News I'm confused about the War on Terror

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert Zaleski
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on confusion regarding the opposition to the War on Terror from various groups, including liberals and women's rights advocates, who are perceived to be at risk from extremist ideologies. Participants argue that the threat from "Islamo-fascists" is less immediate than that posed by local "Christian-fascists" who hold power in the U.S. The conversation highlights concerns about civil rights and the implications of special laws enacted under the guise of fighting terrorism, which many believe undermine freedoms. There is also skepticism about the effectiveness of the War on Terror, particularly regarding the Iraq invasion, which some argue has made the U.S. less secure. Overall, the thread reflects a deep divide in perspectives on how best to address terrorism and protect civil liberties.
Robert Zaleski
I'm confused about the War on Terrorism

I can’t understand why most people on the far left, intellectuals and liberal Jews are opposed to the war on terrorism, when they would be in great peril if the Islamo-fascist succeed. I can’t understand why homosexuals and women’s rights advocates consider the war on terrorism secondary to same sex marriage and women’s reproductive rights, when they would be in great peril if the Islamo-fascist succeed. I can’t understand why heterosexual women in general don’t take a greater interest in the war on terrorism, when they would be relegated to chattel status if the Islamo-fascist succeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hahahahaaa! :D

Oh, wait... you were serious?
 
Islamo-fascist, while a catchie term is less a danger to world freedoms then christian-fascists
do to their limited location in remote countrys, with little power to do more then random terror bomb compared to our local christian-fascists
like bush Jr and his many supporters who currently rule the most powerfull nation on Earth :eek:

so the threat of a Islamo-fascist in the USA is random terror but the christian-fascist threat is far more local, and real, as they are in power here and now
Islamo-fascist are far away and have no chance to efffect our daily lives and laws

BTW what is the real difference in farrightwing religious nuts be they taliban, ortho jew, or bible thumping christian, in the overall threat to freedom and progress of civilrights
all hate gays
all want to censor, movies, books, music ect
all have sex hangups
all want to control goverments to shape laws to suit their religions ideas
all are anti-womans rights
all are anti-abortion
all think anyone not in their CULT is evil

the threat to freedom from religion is the root problem, not just one religion all are evil :devil:
 
So Rob, are you saying that this "liberalism" and "freedom" that the war on terror is promising - if it succeeds - is a good thing? Just by looking at the state of the countries who are on the "good" side of this war is enough to put me of that notion!

Nothing more...
 
There was virtually no resistance to the invasion of Afghanistan. There has been virtually no objection to the tracking down and seizure of Al Qaeda monetery assets. The war on Iraq is an entirely different matter unconnected with the war on terror.

The only aspect of the war on terror to which there has been significant resistance are the special laws and policies to push the limits (or exceed the limits) of civil and human rights. Now, can you guess why women, homosexuals and those with far-left political views would dislike a program of special laws aimed at depriving special groups of their rights? They have all been victimized by such laws in the past. They are rightfully suspicious.

"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist;
When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;
When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf.

-Martin Niemoller"
 
What about the pigeons rayB? Theyre local, always nearby, they control the air. If they turn against us were in deep ****!
 
I saw a site that has similar beliefs as Robert Zaleski, http://www.protestwarrior.com. This site elaborates on the definition of Islamo-Fascism (while bashing leftist views in the process).

While I do not personally agree with this website, I at least now know their argument.
 
motai said:
I saw a site that has similar beliefs as Robert Zaleski, http://www.protestwarrior.com. This site elaborates on the definition of Islamo-Fascism (while bashing leftist views in the process).

While I do not personally agree with this website, I at least now know their argument.


I don't know. I went there and found ...um... enthusiasm but no ideas about anything. There were large dead patches on the page, maybe that's where links to their ideas are.

The only thing I found was that they dislike liberals and really hate A.N.S.W.E.R. Most liberals hate A.N.S.W.E.R. too though.

They seem very much to be the mirror image of what they claim to resent - thoughtless protestation against American values without any clear idea of what those values are. Like A.N.S.W.E.R., they don't know much, but they like marching around with signs.

