Yes, during the Soviet/Afghan War, the CIA did get involved, but it never gave money to Bin Laden. Instead, it gave money to Pakistan, who let its intelligence agency choose which rebel groups to fund... and it picked the ones most feverently Islamic... meaning the Taliban and Bin Laden.
It's all spelled out in a new book, "Holy War, Inc." by Peter Bergen.
So there.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So we funded them, but through a third party? Well whoop-de-fucking-do.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
*chortles*
You also handed the Taliban a pretty penny.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
We never supplied Bin Laden with any funding. However, we did give Pakistan some money so they can fund Bin Laden operations.
Anyone idiot can tell that there is a HUGE difference between the two scenarios.
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
If Joe Schmoe hands Fat Tony $25,000 to contract someone to kill his wife Leslie Schmoe (even though he may not know who the hit men is or are), Joe is still as guilty of murder as the guy who actually pulled the trigger.
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Typical Liberal pseudothink. People are responsible for their OWN actions, not those of others.
If you ask me for 500 dollars to 'help you out,' and then turn around and use the 500 to buy a gun and shoot your wife, I'm not guilty of helping you kill your wife, not matter HOW much you may think I was 'helping you.'
Admittedly, we should have thought twice before handing money to the Pakistanis, but a directive to "Help the Afghans resist communism" is not equal to "Fund the most militant Islamic group you can find, simply because they're the most radically Islamic."
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote: Typical liberal pseudothink
Is it your habit of taking comments you dont agree with, and attributing them to a group you dislike in order to discredit the group?
I agree with the rest of the statement, even though you present yet another scenario... There is a difference between giving someone money and intending for them to do something with it than it is to just give someone the money.
These are three different scenarios by the way, and they dont match:
If you gave Fat Tony 25,000 to kill your wife, telling him to kill your wife.. thats you committing murder.. you are most certainly responsible for those actions. You are most definitely, 100% responsible for the actions of the man who pulls the trigger. Maybe First of Two's moral sense is a little impaired, but i still recognize contract murder as a crime.
If you give Fat Tony 25,000 to help him out and he kills somebody with it, thats Fat Tony committing murder. I agree with First of Two here.. you dont realyl have to take responsibility for what happened, but giving 25,000 to Fat Tony is a dumb thing to do, and your payment would be never getting that back. But you had no criminal intent.
If you give Fat Tony 25,000 to fight communism, and then he splits it up and gives it to a bunch of guys to do that, and once they are done fighting communism one of them has 500 left and buys a gun and kills your wife, is that really your fault? Is it even Fat Tony's fault? Not really. Its a little irresponsible to be spending that money on disreputable people to begin with, but this one does boil down to the guy with the gun.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:If you ask me for 500 dollars to 'help you out,' and then turn around and use the 500 to buy a gun and shoot your wife, I'm not guilty of helping you kill your wife, not matter HOW much you may think I was 'helping you.'
Rob, you're a very intelligent guy, but I really wish you would read my analogy more carefully before responding, okay?
The U.S. gave the Pakistanis money to fund anti-Soviet fighters.
If Joe Schmoe borrows $500 from Rob to fund Fat Tony to kill his wife and Rob thought he was planning on buying a new grill, Rob is not guilty. On the other hand, if Rob knew Joe Schmoe was planning on having his wife killed, Rob is very much guilty (at least of being an accessory to murder or attempted murder).
But Joe Schmoe is still very guilty of murder because he knew when he gave the money to Fat Tony *exactly* what Fat Tony would be doing with it. And if you tell me the U.S. didn't know what the Pakistanis were planning on doing with the money, I've got a three headed cat to sell you.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We DIDN't know exactly where the money was going. We had a vague general idea, but no specifics.
Further, your analogies are all flawed. It's more like:
I give mobster "a" $1000 to have him kill my wife. He gives, say, $100 of that money to a hired assassin "b", so the guy can buy a gun and ammunition with which to kill my wife. My wife is then killed, for which I can be held responsible. However, the killer then uses that same gun and box of ammo to kill three other people. Am I then responsible?
A little more vague, but I'd have to say "no".
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:We DIDN't know exactly where the money was going. We had a vague general idea, but no specifics.
We didn't know the money was going to be used to fund a guerrila army to fight the Soviets? That is rather hard to believe.
If you provide someone the means to kill people (even if you only wanted them to kill one person, or one group of people), you're just as guilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself when they kill more then who you wanted them to.
So, Joe Schmoe gives Fat Tony cash to hire a hit-man to wack his wife. Fat Tony gives the money to the hit-man, Bob. Bob kills Joe Schmoe's wife, then, a few years later, decides that Joe Schmoe is a bad man for whatever reason and goes and tries to kill Joe Schmoe. Bob doesn't kill Joe Schmoe (Joe's at work), but he does kill Joe's new wife and kid in the attempt (stupid car bombs). Joe Schmoe is furious and Fat Tony works with him to kill Bob.
Joe Schmoe = United States o' America Joe's Wife: Union of Socialist Soviet Republics Fat Tony = Pakistan Bob = Islamic Extremists
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If the army enlists you as a soldier, issues you a rifle, and tells you to kill the enemy soldiers, and you do so, that's war and the Army is responsible.
If the army enlists you as a soldier, issues you a rifle, and tells you to kill the enemy soldiers, and you knowingly kill civilians, YOU are responsible.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
If the U.S. wants to give money out to fund guerilla insurrections, it might want to give a thought to the long-term (and not short-term) implications of what may arise.
The U.S. didn't. We just wanted to give the Soviets a headache. We succeeded.
And as a result of short-term planning, we're now at war with the Taliban.
quote:and you knowingly kill civilians
Interesting point, given that as I understand it, Osama and his ilk considered anyone who paid US tax (with which to fund the US military) a "soldier" and thus, in their minds at least, a legitimate target.
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I give mobster 'a' $1000 to have him kill my wife. He gives, say, $100 of that money to a hired assassin 'b', so the guy can buy a gun and ammunition with which to kill my wife. My wife is then killed, for which I can be held responsible. However, the killer then uses that same gun and box of ammo to kill three other people. Am I then responsible?"
Legally? No. Morally? I'd say so.
"Interesting point, given that as I understand it, Osama and his ilk considered anyone who paid US tax (with which to fund the US military) a 'soldier' and thus, in their minds at least, a legitimate target."
Interesting point. How would you define "soldier", Rob? If it's limited to people enlisted in the enemy military, then any "civilian" who comes at you w/ a gun isn't a legitimate target. However, if you broaden "soldier" to include such a person, it can easily be broadened to include anyone who gives tangible support to the enemy. Thus, a civilian whose tax money pays for the enemy military would, in fact, become a "soldier".
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Wasn't all this pinned down in the Geneva convention?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Not exactly. Sort of.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You stayed up reading the Geneva convention last night to give us thatinsightful comment?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The Geneva Convention is longer than you expect it to be.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Ok, so Joe Schmoe doesn't like the way his robust and out-going friend Gregor is always pushing around the smaller and weaker Akbar and drinking all of Akbar's beer whenever the game is on. So he gives Akbar's neighbor, Fat Tony, 25 grand, three red apples and a crate of Stinger missile launchers to take care of it. Fat Tony, passes much of this (minus his percentage of course) to Akbar's even smaller roomate, Jimmy-Skinny-Legs. Jimmy-Skinny-Legs starts standing up for Akbar and even knocks Gregor on his ass a couple of times. This of course has had a rather harsh effect on the allready sparse furnishings of Akbar's apartment. Now independent of all this, Gregor is hitting on some tough times (and besides, the cab fare is killing him) so he just stops coming over for game day. Now Akbar is thankful, and being kind of tired of all this conflict, when Jimmy-Skinny-Legs opines that Akbar sign the lease over, Akbar really isn't in a position to disagree. Some time later, Jimmy-Skinny-Legs takes up a beef with Joe Schmoe (A serious political disagreement) and fucks up his really nice Ethan-Allen Armoire. Joe Schmoe gets all pissed, and decides that Jimmy-Skinny-Legs is gonna pay up and goes over to Akbar's place and starts raising hell. He insists that Jimmy's in there somewhere and starts tearing up floorboards and ripping up the tattered furniture.
I don't think Joe should be held accountable for Jimmy being a jerk. Maybe Fat Tony should've told him Jimmy was psychotic. Maybe Joe should have asked more questions about it. I don't know. I just feel bad for Akbar.
ps-This all gets so much more complicated with the potential destruction of all mammalian life on earth...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't think that's going to bother the amphibian Akbar.
