Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Compassion versus Military Action - Which Will End Global Terrorism?

  1. Aug 4, 2005 #1
    Hey kat,

    I still don't have an axe to grind, but I saw a report that I found really chilling just now and it applies directly to you comment about an attack on Iran:

    Check the link.


    I thought I would post it for anyone's interest that is following along. I don't know how reliable the assertion is, that Cheney is asking for attack plans, and I don't know how reliable the group is that reported this.

    Of course there is the argument that we need to have plans ready for any contingency.... But the subtext of the report sounds a lot more ominous than that. Why is a nuclear response on Tehran being proposed a priori for another terrorist attack from any comer? Wouldn't we analyze a terrorist attack afterwards, and best decide how to respond, depending on who perpetrated the attack, for example?

    I hesitated posting this, because I don't want to "get into it." But then, I am frankly curious for your honest reaction to the report. Take off your conservative hat for a minute and just read the report as a human being. How does it strike you? Anyone else?

    (Also see here: http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20383 )
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 4, 2005 #2
    The very meaning of preemption is at the heart of your question.
    For some of us, it's a foregone conclusion that Iranian Mullahs with
    nuclear weapons will permit their use against Israel and/or the US.

    Also, don't forget that there are intense negotiations underway there
    now. You are seeing the stick being brandished as a part of those
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2005
  4. Aug 4, 2005 #3
    I have been mulling this over today. I think *also* at the heart of the question is what "terror" is.

    It may well be that a full half the country has had their terror alleviated - really and truly lessened - by what I consider an insane and reckless course. You'd be in this group if you support Bush's foreign policy.

    I can certainly vouch that my part of the demographic (me and my peers of similar political persuasion) have *never* been more afraid than we are at present, due directly to US foreign policy. 9/11 was horrendous, but it didn't lead me to living in fear the way I am currently. My fear that we are (and have been) on a course through hell, by our own choosing, pervades everything. Bush is the epitome, to me, of the abusive father figure. I won't go through the laundry list of costs of this war, you know the list.

    So I am curious: Would you say you feel less terror today because of our foreign policy? Do you truly think you would feel *more* terror again if we took a less aggressive (more cooperative) stance?

    I think this may be at the heart of the divide on this issue, in this country. What do you think?

    Also, is your terror level (and that of other like minded folks) more valuable than the lives of "collateral" civilian casualties in other countries? (We're responsible for 10X more deaths than what occured on 9/11; a good many of those are civilians.)

    I think that is a separate issue. I certainly agree that they might well. But given a choice between acting pre-emptively and acting in response to an incident, the choice seems clear.

    If you act in response to the incident, you have the *entire world* with you. If you act pre-emptively, especially with the course Cheney is asking and with our recent history, you have the entire world *against you.*

    You may think you are protecting lives by acting pre-emptively, but psychologically you are only screwing your standing in the world, and as Iraq shows, whether you save lives or not is a real gamble. You might not, at all.

    I am sure the stick argument plays some part in this. I hope it explains the whole story.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2005
  5. Aug 5, 2005 #4
    Between 9/11 and now, I have never felt terror. My fiancee insists that
    there is a male-female divide at work in this issue. Maybe. But as a man
    I can assure you that I am not terrorized.

    Pattylou, I really like you because we are on opposite sides of only
    a political fence. I can tell that we would agree on the basics of life.
    Let me try to show you how a conservative person approaches this thing.

    What I am is utterly determined- to see to it that people who think
    that they can expand the Islamic sphere of influence though violence are
    made to give it up. And the best way to make them give it up is twofold.

    First, they must be made understand that they are weaker than the West.
    In the Arabic culture that gave rise to Islamic thinking shame is worse than
    death, and victory in battle (regardless of the methods) is validation of
    the cause. If they understand that they are weaker by being denied
    even the smallest of victories, this takes the wind out of their sails on
    a whole host of levels.

