Fahrenheit 9/11...

[surian]

One argument I hear a lot when people claim the war is for oil is that we have no need as a country to get oil from Iraq. We get almost 80% of our oil from venisuela. Therfor there is no reason for us to go into Iraq for oil.

 

I agree with this completely. There is no reason for us to go into Iraq for oil. The reason we went into Iraq wasn't for US to gain oil, but for Bush's constituants and he himself to get money from companies they have interest in that will make billions on Iraqi oil. WE won't see this oil money, but we will send our sons and daughetes, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters to go die for it. What do they get in return? A folded american flag.

[tyjet3]

the gov't allowed 30 or so Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, safe passage to Saudi Arabia by our own planes

 

SO WHAT!!! I don't see why anyone cares about this... They were already questioned and they said they knew nothing. Plus the Iraqi government asked for some nationals to come home... So MAYBE the government let a plane leave ONE day early... SO WHAT!!

 

He does have valid points! Guns do kill people!

 

NO... people kill people... Just because you take away a gun, doesn't mean killers won't use a knife, stellpipe, wrench, candlestick, rope, (weapons from clue, hahaha)... ect.

 

--------------------------

 

@Darnoc: America is hated because of our power. Plane and simple. The reason Switzerland will never be attacked is because they will never be as powerful as USA. Muslims do not hate us because of our power though. They hate us because of our rights and freedoms and how we show them off. Muslims are hard-core conservatives and don't believe in female rights, gay marrige, showing ANY skin, ect. You obviously know nothing about other cultures around the world... If you did you would understand why America is hated... Yes, we are hated now for our corrent actions, but just so you know, America has ALWAYS been hated by someone because people are jealous of our power and the rights of our citizens. That is what are country stands and fights for...

[surian]

NO... people kill people... Just because you take away a gun, doesn't mean killers won't use a knife, stellpipe, wrench, candlestick, rope, (weapons from clue, hahaha)... ect.

 

Again, I'm undecided about this whole issue but I'll say this: People may kill people... but guns sure help. Of course people can use other weapons to kill someone but guns are much more lethal than a candlestick or a rope and they are DESIGNED for that one purpose.

 

SO WHAT!!! I don't see why anyone cares about this

 

Well, that's not true. People do, in fact, care about it. The Bin Ladens did probably know a little about Osama's whereabouts. I personaly think it was probably a good idea to have them out of the country once it was announced that Osama was responsible for the attacks but it still reeks of corruption. The reason they were whisked away was not to protect them from violence but rather because they were very important figures in Bush's interests in Saudi Oil companies. He didn't want to piss them off by having them questioned by the FBI or detained due to 9-11. Also, as far as I know there was never any statement form the governement saying that they had actually questioned the Bin Ladens at all. It was just completely ignored by the media that they should probably have been questioned.

 

Actually, one of Moore's better points in the movie was that in any murder investigation the fiirst people to be questioned are the family members of the suspect in the case. They have the most information about the person. Also, even though the Bin ladens claim to have cut all ties to Osama there is evedience that this is not true, and while they may not support him anymore they do still talk to him occasionally and this information could have been very helpful in locating him. I mean, we could have had the Bin Ladens arrange a meeting with Osama and then captureed him this way but we didn't even try it because the Bin Ladens are too powerful and important to ask such a thing of. That's what I"m talking about when I say it reeks of corruption.

[UberBender]

He does have valid points! Guns do kill people!

 

NO... people kill people... Just because you take away a gun, doesn't mean killers won't use a knife, stellpipe, wrench, candlestick, rope, (weapons from clue, hahaha)... ect.

I change my mind...

 

People kill people.

 

A gun is simply one of many things designed to do so.

 

People are going to kill each other no matter what.

 

Guns are just the main "tool" so they get blamed insted of people.

 

If a new method or "tool" of killing came around everyone would hate that and want to ban that.

 

Situation:

 

Father and son walking through forest going to hunting stand.

 

Son drops his gun and the gun discharges. Blows father's head off.

 

Would you blame the gun or the son?

 

In my opinion it is the son's fault because he was not practicing proper gun safety.

[Eiade]

SO WHAT!!! I don't see why anyone cares about this... They were already questioned and they said they knew nothing. Plus the Iraqi government asked for some nationals to come home... So MAYBE the government let a plane leave ONE day early... SO WHAT!!

