| Quote: |
Violence targeting Muslims in the U.S., discrimination and harassment against them in the post-Sept.11 period, is reported to have risen dramatically.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), one of the leading Muslim NGO’s in the U.S., issued a report titled “The Struggle for Equality,” in which it asserted that 1,972 violent events targeting Muslims were recorded in 2005.
This figure is equal to an increase of 29.6 percent in the incidents of such events during the past year. A total of 153 racist attacks were officially recorded last year; 141 in 2004 and 93 in 2003. According to the report, the incidences of the violation of civil rights, written or verbal harassment and discrimination at work are being increasingly encountered.
CAIR Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar said during a press conference he organized that African-Americans are far more likely to be subjected to racist attacks, adding that the number of violent acts against Muslims or Arab-American is also increasing at an alarming pace.
Iftikhar said, “We believe the biggest factor contributing to anti-Muslim feeling and the resulting acts of bias is the growth in Islamophobic rhetoric that has flooded the Internet and talk radio in the post-9/11 era.” |
Edit: please use quote tags and add your personal opinion!Nice copy/paste.
Got anything intellegent to add or are you just fishing?
lol in my eyes(not sure about admins) that is spamming. this guy went out on the internet found a nice big story and thought "hmm if i post this ill get points" and has done so... you retard go find somthing of your own to talk about
well, here's something most people don't know regarding that subject... CAIR's connection to HAMAS, the Palestinian terrorist organization
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001760.php
CAIR has actively solicited donations under false pretenses, which were then directed to Al Qaeda as i see
you can not say
"these claims are not true"
| JoeFriday wrote: |
well, here's something most people don't know regarding that subject... CAIR's connection to HAMAS, the Palestinian terrorist organization
|
this is a very cheap way !
if i talk against US atom-bombing of Japan , i think
you will blame me with Japan connections.
and
your government blamed late Iraq government with El Kaide connection.
now
your respectful senate says all these claims "bullshit" | nathanuk wrote: |
| lol in my eyes(not sure about admins) that is spamming. this guy went out on the internet found a nice big story and thought "hmm if i post this ill get points" and has done so... you retard go find somthing of your own to talk about |
please check the title of this forum
"discuss world news"
but
if you say
US has everyright to vandalize innocent people,this shouldn't be criticized.
then
we can talk how we supposed to be happy under the bush administration. 
| palavra wrote: |
as i see
you can not say
"these claims are not true" |
I won't say one way or another if the claims are true.. it's possible that muslims have been discriminated against, and possibly have seen violence against them.. which isn't surprising considering the highly hostile attitude and actions that the muslim world has taken recently
granted, it's sad when peaceful individuals see repercussions because of the wrongs their community commit.. perhaps this would be avoided if the muslim community pubicly stated that they denounce what the muslim terrorists are doing worldwide.. in Iraq, Iran, Russia, France, the US, Pakistan, etc.. but the muslim world refuses to do that
at the same time, I will say that I doubt the veracity of any claims by CAIR, and will not take their comments at face value.. unless I see actual statistics from another source, I couldn't care less what CAIR says
this has been the case ever since they made a martyr out of Rachel Corrie, the radical activist who died when a wall she was standing next to in an area she was told to leave due to unsafe conditions collapsed and fell on her.. CAIR claims that she was killed by a bulldozer operated by Israelis.. this claim has been proven wrong many times, but CAIR still pushes that story.. CAIR has no credibility | JoeFriday wrote: |
| [granted, it's sad when peaceful individuals see repercussions because of the wrongs their community commit.. perhaps this would be avoided if the muslim community pubicly stated that they denounce what the muslim terrorists are doing worldwide.. in Iraq, Iran, Russia, France, the US, Pakistan, etc.. but the muslim world refuses to do that |
i think
muslim community in my country(turkiye) denounded that it is barbaric what the terrorists (muslim,christian,jews,atheist...)
are doning worldwide
and
the western countries are the one who do not want to understand this.
http://en.fgulen.com/content/view/969/14/
http://www.rumiforum.org/server/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=35
| JoeFriday wrote: |
this has been the case ever since they made a martyr out of Rachel Corrie, the radical activist who died when a wall she was standing next to in an area she was told to leave due to unsafe conditions collapsed and fell on her.. CAIR claims that she was killed by a bulldozer operated by Israelis.. this claim has been proven wrong many times, but CAIR still pushes that story.. CAIR has no credibility |
http://www.hemenpaylas.com/download/1178920/Rachel.ppt.html
i am from Turkiye
i live in Cambodia
i don't know too much what is CAIR
i only see its name in the news
BUT
when i was 14 years old
i saw 4 israili soldiers captured an arab young -who throw stone to them- in the news
these soldiers broke the arm of this arab young with a stone.
at this time
after 16 years
i really wonder those israili soldiers got a punishment or not
and
i know the soldiers that commited this barbaric action 16 years ago
can do anything to lonely young girl like Rachel | palavra wrote: |
i saw 4 israili soldiers captured an arab young -who throw stone to them- in the news
these soldiers broke the arm of this arab young with a stone.
at this time
after 16 years
i really wonder those israili soldiers got a punishment or not
and
i know the soldiers that commited this barbaric action 16 years ago
can do anything to lonely young girl like Rachel |
A friend of mine in Iraq right now says that these radicals use children to entice enemy forces into doing things to the kids/civilians, then publicize it to make the good guys look like the bad guys. He says it happens ALL THE TIME.
You can bet if it was the other way around, that kid wouldn't even have had to throw anything at the bad guys and they would have KILLED him, not just broken his arm. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
A friend of mine in Bla Bla Bla .... years of ...bla bla bla..... bad guy...good guys...bla bala bla .. the bad guys and they would have KILLED him, not just broken his arm. |
they have already killed Milions of them and their parents, friends, wifes ..... this barbarian army will not last too much !! | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
[A friend of mine in Iraq right now says that these radicals use children to entice enemy forces into doing things to the kids/civilians, then publicize it to make the good guys look like the bad guys. He says it happens ALL THE TIME.
. |
most probably
you have a liar friend. | yarali wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | [A friend of mine in Iraq right now says that these radicals use children to entice enemy forces into doing things to the kids/civilians, then publicize it to make the good guys look like the bad guys. He says it happens ALL THE TIME.
. |
most probably
you have a liar friend. |
I wouldn't consider him a liar, but he is very dramatic. I have heard other eye witness accounts that said the plane was aiming downward then it leveled off and hit the building, like it was aimed. I think, being in NYC and seeing a plane (any plane) crash into a building will make you jump to conclusions. 
Let us face the situation. Neither Israel nor Russia for that matter neither would US will be able to beat the terrorists in their game. Terrorism is not a country or organization. It is a concept. It is normally against the one who kicks the other in his ass. The more you kick the more the 'other' will rise. Your kicking is a proof of what the other claims. By hitting back strongly, you fuel it more. Take the recent Hizbollah and Israel stand off in Lebanon. Who gained? Obviously Hizbollah. Don't make any mistakes. If you want peace you will have to get it only by negotiation and converting the majority to support you. Remember, the only army that ever defeated US was the Chinese. Remember how they defeated them. It is 4 generation war, my dear gentlemen! you can't defeat the weak with your atom bombs any more. They can be killed but the country will not get defeated. If you want to understand this further read more on the Korean War and on the Vietnam. Both the places US got defeated. Not by the power of the other but by employing the 4GW of Mao.
Now question comes how this islamic terrorist groups grown ? In-fact most of the US people forget that US created this Al-Queda ans Taleban for using aginst the former soviet army in Afganistan. US and Paksitan backed them initail stage with arms and money. Now Al-queda goes against the US as b'coz they leave them after Afgarn war against Soviet. Isn't US and Pakistan both responsible for growing such terrorist organization ?
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Remember, the only army that ever defeated US was the Chinese. Remember how they defeated them. |
humm .. what about vietnam ?? ... they wasn't defeated US also ???since september the 11th, americans have been on our a**es. they seem to have a problem with muslims since they think tht all muslims are terrorists. FYI - no one ever tells (atleast I don't) ever blame chrisitians for carrying out the crusades in the past against the muslims. i have a lot of christian friends. it's time tht americans became a lit less selfish and power hungry. i saw on BBC the other day how americans are becoming obese. nice job keeping your country healthy Bush!!!!
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Let us face the situation. Neither Israel nor Russia for that matter neither would US will be able to beat the terrorists in their game. Terrorism is not a country or organization. It is a concept. It is normally against the one who kicks the other in his ******. The more you kick the more the 'other' will rise. Your kicking is a proof of what the other claims. By hitting back strongly, you fuel it more. Take the recent Hizbollah and Israel stand off in Lebanon. Who gained? Obviously Hizbollah. Don't make any mistakes. If you want peace you will have to get it only by negotiation and converting the majority to support you. Remember, the only army that ever defeated US was the Chinese. Remember how they defeated them. It is 4 generation war, my dear gentlemen! you can't defeat the weak with your atom bombs any more. They can be killed but the country will not get defeated. If you want to understand this further read more on the Korean War and on the Vietnam. Both the places US got defeated. Not by the power of the other but by employing the 4GW of Mao. |
No offense, but you made a few errors and I believe have drawn the wrong conclusions from the military philosophy of fourth generation warfare.
The Korean War and U.S. deafeats:
The Chinese never defeated the United States. The Korean War was and still is a war between North Korea and South Korea (the DPRK and the ROK). China and the Soviet Union fought for and assisted the North (the USSR in limited numbers, mostly advisors and pilots). The United Nations supported South Korea and called upon all UN members to support the South. The United Nations force was commanded by the United States, but a number of other nations, from Britain to Ethiopia, contributed significant forces. Fighting stopped with a cease-fire agreement in 1953. The border remained about where it was before the war started. Neither side won and the cease-fire remains in effect.
(If you want to argue the victory/defeat though, I would say that South Korea and the United Nations forces won because they held South Korea. The North’s objective was to conquer the peninsula. Thus in that sense they lost. China simply wanted to prevent North Korea from being conquered, which they did. Thus, like South Korea and the United Nations, they accomplished their objective, a win for them also. Legally no side has won because legally both sides are still at war.)
You can’t defeat the weak with your atom bombs anymore.
The United States never defeated any country using only atom bombs. The United States would have defeated Japan with or without them. (Dropping the bombs simply ended the war faster and with less bloodshed. I will not get into a discussion here about the morality or immorality of dropping the bombs, but will gladly argue the point in another thread if someone so desires to spar with me on that topic.)
Thus to say “anymore” is wrong since no country ever has.
Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW)
I will not go into a long treatise on fourth generation warfare, as you are at least familiar with the concept. Anyone else can read what has been written about this new warfare philosophy. (I say “new” because the term dates only to about 1989. However, many of the ideas behind 4GW strategies and tactics can be traced as far back as Spain during the Napoleonic Wars. However, as rshanthakumar implied, it was Mao Tse-Tung who many hold as the first man to codify most of these strategies and tactics in the modern era.)
I personally believe the Korean War to have been a predominantly Third Generation style of warfare, and I think history bares this out. Yes, the Chinese forces used many of the tactics it used against the Japanese and the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek. However, even these fall under 3GW, not 4GW. Any 4GW tactics were “side-shows” to the main event, so to speak.
I will concede that United States lost the Vietnam War in large part due to the 4GW strategies of the Viet Cong. The United States never lost a single battle during the entire war, but lost the war.
However, just because United States dominates 3GW does not mean that it cannot win a war involving 4GW. 4GW will never completely replace 3GW, and the United States can also adapt and use 4GW tactics and strategies in conjunction with 3GW.
Remember that even Mao used 3GW to finally defeat the Nationalists in China. This is often referred to as Phase III in a Maoist guerilla campaign, the use of conventional forces to defeat the remaining forces of a state.
Likewise, the final defeat of South Vietnam was a conventional campaign. 4GW convinced the United States to leave. But only after U.S. forces left were the communists able to overtake South Vietnam in a conventional campaign. 4GW did not win the war alone, but it was a powerful tool for doing so.
If anyone wishes to continue a discussion on 4GW in general, I started a new thread on that topic in the Philosophy and Religion forum. (4GW)
Respectfully,
MI donot want to side track from the topic of the thread. However, I would like to say that the chinese interfered in the war because the US troops crossed the 38th parallel that they are not supposed to. And they were forced to roll back. If you do not want to call it defeat, then let it be so.
Coming back to the topic. The major point made is that force is not going to be the solution for the terrorist problem. It has to be force + social + economic initiatives. Only then this can be solved.
As Ahmed says, the terrorism and unrest in the world is the making of the cold war. Unless US and the west brings an unconditional withdrawal of weapon sale to any country, peace will not be there in the world. It is VERY VERY IMPORTANT THAT US AND THE WEST STOPS SELLING WEAPONS.
The sad is that the terrorists get want they want. They want us to hate Islam if we do that the Islam start to hate us and the holy war can start. The people we see in media that burn flags and scream are just a small group. The average muslim just want to go yo work and come home to his family he don't care what the west world do. He just tired of be afraid for his life and kids.
Media only show that interesting not all the normal people. Stop be afraid and start to help the normal muslims and the terrorist wont have any more support.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| I donot want to side track from the topic of the thread. However, I would like to say that the chinese interfered in the war because the US troops crossed the 38th parallel that they are not supposed to. And they were forced to roll back. If you do not want to call it defeat, then let it be so. |
I'm working from memory, so forgive me if I make a mistake. Yes, China entered the war when UN forces crossed the 38th. (Obviously China did not want a democratic power on its border.) The Chinese invasion caught the UN forces by surprised and the retreat of the U.S. Eighth Army is the longest retreat in U.S. history. China even captured Seoul.
UN forces then recaptured Seoul and after MacArthur was relieved and replaced by Ridgeway, Ridgeway lead a successful counteroffensive that rolled the Chinese and North Korean forces a little north of the 38th, (inflicting heavy casualties upon the Chinese and the North Koreans in the process). After which a stalemate ensued.
Yes, the UN under US command lost the initial battles after Chinese intervention. But they counterattacked and preserved the South. Neither the US or the UN ever intended to conquer the North, just preserve the South. Thus the UN won. They accomplished their objective. The North intended to conquer the South. Thus the North lost.
| Quote: |
| Coming back to the topic. The major point made is that force is not going to be the solution for the terrorist problem. It has to be force + social + economic initiatives. Only then this can be solved. |
I agree with that.
| Quote: |
| As Ahmed says, the terrorism and unrest in the world is the making of the cold war. Unless US and the west brings an unconditional withdrawal of weapon sale to any country, peace will not be there in the world. It is VERY VERY IMPORTANT THAT US AND THE WEST STOPS SELLING WEAPONS. |
I disagree with that, though. The United States (and any power) is going to try to influence the world to behave in a way beneficial to it. Arms agreements are part of foreign policy. Not every nation has indigenous weapons manufacturing capability. Heck, some of the weapons in the U.S. inventory are of foreign design and/or manufacture. For example, the M240 used throughout the U.S. military (it replaced the M60 of Vietnam fame) is of Belgian design and manufacture. Furthermore it is used not only by the United States and Belgium, but also Britain, Australia and Canada.
Back to the point, arms agreements are part of foreign policy. The U.S. sells weapons and weapons systems to allies all over the world. The U.S. will use weapons sales as part of negotiations to get agreements with countries who may not be strong allies but whom we need for one reason or another. The United States (or any major power) may even provide weapons to a country at war just to keep the other country involved from winning. You'll never see any power suspending foreign weapons sales. It is too large of a negotiating chip and too influential a tool.
Respectfully,
M | ahamed wrote: |
| Now question comes how this islamic terrorist groups grown ? In-fact most of the US people forget that US created this Al-Queda ans Taleban for using aginst the former soviet army in Afganistan. US and Paksitan backed them initail stage with arms and money. Now Al-queda goes against the US as b'coz they leave them after Afgarn war against Soviet. Isn't US and Pakistan both responsible for growing such terrorist organization ? |
your absolutly right they created it but i think they did it so that they could start a war 20 years later, if you has seen the movie about why they killed john f kennedy they say that most of the ppl that have high rank in usa own a bit of some weapon creating companies and they wana make war so that their companies can earn more moneyTrue. Weapons sale is not such a straight forward thing that could be withdrawn over night. It requires conscious effort and careful planning but should be withdrawn.
What good is achieved when weapons are sold to countries in Africa? There are millions of people who are made to starve and die (Darfur, for example). This could have been easily avoided if countries withheld their weapon sale and say that they will sell only to legitimate countries and parties recognised by UN or some such other body. Some norm should be worked out and the sale of weapons of all kinds should be controlled.
That is what could reduce the nature of problems that we are facing in the form of terrorism today.
Everyone is discriminated against - we just don't understand each other. The image of Islam has been distorted and stained by the terrorists, so to people who are just catching the media coverage get the idea that all Muslims support this.
I think that the Muslim community could do considerably more in speaking out against terrorism, but that's just my opinion.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Everyone is discriminated against - we just don't understand each other. The image of Islam has been distorted and stained by the terrorists, so to people who are just catching the media coverage get the idea that all Muslims support this.
I think that the Muslim community could do considerably more in speaking out against terrorism, but that's just my opinion. |
yes
the image of islam has been distorted by the terrorists.
but i think muslims ,at least in my country
try to do everything to condemn the every type of terrorism
we say
"a muslim can not be terrorist and a terrorist can not be muslim"
http://en.fgulen.com/content/view/1052/14/Terrorist Ist In Everyone Of You No Matter Who You're and What Religion That You Believe..
the english and the jews are the terrorists. so are the traitors.
WAKE UP FROM THE HIPNOTISM!!!!!!!
| skinnykhalida wrote: |
the english and the jews are the terrorists. so are the traitors.
WAKE UP FROM THE HIPNOTISM!!!!!!! |
why not americans ? 
you can not blame a nation 
I also feel that more troops in Iraq would allow current forces to accomplish their current tasks easier. I believe that main concern to adding more troops is that it would reduce the ability of the U.S. to respond to other situations in the world (humanitarian efforts like natural disaster relief in other countries (and our own), possible Iranian or Korean aggression, maybe aid in the Darfur region, who knows). Not only would we have more troops tied up in Iraq (and Afghanistan), but those troops would be in non-combat operations as support forces, they would not be actively training for conflict and as such would not be able to respond as well to a crisis. The other (related) concern is recruitment, if we send more troops to Iraq and wish to maintain our ability to respond to crisis situations, we would have to increase the amount of troops we have, which is unlikely to occur unless a draft is enacted.
Which is an entirely different discussion (perhaps it should be started on another thread).
As for the Barker Panel, I agree that it is mostly a way for politicians to pat each other on the backs, bash Bush, and gain air-time. Even so, I think some of the recommendations (especially the ones we are already trying to implement) could help lead Iraq in a positive direction. As far as "failure", it's not yet a failure, and the damage done can be at least be relieved if not somewhat reversed. It will, however, become a failure if we abandon Iraq.
_________________
"This is another of your odd notions," said the Prefect, who had the fashion of calling everything "odd" that was beyond his comprehension, and thus lived amid an absolute legion of "oddities".
| Cyberius wrote: |
I also feel that more troops in Iraq would allow current forces to accomplish their current tasks easier. I believe that main concern to adding more troops is that it would reduce the ability of the U.S. to respond to other situations in the world (humanitarian efforts like natural disaster relief in other countries (and our own), possible Iranian or Korean aggression, maybe aid in the Darfur region, who knows). Not only would we have more troops tied up in Iraq (and Afghanistan), but those troops would be in non-combat operations as support forces, they would not be actively training for conflict and as such would not be able to respond as well to a crisis. The other (related) concern is recruitment, if we send more troops to Iraq and wish to maintain our ability to respond to crisis situations, we would have to increase the amount of troops we have, which is unlikely to occur unless a draft is enacted.
Which is an entirely different discussion (perhaps it should be started on another thread).
As for the Barker Panel, I agree that it is mostly a way for politicians to pat each other on the backs, bash Bush, and gain air-time. Even so, I think some of the recommendations (especially the ones we are already trying to implement) could help lead Iraq in a positive direction. As far as "failure", it's not yet a failure, and the damage done can be at least be relieved if not somewhat reversed. It will, however, become a failure if we abandon Iraq.
_________________
"This is another of your odd notions," said the Prefect, who had the fashion of calling everything "odd" that was beyond his comprehension, and thus lived amid an absolute legion of "oddities". |
Let us face the truth. We are losing the war in Iraq and we will continue to lose if we continue to stay back. The lesson in Iraq has not made us to refrain from involving in Afghanistan. What needs to be done is not stay there and fight. Hit, clear the place and come back for the local government to ensure that the terrorists are no more there. If they come back, we will hit again. And our intelligence would do the rest of the work of monitoring them. Staying there is costly and we the terrain is unknown. We are losing lots of people every day.
The lessons we learnt in Iraq early on when Saddam was supported did not help us any bit with Pakistan today. Another dictator and another supporting arm. I wish we take firm action against Pakistan and stop supplying weaponry to them. One dictator is no different from the other. We have seen what happens with Saddam; make no mistakes it could repeat with Musharraf.
