This is a list of Al Queda attacks since Jan 2002
AND
it shows what countries have AQ bases of operation in them. (Conntries colored white)
The general consensus of the Democrats here in the US is that AQ terror only comes from Afghanistan. Sure, there are exceptions - one honorable one is Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
But he was rejected by his state party because of his firm stance in the War on Terror. He's not the mainstream of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi is.
Read about it here
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11052006/postopinion/editorials/just_afghanistan__editorials_.htm I wonder what this map would look like if the tables were turned?
If this map were documenting the USA bases around the planet (marked in blue, of course), and the places that the US has bombed, it would probably look very similar, with the major difference of being much larger quantities of civilian deaths and much larger quantities of the "little stars" that note attacks. Also, it would be a worldwide map, as opposed to a middle eastern one.
It pays to realize that Al Quaeda is doing what they feel is right, attacking a world that they feel is infringing on their rights, just as the USA is.
Pointing at a terrorist group and saying "look at all the places that they have shot at!" begs the question: How do we look under the same microscope?
Lol, good question, except we haven't started the fighting, our attacks have always been in self-defense, or in defense of a country that can't defend itself.
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
| Also, it would be a worldwide map, as opposed to a middle eastern one. |
I'm sure everyone in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Pacific islands would be surprised to learn that they were all part of the Middle East. 
Respectfully,
MHm no the Netherlands haven't been attacked. Yet.
They do have a base of operations in here, but I don't think that thatis true..
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
I
It pays to realize that Al Quaeda is doing what they feel is right, attacking a world that they feel is infringing on their rights, just as the USA is. |
Murderers often claim they're doing what they 'feel is right'. Does that make it right? Since when is the systematic destruction of anything non-Islamic "the right thing to do"??
And what, exactally, does the US attack other countries for? Oh, that's right, to get them to convert to Christianity. Yeah. Yeah, that's it.
| Quote: |
Pointing at a terrorist group and saying "look at all the places that they have shot at!" begs the question: How do we look under the same microscope? |
I notice you support the terrorists quite often. Any particular 'reason', or are you just 'being fair'??? | LeviticusMky wrote: |
| places that the US has bombed, it would probably look very similar, with the major difference of being much larger quantities of civilian deaths and much larger quantities of the "little stars" that note attacks. |
That would depend on how far back in history it reaches. Go back far enough to include the WWII, and the USA certainly has the highest civilian kills of any country. (If for no other reason than the napalm bombings of Japan (which killed far more people than the nukes did)). | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| This is a list of Al Queda attacks since Jan 2002 |
That's a simplistic generalization. First of all it's all but a centralized organisation anymore. Secondly, quite a few of those have nothing or barely anything to do with Al Qaeda.
Take the Moscow Theater hostage which was done by Chechen separatists. Almost all dead hostages were due to the gas the Russians used during the raid.
And if you look at the most of the 'real' Al Qaeda attacks, the reason is most of the time Iraq or Israel. Without those conflicts they wouldn't have happened. | Quote: |
| That's a simplistic generalization. First of all it's all but a centralized organisation anymore. Secondly, quite a few of those have nothing or barely anything to do with Al Qaeda. |
The terrorist attacks still happened, and most likely were at least influenced by Al Qaeda, and even if they weren't - who cares? They're still attacking.
| Quote: |
| And if you look at the most of the 'real' Al Qaeda attacks, the reason is most of the time Iraq or Israel. Without those conflicts they wouldn't have happened |
Alright, I know they're upset with Iraq. (Forgive us for trying to bring peace and democracy to the rest of the world, how horrible of us). But anyways, what is so wrong with Israel? It's mere existence is the cause of the conflict - it doesn't even have to do anything. So what do you recommend we do? Abolish the state of Israel and allow the terrorists to win? | Bondings wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | This is a list of Al Queda attacks since Jan 2002 |
That's a simplistic generalization. First of all it's all but a centralized organisation anymore. Secondly, quite a few of those have nothing or barely anything to do with Al Qaeda. |
Yes. You're correct. But the map legend does say, "Major Islamist terror attacks since Jan. 1, 2002." S3nd K3eys simply misrepresented the map.
| Quote: |
| And if you look at the most of the 'real' Al Qaeda attacks, the reason is most of the time Iraq or Israel. Without those conflicts they wouldn't have happened. |
That may be true. However, all military attacks are due to some political agenda. Japan attacked the United States because of the threat it posed to Japan's goals of a larger Pacific empire, for example. Does that mean the United States' policy in 1940 was wrong?
So do you believe that to end terrorism against the U.S. all the United States needs to do is abandon Iraq and Israel? Where do you stop surrendering U.S. interests in exchange for security from terrorism or even other nations?
Bin Laden wants to establish a new caliphate. Do you abandon Saudi Arabia and let it fall? Do you pull the U.S. navy back and allow the Persian Gulf (and thus a quarter of the world's oil supply) sea lanes to be at the mercy of the states there, who in the past have been at war and have mined those sea lanes?
If we abandon our allies Israel or Saudi Arabia, what message do we send to other allies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan who are threatened by others against whom they cannot successfully defend themselves?
Respectfully,
MHow was the attack on Iraq "in self defence"?
^ Do you really want to get into a discussion of that?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| How was the attack on Iraq "in self defence"? |
Forgive me but I may have missed it. To whom in the thread are you responding?
Respectfully,
MStar Wars Fanatic said,
| Quote: |
| except we haven't started the fighting, our attacks have always been in self-defense, or in defense of a country that can't defend itself. |
Iraq clearly wasn't self defence. Iraq was as part of a neo-conservative agenda to use war for US interests - the consequences of this which are all too plain to see right now. What they have done is guarantee that these terrorism will continue into the future.
Last edited by nopaniers on Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:33 am; edited 1 time in total ^ And let me guess, you're one of those who says that the mastermind behind 9/11 was the US government.
| nopaniers wrote: |
Star Wars Fanatic said,
| Quote: | | except we haven't started the fighting, our attacks have always been in self-defense, or in defense of a country that can't defend itself. |
Iraq clearly wasn't self defence. Iraq was as part of a neo-conservative agenda to use war for US interests - the consequences of this which are all too plain to see right now. What they have done is guarantee that these terrorism will continue into the future. |
Okay. Thanks. I missed it.
I can't argue that one.
R,
M | nopaniers wrote: |
Star Wars Fanatic said,
| Quote: | | except we haven't started the fighting, our attacks have always been in self-defense, or in defense of a country that can't defend itself. |
Iraq clearly wasn't self defence. Iraq was as part of a neo-conservative agenda to use war for US interests - the consequences of this which are all too plain to see right now. What they have done is guarantee that these terrorism will continue into the future. |
It isn't self-defense when a nation invades another country after 9/11? While you are right in some ways, it was not Iraq that was the cause of the attacks, they still were a stronghold for terrorists. And we were defending the Iraq Citizens whom Saddam was killing. | Star Wars Fanatic wrote: |
| nopaniers wrote: | Star Wars Fanatic said,
| Quote: | | except we haven't started the fighting, our attacks have always been in self-defense, or in defense of a country that can't defend itself. |
Iraq clearly wasn't self defence. Iraq was as part of a neo-conservative agenda to use war for US interests - the consequences of this which are all too plain to see right now. What they have done is guarantee that these terrorism will continue into the future. |
It isn't self-defense when a nation invades another country after 9/11? While you are right in some ways, it was not Iraq that was the cause of the attacks, they still were a stronghold for terrorists. And we were defending the Iraq Citizens whom Saddam was killing. |
Move over, leader of a sovereign state!
The US forces are here to protect your people from you.
We know that sovereign state means that you are free to run your internal affairs as you please, but we're coming in anyway.
(We also notice you have a lot of oil.)
Sorry, just realized I've drifted too far off-topic. | Quote: |
| It isn't self-defense when a nation invades another country after 9/11? |
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor was it a "stronghold for terrorism". It, sadly, is now. | tidruG wrote: |
| Star Wars Fanatic wrote: | | nopaniers wrote: | Star Wars Fanatic said,
| Quote: | | except we haven't started the fighting, our attacks have always been in self-defense, or in defense of a country that can't defend itself. |
Iraq clearly wasn't self defence. Iraq was as part of a neo-conservative agenda to use war for US interests - the consequences of this which are all too plain to see right now. What they have done is guarantee that these terrorism will continue into the future. |
It isn't self-defense when a nation invades another country after 9/11? While you are right in some ways, it was not Iraq that was the cause of the attacks, they still were a stronghold for terrorists. And we were defending the Iraq Citizens whom Saddam was killing. |
Move over, leader of a sovereign state!
The US forces are here to protect your people from you.
We know that sovereign state means that you are free to run your internal affairs as you please, but we're coming in anyway.
(We also notice you have a lot of oil.)
Sorry, just realized I've drifted too far off-topic. |
Lol, yea, he is allowed to run his country his own way, but when the people of his country are afraid of him, they are tortured and killed every day, when they live in fear, I think that the leader of that country has gone a little far, don't you?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | It isn't self-defense when a nation invades another country after 9/11? |
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor was it a "stronghold for terrorism". It, sadly, is now. |
Yes, it was, and yes it is, when the leader if a country supports terrorism, and is a leader of the terrorist network, and does nothing about terrorists in his country, that means his country is a "stronghold for terrorism." | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | It isn't self-defense when a nation invades another country after 9/11? |
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor was it a "stronghold for terrorism". It, sadly, is now. |
Still in denial I see. | Quote: |
| Yes, it was, and yes it is, when the leader if a country supports terrorism, and is a leader of the terrorist network, and does nothing about terrorists in his country, that means his country is a "stronghold for terrorism." |
I'm speechless. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Yes, it was, and yes it is, when the leader if a country supports terrorism, and is a leader of the terrorist network, and does nothing about terrorists in his country, that means his country is a "stronghold for terrorism." |
I'm speechless. |
Common sense does that to some people. | nopaniers wrote: |
| Quote: | | Yes, it was, and yes it is, when the leader if a country supports terrorism, and is a leader of the terrorist network, and does nothing about terrorists in his country, that means his country is a "stronghold for terrorism." |
I'm speechless. |
I just wanted to post and clarify, I was talking about Saddam, and when he was leader of the country, while their are still terrorist cells operating in Iraq, they are un-wanted and being cleaned out. So while it is still sort of a "stronghold for terrorism," it is fast becoming just another place where terrorists won't feel safe and have to hide their identity, instead of openly wearing it.Oh... I understand now, you mistyped. Can happen to anyone. For a minute there I thought you were claiming Saddam was head of Al Qaeda.
But it's not true anyway. I'm guessing you're referring to Ansar Al Islam. It's a little bit ironic to claim that Saddam should deal with them, when they were in the Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq. These areas were not under Saddam's control. In fact, they suffered major defeats in the late 1990's at the hands of the Kurds. They were not fans of Saddam, and Saddam was not fans of them.
To quote the US, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
| Quote: |
| According to the CIA, detainee information and captured document exploitation indicate that the regime [of Saddam Hussein] was aware of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qa'ida presence in northeastern Iraq, but the groups' presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them. The CIA stated that information from senior Ansar al-Islam detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam's regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it. |
They concluded:
| Quote: |
| Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group. |
The numbers of attacks in Iraq are not going down. This despite various US politicians saying that the violence is about to end, something which they have been saying for years now.
For a more up to date graph, go HERE (Wki link, so take with a grain of salt. If you have better data, please share.)
This has data to July 06 and indicates a continuing increase in attacks. Thanks HoboPelican. Mine did end a little bit early.
My country India is on the map with Mumbai getting attacked.
Evn if Alqaeda had small roles in some blasts, they are the major suppliers of Arms and Ammunition and money too which altogethe makes them the biggest culprit
| Quote: |
| One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter |
I doubt Iraq under Saddam was a stronghold. The larger terrorist groups such as Hezbollah that operate around Iraq are funded by governments like Iran.
Remember the iraq/iran war?A map of US bombings also looks similar.
My country is in the list too. But what hurts me is the phrase "Major islamic terror attack". It's not Islamic terrorism. Islam is never connected with terrorism at all. It may be called as Al-Queda terrorism or some thing similar. Islam deals with peace. majority of Muslims around the world (including me) does not support any kind of terrorism. In fact we hate it.
What would you say if I call Christian Terrorism for US-Bombings or Jew-Terrorism for Israeli attacks ? I know that these two communities has nothing to do with what the people belong (or claim to belong) to this communities. Same is the case of Islam
Because, almost all the terrorist attacks are by muslims, while the "US Bombings" people who did that aren't Christian, and yes you could call the Israeli attacks Jew attacks, because most, if not all, Israelis are Jews. Also, you can't say terrorism, because the purpose of terrorism is to bring terror, not to defend themselves.
| Star Wars Fanatic wrote: |
| Because, almost all the terrorist attacks are by muslims, while the "US Bombings" people who did that aren't Christian, and yes you could call the Israeli attacks Jew attacks, because most, if not all, Israelis are Jews. Also, you can't say terrorism, because the purpose of terrorism is to bring terror, not to defend themselves. |
The US Bombings are almost certainly overwhelmingly carried out by Christians, surely there is no real doubt about that is there ?
I will not engage with the Israeli-Jew point, other than to say that repeated invasions of a neighbouring state (Lebanon) for the supposed reason of a couple of kidnappings and a handful of casualtes from conflict over illegally held land may not be terrorism (I would argue that it actually IS), but it is most certainly NOT self defence and part of the purpose is undeniably to terrorise. One can easily demonstrate this by considering some facts.
I'll let Chomsky give the details, since he is Jewish and less susciptible to the standard charge of being anti-semitic when pointing out Israeli outrages:
| Quote: |
| The standard Western version is that the July 2006 invasion was justified by legitimate outrage over capture of two Israeli soldiers at the border. The posture is cynical fraud. The US and Israel, and the West generally, have little objection to capture of soldiers, or even to the far more severe crime of kidnapping civilians (or of course to killing civilians). That had been Israeli practice in Lebanon for many years, and no one ever suggested that Israel should therefore be invaded and largely destroyed. Western cynicism was revealed with even more dramatic clarity as the current upsurge of violence erupted after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, on June 25. That too elicited huge outrage, and support for Israel's sharp escalation of its murderous assault on Gaza. The scale is reflected in casualties: in June, 36 Palestinian civilians were killed in Gaza; in July, the numbers more than quadrupled to over 170, dozens of them children. The posture of outrage was, again, cynical fraud, as demonstrated dramatically, and conclusively, by the reaction to Israel's kidnapping of two Gaza civilians, the Muamar brothers, one day before, on June 24. They disappeared into Israel's prison system, joining the hundreds of others imprisoned without charge -- hence kidnapped, as are many of those sentenced on dubious charges. There was some brief and dismissive mention of the kidnapping of the Muamar brothers, but no reaction, because such crimes are considered legitimate when carried out by “our side.” The idea that this crime would justify a murderous assault on Israel would have been regarded as a reversion to Nazism. |
Regards
ChrisNone of my countries is white, but I have heard something about him wanting to attack Norway (where I live), I’m not sure if it’s just rumours. But Spain is grey, so why have they attacked there?? They can then attack any country s nobody can be safe.
I havent read all of the posts because some do repeat themsleves and perhaps this one does to. I am tired of America defending its corner by saying that we didnt start it and therefore we are entitles to attack after such as 9/11.
The USA have been attching indiscrimently for the best part of the 20th century with inclasdestine insurgencies into all parts of the world. It doesnt take an Einstein to work out that eventually somebody is going to get p****d of with it and actually fight back.
I am Scottish and white and the only axe I have to grind is that I am fed up with the American basis in Britain, I am fed up with them using our airports for their death missions without telling us they are doing it(including my local airport of Prestwick).
If the UK decided to react to this illegal use of our homeland would the Americans say, why are you attcking us what have we done, we didnt start it?
Get real America and get out of where ever you are in the World (that goes for my own country of Britain who sheepishly follow the USA and who have becaome targets because of it.
| honestman wrote: |
| The USA have been attching indiscrimently for the best part of the 20th century with inclasdestine insurgencies into all parts of the world. It doesnt take an Einstein to work out that eventually somebody is going to get p****d of with it and actually fight back. |
Read the rules, little fella. Post proof or sit down and be quiet please.
| Quote: |
If the UK decided to react to this illegal use of our homeland would the Americans say, why are you attcking us what have we done, we didnt start it? |
Your UK doesn't have a problem with it or they wouldn't be allowing it.
| Quote: |
| Get real America and get out of where ever you are in the World (that goes for my own country of Britain who sheepishly follow the USA and who have becaome targets because of it. |
I think you should get your own house straight before you go off on mine. Your country has had a lot of problems, and blaming them on US is childish at best. I would love to pull out of several countries that we carry, and let them fail. Because they're hypocritcal, kind of like you, claiming you hate us and we are murders etc while we protect you and keep your nasty little attitudes afloat.
Yes. Childish at best. | Bikerman wrote: |
The US Bombings are almost certainly overwhelmingly carried out by Christians, surely there is no real doubt about that is there ? |
What US Bombings are you talking about? If your saying that in now, you are wrong, some are Catholic, some are Muslim even...
And if you aren't, I fail to see why that relates to this topic. | Star Wars Fanatic wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
The US Bombings are almost certainly overwhelmingly carried out by Christians, surely there is no real doubt about that is there ? |
What US Bombings are you talking about? If your saying that in now, you are wrong, some are Catholic,
|
And Catholics aren't Christians?
I do, however, agree. Religion has no part in deciding who will execute bombing missions. (Least aways, it's not supposed to.)My country is on this map but hidden by explanations informations. My country is Cameroon in Africa
So? Did it have a major attack since 2002? Cause I don't recall anything.
I just looked at the map, some of those attacks are not Al Qaeda!
For example the theater attack in Russia...
Yes, that was already noted, by several people, S3ndK3ys only said Al Queda, if you notice, the map correctly says Islamic.
| Star Wars Fanatic wrote: |
What US Bombings are you talking about? If your saying that in now, you are wrong, some are Catholic, some are Muslim even...
And if you aren't, I fail to see why that relates to this topic. |
Well, since you raised the issue the relevance is up to you.
OK .. the US/UK carried out bombing comprising about 88,500 tons of bombs in over 109,000 sorties flown by a total of 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft.
The pilots were, as you say, mixed in religious faith but 80% of US citizens report themselves as Christian so I do not think it is a silly generalisation to say, as I did, that the overwhelming majority of US bombing was carried out by Christians.
Chris. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Star Wars Fanatic wrote: | What US Bombings are you talking about? If your saying that in now, you are wrong, some are Catholic, some are Muslim even...
And if you aren't, I fail to see why that relates to this topic. |
Well, since you raised the issue the relevance is up to you.
OK .. the US/UK carried out bombing comprising about 88,500 tons of bombs in over 109,000 sorties flown by a total of 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft.
The pilots were, as you say, mixed in religious faith but 80% of US citizens report themselves as Christian so I do not think it is a silly generalisation to say, as I did, that the overwhelming majority of US bombing was carried out by Christians.
Chris. |
Relax Brits and Americans, Chris is right, if you look at U.S. bombings the majority are carried out by Christians. (Although many other religions and faiths are represented in our militaries too.)
The point of course is that U.S. and British bombings as in the example above were not carried out in the name of Christendom. Some may draw that conclusion if you wish, but I think it insupportable. As Chris said, "the relevance is up to you."
I understand how desertwind may feel hurt at the phrase "Islamic terror attack" and would like us all to distinguish the terrorists in some other manner. Unfortunately, most of the terrorists in question use the Islamic faith as a vital part of the rationale for their activity. (I don't believe the Chechen rebels do. I may be wrong for I am by no means very knowledgeable about that conflict, but I think their struggle with Russia to be a political one not based in religious matters.)
So for better or worse, I cannot imagine a time when the activities of groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah will not be associated with Islam simply because they so often invoke it to justify their activities.
Respectfully,
Mi am so happy that my country is not in the map
it is so terrible
| Star Wars Fanatic wrote: |
| Yes, that was already noted, by several people, S3ndK3ys only said Al Queda, if you notice, the map correctly says Islamic. |
Sorry, I still (errantly) lable Al Quada as somehow responsible for all Radical Islamic Muslims.
A key difference in the Christians bombing countries and Radical Islamic Muslims doing it, as you're aware, is Christians do it largely for defense, safety, or defending and/or liberating weaker countries from dictators.
Radical Islamic Muslims do it to spread Jihad.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
Your UK doesn't have a problem with it or they wouldn't be allowing it. |
Something to remember here is what the "people" think and what the government act on are often two very different things. Most of the people I know aren't happy with the fact that it comes accross that Blair is trying to suck up to Bush, and even less where happy with the decision to deploy British soldiers in a war against terrorism with the terrorist problems we have on our own doorsteps (and coming from N.Ireland this is something I have issues with).
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
I think you should get your own house straight before you go off on mine. Your country has had a lot of problems, and blaming them on US is childish at best. I would love to pull out of several countries that we carry, and let them fail. Because they're hypocritcal, kind of like you, claiming you hate us and we are murders etc while we protect you and keep your nasty little attitudes afloat.
|
Can you back that up with examples off where you have kept us afloat? Of situation in which the UK has needed the aid of the USA to not sink into a sesspool of "insert something appropriatly nasty as I couldn't think of a word"
In particular I am interested in when the USA started to "carry" the UK, and any off the home grown problems we have that can't be linked to the US.
Just curious, as you pointed out you need sources to validate your claims so I'm interested in seeing yours. And if you can make them less biased than normal it would rock. | Soulfire wrote: |
Alright, I know they're upset with Iraq. (Forgive us for trying to bring peace and democracy to the rest of the world, how horrible of us). |
yea..you brought some peace there..it is more caotic there than it ever was.there is no authority no security no food nothing.except armed americans killing or ligt armed gangs killing the civillians every ***** day.
| Soulfire wrote: |
But anyways, what is so wrong with Israel? |
what is not wrong with israel? they have been torturin palestinians every day.because of them palestinians are not alive .they are just walking down the street thinkin how they can get revenge as they don t own a life
anymore...israel is almost why al-queid exists.. | desertwind wrote: |
What would you say if I call Christian Terrorism for US-Bombings or Jew-Terrorism for Israeli attacks ? I know that these two communities has nothing to do with what the people belong (or claim to belong) to this communities. |
ohh ..they don t mind..as long as they are wealthy the world can call them anything..right s3? | felisleo wrote: |
| desertwind wrote: |
What would you say if I call Christian Terrorism for US-Bombings or Jew-Terrorism for Israeli attacks ? I know that these two communities has nothing to do with what the people belong (or claim to belong) to this communities. |
ohh ..they don t mind..as long as they are wealthy the world can call them anything..right s3? |
It's not money. It's action. Christians don't blow up babies in the name of Jesus. If they did, the 'moderate' christians would be so far up their ass denouncing it you'd be able to see their teeth.
So if it quacks like a duck...
If a religion is being hijacked by extremists and those so called moderates won't do anything about it, than it's all fair game.
Perhaps the terrorism and extremists are more interesting and therefore more "news worthy"; they have a greater shock value, more entertainment per unit time...
For Example:
When Jill Carroll (writer for the Christian Science Monitor in Baghdad) was kidnapped, many Islamic leaders called for her release, and risked their own safety to state that this action was not in the interest of Islam. Many Islamic media outlets also called for her release.
see:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/carroll/carroll_statements.html#group
I only heard of these by reading her statement after being released, in which she also mentioned that her captors were not overtly violent to her, and that she gained a much larger appreciation for their culture through her experience. This I didn't hear in any detail in the evening news, or read about in the paper, I had to search for it online. (though Reporters sans Frontieres, and the Christian Science Monitor) | Montressor wrote: |
Perhaps the terrorism and extremists are more interesting and therefore more "news worthy"; they have a greater shock value, more entertainment per unit time...
|
I agree, but... with the amount of non Muslims talking about it these days, the news agencies would definately pick up on any major events. I've heard both Fox and CNN bring it up on many occasions. They will get ratings from it, so that's not a reason. People right now want and need to hear about Muslims speaking out against terrorists who are trying (and from what I can see, largely succeeding in their attempt) to take over Islam.
I'm not doubting that there are some Muslims doing it, I'm doubting that enough of them are. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
the news agencies would definately pick up on any major events. I've heard both Fox and CNN bring it up on many occasions. They will get ratings from it, so that's not a reason. People right now want and need to hear about Muslims speaking out against terrorists who are trying (and from what I can see, largely succeeding in their attempt) to take over Islam.
I'm not doubting that there are some Muslims doing it, I'm doubting that enough of them are. |
Do you ever wonder what the News Networks did before they could devote a significant portion of their already too small actual news to the "War on Terror"? I can't seem to remember if it was important, maybe they devoted their time to covering court cases (like O.J.)?
Forgive me if I sound overly sarcastic and cynical, but they are companies that have to turn a profit on what they sell, and their currently selling outrage against Islam, and against our own politicians for their apparent provocation of this sleeping giant of terrorism. Whether the news agency is supposedly liberal or conservative, they both have an abundance of news now and don't have to try hard to get it, why change?
Also, there is the fact that speaking against the radical Islamic element can lead to great personal danger. It's easy enough to be an American sitting at home criticizing the terrorists anonymously, but it's entirely different when they live a few streets down from you, and know where your kids go to school. | Montressor wrote: |
Forgive me if I sound overly sarcastic and cynical, but they are companies that have to turn a profit on what they sell
|
Yes. I covered that. It's called ratings.
| Quote: |
| Also, there is the fact that speaking against the radical Islamic element can lead to great personal danger. |
I have also covered that before.
| Quote: |
It's easy enough to be an American sitting at home criticizing the terrorists anonymously, but it's entirely different when they live a few streets down from you, and know where your kids go to school. |
So where are the American Muslims? Like the one in another topic in Oklahoma? He got banned for speaking out. Right here in America where he should be able to practice his religion any (civil) way he wants. But the community around him banned him. What kind of message does that send?
unfortunately it sends a rather negative one, but declaring that they aren't trying hard enough doesn't help the situation. Stating that there are difficulties to overcome, and that we can understand them and respect them can perhaps provide more encouragement than telling them off.
In other words, we agree on the topic, but hold incompatible philosophies, and therefore ideas about what should be done...
| Montressor wrote: |
| unfortunately it sends a rather negative one, but declaring that they aren't trying hard enough doesn't help the situation. |
Stating the truth doesn't help? The truth may hurt, but that's no reason to hide it or downplay it's importance is it?
| Quote: |
| Stating that there are difficulties to overcome, and that we can understand them and respect them can perhaps provide more encouragement than telling them off. |
The problem is that I don't understand them. WHY won't they speak out? Afraid? Don't care? They actually support it?
Those are the only three reasons I can think of.
And I only tell them off when they lie or deny the truth. | S3nd K3ys wrote: |
The problem is that I don't understand them. WHY won't they speak out? Afraid? Don't care? They actually support it?
Those are the only three reasons I can think of. |
There are always more reasons then we can think of. And yes, we can never truly understand them, just as I can never truly understand you, or even myself (the word is grok). Maybe you're right, and all Islamic people support the violence, are afraid, or don't care. I, however, chose to believe that compassion, logic and reason etc, are common characteristics of all the human race, just as malice, contempt, distrust and all other unsightly characteristics are part of us all. To simply state that they can only be afraid, ambivalent, or supportive is rather a simplification. Just as I cannot judge you on the proportion of compassion in your character because I don't know you, we cannot be judgmental towards them based on our culture of freedom and personal liberty since their culture is more restrictive in those senses, but should instead demonstrate to them the benefits of our culture and attempt to facilitate change. That is what the radicals are fighting against, they are the beneficiaries or the hired hands of the beneficiaries (not just monetary beneficiaries, but beneficiaries of power both theological and sociological) of the current culture and society, and are resisting the change that will reduce their position.
Even the ordinary rank and file Muslim benefits from the current system, after all they end up in paradise, while the infidels end up in a less pleasurable place. They can derive enjoyment from this and can claim theological superiority rather than commiserate over their inferiority of wealth. Not only that, but through terrorism the Arab world has gained significant recognition and attention from the developed nations, both negative and positive attention. We're investing huge amounts of money in the middle east, not just to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, but in support of our allies in the region (Egypt and Saudi Arabia for example), and Iran and Syria have gained power now that we're pondering giving them concessions for their aid in Iraq. | Montressor wrote: |
| To simply state that they can only be afraid, ambivalent, or supportive is rather a simplification. |
I didn't say those were the only reasons. I said those were the only reasons I could think of.
Have you been hanging around Con too much?? You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Montressor wrote: | | To simply state that they can only be afraid, ambivalent, or supportive is rather a simplification. |
I didn't say those were the only reasons. I said those were the only reasons I could think of.
Have you been hanging around Con too much?? You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
|
In that case, I'm glad that I've extended the reasons that you can think of
| Montressor wrote: |
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | Montressor wrote: | | To simply state that they can only be afraid, ambivalent, or supportive is rather a simplification. |
I didn't say those were the only reasons. I said those were the only reasons I could think of.
Have you been hanging around Con too much?? You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
|
In that case, I'm glad that I've extended the reasons that you can think of
|
Sorry, I must have missed it. What other reason? Everything you said seems to fit nicely into one or more of the three categories I listed; Afraid, don't care, support. (Your one-sentance reply makes it hard to read.)
sorry for the lack of clarity, I was trying to say that I expanded the actual reasons not that I had provided more reasons.
For instance, declaring that they (the Muslims that are moderate, but are not speaking out against the radicals) are afraid is only partially true. They may be afraid because they love their culture, or family and are fearful of losing either. In this we cannot condemn them because their culture values something more than we value liberty. We may say, "give me liberty or give me death" but they may see submission to the radical element better than their own deaths. We must, and are trying to, show them the values that our culture has, but cannot force them to change their culture. You cannot force anyone to accept liberty. That is where we are at a disadvantage, for it is possible to force people to accept bondage.
In essence, they may be afraid, or they may be ambivalent, and in being so they are essentially supportive, but they are so for reasons that cannot be purely shown in a statement like
| Quote: |
WHY won't they speak out? Afraid? Don't care? They actually support it?
|
I guess this issue as Mr. Montressor has put it rather succintly, is a very complex one:
| Montressor wrote: |
In this we cannot condemn them because their culture values something more than we value liberty. We may say, "give me liberty or give me death" but they may see submission to the radical element better than their own deaths. We must, and are trying to, show them the values that our culture has, but cannot force them to change their culture. You cannot force anyone to accept liberty. That is where we are at a disadvantage, for it is possible to force people to accept bondage.
In essence, they may be afraid, or they may be ambivalent, and in being so they are essentially supportive, but they are so for reasons that cannot be purely shown in a statement like
|
As we go about our daily lives in a free and democratic country, we enjoy the fruits of labour that our forefathers have laid down for us. Albeit that, many Muslims are caught up in estranged regions (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) who do not have access to such a privilege.
In my point of view, they're political, economical and sociological factors are all brought into play when one says that the moderate Muslims are 'afraid' to speak out against the radicals.
Surely if one were to speak out against the radicals in Iraq for example, a certain degree of fear for one's life would be existent.
I agree that we cannot force a person to change his/her culture. But can we not then at the very least, point the person to another culture that perhaps, holds the answer to a better future?
Herein lies the big question mark.
Anyways, this is an interesting thread. Perhaps somebody out there would like to delve into this country called Singapore. Examine how it is able to so successfully integrate the many races and religions and how inter-religious tolerance has been sustained for 40 odd years and counting. I guess that truly is a success story worth learning from. thats a lie. whoever said that alqaeda did that? or hezbollah or whatever?! obviously it was america, israel, and europe, the 3 devil lands
| skinnykhalida wrote: |
| thats a lie. whoever said that alqaeda did that? or hezbollah or whatever?! obviously it was america, israel, and europe, the 3 devil lands |
"Hi. I'm skinnykhalida, and I don't know anything about history."
Honestly, dude, wake up and smell the gun powder.No my country is not on that map.... Mine was the one that got attacked on September 11th, 2001.
| Quote: |
| Yes, it was, and yes it is, when the leader if a country supports terrorism, and is a leader of the terrorist network, and does nothing about terrorists in his country, that means his country is a "stronghold for terrorism." |
In that case why is Pakistan still being supported by US?My country is luckily not on this map. There actually wasn't any terrorist attacks in Central Europe and I hope there won't be any in future. I'm happy that I feel safe in my own Country.
Yes, my country is inside this map.
My country is Malaysia, Malaysia Boleh...
| LeviticusMky wrote: |
I wonder what this map would look like if the tables were turned?
If this map were documenting the USA bases around the planet (marked in blue, of course), and the places that the US has bombed, it would probably look very similar, with the major difference of being much larger quantities of civilian deaths and much larger quantities of the "little stars" that note attacks. Also, it would be a worldwide map, as opposed to a middle eastern one...
...Pointing at a terrorist group and saying "look at all the places that they have shot at!" begs the question: How do we look under the same microscope? |
I'm not happy to say it but the same thing came to my mind. I was happy to see someone else echoed my feelings.
Like it or not the old adage is correct, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. 
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
I'm not happy to say it but the same thing came to my mind. I was happy to see someone else echoed my feelings.
Like it or not the old adage is correct, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. |
Yeah, I agree with you guys for the most part. The US has much to answer for.
But I think I disagree with the terrorist/freedom fighter statement. In my mind, this is the distinction I make: To be considered a freedom fighter, you must target only military assets and any civilian casualties move you towards terrorist. A terrorist has little care for civilian damage and often seems to believe that civilian casualties help his cause.Intentions matter. And US influence is not US control.
Fighting and killing, in identifiable uniform, subject to rules of engagement that are often enforced, is different than pretending to be a civilian when you murder your targets.
The dead are still dead; but even more die in car crashes. And are dead.
Imperfect America orders its soldiers to kill in support of more freedom, more human rights, for democratic representation. Often the lesser of two evils -- like Pakistan, whose dictator general is still far better than an Taliban type alternative.
It's a fun but juvenile game to criticize the bad consequences of American action, without noting the alternatives.
So imperfect as to justify the word 'evil,' terrorists pretend to be peaceful, but murder with bombs, and intimidate others. The intimidated feel like they either must act as the terrorists say, or become a target of terrorist murder. Gang murder gov't is the alternative to gov't by a police force -- those against what America is attempting to create in Iraq are implicity supporting terror gov't. And cowardly avoiding specifying what they support.
In Darfur, no US action means continued slo-mo genocide; Congo is even worse (despite the child raping UN 'peacekeepers'). Iraq is very likely, but not certain, to be much better than either in 5 years.
I'm living in Slovakia, and glad that there hasn't been Islamist terrorism here yet.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| Intentions matter. And US influence is not US control. |
Perhaps you prefer US partial control, since influence does just that. If you are influencing somebody else's behavior you are exerting partial to full control over their actions.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| Fighting and killing, in identifiable uniform, subject to rules of engagement that are often enforced, is different than pretending to be a civilian when you murder your targets. |
I do not support "pretending to be a civilian [in order to] murder your targets", but you must consider the fact that they can do nothing other than guerrilla warfare since they could not possibly resist us if they were "subject to [the] rules of engagement". The US terrorists did not engage with the British according to the rules of engagement, but instead attacked civilian (Tories) and commercial targets (Tea).
| TomGrey wrote: |
| Imperfect America orders its soldiers to kill in support of more freedom, more human rights, for democratic representation. Often the lesser of two evils -- like Pakistan, whose dictator general is still far better than an Taliban type alternative. |
A matter of interpretation and personal opinion. Did the US undertake "Operation Iraqi Freedom" purely out of the goodness of our collective heart, or are there other reasons that could better be called "national interest"?
| TomGrey wrote: |
| It's a fun but juvenile game to criticize the bad consequences of American action, without noting the alternatives. |
In my debates I have noted the alternatives - The US actively engages in imperialism across the world to "control" the terrorist threat. As a consequence, more people have greater cause to engage in terrorism against the US.
- The US attempts to engage in the least possible imperialism and holds nations accountable for their terrorists, while supporting local means to reduce terrorism including increasing humanitarian/developmental aid and increasing political and financial aid to local governments in order to strengthen them. The US faces a temporarily increased terrorist threat, and then a drastically reduced one since the terrorists are both 1. otherwise employed in productive endeavors, and 2. without a cause.
- The US uses the UN, and backs the UN (instead of going around and insulting the UN) to achieve the measures in the 2nd alternative with a slightly reduced threat to the US, since the US is less involved in the actual "imperialism"
- The US falls, causing the terrorists to instead target the next imperialist super power instead of the former US.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| So imperfect as to justify the word 'evil,' terrorists pretend to be peaceful, but murder with bombs, and intimidate others. The intimidated feel like they either must act as the terrorists say, or become a target of terrorist murder. Gang murder gov't is the alternative to gov't by a police force -- those against what America is attempting to create in Iraq are implicity supporting terror gov't. And cowardly avoiding specifying what they support. |
No, I do not support terror government, which is why I oppose the US's current involvement in Iraq. Remaining in control of, or "influencing" the Iraqi government only supports terrorism in that the general public can now see greater cause to engage in terrorism. A nation must find it's own way to democracy, it can be passively supported by outside nations, but that support must be discrete and of an altruistic attitude. Just as you cannot be forced to be free, a nation cannot be forced to be free.
I admit I do not know the best way to support a free Iraq and reduce international terrorism, I do, however, know that our current way is far from being the best.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| In Darfur, no US action means continued slo-mo genocide; Congo is even worse (despite the child raping UN 'peacekeepers'). Iraq is very likely, but not certain, to be much better than either in 5 years. |
And you suppose that the benevolent and altruistic US is not involved in Darfur because we are overly concerned with world opinion? I am not advocating inaction, just careful and more limited action.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| I'm living in Slovakia, and glad that there hasn't been Islamist terrorism here yet. |
The radical Islamic terrorists have no need to attack Slovakia, because Slovakia is not nearly as imperialistic as the US.Good question LeviticusMky. I totaly agree with you. I think that the "War on Terror" has to be put an end. It has never ended well in any country. The terror that Bush spreads is much more terrible than the other terrorists terror. I count Bush as a terrorist. That's exactly what he is.
London, UK!!!! ... we on the map
Nice try, Montressor -- but no cigar.
1) Where is your discussion of intentions? Either the intention of the US to set up an Iraqi democracy counts, or it doesn't count. Either the terrorist intention to kill the innocents counts, or it doesn't matter.
It seems not to matter to you: if your relatives are murdered or die in a car crash, they're still dead, no difference.
Intentions matter to me.
US intentions are superior, pro-democracy for Iraqis, than are the intentions of the terrorists you dishonestly support.
2) You are being dishonest because you say:
| Quote: |
| I do not support "pretending to be a civilian [in order to] murder your targets", |
but then you equate Iraqi terrorist murderers with US revolutionaries:
| Quote: |
| The US terrorists did not engage with the British according to the rules of engagement, |
-- you equate them, so either you support Iraqi terrorists or you oppose US revolutionaries. Again, ignoring intentions.
Your statements are equal to "I do not support x actions, but such actions are justified by reason y. Plus heroes in the past did similar to x actions". The British colonizers did NOT let the colonies write their own Constitution, and elect their own legislature. The revolutionaries did NOT target civilians for murder.
Your argument is dishonest.
3) I argue that the US is MORE in favor of human rights. You don't honestly disagree, but instead disagree with a straw man:
| Quote: |
| Did the US undertake "Operation Iraqi Freedom" purely out of the goodness of our collective heart, |
In answer to your question, of course the US liberated Iraq for different reasons, including supporting Iraqi freedom AND other US national interests; you seem incapable of accepting that Iraqi freedom IS a US national interest. As is freedom in Darfur; and Sudan also has oil (which is why some 4000 Chinese are there). Bush decided to invade Iraq for the total reasons; he called Darfur genocide, which is more than Amnesty, HRW, or the UN has done.
