Report: Chechen Women Forced to Wear Headscarves

[ONA 133]

That said, it seems to me that, as usual, all the talk about independence and blah, blah, blah boils down to one thing...religion. Nothing else. I do not understand the mindset that would somehow excuse a religious terrorist from blowing up an airport or subway station in Moscow, but thinks it is terrible if terrorists from the same religion blow up buildings in New York or a subway station in London. The terrorists justify their acts against ALL countries with the SAME excuse.

Agreed.

And it's not the only problem caused somehow by religious differences. Crusades, inquisition, now all those explosions... and a whole lot of other crimes justifyed by religion.

[slim 1,525]

I'm still not sure what the Caucus country's have in common with Russia. It's pretty obvious they want their independence. What's not surprising though is that Russians still haven't figured this out.

It's not a matter of them wanting it. It's a matter of what's in the region.

took it away by overwhelming military force when something we wanted was discovered there. Usually gold or oil.

Bingo.

I do not understand the mindset that would somehow excuse a religious terrorist from blowing up an airport or subway station in Moscow, but thinks it is terrible if terrorists from the same religion blow up buildings in New York or a subway station in London.

That's called "american."

The terrorists justify their acts against ALL countries with the SAME excuse.

What's that? "These countries support the demise of Islam."?

One of the fundamental differences between (these) Muslims and "us" is they're a Muslim first and a citizen of XXXXX second. Save for some of the uppity Arabs, many Muslims (especially those who support the struggle) around the world consider themeselves to be one nation in the sense of "you mess with them, you mess with all of us."

As a matter of fact, if you study the religion a little bit you'll see there's actually an obligation for able-bodied men to come to the aid of other Muslims who are being oppressed or killed. NOT fighting an infidel or invader is not only turning your back on your brothers, but your duty to follow god's directions. Denying god is a big issue with most religions.

The common denominator is religion, not invasion by foreign powers. If the acts of terror were ONLY against nations that had "invaded" you could say that

As far as I've seen, the acts of terror have been against nations that have "invaded."

Another thing that's somewhat interesting to note is we label them acts of terror. Someone blows up an airport terminal. Someone takes a school hostage. Yet we drop bombs from unmanned planes on compounds full of people and it's an act of war. Hmmmmmmm.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's not a matter of them wanting it. It's a matter of what's in the region.

Bingo.

That's called "american."

What's that? "These countries support the demise of Islam."?

One of the fundamental differences between (these) Muslims and "us" is they're a Muslim first and a citizen of XXXXX second. Save for some of the uppity Arabs, many Muslims (especially those who support the struggle) around the world consider themeselves to be one nation in the sense of "you mess with them, you mess with all of us."

As a matter of fact, if you study the religion a little bit you'll see there's actually an obligation for able-bodied men to come to the aid of other Muslims who are being oppressed or killed. NOT fighting an infidel or invader is not only turning your back on your brothers, but your duty to follow god's directions. Denying god is a big issue with most religions.

As far as I've seen, the acts of terror have been against nations that have "invaded."

Another thing that's somewhat interesting to note is we label them acts of terror. Someone blows up an airport terminal. Someone takes a school hostage. Yet we drop bombs from unmanned planes on compounds full of people and it's an act of war. Hmmmmmmm.

Terror and war are not mutually exclusive. Terror is a tactic, just as aerial bombing is a tactic.The difference? we, the United States, state our position and what we will do. we take action as a country. Terrorists as opposed to this, sneak around and do not have the nads to be supported by any particular country or state their intent.

Kamikazes, in WW2, were a weapon of terror. The pilots were not "terrorists" they were military personnel of Japan doing their duty and supported by their country. Terrorists, if you must make a comparison, are more comparable to Resistance or Partisans. And we all know how those people were treated when captured

[slim 1,525]

Terror and war are not mutually exclusive. Terror is a tactic, just as aerial bombing is a tactic.The difference?

When you use explosives to kill people there really is no difference except the justification your side uses when it employs either tactic.

we, the United States, state our position and what we will do. we take action as a country. Terrorists as opposed to this, sneak around and do not have the nads to be supported by any particular country or state their intent.

They've stated it in Arabic which, I know, doesn't really count since it's not in English. Their message is pretty clear though.

As for finding a country to support them I don't think it's a question of nads, it's a question of funding. The US didn't necessarily have the nads to say "we're going to fight the terrorists" we simply whipped out our pocketbooks and said, "try to stop us." Iran and Saudi are doing their best to fund the terrorists but it's bad for business to openly support them. I'm sure if China gave them the green light they'd find the nads overnight.

Kamikazes, in WW2, were a weapon of terror. The pilots were not "terrorists" they were military personnel of Japan doing their duty and supported by their country. Terrorists, if you must make a comparison, are more comparable to Resistance or Partisans. And we all know how those people were treated when captured

Were kamikaze treated well when captured?

It's interesting we label our enemy as terrorists even when they're fighting as insurgents or militia. "Well, they don't have uniforms." So it's perfectly OK to whisk them away to a third country and hold them indefinitely without trial. Pretty convenient, wouldn't you say?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Were kamikaze treated well when captured?

It's interesting we label our enemy as terrorists even when they're fighting as insurgents or militia. "Well, they don't have uniforms." So it's perfectly OK to whisk them away to a third country and hold them indefinitely without trial. Pretty convenient, wouldn't you say?

I heard Kamikazes refused to eat in captivity.

I do not label a man who stands on his hind legs and shoots at someone with a rifle a "terrorist". He is an enemy combatant. As such he SHOULD be whisked away and held without trial until the "war" is over and then returned, without trial, to his home country. He is not a criminal and there is nothing to stand trial for. These people are Prisoners of War and there are codes to follow for that. We should follow them. If they are criminals, then they need to have a trial before they are executed.

[slim 1,525]

I heard Kamikazes refused to eat in captivity.

I do not label a man who stands on his hind legs and shoots at someone with a rifle a "terrorist". He is an enemy combatant. As such he SHOULD be whisked away and held without trial until the "war" is over and then returned, without trial, to his home country. He is not a criminal and there is nothing to stand trial for. These people are Prisoners of War and there are codes to follow for that. We should follow them. If they are criminals, then they need to have a trial before they are executed.

Well, you may feel that way but that's not what our government is doing with them right now. Remember, they're not wearing uniforms and as such, they're not enemy combatants. They're terrorists.

The Russians treat them slightly worse.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well, you may feel that way but that's not what our government is doing with them right now. Remember, they're not wearing uniforms and as such, they're not enemy combatants. They're terrorists.

The Russians treat them slightly worse.

If they are not wearing uniforms they are "spies" and subject to immediate execution. Them's the rules. Indefinite stays at tropical Club Gitmo are just fringe benefits IMO. Asking them which ear they want the bullet in would be what I expect from Russians. Good for them.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

If they are not wearing uniforms they are "spies" and subject to immediate execution. Them's the rules. Indefinite stays at tropical Club Gitmo are just fringe benefits IMO. Asking them which ear they want the bullet in would be what I expect from Russians. Good for them.

And in the meantime....well just say I wouldn't want to be one of those Moscow subway peeps who never know when the big boom is coming my way.

[slim 1,525]

If they are not wearing uniforms they are "spies" and subject to immediate execution. Them's the rules.

Which rules?

Despite what you've seen in the movies, lack of uniform doesn't necessarily = spy. In modern times it usually = terrorist or some other form of criminal.

Indefinite stays at tropical Club Gitmo are just fringe benefits IMO. Asking them which ear they want the bullet in would be what I expect from Russians. Good for them.

Russians don't give them the option. They also don't waste millions a year flying them around the world.