Njorl
 
QUOTE=studentx]What about the pigeons rayB? Theyre local, always nearby, they control the air. If they turn against us were in deep ****![/QUOTE]

looking at my car I fear they have
:smile:

but they can't make laws
unlike the rightwing christian nuts
who are much closer to the tali-ban in outlook
and over all goals for their
one NATION UNDER THE THUMB OF GOD[boys]
 
  • #10
Thank you all for your warm enthusiastic responses. Let me see if I have this straight. It’s been implied that I’m a religious zealot, anti-abortion, anti-women rights, anti-gay, have sexual problems (woe is me!), want censorship on all forms of entertainment and want to drag law abiding citizens out of their homes in the middle of the night to be interrogated by the ‘Ascroft’s Gestapo’. I think I now understand.
 
  • #11
Woohoo! Bombs for peace!
 
  • #12
Robert Zaleski said:
Thank you all for your warm enthusiastic responses. Let me see if I have this straight. It’s been implied that I’m a religious zealot, anti-abortion, anti-women rights, anti-gay, have sexual problems (woe is me!), want censorship on all forms of entertainment and want to drag law abiding citizens out of their homes in the middle of the night to be interrogated by the ‘Ascroft’s Gestapo’. I think I now understand.

Was that implied in a different thread? I didn't see it in this one.

Njorl
 
  • #13
I dislike the conservative stereotype that left-wingers/democrats are 'weak on terror' and are 'terrorist apoligists' and such. I too disagree with that point of view (IE that we don't need to fight terrorism, like in Afganistan, and that if you only reason with terrorists they won't kill people), and there are certainly many liberals like that, but as a whole I think democrats are also concerned with fighting terrorism. Actually I think the democratic argument is that George Bush has not been fighting the war on terror properly.
 
  • #14
Adam said:
Woohoo! Bombs for peace!
I bet you hated "Starship Troopers," didn't you.

And why did you join the military anyway?
 
  • #15
The movie of Starship Troopers is a great laugh. I love it. The book is a completely different story, but I enjoyed that too.

Why did I join the navy? To see the world, have an adventure, et cetera. It's a good life for a young chap.
 
  • #16
I agree with Jake. We need to fight terrorism, but the way trhe Bush administration has gone about it has actually made us less secure from terror. If we had just ignored Iraq and put the equivalent forces into Afghanistan, we could have monitored every damn hole and tunnel on the Afghan-Pakistan border and probably eliminated bin Ladien and all his associates. Iraq has brought us nothing but shame and grief.
 
  • #17
selfAdjoint said:
I agree with Jake. We need to fight terrorism, but the way trhe Bush administration has gone about it has actually made us less secure from terror. If we had just ignored Iraq and put the equivalent forces into Afghanistan, we could have monitored every damn hole and tunnel on the Afghan-Pakistan border and probably eliminated bin Ladien and all his associates. Iraq has brought us nothing but shame and grief.

BTW, Clinton wanted to invade Afghanistan after the Cole attack, but let himself be talked out of it. After 9/11, if Gore had been president, he surely would have gone for that option.
 
  • #18
selfAdjoint said:
I agree with Jake. We need to fight terrorism, but the way trhe Bush administration has gone about it has actually made us less secure from terror. If we had just ignored Iraq and put the equivalent forces into Afghanistan, we could have monitored every damn hole and tunnel on the Afghan-Pakistan border and probably eliminated bin Ladien and all his associates. Iraq has brought us nothing but shame and grief.

The whole Iraq thing is a self fullfilling prophecy. Its hard to do your work when the whole world is screaming in your face. If we weren't so divided, it wouldn't be so messy.
Americans are attacked becuz their enemy believes what the entire world screamed to them: BUSH= HITLER.
Terrorists will attack us whatever we do and we will increasingly become less secure whatever we do. There is always a scandal they use. If there is no scandal , they will attack us anyway and we will think deeply about what their reasons are and we will find a just one, one the terrorists couldn't even find themselves
 
  • #19
selfAdjoint said:
BTW, Clinton wanted to invade Afghanistan after the Cole attack, but let himself be talked out of it. After 9/11, if Gore had been president, he surely would have gone for that option.
Would have, could have, should have. What he did do on his watch was nothing. As for Gore taking up the gauntlet; a sixty year old that's still trying to find himself, well, I quess Gore could have reinvented himself into Crusader Rabbit leading are valiant troops into the jaws of the Khyber Pass to face the evil doers.
 
