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

News I'm confused about the War on Terror

  1. May 12, 2004 #1
    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: May 12, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2004 #2
    Hahahahaaa! :D

    Oh, wait... you were serious?
     
  4. May 13, 2004 #3
    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:
     
  5. May 13, 2004 #4
    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...
     
  6. May 13, 2004 #5

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.

     
  7. May 13, 2004 #6
    What about the pigeons rayB? Theyre local, always nearby, they control the air. If they turn against us were in deep ****!
     
  8. May 13, 2004 #7
    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.
     
  9. May 13, 2004 #8

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    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
     
  10. May 13, 2004 #9
    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
    :rofl:

    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]
     
  11. May 13, 2004 #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.
     
  12. May 13, 2004 #11
    Woohoo! Bombs for peace!
     
  13. May 14, 2004 #12

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

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

    Njorl
     
  14. May 14, 2004 #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 dont need to fight terrorism, like in Afganistan, and that if you only reason with terrorists they wont 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.
     
  15. May 14, 2004 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I bet you hated "Starship Troopers," didn't you.

    And why did you join the military anyway?
     
  16. May 15, 2004 #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.
     
  17. May 15, 2004 #16

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  18. May 15, 2004 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  19. May 15, 2004 #18
    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 werent so divided, it wouldnt 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 couldnt even find themselves
     
  20. May 15, 2004 #19
    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.
     
  21. May 20, 2004 #20
    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"

    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.
     
  22. May 20, 2004 #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

    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: Apr 20, 2017
  23. May 24, 2004 #22
    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 concider my self very well imformed, even more so that some adults, you might say...
     
  24. May 25, 2004 #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.
     
  25. May 25, 2004 #24
  26. May 25, 2004 #25
    Simon, apart from his poor grammar (which shouldnt upset adults), can you mention anything false he posted?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook