Muslim Immigrants: Importing Terrorists?

[Felix_Nietsche]

From Washinton Post, Robin Wright Story

Pew Global Attitude project
Percentages represent:
(1) Confidence in Osamam Bin Laden
(2) Supports suicide bombings and other violent methods to further Islam

Jordan 60% 57% (up 14% from 2002)
Lebanon 2% 39% (down 34%)
Pakistan 51% 25% (down 8%)
Indonesia 37% 15% (down 12%)
Turkety 7% 13% (up 1%)
Morocco 25% 13% (down 27%)

Lets say 10,000 Pakistani's are allowed to immigrate to the USA. Based on these poll numbers, 5100 will be supporters of Osama Bin Laden and roughly 2525 will believe violence is an acceptable method to futher Islam. Do you really want these people to live next door to you? At least if someone from Romania moves next door you won't have to worry about then trying to blow you up. Also based on this poll it is no surprise that it was Pakistanis behind the London suicide bombing. It is also in Pakistan where the Wahabist have poored funds in their religious schools which teach intolerance and violence.

Can we agree that if you allow immigrants from a nation where 1 in 4 support violence against civilians that you are going to have a lot of "bad apples" come into your country? How can anyone look at this poll and not conclude that ON THE WHOLE, Muslims make poor citizens.

Also, all these claims that the USA is creating more terrorists with our foreign policy it seems like it is just the opposite based on the poll changes between 2002 and 2005.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I live one kilometre from Little Pakistan as it is named. According to your logic I have about 35,000 potential terrorists living close to me.
Their kebabs are worth it though /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

Seriously, whether you want or not, Felix; the globe becomes smaller. People travel and migrate more. A mosque is coming to your neighbourhood too /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
I live one kilometre from Little Pakistan as it is named. According to your logic I have about 35,000 potential terrorists living close to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not his logic, it is a poll result. Are you saying that the poll is inacurrate?

How do you know that you DON'T live next to 35K potential terrorists?

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, whether you want or not, Felix; the globe becomes smaller. People travel and migrate more. A mosque is coming to your neighbourhood too

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just silly. Do you think that synagogues will suddenly start springing up all over too? Or just mosques?

And when the mosques come, will the kabobs follow too?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Ok,
I will answer a bit more serious (was mocking his constant moslem-mocking).

There has been a couple of terrorists living here that has been catched (Palestine and Iranian), so I understand the possibility. First of all I believe that their opinions are softened by living here. But even if 35k would answer yes to the questions it is far away from them being terrorists.

Moslems are migrating, so it is just natural that mosques pop up in more places, synagoges a bit different since I have not heard of any big Jewish migration.

P.S. Our CIA claims that students coming from those countries constitute the biggest threat.

[Felix_Nietsche]

He can not respond to the poll numbers because it shows EXACTLY why terrorism is rampant in the muslim world.

Even though most muslims may not be terrorists....Most muslims tolerate terrorism and a frightning number support terrorism. He jokes because he does not take terrorism seriously. This attitude is very common in western Europe. But his views and other western European views are moot. The USA will continue to proceed with the war on terror and Norwegians like him will continue to complain about American USA foreign policy.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I take terrorism seriously. Western Europe has a history of terrorism lasting several decades. Western Europe also have experience trying to make different religions live together. I just don't take this moslem massive threat seriously. I think that Christians, Atheists and Moslems in many western European countries share many values, and that i.e. OBL and Bush is very perifer to those values. Thus to construct a conflict between the two religions in Europe is silly.

As an example, it was revealed that our intelligence agency had warned universities that some foreign students come here to aquire knowledge which can be used for weapons. The Pakistani student union (consisting of Pakistanis born in Oslo) reacts by reaching out to the intelligence agency to form a cooperation to combat this stating that all moderate Pakistanis will report all extremist elements.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
He can not respond to the poll numbers because it shows EXACTLY why terrorism is rampant in the muslim world.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does? Elaborate please. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[DarkForceRising]

Bush missed his gretest opportunity after September 11.

Ban all Muslim immigration and travel to the United States. Deport all Muslim non-citizens. Permanant resident status? Not good enough.

It sounds extreme and discriminatory but what are we willing to sacrifice to spare the feelings of what are likely mostly good people?

Houston? Los Angeles?

A Russian friend of mine said it well. "All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims".

[ACPlayer]

You need better friends.

[DarkForceRising]

[ QUOTE ]
You need better friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Guess again.

And pull your head out of your ass.

[ACPlayer]

I recall a poster or two claiming that Bush had done a remarkable job in making us safe by positing that there have been no attack in mainland US since 9/11. Were you one of them? Quite likely.

I, having learned at your (or their) feet, now posit that the muslim population in the US is not a threat to us as there has been no terrorist attack in the mainland US since 9/11. Ergo, no racial profiling, no mass deportation, no mass internment is needed.

[Cyrus]

What say those towelhead countries stop importing terror to the US and the US stops exporting terror to the towelhead countries ?

...Ooops. Too late for a deal.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
A Russian friend of mine said it well. "All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims".

[/ QUOTE ]

Timothy McVeigh? The Unabomber?

-ptmusic

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A Russian friend of mine said it well. "All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims".

[/ QUOTE ]

Timothy McVeigh?
The Unabomber?

[/ QUOTE ]

The IRA ?

The Weather Underground ?

The Corsicans ?

The November 17 crowd ?

The Red Brigades ?

[Felix_Nietsche]

The Pakistanis-Brits that carried out the attacked were 2nd generation Brits. This is more evidence (anecdotal) that muslims make poor citizens and do not assimulate as well as immigrants from other countries.

Israel is building a wall around their country to keep the hate-mongering muslims. I'd wish the USA would do the same thing. And the day that muslims decide to behave in a civilized manner is the day we can tear that wall down. But.....since the Wahabist cult controls mainstream Islam, I would expect that wall would need be in place for at least 300 years.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The IRA ?

The Weather Underground ?

The Corsicans ?

The November 17 crowd ?

The Red Brigades ?

[/ QUOTE ]

To name but a few, the statement wasn't worthy of a reply, it was just ignorant retarded [censored]. The far right use the fact that a couple of total nut-jobs blow some people up, to condemn a billion people as mindless savages who we should cleanse the earth of, if it wasn't so frightening it would be funny.

Mack

[Felix_Nietsche]

It does? Elaborate please.
********************************************
1. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist who advocates violence against civilians as a legitimate tactic.
2. MOST muslim suicide bombing targets are civilians. It is the VERY RARE occurence when a suicide bombers attack a miltary target.
3. The poll numbers show large numbers of muslims express "confidence" in Osama Bin laden (OSL). This can be interpreted as approval of OBL. If you approve of a terrorist leader then the odds are you approve of his terrorists tactics.
4. The poll numbers show significant numbers of muslims approve of suicide bombings. Since 99%+ of suicide bombings target civilians, then it is logical to assume these same people approve of terrorism (aka conducting violence against civilians).

On a side note, if the suicide bombers ***ONLY*** targeted military targets....THEN....I would consider this to be a respectable and a valid tactic.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just silly. Do you think that synagogues will suddenly start springing up all over too? Or just mosques?

And when the mosques come, will the kabobs follow too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they all do in Europe where ever there is enough demand, its not unusual, you make it sound like something that could never happen.

Mack

a couple points [ QUOTE ]
most muslims tolerate terrorism and a frightening number support terrorism

[/ QUOTE ] after the recent bombing in london, the leaders of both hamas and hizballah issued harsh condemnation of the london bombing. now these are both fairly extreme groups, and they condemn the attacks in london. i think you are way off base to say that islam in general supports/tolerates terrorism. as for prohibiting muslims to move to the states, what are your policies on the millions of arab christians? ban them too? any idea how easy it is to infiltrate the u.s. from canada/mexico? it is crazy to think that you can prevent terrorism by turning the U.S. into a police state.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
2. MOST muslim suicide bombing targets are civilians. It is the VERY RARE occurence when a suicide bombers attack a miltary target.


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not true in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
4. The poll numbers show significant numbers of muslims approve of suicide bombings. Since 99%+ of suicide bombings target civilians, then it is logical to assume these same people approve of terrorism (aka conducting violence against civilians).


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't Islam supposed to be a religion against violence, all I ever hear from Muslim leaders are that the people who carry out these attacks are not Muslims, they only think they are.

Mack

[MMMMMM]

The accurate point, which Felix made a little imprecisely, is that most terrorist attacks against the West are committed by Muslims.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't Islam supposed to be a religion against violence, all I ever hear from Muslim leaders are that the people who carry out these attacks are not Muslims, they only think they are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Islam is clearly not against violence. If you read the Koran you will see this is so.

Mohammed was clearly not against violence, either. He personally led over a dozen military campaigns of conquest during his lifetime.

Many imams call for violence. I don't know which Muslim leaders you are referring to, unless you are referring to the publicity after a major terrorist incident, when a few of them will come out and publicly say, "Oh, Islam is AGAINST terrorism". Well...that's NOT what many of the preach in their regular weekly sermons (see www.MEMRI.org (http://www.MEMRI.org) for verbatim transcripts of many of these sermons), and it's not what the Koran says, either.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The accurate point, which Felix made a little imprecisely, is that most terrorist attacks against the West are committed by Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its true, I agree.

Mack

[ACPlayer]

I see you.

I thought you were going to answer WHY? Why usually means reasons.

For a moment I thought you were beginning to consider the difficult questions and not just spout off. My mistake. Carry on.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Islam is clearly not against violence. If you read the Koran you will see this is so.

Mohammed was clearly not against violence, either. He personally led over a dozen military campaigns of conquest during his lifetime.

Many imams call for violence. I don't know which Muslim leaders you are referring to, unless you are referring to the publicity after a major terrorist incident, when a few of them will come out and publicly say, "Oh, Islam is AGAINST terrorism". Well...that's NOT what many of the preach in their regular weekly sermons (see www.MEMRI.org (http://www.MEMRI.org) for verbatim transcripts of many of these sermons), and it's not what the Koran says, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few preach hatred, they do it openly, most of them seem to be against violence, they certainly don't make these speeches in public places, like Abu Hamza for example.

All balanced sources, BBC and government say Islam is a religion of peace, not just Muslim leaders, I know not to take everything you hear seriously, but you have to get your information from somewhere, lets not get paranoid (everyones lying to us).

Regards Mack

[ACPlayer]

I just watched Blair on TV clearly stating that the problem is not Islam and that Islam does not condone this behaviour.

I will take his word (and my extensive reading) over your narrow viewpoint.

[DarkForceRising]

Is the U.S. presence in Iraq bs? Yes.

Have Muslim countries been royally screwed over by the U.S, Israel and company? No question about it.

My quarrel with Islam is not rooted in "hatred for brown people" or any other such nonesense. However, we have a cultural war on our hands. How anyone in England, France or the Netherlands (where the culture is slowly being eroded by Islam) can defend this intolerant, pathetic excuse for a religion is beyond me. Especially folks in the United Kingdom in light of what happened last week.

Concede to the demands of Islam (some not unreasonable- to be sure) and the demands become greater and greater- furthering their goal of oppressing the world with their beliefs and culture.

I know the ultra-liberals will never be convinced of the fact that I and my ilk really are not entirely right wing racist wackos. That is unfortunate because the chasm between our mutual thinking will continue to stunt our progress.

What really blows my mind is the left wing Christian bashers who turn around and defend Islam- a far more intolerant religion that advocates violence that cannot even begin to compare to a few "Christian" nut cases.

All the best to my British brothers after the recent attack. Disagree as we may, I certainly would not wish death or dismemberment on those whose opinions differ from mine.

[DarkForceRising]

[ QUOTE ]
I just watched Blair on TV clearly stating that the problem is not Islam and that Islam does not condone this behaviour.

I will take his word (and my extensive reading) over your narrow viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try and keep an open mind when Atlantic City residents are dying of radiation poisoning.

BTW, sorry if I have come off as rude but this topic inflames passions in me greater than that all-natual busty babe in my avatar.

I'm going back to the poker discussion that I came to this site for in the first place. Arguing about this is ridiculous. Nobody is going to persuade anyone else to change their thinking.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is going to persuade anyone else to change their thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the objective of the intellectually challenged.

My objective is to refine my own understanding of the world. Writing helps me clarify. Refuting theories motivates me to write.

Plus, this is the only place where I (in real life very mild mannered, quiet person) gets to occaisonally call people morons or idiots. I dont think I have ever done that to anyone in real life. Kind of fun!

So, if you like stick around. You never know you might learn something.

[spoohunter]

[ QUOTE ]
The accurate point, which Felix made a little imprecisely, is that most terrorist attacks against the West are committed by Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, I assumed with two such knowledgable posters as yourself this must be true. So I decided to research a little. I searched for "Terrorism in the U.S.". The very first hit was a webpage that I think we can acknowledge has no partisan bias.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm#page_19

"The FBI recorded eight terrorist incidents and one terrorist prevention in the United States and its territories in 2000. Each of the eight terrorist incidents was perpetrated by domestic terrorists. Likewise, the terrorist plot prevented by law enforcement was being planned by a domestic terrorist. No acts of international terrorism were carried out in the United States in 2000.

All of the terrorist incidents that occurred in the United States during calendar year 2000 were carried out by special interest terrorists, specifically animal rights and environmental extremists.
"


"2001 IN REVIEW

The FBI recorded 14 terrorist incidents and two terrorist preventions in the United States and its territories in 2001. Twelve of the 14 recorded incidents were carried out by domestic terrorists. One incident, the terrorist attack of September 11, was perpetrated by international terrorists. At this time, the other incident, an unsolved series of anthrax-tainted letters sent through the U.S. postal system, cannot yet be characterized as either domestic or international in nature. The two terrorist plots prevented by law enforcement in 2001 were being planned by domestic extremists.

Eight of the terrorist incidents that occurred in the United States in 2001 have been attributed to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).
"


I dunno if the damn towelheads have taken to rescuing animals but these dudes sound white to me. Weird eh?

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, you should do your own research then form a view, rather than taking anyone's viewpoint.

You have probably read ABOUT Islam from some Western, slanted sources.

May I suggest instead that you read Islam itself (the Koran), and the views and interpretations of *Muslim* Islamic scholars, rather than Western scholars, to form a more accurate view of what Islam REALLY says.

After all, who probably knows more about Islam: An Occidental scholar--or an Imam who has lived, breathed and studied Islam his entire life?

[MMMMMM]

spoohunter, you misread my words and therefore researched the wrong thing.

I said "terrorism against the West" not "terrorism inside the United States."

Now do your research again, if you wish, and get back to me.

[ACPlayer]

I have likely read a broader spectrum.

But you still miss my point. You need to understand why lay Muslims are willing to do the bidding of the extremists and commit the sin of suicide. The reason for that is similar to the reasons of the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, The ANC terrorist, etc, etc. Your focus on the extremist interpretation is leading your analysis astray.

[spoohunter]

So Terrorists acts committed in the united states do not fall under your category of terrorism against the west?

Because I thought we were talking about how muslims are coming over to the U.S. and committing all these acts of terrorism. I guess I'm just confused. We're not talking about how dangerous towelheads are. Are we?


Edited in :

Note 9/11 is included in these "terrorists incidents" which I believe would be lablled as a terrorist act against the west.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But you still miss my point. You need to understand why lay Muslims are willing to do the bidding of the extremists and commit the sin of suicide. The reason for that is similar to the reasons of the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, The ANC terrorist, etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the history of Islam is of warring against and terrorizing or subjugating non-Muslims (with the popular phenomenon of suicide bombing being a more recent development). Mohammed himself even led Muslims into many wars of conquest.

[ QUOTE ]
Your focus on the extremist interpretation is leading your analysis astray.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the extremist interpretation mirrors the literal interpretation very closely.

[MMMMMM]

I was referring to terrorism against the West: which includes Europe, England, Australia, U.S. and U.S. interests overseas, etc.

Sorry for any confusion.

[spoohunter]

Then clearly my evidence applies. Not as a conclusive answer, but as a first step in solving the problem of whether or not you are just randomly making stuff up.

You say towelheads commit all sorts of heinous acts and hence shouldn't be allowed to immigrate.

I say you're lying.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Then clearly my evidence applies. Not as a conclusive answer, but as a first step in solving the problem of whether or not you are just randomly making stuff up.

You say towelheads commit all sorts of heinous acts and hence shouldn't be allowed to immigrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not making stuff up, and moreover,m I DON'T say that.

[ QUOTE ]
I say you're lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have managed to misquote me twice now so who's lying?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
But the history of Islam is of warring against and terrorizing or subjugating non-Muslims

[/ QUOTE ]

And from this you conclude that Islam is an evil religion. The History of the World is of warring against and terrorizing or subjugating others. In the names of many many religions.

So, yes Islam is evil and should be banned by rational people and SO SHOULD ALL OTHER RELIGIONS AS THEY ARE EQUALLY EVIL AND CAUSE MUCH ANGUISH PAIN AND INTOLERANCE.

[BluffTHIS!]

Most of the posters here don't seem to be responding to the OP's question about whether America should allow muslims to immigrate. Since non-americans do not have the right to become americans, this is not a rights question. It is a political question to be decided by americans. And I agree with Felix that the answer is that we have every reason not to allow such immigrants, or students for that matter, at least for a period of like 20 years. We have no need for them here, as asian immigrants provide all we need in the way of educated technical workers, and mexicans provide all we need in the way of any other type of workers. Since the oil rich arab countries have more than adequate resources, let them import muslim immigrants and students. But of course they won't do that since when they could be providing meaningful financial aid to palestinians to improve their economic well-being, they instead choose just to compensate families of homicide bombers who murder israelis.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"Based on these poll numbers, 5100 will be supporters of Osama Bin Laden and roughly 2525 will believe violence is an acceptable method to futher Islam."
"Can we agree that if you allow immigrants from a nation where 1 in 4 support violence against civilians that you are going to have a lot of "bad apples" come into your country? How can anyone look at this poll and not conclude that ON THE WHOLE, Muslims make poor citizens."

[/ QUOTE ]
Your post is really about the inability of bad apple lousy citizens like yourself to tell the truth.

The study (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=814) study did not ask about "support" for "suicide bombings and other violent methods to further Islam" but whether "violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" could be, under unspecified circumstances, "justifiable."

If you ask most Americans whether they believe that attacks on civilian targets can be "justifiable" to defend America (or freedom, democracy, capitalism or Chrisitanity) against its enemies, you'll undoubtedly get a comparable response. Among the right, who generally delight in the use of mass violence abroad, support for attacking civilians is overwhelming, as long as the civilians aren't them.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
If you ask most Americans whether they believe that attacks on civilian targets can be "justifiable" to defend America (or freedom, democracy, capitalism or Chrisitanity) against its enemies, you'll undoubtedly get a comparable response. Among the right, who generally delight in the use of mass violence abroad, support for attacking civilians is overwhelming, as long as the civilians aren't them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Get a clue.

[fluxrad]

Sheetwise:

How do you feel about the bombing of Dresden? How about the firebombing of Tokyo?

I trust you feel that they were heinous acts perpetrated by American terrorists and, sadly, supported by the American government.

Or were they...given the circumstances...justifiable in your mind?

[adios]

And you have no data as to how the majority of U.S. citizens view these events in reality, especially those that know the facts. I think it's clear that most U.S. citizens are repulsed by such actions. When the facts about Vietnam came to light, public sentiment turned against that war precisely due to some of the bombing tactics. I'm waiting for a convincing argment from you that the majority of people in the U.S. support targeting civillian populations today. I'm fairly certain the response to this won't provide any points that support the contention that the majority of U.S. citizens support targeting civilians and/or support the military missions you mention.

[Ray Zee]

if we are going to let people of any country or place move here, they should meet the muster for sure before they set foot in our country.
u.s. lets in people from countries we cannot go or invest in freely. yet let their people do so in our country. most foreign countries do not let outside individuals invest freely or stay for extended periods of time. it should be the same here until it becomes a reciprocal aggreement.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you feel about the bombing of Dresden? How about the firebombing of Tokyo?

I trust you feel that they were heinous acts perpetrated by American terrorists

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, The British firebombed Dresden

[Felix_Nietsche]

by Joel Mowbray

Joel Mowbray has written an eye opening book on "Foggy Bottom" (the nickname for the US State Department). In it he decribes the culture of the state department and why the Secretary of State (and even the President!) has difficulty controlling this department. Their infamous "Visa Express" program was the Visa program that let 3 of the 9/11 hijackers into the USA without a face-to-face interfere or fact checking of their paperwork. In the Chinese embassy one of the state department employees accepted bribes and sexual favors in exchange for Visas. When he got caught....he got PROMOTED. If this happen in another country I'd be laughing. /images/graemlins/frown.gif After 9/11, several representatives sought to punish the State Department by tranfering the Visa program to the Department of Homeland Security. The Visa program is a cash cow and that fool Colin Powell lobbied sucessfully to keep this program at the State department.

George Schultz, the Secretary of State under Reagan, use to call all new diplomats into his office before their assignments. He would walked them over to a globe and ask them to identify their country. If the chose any country other than the USA, he would playfully rebuke them. In the US State department, the culture is to show 'customer service' towards the host country and not to anger them. Representing the USA seems to be a secondary consideration.

[Chris Alger]

The British and Americans both participated in the firebombing of Dresden. The USAAF Eighth Air Force was scheduled to carry out the first attacks, but was held back by weather, leaving the initial foray to RAF Lancasters. U.S. B-17s later followed up with additional bombing.

[Chris Alger]

The following proposition is undeniable: most American adults believe that targeting civilians can be justified if it is necessary to "defend the U.S." While I agree that public sentiment turned against Vietnam and that killing civilians had something to do with this, once the spotlight was off the issue was largely forgotten. Moreover, the vast majority of Vietnamese civilians were killed in the South, yet most outrage was directed toward the bombing of the (relatively more protected) North, suggesting that the issue wasn't driven by civilians dying but by risks of a wider war that could engage other powers. It also remains an article of faith among large segments of "conservative" opinion that mass killing of civilians in Vietnam is a "myth" or "liberal lie," witness the traction generated by the Swift Boat nonsense.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. To take just one case, consider the generally cavalier attitude among Americans, particularly among war supporters, have toward civilian deaths in Iraq. It is so extreme, for example, that there exists virtually no political pressure on U.S. officials to even count the numbr of civilians the U.S. kills.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Or were they...given the circumstances...justifiable in your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were justifiable. We were responding to an agressive force. We weren't targeting civilians -- we were targeting the means of production that allowed them to continue their agression. Peace treaties were offered prior to the bombing in both cases. Today we have weapons that can better discriminate civilian targets, and we do everything possible to avoid them.

Terrorists target civilians as a first act of agression. There's a big difference.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
They were justifiable. We were responding to an agressive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes. I'm certain that suicide bombers in Baghdad don't think that's whay they're doing.

[ QUOTE ]


We weren't targeting civilians -- we were targeting the means of production that allowed them to continue their agression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah..because the Nazis wouldn't have been able to continue their campaign of aggression without lovely, lovely paintings to look at. I wish to thank you for proving my point nicely by way of the most oblivious and ironic post of the year.

Oh, and please read a book on Dresden.

[slamdunkpro]

Sorry - The British ordered it.

[SheetWise]

You obviously believe all actions are morally equivalent. I don't -- and don't understand how any thinking person could. I consider peoples actions, not their words. And I judge their actions by their intent, not the nature of the act.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
And I judge their actions by their intent, not the nature of the act.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if a power crazy govt uses military force but the intent is unjustified you would oppose it and if a non-governmental "army" uses suicide bombers but the intent is justified you would be happy with that?

Perhaps that is exactly what a Palestinian who has lost a brother to a US built Apache, paid for by US taxpayers and flown by an Israeli pilot thinks when he sees a brother blow himself up in Tel Aviv.

[Cancuk]

[ QUOTE ]

A Russian friend of mine said it well. "All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims".

[/ QUOTE ]

Oklahoma City? Unabomber?
you biggot.

[Cancuk]

[ QUOTE ]
It does? Elaborate please.
********************************************
1. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist who advocates violence against civilians as a legitimate tactic.
2. MOST muslim suicide bombing targets are civilians. It is the VERY RARE occurence when a suicide bombers attack a miltary target.
3. The poll numbers show large numbers of muslims express "confidence" in Osama Bin laden (OSL). This can be interpreted as approval of OBL. If you approve of a terrorist leader then the odds are you approve of his terrorists tactics.
4. The poll numbers show significant numbers of muslims approve of suicide bombings. Since 99%+ of suicide bombings target civilians, then it is logical to assume these same people approve of terrorism (aka conducting violence against civilians).

On a side note, if the suicide bombers ***ONLY*** targeted military targets....THEN....I would consider this to be a respectable and a valid tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read an article on why suicide bomebers...well, bomb. They do it for one reason, almost 100%, because of foreign military in their country. Once that country leaves their country, it stops...almost 100% of the time. this was in the Vancouver Sun, and im sure, if you want, you can look it up on the inty.
cheers.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Oklahoma City?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tim McVeigh was connected to Islamic groups.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if a power crazy govt uses military force but the intent is unjustified you would oppose it

[/ QUOTE ]

Has nothing to do with 'power crazy' whatever you think that means. Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
if a non-governmental "army" uses suicide bombers but the intent is justified you would be happy with that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't give a damn if people want to commit suicide -- go ahead -- these are homicide bombers, and they are targeting civilians. There is no justification to target civilians.

Do I think Japanese Kamikaze pilots were justifed -- no, because they were the agressor. Were they justified in use of the tactic? Of course.

[ratso]

Extremists from any direction are problems, and they will kill indiscriminately for their cause. See Apocopylse Now when Brando talks about how much committment the NVA had to cut off arms of children innoculated by the Westt or better yet, read Calib Carr's "Lessons of Terror". This terrorism is nothing new. Ask the Pilgrims or the English or read about the Civil War. Difference now is that we should be able to be more effective at stopping it and educating those who think it will bring justice to their cause. Terrorism has always failed.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism has always failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nuclear age, it can fail spectacularly.

[ACPlayer]

You said that the reason was the important determiner not the method. So, if the intent is a "good" to you then the homicide/suicide bomber is acceptable to you.

Now, a muslim going about his business, posting on a mirror forum in Ramallah, could well be just like you. He does not focus on the method but the intent and finds the intent acceptable from his point of view.

I am just looking at this from what you said. Without any opinion of mine. Just an instance of your statement.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism has always failed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is Gerry Adams doing these days?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"we were targeting the means of production that allowed them to continue their agression"

[/ QUOTE ]
Utter nonsense contradicted by those who planned and carried out the attacks. Every history student knows that "Butcher" Harris's strategic bombing campaigns in Europe directed targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure not only to decrease Germany's war-waging potential but to break civilian morale and thereby put pressure on the German government, the same strategy used by terrorists today. Harris's accomplice, the U.S., pursued the same strategy against the Japanese. "According to [USAAF Generals Hap] Arnold and Curtis LeMay, bombing civilians was essential in order to break Japanese morale and this was the quickest way to force them to surrender." source (http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=282). The objectives are neither military nor tactical but to strike fear into the hearts of non-combatants in order to pressure governments.

The denominator common to all terror campaigns, including those by fabled enemy-of-terror Israel (generating refugees in Operation Grapes of Wrath (http://hrw.org/reports/1997/isrleb/Isrleb.htm), 1996 and wiping out civilian infrastructure and medical services in Operation Defensive Shield (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast5.html), 2002), is that they are designed not to kill to accomplish military objectives, or to kill for the sake of killing, but to use civilian fear and tragedy as a lever that forces a change in policy.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously believe all actions are morally equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]
He didn't say or imply any equivalence to actions at all. When a small time murderer condemns a big time murderer (or vice versa) on the grounds that murder is wrong, we have an act of pure hypocrisy and a perfectly meaningless statement. Regarding it as such doesn't remotely suggest that small equals big.

[ QUOTE ]
I consider peoples actions, not their words. And I judge their actions by their intent, not the nature of the act.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before you go about defending and condoning mass killing, you ought to get your thoughts in order. Contrasting "actions" with "the nature of the act" and "words" from "intent" (inherently based on the actor's words) is a silly, stupid contradiction.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if the intent is a "good" to you then the homicide/suicide bomber is acceptable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly what I said. If diplomacy and other methods of avoiding war have failed, and we are engaged in a war, and we respect the rules of war -- which include not targeting civilians -- then missions which involve certain death can be expected. I would still look at the actions of the parties which led up to war, in light of their intent, to pass judgement as to whether it was justifiable.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, a muslim going about his business ... finds the intent acceptable from his point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how people end up in wars.

[SheetWise]

I said: I consider peoples actions, not their words. And I judge their actions by their intent, not the nature of the act.

Your reply-
[ QUOTE ]
Before you go about defending and condoning mass killing, you ought to get your thoughts in order. Contrasting "actions" with "the nature of the act" and "words" from "intent" (inherently based on the actor's words) is a silly, stupid contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make the contrast you are stating. Consider words and action first. If I say I'm here to help you, and then I rob you --- or if I say I'm going to free you and I then enslave you -- you should probably pay more attention to what I did than what I say. This should be obvious, it's why we have credit reports and job histories. People can say anything.

We pay attention to what people do, what their actions are.
So, that leaves Actions and Intent.

I said I judge actions by intent. Here's an action, I push you. I can push you away from an oncoming train -- or I can push you into the path of an oncoming train. The action is identical. My intent is different.

We can war with another nation to free them from oppression, or we can war with them to enslave them. The initial action we take will be identical. If you don't include intent when looking at actions, then police who shoot criminals are the same as criminals who shoot police. The Allied forces in WWII were no different than the German forces.

I'm sorry you think this is a silly, stupid contradiction.

[SheetWise]

We're obviously not going to agree on this.

I'm reminded of the scene in 'Indana Jones' where he's met on the street by an assailant wielding a scimitar -- then he takes out his gun and shoots him.

I like that. I'm not a big believer in proportional response. I do like to know who started it, and what their intent was.

[ACPlayer]

Here I will put your entire post up for you to review:

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously believe all actions are morally equivalent. I don't -- and don't understand how any thinking person could. I consider peoples actions, not their words. And I judge their actions by their intent, not the nature of the act.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, seem like you should consider supporting the muslim in Ramallah who going about his daily biz stops for a moment to consider the intent of the Israeli/American nexus and the death of his cousin by a rocket. He sighs deeply reading the news of a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv, mutters a prayer in support of the martyr who killed himself. He looked at the intent which was to fight back at the oppression and then, perhaps sadly, condones the nature of the act.

Perhaps you only believe your viewpoint when the intent corresponds with YOUR view of right and wrong. Once it passes that test you dont give a crap if your guy is a homicide bomber, a torturer, or a gunship pilot. Now that is hypocrisy.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
A Russian friend of mine said it well. "All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. Oklahoma bomber. IRA. ETA. Those guys in Peru - Golden Path, was it?, etc,etc

As a side-point, do the Irish community in the US still (moslty) think the IRA were justified in their bombings, or did 9/11 make them realise their mawkish sentimentality for the old country was ill-placed?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
He sighs deeply reading the news of a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv, ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Game over.

[ACPlayer]

Why dont you simply retract your statement. Just admit, that if your side does something it is OK and if the other side does something it is not.

I dont see how the game is over.

Many posters on this forum sighed deeply when hearing about Abu Ghraib/Gitmo and then continued to justify it or even dismiss it as highly unlikely. They see mass round ups of people and extended detentions (and I am not referring to Gitmo) and continue to sip the Latte and discuss the price of CSCO.

[SheetWise]

ACPlayer -

You want to retract my statement simply because you don't understand it? I've spent enough time explaining it to you. If ANYONE ELSE got this far in the thread and does not understand what I'm saying, please post.

For ACPlayer, MMMMMM has started a new subject with your name in it. It might be easier for you to understand.

[Bez]

Blair and his Government lie constantly. BBC is biased, it is extremely liberal.

[ratso]

The nuclear age brings us another dimension, but so did gunpowder when bows and arrows were the norm. Nuclear "dirty bombs" are a terror weapon, not a mass murder weapon. I think Caleb Carr's book is a must read for many who believe that "the end is near".

Rationall will win over extremism, but it will leave a wake of destruction in its path, and many will feel the pain, unfortunately. Ignorance and religious zeltoism (is that a word?) will make a lot of us incomfortable.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The accurate point, which Felix made a little imprecisely, is that most terrorist attacks against the West are committed by Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, I trust, you are now making the point precisely ?? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

FYI, the claim is still wrong.

I challenge you to produce comparative figures, either in number of attacks (incidents) or number of victims.

Because, unless you are thinking in terms of baseball (i.e. World=USA), you are off by quite a bit. You and that other cat Felix.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I was waiting for you to take the opposite side of my view. The veracity of my position has thus been confirmed.

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA21848461122279557A0?source=PA%20Feed

Sounds like a good idea. Perahps the USA could take this advice as well. There are millions of hard working and peace loving people that want to live in the USA. Why not let them come and let the islamic-fascists stay in their own countries? Based on the polls, it is easy to determine which muslim countries have the highest percentage of hate mongers. The risk from taking immigrants from Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudia Arabia is too high. Allowing immigrants from this country is anaolgous to lettting ex-cons move into your home. Sure some ex-cons might be rehabilitated but it just takes one psycho raping and knifing up your family to teach you letting ex-cons live with you is probably not agood idea. The polls from the muslim world show STRONG support for Osama Bin Laden and the use of terrorism. I just don't see ANY advantage in giving these people visas to live in your country.

Sorry, but self preservation and self defense should not be a sin.

[MMMMMM]

"British Opinion Surveys from an Islamist Hell
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
July 25, 2005

Estimating how many potential terrorists reside in one's country is a highly inexact business, but there's a striking correlation between a British government report recently leaked to London's Times and a new opinion survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph.

Drawing on unidentified "intelligence," the government report (analyzed by me at "The Next London Bombing") finds as many as 16,000 "British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity."

Then, using standard survey research methods, the reputable YouGov polling firm interviewed 526 Muslim adults across Great Britain online during July 15-22, weighing the data to reflect the British Muslim population's age, gender, and countries of origin. The survey found that 1 percent of them, or "about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence" in the effort to bring an end to "decadent and immoral" Western society.

Should their ranks really be so thick, such a huge number of potential terrorists could cause an unprecedented security crisis for Britain, with all the attendant economic, social, political, and cultural ramifications one can imagine.

The YouGov survey contains many other statistics that should interest, if not shock, Britons and other Westerners.

* Muslims who see the 7/7 bombing attacks in London as justified on balance: 6 percent.
* Who feel sympathy for the "feelings and motives" of those who carried out the 7/7 attacks: 24 percent.
* Understand "why some people behave in that way": 56 percent.
* Disagree with Tony Blair's description of the ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous": 26 percent.
* Feel not loyal towards Britain: 16 percent.
* Agree that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end": 32 percent willing to use non-violent means and (as noted above) 1 percent willing to use violence "if necessary." Just 56 percent of Muslims agree with the statement that "Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end."
* Agree that "British political leaders don't mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims": 52 percent.
* Dismiss political party leaders as insincere when saying "they respect Islam and want to co-operate with Britain's Muslim communities": 50 percent.
* Doubt that anyone charged with and tried for the 7/7 attacks would receive a fair trial: 44 percent.
* Would not inform on a Muslim religious leader "trying to ‘radicalise' young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West": 10 percent.
* Do not think people have a duty to go to the police if they "see something in the community that makes them feel suspicious": 14 percent.
* Believe other Muslims would be reluctant to go to the police "about anything they see that makes them suspicious": 41 percent.
* Would inform the police if they believed that knew about the possible planning of a terrorist attack: 73 percent. (In this case, the Daily Telegraph did not make available the negative percentage.)

Another opinion poll, this one commissioned by Sky News and carried out by Communicate Research (which interviewed 462 UK-based Muslims by telephone) found similar results:

* Muslims who agree with what the London suicide bombers did: 2 percent.
* Who believe there is a Koranic justification for the bombings: 5 percent.
* Disagree with the statement that "Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion": 46 percent.
* Think of themselves as Muslim first and British second: 46 percent. Another 42 percent do not differentiate between the identities. A mere 12 percent see themselves as British first and Muslim second.

Comments: (1) It is hard to say which is the most alarming of these many worrisome statistics, but two stand out. That less than three-quarters of Muslims in Britain indicate they would tell the police about an impending terrorist attack raises grave doubts about the Blair government's tactic of getting Muslims to police their own community. That one-third of Muslims do not accept British society and want to end it, presumably to pave the way for an Islamic order, casts comparable doubts on Britain's much-vaunted multicultural ideal.

(2) Even the Telegraph's interpreter of its survey, Professor Anthony King of Essex University, feels compelled to sugar the results, calling them "at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming," whatever that means. In several specific instances, he turns hair-raising statistics into cheerful ones (that 73 percent would warn of an impending terrorist attack he deems "impressive"). The newspaper's and the professor's panglossian attitude makes one wonder what might wake the British to the Islamist hell growing in their midst."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2797

I see nothing wrong with deporting those who have publicly advocated terror OR the overthrow of the government.

Consider it a sort of perpetual citizenship oath: to remain a naturalized citizen, you must NOT advocate the overthrow of the government or terror attacks upon its citizens. A good idea might be requiring naturalized citizens to take a citizenship oath to the effect that they DO NOT advocate or believe in such things--every year.

As for mere visitors, the standards can be much stricter.

Bottom line is: if they don't like the government and/or living here or in England, well, fine! Great, as a matter of fact! Bye!!!

It's only common sense.

Why should the USA and UK have to harbor people committed to their destructions?

Good luck, good riddance, and get out.

[ACPlayer]

The article is full of hot air. Specifically:

Of the four bomber on 7/7 at least three were born in the UK and not naturalized citizens. I believe the fourth was Jamaican. Hard to deport citizens born in the US (dont know about the UK). We could start an ethnic cleansing program and allow only Christians (or perhaps only neo-cons, or perhaps only Christians of certain denomination) to live in the US - that might work though with unknowable consequences for the society.

The positive statistics which Daniel Pipes (a well known propagandist) ignores include the very small numbers of those who believe this sanctioned by the Koran (the correct interpretation of the Koran) and those who think the bombers were justified.

A one percent statistic that he highlights at the start of this "essay" which is used to extrapolate that 16,000 people are ready to use violence in the UK is mathematically flawed. Even you, 6M, can find the flaw there. This is simply propaganda and scare mongering and pandering of the most evil type. Mr Pipes, if he were responsible, should be questioning this rather than highlighting it. Of course there are no links to let us see what exactly the survey was offering.

Mr Pipes is not worth reading. Though I have seen many of his essays.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, I was waiting for you to take the opposite side of my view. The veracity of my position has thus been confirmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What transparent whining. You have been directly challenged to prove your fantastic point, or at least back it up by some figures, and you choose to act all chicken.

It would have been so much easier to scare up a couple of figures and crushingly prove me wrong. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I find it hard to imagine that most terrorist attacks against "The West" (meaning Europe, England, USA--and their interests) have been committed by any group other than Muslims.

You stated I was wrong on this; why don't you name a group which has (within reasonable recent history), and currently is, committing more terrorist attacks against the West than have Muslims.

Can't think of one? Can you even suggest one? Right--just as I suspected, and everyone knew all along.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to imagine that most terrorist attacks against "The West" (meaning Europe, England, USA--and their interests) have been committed by any group other than Muslims.

You stated I was wrong on this; why don't you name a group which has (within reasonable recent history), and currently is, committing more terrorist attacks against the West than have Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's this "within reasonable recent history" stuff? Of course I had in mind recent history; say post-WWII?

In the present, of course the West is attacked by radical muslims (who are the West's creation, but let's not digress again) and no one disputes this.

You wrote "Most terrorist attacks against the West are committed by Muslims." This is obvious and correct only in reference to the last ten or fifteen years, or so. In the post-World War II period, this is flat out wrong. Radical Islam has only very recently started attacking "the West".

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

You wrote "Most terrorist attacks against the West are committed by Muslims." This is obvious and correct only in reference to the last ten or fifteen years, or so. In the post-World War II period, this is flat out wrong. Radical Islam has only very recently started attacking "the West".

[/ QUOTE ]

The last couple of decades is the most relevant, since the problem we are facing is the matter at hand.

Radical Muslims--those who call for the overthrow of the West--should be deported.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Thought Process of a Liberal's Brain:
*MUST IGNORE EVIDENCE THAT MAY SHATTER MY COMFORTABLE BELIEF SYSTEM
*WHEN MUSLIMS BLOW UP PEOPLE IT IS BECAUSE THEY LOVE PEACE AND WE DESERVE IT.
*BLACK = WHITE
*DEMOCRACY = FASCISM
*BRAIN IS OVERLOADING!!! SWITCH TOO EMOTIONAL THOUGHT PROCESS!

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps.

You must be liberal. I have always been a conservative.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The last couple of decades is the most relevant, since the problem we are facing is the matter at hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, let's see, one decade is 10 years and two decades is 20 years and it is now 2005, so 2005 minus 20 is 1985, right?

It's funny but you originally came on this thread to make Felix's claims "more precise"!...

Can you remind us of the most serious terrorist muslim attack against the West committed in 1986 or 1987, please?

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Radical Muslims--those who call for the overthrow of the West--should be deported.

[/ QUOTE ]

The country of their birth? For some that is the USA.

What about those who dont say anything but think it. Perhaps a thought police is needed in your vision of the USA. Perhaps secret informants scattered through the community spying and reporting on citizens. If suspected, perhaps splinters under finger nails to extract "confessions". Long ago it was demonstrated that you have strong fascist tendencies this line of thinking once again demonstrates that.

Put that self reported great intellect to finding effective solutions, not just blowing hot air.

Hint: for the world to be at peace and for us to prosper the Muslims and non-Muslim must be able to live side-by-side and on the same street. How are you going to steer them into meeting this objective?

[ QUOTE ]
MUST IGNORE EVIDENCE THAT MAY SHATTER MY COMFERTABLE BELIEF SYSTEM

[/ QUOTE ] man oh man are you way off base. i'm not even going to get into the religious right whose thought process is epitomized by your quote. Lets take Bush's cabinet. Wolfowitz's contribution to the iraq war plan was based on his refusal to give up the asinine belief that saddam was somehow affiliated with 9/11. If he didn't believe this, then it was merely propaganda to convince easily fooled conservatives. Have you seen the polls taken about a year after 9/11 with the shockingly high number of people who thought iraq was behind 9/11? those weren't liberals, those were conservatives "ignoring evidence that may have shattered their comfertable belief system" not only do many conservatives(not all, mainly the clowns like yourself)ignore evidence, but when they choose not to ignore it, they brutally misconstrue it. i hope you reach a point where you see the folly of your ways. Question, do you or do you not like sean hannity?

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus you're pointlessly splitting hairs and you know it.

The basic point is essentially correct and you know it.

So...why don't you go out for a while now, and play in the nice pretty traffic?

[MMMMMM]

Immigrants who want to destroy the U.S. or the West, and say so, should be deported to their countries of origin.

I'm not suggesting thought police. I'm suggesting asking them what they think and shipping off those who are admitted subversives and those who wish to destroy Western governments in order to replace them with Shar'ia.

We don't need them and they don't need us. And we don't need immigrants or visitors living here whose admitted goal is to destroy our system of government and replace it with Shar'ia.

[ QUOTE ]
Hint: for the world to be at peace and for us to prosper the Muslims and non-Muslim must be able to live side-by-side and on the same street. How are you going to steer them into meeting this objective?

[/ QUOTE ]

They must be made to realize that the CAN'T impose Islamic rule on others, no matter that the Koran says that they should. And hopefully they can be convinced that it is wrong to try.

[xniNja]

You're stupid if you think suicide bombers kill themselves and others because they are trying to "impose Koranic law." As many people eloquently explained to you, our own nation (the U.S.) and many other nations, and many other groups of people have targetted civilians to meet political agenda.

In this case they are retaliating against oppression, invasion, and enslavement (funny you wrote what was actually happening but I think you are truly confused enough to believe that our intent is to liberate.)

Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam any more than it has to do with Christianity or Judaism. It simply has to do with man and war.

[MMMMMM]

You need to read more of what it actually says in the Koran before making such sweeping statements.

And no, I am not saying that is the only reason suicide bombers blow themselves up. In fact, I wasn't even talking about suicide bombers.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
You're stupid if you think suicide bombers kill themselves and others because they are trying to "impose Koranic law." As many people eloquently explained to you, our own nation (the U.S.) and many other nations, and many other groups of people have targetted civilians to meet political agenda.

In this case they are retaliating against oppression, invasion, and enslavement (funny you wrote what was actually happening but I think you are truly confused enough to believe that our intent is to liberate.)

Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam any more than it has to do with Christianity or Judaism. It simply has to do with man and war.

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems to be little reason to believe this is true. It is undisputed that the ideological aim of al Qaeda is to establish fundamentalist Islamic governments in Muslim countries and in the West.

While it's true that Western actions may serve to radicalize people who become terrorists, it's a little preposterous to suggest that those are the real reasons behind terrorist actions. Leaving aside the fact that 9/11, the embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, etc., etc., occured before we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, can you really argue that the reason civilians are being regularly and intentionally killed by bombs in Iraq is to avenge the accidental killing of civilians during the invasion?

Maybe you should go out and avenge the election of Bush by voting Republican.

[Felix_Nietsche]

the religious right whose thought process is epitomized by your quote.
***********************************************
I'm an atheist.


Wolfowitz's contribution to the iraq war plan was based on his refusal to give up the asinine belief that saddam was somehow affiliated with 9/11. If he didn't believe this, then it was merely propaganda to convince easily fooled conservatives.
********************************************
There were many reasons to invade Iraq. The decision to invade was OVERwhelmingly approve by congress. Last time I heard, Defense under-secretaries do not get to vote. Let me guess, you think Wolfowitz is a member of the "Illuminati", the "Trilateral Commission", and a been involved in secret negotiations with aliens. /images/graemlins/smile.gif As for the WMD intellgence, John Kerry, the Senate intelligence committe, gets the SAME inteiiligence that Bush gets. Yet that phony John Kerry speaks out against Hussein's WMD before the war (his audio quotes are played all the time on "right-wing" radio /images/graemlins/smile.gif) and then a few months later he has the chutzpah to claim that Bush misled him. I would think it was funny except for so many Democrats still find this fool to be credible. The facts are Hussein had WMD, he kicked out the UN weapons inspectors, and later Hussein claimed he destroy these weapons with out showing any evidence. Hussein does not have a good track record of telling the truth so I think you can understand if I don't take his word for it. The undisputed facts are:
(1) Iraqi WMD existed,
(2) Now, no one can find the WMD (except for a few sarin artillary rounds),
(3) No one EXCEPT Hussein knows what happen to the WMD.
Biological/Chemical weapons programs are easy to hide. Just destroy the inventory, keep the equipment and seed stocks, hide them, and wait until the heat is off and start mass production again. Unfortunately for Hussein he picked the wrong president to mess with and he will never regain power.


Have you seen the polls taken about a year after 9/11 with the shockingly high number of people who thought iraq was behind 9/11? those weren't liberals,
************************************************
The facts are most people in the USA pay little attantion to the details of world events and politics. Some radio shows interview Democrat voters on the street and ask them questions like who is the Vice President, who is the presidential candidate running against Bush, etc... The answers are hilarious. /images/graemlins/smile.gif It is kind of scary that you have people voting for Kerry when they don't know anything about Kerry EVEN his name. /images/graemlins/smile.gif As for 9/11, there may be no evidence that Hussein was involved in 9/11 but there *IS* evidence he had ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. There is evidence that Hussein provided financial aid to terrorists. Or are you going to take the position that there is Al Qaeda in the USA, Britain, Pakistan, France, Saudia Arabia, etc... but not pre-war Iraq.


those were conservatives "ignoring evidence that may have shattered their comfertable belief system" not only do many conservatives(not all, mainly the clowns like yourself)ignore evidence,
************************************************** ***
Your pulling a bait-and-switch play on the topic at hand. Two polls in this post subject were provided which show that a large number of muslims support Osama Bin Laden and the use of violence to further Islam. Instead of directly refuting this evidence with evidence you try to steer the conversation away from the topic at hand. Nice try. But evidently you are unable to dispute the results of the polls showing that many muslims support terrorism.


i hope you reach a point where you see the folly of your ways.
************************************************** ***
As a matter of fact I have seen the folly of my ways. Back in college, I use to be a liberal who hated Ronald Reagan. But these pesky things like facts entered my brain and I turned things around. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Question, do you or do you not like sean hannity?
************************************************
1. Sean Hannity: No, he is not much of an intellectual and I find his arguments to be crude. But for some reason he has a huge radio audience.
2. Rush Limbaugh: Yes, he has a great sense of humor and it is a lot of fun to listen to his radio show. I have had a lot of disagreements with Rush (Schiavo case, medical marijuana, and more) but he does his homework and his political analysis is uncanningly accurate.
3. Michael Savage: Not really. I agree with many of the things he says and he makes some great points but he is a little too pessimistic for me to listen to.
4. G.Gordon Liddy. Yes! G.Gordon is probably one of the most intellectual people on talk radio today. I believe he is in his 70's now and I have noticed he does not have the razor-sharp mind that he had 5 years ago but he still one of the sharper minds on the radio.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The country of their birth? For some that is the USA.
************************************************** ******
Muslim citizens stay. If they violate the law, there should go to jail. For foreign Muslims, I would like to see those who advocate hate/violence to be deported. Also I would like to see a 20 year immigration freeze of foreigners from Muslim countries. Why? The polls show far too many of them support Bin Laden and the use of terrorism to further Islam. It is counter-productive to allow immigration of foreigners, where a significant percentage, who support terrorism and violence. Self-defense is not a sin and we are not obligated to be friendly with those who despise "infidels".


What about those who dont say anything but think it. Perhaps a thought police is needed in your vision of the USA. Perhaps secret informants scattered through the community spying and reporting on citizens. If suspected, perhaps splinters under finger nails to extract "confessions". Long ago it was demonstrated that you have strong fascist tendencies this line of thinking once again demonstrates that.
************************************************** ***
Don't be such a drama queen.
The police state you describe occurs in mulsim countries not the USA.


Hint: for the world to be at peace and for us to prosper the Muslims and non-Muslim must be able to live side-by-side and on the same street.
************************************************** ***
According to whom? The west prospers while the Islamic world lives largely in poverty. They need the West more than the West needs them. Until they learn to behave in a civilized way there is no reason to interact with them. In Israel they are building a wall around their country. Sounds like a good idea to me.


How are you going to steer them into meeting this objective?
************************************************** ********
Invade Iraq, install a democracy, and hope the new government prospers. If it does prosper then it will be a beacon of light in the Arab world. If the new govt fails, well we're back to where we started from.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'm sure glad Islam is the religion of peace. Things would be REALLY BAD if Islam was the religion of violence. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.......It is interesting that there is such a BIG SPIKE of terrorists incidents in the middle east. Unfortunately they are not very specific about the Asia category. But I suspect Pakistan, Thai Muslims, Philipine Muslims, and Indonesia are the biggest contributors to the terrorim in the Asian category.

[xniNja]

No, the initial attacks are because we go to their countries, kill their leaders, institute our own puppets to plunder their resources and enslave their populations- and all in the name of democracy and freedom.

At least when Rome did it they did not try to mislead their citizenry.

couple quick points: as for wolfowitz, i don't think he's in the illuminati, i think there's some insight to be gleaned on his capabilities in Richard Clarke's book. the book is a little shoddy overall, but i don't think it's pure fiction. secondly, i'm not claiming that there was no al-quaeda presence in iraq pre-war, but relatively speaking, i would say there was very little. if you know anything of the nature of al quaeda and the hussein regime you will agree with this. i also agree with you that it is entirely possible that there was some degree of wmd in iraq. however, of all the countries with wmd, i would say that iraq was very low on the list of countries with wmd that would supply them to terrorists. if there were wmd in iraq, i can garuntee you that terrorists have alot easier access to them now then they did pre war. with hussein gone, military with access to wmd are free to sell to the highest bidder. "only hussein knows where they are." what, he put the "goods" in his pockets, and hid them himself. As for your muslim statistics, i find them a little dubious. if there is anything to them, the context of the question is key. i have spent some time in the middle east, and have met only two people who voiced any kind of support for either of your two criteria. if you think 50+% of jordanians view the london bombings favorably, you're crazy. i would guess alot of the repsodants in the poll you cite are referencing palestian action in israel. herever you stand on the israel/palestinian issue, not even you can chalk arab anger at israel as mere "muslim craziness".

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the initial attacks are because we go to their countries, kill their leaders, institute our own puppets to plunder their resources and enslave their populations- and all in the name of democracy and freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... Like we did in Saudi Arabia...Oh wait that was Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud conquered all of the state of Saudi Arabia at the turn of the century and America wasn't involved

Well, Like Pakistan....Wait that was the British and they gave them independence and they have had several coups of which none the Americans where involved...

Well, then like Afghanistan...Oh wait that was the British also and they left almost a hundred years ago and they have been on their own til Amanullah took over. And the only involvement that America had was aiding the freedom fighters when the Russians invaided with no intention of leaving.

There are more examples of where we have clearly "go[ne] to their countries, kill their leaders, institute our own puppets to plunder their resources and enslave their populations" if you want me to give you more.

-Gryph

[ACPlayer]

This is effective?

All somebody has to do is lie.

You have not answered where to ship them off to if they are not naturalized.

The average muslim is not interested in the fiction of the world wide Koraninc rule. Even the Daniel Pipes article you highlighted shows this to be the case. Misuse by the militant,extremist loons.

[ACPlayer]

Your position is almost, though not quite, as ludicrous as 6Ms. His is based on delusions about Islam.

Lets try this:

1. Hypothetically if there are Muslims who want to impose Sharia in the US, turn a blind eye to the terrorists, but themselves neither act on this belief nor directly support those == 6M would have them deported to someplace that he cannot identify.

An immigration freeze from Muslim countries. So a British Muslim is OK but not a Saudi Muslim? A Lebanese Christian is OK (so someone just has to become christian to immigrate.

You cannot police thought. Religion is thought.

2. I was hardly being the Drama Queen. If anything I was just taking 6M -- the king of drama -- position to a logical extension. YOu think a person with evil in his heart if asked would not pledge that he had not evil in heart. Really.

3. On living side by side. This is a natural consequence of economic globalization. We are their markets and they our. We need to do business with them. This is why I support globalization, even though, IMO, it will lead to a reduction of the relative standard of living of the average American worker.

4. Invade Iraq -- what a proven useless exercise in stupidity. We got NOTHING from this invasion. Not one thing. Most people realize that we are less safe because of this. Even politicians are beginning to see this. It make no difference to America if the new govt is a success or a failure. We cannot even define what is success there for this new government. Success for who? Us or the Iraqi or the Shia or the Iranian. Idiotic.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

4. Invade Iraq -- what a proven useless exercise in stupidity. We got NOTHING from this invasion. Not one thing. Most people realize that we are less safe because of this. Even politicians are beginning to see this. It make no difference to America if the new govt is a success or a failure. We cannot even define what is success there for this new government. Success for who? Us or the Iraqi or the Shia or the Iranian. Idiotic.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know we haven't gained anything from the Iraq war? I think it is still too early to tell. But, Lebanon and Libya and the stronger influence on Syria and Iran seem to be pretty darn good benefits to the war.

How are we less safe? Don't by into that that propaganda no one can say whether we are safer or in more danger. I will reserve my judgement for later. We may never know the benefits that the war has produced.

How can you argue that a democratic society in Iraq is bad for the Iraqi society and the Iraqi people? How can people freed from a tyrannical regime be bad? If that is the case, then move somewhere less democratic.

Please...

-Gryph

[ACPlayer]

OK. It is too early to tell, perhaps. But todate what have we gained?

I believe we have strengthened Iran's position. It is clear that the SCIRI and Iran are going to be cozying up even more than they already have. The Shia axis that is being formed is likely to make countries friendly to us (like Saudi, Jordan) nervous. Any serious autonomy for the Kurds or if they revolt will make Turkey nervous.

At best, today we can say that the Sunni revolt is contained within Iraq.

I suggest that those saying that we are safer are the ones offering the propoganda. These are all the same who wanted to go into Iraq and now are boxed into maintaining the fiction that this worth it. John Majors told BBC yesterday: "I think it is possibly true that it has made it more potent and more immediate, ". So the threat that has always been there since about the last decade or two has been sharpened not dulled by Iraq according to John Majors. Iraq has not reduced the threat -- becuase Iraq was (now unfortunately this is not so) completely ancilliary to the threat of Al Qaeda.

I am not arguing that a democratic society is bad for Iraq. I am suggesting that it makes no difference to us if the new govt is a success of failure. I am suggesting that there is no metric to define success or failure. I am, also concerned, though not yet convinced that the new Iraq will be more like Iran (that is run as an increasingly Islamic state). There are indications of this already in Southern Iraq with Muslim women and Christian losing out to the fundamentalists. Ultimately, I dont know what we, in USA, will get out of it.

Your invitation to move somewhere less democratic is just idiotic rhetoric. POintless, really.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is effective?

All somebody has to do is lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed it would effectively remove ALL the jihadists-- just the avowed ones, of whom they are plenty.


[ QUOTE ]
You have not answered where to ship them off to if they are not naturalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Ship naturalized, avowed jihadists--and their avowed supporters--back to their countries of origin.

[ QUOTE ]
The average muslim is not interested in the fiction of the world wide Koraninc rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Many terrorist leaders, however, ARE keenly interested in precisely that, and have so stated.

[ QUOTE ]
Even the Daniel Pipes article you highlighted shows this to be the case. Misuse by the militant,extremist loons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The militant extremist loons are the Islamist terrorist leaders. All you have to do is PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY SAY to know that this is the case.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
OK. It is too early to tell, perhaps. But todate what have we gained?


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my earlier post: Libya, Lebanon, beginnings of changes in Syria and Egypt. Even radical opponents (Germany, Le Monde, etc) have standed that there has been a domino effect that helped increase the boldness in these areas.

[ QUOTE ]


I believe we have strengthened Iran's position. It is clear that the SCIRI and Iran are going to be cozying up even more than they already have. The Shia axis that is being formed is likely to make countries friendly to us (like Saudi, Jordan) nervous. Any serious autonomy for the Kurds or if they revolt will make Turkey nervous.


[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly has Iran position been strengthened? And when are the Saudis and the Jordanians exactly super friendly to us? We tolerate each other for the moment until the time arises for change. A catlyst of this most certainly is a democratic ans free Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]

At best, today we can say that the Sunni revolt is contained within Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is not even a plus in your book?

[ QUOTE ]


I suggest that those saying that we are safer are the ones offering the propoganda. These are all the same who wanted to go into Iraq and now are boxed into maintaining the fiction that this worth it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is propoganda on both parts to say definiatively, but I think reason can take over and you have to say that the world is a better place with one less dictatorship. You have to start somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]

John Majors told BBC yesterday: "I think it is possibly true that it has made it more potent and more immediate, ". So the threat that has always been there since about the last decade or two has been sharpened not dulled by Iraq according to John Majors. Iraq has not reduced the threat -- becuase Iraq was (now unfortunately this is not so) completely ancilliary to the threat of Al Qaeda.


[/ QUOTE ]

So a country that has broken so many of the UN treaties and resolutions and who has shown the willingness to harm American interests. A country that has provide quarter for terrorist organisations, you don't think that this is in some way connected to the Global War on Terrorism?

If you are saying that we should have gone after Al-Qaeda before the Iraqi war, I am in agreement with you. I think we needed to clean them up first. If you are saying Bush's Iraq policy is flawed, I again will agree with you. It could have been better executed, planned, whatever. But hindsight is 20/20...

[ QUOTE ]

I am not arguing that a democratic society is bad for Iraq. I am suggesting that it makes no difference to us if the new govt is a success of failure. I am suggesting that there is no metric to define success or failure. I am, also concerned, though not yet convinced that the new Iraq will be more like Iran (that is run as an increasingly Islamic state). There are indications of this already in Southern Iraq with Muslim women and Christian losing out to the fundamentalists. Ultimately, I dont know what we, in USA, will get out of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad that you think democracy is a good thing in Iraq. Yes, there are going to be a few bumps in the road. That's nation building. Thinks are always darkest before the dawn. We as the US have a hugh vested interest in a free and democratic govenment in the middle east. It will provide the avenue for tolerance and human rights in ther region. It will only add to the education and advancement of the region.

[ QUOTE ]

Your invitation to move somewhere less democratic is just idiotic rhetoric. POintless, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC, I was using the euphamistic "you" not you personally. We have bantered back an forth a bit on these boards and I respect your opposing view to mine. You have well thought out responses and good insights and have made me think. I am sorry if I came across as arrogant or flippant in my response. Please accept my apology for doing that.

-Gryph

[xniNja]

When I say "we," I not only include America but the "Western world" which most definitely includes Britain. Also, if you think America has or had no hand in Saudi affairs you are more clueless than a clue shop fresh out of clues.

You want examples of U.S./Western European foreign policy that initiated American/British resentment by other countries?

Israel
Afghanistan
Most of Africa
Saudi Arabia (I don't know where you get off thinking we aren't the stick behind the soft speaking)
Pakistan
India
Kuwait/Iraq

Do I even need to list countries or should I just go by continent, like South America, North America, ... or perhaps hemisphere.

Your retort is a joke, everyone knows the U.S./Britain has and has had its hands, guns, and strings in every developing country it can possibly exploit until they acquired a means of defense. (Political or nuclear)

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

How are you going to steer them into meeting this objective?
************************************************** ********
Invade Iraq, install a democracy, and hope the new government prospers. If it does prosper then it will be a beacon of light in the Arab world. If the new govt fails, well we're back to where we started from.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a third possibility you left out:

the new government in Iraq fails, but we are not "back to where we started from", we are worse off than where we started.

And a fourth possibility you also left out:

the Iraqi government succeeds/survives, but it does not become a "beacon of light" for the region, and no domino effect takes place.

But even if we do end up with your second possibility, "back where we started from", don't you think that would be an UNBELIEVABLY bad result, considering the financial and human costs?

Ultimately, you and everyone in favor of Bush's Iraq policy are banking on your first possibility: that the new Iraqi government will not only succeed, but also turn the governments in the area into peaceful democracies. There has never been any credible evidence that this is a LIKELY outcome. This domino effect theory was not even the number one reason for going into Iraq, it was a secondary reason which became the revisionist history's primary objective after the WMD proved to be a complete fallacy.

Like you, I truly do hope the domino effect happens, and I would be happy if Bush becomes one of the great Presidents in history because of it. It would more than make up for all the other flaws in his presidency. But unlike you, I have little faith that it will happen that way.

-ptmusic

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

You want examples of U.S./Western European foreign policy that initiated American/British resentment by other countries?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me...So you would have a problem with any interaction with a foreign country. You're an isolationist?

[ QUOTE ]

Israel


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, bad policy to help a country where every country around them wants them to be blown out of existance. Now if you want to have a real conversation about Israel and how we should support them in creating a free state of Palestine. I'm all for it...Oh what we are encouraging a free Palestinian state and the Israelis are pulling out. Dang I suppose you think that was poor meddling too. President Carter is a real jerk for trying to bring peace over there...

[ QUOTE ]

Afghanistan


[/ QUOTE ]

What? When have we established a puppet government or killed their leaders. We only invaded their lands after they harbored people who ATTACKED the US. Don't be so naive...

[ QUOTE ]

Most of Africa


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about the British, you got me there. The did make a mess of things. But again, brings to mind the old adage, "You can blame your parents for how you are, but you can blame yourself if you stay that way."

[ QUOTE ]

Saudi Arabia (I don't know where you get off thinking we aren't the stick behind the soft speaking)


[/ QUOTE ]

What? You must be joking. We have a business relationship with the Saudis and they get money from us and we get oil from them. The problem we have is that we haven't influenced their government enough we just did business with the devil. How can they be a puppet government when the same family has been in power from the 1920s? When have we ever killed their leaders and invaded their lands without being invited? REad you history books again...

[ QUOTE ]

Pakistan
India


[/ QUOTE ]

The British again. See my note on Africa...

[ QUOTE ]

Kuwait/Iraq


[/ QUOTE ]

What? Are you joking again. Look at history buddy...

[ QUOTE ]

Do I even need to list countries or should I just go by continent, like South America, North America, ... or perhaps hemisphere.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have more traction in you argument here...Nicaragua comes to mind.

Point - xniNja

[ QUOTE ]

Your retort is a joke, everyone knows the U.S./Britain has and has had its hands, guns, and strings in every developing country it can possibly exploit until they acquired a means of defense. (Political or nuclear)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is a joke. You have yet to explain a case where we have "invaded their land, killed their leaders and set up puppet governments" in the Middle East. I'll give you that we have done that a few times in South America, but we have largely made that right. They also haven't attacked us.

-Gryph

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're pointlessly splitting hairs and you know it.
The basic point is essentially correct and you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is more than nit picking - and you know it.

The West fed and bred the radical Muslims of Eurasia for more than a decade. This was the work of the original Alzheimmer prez, Ronald Reagan and his Warriors Against Godless Communism. The West (or shall we just say the United States) created the monster of radical Islam.

After World War II, the main, if not exclusive terrorist threat towards the West, came from the two political extremes, the Right and the Left -- in Europe, in Latin America, which is grudgingly part of our West, and to a lesser extent the US. There was no religious fundamentalist threat in the horizon! (The seemingly religious divide in Northern Ireland is more complex and arguably nationalistic.)

So, after ten years and more of Western love for the freedom fighters of Islam that dog turns around and bites you hard in the ass. And continues to bite yer ass for the last decade or so!

Well, sorry but it was your dog all along.

So if you wanna post nonsense and wolf-cries about the "islamic threat", knock yourself out but you are two decades late: the Left has been warning yer ass about the extreme danger of using those loonies against the native leftists and the supposed "Soviet threat".

[ACPlayer]

OK. So your method is not effective in stopping a lying Jihadist. We agree.

What do we do with avowed Jihadists who are not naturalized but born here, like the young fellows in Britain who were, I understand, born in Britain. We cant jail them for thinking can we? should we?

Right, the terrorist leaders are the ones misusing the Koran. I have never denied this and I completely agree with that viewpoint. They are using the gullible to be cannon fodder for their views. We have proved woefully unsucceful in finding the one man that Bush vowed he would hunt down. One part of the effective strategy must be to reduce the supply of bullets for these guys. We have to figure out why these guys become soldiers in this war. Any ideas, other than the virgins put forth by the soundbite right wing media.

So, why do these guys become soldiers. I believe that the big reason is that the muslim feels, rightly or wrongly, that they are under attack from the west and Israel. They believe that the west is taking their land for Israel in Palestine, cutting them off from economic prosperity in Iran, Syria by sanctions, and sullying their homeland with troops razing cities like Fallujah, commiting atrocities in the prisons, etc.

Address those causes. Get the population engaged. Show that we can deal with Israel and Palestine as equals and unbiased. Dont just chat to Sharon, make him act.

Extremists Christian leaders dont find much traction in the US as long as our economy is strong. Now with the middle class getting squeezed they are beginning to find some traction. Human behaviour often comes back to economics.

[ACPlayer]

I dont think you can point to the invasion of Iraq as the Libya/Lebanon turn around. Libya's nuclear program was failing, they were already on the path to getting the Lockerbie driven sanctions lifted. They made a good move. Mostly driven by themselves.

I dont know enough about Lebanon to comment properly.

I definitely believe Iran's hand has been strengthened. They are establishing close ties with the SCIRI in Iraq. I doubt very much if Iraq will let the US interfere in Iran from their soil as the neo-cons had hoped.

It is not that the Saudis etc are super friendly. But they are likely to be very concerned about a Shia nexus. Some of the oil rich fields in Saudi have significant Shia.

I welcome a definition of free and democratic Iraq. From what I am reading about the constitution drafts that are around, it will require Sharia law for many of the social structures, reduce women's freedoms, and make the fundamentalists stronger. But, as I have said many times, I will be happy to be wrong.

We could have solved the Iraq problem very simply by lifting sanctions and establishing trade relations. I strongly believe that trade relations between us and other countries so strengthens the mutual dependency that threats are diminished. They bind the people as they can see the benefits. Nixon's china experiment (for which he was lambasted by the right) was a brilliant move.

Apology accepted. I was a bit surprised as we have had some good exchanges. But this is a subject that appears to give rise to strong statements --- understandable on all sides.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, you really need to study the joint history of Islam and terrorism--it goes back to the time of Mohammed. Furthermore, the Koran specifically instructs Muslims to terrorize non-believers: to kill them, put them to the sword, pour boiling water down their throats, smite their necks, strike off their fingertips, etc....

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, sorry but it was your dog all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. That dog won't hunt.

The Long Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1444377/posts)

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
... everyone knows the U.S./Britain has and has had its hands, guns, and strings in every developing country it can possibly exploit until they acquired a means of defense

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, ...

[xniNja]

I never said the U.S./Britian is unique... I clearly noted that Rome did it too, but it did not confuse its citizens into believing they were going out trying to liberate the people they conquered.

As for my other points you responded to, you are right that the "puppet dictatorships" are largely in South America, and that Britain is responsible for a large part of the imperialism of the last century. However, this does not ignore the general crux and basis of my argument, which was the reasoning that our intervention/invasionist foreign policy (Our = western world) set and sets us up for these attacks. I think you agree with this, no?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry. That dog won't hunt.

The Long Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1444377/posts)

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire, your dog is the rabid one here and it sure can hunt our backsides. And I'm referring to modern, present-day Islamic terrorism, which was bred and fed by the United States of America, during what numerous right-wing foreign policy hawks have called the grossest miscalculation in American foreign policy after WWII, even "greater than Vietnam"!.

What you are sourcing is the history of the conflict between Islam, as represented by its various carriers (Ottomans, Arabs, etc), and the Christian West, as represented by its various carriers (Europe, Byzantium, etc). That phase of history was not "terrorism" in the nomenclature, in any way.

The viciousness of both sides (and you should learn about what the Crusades did to Christian and "infidel" populations alike, baby!) was equal if not greater than the viciousness of modern-day terrorists, ideed. And the objectives were oftentimes purely "terroristic".

But we should not start assigning modern names to things of the past just to serve modern day, expedient political objectives. It would be cheap and it would be pointless. The Crusaders were no "terrorists"; the Arab hordes were no "terrorists"; Osama bin-Laden, al Qaeda and the various militant offshoots of radical fundamentalist Islam are terrorists.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The joint history of Islam and terrorism ... goes back to the time of Mohammed. The Koran specifically instructs Muslims to terrorize non-believers: to kill them, put them to the sword, pour boiling water down their throats, smite their necks, strike off their fingertips, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skipping the (boringly) misinformed rhetoric prevalent in your postings on this subject, I will only comment that you are playing right into the hands of the radical/militant Islamic fundamentalists!

Essentially, you are pitting Christian West against Islamic East in a war for survival! This is jihad exactly as bin Laden and his ilk want it!

The overwhelming majority of muslims in the world are generally peaceful people not unlike any other kind of people in the world. The demonisation of their religion and their culture and the call to arms against them is a bin Laden wet dream.

Check yourself.

[Trainwreck]

I would argue though, that poor humans (often on more than one level /images/graemlins/grin.gif) make good muslims.

I am trying to see the good in everything, that is the only angle I can take *cough* on this subject that seems to keep it going... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

>TW<

[ACPlayer]

Take a look at today's blog entry by Juan Cole regarding the (increasing?) role of Islam in the new Iraqi constitution and the (apparent) power to overrule being given to (taken by) Sistani.
Draft enshrines Islamic law? (http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/draft-constitution-enshrines-islamic.html)

While it does not bother me that Iraq or Iran be a theocratic state. It does bother me that (if it comes to pass, as I have longed believed it would) we took a secular country and converted it to a theocratic state, at the needless loss of our and their lives.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Take a look at today's blog entry by Juan Cole regarding the (increasing?) role of Islam in the new Iraqi constitution and the (apparent) power to overrule being given to (taken by) Sistani.
Draft enshrines Islamic law? (http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/draft-constitution-enshrines-islamic.html)

While it does not bother me that Iraq or Iran be a theocratic state. It does bother me that (if it comes to pass, as I have longed believed it would) we took a secular country and converted it to a theocratic state, at the needless loss of our and their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreement with you AC. I will be disappointed in a theocratic state becuase throughout history they have never worked.

-Gryph

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/30/ncleric30.xml&site=5

Vive le France!!! Vive le France !!!

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/30/ncleric30.xml&site=5

Vive le France!!! Vive le France !!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. This should have been done a long time ago.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me. This should have been done a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder where they deport them too.

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Thanks! Mack