how do i respond?

Question

some matured guys were argueing yesterday in my house about sept 11 attack. one of them said...president bin laden of al-q....community kills for

Answer 1

Both comments were not only "untrue", but very ignorant to say... Its clear someone needs some education!

Answer 2

Osama bin Laden (he's not a President) does kill in the name of his God (Allah) President Bush fights under the premise of protecting the United States, but is really motivated by something few people can figure out. He says it's to stop terrorism, but fights where there are no terrorists, until by virtue of the United States presence, there are terrorist type people but they're fighting each other!Alot of people think he's fighting for petrol, but I think that's too simplistic. I think if you want to get into the debate with people in your house, you should ask "Why do you think President Bush is fighting just for Petroleum?" "Do you think that bin Laden has gone a bit overboard in his quest to hurt the U.S.?" or "What does bin Laden hope to achieve from fighting for his God" Remember you can always join in a healthy debate, even if you don't know the answers yourself. Ask some questions to get the ball rolling and learn from what EVERYONE has to say, and then form your own opinion...

Answer 3

What scares me is that both statemets are true. God and oil as driving forces to killing give no room whatsoever to consider the dignity of human life. Bin Laden and Bush: Twin Terrors.

Answer 4

Neither, Bin Laden doesn't kill "for God"- when has God wanted humans to do his dirty work for him? If he disagreed with something, He'd strike it down with his divine balls of lightning. Or was that some pagan god? Hm, I can't remember. Anyway, while Bush might see things through a filter of oil resources (he's been in the oil-branch too long not to) it really hasn't been ALL that apparent in his foreign policy.

Answer 5

My first comment is that the kill for oil is from somebody who is regurgitating a really old phrase which does not apply to the current situation. The first Gulf war was about oil and protecting economic interests of the West. If Iraq had invaded Somolia instead of Kuwiat we'd probably said bad boy don't do that. I doubt we'd even seriously considered sending troops. The second gulf war has nothing to do with oil.

The attitude is also one of power. The left would actually like to see us fail in Iraq. They have even openly rejoiced when American's are killed in Iraq. They hate the right so much that they root for our enemies. That they collaborate with them. The right is no better and is guilty of the same thing.


Niether Bush or Bin Ladin do what they do for such simplistic reasons.

Bin Ladin is fighting to preserve a life and power structure that cannot survive contact with the West and it's freedoms. He also fights to rid the world of infidels. People he considers so evil they are not people any more. Bin Ladin happily targets women and children. Almost all who die from his operations are women and children. Occasionally a soldier accidentally dies from a Bin Ladin operation. Bin Ladin fights a cowards war.

Bush leads a group which is trying to implement it's own type of world. They have a vision which many feel is unrealistic or undesirable. To some as undesirable as Bin Ladin's, though the aspects they seem to hate most is actually very similer. Unlike Bin Ladin Bush does not plan attacks. He I think honestly believes what he is doing is making the world a better place. Oil has nothing to do with our second invasion of Iraq. In fact it has disturbed oil prices. It has everything to do with keeping the entrenched parties in power. Republican or Democrat the two parties have an agenda that they have worked on collaboratively. In words they oppose each other. In deed they aid each other.

In my opinion both are evil. Bin Ladin much more so than Bush, but the cause that Bush represents only a slightly lessor of the evils. The US however in it's efforts in Iraq as a nation are not there for evil. Nor are we there for power, greed or anything like that. To assume what Bush does is wrong because Bush cannot articulate the real reasons is at the least very hyprocritical. I do seperate the US from the ambitions of a single man even if he officially leads the nation at a given moment. I do not feel Bush, or Clinton or the other jokes we've elected in my lifetime are representive of the US or it's population. I am very convinced that they do not have our best interests in thier hearts. Not even as an afterthought. I am also equally convinced that thousands of Americans helped form up our Iraqi policy. That what we have done in Iraq is amazing in our ability to limit civillian casualties. I also believe America would lynch any president that tried to colonize the mid-east.

Are we in Iraq because of 9-11. No we are not. We would have invaded Iraq whether or not 9-11 happened. 9-11 sped things up a little. Before 9-11 happened there was already a great deal of tension between the US and Iraq. Saddam was getting filthy rich off the food for oil program. So too were Americans, Europeans and a few elite Iraqis.

Iraq was invaded for many reasons. WMD being the key one. Saddam had already used them. Threatened to use them. Was actively seeking them. We'd broken up previous WMD programs in Iraq and Iraq never cooperated with UN inspectors. Iraq was like a toddler trying to grab a hand granade to go play with as a nation headed by Saddam. I have no doubt that our Middle East allies all but begged us to get rid of him. None will of course admit it publicly. I am equally certain that a great deal of the cooperation we get hunting terrorists is a direct result of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. Whether it be fear of us invading thier nation or as a favor for getting rid of Saddam it doesn't matter. The fact is that most of the Middle East got very coopertive after Iraq was invaded. It is also very clear the West MUST put a stop to terrorism.

The left doesn't even think about this question really. They give it lip service. The right somehow thinks we can invade countries but not hold governments and the population responsible. We do accomplish much by hunting the money trails. This has mean terrorist organizations now have to rely on home grown terrorists as the financial means to carry out large scale operations is more difficult to obtain and to use without giving themselves away. Other than that we've done little to fight terrorism itself. Removing Saddam from power closed down a route to WMDs for terrorists. It also prevented furthor wars. Iraq was heading for war, it was just who they were going to war with that was the question.

So in response I would ask a question. That question being. "So you approve of killing innocents if the motivation is right? Then what about the Salem witch trials or the Spanish Inquisition. Those were done in the name of God. Does that make what they did better because of the reason?"

By saying Bin Ladin was better they also implied that murder was ok. Doesn't matter who is better. They themselves by saying what they did said they approved of murder. Lets see them defend that. They can't.

Answer 6

How is Bin laden killing for God? i seriously doubt that God is approving of Bin Laden....

Bush is is helping people over there. THe military is helping them build a safer country and protect the people from self-destructing...

Answer 7

When it comes to US's oil suppliers Iraq is #6. If we were really going to go to war for oil wouldnt it of been smarter and cheaper to start the war with our #1 (Canada) or #2 (Mexico) supplier.

People are stupid. You learn quickly to just ignore them.