 

 

They were NOT questioned. And it was NOT the Iraqi government. It was Saudi Arabia.

 

What do you mean one day early? They were in the US, and two days after 9/11, they were flown back to Saudi Arabi (when airports were closed off throughout the country), even it was known though many of them, being family members, had information of Osama's whereabouts. But this has already been said by Surian.

[surian]

To be fair, I said that I didn't know if they were questioned by the government before leaveing and to what extent they were questioned, if at all. If someone can get this information it would be nice because it's important. I would think though that they probably weren't questioned at all except to find out if they wanted the kosher meal (and they probably didn't...).

 

We are most definately waaaay too friendly with Saudi Arabia, and this isn't just George W or Bush Sr.'s fault either, this has been going on for a long time. Michael Moore did mention this fact in his film although it was known to me already; the Saudis have Trillions of dollars invested in American companies as well as Trillions of dollars in our banks. If we piss them off enough they could pull that money out all at once and without warning, if that happens we are finantially screwed as a country. The great depresion would look like a $1000 a plate dinner party.

 

However, Bush is most definately one of the biggest friends that the Saudis have in America and I'm sure that they weren't unhappy when he was "elected" president. The problem with being so indebted to the Saudis is not only that they could turn us into a monitarily crippled nation, but also that they are one of the worst human rights violators in the world, yet we have never done anything to stop this. That goes for all presidents, not just the Bush's, Clinton could have done some good here but he, like all presidents before him, couldn't challenge them.

 

Saudi Arabia is almost as bad to it's woman population as Afgahnistan was/is to it's women. It's a very hard line islamic state and harbors most of the terrorists that have grudges against the USA. The only reason that we didn't go into their country long ago and do to them what we've done to Iraq is becasue they are a little more westernised and were able to appeal to our big buisness sense while most of the other 3rd world countries could not or would not.

 

So here's my conclusion about the Saudis. We are in a bad situation with them, they have too much invested in our country and it should never have gotten to this point. Every president in the last 50 years is to blame for it's continuation regardless of party lines. However, in the Bush's case, there is a large ammount of evidence to sugest that they are deeply invested in many of the Saudi's most wealthy buisnesses whereas none of the other presidents to my knowledge were. THis is dangergous. In my opinion it's a clear example of a conflict of interests when the president has money invested in Saudi oil companies given the fact that Saudi Oil practically runs Saudi Arabia.

 

On a side note, it's interesting to note that the taliban was invited to Texas while bush was in office as governer to descuss the building of the afore mentioned pipleline through Afgahnistan. Bush welcomed them with open arms back then and yet now he is going to annialate them. Nothing changed between then and 9-11 except that instead of the taliban funding a terrorist organisation that attacked and murdered Americans abroad in countries outside the USA they attacked and murdered 3000+ Americans INSIDE the country and that means that Bush could no longer turn a blind eye to the situation.

 

It's the same thing that happened in the Gulf war. Saddam was our buddy for the longest time and we let him do pretty much anything he wanted to do as long as he passed it by us first and we could give him the OK. Well, he crossed the line; not when he gassed the Kurds, but rather when he invaded another oil rich country (kuwait). A country in which the USA had vested interest in finantially. Again, he had done somthing so visible that we could no longer turn a blind eye to the situation and were forced to take action. Then, when we were just on the boarder of Bagdad, within striking distance of doing something that could have at least made the gulf war meaningful by taking saddam out, we turned around and left the country.

 

I would also like to formally critisise our country's media. They are supposed to be the 4th branch of the government (if you've heard the analogy). They are to watch and report everything that is going on so that you and I will know these things and can take appropriate action. But where on earth was the US media when Saddam gassed the kurds? Even today if you read the news about the Iraq war the newspapers fail to mention that the US GAVE those weapons to Saddam to kill Iranians. Even liberal news organisations don't mention that and it would be a perfect way for them to discredit the Reagan or Bush administrations. The reason is that these news papers and organisations are also mired in this thing called commercialisation. They're in it for the profit, if they reported something like that it would be very bad for them. I guarentee that they would instantly have been cut out of the loop on any kind of information from the whilte house, and many of their ad support would have gone away too if they were being funded by someone that was a Republican (or a democrat if the situation is reversed).

