|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
posted May 30, 2004 08:27 PM |
|
|
first of all im not a good supporter of religion because i dont care for all religions with books on world.. i think all religions are now easy categorisation of world people by politicians and big powers... im first human , i believe ecology , i respect to any livings on earth and first i try to be human in that world not a follower..
i read all holy books and i think all books goals are same.... in koran, there are no comment to kill other religion followers.. the word jihad used on 12. century to stop crusaders attack on jerusalem to protect holy lands... unfortunately in 21. century some foos use this word to convert people to attack the ''evil''..
1) who is evil?... people believes usa and other conquerors are evil
2)why people believes easily that usa is evil? ... education... and high living standarts of eastern countries... there are millions of poor people thinks that they are poor because of eastern countries..
3) why they accuse usa and other eastern countries?... they accuse because usa couldnt convert them with logic approachement... you can open schools or hospitals but when you misbomb a village or hurt citizens all efforts will be wasted in a moment...
4) why people prefere to believe these radicals ?
because in that world they dont have anything.. islam or other religion is only excuse of terror act... poors wants revenge.. the rich model of world is usa and they attacked to usa... look at ladin example he is cheated by americans... cia used him in afgania during russia invasion... then he is betrayed by americans...
5) finally in koran its sin to kill another... unfortunately most of these militans are brainwashed ... another problem is also gouvernements... the most democratic country between muslim world is turkey and even here we have some problems...
and pm muslims are not raised to kill infidels.. from centuries wars started of religions... if a christian believes that muslims are threat he will be in same category with terrorists who kills innocents on 9/11 ... because of these kind of persons i dont support any religion...
____________
quoting my post = bullet in your head
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted May 30, 2004 08:33 PM |
|
|
ya read something out of it, like that chapter 9 verse 11 that I heard disturbed alot of people in the middle east. do you know wich one i'm referring to hamsi?
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 30, 2004 09:21 PM |
|
|
Hmm,
Thinking to myself silently.....hamsi128 said much and I want to think about what he says. Poor people want revenge....hmm......
 Thankyou for posting hamsi128
Many good things come from your post; some truth and some questions...
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted May 30, 2004 10:30 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 30 May 2004
|
Quran online. I'm not sure how good the translation is, but that's the one Beliefnet lists. Sura 9 ("The Immunity"), verse 11 is part of a discussion about agreements between believers and unbelievers.
Edit: About characterizing terrorism by religion...has abortion-clinic bombing and associated violence ever been called "Christian terrorism"?
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 31, 2004 10:12 AM |
|
|
Quote
"The catholic archbishop Giovanni Lajolo has recently called the prisoner abuse cases in the Iraq a "more serious blow to the United States than September 11"."
Just goes to show that even archbishops can be guilty of smoking crack!!
To even begin that comparison shows a complete inability to implement reason or apply logic....hmmm lets see....the barbaric murder of 3000 innocent people compared with the humilation of 20-50 prisoners....that is laughable to say the least....anyone who could try to make an equation should be mocked and then slapped in the face for their complete disdain for the DEAD victims of 9/11.
So for those students of logic out there.... Dead does not equal humilation (A does not equal B...A equals A)...case closed...next subject.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 31, 2004 10:28 AM |
|
|
Quote saying ameicam tourturers is similar to saying islamic terrorists.
Some people who were americans messed up. Forget about it and realize that its very unlikely to be going on anywhere else.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 31, 2004 04:55 PM |
|
|
hamsi --
Quote:
Muslims are not raised to kill infidels.. from centuries wars started of religions... if a christian believes that muslims are threat he will be in same category with terrorists who kills innocents on 9/11 ...
Thank you hamsi, for responding to our questions, and for this critical observation. I will make sure I show my previously-mentioned, uninformed friends what you have said here. I've tried to tell them the same thing myself but apparently I'm not very persuasive.
dArGOn --
Quote:
So for those students of logic out there.... Dead does not equal humilation (A does not equal B...A equals A)...case closed...next subject.
The point is not a person-for-person, incident-for-incident comparison. The point is that the long-term, historical effect of these actions could be devastating.
If you know anything about the relationship between the Middle East and the West (which your post would indicate you might want to read up on) then you know it is terribly delicate at best, and at worst is irreparable. When I woke up and heard this had happened, based on my studies and understanding of the historical relationship between the Middle East and the West, I had a terrible sense of foreboding that the fate of WWIII may just have been sealed in one stupid little act. We started this "war on terrorism" presumably to end terrorism. Our actions, in the eyes of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, have gone from shaky to outrageous in the eyes of people who already did not like us, and may ultimately lead more people to commit acts of terrorism than they would have if we have never invaded Iraq to begin with.
Never has the legitimacy of a war been so critical to our ultimate success in its reasons. Yet never has the legitimacy of an American act of war been so called to question. As many of us have said in the past, we are trying to fight an unconventional war (terrorism exists in cells in practically every country in the world) using the old conventional, nation-to-nation approach. Moreover, we're doing this in the wrong place, where the constituencies already dislike us and what we stand for because of our own past interventionist habits. Anything, dArGOn, any little thing we do wrong will have profoundly magnified negative consequences on that legitimacy. The psychological impact of those images of the prisoners in the minds of the Middle Eastern people are more powerful than you can imagine. You are so obviously an intelligent man. Surely you must see this.
It is the reactions, the ripples outward from the drop and not the drop itself, that is at the heart of the comparison. You can agree or not that such a reaction is an overreaction. But however you assess it, your assessment will not change that reality, nor will your glib attitude alter how people decide to respond. Unfortunately, that attitude is part of the problem as well.
I urge you to take this situation seriously, my friend. It is very serious indeed.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted May 31, 2004 06:31 PM |
|
|
We Should All Maintain A Constant State Of Awareness
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has told the world what time it is since 1947, when its famous clock appeared on the cover. Since then, the clock has moved forward and back, reflecting the state of international security.
1947 | Seven minutes to midnight
The clock first appears on the Bulletin cover as a symbol of nuclear danger.
1949 | Three minutes to midnight
The Soviet Union explodes its first atomic bomb.
1953 | Two minutes to midnight
The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within nine months of one another.
1960 | Seven minutes to midnight
The clock moves in response to the growing public understanding that nuclear weapons made war between the major powers irrational. International
scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor nations are cited.
1963 | Twelve minutes to midnight
The U.S. and Soviet signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty “provides the first tangible confirmation of what has been the Bulletin’s conviction in recent years—that a new cohesive force has entered the interplay of forces shaping the fate of mankind.”
1968 | Seven minutes to midnight
China acquires nuclear weapons; wars rage in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Vietnam; world military spending increases while development funds shrink.
1969 | Ten minutes to midnight
The U.S. Senate ratifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
1972 | Twelve minutes to midnight
The United States and the Soviet Union sign the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; progress toward SALT II is anticipated.
1974 | Nine minutes to midnight
SALT talks reach an impasse; India develops a nuclear weapon. “We find policy-makers on both sides increasingly ensnared, frustrated, and neutralized by domestic forces having a vested interest in the amassing of strategic forces.”
1980 | Seven minutes to midnight
The deadlock in U.S.-Soviet arms talks continues; nationalistic wars and terrorist actions increase; the gulf between rich and poor nations grows wider.
1981 | Four minutes to midnight
Both superpowers develop more weapons for fighting a nuclear war. Terrorist actions, repression of human rights, and conflicts in Afghanistan, Poland, and South Africa add to world tension.
1984 | Three minutes to midnight
The arms race accelerates. “Arms control negotiations have been reduced to a species of propaganda. . . . The blunt simplicities of force threaten to displace any other form of discourse between the superpowers.”
1988 | Six minutes to midnight
The United States and the Soviet Union sign a treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF); superpower relations improve; more nations actively oppose nuclear weapons.
1990 | Ten minutes to midnight
The clock, redesigned in 1989, reflects democratic movements in Eastern Europe, which shatter the myth of monolithic communism; the Cold War ends.
1991 | Seventeen minutes to midnight
The United States and the Soviet Union sign the long-stalled Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and announce further unilateral cuts in tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
1995 | Fourteen minutes to midnight
Further arms reductions are stalled while global military spending continues at Cold War levels. Nuclear “leakage” from poorly guarded former Soviet facilities is recognized as a growing risk.
1998 | Nine minutes to midnight
India and Pakistan “go public” with nuclear tests. The United States and Russia can’t agree on further deep reductions in their stockpiles.
2002 | Seven minutes to midnight
Little progress is made on global nuclear disarmament. The United States rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Terrorists seek to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons.
A good reminder? Yes or No?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted May 31, 2004 06:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The psychological impact of those images of the prisoners in the minds of the Middle Eastern people are more powerful than you can imagine. this.
thank you pm this is all i wanted to say with my poor grammar from the beginning of this thread...
____________
quoting my post = bullet in your head
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 01, 2004 02:57 AM |
|
|
Thank you Peacemaker for bringing us back on topic.
Is the torturing of the Iraqi prisoners a more serious blow to the USA than 9/11?
I'm not sure if the consequences of this atrocity in the minds of all the people around the world (extremist groups included) can be measered with the death tolls of 9/11. Two different metric systems. 
However, one thing's for sure. I know that whatever sympathy the 9/11 attacks created in the world public opinion, the USA put it all on stake and lost it, to the degree that it turned into hatred.
Many people can't see that. And it is an interesting relationship that exists between the governing politicians and the uninformed and simple-minded people that support and belive their government actions. A one-way cable for sending fabricated informations. Or should I say a TV cable?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted June 01, 2004 03:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
However, one thing's for sure. I know that whatever sympathy the 9/11 attacks created in the world public opinion, the USA put it all on stake and lost it, to the degree that it turned into hatred.
You're sick. A nation's actions have nothing to do with respect for the thousands of innocent civilians, American or otherwise, who were butchered by the terrorists. Prisoner abuse does not put America on the same level as the terrorists. I don't even see why this is that big of a deal. A few Iraqi prisoners were humiliated. Back when I was in school, people would make freshmen go onto the track in nothing but their jockstraps and run a mile in the cold. Is that a national level scandal? No, but I really don't see the difference.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 01, 2004 03:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner abuse does not put America on the same level as the terrorists.
I didn't say it did. But it does create a very negative impression.
Quote:
I don't even see why this is that big of a deal.
That's part of the problem too.
Quote:
Back when I was in school, people would make freshmen go onto the track in nothing but their jockstraps and run a mile in the cold. Is that a national level scandal? No, but I really don't see the difference.
You read this entire thread and many others citcizing and explaining over and over again why, and you still can't see the difference. I can't help you then.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2004 06:44 PM |
|
|
Back from vacation and the thread has grown ...
Just a few words for now, to Hamsi:
I usually write "islamist terrorism". Islamists are people who follow an extreme, fanatical and intolerant interpretation of the Islam.
When I say "islamic" in that context, you are right that this is not correct, and (if I did this) it´s also likely to be a typo.
And yes, it is very strange that the word "christianists" has not been created in our languages yet. Maybe it will be, if Bush gets another 4 years ... 
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted June 01, 2004 10:14 PM |
|
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 02, 2004 12:43 PM |
|
|
Hey, Peacemaker, I've read before about the origins of neo-conservativism in the left. (on wsws.org) The article dealt with how the political philosophy shifted from the left to the right and analysed the reasons for that. It locates the responsibility in few powerful individuals and it mentioned that many of them have strong positions in American society as well as the government (or at least influence it), but at the same time claiming to be on the left. But because I don't care much about US policy I didn't pay much attention then.
My impression is that even leftists have many factions within their own ranks, so not much use of getting too excited about it. Politics is like theatre. So many things happen behind the scene and nothing is what it appears to be. A complete sharade.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2004 01:35 PM |
|
|
Actually Neo-conservatism springs from neo-liberals. The Neo-liberals first entered the stage with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The tickle down effect and complete free-trade was some of their most beloved thesis.
Alot of poor africans payed the price for IMFs structural adjustment. Aswell as the percentage of poor people in the worlds richest country U.S.A dramatically grew.
The difference between neo-liberals and neo-conservatives is the degree of the subjects they span. Neo-liberalism is mainly a political and economic dogma, while neo-conservatisms reach is also into the ethical and religious sphere. Which makes it alot more dangerous to a democratic nation. (I understand a democratic nation in this sense as an "Open society" qua Karl Poppers "Open society and its enemies")
This is offcourse complete off-topics, but to bring it back on-topic, my point is that if your argumentation for waging a war is purely based on morals, as Bushs arguments these days are. You cant afford to side-step that moral.
On a different note. Most prisoners in Abu-Chabi is not POWs. Alot is plain criminals, and some are even innocent Iraqis arrested for being at the wrong place the wrong time.
One more thing. Without being disrespectful to the victims of 9/11, I can mention alot of tragedies that have taken place during the last 10 years wich have been alot more tagic, with the genocide in Rwanda being the most horrible. 900.000 deads out of a population of 7 mill.
And offcourse the civilian victims in Iraq accounting for last time I tjecked over 6.000 since U.S.A said the war was over.
So on moral grounds, why are we "The coalition of the willing" (Myself included, im dane), not trying to stop the civil war in Sudan?
I mean a person is a person, right?
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted June 02, 2004 08:24 PM |
|
|
Hello Defreni!
IMHO, the first three paragraphs of your post are an excellent condensed primer on the origins and parameters of neo-conservatism. Thanks!
It seems rare that people in America are familiar with neo-conservatism, or even neo-liberalism for that matter, even though they have been the theories driving American foreign policy since the Reagan-Thatcher era.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2004 11:33 AM |
|
|
Aloha Peacemaker.
When you said neo-liberalism was the primary element in U.S foreign policy since Reagan, I was about to tell you that it was much more influential in your own economic policy, starting with Reagans tickle-down effect and now with Bush Jr. tax-cuts.
But on second thought you are completely right about the effect neo-liberalism has had on U.S relations to U.N, I.M.F and the world-bank, meaning a good deal of the foreign policy. Imho neo-conservatism has had a far more dramatic effect on U.S foreign policy than neo-liberalism have had.
I base that on the fact, that the Bush doctrin has replaced Clintons somewhat vague tries to alter the foreign policy away from the containment policy that has been in effect since the 1950ies.
The Bush doctrin has even been taken over by John Kerry. (For those that dont know what the Bush-doctrin is, the primary difference between this particular doctrin, and how U.S foreign policy was viewed before, is the fact that the U.S say they have a right to pre-emptive strikes).
It is very unusual with pre-emptive strikes in the history of the nation-state. I can only come up with one example prior to the U.S attack on Iraq, and that was Great Britains attack on Denmark during the Napoleonic war, to secure that the danish fleet didnt fall into Napoleons hands.
(Im taking a broad definition off nation-state, to support this contestion. Going back to the Westphalian peace settlement in 1648)
Only other pre-emptive strike in the western hemisphere in this period, is Hitlers attack on Norway in 1940, but again imho The 3. Reich doesnt qualify as a nation-state during Hitlers reign)
Well this turned out to become a bit side-tracked.
My point is, that you mustn underestimate the influence the idea of a pre-emptive strike is. And how this affect international relations.
Again pre-emptive strikes, like the one the U.S carried out against Iraq this second time around, needs alot more justification than the first Gulf-war.
With that in mind is is extremely problematic that the U.S didnt find any connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, and that they didnt find any WoMD.
This leaves only the last argument for the war valid. The moral argument, that Saddam was an evil man, that killed and tortured his own people.
And that is why it is so devastating that U.S troops have tortured Iraqis, because it makes this last argument invalid.
This is again, just my personal analyses. And I have no doubt it doesnt run like this in the American public. But in the view of the world it has opened up the possiblity of unjustified pre-emptive strikes by the U.S on any nation in the world. And this makes the world alot more unsafe than it was prior to 9/11.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted June 03, 2004 05:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
With that in mind is is extremely problematic that the U.S didnt find any connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam...
Hm. I recollect that there were clear ties between Saddam and Al Quaeda, but am not certain about this. Wolf, PH, and others, could you speak to this ties issue? (References to sources would be helpful)
Quote:
This leaves only the last argument for the war valid. The moral argument, that Saddam was an evil man, that killed and tortured his own people.
And that is why it is so devastating that U.S troops have tortured Iraqis, because it makes this last argument invalid.
Now before you all get "up in arms" about this statement, recollect earlier dialogue between me, hamsi and dArGOn that this is a perception issue. In the case of the legitimacy of the war in the minds of people who were against our intervening, it had a much more devastating effect because of those existing sentiments. While in objective terms the errant behavior of a few MP's does not compare to Saddam killing millions of people (assuming this behavior was errant and not sanctioned/widespread), those MP's gave many, who were looking for an argument against our "moral" motivation, just what they were looking for.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2004 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hm. I recollect that there were clear ties between Saddam and Al Quaeda, but am not certain about this. Wolf, PH, and others, could you speak to this ties issue? (References to sources would be helpful)
Im sorry I dont really have time to look up sources at the moment, due to pending exams. But if you look at the situation prior to 9/11, nobody would take you seriously if you mentioned Saddam and Al-Qaeda in the same sentence. Mostly because Saddam was at the time one of the few secular rulers in the middle-east. And secondly because it would mean that Al-Qaeda should have switched horses from Iran to Iraq, which would seem like a foolish thing to do, considering that after the first gulf-war Saddam wasnt looking very impressive.
The first time Bush mentioned a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, I was actually laughing out loud at the notion. And that was before there was even a whiff of the U.S invading Iraq.
Now before you all get "up in arms" about this statement, recollect earlier dialogue between me, hamsi and dArGOn that this is a perception issue. In the case of the legitimacy of the war in the minds of people who were against our intervening, it had a much more devastating effect because of those existing sentiments. While in objective terms the errant behavior of a few MP's does not compare to Saddam killing millions of people (assuming this behavior was errant and not sanctioned/widespread), those MP's gave many, who were looking for an argument against our "moral" motivation, just what they were looking for.
Im sorry, I have been away from these boards for quite some time, so I havent seen that dialogue. But this doesnt change my initial analysis. Because apart from a few outside the U.S, it was mainly in U.S.A u had support for the invasion. Which means that in the view of allmost the rest of the world, the only sound reason the U.S could give to invade Iraq was the moral argument.
In this case you must remember my initial premis in my argument why it was so devastating that there where cases of torture in Abu-Chabi.
Mainly that it is very exceptionel in the history of nation-states to make use of pre-emptive strikes. Especially when it concerns democracies.
This is why it is so important for the U.S to be able to justify for the world why they attacked Iraq.
Because otherwise the rest of the world will always be concerned wether it was suddenly their country who would be the subject of a pre-emptive strike.
This can lead to the sentiment in many countries that the only thing that can prevent a U.S attack is if you have possesion of nuclear weapons. Dont underestimate this, when you consider the way Iran and up to recently Libya have tried to posses these weapons.
And I havent even looked at the situation in Asia, where besides North-Korea both Vietnam and Indonesia suddenly could see it in their interest to acquire these kinds of weaponry.
As you can see Im very concerned with the way the U.S foreign policy after the Bush-doctrin mainly have been of a unilateral nature. This imho is not the right road for the world to be taking. This is because I see that kind of policy to be making ridges instead of bridges between the different cultures and on a lesser note countries that inhabit this little globe of ours.
My mediocre analysis should definetly not be taking as a thrash the U.S. in any way. Rather it should be taking as a reminder that there is about 5.8 billion people living in the world. And around 280 million of those live in the U.S.
But the U.S is in possesion off the by far largest economic ressources in the world. I hope youll use those ressourse well, and hopefully bring more stability to this world.
I think the best way to reach stability is the multilateral way, with international organisations as the cornerstone.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