Or was he a mammal? I'm not sure.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:"I give mobster 'a' $1000 to have him kill my wife. He gives, say, $100 of that money to a hired assassin 'b', so the guy can buy a gun and ammunition with which to kill my wife. My wife is then killed, for which I can be held responsible. However, the killer then uses that same gun and box of ammo to kill three other people. Am I then responsible?"
Legally, YES.
It doesn't matter if you only thought he was going to kill one person -- the only way you wouldn't be an accessory is if you could prove you didn't know he was going to commit any illegal acts with what you've provided him. But the second the police discover you hired him to kill your wife and gave him the money to buy the gun, they'll charge you as an accessory to every crime he's committed as a result of having that gun (murder, robbery ...)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Are you sure? I wouldn't have thought so, but you could be right...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Se�or Snay, that theory will never hold up in court.
Any money I give to a homeless person could likely make me an accessory to a drug buy. I'm not guilty of anything because he didn't buy a Big Mac instead of rock cocaine.
On an interpersonal and private level the A to B causing C analogy just doesn't work in this case.
However, on a geo-political scale, when country A gives country B money, specifically in the case of Pakistan during the Afghanistan conflict, only a fool denies we gave them the money to fight a proxy war. Sure, Pakistan maybe used a certain percentage of the money to buy food, beat down segments of the population and to beautify the presidential palace, but it also went buy weapons.
What amount? Who knows. But what is clear is that we were funding Mr. Bin Laden and his ilk through any number of channels during the Afghanistan conflict.
Does that make us responsible? In part, yes.
We also gave money to the Taliban to curtail the Afghanistan drug trade. Goodness knows what they did with that.
This kind of geo-political responsibility question also comes into play policy wise when one talks about the Arab conflict with Isreal. The support we give Isreal is clearly being used to fund the military. The radicals in the international community place a great deal of blame on the United States for the actions of Isreal.
Whether it's the funding of dictators who equip death squads to kill or giving money to states who use it for defense or waging a proxy war with Turkmenistan, on a geo-political level, we bear some responsibility.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Any money I give to a homeless person could likely make me an accessory to a drug buy. I'm not guilty of anything because he didn't buy a Big Mac instead of rock cocaine.
Jay, if you don't know he's going to buy drugs, you're right, you couldn't be held responsible.
But then again, if you give someone the means to commit murder (and you *know* he's going to commit murder, even if he commits more crimes then you expected him too), you most certainly can be held responsible as an accessory. Ignorance only works as a defense if you actually were ignorant.
Perhaps some people heard the stories after 9/11 of the 'Islamic Charities'? You know, the things in fast-food resteraunts you're supposed to drop some change into that would feed kids in impovrished Muslim countries. Apparently, money from that was used to fund terrorist organizations.
*THAT* is where the giving party is not responsible, because no-one realized where the money was going. The U.S. is very much an accessory to what Bin Laden & Co. have done with the training and support they recieved as a result of our interaction.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
Like many countries, our country values short-term goals over long-term goals. This disaster in Afghanistan is one such example. And, if we aren't careful, we will create another disaster there by not allowing aid agencies to feed the starving and homeless Afghans. Our goal should be more than the destruction of our enemies, it should be the relief of their victims. However, I fear that "compassionate conversatives" lack either the sympathy and/or empathy needed to aid these victims.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Isn't 'compassionate conservative' an oxymoron?
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Always an Oxymoron here in Ontario.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Snayer, I should have been more clear. A giving money to B to cause C makes A responsible for C as if he had committed C himself. However if B, before being caught for C, goes out and commits D and perhaps robbing E independently doesn't a legal responsibility make.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Uh ... you sure about that?
Joe Schmoe gives Fat Tony a gun to kill Leslie Schmoe with. Fat Tony not only kills Leslie Schmoe but also kills two other people, robs a 7-11, and exposes himself to a little girl while making obscene gestures with said gun.
Joe Schmoe gets charged as an accessory to them. He may not have known Fat Tony was going to do what we he was going to do (with the exception of killing Leslie), but he knowingly provided assistance to the commission of one criminal act and can therefore (as far as I'm aware) be charged with as an accessory in the other crimes (his role being, of course, giving Tony the weapon he used to commit them).
Sorry, Jay, I think you're wrong.
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
According to my criminal lawyer / fianc�, you have a much higher standard to prove criminal intent re the situation I presented.
She did say that person A might be able to be sued in civil court for some version of negligence. The standard for proof is lower in a civil matter.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
LOL. We both consulted lawyers
Apparently, it depends greatly on the jurisdiction you're in. If any additional crimes to the ones Joe is aware of were a natural and forseeable consequence of the crime Joe was aware of ... then, yes, he could be charged as an accessory.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I feel I should point out that the word you want is "fiancée". A "fiancé" is not female...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, that brings Flameboard arguments to a whole new level. LAWYERS?
And, if we aren't careful, we will create another disaster there by not allowing aid agencies to feed the starving and homeless Afghans.
Excuse me? You're worried about an absurd hypothetical situation. I can't think of any circumstance, off the top of my head, where we wouldn't allow aid to Afganistan. Heck, we're dropping food ourselves! Those people are probably eating better now than they ever have.
Our goal should be more than the destruction of our enemies, it should be the relief of their victims.
It IS. Haven't you been paying attention?
Isn't 'compassionate conservative' an oxymoron?
I think you mean "redundancy".
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Uh, hardly. Compassionate liberal is a redundency, compassionate conservative makes about as much sense as "Join the KKK! We love African-Americans!"
As for the food aid in Afghanistan, I think T.E. is speaking for his hope that our aid there continues after the end of the conflict. Given that we're not dropping a whole lot of food to them now (given the size of the Afghani population), its not an unreasonable request.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
By the statistics I read last week in "Newsweek," we've dropped about 10,000 food packages for every 1 cruise missile.
But let's not let facts get in the way of good pontificating.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And how many millions of people are in Afghanistan Rob? Why not look at ratio of food packets to people (and remember that food *won't* last long) per day ...
... not cruise missiles to food packets (which really doesn't tell you anything).
But, hey, like you said, 'let's not let facts get in the way of good pontificating.'
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Go find out how many cruise missiles we've fired, and do the math yourself.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed.
The population of Afghanistan is about 26 million.
Now, Rob says we're dropping 10,000 food packets per cruise missile. Although cruise missiles are fairly cheap -- $600,000 -- we would have to be firing 2600 cruise missiles (at a cost of, for what I calculate it to be, $105,456,000,000,000 -- correct me if I'm wrong) $per day to make certain the population of Afghanistan got food. Somehow, I doubt that is happening.
Now, I've done my bit. Rob, you dig up somewhere that the U.S. has fired 2600 cruise missiles since the campaign in Afghanistan began (at the cost of $105 trillion per day), and I'll shut my mouth. Otherwise, shut yours.
You'll remember that what you got irritated at was that I said we weren't dropping a lot of food to them given the size of their population ... you then blathered on about the food packet/cruise missile ratio, and when I suggested it would be better to look at the population per-day/cruise missiles ... well, you were 'cross'
And now you've been beaten into the ground! Woo-hoo!
[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Food pack?
Cruise Missiles?
Fat Tony?
Moe?
Damn it, you guys are confusing me!!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
So what, you want welfare for Afghanistan, now, too?
Why should we be feeding the ENTIRE population? They're not ALL refugees, and they weren't ALL starving before we showed up, most of them don't need our food. Your statistics are pure bunk. I mean, you're counting in the TALIBAN, for crap's sake!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I've finally figured out the best analogy:
MORAL QUANDARY
Starring: Fat Tony: as the CIA First: as Pakistan Omega: as BinLaden Snay: as The WTC
Fat Tony doesn't like the climate in Baltimore. So he gives First $500 and tells him 'Make Baltimore a nicer place to live. First snickers, and gives Omega the $500, and Omega goes and acts according to what HE thinks would make Baltimore a better place, buys a gun, and becomes a vigilante. By happenstance, Omega runs into Snay, Fat Tony's acquaintance, on the street, dislikes him, and whacks him.
Is Fat Tony culpable in the whacking of Snay?
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Okay, Rob,
First, you need to get a grip. Target Employee asked whether we were doing enough in Afghanistan. You said "Of course we are! We're dropping 10,000 food packs for every cruise missile!" I pointed out that wasn't a whole lot, and you got very snide.
Let's assume we only want to feed one million Afghans with the food drops, okay? We've still got to fire a hundred cruise missiles a day (assuming 10,000 food packs per cruise missile). That's $60 million in cruise missiles per day times the number of days we've been in Afghanistan. We've been there for what, a month and a half? Okay, so $60 million times lets say 45. That's $2,700,000,000.
You believe that? Wow. That's just to feed one million Afghans.
Rob, the original question wasn't "Why aren't we giving any aid to the poor Afghans?" If it was, your ranting would be logical and you'd win. The question was 'Are we doing enough?' You seem to think that because we're dropping 10,000 food packages per cruise missile, we are.
But given the population of Afghanistan, its like trying to feed a hundred cats with one can of cat food. The original question also expressed Target Employee's hope that when the Taliban is gone and Bin Laden is dead or captured, that we won't just get the hell out of Afghanistan and not look back. You ignored that part.
And so you believe that when the United States gave Pakistan cash to fight the Soviets, they didn't know what the money was being used for? Oh, please. Your moral quandry goes more like:
quote:Fat Tony doesn't like the climate in Baltimore. So he gives First $500 and tells him 'Make Baltimore a nicer place to live.' First snickers, and is aware Fat Tony doesn't like Snay and has expressed his wishes many time that Snay be killed, and gives Omega the $500, and Omega goes and acts according to what HE thinks Fat Tony thinks would make Baltimore a better place, buys a gun, and becomes a vigilante. By happenstance, Omega runs into Snay, Fat Tony's acquaintance whom he is aware Fat Tony wants dead, on the street, dislikes him, and is aware Fat Tony wants him dead and whacks him and Fat Tony tells him 'thank you very much'.
And if I've kicked your butt in this arguement where you've got to resort to not very cleverly expressing your wish I was dead ...
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
1. We're doing more than we have to do, therefore we're doing enough. Food drops do not help us win the war. They may hinder us, if the food falls into the hands of the people we're fighting. The drops may make us look good to the international community (none of whom would take such a benign action), and it may make our touchy-feely left wing more amenable to carrying out the necessities of the war, but other than that it serves no useful purpose.
2. I agree that we should maintain a presence and rebuild Afghanistan. I have said so repeatedly. I only ignore other people saying that to me, because I've already covered it.
3. You're assuming that the 'food packs' only feed one person one meal. Is that true? I'd bet a subsistence-level person could stretch what Americans consider a 'meal' into at least a day.
4. Your attempted rebuttal of my analogy makes zero sense, since I cast you in the part of the World Trade Center, and I know damned sure the CIA (Fat Tony) didn't want the WTC destroyed. Talk about not reading stuff...
5. Don't flatter yourself. You're not important enough or enough of a factor in my life for me to want you dead. You're a silly, silly person at the other end of hundreds of miles of wire. There's only one person I've ever been angry at enough to WANT him dead (not including the people who abused Julie, who have been dead for some time). Fortunately, I was prevented from dispatching him when I wanted to, and I've since grown less angry at him.
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Incidentally, I used the personal names I did because:
First (me) fits the model of a not-exactly-benign government = Pakistan.
Omega fits the model of a religious fanatic = Bin Laden (sorry, Omega)
and Snay fits the model of someone who I or 'Fat Tony' might not want eliminated, might even LIKE, but whom "Omega" might be maddened enough by to whack, hence the WTC. In fact, Fat Tony and Snay are intended to be on the same side.
Actually, Fat Tony should be mad at First for giving the money to Omega, (especially if he suspected that Omega couldn't be trusted) and incensed at Omega for offing his pal. First's only defense is 'hey, you never said NOT to give the money to Omega!'
Probably not enough guilt for Fat Tony to have First whacked as well as Omega, but enough to have his boys rough First up a little. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:We're doing more than we have to do, therefore we're doing enough.
That's rather ... interesting logic.
quote:and it may make our touchy-feely left wing more amenable to carrying out the necessities of the war, but other than that it serves no useful purpose
Not to mention giving you and Bush and who knows who else the ability to say: "Look! We're feeding the Afghanis! Aren't we kind? Why are you asking if we're doing enough? Questioning authority now is treason. Fuck off."
quote:I only ignore other people saying that to me, because I've already covered it.
T.E. wasn't commenting to anyone in particular, he was simply stating his views.
quote:You're assuming that the 'food packs' only feed one person one meal. Is that true?
My math is based on one per person per day. Otherwise feeding 1 million Afghanis per day would jump to $180 million dollars.
quote:Your attempted rebuttal of my analogy makes zero sense, since I cast you in the part of the World Trade Center, and I know damned sure the CIA (Fat Tony) didn't want the WTC destroyed. Talk about not reading stuff...
Then your analogy makes no sense at all. Perhaps is Fat Tony (the U.S.) gave you (Pakistan) the money to fund an operation in Baltimore and you funded Omega (Mujhardeen), who later turned around and shot Fat Tony's Lieutenant (WTC).
quote:Don't flatter yourself.
And yet you just devoted a whole paragraph to me. Thanks Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
You guys are missing one very important things...
Muslims don't eat a whole lot during the month of "Ranmandon" (spelling?)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Ramadan".
"We're doing more than we have to do, therefore we're doing enough."
Like bombing Afghanistan?
"Food drops do not help us win the war."
We're still not at war. We're just blowing shit up.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
B.E.:
Catholics aren't supposed to eat meat on Friday, either, but I've been eating meat on Fridays since I was old enough to chew.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Nah, you guys don't understand, Muslims take their religious practices VERY SERIOUSLY! I'd say they take it waaaaaaaay more seriously on average then any other religions.
All of my Muslims friends (I know alot, all Asians and Muslims tends to end up in Electrical Engineering for some reason) have sticked to the rules since the very first day of Ramadan.
They get up about 5:00 in the morning (before sunrise), eat breakfest and then just stop eating (no solid or liquid food, water included) until 5:30 in the afternoon (after sunset).
Also, they're suppose to pray 5 times a day, but because of classes, most friends of mine just pray when they get up, noon, and before they go to sleep.
Mind you, they refuse to compremise the rules even with busy everyday schedules which requires alot of enery therefore require nutritious meals (shitload of classes, workouting in the gym, etc). Hell man, even with finals approaching, they still refuse to eat which might decrease their performance on the exams.
And again, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Muslims I know directly, or indirectly (friends of friends) have been sticking to the rule in the beginning!
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:They get up about 5:00 in the morning (before sunrise), eat breakfest and then just stop eating (no solid or liquid food, water included) until 5:30 in the afternoon (after sunset).
So, they're still eating. Meaning, in Afghanistan, Muslims would still be eating ... just not as much. So, okay, it would only cost the U.S. -- lets be generous here and say that Afghans will split an individual food packet three ways, not the previously assumed 1 way -- $20 million in cruise missiles per day to feed one million Afghans during Ramadan.
That's still $20 million. And assuming they've been doing that since the beginning of the campaign (we'll say 45 days ago, just for arguement's sake), that's stillnine hundred billion dollars (and fifteen hundred cruise-missiles costing $600k apiece).
quote:might even LIKE,
Awww! I just noticed that! Big hug!
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Did you even read what he said in the first place? He never claimed that they don't eat at all during Ramadan. That would result in a slow, painful death. He specifically said they "don't eat a whole lot" during Ramadan.
Oh, and the rule against eating meat on Fridays was gotten rid of quite a while ago. Probably before you were born (might have been at the second Vatican Council?). Now it only applies during Lent.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Yes, the meat on Friday switch goes back to Vatican II.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Did you even read what he said in the first place? He never claimed that they don't eat at all during Ramadan. That would result in a slow, painful death. He specifically said they "don't eat a whole lot" during Ramadan.
Um, yeah, so I knocked the math on a single food packet from feeding one Afghani to three. That is, assuming Afghanis who've been starving for a long time *care* about Ramadan. What's the beef, TSN?
As for the meat, shows what a good Catholic I am, doesn't it? Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Then your analogy makes no sense at all. Perhaps is Fat Tony (the U.S.) gave you (Pakistan) the money to fund an operation in Baltimore and you funded Omega (Mujhardeen), who later turned around and shot Fat Tony's Lieutenant (WTC).
See? You DID get it!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