 

The only way that we can even hope to get some kind of news like that would have been from a publicly funded news group (NPR is a good example, they're good but not perfect). DId you know that America has one of the worst ratios of Public vs Privately funded channels in the world? I can't remember the actual numbers on this but I think that 75% of the networks in America are commercial networks in America. Compair that to England where, i believe, 80% of it's network programming is publicly funded or governmentally subsidized (BBC anyone?). It's also worth noting that most of these networks are owned by the same parent company. SO it's not like we're hearing 50 different veiws, but rather 4 or 5 views saying almost the same thing. There was also a bill that I believe passed recently that allowed for commercially supported network media to control even more of the % of the viewing population in America.

 

This scares me...

 

Oh well, sorry for the rant, it's something I've been thinking about today though. It does show, i think, that we have need of people like Michael Moore who can show us different sides of issues that are normally just not reported by our media. Bill O'reilly dosn't do that, he just drones on about the same message that is forced on us by any news channel you turn to no matter what their political affiliation, if any. So i don't think it's quite fair to be compairing Moore to O'reilly.

[tyjet3]

What do you mean one day early? They were in the US, and two days after 9/11, they were flown back to Saudi Arabi (when airports were closed off throughout the country), even it was known though many of them, being family members, had information of Osama's whereabouts. But this has already been said by Surian.

 

By "one day early", I mean "one day early"... Airlines were closed down untill the 14th... According to Moore (because he would know this stuff) they left on the 13th... one day early...

 

So i don't think it's quite fair to be compairing Moore to O'reilly.

 

I think it is very fair. They are the extremist of their kind. It seems very natural to contrast and compare the two.

 

And just so everyone knows, My point all along is that Moore twisted facts. To me, twisted facts are lies. I don't care if Bush lied (find me one politician that doesn't), I am talking about Moore.

[Darnoc]

@Darnoc: America is hated because of our power. Plane and simple. The reason Switzerland will never be attacked is because they will never be as powerful as USA. Muslims do not hate us because of our power though. They hate us because of our rights and freedoms and how we show them off. Muslims are hard-core conservatives and don't believe in female rights, gay marrige, showing ANY skin, ect. You obviously know nothing about other cultures around the world... If you did you would understand why America is hated... Yes, we are hated now for our corrent actions, but just so you know, America has ALWAYS been hated by someone because people are jealous of our power and the rights of our citizens. That is what are country stands and fights for...

 

I do know more about other cultures around this world than you will ever know, tyjet. I have studied the problems of this world, when others were still playing around with toys. So, if nothing else can show you the truth, then I must do it: An analysis of the today's major problems in our world. It is going to be a very long post, so be prepared.

 

 

The Land of the Free

 

This is the name which USA gives to itself. Wrongly in my oppinion. You claim that America is hated because of its rights. Well, when this would true (it is not true), Switzerland would be even more hated, because we have far more rights than the American citizens ever had or ever would dream of having.

 

The land of the free is Switzerland, not the USA. USA is the nation of those who believe that they are free, but in fact are slaves of their government. The USA stands for a false freedom, a pseudo-freedom which doesn't exist in their own country. You don't believe me? Perhaps I must explain to you how the Swiss political system works (I hope that you know how your own system works, so that you can compare it).

 

The basis of our nation is the people. Yes, the USA claims that too, but here in Switzerland this is acctually a fact. We, the people, have more power than the whole government. The problem is that we do not use it as often as we should. This needs some further explenation.

 

We have, as you, three forces in the government: Legislative, Executive and Judicative. The legislative force is the parliament, which is parted in two: The National Congress and the Congress of Cantons. In the Congress of Cantons, every Canton has two members, in the National Congress every Canton has members according to the population of this Canton.

 

The Executive is the Federal Congress, consisting of seven members. The four major parties (yes, we do not have a oppositional system, we have a concordial system, where the different parties work together) are in it, the three greatest have each two seats and the smallest of the four one seat. These four parties are (in correct order of their importance, according to the seats they have in the parliament): SP (Socialist Party), SVP (Swiss Peoples Party, a right-conservative party), FDP (the "Economy-Party"), CVP (The catholic party).

 

Then there is the Judicative, this is the Federal court whose members are elected by the parliament.

 

And now there are the people. Where do we fit in? Well, almost everywhere. We do elect the parliament, yes, but we can do much more than this. There are two possibilities and we are the only nation in the world where the people can do this.

 

First one: The people want a new law, so someone collects signaturs (mostly one of the parties) and when they reach at least 150'000 after one and a half year, they can give the initiative to the Federal Council. In the next few years, the people will vote on this law. As simple as that. And the government has to accept our decision.

 

Second one: The Parliament creates a new law. Now someone doesn't agree (which is the case every time the parliament does that), so he beginns to collect signatures again. At least 50'000 in a half year this time. And after that the people must vote for or against this law and the parliament can do nothing about it. Sometimes we really mad them mad, because in the last few years the people voted for laws the parliament didn't like and against laws which the parliament liked.

 

So, as you can see, I have more rights and liberties than you do. Don't forget that we are discussing at the moment the legalization of Marihuana and Hashish.

 

 

The problem of Islam

 

I could of course talk about the other problems which crossed the path of the USA, but I stay with the current one. The question you asked is "Why is the USA hated so much, and of course, why is the USA hated by the Muslim?" This question I will try to answer. You weren't satisfied with my answer I gave you, so you leave me no other choice to show you that I am right and you are wrong. You need the hard evidence, am I right?

 

Before the USA became a problem, England and France were the enemies of the muslimic people. England crushed the Osmanic empire (with the aid of the Arabs) and this caused that the Muslims were split, no longer united. The Arabs which aided Britain were betrayed by Britain. Britain promised the Sherif of Mecca that the Arabic Peninsula would be his, but after the war Britain just left him with nothing. The Saudis conquered their realm and Feisal had to flee. Britain offered to his two sons Jordan and Iraq, they became kings over realms and people which were foreign to them. Not only this, the British and French just drew borders into no where, dividing people which were united.

 

This is how the modern arabic nations came into being. Now what exactly was done wrong? The Curds didn't receive anything, they were split apart and now live in three different countries where they are surpressed (Turkey, Iraq and Iran). Libanon was created by the French, because the Maronits feared to be ruled by the Muslim. The Sunnits, Shiits and Druzes weren't even asked. They were from now on minorites in a country ruled by the Maronites (and other christian groups). Especially the Shiits were the ones to suffer, they became the majority but didn't have anything to say. The Sunnits came finally to an understanding with the Maronits and together they ruled the Libanon for almost have a century, until the civil war broke out.

 

Israel was created 1948. Many arab nations declared war on Israel and attacked, but Israel defeated them and enlarged its own territory. During the war, a lot of Palestinians were driven away, some never returned. Their land was occupied by Israelis.

 

After the desastrous war against Israel, revolutions occured almost in every arab nation. The most important and powerful was Egypt, where Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power. He was a charismatic figure who gave hope back to the Arabs. He proclaimed the Arab nation (which never came into being tough) and he was the founder of arab nationalism (as you might notice, not muslim nationalism; Nasser was socialist and an ally of the Sowjetunion). he began to build the Assuan dam and then he seiced control over the Suez canal. The old colonial rulers Britain and France couldn't tolerate that and so they attacked Egypt with the help of Israel. And here is the point where the USA enters into the history of near and middle east. The USA (in agreement with the Sowjetunion) stopped the attack on Egypt and Nasser had the upper hand. He was the hero of the Arabs, the hated colonial rulers were defeated by him (no one bothered to mention that the USA helped a little and that Israel had conquered the Sinai Peninsula).

 

Nasser founded an alliance with Syria, but this "Arab Alliance" didn't really work and so both countries split. In 1967, Nasser thought, it was again time to launch an attack on Israel. The following military campaign is probably one of the most genious in history. It was probably the only justifiable military action after the 2nd World war. Israel lulled its enemy into believe that Israel noticed nothing, but in secret Israel planned a preemptive strike. In only one day, the airforces of Egypt and Syria were destroyed by the Israel airforce and after that, having now complete air control, victory was easy on the larger ground forces of the Arabs. This was the high peak of Israel, not only of its victories but also of its popularity. From then it only went downwards. And also the USA began to change into the enemy of the Arabs, into the hate figure of the arab and islamic nations.

