make it look like it is justified. It can never be justified. Iraq was for oil, and the Bush-administration knew that Iraq did not have any WMDs, and they also knew that an invasion immediately is not the right thing to do at all, but to investigate further (if they actually suspected that Iraq had WMDs, but they knew it didn't).

Very few people are saying Iraq was justified. It was horrendously stupid.

The war in Afghanistan is something terrible and unjust, but you cannot realize it due to what the media and the mindless politicians tell you. Bush did not mind invading two Muslim countries, just as he did not mind blowing up the twin towers, and then blamed it on cavemen who cannot even spell 'New York'. The truth will be clear one day, but it will be too late because millions of lives will be lost, lives will be ruined, countries will suffer economically, and whatnot.

1) Bush didn't blow up the twin towers. http://tinyurl.com...

2) These 'cavemen' bombed the Pentagon and the Twin Towers . Whats not to get? These same cavemen fought the Soviets and won.

3) Again, Osama links to Afghanistan are clear.

4) Proof of these claims?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 1:13:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have a question to pose to all Americans: How do you justify attacking other countries for having nukes when you have more than every other country(except Russia)? Also, you're the only ones to ever use nukes in combat. Don't you think that's just a bit hypocritical?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 1:19:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 1:13:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I have a question to pose to all Americans: How do you justify attacking other countries for having nukes when you have more than every other country(except Russia)? Also, you're the only ones to ever use nukes in combat. Don't you think that's just a bit hypocritical?

The idea is to stop countries from proliferating more weapons; the United States and Russia haven't created any more nuclear weapons since the 90's. They've been pursuing lines of non-proliferation since long before then.

And while it may be hypocritical for the US to say we have nukes, but you can't have them, it is also worth to note that they're aiming to lower their stockpiles, and that the United States, Russia, UK, France and some others are actually fairly responsible with nuclear weapons, because they're under safeguards and there isn't really going to be any use for them. Countries like Israel, Pakistan, India, and now Iran, will get them, but will not have good safeguards either against them being stolen, or against their use overall.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 1:22:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 1:19:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/16/2009 1:13:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I have a question to pose to all Americans: How do you justify attacking other countries for having nukes when you have more than every other country(except Russia)? Also, you're the only ones to ever use nukes in combat. Don't you think that's just a bit hypocritical?

The idea is to stop countries from proliferating more weapons; the United States and Russia haven't created any more nuclear weapons since the 90's. They've been pursuing lines of non-proliferation since long before then.

And while it may be hypocritical for the US to say we have nukes, but you can't have them, it is also worth to note that they're aiming to lower their stockpiles, and that the United States, Russia, UK, France and some others are actually fairly responsible with nuclear weapons, because they're under safeguards and there isn't really going to be any use for them. Countries like Israel, Pakistan, India, and now Iran, will get them, but will not have good safeguards either against them being stolen, or against their use overall.

You have to realize that other countries are probably aware not to use them. I'll use the Cold War as an example. Both Russia and the United States didn't use their nukes because of the destruction that was assured to happen. Both sides had enough nukes to destroy the planet...more than once.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 1:33:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 1:22:43 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
You have to realize that other countries are probably aware not to use them. I'll use the Cold War as an example. Both Russia and the United States didn't use their nukes because of the destruction that was assured to happen. Both sides had enough nukes to destroy the planet...more than once.

Both sides didn't use their weapons because they knew of the destruction about to happen. Yes. Agreed. But that doesn't mean they weren't prepared to use them; it was the last resort, or an imminent threat to be used, depending on the situation.

But that isn't necessarily the same situation that will occur if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that is literally controlled by hardliners. Most of them are friendly, moderate and sort of nice; but there is quite a few that aren't, and they're prepared to do things that most people wouldn't dream of, like willingly selling - or giving - nuclear weapons or secrets to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

That is just one thing that can come out of Iran-and-nukes situations. It isn't something that happened with the Cold War powers, because both sides kept their hardliners and extremists under control and out of major government power roles. So, the assurance of destruction aside, what is stopping the Iranians with a few screws loose from creating a very bad situation? And how does more nuclear weapon proliferation create a more peaceful situation in general?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 1:41:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 1:33:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/16/2009 1:22:43 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
You have to realize that other countries are probably aware not to use them. I'll use the Cold War as an example. Both Russia and the United States didn't use their nukes because of the destruction that was assured to happen. Both sides had enough nukes to destroy the planet...more than once.

Both sides didn't use their weapons because they knew of the destruction about to happen. Yes. Agreed. But that doesn't mean they weren't prepared to use them; it was the last resort, or an imminent threat to be used, depending on the situation.

But that isn't necessarily the same situation that will occur if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that is literally controlled by hardliners. Most of them are friendly, moderate and sort of nice; but there is quite a few that aren't, and they're prepared to do things that most people wouldn't dream of, like willingly selling - or giving - nuclear weapons or secrets to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

That is just one thing that can come out of Iran-and-nukes situations. It isn't something that happened with the Cold War powers, because both sides kept their hardliners and extremists under control and out of major government power roles. So, the assurance of destruction aside, what is stopping the Iranians with a few screws loose from creating a very bad situation? And how does more nuclear weapon proliferation create a more peaceful situation in general?

Regardless of what the situation is I still think the US and other countries should be working to dispose of their weapons before preaching to the rest of the world that they're bad.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 1:45:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 1:41:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Regardless of what the situation is I still think the US and other countries should be working to dispose of their weapons before preaching to the rest of the world that they're bad.

That is all well and fine, but it doesn't make sense. I agree that they should work towards their already-stated targets, and they are a bit, but they have to work to stop current proliferation from other countries that won't even consider lowering their stockpiles.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:18:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
4) Proof of these claims?

1. Democracy is the best form of government to you, not to everybody. You have to accept the fact that not everybody shares your opinions.

2. Osama bin Laden did not plan 9/11. The Bush-administration planned it, and not only did they succeed in destroying the towers, but also to make many people believe in their theory, and you're one of those who believe in their theory. See: http://www.911truth.org...

3. They waged war against the Afghans by invading their country, Taliban didn't. They just wanted their country to be ruled according to Islamic rules (although some of them are innovated by Taliban).

4. It is very insulting when you say that those who aren't against Shari'a Law are with unstable minds.

5. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the West interfered, and they did definitely not like it. However, the entire NATO has invaded Afghanistan, and nobody opposes it from the Western side. Are we seeing any Muslim country attempting to defend Afghanistan? What would happen then?

6. Yes, invading Iraq was stupid, but how many people would agree in 2004 when they re-elected Bush as president? The same way, you will figure out that invading Afghanistan is stupid, because invading it is based upon lies that will stand out very soon, I hope.

7. a) Bush did blow up the twin towers. You will hopefully agree with me one day.

b) Comparing using AK47 and flying planes into several buildings?

c) Bush-administration planning 9/11 and all the worthless invasions is proven. It's just that they've been successful in brainwashing some people, unfortunately.

d) Yes, I have many proofs. We agree on the issue with Iraq. With Afghanistan, once the truth about 9/11 reaches you, you will also agree on that. Regarding Islamic Law, I have a positive view on it. If you think that Shari'a Law is bad for Muslims, you're wrong. They like Shari'a Law as much as you like democracy.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:31:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 4:18:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
4) Proof of these claims?

1. Democracy is the best form of government to you, not to everybody. You have to accept the fact that not everybody shares your opinions.

Democracy, is the best form of rule. It's the rule of the people.You don't want democracy? Vote in the communist party. Democracy helps leave all options open.


2. Osama bin Laden did not plan 9/11. The Bush-administration planned it, and not only did they succeed in destroying the towers, but also to make many people believe in their theory, and you're one of those who believe in their theory. See: http://www.911truth.org...

Point me to the specific page which states it was a set-up by George Bush.


3. They waged war against the Afghans by invading their country, Taliban didn't. They just wanted their country to be ruled according to Islamic rules (although some of them are innovated by Taliban).

The Taliban attacked America. Don't say they didn't, they claimed to do it. The same as Pearl Harbour, they attack, you react.


4. It is very insulting when you say that those who aren't against Shari'a Law are with unstable minds.

Suppression of women and homosexuality is stable mind?


5. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the West interfered, and they did definitely not like it. However, the entire NATO has invaded Afghanistan, and nobody opposes it from the Western side. Are we seeing any Muslim country attempting to defend Afghanistan? What would happen then?

Yes, all of NATO has attacked the aggressor. The war isn't a war of religion, well it may be in the eyes of the Taliban, but it's a war America was dragged into. The Taliban are the aggressor, and they weren't justified, so why support America?


6. Yes, invading Iraq was stupid, but how many people would agree in 2004 when they re-elected Bush as president? The same way, you will figure out that invading Afghanistan is stupid, because invading it is based upon lies that will stand out very soon, I hope.

Afghanistan wasn't invaded based on leis see the video in my first response.


7. a) Bush did blow up the twin towers. You will hopefully agree with me one day.

No I won. Your putting disparate facts together because you can't believe the efficiency and speed of 9\11


b) Comparing using AK47 and flying planes into several buildings?

They went to flying school, hijacked low security planes, flew them into towers, cheap, simple and effective.


c) Bush-administration planning 9/11 and all the worthless invasions is proven. It's just that they've been successful in brainwashing some people, unfortunately.

Brainwashing on the other side. Again, see my video.


d) Yes, I have many proofs. We agree on the issue with Iraq. With Afghanistan, once the truth about 9/11 reaches you, you will also agree on that. Regarding Islamic Law, I have a positive view on it. If you think that Shari'a Law is bad for Muslims, you're wrong. They like Shari'a Law as much as you like democracy.

Shari'a law is something I cannot agree with. It abuses the wrights of minorities, and not democratic, and is a Theocracy, which I clearly oppose as an Atheist.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.