    Second, the larger cultural support system of the Jihadis must be weakened.
    The best way to do this is for the rank and file citizens of the Nation of
    Islam to realize that siding with the West is siding with the winner. They
    can relate to this, especially if they benefit by acqiring a new stake in
    their own governence (i.e. democratization.)

    Remember, this fight is not about my fear or about casualties. This is
    about your great-grandaughter not being forced to wear a Burka and
    being allowed to read. War always kills good people too and this is
    regretable. But I don't regret our having killed a single Muslim who has
    taken up the sword against Western civilzation. Not in Andelusia
    (.i.e. Spain which they lost because Western civilzation fought, killed,
    or Christianized every Muslim on the peninsula), not in the Crusades
    (which they eventually won because the West didn't maintain good
    logistics across thousands of miles), and not in New York City where
    they will loose (because the West will permanently alter the couse
    of their societal evolution).

    I'm glad we agree. To not act premptively is to seal the death warrents
    of our fellow citizens- an unthinkable course of action.

    Oops- you are against preemption?? Now, if your most important
    goal is hosting the next Olympic games then I agree that having the
    entire world against you will probably preclude success. But we have a
    different goal.

    All the goodwill the world can muster won't help the dead and dying New
    Yorkers under the mushroom cloud of an Iranian-built fission bomb. I'm much
    more concerned about them than about what the world thinks of us.

    There is a lot in here to unpack.
    1) Our standing in the world is not in the same leauge as our obligation
    to protect our cities from nuclear attack.
    2) Our standing in the world is secondary to victory. Achive victory
    and the standing will follow, especially in the Arabic world but everywhere
    else as well.

    I'm not really following you here. Democratizing Iraq is not about minimizing
    net casualties this year or the next few years. It's about altering the course
    of Islamic civilization to avoid a greater clash that could claim millions of
    lives down the road.
  6. Aug 5, 2005 #5
    A hasty response:

    I've only heard the "Islamists trying to spread Islam" and "you'd have to wear a burka" from the likes of Bush.

    Zawahiri's tape certainly did not express anything beyond a desire to have the middle east *left alone.*

    THe Iranian revolution had something like 98% support for adopting a religious constitution including wearing the veil. (I would not have been in that 98%.)

    So - what I see is a religious state saying "we like it this way, leave us alone," and a secular state saying "we have to wipe out any religious tendencies before they religisize *us.*"

    I am absolutely against pre-emption. I would have opposed it in any event. The facts coming to light that "intelligence was fixed" and naysayers were punished, in the president' rush to war, illustrates only too clearly how screwed up pre-emption can become.

    But I would have opposed even "righteous" pre-emption because somewhere I internalized the American value of "innocent until proven guilty."

    What is your concern for the ten fold more that have been killed in Iraq than in the trade center attack?

    Are you aware that the best intelligence puts the 2015 as the earliest that Iran *could* develop a nuclear weapon? I don't believe they have the capability to launch it at the US even then, nor the motivation to do so. The Iranian government is not a terrorist regime.

    You say you feel no fear, but your post hints you have plenty of it, and you are coping by taking the bully stance. You are also painting a doomsday scenario presiumably to frighten *me.* Leave Iran alone. Or better, foster a cooperative relationship with them. My god, this isn't rocket science.

    Had I been in the trade centers dying, I would not have wanted my government to use my death to lie to my friends and family and invade a country that had nothing to do with the event.

    I wouldn't have wanted the government to declare a war on terrorism either. I would have thought: 'So, this is how I die.' I would have hoped that the world would learn to be more caring as a result of my death, not more vicious.
  7. Aug 5, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wasn't she optimised to raise children and keep the house ? So what does her insistence matter here ? :devil: :tongue:

    Well, for the moment, it goes the other way around, isn't it ? The US is losing money, image, lives, and is now planning to retract slowly from Iraq - something that clearly will be interpreted as a victory on the Islamic side. Moreover, a secular dictature where there was not much room for Islamism is on the way of being changed in an Islamic theocracy (cfr the new constitution of Iraq). The Spanish have been terrorised and as a result retracted from the "coalition of the willing" (again whose victory ?) and now the British are terrorized. Tell me, your action clearly brought a deafening blow to the slightest sentiment of victory on the Islamic side. You showed clearly the Western superiority.
    Yes, you guys are clearly taking the wind out of the sails. On the other hand, although initially a blow was given to the Islamic support in Afghanistan, the tide is turning there, and you have no muscle left to do much about it. OBL is STILL running.
    And Iran is now really really scared about an invasion, they are doing in their pants. They is so scared, that they just tell you to piss off with your seals on their uranium enrichment plants and laugh in your face.

    So if victory is the validation of the cause in Islamic thinking, then they just got quite a lot of validation from your side!

    As we all see, yes, the West is winning, hahahaha. Islamic republics vote for more secularisation, the newly liberated people write liberty of religion in their constitution, what a blow to the Islamists. They must feel quite defeated !

    Or free about their sexual and reproductive decisions, and not obliged to read the Bible ?

    Well, they probably think now that it is their turn. Only fair.

    Ah, and indeed, now they are scared like hell ! After the success with the neighbours, they surely are affraid of an invasion. Especially because you will be able to count on all the friends you've made in the neighbourhood to give you a hand. Come on ! You're PUSHING Iran into making nuclear weapons ! The Islamic reaction against the West, inspired by your activities over there, brought a hardliner in power in Iran, and you've lost all credibility of a military retaliation because you've shot all the ammo on the neighbour.
    You behaved like an excited cowboy emptying his guns onto a bystander, and now that you don't have any bullets left, the guy in front of you is slowly loading his gun. Talk about a defeat.

    What victory ? Where ?

    Yes, changing a secular dictatorship into an Islamic theocracy shows the way!
    Great work. The West is clearly superior ! Give me a break.
  8. Aug 5, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The idea that democratizing Iraq, or the entire Middle East, will alter the course of Islamic civilization is a little simplistic. Kuwait and Yemen give two examples of how democracy has progressed in the Middle East - both have had problems with the transition, especially Yemen where they are trying to unify a previously separated country in addition to transitioning to democracy.

    Yemen does officially recognize freedom of religion, but that freedom is extremely limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Yemen). Islam is still the state religion and only Islamic citizens can hold office. Yemen's democratization efforts haven't meant approval for the US either (http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/yemen-government.htm). Yemen also is a prime recruiting region for terrorist groups - reforms also mean some folks disgusted enough at the reforms to abandon the 'new' version of their country.

    Kuwait's road to democracy has been a little problematic, as well, but has now progressed so far as to allow women to vote (http://www.kuwait-info.org/democratization.html). They haven't yet, because they are still working out the details of how to allow women to vote without violating Islamic law. Kuwait would have more reason to support the US, but government support for the US hasn't been all that popular with Kuwaitis. In fact, Kuwait has become a major recruiting region for terrorist groups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61476-2005Apr17.html - the article also talks about democratization efforts in Morocco - the part that talks about Kuwait is further down the page). Once again, with any reform comes folks disillusioned by changes in their country.

    The issue of how the Middle East finds a balance between the traditions of ancient Islamic law and the modern world have little to do with whether the country is democratic or not - at least not in the short term. In fact, forcing faster reforms just increases the current crop of prospects for terrorists where a slower pace of change might prevent pressure from ever buidling up high enough to reach the level of terrorism.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  9. Aug 5, 2005 #8
    Then you haven't heard much from those who are well informed about the history
    of Islam. The Arabian peninsula was Roman Catholic before it was Muslim. So was Constantinople
    before Muslims sacked it and renamed it Istanbul. Their next goal is Europe, to be followed by the US.