 

Nasser died 1970, his successor Sadat planned another strike on Israel, this time he was better prepared. In October 1973 Egypt and Syria attacked, Egypt crushed the Bar-Lev-line (some called it the second Maginot-Line and were right in this) on the other side of the Suez canal, the greatest tank battle after the battle in Kursk, Ukraine during the 2nd world war, was fought in Sinai. Finally, the egyptian and syrian troops were defeated again, but USA stopped Israel from invading Egypt and Syria (they could have marched staight to Cairo and Damascus). After this, the Arabs used their oil weapon against the West, first with succes, but later on it was no longer useful. And Sadat, president of egypt, had something he could negotiate about. He went to visit Israel and some years later a peace agreement was signed between those two nations. Jordan followed some times later. This is the end of the wars between the Arab nations and Israel. A new element began to rise: Terrorism. Sadat moved away from the Sowjet-policy of Nasser and began to copy western lifestyle, he let the western companies in. This led to the following: The industrials in the cities became very rich and the people from the countryside became poorer and poorer. Finally, Sadat was assassinated by extreme islamists, but this was proceeded by revolts of workers and farmers who demanded food from the government. This revolt acctually received the name "Bread-revolt". Most people looked back at the time under Nasser and they began to hate Sadat. They were poor under Nasser, yes, but in this time there were no differences and Nasser gave them the Assuan dam which gave electricity to Egypt. Nasser was again in everyone's mouth, Sadat was no longer the hero of the war, he was the traitor. His successor Mubarak surpressed every opposition and went on where Sadat had left. Today Egypt is divided between the rich cities Cairo and Alexandria and the poor countryside. But no one dares to revolt against the dictatorship of Mubarak, supported by the USA.

 

In 1970 a ultra-left fraction of the PLO kidnapped three airplanes and brought them to Jordan, where the PLO had its headquarters during this time. King Hussein couldn't allow this anymore and so he attacked the PLO forces with his loyal bedouin troops (30% of the population were Bedouins which Husseins father had brought with him from Arabia, when he took the throne of Jordan) and beat them, so that Arafat and his PLO leaders had to flee to Libanon. This was the beginning of the conflict in Libanon.

 

The Christian, mostly the Maronits, didn't like the arrival of the Palestinians in their countries. Now the muslim were the majority and the christians feared that they would loose their power. So the Phalanges Libanaise (the most powerful christian milita, lead by the Gemayel-clan) began to launch attacks against the PLO. So the PLO began to unite with the Amal-militia of the Shiits and the "Progressive Socialist Party" of the Druzes. In 1975 the Phalanges attacke a bus filled with Palestinians and killed them all. This was the beginning of the civil war in Libanon, the first war where Terror was used as major weapon. It was the training ground for the PLO commandos and their experience during this war would help them greatly later on during the Intifada in Israel and the occupied regions. Libanon was the real turning point where the USA became hated by the muslims and Israel by the rest of the world.

 

The Phalanges were trained well and that is why they first won the war against the muslim. But later on the mass of the muslims won everything back. The war waged mostly in Beyrouth, once the most open city to west, a major banking place (Libanon was called "Switzerland of the East"). Beyrouth was now divided into West (muslim part) and east (christian part). In the middle there was the war zone which was ruin, ruled by snipers who shot on everyon who passed. The war also waged in the countryside, bombs, kidnappings, assassinations were common. The different fractions even fought against eachother, for example the Phalanges assassinated the leaders of a concurring christian militia in a church.

 

Soon the Christian militias were driven into the mountains and so they called for help (the christian also controlled the majority of the army). Syria answered and invaded Libanon. Most people were releaved, but Israel didn't like the presence of their enemy in Libanon. Still the war continued, the syrian army was attacked and the Christians found out the Syrian weren't interessed in helping the Christians, but rather in joining Libanon with Syria. So the Phalanges called Israel for help, the Israelis began to train the Phalanges and in 1982 they invaded Libanon to drive out the PLO. The USA agreed with this.

 

Now that made the Shiits very angry. They were the majority but still they had no power, they were the poorest and lived mostly in the south. And in the south Israel attacked. Israel destroyed the villages of the Shiits because they thought that PLO-Terrorists would hide in them. That is the reason why the Hizbollah still fights against Israel. The effect of the war was that the PLO was driven out of Libanon, the Palestinians were left with no one to protect them from the wrath of the Christians. This was seen when the Phalanges massacred the two Palestianian camps of Sabra and Shatila in the south of Beyrouth. The USA and France sent special forces into the Libanon, to support the official government. Bashir Gemayel, son of Pierre Gemayel the founder of the Phalanges, was elected president at this time. He was murdered September 1982 under mysterious circumstances. It is still not clear, if Israel or Syria has killed him. His brother Amin became president after that and he tried to bring an end to the civil war with help of the USA, but he was very unpopular and almost all muslims and Druzes stood against him. When the Shiits finally in October 1983 killed over 200 Marines in a suicide-bomb-attack (the first suicide bomb attack, the Palestinians copied this method from the Shiits), USA pulled out.