  • #20
Robert Zaleski said:
I can’t understand why most people on the far left, intellectuals and liberal Jews are opposed to the war on terrorism, when they would be in great peril if the Islamo-fascist succeed. I can’t understand why homosexuals and women’s rights advocates consider the war on terrorism secondary to same sex marriage and women’s reproductive rights, when they would be in great peril if the Islamo-fascist succeed. I can’t understand why heterosexual women in general don’t take a greater interest in the war on terrorism, when they would be relegated to chattel status if the Islamo-fascist succeed.
Maybe because women's rights apart from Kabul haven't increased, they got a bit better in Kabul and even worse in some areas things have even gone worse. Not that anyone cares. Afghan women are only important when they can be (ab)used for propaganda reasons.

Afghanistan: Women Still Not "Liberated"[/size]

The 52-page report, "We Want to Live As Humans": Repression of Women and Girls in Western Afghanistan, focuses on the increasingly harsh restrictions on women and girls imposed by Ismail Khan, a local governor in the west of Afghanistan who has received military and financial assistance from the United States. Human Rights Watch said that the situation in Herat was symptomatic of developments across the country, and that women and girls were facing new restrictions in several other regions as well.

"Many people outside the country believe that Afghan women and girls have had their rights restored. It's just not true," said Zama Coursen-Neff, the co-author of the report and counsel to the Children's Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. "Women and girls are still being abused, harassed, and threatened all over Afghanistan, often by government troops and officials."

Human Rights Watch found that women's and girls' rights in Herat had improved since the fall of the Taliban, noting that many women and girls have been allowed to return to school and university, and to some jobs. But the report found that these advances were tempered by growing government repression of social and political life. Ismail Khan has censored women's groups, intimidated outspoken women leaders, and sidelined women from his administration in Herat. Restrictions on the right to work mean that many women will never be able to use their education.

The Human Rights Watch report said that the Herat government has even recruited schoolboys to spy on girls and women and report on so-called un-Islamic behavior.

In some instances, police under Ismail Khan's command have questioned women and girls seen alone with men, even taxi drivers, and arrested those who are not related. Human Rights Watch said that men caught in such circumstances are usually taken to jail; women are brought to a hospital, where police force doctors to conduct medical exams on the women to determine whether they have had recent sexual intercourse, or if unmarried, whether they are virgins.

"Ismail Khan has created an atmosphere in which government officials and private individuals believe they have the right to police every aspect of women's and girls' lives: how they dress, how they get around town, what they say," said Coursen-Neff. "Women and girls in Herat expected and deserved more when the Taliban were overthrown."

Human Rights Watch said that problems for women and girls were growing worse in many parts of the country outside of the capital, Kabul. Throughout 2002, girls' schools in at least five different provinces have been set on fire or destroyed by rocket attacks.

Human Rights Watch said that reports from around the country indicate that government troops and officials regularly target women and girls for abuse, often invoking vague edicts on dress and social behavior. In many areas, local police and troops are enforcing Taliban-era restrictions, including banning music and forcing women and adolescent girls to continue wearing burqas.

Human Rights Watch said that many of these local forces have received weapons and assistance from the United States and other countries during 2002. Human Rights Watch called on all countries involved in Afghanistan to cease military assistance to local commanders and to coordinate all future aid through Kabul's central government.

Human Rights Watch urged the Afghan Transitional Administration in Kabul to prohibit harassment and abuse targeted at women, and to appoint new civilian governors in provinces in which serious abuses against women and girls are occurring. Human Rights Watch also called on the international community to support the Afghan government in these efforts. It urged international donors to support the work of Afghan women, inside and outside of the government, for example, by supporting women's groups throughout the country.

Human Rights Watch called on the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) to expand human rights monitoring efforts and to continue efforts to strengthen the Afghan Human Rights Commission, in order to help protect all Afghans seeking to speak openly and challenge abusers.