    A tactical statement from a field tactician. The strategists are the Imams
    of Saudi Arabia who are still ticked about the loss of the Islamic Caliphate
    in 1922.

    That great for them. It's not what I want for my kids.

    I'm sorry you see this. I see an agressive expansionist religion whose violent
    advocates justify any means to achive it's expansion and have sworn to
    obliterate all of Western civilzation because it stands in their way.

    Of course you need to base your pre-emption on good intelligence. But
    not even the Iranian Mullahs are denying that they are making weapons-grade
    uranium- they only deny that they are making bombs out of it. I don't need the CIA's
    analysts to tell me what this will become if we don't stop it first.

    The methods of civil and criminal law don't work well on the battlefield. This
    is plain. On 9/11, NYC became a battlefield. And furthermore, to the Nation of
    Islam, the battlefield is everyplace that is not ruled by Islamic law. That includes your house, Pattylou.

    I'd need to know who they were before I rendered a specific judgment about
    them. The loss of innocnet life is greivous. The loss of Jihadi fighters is
    a numerical and strategic success.

    I'm dissapointed to see you skewer your own argument above about relying
    on bad intelligence. Apparently it's ok for you to rely on it when it tells you
    what you want to hear.

    Fear is different from knowing the score and spelling it out like it is. It
    doesn't matter to me whether I am killed by a heart attack or an Iranian
    nuke. But it matters greatly to me that the world not be taken over by
    that particular death-cult.

    Pattylou, I honestly don't want to frighten you. I would have expected
    that when your civilization is under assault, you would feel safer knowing that
    it's fighting back hard rather than lying down and hoping for the best.

    Time and time again, the clarion call of the frightened has been to sue
    for peace in the face of agression. This is a losing strategy. I will not
    leave the Iranian goverment alone. It is trying to destroy my way of life.
    I don't know why I should interpret a goverment-sponsored poster saying
    "Death to America" in any other way. And no, it isn't rocket science.
    It's the crossroads between politics, human survival, and history.

    Pattylou, you are reverting to the micro picture. Remember this isn't about
    Iraq being "invaded bcause of 9/11". This is about altering the future course
    of Islamic history. Iraq is only the beginning and it will NOT be the last
    country to experience a US-led leadership change in that part of the world.

    This is what makes you a beautiful person worth fighting and dying for.
    It's also why your death at the hands of those murderous primitives must
    be prevented, even at the cost of them losing their own lives.

    Your life, Pattylou, is much more important to me than that of someone
    who convinces other idealistic young people to strap on bombs and go kill
    ordinary people like you and me.

    I still don't think you're getting it Vanesch. We're giving that civilzation a chance to
    change for the better and to cooexist with the West peacfully.
    But if it doesn't work out, if most people there do not want the way of peace,
    then the gloves will have to come off. If it's Jihad that they really want they'll get it-
    but in a form that they're not accustomed to seeing in modern times.

    This time around the Crusaders have a logistical system based on the methods of
    UPS and Fedex. Saladin wouldn't stand a chance today.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2005
  10. Aug 5, 2005 #9
    LOL. You kinda missed the point there, then. I'd rather have Jesus beside me, *dying* alongside me asking for God's forgiveness of our fellow human beings, than your (or anyones) defense of me through aggression. A hundred times over. I don't want that type of help; it is an insult to everything I believe. In my opinion, it is sinful. (And I'm a woman of the left. )

    We all die, kiddo. I've seen it a hell of a lot more closely than a lot of people my age, particularly Americans. The only "free will" we have is in how we conduct our lives.

    My advice, not that you asked, is to practice compassion for your enemies. Not only do *you* come out on top, but your enemies tend to melt away in that kind of warm regard. Start practicing it small, see what you find. You don't even have to tell anybody - just do a little experiment for your own interest. It's better this way, for everyone.

    (LOL, sorry for the soapboxing. I really don't have any comments about your other feedback.)
  11. Aug 5, 2005 #10
    1. No form of christianity was ever a majority in any part of the Aabian Peninsula.
    2. Constantinople was first and formost Orthodox Christian, it only became Roman Catholic after it was taken from Byzantine during the Fourth Crusade.
    3. The only time Constantinople was 'sacked' was during the fourth Crusade(i.e. Roman Catholic Crusaders).
    4. Islam is not a unified body with unified goals (i.e. Invading europe and the US)
    The Caliphate was abolished in 1924. The Ottoman Sultanate was abolished two years prior. They are not synonymous. Real power laid with the Sultanate, the title of Caliph was started in 1517, at the time many others claimed the same title. The Caliph's only power was given to it the Ottoman Empire, and as the Empire became stronger, so the Ottoman Caliph was given more Authority over the other Caliphs, untill it was the only one left.
    Then don't move to Iran.
    Violent Advocates
    sworn to obliterate
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0504-06.htm [Broken]
    Pre-Emption? Don't you mean Pre-emptive?
    Pre-Emptive is defined as "[A pre-emptive attack/war] is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war."
    The Iran situation does not suit this definition, unless you believe that should Iran get nuclear reactors they will unavoidably use them to go to war with the US?
    Should you use military action to stop Iran it will be Preventive war.
    Islam is not a nation.
    That's rather sad, I consider any loss of life greivous.
    What makes that intelligence 'bad'? Why is it wrong do rely on it, and why do you think Pattylou is doing so just because it is saying what she wants to hear? Do you have a better source for a different figure?
    Death Cult? :rolleyes: Iran specifically? Or all of islam?
    What gives the US the right to intervene to change their way of life, when you claim you do not want them to change yours either?
    What you're saying is: you're either with us or against us, correct?
    Saladin didn't win by disrupting Crusader logistics, he won on the battlefield.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. Aug 5, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Problem: you won't be able to stop it. There was a way, and you blew it. The way was: slow reintegration of Iran in the international community, try to make them see that they don't win anything in develloping their bomb and that they are not at risk. Because WHY do you think Iran wants to make a bomb ? TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST THE US !!
    After all, if Saddam had a bomb, you wouldn't have invaded, would you.

    On 9/11, a smart Islamist of which the world didn't know much played a trick on the US, in the hope that the US would get nervous and do nasty things to innocent Muslims, so that he could further his cause. Indeed, he was a bit idle. He had been at war against the Russians in Afghanistan and that had helped him to be a small hero amongst his small army of Islamist fighters, but now the Russians were gone, and he was looking for another cause, but the only source of aggression on which he could thrive was the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and that lacked the former grandeur. He had difficulties recruiting people for his ideas. So he set out on a cunning plan: he was going to organize a world-wide war between Islam and the West. There was not so very much appeal, at that moment, for such an idea. There were small terrrorist groups (mainly originated from two sources: the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and the several ex-nationalist movements that got rid of the old colonizing nations like France, the UK...) who'd like to participate, but there was not a large support at all for such an idea in the Muslim world.
    So he needed to do something to mobilise the Muslim masses, to get them out of their moderateness, and to radicalise the Muslim public opinion. He was a man who wanted to show to other Muslims that they must defend themselves against Western aggression and arrogance, and hence needed to provoke such visible aggression. I think he got more than he hoped for in his wildest dreams after 9/11. The US administration jumped so vigorously in this trap he set up for them that I have difficulties to believe that they were not on OLB's payroll.

    And a gain of Jihadi fighters ? If for every Jihadi fighter killed, 3 Muslims decide to become one ?

    Then why do you guys do everything to further that cult ?

    You can't, anymore.