 

And here we have the keyword: Shiits. The majority of the lives in Iran and this is where USA really messed up in the middle east for the first time. In 1953 the people in Iran had enough of the Shah-dictatorship, they drove away the Shah and Mohammed Mossadegh from the National Frontier became president. But in a putsch with the help of army and CIA, the Shah again became dictator of Iran. So the USA acted against their own ideals of Freedom, because the Shah promised the USA to sell his oil, while Mohammed Mossadegh was Socialist and wanted to cut the dependance of Iran to the USA. It was almost the same like it would happen in Indonesia in 1965.

 

But in 1979 the people of Iran had enough, a revolution arose and the Shah was driven away, Khomeini became president and soon dictator himself. The USA were furious, they declared Iran an enemy country and began to support Saddam Hussein against Iran by delevering arms and even chemical agents. Those chemical agents he used not only against the Iranian army, what was very brutal already, but against the people of his own country, the Kurds.

 

While the Iraq-Iran war was still going on, the Intifada broke out in the occupied regions of Israel. Israel used sharp munition against stone throwing young people, protests occured in the whole world, but still the USA stood firm to Israel. The Palestianians still don't have their own state and still the USA supports Israel, even when Sharon launches attack over attack against the regions inhabited by Palestinians.

 

Saddam was the best friend of the USA during the 80ies. Until he attacked and conquered Kuwait. Then he suddenly became the enemy of the USA. But as evidence showed, the USA wasn't really interested in conquering Iraq at this time. They could have, but they didn't. And they left the Shiitish resistance in the swamps of south-Iraq to be killed by Saddam. That is why the Shiits in Iraq hate the USA until today. The problem is that they are the majority in Iraq. Very good, Bush Junior, you conquered a country where most of the population hates you.

 

As long as he fighted against Iran, USA's arch-enemy, and delivered his oil on schedule, Saddam was USA's best friend. And now they want to tell us that they conquered Iraq in order to bring "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq! LOL.

 

Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, Egypt are examples of countries where either USA destroyed democratic elected governments which didn't suit them or openly supported dictators. I didn't even begin to talk about Africa, but there it is not the fault of the US-government but rather of the US-companies. Some companies practically own African countries. Sierra Leone, for example, which is mostly owned by a huge mercenary-company.

 

The USA don't act on behalf of freedom and democracy, they act on behalf of gaining economic and political control over other nations. Either kickass your government or live with the fact that everyone hates you. It's your choice.

[Eiade]

Actually, the main reason why Muslims might hate us is not because of our power. It's not because we 'show off our rights and freedoms.' It's because we have always supported Israel in the war with the Palastinians. We have almost always supported their decisions, we've given them money and weapons. The Palastinians and other Muslims see this, and they think, well if they're going to side with the Israelis, then they must be our enemy. The middle-east in general (excluding Israel) hates us right now because we're trying to come in and 'Americanize' the middle-east. We come in trying to give them our form or gov't, bring in things like McDonald's, and western clothing, and shunning the fact that their religion is not good towards women. They want us to just go away, and we can't because Bush thinks that America is always right and they know what's good for the world.

[tyjet3]

@Darnoc: Now it is my turn to tell you you are wrong.

 

The US:

Switzerland will nevr be as powerful as the US, quite kidding yourself. You may have more "rights" but you still don't have political power.

 

The Muslims:

You are looking at the history and thinking everyone who is muslims agrees... well, you are wrong. The whole reason the muslims hate the US is because we are christian!! (I personally am not though) America has always been known as a christian country. Even our stupid leader uses christian speeches to make it look like what he is doing is right.

 

The Muslim religion clearly states in the Q'ran that they must kill anyone who is not muslim (Read the book and then try and tell me i'm wrong). The extremist of this group is the Shiits. They are the biggest threat to all religious countries. They will hate us for the soul reason that is their faith. Christian believe anyone that doesn't follow their god will go to hell. Muslims believe that anyone that doesn't follow their god must die. That is why when the 9/11 attack happened the attackers clealy called it a "holy war"...