World's most dangerous terrorist...?

J

jedione12

Guest
I used to think the answer to this was Bin Laden, but after reading an article called "The Brain" (playboy's june issue), I switched my opinion to Khalid Shieikh Mohammed. Does anyone else agree with me? This guy was the mastermind behind so many terrorist attacks (incl. 9/11) that it made my head spin. It was also surprising to read that he received his bachelor's degree here in the States, with classmates describing him as a "class clown". Simply crazy, and scary when you think about it.

Thoughts or opinions?

Steve
 
The worlds most dangerous terrorists are those we haven't got names for ;)
 
I think that if you want to make a list of the most Dangerous terrorist leaders in the world, George Bush and Tony Blair would have to be right up there next to Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Shieikh Mohammed.

Bush and Blair have killed enough innocent civilians to make Bin Laden and Mohammed look amateurish.

Of course we're all just defending our way of life.
 
Yup, George Bush has soooo many mass graves filled with Kurds out in the suburbs of Texas. And Tony Blair's rape rooms are pretty horrible.:rolleyes:

Get a grip, people.

Oh, and Postmaster - the CIA couldn't assassinate a paper bag. :p If we can excuse anyone away from terrorism based on pure ineptness, its the CIA. LOL
 
The CIA were heavily involved with the asassination of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.

You are right Night, Bush doesnt have any mass graves, what does that tell us? he doesnt bother burying his victims?

In the bombings of Afghanistan and Iraq, thousands of innocent civilians died, and even before that the sanctions imposed on Iraq killed thousands of children every year through lack of food and medicine. In one incident in Afghanistan 3000 prisoners of war were allegedly massacred by US Special forces. Taliban fighters are being held in Guantanamo Bay in blatant violation of the Geneva Convention. Donald Rumsfeld ordered the systematic extermination of rioters at Qalai Janghi.

I'm not saying that our leaders are any worse than the Bin Laden types, Im just saying that they are not much better either.
 
The CIA were heavily involved with the asassination of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
Actually, the CIA captured Guevara, and wanted to interrogate him. Trigger happy Bolivians executed him, much to the CIA's dismay.

Anyways, the CIA is still inept, even if they managed to capture one man. They've failed to capture Osama, they didn't get Saddam, their attempts on Castro's life were all failures, they never even got close to anyone high up in Communist Russia...a long history of non-accomplishments, wouldn't you say? Hardly a terror-inspiring terrorist organization.

In the bombings of Afghanistan and Iraq, thousands of innocent civilians died,
Quite a few innocents have died on both sides of this war. What's your point?

and even before that the sanctions imposed on Iraq killed thousands of children every year through lack of food and medicine.
Ho-hum, you think Saddam couldn't have improved the quality of his country? Yes, it was big, bad America who left his country destitute. Not him. No sirree, both he and his people are victims of evil America's imperialism. :rolleyes:

By the way, the U.N. was supposed to handle food and medicine in Iraq. Corruption kinda messed that up (Weapons for Oil, anyone?) Guess you kinda forgot that in your rush to blame America for everything.

In one incident in Afghanistan 3000 prisoners of war were allegedly massacred by US Special forces.
Just thought I'd highlight that for anyone who mighta missed it. Allegedly. Hum...kinda like how we allegedly flushed Korans down a toilet? Fifteen dead over a lie, remember that? Pfft, you anti-Americans really need to stop slinging false accusations.

Taliban fighters are being held in Guantanamo Bay in blatant violation of the Geneva Convention.
Again, false. *sigh* the Geneva Convention only applies to those prisoners of war who were caught in uniform. In fact, under the Geneva Convention, we're entitled to shoot all non-uniformed combatants. We're being pretty lenient on terrorists who're caught, y'know.

I'm not saying that our leaders are any worse than the Bin Laden types, Im just saying that they are not much better either.
You can say whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.
 
