Talk:Portland Seven

Merger
There are now seven articles, one for each of the conspirators -- aside from Mike Hawash, they contain an essentially duplicate paragraph, and at most one unique sentence per individual. I would suggest that a merger into this article, with redirects, would be a better solution. -- BlindVenetian 12:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No Merge - I think that a merger would be short-sighted. The articles might have been largely duplicates, differing in only one or two sentences, at the time the merger was suggested.  But this is not because there is no room for the articles to grow more distinct.  I added several details to the Patrice Lumumba Ford article.  I am sure that similar details could be added for the other individuals.  --  Geo Swan 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother to cast a formal vote here. Geo, just FYI, BlindVenetian is an account that was created to stalk me. I'm going to try to add more info in the coming days, but I just wanted to get the stubs in place before I do. But thanks, Geo, for adding to the article. I'm going to be making some changes, so please let me know your thoughts as I do. IronDuke 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll look forward to taking a look.  --  Geo Swan 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not stalking you. If you can get an admin to declare me a sockpuppet or whatever your favorite recrimination is, you may re-delete the tags you deleted. Until then, calling me name is simply a personal attack. -- BlindVenetian 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BV, I will pass on some advice, which you can feel free to ignore. I checked your contribution log.  Your very first edit is to the administrator's noticeboard.  No brand new editor is going to start with an editor to the administrator's noticeboard.  But, there are legitimate, non-sockpuppet reasons why someone would start a new userid.  I know some people who created userids that are slight misspellings of their original ID, which they use (1) to make it easier for people to find their user page and talk page, by redirecting to their main page; (2) to prevent the accidental or malicious creation of userids that would confuse people because they were too similar to their original userid.  But those people have done this transparently.  If you had a legitimate reason to establish a new ID, have you considered offering that explanation on your user page(s)?  --  Geo Swan 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)`

Proposed deletion of related article
Deletion of Religious conversion and terrorism is proposed.

For discussion see: Articles_for_deletion/Religious_conversion_and_terrorism

--ISKapoor 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This article seems biased toward the official story. For example, it says that the men traveled to China with the intention of going to Afghanistan to help the Taliban. According to who? The men? The authorities? There is no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.86.95 (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda or Taliban?
The seven were attempting to join Al Qaeda forces in their fight against the United States military and coalition forces in Afghanistan, or aiding in that attempt.

Were they trying to join Al Qaeda or the Taliban? What is the source for this accusation? In my opinion there is a big difference. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation which attacks military and civilian targets around the world. The Taliban was the dictatorial fundamentalist government of Afghanistan which didn't make such terrorist attacks although it was an opressive regime. The Taliban (was) supported (by) Al Qaeda but so did the USA. Al Qaeda (together with american support) had a big part in the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Soviet–Afghan War. Things later went bad between Al Qaeda and the USA. Al Qaeda supposedly was responsible for the 9-11 attack and the USA demanded from the Taliban that they delivered Osama to them.

If you know Pashtun culture (Pashtunwali) then you know that someone who is a guest can't be harmed or allowed to be harmed by others (Nanawatai code). Even if an enemy asks for Nanawatai you have to give them hospitality, food and protection. The Taliban proposed to have a court in which the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, if proven guilty they would hand him over. This way they were not breaking hospitality rules because a criminal forfeits his right of protection since Melmasti and Nanawatai work both ways. The guest also has an obligation to behave properly and do nothing to harm (the honor of) the hospitality giving party. The Taliban also covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.

The USA didn't accept either proposition and attacked afghanistan. I don't know why anyone who wants to catch Osama wouldn't accept these offers. Maybe the idea of getting hold of Osama through Islamic or pashtunwali law was not acceptable to them. It would have allowed the Taliban to save face. They would not have bowed to US threats but would have convicted Osama themselves. If the Taliban had just handed over Osama and bowed to US threats, there would have been no war against Afghainstan by the way. So it is not a question of holding the Taliban responsible for 9-11 and punishing the Taliban/Afghanistan. It is a question of showing dominance. Apparently showing USA dominance was more important than actually catching the perpetrators and saving a million innocent afghan civilian lives which would later die in the war. Even U.S. military casualties would have been prevented by avoiding the war. All these casualties greatly exceed the 2900 deaths of 9-11 and could have been prevented.

By this logic Taliban soldiers who defend afghanistan and those who come to aid the Taliban are not terrorists, they are fighting an invasion of the USA in Afghanistan. Many jews from around the world for example join the Israel Defense Forces and fight palestinian "terrorism". Why are they not considered terrorists? I am not saying that these guys are righteous because seemingly they were anti-semitic but I can't trust the conservative western media anymore after all the lies and doubt this accusation. Even if they really are anti-semitic (instead of just anti-israel), they obviously chose not to attack the USA or its jewish inhabitants but chose to go to afghanistan to fight against the occupation by the USA. They were already in the USA and making terrorist attacks against (jewish) US civilians was easier and more terror effective than going to Afghanistan and fighting soldiers who are expected to die. I think connecting them with anti-semitism and Al Qaeda was a tactical trick by the neo-cons. Their action of going to afghanistan instead of harming jewish or US civilians in the USA, belies the anti-semitism and terrorism accusations. Terrorism was not their goal. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)