Noting that efforts to improve security and human rights protection would require an increased presence of international peacekeepers, Human Rights Watch urged the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands to lead efforts to expand international peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan, which are currently stationed only in the Kabul area. Germany and the Netherlands will take joint command of the peacekeeping forces in early 2003. Human Rights Watch urged the United States, European Union nations, and NATO, as well as Pakistan, Iran, and other countries bordering Afghanistan to contribute logistical and intelligence support necessary for international peacekeeping to expand.

"The U.S.-led coalition justified the war against the Taliban in part by promising that it would liberate Afghanistan's women and girls," said Coursen-Neff. "In fact, by supporting repressive warlords, the international community has broken that promise and forsaken women's rights."

The Human Rights Watch report is the second of two reports on Herat. In November, Human Rights Watch released a 51-page report, "All Our Hopes Are Crushed: Violence and Repression in Western Afghanistan," documenting abuses by Ismail Khan's forces against political opponents, detainees and ethnic minorities.
 
  • #21
On top of that, Bush managed to get the situation for millions of Iraqi women a lot worse. In Iraq, the situation of Iraqi women is rapidly deteriorating but US media doesn't care. It is quite possible that if Iraq truly becomes democratic, they vote in Sharia sending women's rights decades back. bremer has been able to stop it as Iraq is not yet a democracy, but who says that will still be the case when Iraq becomes truly democratic? Not to mention how it would send the justice system back for decades, and threaten the position of tens of thousands of Iraqi christians and jews.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12332[/size]

Another big story has come out of Iraq with little media fanfare -- and this is one with colossal implications.

Recently, L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. official in Iraq, toured a new women's center in Karbala. (The center occupies a former Ba'athist Party headquarters -- nice touch.) There, citing a 2003 United Nations report that pegged the poverty and non-productivity of the Arab-Muslim world to the repression of half its workforce -- women -- under Islamic sharia law, Bremer touted the equal rights and full participation of women in the new Iraq.

This topic was apt, particularly since the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council voted in late December to withdraw Iraqi family law matters from their secular jurisdiction and place them under an undefined Islamic sharia law. Such a legal maneuver could subject women to underage marriages, polygamous marriages, on-the-spot divorces ("I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you," is all a husband has to say in certain sharia proceedings), unfair inheritance laws and other terrible inequities.

Bremer has not approved the Islamization of Iraqi family law. (Nor, as Paul Marshall reported at National Review Online, has Bremer intervened in the Islamization of Iraq's universities, nor the peremptory removal of a female deputy minister for whom hardliners refused to work.) Against such a political backdrop, Bremer discussed the current draft of the interim Iraqi constitution, which is due Feb. 28. The draft designates Islam the state religion of Iraq, Bremer said, and "a source of inspiration for the law" -- not the only source of inspiration for that law.

What would happen, Bremer was asked, if Iraqi leaders write an interim constitution inspired exclusively by Islamic law? "Our position is clear," Bremer replied in an unforgivably underreported answer picked up by the Associated Press. "It can't be law until I sign it." This statement strongly suggests Bremer would veto an Islamic charter -- which, of course, he should for the sake of liberty and justice for all Iraqis. Equal rights before the law do not exist under Islamic law. One citizen, one vote does not exist under Islamic law. Freedom of worship does not exist under Islamic law. Minorities -- that is, non-Muslims -- enjoy rights and protections at the pleasure of the Muslim community that are ever-subject to the capriciousness of a rights-canceling fatwa. Indeed, Islamic law is not the basis of a religion, as the Judeo-Christian world understands religion, but is rather the basis of a controlling ideology that is nothing short of totalitarian.

Sharia's adherents, of course, would disagree. In a January article about the Governing Council's family law decision, every judge and lawyer the Los Angeles Times interviewed in Baghdad insisted on the superiority of sharia law to civil law.

"Sharia is from God, the law is man-made, and sharia is better because what comes from Allah is fixed," said Kadhim Jubori, 55, who has practiced family law for 33 years in Baghdad. ("I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" is fixed?) Fixed or not, U.S. efforts to tend democracy's roots in Iraq would wither under any sharia-based constitution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Robert Zaleski said:
Would have, could have, should have. What he did do on his watch was nothing. As for Gore taking up the gauntlet; a sixty year old that's still trying to find himself, well, I quess Gore could have reinvented himself into Crusader Rabbit leading are valiant troops into the jaws of the Khyber Pass to face the evil doers.

I applad you! I hold the same opinions and position! MILLIONS of Iraqies are living SO MUCH BETTER now. I also must point out that "negotiating" with the enemy, whilst they attached us because they hated our freedome, is EXTREMELY STUPID. Why?? Because, Clinto already tried that sleezy tacktic, and they didn't listen. ALSO, if they attacked us once, for the reason of our freedom, what stops them from attacking us again? Action! Thats right! We have no time to stand around "negotiating" whith people who would kill us in a heart beat. Bush did absolutly the right thing. Yes, he could have taken the easy way out, and not risk his presedency by becoming a war president, but he did what he thought was right, and, as it turns out, was right. Did you guys know that they FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?? The seron gass! Yes, there will be more! Its like someone telling you they don't own a dog, and in their backyard you see a mommy dog! Of course ther are bound to be more dogs!
Let me just ask you... do you think that Iraq woman are better off bieng veiled, beaten, abused, and horribly mistreated, with no civil wrights?? Or do you think that them bieng able to see the sunshine, be able to act like normal people, and enjoy life bieng worse than their earlier position?

I stand firmly to my position and political veiwpoints. I get more than one side on the issue, and compaire and contrast them both. I have more than just 2 reasources, and get the other sides viewpoint.. I do not let my religion and my familys positions determine my outcome position. I consider my self very well imformed, even more so that some adults, you might say...
 
  • #23
Idiot, learn how to spell. How old are you, twelve? Millions of Iraqis have it worse now under the occupation, electricity, water, education and medecin have further deteriorated. Unemployment is rampant and much higher than under Saddam, and the economic policy of the CPA is contributing to increasing the unemployment because although a rapid liberalisation of the markets has done a great job for salesmen who can now import cheap gods, it has destroyed many Iraqi factories who are no longer protected from foreign companies which can operate cheaper.

The Iraqis were not your enemy, they did not attack you. Are you one of those retarded Americans which think that there was a direct link between Saddam and 9-11 and that it was proven? Update to you: that simply ain't true. The position of women in Iraq is totally uncomparable to Afghanistan, it was one of the better positions in the region, better than under Bush's best buddies the Saudis. Their position has rapidly deteriorated and there is the threat that the Iraqi people would chose democratically to adopt the sharia which would set their rights decades back.

Regardless of your own high opinion of yourself, you are clearly uninformed and don't know one bit what you are talking about. Either get informed or get lost as there is no point in debating with people who know nothing.
 
  • #24
Tassel said:
I consider my self very well imformed, even more so that some adults, you might say...
Tassel. Here is some more to get an overview.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm
 
  • #25
Simon666 said:
Regardless of your own high opinion of yourself, you are clearly uninformed and don't know one bit what you are talking about. Either get informed or get lost as there is no point in debating with people who know nothing.

Simon, apart from his poor grammar (which shouldn't upset adults), can you mention anything false he posted?
 
  • #26
...liberalisation of the markets has done a great job for salesmen who can now import cheap gods...
:biggrin: :biggrin:
 
  • #27
studentx said:
Simon, apart from his poor grammar (which shouldn't upset adults), can you mention anything false he posted?
Sure:
  1. MILLIONS of Iraqies are living SO MUCH BETTER now.

    The Iraqis in a scientific opinion poll differed of opinion.

  2. ALSO, if they attacked us once, for the reason of our freedom, what stops them from attacking us again?

    The US attacked Iraq, not vice versa.

  3. Did you guys know that they FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?? The seron gass! Yes, there will be more!

    One old shell from before 1991 is not proof of stockpiles of WMD, it is A weapon of mass destruction, not plural. Could as well be some forgotten leftover from the Iran Iraq war and was considered likely so by both Blix and Kay.