    Iraq's fiasco was the beginning and is the end of the US-led leadership change in that part of the world. All US influence is gone there now. A military action ? This is entirely impossible in the next few years. You've shot your ammo and you haven't gotten any left. Even purely technically-military, you'd have some difficulties, but politically and economically, this became totally impossible for the US. Even a Rumsfeld wouldn't dream of it anymore.
    An invasion of Iran, let me laugh. Where would you base your army before the attack ? In Iraq ? Pakistan ? Turkey ?
    I don't know if you realize this, but the war in Iraq has taken away all POSSIBILITY for the US to perform a major military intervention anywhere in the world - even if this one is necessary. You'd never get it sold to your public opinion. What will you say ? They have WMD ? They are going to throw the Big Bad Bomb on our head ? We have to "liberate them" ? It will take between 6 weeks and 6 months ?

    So the only option you've left now, is to wait for the Iranian nuke, and to retalliate. Like in the good old days, when the commies were going to nuke the US, and when they were going to take over the world too, and change your way of life.
  13. Aug 5, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Us left-leaning women are just grateful not to be corralled into second-class conditions.
    I think this was mentioned elsewhere, but a good example of this is Spain. There must be tolerance of other beliefs and lifestyles before people can live harmoniously in the world.

    Other than that, I agree with BobG's post. We could add Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and a few other countries in the Middle East in reviewing success of democracy. Um, how are we doing in Afghanistan?
  14. Aug 5, 2005 #13
    It was a major cultural force. Mohammed himself was raised (though never
    baptized) Catholic.

    Correct you are.

    Not correct. The abomnidable desecration of Hya Sofia stands to this very day.

    Didn't say it was.

    It's a bit disturbing to see someone such as yourself with an impressive command of the facts but no grasp whatsoever on the trends and implications for today.

    No such plans are in the works. As you well know, I'm rather more concerned
    with the unchecked expansion of violent Islam across the globe.


    This is just plain hyperbolic. You know quite well they will allow their nukes to be used on the West if they get them.

    Maybe today. But tomorrow who knows?

    I'm referring to the "umma". You're pretty handy with a search engine- look it up.

    Any? Perhaps you've ceased to perform any substantial moral reasoning.
    It's the disease of the Age. Pacifism is the logical extension of your
    view and it not a tenable view in my judgement.

    I never questioned the inteligence. I questioned the one-sided skepticism
    of folks who only rely on it when it suits them.

    I refer to the hatred which spews unabted from much of the Islamic world
    and is supported spiritually and financially in large part by Iran and
    Saudi Arabia.
    Others today often refer to it as "terrorism". You can't deny that there is a
    glorification of violence, death and suicide going on today in the Islamic world.

    The exportation of their violence and intolerance around the globe gives me the right.

    No. I'm saying they're either going to join us (and stop their ongoing
    disruption of our Civilization) or they will not make it into the Year of Our
    Lord 2100. That will come across like blustering to some, but it's not
    meant to be that. It's an expression of the optimism that no matter how
    spineless the actions of the West appear to be, we're every bit as mean
    today as we have been in the past. On that I think you'd agree, no?

    I didn't say he disrupted anything. (Why do you keep hearing things that
    I'm not saying?) By the time Crusaders typically made the arduous
    trek to the middle east, they were a mere shadow of the numbers that
    usually started out. As non-professional Christian soldiers intent on liberating
    the Holy Lands, Crusaders didn't display anything like the military
    competence of the Roman Legions who predated them. Saladin would
    have been crucified by the Romans for sure, probably on the very
    battlefield on which he defeated Crusaders.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2005
  15. Aug 5, 2005 #14
    I've never heard anything about that, Mohammad was raised in the Tribe of Quraish was he not? A Muslim Tribe no? If you have a source I'd like to see it.

    Regardless, I'd hardly classify the Arabian Peninsula as 'christian'.

    :confused: What? I've never even heard of a 'Hya Sofia'. Googled it, didn't find anything. Certainly nothing about any desecration.

    You did say that it plans to invade Europe and then the US. This implies that Islam has such desires as a unified goal.

    Then educate me, if you please.

