I find it rather ironic of some of my countrymen to sing so loudly and firmly of freedom and then justify all the innocent Iraqis that have been killed by us as somehow different because "Saddam didn't kill them" or "at least they were'nt raped or tortured" as if our kind of dead was more merciful. This is usually followed closely by the phrase "I'd rather fight them over there than over here in America". I wonder where the people, who are having our brand of freedom crammed down their throat would rather we fight our war against terror, but we have'nt given them the freedom to choose have we?
This is typically followed by the "Islam needs to reform and all these people need to be free" usually due to the fact that a couple of books on the subject have recently been read and the utterer is now an expert on the troubles of Islam. It is ignorance plain and simple. The same kind that wiped out the Indians and anything else that stands in the way of civilization.
This is typically followed by the "Islam needs to reform and all these people need to be free" usually due to the fact that a couple of books on the subject have recently been read and the utterer is now an expert on the troubles of Islam. It is ignorance plain and simple. The same kind that wiped out the Indians and anything else that stands in the way of civilization.
Not unlike parts of inland US.cunningham said:
Islam is monotheistic, not monolithic. Judging all of Islam by the antics of a few nutters is like judging Judaism by the antics of Baruch Goldstein and Meir Kahane, Christianity by the antics of the Serbs in Srebrenica or the Maronite Christians in Sabra and Chattila or the US by the KKK or the LAPD as regards Rodney King.
You're wrong: they were savages.PassFan said:
you actually are different. we might have a chat here with you, we might have a beer/bourbon/[whatever else] together @ a bar, or do whatever else together, in the end you are still different, you think different. that's the way it goes. that's what people over here don't understand when they ask themselfes why you voted like you did(after all that lies and all that crap. the short memory of the majority of the americans is well known tho)
I never supported the invasion of Iraq. But the attack on the Americans (and others) is done not by the general population, but done by terrorists.
There was a recent poll in Iraq on who they would choose as President of USA. Most voted for Bush, by a big margin.
Back to the USA....If you look at who voted Doubleya in was the midwest...They are the people who would not trust Kerry for what he would do on things like abortion, gay rights and the death penalty. Also they would not replace the Supreme Commander in time of "War".
Source : Some Newsweek editor on CNN.
I feel very sorry for the "Coalition" forces...it seemes the Minister of Information in Iraq (Saheed al Sahaf) (The only man funnier than Doubleya).....was right after all.
"Faltering forces of infidels cannot just enter a country of 26 million people and lay besiege to them! They are the ones who will find themselves under siege. Therefore, in reality whatever this miserable Rumsfeld has been saying, he was talking about his own forces. Now even the American command is under siege"
"And lastly but not least..Living conditions are now worse in Iraq. In the past
Although Hussein's secular Baath Party created one of the world's most despotic regimes, it allowed Iraqi women personal rights and freedoms unparalleled in the Persian Gulf. Women could drive, travel abroad alone, study in universities, serve in the army and work side-by-side with men. Iraqi women, who make up at least 55 percent of the population and are among the most educated in the region, can become anything, from college professors to lawyers. They choose whom to marry and whether to marry at all. "
Source : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/24/MN135276.DTL
Now with the power vacuum (even though the worlds most powerful state is occupying them) they are back in the stone age. And an independant Iraq will be more of an Islamic state than under Saddams rule. Well done Neo Conservatives... If they really had balls they should have gone for Iran..."real sponsors of terrorism..the creator of Hezbollah, the ally of al-Qaeda, the sponsor of Zarqawi, the longtime sponsor of Fatah and the backbone of Hamas'"
Source : http://www.crisispapers.org/topics/neoconservatism.htm
Not to mention the US's biggest buddy in the Middle East..Saudi Arabia..funding radical Islam all over the world.
Bas Horneman said:
Bas,
Very true. I read that one of the newly elected Congressmen of Texas (Rep of course) announced he would sponsor a bill requiring mandatory death penalty for any doctor assisting in abortion. How more fundamentalist can you get?
The midwest/south voters who voted for GW are often very fundamental (Christian) and doctrinal in their beliefs as you pointed out.
So there you have it: A president backed by fundamentalists fighting a war against fundamentalists. If the Iraquis call the american forces "Crusaders", they probably don't realise how right they are.
Jan Didden
Yep, the Democrats as a political force seem more than ever to be out of touch with the voters. Since most everything is decided by the moral majority, who look to God for guidance..and cannot seperate religion from reason. Much like Islam appears not to seperate religion from state. Now religion is not the problem. But radical or fundamentalist Christianity/Islam or whatever religion is a problem IMO.
How to eradicate that? Therein lies the solution to many a problem in the US and Middle east.
Looking at America...religious solutions do not seem to help.
The death penalty does not work (Highest crime and prisoner population in the western world).
So called abstinence does not work, highest teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in the western world. (Almost ten times higher than in the Netherlands).
Highest poverty rates in the western world..
But I don't judge the USA. If it works for them ...then great...so be it...(Europe is not everything it is cracked up to be either) But the problem seems to me is that applying that kind of religious fervour to world problems...It starts affecting the whole world.
The USA seeing the problem of terrorism as a struggle between good and evil is not useful at all.
It started the same way as well.
Cause :
Original crusade.
a Madman (Al Hakim) burns down some church in Jerusalem.
Current crusade.
a Madman (Bin Laden) burns down "a church" in New York.
Action
Original crusade.
The pope whips up popular support against Islam.
Current crusade
George Bush whips up popular support against Islam.
Original crusade.
The crusaders butcher the local population
Current
The crusaders kick some *** and take some names.
O:
Crusaders build castles to hide in and change nothing.
C:
Crusaders stay in their quarters and change nothing.
Only this time we learn nothing from the Islam, like seperation of reason and religion or how to make fine textiles.
Also no Saladin (born in current Iraq)(as the west called him) this time to save the day.
Well we cant realy say that yet cos its not over lol, maybe so far, more then likley it will never be over. From my understanding no one wants to reason with terrorists, would you if you wer in power?
Ill doubt man kind will ever have peace to be honest, its in his nature to fight. Forgivness is one key we all should learn.
Trev
You are right. Because in our eyes they are unreasonable. I don't have the answers. Al-Qaeda, should be crushed for they are a cancer, but a cancer grows where it is fertile. So we should not just use radiation to burn away the cancer, but also change our diet and way of living, so that it won't return (or at least diminish the chance of it returning).
Meaning to say that the USA should leave Saudi Arabia. Help resolve the Israeli/Palestine question and not support one dictator/regime/country over the other. Same goes for Russia and Europe.
Also they should work WITH the world. Not because the rest of the world is smarter or anything...but because that works better.
Bas Horneman said:
Couldnt have said it better myself.
Reasoning with terrorists? i think there is a chance there, it does come down to who it is, trust, Following through on their word ect,(technical discusion bigtime material). Afteral, arent most terrorists organisations started because they are normal people who want somthing in one way and are sick of not being heard? Ok, not all, but some are, maybe only those types can be bargained with. And dont take me wrong, by all means i dont support terrorisim.
Im sure you know Bas, we are all controlled people, our government makes descisions for us wheather we like them or not. Democracy? hahahahaha the biggest joke of my life. If we are not controlled by politics, we are controlled with money.
You know, America got attacked by Al Quida, at this present day in history i feel America has the right to fight back Al Quida, not Iraq. Bush should have left Iraq and ONLY gone for Al Quida, he has a fair enough reason to hunt him down, but for Iraq? i think not.
He should of left out iraq, (ok fair enough the people are suffering there, but what about the people in Africa? dont they count? they only like dont have food!!) and minded his own pound, atleast until he had some hard core evidence of WMD's. Whats the number one rule in the army? "Dont fire until fired apon". America has never been fired apon from Iraq directly.
Trev
SY said:
I don't know that the Americans are actually going to leave Saudi Arabia.
Part of the Neo Con scenario was that Iraq would be a nation friendly to us. This would allow us to move our mid-east bases there and take some heat off of the Saudi royal family.
That scenario does not look like a possibility long term because not Iraqi government leader will have legitimacy if they appear to support a US presence on Iraqi soil.
We could probably regroup in Afghnistan, but the same problem will occure there.
Not to many places to go. Turkey is now off the table. We could massively expand in Kuwait. But I don't think Kuwait government would see any benefit for allowing that.
Hmmm.... running out of friendly countries. Surprise.
From what I've read the problem is that the Arab world seems pre-occupied with that problem, and blames America for it. (Rightly or wrongly..)
Maybe the USA should disengage itself from that problem then? Since their engagement is seen as perpetuating that problem. The Israeli's seem to me to be strong enough to solve that problem by themselves.
I agree, but there are grudges, and therfore at times its best to have a seperate voice come in.
From what ive seen of the Middle Eastern Distric, forgiveness and trust doesnt exist, and that is a majour area of concern for bringing any peace to any country to that area. This crap has gone on for years and thats why they all have grudges.Until there is trust and forgivness in that area (both the people and the government) peace will never exist.
Probally too late now.
Trev
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm
You make my argument better than me. Until the Arab world comes to grip with their real problems, there is nothing that can be done. It's like the guy who's worried about steel terminations in his crossover caps but has gaping tears in the speaker cones.
I have great hope for the influence of Arabs residing in secular countries like yours or mine.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.