  4. Let me just ask you... do you think that Iraq woman are better off bieng veiled, beaten, abused, and horribly mistreated, with no civil wrights??

    The position of women has deteriorated, veils were not mandatory as in Afghanistan, he clearly confuses the two things or sets them equal for lack of knowledge and insight.
 
  • #28
Simon666 said:
Sure:
  1. MILLIONS of Iraqies are living SO MUCH BETTER now.

    The Iraqis in a scientific opinion poll differed of opinion.


  1. And this poll can be found where? If just 10% would say they live better, it is already millions.


    [*]ALSO, if they attacked us once, for the reason of our freedom, what stops them from attacking us again?

    The US attacked Iraq, not vice versa.

    He didnt mention America. Maybe he lives in Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Israel? he could be a kurd. Looking at his grammar i would say he isn't American..

    [*]Did you guys know that they FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?? The seron gass! Yes, there will be more!

    One old shell from before 1991 is not proof of stockpiles of WMD, it is A weapon of mass destruction, not plural. Could as well be some forgotten leftover from the Iran Iraq war and was considered likely so by both Blix and Kay.

    So you called him an ignorant idiot because he put an extra S.
    Why is the finding of this shell being downplayed? It was a forbidden chemical weapon, there is no excuse. Why don't you condemn Iraq for having it? Could it have anything to do with being biased? If America uses a clusterbomb, the world riots!

    [*]Let me just ask you... do you think that Iraq woman are better off bieng veiled, beaten, abused, and horribly mistreated, with no civil wrights??

    The position of women has deteriorated, veils were not mandatory as in Afghanistan, he clearly confuses the two things or sets them equal for lack of knowledge and insight.

Prove that the position of women has deteriorated.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
1.In the latest ABC poll only 57% said their personal situation was better. That means 43% doesn't feel so positive. So it is better, but most certainly not MUCH BETTER as Tassel claimed. Considering Saddam was a brutal murderous dictator, 57% is on the low side don't you think?

2. He is clearly an American kid (...even more so that some adults..) with poor spelling abilities.

3. The shell was downplayed because it was a single find, could as well have been a dud or forgotten leftover, it doesn't prove any bad intention from the part of Iraq. Just existing doesn't equal being deliberately kept behind.

4. I already did give an example by the threat of Sharia, you do not have to search hard on Google to find reputable sources complaining the position of women has deteriorated.
 
  • #30
Simon666 said:
1.In the latest ABC poll only 57% said their personal situation was better. That means 43% doesn't feel so positive. So it is better, but most certainly not MUCH BETTER as Tassel claimed. Considering Saddam was a brutal murderous dictator, 57% is on the low side don't you think?.
How many of the 43% do you think were Sunni moslems. I would think the majority of Shiite moslems and Kurds would say they are better now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
"My greatest fear is to wake one morning to find Helen Thomas on my right and Janet Reno on my left, each smoking a cigarette, each sporting a broad smile."

What's so scary about that ? I'd be more afraid if I woke to find Jerry Fallwell and Paul Wolfowitz, one with a smoking bazooka, and the other sporting a broadsword.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
So have we yet heard an explanation for how a Saudi charter plane traveled to the US immediately after Sept 11 despite the FBI being pissed that they couldn't interrogate its Bin Laden passengers as they were ferried away to Paris.

I mean a real explanation...not the one that goes "... we feared for the safety of their lives..."
 
  • #33
Robert Zaleski said:
My greatest fear is to wake one morning to find Helen Thomas on my right and Janet Reno on my left, each smoking a cigarette, each sporting a broad smile.
In that case I wish you Helen Thomas on your left and Janet Reno on your right. That's better, Yes? :biggrin:
 
  • #34
Gokul43201 said:
So have we yet heard an explanation for how a Saudi charter plane traveled to the US immediately after Sept 11 despite the FBI being pissed that they couldn't interrogate its Bin Laden passengers as they were ferried away to Paris.

I mean a real explanation...not the one that goes "... we feared for the safety of their lives..."
Probably they had an urgent family meeting in Paris ... with all members to discuss the future!
 
  • #35
Robert Zaleski said:
How many of the 43% do you think were Sunni moslems. I would think the majority of Shiite moslems and Kurds would say they are better now.
The Kurds were already quasi independant and no longer under Saddam's rule. However, now there are Turkish troops in Kurdistanas a result of Turkey's concern which I'm sure the Kurds are not happy about. Considering the shiites: we all know how happy the US would be if they democratically chose a state after Iranian model and what a big improvement that would be for Iraq. NOT.
 
  • #36
After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."
2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."
 
  • #37
One was false and he didn't do anything about two, except when you consider making two worse doing something about it.
 
  • #38
Simon666 said:
One was false and he didn't do anything about two, except when you consider making two worse doing something about it.

dude, I hate to spell out sarcasm so please read it again so that you can figure out the real implication this time :wink:
 
  • #39
Dude, I met a lot of people who take that seriously. Believe me.
 
  • #40
Bush is going to attack our freedom and opportunity..
 
  • #41
phoenixy said:
After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
1. ...
2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."
Result: Iraq Conflict Has Strengthened Al-Qaeda

A prestigious British research organization, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, has issued a report that asserts that the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq has actually strengthened the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, rather than weakened it. The report, titled "Strategic Survey 2003/2004," says the Iraq conflict has led to an accelerated recruitment to Al-Qaeda. And it says the ideal goal of the group is to use weapons of mass destruction.

Prague, 26 May 2004 (RFE/RL) -- The Al-Qaeda terrorist network has managed to fully reconstitute itself, and now has its sights set firmly on striking at the United States and the European allies. It has evolved new and effective methods of operation, and can be expected to pursue its aims, right up to the use of weapons of mass destruction.

That, at any rate, is the grim scenario depicted in a report just issued by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank.
"The impact on the American psyche, if you like to call it that, was just out of all proportion, so it wasn't so much a weapon of mass destruction as a 'weapon of mass disruption.'"

In an annual survey of the main strategic trends during the year, IISS experts say that until Al-Qaeda's bigger plans are ready, it will content itself with striking at "soft targets" in the United States, Europe, and Israel, and aiding the insurgency in Iraq.

...

The IISS blames the increased severity of the situation in part on the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. It says Washington has failed to grasp that the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington were a violent reaction to American pre-eminence since the end of the Cold War.

It says the American-led military invasion and occupation of Iraq was designed to advance U.S. strategic and political interests in the Middle East. As such, it ran directly counter to Al-Qaeda's aim to purge the Muslim world of U.S. influence.

As the editor of the IISS strategic survey, Jonathan Stevenson, puts it: "[The war] has actually increased the U.S. military footprint in the Arab world and, of course, in the Muslim world generally, and certainly it was also intended to increase the United States' political influence there."

Accordingly, the survey says, the Iraq intervention was always likely in the short term to increase the motivation for terrorists and recruitment to Al-Qaeda.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/5/702BB607-3D05-4E3C-9297-F52090E100B8.html
 
  • #42
Simon666 said:
Dude, I met a lot of people who take that seriously. Believe me.

Arrgg, your friends are too dense.

Anyways, to ppl who don't understand, those two passages reflect the nature of the Patriot Act
 
  • #43
They're not my friends. I meant on other discussion forums like Pravda.
 
  • #44
phoenixy said:
After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."
2. ...
1. Such statement show the simplicity in logic and false postulates. This is just marketing for naive people.
2. Nobody is born as a terrorist. Terrorism is the result of a social, economic and political process, and the effect of personal experience or perception of a kind of injustice.
3.If you want to examine terrorism in a few one-liners you are not looking for objectivity or solutions, you are looking for confirmation of your standpoints, position or interest.
4. If you want to fight terrorism you have to tackle next to the effective aggression also handle the basic reasons of the malcontent or injustice. Even in USA you have since decades the controversies about the right of creating Militia against an injustice government.

(something goes wrong with the script of this post. I post further.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
5. Here an old 19/11/2001 BBC article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1552900.stm[/B]
(quote)...
Although there are many other issues, Washington's enabling alliance with Israel may be the biggest element in the Arab and Muslim anger, hatred and despair which are focused on America.

For them, Israel is a terrorist, gangster state which has usurped Palestinian land and water, demolished Palestinian homes, and stopped at nothing in pursuit of its interests and enemies, including torture, murder and pioneering the use of the car bomb in the region.
...
(end of quote)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
6. Next to that the prime Al Qaeda religious motivation was the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia. http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion...,0,4266725.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

Saudis May Seek U.S. Exit - Friday, January 18, 2002
Military Presence Seen as Political Liability in Arab World

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A64536-2002Jan17&notFound=true

(Quote)Saudi Arabia's rulers are increasingly uncomfortable with the U.S. military presence in their country and may soon ask that it end, according to several Saudi sources. Such a decision would deprive the United States of regular use of the Prince Sultan Air Base http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/prince-sultan.htm , from which American power has been projected into the gulf region and beyond for more than a decade.
...
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said this week that the United States should consider moving its forces out of the kingdom. "We need a base in that region, but it seems to me we should find a place that is more hospitable. . . . I don't think they want us to stay there."
"The Saudis actually think somehow they are doing us a favor by having us be there helping to defend them," he added.(end of quote)
---
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=491562003 (Wed 30 Apr 2003)
(Quote): But the US troop presence on Saudi soil, home to Islam’s two holiest cites of Mecca and Medina, was a rallying cry for bin Laden and Muslim extremists and an embarrassment for the Saudi royal family. (end of quote)

I fear that the Najaf shrines growing damage may cause much more emotions, if not stopped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
7. What about the Right of self-defense and the Right of Revolution? Look what happens in USA on the right to bear weapons. This is significant. I refer to: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/arms.htm .

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries(1985) : A man may repel by force in defense of his person, habitation, or property, against one or many who manifestly intend . . . to commit a known felony on either. In such a case he is not obliged to retreat, but may pursue his adversary until he finds himself out of danger; and if, in a conflict between them, he happens to kill, such killing is justifiable. The right of self-defense in cases of this kind is founded on the law of nature; and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society.

*The Right of Revolution: As a nation born out of a revolution against its lawful king, and whose people are taught from infancy that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, the argument that the Second Amendment supports a right of revolution is not without attraction. More than a century ago, Lord Acton declared that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights understood that concept perfectly, even if they had not heard of Acton's exact words. Any government, even a democratic one, tends to accumulate power, and in doing so will fight off any attempt to diminish that power. An unarmed citizenry will be unable to preserve its liberties when confronted by the powers of the government; an armed citizenry can and will resist, as did the colonists in 1776.

Today, the vast majority of the American people rely on the accepted methods of democracy to both influence and to limit government — the ballot box, political interest groups, a free press, and the courts. Very few Americans approve or sympathize with fringe groups who have declared the U. S. government a tyranny that must be resisted by force of arms. In fact, the only time in our history under the Constitution when citizens rebelled on a large scale was the Civil War, and very few will argue today that the South had a right of revolution. Indeed, the Constitution specifically gives the federal government the right and the power to suppress insurrections. (end of quote).

8. So what happens if you are in front of "alien occupiers"? The question remains: What is a terrorist?
Is it (?):
(1) a lunatic,
(2) a person claiming his 'right of revolution' against a government of tyranny,
(3) a desperate person which sees no way of normal self-defense.
And another questions: Has he the right to choose his own weapons? (ie. has he the right to make tunnels to get weapons? Has he the right to use road bombs? Or must he accept the traditional war-game in which his opponents have the supremacy of gun power? )

9. IMO we have to look and "hear" seriously to the arguments of people which claim injustice. If we notice that we cause injustice we have to change our attitude, even if this goes against our own visual (and hidden) agenda. Killing is killing. Stealing is stealing. Lies are lies. Human rights are fundamental rights.
At the same time we should try to give them better conditions of life.
I believe that - almost everyone - wants a normal life with as less as possible aggression. I don't believe someone goes Kamikaze for fun, but by frustration.

If you wear spectacles with red glasses if am sure you will see everything with a red glance. You will interpret everything that way. Even a white flower will have from your view that red glance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top