http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/10/john-walker-lindh-american-taliban-father?mobile-redirect=false

This makes me sad and embarrased. I'll elaborate more on my feelings if/when people read it. Should take about 20 minutes or so. It's about an American who was pseudo accused of terrorism, then all the charges were dropped, then he got 20 years in prison for it. I think we're better than that.

Please actually read the thing if you're going to comment on it because without reading it we'll just have a bunch of you talking about how he was a terrorist. Which if you read the article isn't the case.

I think it is about an American, who joined one of the most brutal religions in the world. He fought with and for a group that the US tried to help for years fight the Russians, then they turned their backs on us, and attacked us on OUR land. He was a fighter for the Taliban, what are we suppose to do? Just let him go, because he is an American? Im sorry, but he moved over there and became one of them. I think you do something like that, and you give up your American rights and Nationalism. Im all for anyone serving any religion they want, here in the USA. But to think that one should be treated better because you are an American, fighting with the Taliban, is perposterous. What did you expect to happen? As the writer said, we gave them 30 years of help, money, and weapons,,, then they turn around and use it against us, and kill 4,000 Americans, ON OUR LAND! If you raise a dog for ten years from a puppie, and one day you go to feed it, and he attacks you, and mauls you,,, are you going to just let it go? No, you are going to punish (severly) that dog, or even put it down. He could have stayed here and served peacefully, but he chose to go there and fight.

Brutal religions in the world. Bullshit.

Anyway, the dude never fought against the US. He never fought the US.

He went and fought the Northern resistance, a fight which we supported for 30 years. Then 9/11 happened and we switched sides (reasonable that we no longer wanted to support the Taliban, but 9/11 should not have changed the way we felt about those northern resistance and the terrible things they did).

I Wear Pants;831491 wrote:Brutal religions in the world. Bullshit.

Anyway, the dude never fought against the US. He never fought the US.

He went and fought the Northern resistance, a fight which we supported for 30 years. Then 9/11 happened and we switched sides (reasonable that we no longer wanted to support the Taliban, but 9/11 should not have changed the way we felt about those northern resistance and the terrible things they did).

Really?

Muslim men are allowed to kill their wife if she cheats. If you are a homosexual, you get stoned. If a man and women commit a crime and are to be stoned, the man is buried up to his waste, so he can try to get out. The women, buried to her neck, so she cant get out. Sharia Law is the most brutal law around. How can you say that Muslim is not the most brutal religion? When their whole purpose is to kill anyone not a Muslim.

Do you really need me to pull out all the violent rules and shit from the Bible?

That's a tired argument. There are places in the world where terrible things are done and justified by religion (Christianity and Islam included). But most areas and people in the world (of any religion) are not doing that sort of thing.

I don't think you know much about Islam as what you've said is pretty much only believed by people who've never even talked to a Muslim.

Really? Do you see Baptist running around killing people in the name of Jesus Christ? Are Catholics running the streets with AK-47's, shooting any non Catholics? Islam has been killing people in the name of Allah for thousands of years! Muslims dont think the Jews should even walk the face of the Earth. Muslims dont think that Hitler killed enough.

coyotes22;831495 wrote:Really? Do you see Baptist running around killing people in the name of Jesus Christ? Are Catholics running the streets with AK-47's, shooting any non Catholics? Islam has been killing people in the name of Allah for thousands of years! Muslims dont think the Jews should even walk the face of the Earth. Muslims dont think that Hitler killed enough.

Ever wonder why the drink is called an Irish car bomb? Might want to look that up.

You really know nothing about Islam do you? And I don't think you want to talk about religious violence on the thousands of years scale because Christianity is pretty professional at that.

coyotes22;831492 wrote:Really?

Muslim men are allowed to kill their wife if she cheats. If you are a homosexual, you get stoned. If a man and women commit a crime and are to be stoned, the man is buried up to his waste, so he can try to get out. The women, buried to her neck, so she cant get out. Sharia Law is the most brutal law around. How can you say that Muslim is not the most brutal religion? When their whole purpose is to kill anyone not a Muslim.

"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

That's not from the Qu'ran but the bible.

I Wear Pants;831496 wrote:Ever wonder why the drink is called an Irish car bomb? Might want to look that up.

You really know nothing about Islam do you? And I don't think you want to talk about religious violence on the thousands of years scale because Christianity is pretty professional at that.





"If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

That's not from the Qu'ran but the bible.

You are quoting the Old Testament? If you knew the Bible, you would understand the meaning. First off, when Christ came to this Earth, He abolished the old law, and He was the new law. Second, the passage you quoted is talking about people inside their own religion, that stray from the Lord, not random people that do not agree with their beliefs. That was the punishment they had then. I know, hard to believe they didnt use the electric chair. They also sacrificed sheep that were without blemish, thus Jesus became the pure Lamb for sacrifice. Thats why we dont erect alters for the sacrifice anymore. You cant use Old Testament scripture when trying to make a point about current times Christianity.

coyotes22;831500 wrote:You cant use Old Testament scripture when trying to make a point about current times Christianity.

True. For Christianity you cannot directly apply Old Testament legalism to New Testament teachings. Maybe O-trap can give us his take on this as well.

But in all fairness historically Christians have indeed used their "Christianity" to justify killing non-Christians in the name of Christ in much the same manner as present-day Muslims justify killing of "infidels" in the name of Allah. Fortunately those practices by Christians are largely a thing of the past...at least in a large scale context.

By the way IWP, there may indeed be some religious undertone to the Irish Catholic vs Protestant conflict but that situation is far more political (IE: centuries of conflict between Britain vs. Ireland) than religious.

He clearly chose sides. Even said in the interview after he was captured that he was attached the Taliban. He could have walked away after 9/11, but he didnt. He could have spoke up during his first interrogation, but he didnt. The only reason he didnt fight against the US is because he was captured before he could.

I'd like to read the same article again, this time one not written by the guy's father. It's a plea for his son to be released, so naturally it paints little Johnny in the most positive light. I almost quit reading after his completely laughable accusations of "torture," but managed to press on.

ccrunner609;831567 wrote:I wear pants....you nsound like you dont like the US that much. Why dont you move.

IWP likes the United States. He just wishes it were more like socialist Europe.

As noted, he could have walked away from all that once the Taliban attacked the US -- but he did not.

That means he CHOSE to remain as part of an organization at war with the US.

He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, so far as I'm concerned.

The guy is a looney in general for wanting to go to the middle east and become one of them. So then he joins a fighting force that, regardless what he says he knew, attacked our country. Sorry dude, I think 20 years is a bargain.

Writerbuckeye;831651 wrote:As noted, he could have walked away from all that once the Taliban attacked the US -- but he did not.

That means he CHOSE to remain as part of an organization at war with the US.

He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, so far as I'm concerned.

I'd imagine it might be difficult to do so. If I join the military and disagree with something the US does I don't believe I'm allowed to just go home.

ccrunner609;831567 wrote:I wear pants....you nsound like you dont like the US that much. Why dont you move.

Alright isadore.

Actually, if you display enough disagreements with US policy and act out, the military would likely get rid of you -- unlike the Taliban, which would simply kill you.

His father is great at spin, I'll give him that. The fact remains, he was a Taliban fighter and declared his allegiance to them long after they declared war on the US. He should be executed for treason and his father should be hanged next to him for offering aid and comfort to the enemy.

superman;831735 wrote:His father is great at spin, I'll give him that. The fact remains, he was a Taliban fighter and declared his allegiance to them long after they declared war on the US. He should be executed for treason and his father should be hanged next to him for offering aid and comfort to the enemy.

You're just being nice.

superman;831735 wrote:His father is great at spin, I'll give him that. The fact remains, he was a Taliban fighter and declared his allegiance to them long after they declared war on the US. He should be executed for treason and his father should be hanged next to him for offering aid and comfort to the enemy.

He was not fighting Americans though. And they were, you know, attempting to surrender to people that wouldn't kill them.

I Wear Pants;831758 wrote:He was not fighting Americans though. And they were, you know, attempting to surrender to people that wouldn't kill them.

Right, we forgot that the Taliban are basically peace loving gentlemen who are simply misunderstood by the average narrow-minded and ignorant American.

believer;831818 wrote:Right, we forgot that the Taliban are basically peace loving gentlemen who are simply misunderstood by the average narrow-minded and ignorant American.

No, but we did support them for 30 some years before 9/11 and I really doubt all of them were aware/approved of that involvement. Especially that soon after the event.

What I'm saying is that at minimum we should not have supported those Northern resistance fighters who we thought were evil for 30 some years just because it was now convenient to do so. They were still bad guys, it's just their enemy (who we had supported for a long time) were now also enemies (the Taliban).

Writerbuckeye;831651 wrote:As noted, he could have walked away from all that once the Taliban attacked the US -- but he did not.

That means he CHOSE to remain as part of an organization at war with the US.

He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, so far as I'm concerned.

The truth is that the Taliban did not attack us. What they did was provide a safe haven for bin Ladin and his minions. There is a difference.

I Wear Pants;830621 wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/10/john-walker-lindh-american-taliban-father?mobile-redirect=false

This makes me sad and embarrased. I'll elaborate more on my feelings if/when people read it. Should take about 20 minutes or so. It's about an American who was pseudo accused of terrorism, then all the charges were dropped, then he got 20 years in prison for it. I think we're better than that.

Please actually read the thing if you're going to comment on it because without reading it we'll just have a bunch of you talking about how he was a terrorist. Which if you read the article isn't the case.

I scanned the article....but it was way too long. The key take away I think is the explanation on how the US, for decades, backed the mujahadeen who then splintered off into Al quada and the Taliban. The mujahadeen and the Taliban were deemed freedom fighters by the US back in the 80's and 90's. But alas and alack, these same freedom fighters that resisted the Russians also began resisting the other invaders...ie...the US military in the forms of land military bases and pro Western puppet dictators. Throw in a little unfettered support for the invasive foreign policies of Israel and their blatant disregard for the himan rights of the Palestinians, and voila....you have a brand new enemy.

Ronald Reagan talked a big game, but other than shitting on teeny weeny Grenada, Ronnie was no neocon. Rather, he espoused the Ron Paul view of the middle east. He cut and ran from Lebanon....a lesson that should have been internalized and heeded...but wasn't.

This article brings to light the historical inportance of the Afghanis fighting the invaders from the North. Post 9-11.....if you wear a towell on your head, then you are guilty by proxy....no matter what one's intent was.

Footwedge;832528 wrote:The truth is that the Taliban did not attack us. What they did was provide a safe haven for bin Ladin and his minions. There is a difference.

The Taliban also refused to turn over bin laden after it was known that he planned and ordered the 9/11 attacks from within their sovereign state borders. Their refusal was an act of war. It made the Taliban government in Afghanistan accomplices in the attack.

majorspark;832554 wrote:The Taliban also refused to turn over bin laden after it was known that he planned and ordered the 9/11 attacks from within their sovereign state borders. Their refusal was an act of war. It made the Taliban government in Afghanistan accomplices in the attack.

I have also read that the Taliban desperated wanted to turn him over through a "deal" but the US was not in the mood to work out "deals". Now with that said, I can't verify this information with declassified memos....so I can't claim it to be factual.