    One could just as easily say that Violent capitalism is expanding across the globe.

    I don't believe that at all. I don't believe any nation, for any reason, would risk nuking the US (or China, Britain, France, Russia, ect., for that matter) because it would mean they themselves will be destroyed by far more efficient weapons.
    If their goal is to conquer the west, why would they; a. Use nukes to destroy what they want to conquer, b. provoke the west into obliterating their homeland completely.

    Nukes arn't the real threat anyways. Iran can build all the nukes they want and they still can't attack America with them, they need ICBMs for that, or Long Range bombers, or some delivery system. Not only that, a delivery system that will get beyond US defences (so long range bombers won't do it will they) and that is currently (and in the forseeable future) beyond their capability. This is not about defence of the US.

    Ah yes, the infamous University of Michigan Museum of Art. They have it out for Pattylou you say? Well, that's reasonable.
    (sorry, couldn't resist)

    So, you're saying that the "totality of all muslims" has it out for pattylou and was behind 9/11?

    I'm not pacifist, I'm a green anarchist. Why don't you find my views tenable? I see no reason why force is ever necessary nor acceptable, with few exceptions.

    I don't really see a reason to question it unless you have a conflicting source.

    I think there is a glorification of violence and death in parts of the Islam world. I also see glorification of violence in the US, and many other parts of the west. What makes them any different?

    Same as above. What makes your violence and intolerance any different from theirs.

    Now you're just sounding like you think 'Might is Right' and that the US and other countries arn't doing enough violence. That's ridiculous. You do not have the right to kill, and you never bloody will.

    That's all irrelevant, my point was that Logistics didn't have any significant influence on Saladin's victory. The first crusade was already over and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was established. When Saladin went to war with them and re-took Jerusalem it was almost 100 years after the first crusade and Jerusalem had a standing army that didn't need any Arduous Trek. Saladin obliterated their Army quite efficiently in a single battle. Oh, and the Christians started that war.
  16. Aug 5, 2005 #15
    In reference to terrorism and the bombing in Madrid, Spain is an excellent example. I believe there will be no more terrorist attacks there.
  17. Aug 5, 2005 #16
    Ayasofia = Hagia Sophia.
  18. Aug 5, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    Well, good...grinding axes gets so messy .... :wink:

    Alright...My first reaction was...This guy must have had or has a book that's about to hit the shelves.

    My second was that it's their job to
    in fact it's their job to have multiple plans.

    :wink: I haven't seen the text of the report...much less the "subtext" I've only listened to other people tell me what they think is in the report... Let's find some direct quotes or at least a partial text first...
    everything else after this is supposition and thus not something I'm going to comment further on without the actual report to base a discussion upon.Thanks for sharing though.

    Oh...one last thing
    I'm not a conservative. I'm just disgusted with the fanactics that seem to have usurped the left I used to know and love...You know the one...that supported human rights, Hated tyranny...fought for women's rights...
    Instead the left that's usurped my left is so caught up in anti-bushism and anti-americanism and jew bashing that it would rather see tyrants remain in power and genocide continueing in places like darfur and well...Iraq under Saddam. It cries louder about a Bolton appointment then U.N. forces raping and pillaging those it should be protecting. *shrug*
  19. Aug 5, 2005 #18
    Ah, well in that case the 'abominable' desecration of Ayasofya was, as I stated, performed by Crusaders in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, the only time Constantinople was sacked.
  20. Aug 5, 2005 #19
    Before Mohammad began his ministry, at or after the age of 40, there were no Muslims. If the Tribe of Quaraish became Muslim, it was after they were finished raising him.
  21. Aug 5, 2005 #20
    I found an interesting site that states Mohammed http://www.roadtopeace.org/history/human_history/human_history_islam.html
    which sort of indicates that they were 'pagan' by nature and worshipped multiple deities.

    This is also similarly stated on this site: http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/ispage.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook