Newsflash! America's holy war begins!

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Newsflash! America's holy war begins!

Author:

kip

Topic:

Justice

Posted:

Oct 07, 2001

Comments:

Newsflash: the two explosions above the Afghan capital Kabul, were confirmed as the first strikes of the US-led holy war against Islam. More information as it comes.

More stories by

kip

An Essay on Microsoft

[UPDATE by zikzak] Adequacy.org would like to take this opportunity to reiterate, in no uncertain terms, that we are not providing any support, financial or otherwise, to Mr. Osama bin Laden at this time.

	That's rich. (none / 0) (#1)
	by tkatchev on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 10:31:20 AM PST

	Yeah, wasting megabucks of high-tech rockets on Kabul is pretty smart. (Sarcasm, for you g**ks.) Afghanistan is the asshole of the world; there's no point in bombing it "into the stone age", because the "stone age" would be a great improvement for these guys. I mean, this is a country without any sort of social organization or any means to sustain living conditions. If you've ever seen those stupid "Mad Max" movies, with the gangs of bandits roving a post-apocalyptic desert -- well, Afghanistan is just like that. Only much worse. -- Peace and much love...

	So what? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 11:04:04 AM PST

	Even in the Mad Max movies, there are habitable structures, fit to be destroyed. More importantly, there are people, and thus, blood flowing through their veins. And, to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger in Predator, "If it bleeds, it can be killed."

	You're missing a point. (none / 0) (#5)
	by tkatchev on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 11:36:44 AM PST

	You can't target bands of roving nomads with Cruise Missiles. What makes it even worse is the fact that most of these guys live in caves. -- Peace and much love...

	Nomads have tents. We have satellites. (4.00 / 1) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 11:46:42 AM PST

	And helicopters. The Soviets were able to track down Afghani nomad bands in Rambo 3. Why shouldn't we, given our superior technology? As for the caves, they have to come out sometime. If they don't, not only are they harmless as long as they stay in there: they will eventually starve. Like in this cheap action film whose name I can't remember.

	Cave food (none / 0) (#13)
	by fluffy grue on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 12:29:26 PM PST

	Any idiot knows that caves are full of bats (as per Bat Man and various horror flicks), and only a left-wing Commie would be totally unaware of the fact that Ozzy Osbourne has shown that you can, in fact, eat bats (the heads in particular). -- meep

	but still... (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 12:40:14 PM PST

	As in countless action films set in caves, the U.S. has at its disposal chemical and biological weapons that can wipe out the food sources, or just make them poisonous to eat.

	You are out of date. (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 12:21:30 PM PST

	You can't target bands of roving nomads with Cruise Missiles. Cruise Missiles have a number of guidance options, including laser guide. It is technically possible (although not cost-effective) to target a group of roving nomads with a Cruise Missile. Personally, I can see these strikes having a highly benevolent effect on the Capitalist economies of the world. Remember the Gulf War ran at a profit for the USA, perhaps with a bit of luck, the 'Crusade against Islam and Terrorism' can do the same.

	As usual (none / 0) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 10:46:24 AM PST

	As usual America is going to get all the blame for this even though the majority of the planes that are in action and Cruise missiles that were fired were of British origin. Chalk another one up for those wily Pommies. I'm sick and tired of America being used as a fall guy for the cause of British imperialism.

	On the other hand ... (none / 0) (#20)
	by darkstern on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 03:36:36 AM PST

	America is well experienced at using others in times of conflict. Bin Ladin was a CIA Operative against the USSR. Sadam Hussein was backed to the max by the US in the Iran/Iraq conflict ... Noriaga in Panama ... The American Puppet regime in South Vietnam ... South Korea ... Taiwan ... etc ... etc. Now it's backing the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and creating further 'evils' to be dealt with in decades to come. The US is digging up an old king in exile to be a future US puppet once the US has disposed of the Taliban and better secured American interests in Central Asia. As for the Brits ... They're just following orders.

	Hell no. the conspiracy is deeper than you think (5.00 / 2) (#21)
	by dmg on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 05:25:53 AM PST

	On a website almost as controversial as adequacy.org there is a lot of information about the current geopolitical goings-on. Americans would do well to read this interesting document which explains why America is still part of England. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Highly Suspicious (3.00 / 1) (#6)
	by tkatchev on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 11:40:27 AM PST

	Anybody else notice that bin Laden's reaction speech that they're currently broadcasting has been obviously prepared well in advance? What makes it even more suspicious is the statement by CNN that the speech has been recorded today. It's almost as if the U.S. government went to great lengths to notify bin Laden of the attacks in advance. (Hey, he is, after all, a former CIA operative...) -- Peace and much love...

	this is not a war on religion (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 11:55:43 AM PST

	<< US-led holy war against Islam>> American and it's allies are not in a war against Islam or the muslim people. I find the aurthor who wrote this to have used a poor word choice. If anything, it is a war against terrorism as a whole but presently a war against terrorists who hide behind Islam to justify their actions. Unfotunately all religious text (Tora, Koran, Bible, etc) can be viewed as hypocritical. Take the bible for example. Paul says this is wrong yet Peter says it's ok. There are also conflicts between the old and new testiments. The same is true about other religious texts. I hope the editors choose to look at this documemnt very carefully.

	Bush himself used the word "Crusade" (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 12:18:09 PM PST

	A Crusade is a holy war. Usually against Islam, but it can be against any false (non-Christian) religions. Since the victims will be predominantly Muslims, and the perpetrators Christian, it clearly is a "Holy War" and to give it any other name is just sophistry, and mincing with words. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

	There are no contradictions in the Bible (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 12:25:48 PM PST

	None. For you to suggest otherwise is hateful and indicative of a thought process that is identical to that of the terrorists. I would say that you ought to think very carefully before making such anti-Bible statements, particularly at this junction in history. We need to bind together, not be torn apart. To do this, the inerrant words of the Bible will be the enabling agent.

	love for all but not you (1.00 / 1) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 08:22:34 PM PST

	So the message that Jesus loves everybody and so should you is NOT a contradiction? Love EVERYONE, except divorcees, homosexuals, etc?

	Love your enemies (none / 0) (#24)
	by frosty on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 11:19:25 AM PST

	What evidence do you have that I do not love homosexuals, divorcee's etc? I will grant that there are those who call themselves Christians who also hate a great many people for a great many reasons. Does this somehow mean that everyone who takes that same name hates in a similar way?? I do not hate homosexuals. I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin and a perversion of what God intended in creation. And I believe that many Homosexuals who claim to be Christians are not truly Christians at all. Does this mean I hate any homosexuals?? No. Also, your original statement:Jesus loves everybody and so should you is not a contradiction. "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

	THE GREAT PLAN (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:13:33 AM PST

	<<I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin and a perversion of what God intended in creation.>> But didn't God give man a CHOICE?

	Even more than choice. (none / 0) (#28)
	by tkatchev on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:35:58 AM PST

	Not just a "choice", but complete and irrevocable free will. God can't cajole or force you to do anything; everything you do is completely of your own choice[1]. There is no "Master Plan" except in the minds of limited individuals like A. Rightman. "Sin" is not a crime, but simply stuff we do to ourselves that is harmful. (Usually out of stupidity and short-mindedness.) A useful analogy is that of a toddler -- you can't really explain to a 3-yr-old why eating lead and sticking fingers into electrical sockets is bad. Until you get hurt, you just don't take warnings like that seriously. Sin is exactly the same -- until you get hurt by it, you really don't understand why, for example, adultery is bad. 1. In fact that is one of the major unique features of Christianity. Christianity is pretty much the only religion that places human freedom as the most basic privilige you have. Really, if there is one defining axiom of Christianity, it is the axiom of primacy of free will. -- Peace and much love...

	I'm not against free will (none / 0) (#32)
	by Adam Rightmann on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 07:18:10 AM PST

	every person was given free will as a gift from God. If they choose to use this gift to send themselves straight to eternal torment, that's their problem. A. Rightmann

	Correct. (none / 0) (#33)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 07:25:09 AM PST

	But what you must understand is that at no time will God hold your hand and lecture you on what's wrong and what's right[1]. There is no coercion here at all; after all, if your choices were biased in any direction, it wouldn't really be free will anymore. [1] This is in fact why there is so much hate and resentment towards God. Most people subconciously believe in a higher being, but they don't want to take responsibility for their own lives. They would much rather have God tell them explicit directions on how to live every facet of their lives. When this doesn't happen, they for some reason feel that God "abandoned" them, that God "doesn't love them anymore". -- Peace and much love...

	Terror (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 12:53:47 PM PST

	The United State is presently terrorizing the Afghani people. To what effect, it is unknown, other than to strike terror into their (mostly) Islam hearts. Perhaps the message is know better than to worship a God by the wrong name.

	a God by any other name (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 04:12:53 PM PST

	<<Perhaps the message is know better than to worship a God by the wrong name.>> I'll attempt to make since of this (poor english or at least poor grammar). I take it that you are saying that muslims whether they be suni or shiat or wrong for believing in Allah. Allah and God are the same thing. Believing that would be like believing that a Mexican man is wrong and not a Catholic (a division of Chritianity (Protestant/Catholic)) because he believes in Dios. Dios is the spanish word for God just as Allah is the Arabic name for God. The Jews believe that the Tora holds the true name of God and have been trying to find it for years. In fact it used to be the job of a great holy man to enter the temple and speak the true name of God. If he spoke correctly and his heart was pure the world would basically be ok for the next hundred (or thousand, I forget I'm not Jewish) years. Over time the name had been forgotten.

	Not a terror campaign (none / 0) (#25)
	by frosty on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 11:33:49 AM PST

	These are not terror strikes. These are strategic strikes against targets with significant military value. They are striking training camps airfields radar instilations etc. If the US wanted terror, they would just drop incindiaries and set all of Kabul ablaze. "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

	Also .. (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 9th, 2001 at 10:38:40 AM PST

	.. if the US had declared a "war on Islam", shouldn't they be bombing Mecca and Medina?

	You don't understand how the world works. (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:23:09 AM PST

	shouldn't they be bombing Mecca and Medina? If there is ever any bombings in those locations, it will be performed by the Saudis, or some extreme Islamic sect in order to stir up holy war against the infidels. For some perspective on realpolitik, and why the WTC bombing was almost certainly not conceived by Islamic terrorists (although it may well have been carried out by them) see "Who had most to gain?" at the konformist website. It certainly made me think a bit more deeply about what is going on...

	Adequacy predicted the war (5.00 / 1) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:30:07 AM PST

	This article really freaked me out. It appears that an adequacy editor predicted the "war on terror" weeks before it even began. He didn't predict who the war would be against, but you cannot fault his timing. And credit where credit is due 'global terrorists' are an IDEAL candidate as the catch-all excuse for curtailing our already limited personal freedoms.

	kill em all (none / 0) (#10)
	by THC 1138 on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 12:20:03 PM PST

	I originally made up this plan in 5th grade, back when we were still at 'war' with the U.S.S.R., but it should make the current anti-muslim people happy. We should put up a forcefield around the US, and then nuke everything and everyone else. We Win!!!!! How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

	Fool (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 11:15:05 PM PST

	Kip you are a fool. There is not, and has never been, anything "holy" about any war. None of the religions teaches that in a quest for peace that killing is acceptable. Mohammed was as great a pacifist as Jesus. The words of the Koran and Bible have been perverted to suggest otherwise.

	Well you are wrong at least about Islam (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 02:50:01 AM PST

	The Qur'an has specific sections dealing with the correct way to wage war. Jihad in one way means 'Holy War' the Qur'an even specifies how to treat prisoners, when it is acceptable to kill the enemy etc etc. I am not an expert, but I bet the Bible has similar sections. Perhaps you should read some holy books before you attribute all those 'peaceful' qualities to religion.

	War and the Bible (none / 0) (#23)
	by frosty on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 11:08:05 AM PST

	There are sections of the Old Testament where the Hebrews are commanded to Attack and destroy certain armies/cities/etc. However there are no "Holy War" provisions in either the New or Old Testaments. "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

	No "Holy War" provisions in Bible (none / 0) (#34)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 06:44:49 PM PST

	That's right. Christians are free to embark on a holy war whenever they damn well feel like it.

	Explain Matthew 10:34 please (none / 0) (#22)
	by Adam Rightmann on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 06:21:30 AM PST

	It seems to me that the best chance for peace in Afghanistan is to convert all the Afghani's to Catholicism. A. Rightmann

	pacifism (none / 0) (#35)
	by Hunsvotti on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 04:13:37 AM PST

	Except when he was running around defacing idols because of an inborn hatred for other religions. Yeah, I said it.

	How to treat women (none / 0) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 8th, 2001 at 07:08:41 PM PST

	What is your problem with the Arabs anyway ? At least, they know how to treat their women. Not as well as those crazy japanese but well enough. Your inability to realize this comes from a badly repressed racism and intolerance towards different ways of thinking. Now where did that bitch put my vallium ?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.