What about my question -- are US soldiers supporting the lesser evil of an elected Iraqi gov't, or would the lesser evil be allowing the militias to take over? Or who do you think would take over if the US leaves?
4) Your alternatives might well be general possibilities for a general strategy -- most evidence shows the US doing pretty little imperialism.
The real US imperialism is support for democracy and human rights, with violence against those who oppose democracy.
Joshua quotes you:
| Quote: |
| In this we cannot condemn them because their culture values something more than we value liberty. |
I'm pretty sure you're being dishonest here, unless you refuse to condemn slavery, or child prostitution, or wife bondage/ beating/ widow-burning. Not to mention Jew-hate genocide.
"Universal Human Rights" means we can, and MUST condemn those cultures which value other things more than human rights. Whether we fight a foreign war against tyrants is less necessary, but mostly more noble. The failure to fight in Darfur, as I advocated in 2004, is a stain against the US, and against all anti-war "peace" folks.
In Darfur, the choice is war or continued slo-mo genocide.
5) You don't mention Iraq choices. In Iraq, the early choice was: war or accepting Saddam. All against the US Iraq war implicity support more Saddam, more of his secret police, more rape rooms and real torture in Abu Ghraib, not just real humiliation and mistaken torture (which has resulted in punishment for the guilty).
You speak an untruth again:
| Quote: |
| Just as you cannot be forced to be free, a nation cannot be forced to be free. |
Post War Germany and Japan and, after a couple decades, S. Korea were all forced to be free. Your quote is not true about "nations".
Today the main Iraq choice is for the US to stay or go.
6) Again you speak falsely:
| Quote: |
| I admit I do not know the best way to support a free Iraq and reduce international terrorism, I do, however, know that our current way is far from being the best. |
You are false if 85% is not far from the best (what is YOUR score, how did you get there?), and is compared with 10 & 20% of other countries. Compare the UN's support for Congo, or Sudan; or the anti-apartheid folks of the 80s and their support for Zimbabwe (and against Rhodesia).
What you know is that our current way is not perfect, and is not cost-less. Anybody who expected it to be "free" AND to succeed was silly. Our Darfur "way" is almost costless, like Clinton's Rwanda "way" -- but I'm certain that those ways are worse. Where are examples of a better way to turn a mixed Sunni-Shia Arab country into a democracy?
Bet you can't find a single better example on Earth or thru History.
Lots of folks thought man would never fly.
Lots of folks tried lots of times and had lots, and lots, and lots of failures.
Man can fly.
Iraq can become a free democracy.
Does America have the will to stay there until it succeeds?
I support victory for freedom. Do you? | TomGrey wrote: |
Nice try, Montressor -- but no cigar.
1) Where is your discussion of intentions? Either the intention of the US to set up an Iraqi democracy counts, or it doesn't count. Either the terrorist intention to kill the innocents counts, or it doesn't matter.
It seems not to matter to you: if your relatives are murdered or die in a car crash, they're still dead, no difference. |
True, they would be dead either way. But it would make a difference to me, and I would respond differently to each situation. What I wouldn't do would be to retaliate by killing the murderer and his family, that would only cause more retaliation against me and my family/friends. I would make an effort to understand why this person felt they had to kill my family, and I would try to make certain that based off of his/her intentions, feelings and suchlike that I prevent future murders from happening for the same reasons. Much like what I would do if my family died in a car crash. I would make an effort to understand why the crash happened and prevent future car crashes from happening in the same manner. I'm certain that you too would act in the same manner.
| Tom Grey wrote: |
Intentions matter to me.
US intentions are superior, pro-democracy for Iraqis, than are the intentions of the terrorists you dishonestly support. |
I support the pro-democracy efforts in Iraq, I do not support the way in which our efforts are being misapplied. The US is using force to create a new democracy, only the people of that democracy can make it work. They have to put out the bulk of the effort to establish their country, otherwise they will never accept the government.
I accept that the larger portion of the US's intentions are "superior" to the intentions of the majority of the radical Islamic terrorists. I am not trying to demonize the US, or US intentions. I merely recognize that the current intentions coupled with the current actions are not accomplishing "the job". And I (on a philosophical level) believe that no matter how wonderful the intentions of the US in the current situation, nothing good will come of them unless they are attached to the right actions.
An infant never intends to lose their toys, and they display remarkably deep remorse when they have lost a toy. The infant did however intend to place the toy in the toilet and he/she did intend to flush that toilet. The overall intention was correct, but the individual actions based off of individual intentions weren't. Admittedly the child may not have known that flushing the toilet would make the toy disappear, but once the child has experienced this magic once (Vietnam), any repetition of the behavior is inexcusable. I agree with you, intentions count for a lot, but they must be carried out in every detail.
| TomGrey wrote: |
2) You are being dishonest because you say:
| Quote: | | I do not support "pretending to be a civilian [in order to] murder your targets", |
but then you equate Iraqi terrorist murderers with US revolutionaries:
| Quote: | | The US terrorists did not engage with the British according to the rules of engagement, |
-- you equate them, so either you support Iraqi terrorists or you oppose US revolutionaries. Again, ignoring intentions. |
-you are only partially correct there, I equated some actions of some of the American revolutionaries with some of the actions of some of the radical Islamic terrorists. I did not claim that the US terrorists as a whole were on equal footing with the radical Islamic terrorists as a whole. I find many of the actions of these terrorists distressing, and condemn then alongside you, but I do not place all of the blame on them. I accept part of that responsibility for the actions of my country that gave them reason (caused their intentions, regardless of whether those intentions are just or not) to engage in the actions I deplore.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| Your statements are equal to "I do not support x actions, but such actions are justified by reason y. |
The actions of the US do not justify terrorist responses, and the US's reaction terrorist responses are not justified either. I can understand why people may have those responses/reactions, and can at least partially sympathize with them, but in doing so I do not attempt to justify them.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| Plus heroes in the past did similar to x actions". The British colonizers did NOT let the colonies write their own Constitution, and elect their own legislature. The revolutionaries did NOT target civilians for murder. |
Notable differences that I did not claim... Also, I would never call those who kill noncombatants heroes.
| TomGrey wrote: |
Your argument is dishonest.
3) I argue that the US is MORE in favor of human rights. You don't honestly disagree, but instead disagree with a straw man:
| Quote: | | Did the US undertake "Operation Iraqi Freedom" purely out of the goodness of our collective heart, |
In answer to your question, of course the US liberated Iraq for different reasons, including supporting Iraqi freedom AND other US national interests; you seem incapable of accepting that Iraqi freedom IS a US national interest. As is freedom in Darfur; and Sudan also has oil (which is why some 4000 Chinese are there). Bush decided to invade Iraq for the total reasons; he called Darfur genocide, which is more than Amnesty, HRW, or the UN has done. |
An allied Iraqi democracy is a current US national interest, just like the former Iraqi dictatorship, Cuban dictatorship, Iranian dictatorship (and more) were in the US interest. I personally think that preventing a genocide should take precedence over "liberating" a country from its government for 2 reasons - Military force can have a positive effect since the two (or more) involved races/religions/whatever are not fighting the force, but each other.
- Genocide involves the stripping away of all liberty and freedom (the taking of another's life), not just partial restrictions (no matter how severe those restrictions).
| TomGrey wrote: |
| What about my question -- are US soldiers supporting the lesser evil of an elected Iraqi gov't, or would the lesser evil be allowing the militias to take over? Or who do you think would take over if the US leaves? |
If the people wanted democracy badly enough, then they would take over eventually. I believe that right now you are correct in saying that removal of US forces would result in the militias taking over. I don't know enough about the individual militias and the elected government to make a personal judgment of which is better, but I never called for the immediate removal of US troops.
| TomGrey wrote: |
4) Your alternatives might well be general possibilities for a general strategy -- most evidence shows the US doing pretty little imperialism.
The real US imperialism is support for democracy and human rights, with violence against those who oppose democracy. |
All the same it is Imperialism and does create the same general problems that any other form of imperialism can create, including resistance, and possible ultimate failure/backfiring.
| TomGrey wrote: |
Joshua quotes you:
| Quote: | | In this we cannot condemn them because their culture values something more than we value liberty. |
I'm pretty sure you're being dishonest here, unless you refuse to condemn slavery, or child prostitution, or wife bondage/ beating/ widow-burning. Not to mention Jew-hate genocide.
"Universal Human Rights" means we can, and MUST condemn those cultures which value other things more than human rights. |
And I full heatedly join you in condemning the aspects of those cultures (including our own) that violate Human Rights. I just personally believe that our current method of condemnation is both hypocritical and ineffectual.
| TomGrey wrote: |
| Whether we fight a foreign war against tyrants is less necessary, but mostly more noble. The failure to fight in Darfur, as I advocated in 2004, is a stain against the US, and against all anti-war "peace" folks. |
| TomGrey wrote: |
5) You don't mention Iraq choices. In Iraq, the early choice was: war or accepting Saddam. All against the US Iraq war implicity support more Saddam, more of his secret police, more rape rooms and real torture in Abu Ghraib, not just real humiliation and mistaken torture (which has resulted in punishment for the guilty). |
Nice false choice, there are always more than two options, especially if you examine those options in greater detail. I offer you another alternative to the US invasion; an international invasion sponsored by the UN. You may say, "the UN is worthless" or, "the UN wasn't doing anything", but the UN is only worthless because we have intentionally crippled it by our actions. The US often ignores the UN, and even toys with it to force other nations to do our will. The reason we can't get international support, is because we've rejected international support.
| TomGrey wrote: |
You speak an untruth again:
| Quote: | | Just as you cannot be forced to be free, a nation cannot be forced to be free. |
Post War Germany and Japan and, after a couple decades, S. Korea were all forced to be free. Your quote is not true about "nations". |
I maintain that it remains true in that Germany, Japan, and South Korea, even though they had their official actions dictated by another country, still chose to be free. Regardless of our actions, a greater portion of their populace wanted to be free. If the same is true of Iraq, then whatever we do, or not do, they will eventually gain their freedom.
| TomGrey wrote: |
What you know is that our current way is not perfect, and is not cost-less. Anybody who expected it to be "free" AND to succeed was silly. Our Darfur "way" is almost costless, like Clinton's Rwanda "way" -- but I'm certain that those ways are worse. Where are examples of a better way to turn a mixed Sunni-Shia Arab country into a democracy?
Bet you can't find a single better example on Earth or thru History. |
I support the liberation of the Iraqi people, and I understand that that liberation requires a heavy cost, just as engagement in Darfur would entail a large cost. I am merely musing about the cost effectiveness, whether or not we "liberate" their country, if the average Iraqi citizen will not fight for their freedom, then the future Iraqi democracy will inevitably collapse (In much the same manner I feel the US democracy will collapse).
| TomGrey wrote: |
Lots of folks thought man would never fly.
Lots of folks tried lots of times and had lots, and lots, and lots of failures.
Man can fly.
Iraq can become a free democracy. |
I too firmly believe that Iraq can become a free democracy, and fervently desire Iraq to become one (which is why I do not support the immediate withdrawal of American forces). But I understand the the US public has a finite supply of goodwill and humanitarian desire, if not I would advocate significantly more US action around the globe (where the local population desires US forces that is) especially in Darfur and other places where US intervention could benefit Universal Human Rights.
| TomGrey wrote: |
Does America have the will to stay there until it succeeds?
I support victory for freedom. Do you? |
I support freedom, but I realize that I cannot chose so for others. I can help them, but if they do not have the desire, my support will eventually fail and may have been better spent elsewhere.
I am glad to have found a kindred spirit such as yourself here, and am even more heartened that we agree in philosophy if not practical application of that philosophy. We both desire freedom for others, we are idealists who feel that granting universal human rights is worth whatever it costs, all we chose to differ in is an approach to granting those rights.
Respectfully,
Montressor.
On a side note, wow, these messages are getting pretty long.Murdering even 1 neutral (innocent if you prefer) is bad and should be condemned by everybody as a crime against humanity. Nothing can excuse that: fight for freedom, religion etc
On the other hand, terrorists should be assassinated everywhere they are!
Human Rights activists march against US policy (Guantanamo...) I wonder what would they do that after a child or any relative or friend dies in a terrorist attack... and later finds out that the planner/suicide was freed from Guantanamo a year before!
Meanwhile weapon makers and dealers get rich! March against them!
Many innocent people were (and presumably are still) imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. If they were guilty of some crime, then nobody would protest their imprisonment. If they were murders (as you claim) they could easily be tried. However, they have not received fair trails, despite being imprisoned for many years.
A fair trial is a fundamental human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
| Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote: |
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. |
Fortunately, there's been no attack against my country, the Netherlands. But directly after the 7/7 attacks I heard on the TV that there are planned to make attacks against Holland, Italy and Denmark. | smarter wrote: |
Murdering even 1 neutral (innocent if you prefer) is bad and should be condemned by everybody as a crime against humanity. Nothing can excuse that: fight for freedom, religion etc
On the other hand, terrorists should be assassinated everywhere they are!
|
And who gets to decide who is a terrorist? Presumably you would have no problem with, say, the South African government assassinating Mandela and other members of the ANC in the 1970/80s? Similarly with black activists in the US during the 50s - you would support the killing of Martin Luther King in 1968? | smarter wrote: |
| Meanwhile weapon makers and dealers get rich! March against them! |
I see no reason to march against the weapons makers, but I certainly reason to march against a government that feeds the defense industry. If the individual makers are "outlawed" or have injunctions/sanctions/increased regulations placed on them they will still provide weapons until the market for the product dries up. Say the US puts a higher tax on all defense contractors dealing in weapon X, the US has "need" for weapon X, the US is determined to buy weapon X at whatever cost. Essentially defense contractors would just charge the government more to "reimburse" the cost of the higher regulations/taxes. Now if the US government were to stop buying weapon X, by decreasing the perceived "need", then less of weapon X would be produced. If, the US government also placed restrictions/taxes on these contractors in addition to decreasing the amount/number of weapon X bought by the federal government, we would both have reduced the demand, and increased the cost for any other purchaser (given that the weapons trade could be regulated).
Sure, the companies make the arms, but they would have no reason to make them if there were no demand for them. | smarter wrote: |
| Murdering even 1 neutral (innocent if you prefer) is bad and should be condemned by everybody as a crime against humanity. |
But what do you do if say if the death of the one neutral directly prevents the death of 2 neutrals in the future? What about 3? What if all of humanity would perish if this one neutral was not murdered? Where do you draw the line? I personally am heartened that I am not forced to make that decision, because I know that I would never forgive myself regardless of the outcome.
And another question, how do you define terrorist? One who uses terror to influence the lives/decisions of others? If so, the any president or world leader has at some point in time been a terrorist, and I would argue that every one of us has, and will commit acts of terrorism if we go by that definition. Or perhaps it is one who acts contrary to the social system/governance structure/powers that be because they ideologically think that that system is wrong? If so all great revolutionaries who we count as heroes are terrorists. Maybe you would like a harsher definition such as, one who specifically uses murder and other forms of really bad "badness" to get their way? If so, why isn't every robbery, petty theft, homicide etc treated as a terrorist case? How about this one, some guy from somewhere else (a foreign national) acting in a way to instill terror in me (an American citizen) using really bad methods? That one look pretty good till you flip it around, what gives us the right to accuse others of terrorism, if we ourselves are immune to the act, are we not all human and capable of the same crimes?
Just some questions to get you thinking.Sorry to butt-in here but I couldn't let this pass without comment..
| TomGrey wrote: |
| .....Intentions matter to me.US intentions are superior, pro-democracy for Iraqis, than are the intentions of the terrorists you dishonestly support. |
I often see this argument used in support/defence of US foreign policy and continue to be amazed that people seem to genuinely believe it is the case. It is completely untrue as I hope to demonstrate here. Moreover it never has been true and in unlikely to be so in the future. US foreign policy has never attached major (actually I would argue that the word should be ‘any’) importance to supporting, developing or establishing democracy abroad. The historical record clearly shows this to be the case.(1)
1. Meanings
The notion arises partly because the word 'democracy', actually means 'free market access to US corporate capitalism’ when it is used by the US administration in this context. It is easy to demonstrate that the two concepts are not only different but frequently contradictory and I'll leave the reader to work out examples for themselves - it's a trivial exercise.
2. Agenda
In reality US foreign policy is primarily concerned with 3 things - - maintaining global military supremacy, (2)
- developing and protecting access for US businesses to markets overseas (3), and
- ensuring continued access to, and control over, goods/resources considered important to the US national interest. (4)
If establishing a democracy happens to fit in with one or more of these then, yes, the US may well use that as a 'reason' for a particular policy or intervention. If not, however, then the word democracy will be avoided and, instead, talk will be of National Security and National Interest. I'll post a set of links and references at the end which will include examples of US action to remove or destabilise democracy in many countries. Democracy is OK as long as it is the right sort of democracy - which means one which does not interfere with the 3 main objectives listed above. If it does threaten or interfere with the primary goals then it is fair game.
3. Recent changes
Up until WWII the US relied on economic might and geographical isolation. After WWII it was plain that the US had now become the major military power in the world, far overtaking the previous leader (Britain). It was decided that this should stay the case. The US currently spends the same on 'defence' as the next 6 largest spending countries combined (5). Public stated policy should be (as expressed by the ' Project for a New American Century ) | Quote: |
| Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally pre-eminent military capability both today and in the future. |
The 9/11 attack gave Bush the chance to implement several changes to enhance the position. Firstly it announced the 'pre-emptive war' policy. Previously the only internationally legal justification for war was self-defence or UN mandate. The US is anxious to ensure that everyone understands that it will attack anyone it chooses and the justification is that they might, someday, be a threat. (Needless to say this policy only applies to the US - no other country may use the justification for it's own military action)(6). It also gave the administration the opportunity to implement restrictions on its own citizens designed to marginalise domestic opposition (7). Finally it gave the administration the justification to enhance and proliferate its military arsenal and bypass international agreements and treaties in this regard (. In reality this agenda was first set in 1992 when Wolfowitz, a then obscure strategist working for then Defence Secretary Dick Cheney, drafted a then-shocking policy paper titled "Defence Planning Guidance." (9). It advocated the exact measures listed above but was withdrawn quickly - the time was not yet right. Post 9.11 the strategy is now official and public and the rest of the world is supposed to accept that the US only acts in the best interest of everyone and doesn't do so for selfish reasons, so there is nothing to fear.Soon after 9/11 Bush made it crystal clear: | Quote: |
| we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. |
Needless to say not everyone agrees.
4. US democracy at home.
Candidates – can anyone really be President? (10)
The US system, like most others, is not really democracy in anything but name. A more accurate term for it would be ‘Polyarchy’; a system in which a small elite rules by confining mass participation to leadership choice in controlled elections. US democracy is a game for the rich. Any realistic candidate for Presidential office or Congress needs access to large amounts of funding. The general election in 2000 cost about $3 billion. Analysis of the 2000 results showed that 81 percent of Senate winners and 96 percent of House winners outspent their opponents. I’m sure I don’t need to re-iterate events in the Presidential election of 2000; suffice it to say that the result was certainly questionable
Suffrage (11)
Historically the US constitution (1787), stipulates the citizen's right to vote but this was far from universal. African Americans, women and American Indians gained voting rights in 1870 (15th Amendment), 1920 (19th Amendment) and 1957 respectively, and voter eligibility limitations connected to property, poll tax and low education levels were removed in 1856, 1964 (24th Amendment) and 1970 respectively. It was not until 1971 with the 26th Amendment that the US could really boast universal suffrage and even that boast was idle since many states still have laws which forbid former prisoners from voting, sometimes for their entire lives. Millions of Americans, especially minority men, are therefore been excluded from basic participation in the democratic process.
Participation (12)
[img]http://www.dissentmagazine.org/files/Figure1Spring05.jpg [/img]
Voter turnout in the US elections is dropping with time. Presidential elections attract 50-60% on average but mid-term Congress elections have turnouts in the 30s
5. US Military invasion/intervention of Democracies
| Quote: |
| The real US imperialism is support for democracy and human rights, with violence against those who oppose democracy. |
And against democratically elected governments as well (13)
Laos, Grenada, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Ecuador....check the list at the end
Links
(1) Notice that the global promotion of democracy, however, was nowhere to be found in administration thinking prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Check it out:
June 2002 West Point speech September 12, 2002 address to the UN October 7, 2002 Iraq war justification 2003 State of the Union March 17 press conference March 19 address to the nation
(2) Military Supremacy at Heart of Bush Strategy
Endless Military Supremacy
(3)The Monroe Doctrine, US Imperialism &Venezuela
History of U.S. Foreign Affairs and What's Needed Today
Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy
(4) U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention
The Persian Gulf: Understanding the American Oil Strategy
Foreign Aid Budget Takes on Cold War Cast
(5) US Military Spending-
International Comparisons The 15 major spender countries in 2005
(6) Analysts wary of US 'pre-emptive strike' focus Former chief weapons inspector questions US pre-emptive strike policy Will pre-emptive war, such as in Iraq, make the United States safer in the long term?
(7) The USA PATRIOT Act ACLU Position Q and A: Military Commissions Act of 2006 Preventing Abuse of Material Witness Detentions-S.1739 and Companion Legislation in the House of Representatives US Erosion of Civil Liberties Post 9/11 Timeline
8 US Opt-outs Out of International Conventions Unilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: International Perspectives
(9) Defence Planning Guide
(10) Polyarchy Defined How Democratic Is the American Constitution? Politicians Sweep Midterm Elections (SPOOF) The Ideology of the Polyarchy Money wins big in 2000 elections Centre for Responsive Politics Predicts '06 Election Will Cost $2.6 Billion Elections could be most costly in US history CFI post-election analysis of independent spending by political parties Database with campaign contribution information for all candidates seeking Federal office and all Federal political action committees.
(11) 15th Amendment 19th Amendment History of Voting Rights in America U.S. Supreme Court EVANS v. CORNMAN 26th Amendment of the US Constitution Felony disenfranchisement
Panel: Ex-felons should be allowed to vote States Vary in Treatment of Felon Voting Rights (Fall 2005)
(12) United States presidential election, 2000 (Wikki) Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary Eagleton Digital Archive of American Politics
(13) A list of US interference in Democratic states | LeviticusMky wrote: |
It pays to realize that Al Quaeda is doing what they feel is right, attacking a world that they feel is infringing on their rights, just as the USA is.
|
I have to agree with that.I seem to be lucky.... no attacks and no bases of operation. At least not that we know of!
That, I think, is the stupidest part of this map. You don't really think that we know of all bases of operation of Al Qaida? It's not like they report them to these journalists, right?
yes my country is in the list of attacked by terrorist. As far as i know the Terrorist network Jemiah did that. Well I hope they do no more such acts. haay...
My country like a ****** in this map,It is big China.But I did not find the name of my country in this map,why?
OMG!! Are you being subjected to discrimination here?
Why dont you be happy that you country is not on the list..?
And if it is, then please be happy that is.
if i remember correctly... countries that stayed neutral were not attacked by Al Qaeda
My country is not located on this map.
Just a quick one, guys...I am Chinese and I'd like to point out there MAY not be any AQ base in China but in the very north-western part of China, Sinkiang province, whose population is mainly Muslim, terrorist attacks have caused many death of civilians and unease of the local society. Those terrorist attacks were reportedly to have AQ backed. Before the 9/11, the U.S allegedly supported those separatists' attacks on civilians. After the 9/11, only because the U.S. government needed China's help to fight terrorism in a global scale, it stopped doing so. So to me, there's not really a war on terror, what is going on is a war with those muslims who do not obey the world's leader's command. If they dont use suicide bomber, you can say they have WMD (did they explain why no WMD has been found yet) or ability to develop nuclear weapon (why didnt they stop India having that, if they are really SO concerned about that?) There is no reason for terrorist to kill innocent ppl and equally there is no reason for a nation to launch a war unless it's facing invasion.
My country is hidden under an information flag. Fine with me. ^^