KnightoftheRose said:
Actually, the CIA captured Guevara, and wanted to interrogate him. Trigger happy Bolivians executed him, much to the CIA's dismay.
Accepted, what I said here was hearsay, I dont have much of a view on the CIA/MI6, not really sure what they do.

KnightoftheRose said:
Quite a few innocents have died on both sides of this war. What's your point?
Exactly what I said, that both sides are fighting dirty.

KnightoftheRose said:
Ho-hum, you think Saddam couldn't have improved the quality of his country? Yes, it was big, bad America who left his country destitute. Not him. No sirree, both he and his people are victims of evil America's imperialism. :rolleyes:
My God man, even your defensive sarcasm is ego-centric. I never singled out America, I said Bush and Blair.

I have made no suggestion that Saddam Hussain was not a Terrorist Despot, I am not siding with him or Bin Laden or Khalid Shieikh Mohammed, I condemn their actions as much as I condemn the actions of Western Leaders.

KnightoftheRose said:
Just thought I'd highlight that for anyone who mighta missed it. Allegedly. Hum...kinda like how we allegedly flushed Korans down a toilet? Fifteen dead over a lie, remember that? Pfft, you anti-Americans really need to stop slinging false accusations.
Never heard of the Koreans down the toilet thing.

Yes, I said allegedly, but if you do the research there is some compelling evidence, a number of eye witnesses.

And Im not Anti-American, I'm just anti the 51% of you who voted Bush in second time around.

KnightoftheRose said:
Again, false. *sigh* the Geneva Convention only applies to those prisoners of war who were caught in uniform. In fact, under the Geneva Convention, we're entitled to shoot all non-uniformed combatants. We're being pretty lenient on terrorists who're caught, y'know.
That might be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard.

You are not entitled to shoot any prisoner who has not been tried by the same court under the same rules as the detaining country´s armed forces. Being non-uniformed means that, yes, they do not qualify as POWs but they are still combatants and as such must be treated humanely

Check out this sight for details

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm

And amnesty international dont think too highly of the situation either...

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005
 
I'm not going to get into details, but there was a scientific study done on the war in Iraq that found there was an increase of more than 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq in the first year alone of the war. I can try to dig up the reference, but it was a study out of a major university by reputable public health scientists. The biggest loser in any war is innocent civilians and especially children. Sadaam was, in my opinion, a lousy, cruel, and exploitative leader. But you can hardly blame a lot of Iraqis for being angry with the U.S.- far more civilians have died since we got there than when they were under Sadaam's power.

My dismal views on war are excellently captured by this short video: http://www.luccaco.com/wewerehumans/

Yep, I'm a pacifist, radical, socialist... American. Yes, I do thank God my government currently lets me say whatever I want and vote accordingly.

Looking at all of history, and studying cultures world-wide, I have yet to see when violence did not eventually beget more violence. And yet we still insist that somehow this war or that military operation will end in peace.

That said, I want to be very clear that I support our soldiers. I don't agree with Bush, or the military, or war in general, but I know a lot of soldiers and they're doing what they think is best. They're doing their jobs, and it is a very hard job. I can't help but think, though, that those we fight against in each war... they also think they are doing what is best. They are also doing their jobs. In the end, people on both sides die. Innocent people die. Soldiers' families lose sons and daughters, wives and husbands, mothers and fathers.

Maybe I'm just simple, but I don't get it. I don't get cruelty and needless suffering. I don't get people's greed that fuels the poverty that winds up with desperate folks who are terrorists. I'm permanently in the "why can't we all just get along?" camp.
 
Simple, Path of One? Never that.

I honestly couldnt agree more. I am British myself and I personally know a number of soldiers who have faught in Iraq and I would offer them any and all support that I can. I do not agree with the politics, the war or, as you say, war in general.

I've never really categorised myself before but I suppose Im pretty much a pacifist too.
 
My God man, even your defensive sarcasm is ego-centric. I never singled out America, I said Bush and Blair.
Whatever, man. Just add England to the equation and my post stands.

(By the way, if you are looking for an insult, call me a "nationalist" or something...seeing as how I didn't once mention myself in that post:rolleyes: )

I have made no suggestion that Saddam Hussain was not a Terrorist Despot, I am not siding with him or Bin Laden or Khalid Shieikh Mohammed, I condemn their actions as much as I condemn the actions of Western Leaders.
Oh no, I understood what you were saying. I'm merely saying that your comparing these terrorists with Western leaders is fallacious.

Never heard of the Koreans down the toilet thing.

Yes, I said allegedly, but if you do the research there is some compelling evidence, a number of eye witnesses.
Lol, korans. Newsweek made up a story, filled with high ranking eye witness, about the military flushing korans down the toilet. Fifteen died in riots pertaining to that false story. So, before you go around slinging accusations, make sure you have solid evidence - wouldn't want to cost more lives, eh?

And Im not Anti-American, I'm just anti the 51% of you who voted Bush in second time around.
Ok. You're anti-51% of America. :rolleyes:

That might be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard.

You are not entitled to shoot any prisoner who has not been tried by the same court under the same rules as the detaining country´s armed forces. Being non-uniformed means that, yes, they do not qualify as POWs but they are still combatants and as such must be treated humanely.
Wrong again. The Third Geneva Convention only applies to PoWs (and the other Conventions don't deal with combatants at all). There are no regulations concerning the treatment of non-PoWs. Spies, terrorists, and people of that nature, fall completely outside of warfare regulation, and are therefore subject to execution.

Oh, and before you pass links out like candy, you might want to read them.

[font=arial,helvetica]Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state´s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not quality. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.
[/font]
 
Path of One,

While I might not agree with you totally, I can really respect what you are saying. War does suck (for lack of a better adjective). And we should all pray it ends soon.
 
I am proud to be part of the hated 51%. Why do so many loose sight of what went on in Iraq while Saddam was in power? I quess raping little girls in front of their fathers, dipping them slowly into acid to get non-existent information for a paranoid, Kurd gassing, doesn't have weapons of mass destruction(lie) freak isn't a good enough reason. Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction! They could be coming to an area near you soon. If they are used by a terrorist group on your loved ones how much of a pacifist will you be?
In answer to your question" Worlds most dangerous terrorist...?" Any one who harms the innocent is a terrorist. #1 The Devil.
 
KnightoftheRose said:
Oh, and before you pass links out like candy, you might want to read them.
Under the Geneva Conventions, captured fighters are considered prisoners of war (POWs) if they are members of an adversary state´s armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. Al-Qaeda members, who neither wear identifying insignia nor abide by the laws of war, probably would not quality. Taliban soldiers, as the armed forces of Afghanistan, may well be entitled to POW status. If there is doubt about a captured fighter's status as a POW, the Geneva Conventions require that he be treated as such until a competent tribunal determines otherwise.


I dont see how this supports your point at all. No, these men probably cannot be called true POWs, but the site which that link pointed to clearly states that all "Combatants" are assured a basic protection.
 
A thread like this is always going to throw up political leaders - I was actually surprised it took as long as the third post for someone to say "Bush".

But politics is politics, and whilst there may be disagreement, that doesn't mean disrespecting people for their views.
 
Hi all
I respect all opinions here , but please don't forget that Bn laden & Saddam Husien are made by USA .The history wrote every thing you can return back to be sure .
 
I respect all opinions here , but please don't forget that Bn laden & Saddam Husien are made by USA .

That's one of the best things I heard you say :)

Bin Laden and Saddam have a made in the US mark tattooed on there asses. I don't know who the Good or bad guy is anymore.. Nostradamus also pretty much said the same thing hundreds of years ago about our present days.

 
path_of_one said:
I'm not going to get into details, but there was a scientific study done on the war in Iraq that found there was an increase of more than 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq in the first year alone of the war. I can try to dig up the reference, but it was a study out of a major university by reputable public health scientists. The biggest loser in any war is innocent civilians and especially children. Sadaam was, in my opinion, a lousy, cruel, and exploitative leader. But you can hardly blame a lot of Iraqis for being angry with the U.S.- far more civilians have died since we got there than when they were under Sadaam's power.

My dismal views on war are excellently captured by this short video: http://www.luccaco.com/wewerehumans/

Yep, I'm a pacifist, radical, socialist... American. Yes, I do thank God my government currently lets me say whatever I want and vote accordingly.

Looking at all of history, and studying cultures world-wide, I have yet to see when violence did not eventually beget more violence. And yet we still insist that somehow this war or that military operation will end in peace.

That said, I want to be very clear that I support our soldiers. I don't agree with Bush, or the military, or war in general, but I know a lot of soldiers and they're doing what they think is best. They're doing their jobs, and it is a very hard job. I can't help but think, though, that those we fight against in each war... they also think they are doing what is best. They are also doing their jobs. In the end, people on both sides die. Innocent people die. Soldiers' families lose sons and daughters, wives and husbands, mothers and fathers.

Maybe I'm just simple, but I don't get it. I don't get cruelty and needless suffering. I don't get people's greed that fuels the poverty that winds up with desperate folks who are terrorists. I'm permanently in the "why can't we all just get along?" camp.
i am right on the same track with you Path. It's about Power Control Freaks & someone wants to rule the world. I think all the right moves were done, but now it is time, passed time to stop.

You know who I think the worlds most dangerous terrorist are?

The gang members rising by the hundreds of thousands in the USA. I watched a documentary the other night & they say we have a far bigger chance of getting hit by accident by the gangs, especially in California & it is moving into the smaller cities rapidly, trying to own territory, similar to the Wild West. Yet they dont seem to want get control of it, because they can't. Police, mailmen, deliveries etc. cannot even go into certain areas without getting shot or beat up.
It is the same thing as terrorism & no one knows who the enemy is today.
Problems were not this massive 20 years ago, in the States anyway.
 
VLreal said:
I am proud to be part of the hated 51%. Why do so many loose sight of what went on in Iraq while Saddam was in power? I quess raping little girls in front of their fathers, dipping them slowly into acid to get non-existent information for a paranoid, Kurd gassing, doesn't have weapons of mass destruction(lie) freak isn't a good enough reason. Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction! They could be coming to an area near you soon. If they are used by a terrorist group on your loved ones how much of a pacifist will you be?
In answer to your question" Worlds most dangerous terrorist...?" Any one who harms the innocent is a terrorist. #1 The Devil.
1. I don't hate anyone, including the 51% that I think is wrong. Yes, I think it's wrong, and this group includes most of my in-laws, about half of my side of the family, and many of my friends. I can love somebody and still think they are making the wrong choices.

2. I said Saddam Hussein was a lousy and cruel leader. And you know what? The U.S. helped him get into power, gave him weapons, and trained him. We also helped Bin Laden. The U.S. is the biggest weapons exporter in the world and we do this all the time all over the world. Those two men would not have been leaders had we not supported them and put them in power. Sad, huh? Maybe we should be more careful about who we support from the beginning...

3. All the reports stated that Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Didn't you hear about that on the news and the hearings about this whole thing?

4. Yes, I am a pacifist. This is not based on practicality, but rather spiritual ideals. Death is not the worst thing that could happen to me, and I don't fear it. I would rather have death than the blood of any person on my hands, and I believe that I will be accountable for my decisions in this democratic state before God when I die. I was a pacifist when we thought he did have weapons of mass destruction. I am a pacifist now. And I will continue to be so. I do not support war. Period. I refuse to lower my spiritual ideal standards out of fear. I refuse to fear people, no matter how bad they are. They cannot conquer my soul, or usurp my relationship with God, and that is all that really matters in this life to me. The rest is temporary, fleeting... I'll die one day, no matter what. But I don't have to kill one day. My beliefs aren't whimsical notions of utopia. I know well how awful human beings are to each other and to this planet. I just refuse to live my life based on this reality, but rather on my ideals and relationship with God.
 
Back
Top