"Americans kill dozens of prisoners"

[RalphyS]

As Chase is such a firm believer in human rights (see his post in the WMD-thread), I didn't want him to mis this news from a human rights organisation.

London - Almost 100 people that have been taken in American captivity in Iraq and Afghanistan have died during that process. In at least 34 cases it was either homicide or manslaughter, stated the American organisation Human Rights First last tuesday, on the eve of the publication of a report which goes into detail about this.

In the report 34 cases of "intentional or reckless behaviour" are being mentioned, which have led to the death of an inmate. Between 8 to 12 people are believed to be tortured to death. Human Rights First further mentions 11 suspect deaths, as was being said in tuesday night's BBC-programm Newsnight.

One persoon was supposed to be coerced to jump of a bridge over the Tigris, another was propped into a sleeping bag and suffocated. The study by the organisation used investigation reports of the army and American government documents. "We are convinced of the level of truth and the reliability of the facts", according to the writerof the report, Deborah Pearlstein.

[RalphyS]

I'm going on vacation to Sweden for a week, so I won't be able to answer before next week wednesday.

[RoffeDH]

Ralphys! Were in sweden are you going? :D I live here... Not the best of times to visit us thuogh...

Well... This is old news that you're comming with, I thought it was pretty clear america did this...

[Ana4Stapp]

- Almost 100 people that have been taken in American captivity in Iraq and Afghanistan have died during that process...

Roffe is right ...it is an old news -- lately we ve been hearing this kind of (bad!) news and not only from Americans army but for instance also from Britain soldiers...I think everybody knows about that video showing soldiers spanking some iraq guys...

And even though its a liitle bit 'old' --its good to see this kind of thing being noticed by the common people by tv and web...because its getting very hard in these days to try to keep this violence out of the public's eyes...:rolleyes:

[Chase]

-

Roffe is right ...it is an old news -- lately we ve been hearing this kind of (bad!) news and not only from Americans army but for instance also from Britain soldiers...I think everybody knows about that video showing soldiers spanking some iraq guys...

And even though its a liitle bit 'old' --its good to see this kind of thing being noticed by the common people by tv and web...because its getting very hard in these days to try to keep this violence out of the public's eyes...:rolleyes:

You think this is hard for the public to see? Try getting the media to show the good that's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq... that's near impossible.

[Ana4Stapp]

You think this is hard for the public to see? Try getting the media to show the good that's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq... that's near impossible.

Well...everyone's expect the good things from the militaries in these places...wasnt the initial idea?? Their mission? I mean... invading Afghanistan and Iraq to get rid of the dictatorship/authoritarism/all kind of abuses from their goverments, and in return to promote the peace/ assistance/better conditions to lead people to democracy?????

So people are expecting the goods as a 'normal' thing...not the opposite: spaking/abuses/humiliations imposedby the militaries.

But now you have your chance: whats the good in Afghanistan and Iraq?? Just curious...

[bilal]

recent massacre and violence in iraq after the bombing of the sacred shiate tomb is probably one of the worst man kind may have seen in recent times...........may afghanistan has some instances like the killing at tora bora mountians when daisy cutters were dropped on villages..............i mean recently in iraq more then 200 people in died in 3 days....most were ambushed while dayer hands were tied.............this is serious insainity goin on........mixed wid confusion and anger........every body seems to be kiliin others...........not knowin who is creatin the violence.......and ofcourse ........in civil war situations............casuallities caused by military mishaps also tends to increase..........damn............ this killing of innocent human beings all over the world............ i wish i cud do something for the peace..............

may be i shud sing this song and turn my back to the news

affirmative may be justifeid
take from one...give to another

the goal is to be unified....
take my hand be my brother

i fell angry ...i feel helpless
want to chage the world

ifeel volantile ....i feell alone
dont try to stop me no!!

(wow....dat was seroius stuff man..................)

[facelessmike]

You think this is hard for the public to see? Try getting the media to show the good that's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq... that's near impossible.

It is nearly impossible unless you speak to a returning soldier or someone who has family over there. So much positive goes unnoticed. But, that is the nature of the newsmedia - to accentuate the negative.

ifeel volantile ....i feell alone
dont try to stop me no!!

I also feel volantile :confused:

[bilal]

but its very hard for me to except that war is actually a sloution to something........................ i mean....it failed in Afgahnistan............... and it has misreabllly gone bad in iraq.............. i dont see peaace any where...........and all i remember is poor peolple inculuding solideris too dat have died.............. i mean whats the sin of the soldiers dat have nothing to do and are sent to do a mission.............its just a political game.............. and soldiers are dispensible items...........and the local people dont mean a shit............... cause no body gonna question you..........atleast that is what i feel.................. dayer is no use for war.................WAR IS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE A COUNTRY CAN EVER MAKE!!!!!!!

[Chase]

but its very hard for me to except that war is actually a sloution to something........................ i mean....it failed in Afgahnistan............... and it has misreabllly gone bad in iraq.............. i dont see peaace any where...........and all i remember is poor peolple inculuding solideris too dat have died.............. i mean whats the sin of the soldiers dat have nothing to do and are sent to do a mission.............its just a political game.............. and soldiers are dispensible items...........and the local people dont mean a shit............... cause no body gonna question you..........atleast that is what i feel.................. dayer is no use for war.................WAR IS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE A COUNTRY CAN EVER MAKE!!!!!!!

It failed in Afghanistan? How did it fail in Afghanistan? The Taliban was dismantled... and Al Qaeda was evacuated from that former terrorist safe haven. Recently, Osama bin Ladan stated that he was frustrated with the insurgents in Afghanistan because he felt that they had given up. In Iraq... the "Butcher of Baghdad" no longer has anyone to mass murder and Iraqis are now able to have a say in the way their country is governed. "Political game?" You want to get into politics? I don't think so... seeing as your from a military dictatorship who refuses to be hospitable to India.

Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror... but for you to blame the U.S. for Islamic extremism is absurd. The U.S. isn't responsible for people who execute innocent humanitarian aide workers while chanting "Allah Akbar." Islamic extremists have declared war on all non-Muslims... that is why we are in the mess in the first place.

[Chase]

recent massacre and violence in iraq after the bombing of the sacred shiate tomb is probably one of the worst man kind may have seen in recent times...........may afghanistan has some instances like the killing at tora bora mountians when daisy cutters were dropped on villages..............i mean recently in iraq more then 200 people in died in 3 days....most were ambushed while dayer hands were tied.............this is serious insainity goin on........mixed wid confusion and anger........every body seems to be kiliin others...........not knowin who is creatin the violence.......and ofcourse ........in civil war situations............casuallities caused by military mishaps also tends to increase..........damn............ this killing of innocent human beings all over the world............ i wish i cud do something for the peace..............

may be i shud sing this song and turn my back to the news

affirmative may be justifeid
take from one...give to another

the goal is to be unified....
take my hand be my brother

i fell angry ...i feel helpless
want to chage the world

ifeel volantile ....i feell alone
dont try to stop me no!!

(wow....dat was seroius stuff man..................)

Terrorists are targeting innocent men, women, and children. You could start advocating peace by urging moderate Muslims to actually protest these disgusting acts for once. Start telling people that Israel has a right to exist. That anti-Semiticism will only escalate violence. That fighting over the Kashmir region is pointless. Start telling people that Americans, Europeans, and the rest of the Western world are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That they are entitled to free speech and to a free press. To me, a satirical cartoon of Muhammed is no where near as bad as cold blooded murder.

[bilal]

It failed in Afghanistan? How did it fail in Afghanistan? The Taliban was dismantled... and Al Qaeda was evacuated from that former terrorist safe haven. Recently, Osama bin Ladan stated that he was frustrated with the insurgents in Afghanistan because he felt that they had given up. In Iraq... the "Butcher of Baghdad" no longer has anyone to mass murder and Iraqis are now able to have a say in the way their country is governed. "Political game?" You want to get into politics? I don't think so... seeing as your from a military dictatorship who refuses to be hospitable to India.

Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror... but for you to blame the U.S. for Islamic extremism is absurd. The U.S. isn't responsible for people who execute innocent humanitarian aide workers while chanting "Allah Akbar." Islamic extremists have declared war on all non-Muslims... that is why we are in the mess in the first place.




hey Chase.... u sound bitter....may be u have every right to be so.....may b because u think people over the globe dont understand the noble cause ur army is servin in dayer country....may be.........i have my own perspective.... but kindly try to understand my point of view too........i said war failled in Afgahnistan.....why??......for me.....war failled on the very first day when one innocent man was killed by American bomb..........u might say its the price a country has to pay....u might also say that many would have been killed if u werent doin what u actually did??............if dat was the justification for the killing....then it was all wrong........secoundly..... when the war was begining.....u might have seen Taliban forces geetin all geared up, bazookaz adn AK47 all around.....those poor chaps were thinkin dey would actually have a duel.....what happpend???...bombs fell......and Chase buddy....when a bomb explodes....its doesnt care what comes in its way......THousands and thousands of people died because of US bombs.....REd cross workers...women and kids.......villages wiped out....i saw in my country the insurgens of fleein people from aFghanistan...... i hope u havent forgotten dat terrible massacre of 300 prisoners in one day when i believe some of them took over certain amunition and tried to escape....and end result was a massacre of 300 mens.....on new years eve when ur time square was celebrating life....a village was bombed adn 100 civillians died( i particullary remeber dat cause of the new years eve) ...a war is a dirty dirty bussines man....u cant blame the solders too...its just one dirty pit and u say ur hands are clean......think again

WHat little ground fight was done was latter on done with the help of notheren Alliance in afghanistan....the Shia groupp dat was against Taliban........here ill say...and u may disagreee....dat US army wasnt trained to fight in mountains and dey needed trained peopel......so ur aRmy hired those killers and no lessmurdures then taliban....to help them.......

Talibans were extremist.....why nothres aliiiance guys hated Taliban....cause Talibans have killed a lot of dayer guys Just because they were shia muslims and not hte main streem muslims......THats sad......why i think Talibans were justified in some places was that......when US left afghanistan in the 80z........with no government ...(when it was most needed).....and loads of ammunition all around....if Taliban force hadnt taken control and formed a governement of sorts........the civil war wuldnt happend......OFCOURCE dayer are other factors too...i am not just blamin US but hey.......i hate war......and i hate zombie kinda soldiers.......

I dont understand why tAliban were targetted in the first place...... they had Osama...........may be......is OSama really responsible for the horrible 9/11 tragedy.... i cant seem to believe that couple of guys trained in AFghanistan can manuver boings in to buidldings....but lets just not take up dat argument ....let just say Osama is responsible......den what.......i believe a noble thing wud have been if US forces first located OSama and Then landed in the ground and wiped out taliban and taken OSama......but what happened .......in the end Ur forces were searchin for any thing to bomb.....AFghanistan is same as before..........nothing has changed............Know people have a governemt and dats good........previously dayer was no way a government could have been formed....so dont blame Talibans for all the misery of Afghanistan........


ur sayin i blamed US for Islamic extremism............read my post again man...u say Pepple chantin Allah is GReat execute aid workers...that is less then a Percent or even more less screwed up souls...... but have u ever studdies Islam???........... do u know dat a muslim has more rights of his felloow human beings ( not muslims alone) then for the GOd ALmighty ..... do u know dat in islam....murder of a human being ( no muslim) is equal to the murder of whole humanity.........

i dunno if i even want to be in shoes of the US soldiers who are also confused as the masses....who just want to get back home alive.......and when he finds himself under attack....may be if i am in his place....i might have just closed my eyes and let go of the burst.........damn..... we do get news of innocent people gettin shot dead by ARmy guys.....dont we...........

ALL i am saying is dat WAr is not a solution....its just the last pathetic thing to do...... see how a child dat cant get what he wants which isnt his.......try to snatch it ...and crys at the same time......dats ugly...........and so is WAR.....

man...i wish we could have sittin together.........i know u dont want any innocent US citizen to be felllin even unsafe for a minute......u have ur right to freeedom and to live fully........i want the same for evey one all over the globe........being a muslim........ i have lots of greifs.......do u want me to count dem to u...............where shud i start..... i have to count deaths of my brother mulims in palistine evey day....in Kashmir.....in iraq....in AFghanistan.......and in my own cities and streets........and i dont know what is wrong....who is responsible........who to plead too.........damn......but i will never accept that US led oCCupations is ever gonna get goood outta the pit of shit......................and u innocent people of US might think and may be ur ARmy guys too dat dey are doing all this for World peace...ur mother givin dayer sons to help the world..... but in behind all......u wiill agree dat poly-tics is the driving force....

i hope ull appreciate my position too....and try to be neutral.....ur secound reply is a bit confusing ...i lll reply to dat latter

[Ana4Stapp]

It failed in Afghanistan? How did it fail in Afghanistan?

maybe because ...Osama is...alive?:rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

but its very hard for me to except that war is actually a sloution to something........................ i mean....it failed in Afgahnistan............... and it has misreabllly gone bad in iraq.............. i dont see peaace any where...........and all i remember is poor peolple inculuding solideris too dat have died.............. i mean whats the sin of the soldiers dat have nothing to do and are sent to do a mission.............its just a political game.............. and soldiers are dispensible items...........and the local people dont mean a shit............... cause no body gonna question you..........atleast that is what i feel.................. dayer is no use for war.................WAR IS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE A COUNTRY CAN EVER MAKE!!!!!!!

Your post has really some interesting points.;)

[RMadd]

maybe because ...Osama is...alive?:rolleyes:
that doesn't mean it's failed. it's not as easy as we may have initially hoped, but simple not finding one person, versus removing a fair amount of the oppressive social structure imposed by a radical sect of "Islam." Hmmm...... which would you prefer?

[Ana4Stapp]

that doesn't mean it's failed. it's not as easy as we may have initially hoped, but simple not finding one person, versus removing a fair amount of the oppressive social structure imposed by a radical sect of "Islam." Hmmm...... which would you prefer?

Well...I remember your governement saying the reason to invade Afeghanistan was to catch Osama-and of course to end terrorism that was spread after september 11 by Al-QAEDA..."

" not finding one person"

I cant believe in you saying it Ryan...:eek:

Because even Chase will agree that Osama is very far from a 'one person'. He is (unfortunately) THE person. Dont forget it...Bush, by the way didnt forget it...

And Im unaware of the new structure Afghanistan has these days...what I really know is a country extremely miserable and destroyed by the war that btw your country started, so its a very very distant from the positive image you are trying to paint.

And its not what I prefer... of course me as you (I think) prefer PEACE. PEACE instead of war.

[RMadd]

sorry... typo: I meant to say "but simply not finding one person, versus...." By this, I meant that I'm more glad that the Taliban's gone than I am worried that Osama's still at large. What's he done in the past 4 1/2 years? Put out a few videos every now and then? They might as well release those singles and play those videos on VH1........

[RMadd]

And Im unaware of the new structure Afghanistan has these days...what I really know is a country extremely miserable and destroyed by the war that btw your country started, so its a very very distant from the positive image you are trying to paint.
That's fairly ill-informed. Here's how it went down:
+ US forms NATO following WWII to help defend Western Europe from the Commie bastards in the USSR.
+ 50+ years later, alliance still in tact (plus more members), even though USSR is no more.
+ Taliban extremists attack United States in 2001.
+ NATO says, "Hold the phone! You're attacking a member of our alliance! That means we all kick your ass. Die, motherfuckers!"
+ NATO kicks Taliban out of Afghanistan.
+ Years later, people confuse details of Iraq War & Afghanistan.

[Ana4Stapp]

That's fairly ill-informed. Here's how it went down:
+ US forms NATO following WWII to help defend Western Europe from the Commie bastards in the USSR.
+ 50+ years later, alliance still in tact (plus more members), even though USSR is no more.
+ Taliban extremists attack United States in 2001.
+ NATO says, "Hold the phone! You're attacking a member of our alliance! That means we all kick your ass. Die, motherfuckers!"
+ NATO kicks Taliban out of Afghanistan.
+ Years later, people confuse details of Iraq War & Afghanistan.

Some points:

1) Im not confusing Iraq with Afghanistan at all!

2) I have the knowledge of this alliance

3) Even though I didnt comment it on my previous post (actually I forgot to add it) the war in Afeghanistan started like a response of US to the attacks in 11/9...I remember saying in this forum that I can understand US invade Afeghanistan because America was attacked first...but dont agree with it, of course.

4) But in fact, this invasion clearly contributed to destroy even more Afeghanistan...you cant deny it....can you?

[RMadd]

what I really know is a country extremely miserable and destroyed by the war that btw your country started
my NATO post was in regards to this statement of yours. you seemed to be insinuating that the U.S. really had no reason at all to go into Afghanistan, and that, furthermore, we were the only ones who went in. with Afghanistan, that couldn't be farther from the truth. We did not start it. If you attack the state that has the most powerful military in the world, which also happens to be a member of a sizable alliance, you would be very naive to think that there won't be some kind of response.

[Ana4Stapp]

my NATO post was in regards to this statement of yours. you seemed to be insinuating that the U.S. really had no reason at all to go into Afghanistan, and that, furthermore, we were the only ones who went in. with Afghanistan, that couldn't be farther from the truth. We did not start it. If you attack the state that has the most powerful military in the world, which also happens to be a member of a sizable alliance, you would be very naive to think that there won't be some kind of response.


I said your country started this war --which is true, but I know that US started the war because America was attacked/provoked first by terrorists in september 11. This is also true. Im not denying it.

I never said US had no reason to go into Afeghanistan, sorry if you got it wrong. Actually i think US had no reason to invade Iraq, but I do admitt that with Afeghanistan is another thing...I understand US reason but still dont agree with this war.

Im not naive, Ryan...actually Im very far from it ( specially considering my age...lol) but I think is naive to think that war in Afeghanistan didnt fail.

[Chase]

Well...I remember your governement saying the reason to invade Afeghanistan was to catch Osama-and of course to end terrorism that was spread after september 11 by Al-QAEDA..."

" not finding one person"

I cant believe in you saying it Ryan...:eek:

Because even Chase will agree that Osama is very far from a 'one person'. He is (unfortunately) THE person. Dont forget it...Bush, by the way didnt forget it...

And Im unaware of the new structure Afghanistan has these days...what I really know is a country extremely miserable and destroyed by the war that btw your country started, so its a very very distant from the positive image you are trying to paint.

And its not what I prefer... of course me as you (I think) prefer PEACE. PEACE instead of war.

Afghanistan is not destroyed by the war. My best friend just put his life on the line trying to defend the freedoms of those Afghans. The same Afghans who were oppressed by the Taliban regime. They have a good leader in Hamid Karzai and have been relatively stable since the fall of their former regime. If you're unaware about the current situation, then I encourage you to do some research. I have heard the first hand accounts from people who have been there. The Taliban funded 9/11, oppressed millions of Afghans, and were a safe haven to Al Qaeda operatives. These bastards not only attacked the United States, but humanity. We had to defend ourselves.

[Chase]

I said your country started this war --which is true, but I know that US started the war because America was attacked/provoked first by terrorists in september 11. This is also true. Im not denying it.

I never said US had no reason to go into Afeghanistan, sorry if you got it wrong. Actually i think US had no reason to invade Iraq, but I do admitt that with Afeghanistan is another thing...I understand US reason but still dont agree with this war.

Im not naive, Ryan...actually Im very far from it ( specially considering my age...lol) but I think is naive to think that war in Afeghanistan didnt fail.

If the biggest attack on Brazil's soil took place tomorrow how would you feel? If one state funded those attacks what would you want your government to do? Sit there and not respond? I'm sorry Ana, but it is naive to think that responding with force would not send a message to not only that nation, but to the rest of the world. Attacking freedom comes with a price. Many Americans are willing to die to protect freedom. 9/11 affected the whole world, and not just America.

"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."-Admiral Yamamoto, Commander of the Japanese Fleet following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Ana4Stapp]

If the biggest attack on Brazil's soil took place tomorrow how would you feel? If one state funded those attacks what would you want your government to do? Sit there and not respond? I'm sorry Ana, but it is naive to think that responding with force would not send a message to not only that nation, but to the rest of the world. Attacking freedom comes with a price. Many Americans are willing to die to protect freedom. 9/11 affected the whole world, and not just America.

"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."-Admiral Yamamoto, Commander of the Japanese Fleet following the attack on Pearl Harbor.


Are you blind or something Chase? Did you really read my reply to Ryan????
I said that I understood US invading Afeghanistan because America was attacked FIRST. This is what I said. But like always you try to change my words here...

Just to you remember: I said your country started this war --which is true, but I know that US started the war because America was attacked/provoked first by terrorists in september 11. This is also true. Im not denying it.

I never said US had no reason to go into Afeghanistan, sorry if you got it wrong. Actually i think US had no reason to invade Iraq, but I do admitt that with Afeghanistan is another thing...I understand US reason but still dont agree with this war.

You are the only one here who is naive...if not...answer me that: what was the reason of september 11 attacks?

[Chase]

Are you blind or something Chase? Did you really read my reply to Ryan????
I said that I understood US invading Afeghanistan because America was attacked FIRST. This is what I said. But like always you try to change my words here...

Just to you remember:

You are the only one here who is naive...if not...answer me that: what was the reason of september 11 attacks?

The reason? It was the goal of Islamic extremist to attack our way of life. Why are you asking me that? Are you convinced that they were justified in murdering 3,000 innocent people?

[eusebioCBR]

I think Bin Ladden was pissed about American troops being on sacred Arabian soil to protect the oil interests of the royal family:confused:

[Ana4Stapp]

Afghanistan is not destroyed by the war. My best friend just put his life on the line trying to defend the freedoms of those Afghans. The same Afghans who were oppressed by the Taliban regime. They have a good leader in Hamid Karzai and have been relatively stable since the fall of their former regime. If you're unaware about the current situation, then I encourage you to do some research. I have heard the first hand accounts from people who have been there. The Taliban funded 9/11, oppressed millions of Afghans, and were a safe haven to Al Qaeda operatives. These bastards not only attacked the United States, but humanity. We had to defend ourselves.

I can see them 'relatively stable' here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4457876.stm

Its interesting ...how a miserable and opressed country by Taliban cant be destroyed by the war? I mean, wars clearly destroy countries in all meanings the word destruction has...so why US now is helping to 'rebuilt' Afghanistan if it wasnt destroyed? :rolleyes:

[bilal]

my NATO post was in regards to this statement of yours. you seemed to be insinuating that the U.S. really had no reason at all to go into Afghanistan, and that, furthermore, we were the only ones who went in. with Afghanistan, that couldn't be farther from the truth. We did not start it. If you attack the state that has the most powerful military in the world, which also happens to be a member of a sizable alliance, you would be very naive to think that there won't be some kind of response.


Thats true that america became victim of terrrorism.............but dayer are ways of responding and reacting........... i mean............. ok ...........Taliban were protecting osama bin laden........fine..............and i am not into discussin wether Osama is behind the attacks or its just a false puppett or sort of a escape goat for America.......( kindly open ur mind and just TRY to consider this ......atleast try man..i know its hard for any body) ..... i mean......its hard for me to actually believe that the worlds most strongest and sofisticated techonology cant locate a person for all this time.......... imean BIll Clinton did fired a tomhawk missile during his presidency term.........dat landed quite close to where OSama was and dat was some few years earlier to September 11................ why to invade a country and kill its already devestated people , be willing to kill 1000sd of civilians .( and no one can deny dat this did not happened).......just for what...........to find a person to .... to punishh one suspect.............therer is no logic in it for me........


u might say.... " hey ... there the one who started..." ........ read history man.......these things take centuries to build.......... its the actions over centuries that lead an entire nation to develop hatred ........... and America's hands are not clean at all!!!!!........................



i mean....TAliban dudes...........no matter how much hate dey had for America............. werent they also human beings........... created by same God...............dey hated America alrigh........why????........... if dat was all misunderstanding and they had no reason at all for the hatered....( u might again blame "islamic extemism for the hate"...... thats the biggest sppoff of the century)...........cant dat be cured.................. i mean .....why does USA alaways adopt the policy of "Kill em' all""...............damn............ i mean is dat the only cure.............. "Kill em' all""....................damn ......dats was all left to do............"Kill em' all""..............


innocent always pays the price in this dirty business of WAR............many innocent died on the day of Sept 11 .................10 times more died in AFghanistan tryin to compensate for shattered ego of worlds most powerfull nation.............. to me life of an AFghan refugee..........is no less valuable then a life of an innocent office goin American.........both have equal rights to live..........and That is something THat is the very first casualty of WAR...............Innocent dies..............thats what happens....... and if u believe that an AFghanistani person has no hatered for America after what they did in their country............thhen ur very wrong my dear friend............ cause i intract with these people almost daily.........1000 sd of refugees still live in PAkistan...........and i have heard therir stories many timnes........some have lost brothers..........some lost thire kids.........i have seen beggging kids........who are molested everyday and night cause they fleeed from the War and are know living homeless in my country.......living and dying in streets.........Pakistan being it self ecnomically low........cant help em all...........

[Ana4Stapp]

Thats true that america became victim of terrrorism.............but dayer are ways of responding and reacting........... i mean............. ok ...........Taliban were protecting osama bin laden........fine..............and i am not into discussin wether Osama is behind the attacks or its just a false puppett or sort of a escape goat for America.......( kindly open ur mind and just TRY to consider this ......atleast try man..i know its hard for any body) ..... i mean......its hard for me to actually believe that the worlds most strongest and sofisticated techonology cant locate a person for all this time.......... imean BIll Clinton did fired a tomhawk missile during his presidency term.........dat landed quite close to where OSama was and dat was some few years earlier to September 11................ why to invade a country and kill its already devestated people , be willing to kill 1000sd of civilians .( and no one can deny dat this did not happened).......just for what...........to find a person to .... to punishh one suspect.............therer is no logic in it for me........


u might say.... " hey ... there the one who started..." ........ read history man.......these things take centuries to build.......... its the actions over centuries that lead an entire nation to develop hatred ........... and America's hands are not clean at all!!!!!........................



i mean....TAliban dudes...........no matter how much hate dey had for America............. werent they also human beings........... created by same God...............dey hated America alrigh........why????........... if dat was all misunderstanding and they had no reason at all for the hatered....( u might again blame "islamic extemism for the hate"...... thats the biggest sppoff of the century)...........cant dat be cured.................. i mean .....why does USA alaways adopt the policy of "Kill em' all""...............damn............ i mean is dat the only cure.............. "Kill em' all""....................damn ......dats was all left to do............"Kill em' all""..............


innocent always pays the price in this dirty business of WAR............many innocent died on the day of Sept 11 .................10 times more died in AFghanistan tryin to compensate for shattered ego of worlds most powerfull nation.............. to me life of an AFghan refugee..........is no less valuable then a life of an innocent office goin American.........both have equal rights to live..........and That is something THat is the very first casualty of WAR...............Innocent dies..............thats what happens....... and if u believe that an AFghanistani person has no hatered for America after what they did in their country............thhen ur very wrong my dear friend............ cause i intract with these people almost daily.........1000 sd of refugees still live in PAkistan...........and i have heard therir stories many timnes........some have lost brothers..........some lost thire kids.........i have seen beggging kids........who are molested everyday and night cause they fleeed from the War and are know living homeless in my country.......living and dying in streets.........Pakistan being it self ecnomically low........cant help em all...........

Im glad you are here posting these rational comments. ;)

[bilal]

Afghanistan is not destroyed by the war. My best friend just put his life on the line trying to defend the freedoms of those Afghans. The same Afghans who were oppressed by the Taliban regime. They have a good leader in Hamid Karzai and have been relatively stable since the fall of their former regime. If you're unaware about the current situation, then I encourage you to do some research. I have heard the first hand accounts from people who have been there. The Taliban funded 9/11, oppressed millions of Afghans, and were a safe haven to Al Qaeda operatives. These bastards not only attacked the United States, but humanity. We had to defend ourselves.


Are u willing to let a foriegn invading army to kill ur dad.......murdur ur mother............kill all ur kids........... destroy ur home.........put u in a container used as a jail cause ur country dont have any place left to hold prisoners...... u and other captives are shittin and bleeding on each other faces cause the place is too cramped.......... ur wife gets rapped cause there is no law and order left as TAliban forces are scatteered or eliminated and guns and ammunition is all over the country.........and in THE END ur told that this was the price u have paid..... to achieve goals and objectives that wearnt really ur own..................... just imagine that dude............

History takes many years and eliments to create.......... WHat MADE TALIBAN..........wehrer the heck they came from..............??? i would have loved to end my post here and wait to see ur reply CHASE.......but let me continue onn......imagine this..........if all of the cops of any of ur city are evacuated...........lets say of NEW YORK................. and its announced that no police or any law inforcement activiy wiil ltake palce for say 3 days............. just imagine what will happen to ur beautify city............... let me tell me you what will happpen.......... all the shops will be robed.......... murder will take place in every corner of streets............ no one will feell safe..................??? and simmmilar kinda things......... and u will agree with dat............. guns have always been a problem for US public.............havent it been????................ when Soviets were humiliated and defeated in AFghanistan ......... by gorrila war fare of Afghani civiliiians turned freedom fighters ...........(of cource with the help of US intelligence and arms supllied..............) what happpend next............AMerica never returned to Afghanistan till after shocks of September 11.......... they just left AFghanistan on its own............. no government ............no system..............only AMMunition .........tanks ( just for your information........... only the tyres left used by Russian army trucks and then abandoned in afghanistan are still bein used today to make a special type of shoe........ actally its a slipper kinda shoe and i love it........its cool lokin and i only wear that.......its actually tyre sole with leather straps on top.....its hand made.......and believe me...the left feet shoe never matches in size and width with the right one.....damn its hand made)............... devestated people............. no infra structure......... u can imagine the horrible state of crime and disorder in such a place........... if TAliban werent formed.........at that time............... as a form of government and controlling body............ my dear freind.......there would'nt have had any AFghanistan left.........all the balme would have been passed on to Soviets..........but Taliban cAme in to existance..............and they formed there governemtn....ofcource not a democratic...........and of cource opppresive indeeed my firend ...ur right here............. but it wwas the need of the hour.............world never made anny connection with afghanistan afterwards..........no........... only sanctions and more sanctions........... my freind Chase......the people of Afghanistan have had a terrrible history .....u gotta check it out first................ every kid born in hte last 30 years....under the shawdow of war and terror......... and eventually became TAliban............ and u expect them no to harbur enemy of USA................. taliban thought they will again get a gorrila warfare in mountains............and they thought they can beat USA............. poor chaps............... all they ever saw were bombs and bombs and......still more bombs...........the most synical thing ever built...........


trust me bro....... ..... and do correct ur self bro.......... Talibans werent not responsible with Septembe 11 attacks..... they only harboured OSama bin laden........... no one knew how a gguy who never flew an airlinner before could manuver planes in to building.........( my cousin is a pilot of air bus kinda plane and he tells dat no one but an expert could manuver that 747 bitch to a building) and four succesive planes......... that it self is a sepearte debate not relevent to the topic here.....but trust me bro...........NEVER SUPPORT WAR.........DONT MAKE THIS MISTAKE THAT HAS ONLY DEVISTATION AND MISREY TO OFFER..........

[Ana4Stapp]

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-27T173123Z_01_ISL99765_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-PRISON.xml

Another example of the stable Afghanistan


And yes bilal- after the Soviets were turned out of Afghanistan, for example, no help was forthcoming for the devastated country, and 'chaos' made it possible for the Taliban to come to power.

Indeed, Osama bin Laden was an obvious 'protege' of the west, which was 'happy' to support his fighters in the struggle for Afghanistan against U.S.S.R. , in the Cold War days.

So... now America and its allies in West are seeing the consequences of their actions in the past.

[Tremontixriffs]

Okay,

Im new to this political forum so here goes my take on this argument. War is a horrible thing, I have many friends and a cousin who is abroad in Iraq right now so I will try not to be biased to middle eatern or westerner. I am from the United states and I support the war effort. Many may look at war and say It is a last resort to a political dispute, but I believe its more about Good vs Evil. I am not calling anyone who worships islam or any middleastern evil. But there are forces at work in this world who have a dying need to Kill, Rape, Pillage, steal and destroy all except what is important to them.

Osama Bin Laden is not a matyr, hes not a god, not superhuman and he sure as hell is not a representative of the prophet Mohammed. He is a cold blooded killer who has no remorse for anything he does. He uses the palestinian cause and Islamic extremism to train boys and young children to be suicidal killers. The truth is that the world would be a better place without these men in it. I do not for one second believe that you can politically reason with someone who is not affraid to die. The fact that Iran is defying the world in order to enrich Niclear materials for use as weapons. He knows this, he doesn't care. There are other ways for Iran to have nuclear power but that is not this country's aministrations goals. The military commander for the Iranian government was responsible for the recruitment of one of the largest suicidal Matyrdom brigades. They have members in the thousands and I think it is so sad that they parade younh Iranian children around with machine guns offering them to death....Its horrible...American, Pakistani, Afgan, African, noone wants to see their loved ones die, especially in that manor.They showed a video of one of these suicede bombers mother and father. The father stood proud like his son had just done some great humanitarian deed all the while His mother sits there grief stricken and unable to speak her mind as her husban hold her sons photo over her head because she can't. We all know how women are percieved by most arab nations.
If one looks back on wars of the past and realizes the mistakes that were made. There were plenty of them, however I think the world would be a totally different place today if Hitler was not stopped. As it is we joind to late and were lucky to defeat this murderer of millions.
I think the world is a place that has gone totally wrong when madman whose only goal is to wipe the United States and Isreal out is given access to weapons of mass destruction. If the regime of the Iranian government is not changed they will develop a nuclear bomb and believe me they sure as hell will use it. Bilal I look forward to hearing your commentaryon my post, you do have some valid points but alot of them are far reaching such as the possible 9/11 conspiracy. Those pilots that flew the planes into the world trade center were trained to fly a plane and had plenty of miltary training to pull something like that off. I mean this is the same group that bomberd Bali, Egypt, United Kingdom, The us Embasies in Tanzania and the Sudan, The USS Cole and the world trade center in 93 and orchestrated a attack on Us soldiers trying to help the somalian people from genecidr at the hands of a miltia government that stole all the food for peopleand alot of them were buddies with Osama bin laden. They were also trined to fly in the USA which has some of the best flights schools around.If you look at the statistics for plane crashes per year in the usa its the best rating out of any international airways.

[bilal]

Okay,

Im new to this political forum so here goes my take on this argument. War is a horrible thing, I have many friends and a cousin who is abroad in Iraq right now so I will try not to be biased to middle eatern or westerner. I am from the United states and I support the war effort. Many may look at war and say It is a last resort to a political dispute, but I believe its more about Good vs Evil. I am not calling anyone who worships islam or any middleastern evil. But there are forces at work in this world who have a dying need to Kill, Rape, Pillage, steal and destroy all except what is important to them.

Osama Bin Laden is not a matyr, hes not a god, not superhuman and he sure as hell is not a representative of the prophet Mohammed. He is a cold blooded killer who has no remorse for anything he does. He uses the palestinian cause and Islamic extremism to train boys and young children to be suicidal killers. The truth is that the world would be a better place without these men in it. I do not for one second believe that you can politically reason with someone who is not affraid to die. The fact that Iran is defying the world in order to enrich Niclear materials for use as weapons. He knows this, he doesn't care. There are other ways for Iran to have nuclear power but that is not this country's aministrations goals. The military commander for the Iranian government was responsible for the recruitment of one of the largest suicidal Matyrdom brigades. They have members in the thousands and I think it is so sad that they parade younh Iranian children around with machine guns offering them to death....Its horrible...American, Pakistani, Afgan, African, noone wants to see their loved ones die, especially in that manor.They showed a video of one of these suicede bombers mother and father. The father stood proud like his son had just done some great humanitarian deed all the while His mother sits there grief stricken and unable to speak her mind as her husban hold her sons photo over her head because she can't. We all know how women are percieved by most arab nations.
If one looks back on wars of the past and realizes the mistakes that were made. There were plenty of them, however I think the world would be a totally different place today if Hitler was not stopped. As it is we joind to late and were lucky to defeat this murderer of millions.
I think the world is a place that has gone totally wrong when madman whose only goal is to wipe the United States and Isreal out is given access to weapons of mass destruction. If the regime of the Iranian government is not changed they will develop a nuclear bomb and believe me they sure as hell will use it. Bilal I look forward to hearing your commentaryon my post, you do have some valid points but alot of them are far reaching such as the possible 9/11 conspiracy. Those pilots that flew the planes into the world trade center were trained to fly a plane and had plenty of miltary training to pull something like that off. I mean this is the same group that bomberd Bali, Egypt, United Kingdom, The us Embasies in Tanzania and the Sudan, The USS Cole and the world trade center in 93 and orchestrated a attack on Us soldiers trying to help the somalian people from genecidr at the hands of a miltia government that stole all the food for peopleand alot of them were buddies with Osama bin laden. They were also trined to fly in the USA which has some of the best flights schools around.If you look at the statistics for plane crashes per year in the usa its the best rating out of any international airways.



know this is something ........... after reading ur post my good freind...i have decided not to go to bed ( its 3"50 in the night here right know and i have to be in my office tomorry at 8"30)................

ur right on almost all the things u have mentioned..... ur every word hits home...........and its beautiful stuff u have written there buddy....i loved reading it...............but u know what....i ll try to be most precise here ....... the thing that i am most agaisnt about....and why i am saying all this agaisnt war is becasue...... and as u have said in ur post ........ ur COuntry puts every correct text book reason upfront before going to war........as u said ur self....... maniancs and murderors needs to stoped and taught a lesson................agreeed!!!!!............... ur country justifies the war that its going to............... gets all the things gatherd up .,...all support ....all allies....... and every thing in place...alll prepared for war...........a war against terror or enduring freedom....all the poetic and enthusiatic things behid it.......BUT MY FREIND.....LOOK AT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHEN THE WAR STARTS....................AND WHAT IT LEAVES BEHID!!!!!!................what happens to original objectives and where the war is draged to so far.........try to recall what were the objectives told to the country at start.........................its truely very right to kill and teach lesson to those who do bad and evill................ but WAR my dear freind .........jjust look at what happpened in afghanistan!!!!.............alright....put it aside........ its a little old hannn................just loook at whats going on in Iraq......... how many police men dies......how may cilivlians dies daily..........why all american army casulties.............. here in iraq majority killing is being done by "GOd knows only who"..........those "WHo" who just need to create a spark and let the common man get in to teh fire... but but BUT.......please loook.........whos dying!!!!........INNOCENT.....INNOCEN PEOPLE.....lives are bieng ruined.......genreation are getting poisoned......WHY!!!!!!.....my dear freind why all this all evil doing people are out all at once......making all this terror and killing............... shia muslims of iraq blame shuni muslim....and murder them.........and then happens vise versa................ this is all result of WAR.......... what happened in Afghanistan.....why people died.........innocent people......i being a muslim............... why do i have to watch this alll happening in the name of ISLAM.......why i see my muslim brother and sisters lives being ruined and killed every day.......why isnt dayer life is cared as much as those of oridnary americans.................why>?????.........i tell you why............becasue its a wAR dats goin on.........and casulties and loos of innocent lives and INNOCENCE it self gets killed...............i have studied my religion all my life....and i have learned to love and have peace with GOd..........why all this is bieng blamed to Islam............. i agree......Sadam wasnt a fair rulller....heck!!....he want even elected...... but why didnt USA let United nations hanndle the matter........why didnt USA helped or i MUST say allowed other muslim nations to try to solve the matter............just take a lookat the recent bombing of one of the holly sites in iraq....it was equllly adored by all muslims but having its link to shiate muslims....... led to new killings and my eyes were filled with tears when i saw the bodies of some 47 iraqies taken out of a ditch .... handcuffed killed by whome .....no body know.s......... shot dead for what............. to take revenge of recent massacre done by opposite gorup...................and belevie me...this killing wont end.............these are such deadly wounds on each and every effecteee of the War .....that arent goin to heal...............this is one of those historic crises...........that will bring many and many and many more terrible things back to world...............and we thing the war is actaully .,,,,eventually bring peace................

ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT UR COUNTRY THINKS WAR IS GONA BRING ALL THE BAD AND EVIL TO REST AND UR COUNTRY WILL BE SAFE HAVEN ONCE AGAIN........BUT LOOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN U ACTUALLY INVADE A COUNTRY AND BRINGS WAR TO IT...................... WHY U START A MESS THAT U CANT CONTROL.....IT ONLY FUELS EVIL AND HATRED AMOUNG PEOPLE..........TRUST ME MAN....IF ONE IS SINCERE........ THERE ARE WAYS THAT CAN BE SORTED OUT..... .WHY ALWASY WAR................WHY........


you told me about ur relative being there is Iraq..........u know what.....right know i am felling that if i those ur relatives were in front of me.........who went there having same objectives and intentions as you have mentioned as yours in ur post abouve.......I MIGHT HAVE EVEN KISSED THEIR HANDS.......man ...........i dont even wana imagine the risk ur people at war are taking...........but look..........what is actually goin on in iraq................. its messed up.......... u thought bringing down sadDam or say the origanal objectives as being destroying weapons of mass distrucion.......which ofcource are as invisible as OSama till this day.......... what was supposed to be acheived and what has happpened so far.........tell me honestly man..........do u think every thing is going as per plans!!!.......do ur government actually had thought out or expected all this blooodshed...........and isnpite of it.............went on wiht the invation..............???.........do u think normal neutral iRaqi will every approve ur war........

ur concer over Irans neuclear plan is right.........but i am not much informed over the recent updates.....i will try to reply to dat too...............cause u know ....after ur ARmy gets finished with Iraq and still havent learned a lesson.........oh....why am i sayin ur army shud learn...... ofcource ur Governemnt should...........adn ur poeple should realise what happend dayer..........may be iRAn is next.................and then what..........hmm....most definitely PAkistan......... but how knows what last for how long.................


I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT UR INTENTIONS...............but i will never approve ur ACTIONS

[Tremontixriffs]

Your a good guy bilal,

I hope there are alot of pakistanis in your part of the world who do not think that all Americans are bad. Its no secret that there is alot of anti americanism in the Middle East. I have always wanted to visit the middle east, you have a great culture and its a shame that the events of the past fifty or so years is causing such a rift in the world. There are so many interesting places in the middle east and I may never get to see them and because of all this hate and bloodshed.

[eusebioCBR]

This is only speaking to one of bilals points - In this case most innocent people are dieing because insurgents choose to fight and hide among everyday people. I am aware of military mistakes so there are other factors in the loss of the innocent. War is ugly but what else is there when facing an agressor who hides among good people? Is it hard to believe that terrorism unchallenged will seek to dominate the entire globe? Not by conquering governments but, controling through fear and extortion.

[Ana4Stapp]

Your a good guy bilal,

I hope there are alot of pakistanis in your part of the world who do not think that all Americans are bad. Its no secret that there is alot of anti americanism in the Middle East...


That by the way will become worse and worse...

[RMadd]

what was the reason for the Sept. 11 attacks? Hmmm... I'll take a stab at this one:
Some wealthy and violently anti-American organization hellbent on conveying their messages through violent, anti-democratic tactics were finally frustrated enough with creeping American influence in the Middle East that they decided to do something about it by sending a message. Yep, looks like that one went according to plan. :rolleyes:

[RMadd]

Im not naive, Ryan...actually Im very far from it ( specially considering my age...lol) but I think is naive to think that war in Afeghanistan didnt fail.
age alone does not make one naive or not.

also, it's ludicrous to call something that's still ongoing a failure, to write it off as not having any chance of success, just as you seem to be doing Ana.

[Ana4Stapp]

age alone does not make one naive or not.

also, it's ludicrous to call something that's still ongoing a failure, to write it off as not having any chance of success, just as you seem to be doing Ana.


Hey..wheres your sense of humor...I was joking about my age ...right?:D

Well..its not what 'Im doing', Ryan...its the fact...anyway...call me naive if you want..but does it sounds naive or ludicrous?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4755222.stm

[uncertaindrumer]

you have a great culture and its a shame that the events of the past fifty or so years is causing such a rift in the world.

This is totally unpolitically correct, but the middle east has ALWAYS had bad relations with the rest of the world since the rise of Islam. I mean sure, there are periods of relative peace, but there has been constant Islamic wars since Mohammed started. It is definitely not just the events of the past fifty years that have the tensions as they are.

[uncertaindrumer]

So... now America and its allies in West are seeing the consequences of their actions in the past.

It's actions which ENDED THE COLD WAR. Thse who have lived very little of their lives under the threat of a nuclear war don't understand what it was like. Were mistakes made? Sure. But the U.S. kept the world from BLOWING ITSELF UP, and surely that's a good thing.

[bilal]

This is totally unpolitically correct, but the middle east has ALWAYS had bad relations with the rest of the world since the rise of Islam. I mean sure, there are periods of relative peace, but there has been constant Islamic wars since Mohammed started. It is definitely not just the events of the past fifty years that have the tensions as they are.


I ll be glad if u can present ANY facts to authenticate ur statement my freind............ Just blaming my religion for all the tention muslim countries have today is rediculous.............. its true religions have always been at war with each other .............. but here ur just being pointless and obsured............... and i hate to say...... a little biased too

[Tremontixriffs]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060228/1420238873.htm&ewp=ewp_news_0206baghdad&floc=NW_1-T

Just another example of these idiots running around blowing themselves and their own people up. This must be stopped. There is no place in the world for all this hate. Iraq deserves to be free again and these people must fight these suicide bombers, there wasn't even a military target it was just regular Iraqi people getting killed while fillling their car with gas. I dont know Anna , war is horrible but there is no political soultion to this crap, it never ends!

[Ana4Stapp]

This is totally unpolitically correct, but the middle east has ALWAYS had bad relations with the rest of the world since the rise of Islam. I mean sure, there are periods of relative peace, but there has been constant Islamic wars since Mohammed started. It is definitely not just the events of the past fifty years that have the tensions as they are.


Wow, Stephen...you know I love you...but after saying this I reeally hope you dont say that muslim world is EVIL... while America represents Goodness and Bush is ...God...:rolleyes:

Seriously I know what you meant...the problem isnt the 'religion' ...but how governements are using this religion to control people and keep themselves in the power...I mean trying to keep muslim people blind trough the use of religious beliefs...

[uncertaindrumer]

I never said Bush is God. That is so absurd. I think Bush is in the wrong religion, I think he is often a nut head. I never said Islam is evil either. But would it surprise anyone I think they are responsible for a LOT of problems? I think the religion is totally false and built off a lie, it focuses on the degredation of women, the defeat of the infidels, war war war. Someone please show me where this HASN'T been a major thing Islam has focused on. When have they been peaceful? Im not saying every individual is a warmonger, but the religion as a whole seems to breed violence. You can say it doesn't mean to if you really want (I have never read much of the koran, or however you spell it) but regardless of what it means to do it DOES cause a lot of problems.

Someone wants proof? Islam took over half the world in a matter of years. there have been religious wars between Islam and... everyone... ever since. Don't try to tell me that isn't Islam's fault. When Christianity was expanding rapidly at the beginning of the calendar, it did so by conversion and peaceful means. Islam just conquered everyone.

You might think this is all lacking in tact but the gist is true. I am not saying, either, that "Christians" haven't used their own God for ridiculous purposes. But usually they do it in spite of their God, not because of their God.

You think I think America represents goodness? Ummm... hello? We murder millions a year and basically created the morally corrupt and depraved generation we now live in. Rampant sexuality, pornography, abortion, lack of morals, etc. etc. Are all children of America. America is the anti-Islam. Islam is what happens when you use a religious idea to make war. America is what happens when you get rid of all Religious ideals period. Islam isn't responsible for all the world's problems. America has plenty to do with that, as does Germany, Russia, Britain etc. etc. But I'm not gonna sit here and say "Oh yeah, Islam has been a quiet peaceful state for all time and a few extremists are ruining its name" because that just is not true.

[Tremontixriffs]

Uncertain does make a few valid points, even though we totally disagree on alot of things. I think as a human race we are destined to destroy ourselves. The good will be saved while the bad rot in hell for the atrocities they committ. I dont know if any of you guys have read the predictions that nostradamus fortold but to be honest Im getting a little concerned with the direction the world is going. Its been five years since 9/11 and you got to believe that Osama is up to something big and I really hope we get that fuck before he comes up with any more killing sprees.

[Chase]

I ll be glad if u can present ANY facts to authenticate ur statement my freind............ Just blaming my religion for all the tention muslim countries have today is rediculous.............. its true religions have always been at war with each other .............. but here ur just being pointless and obsured............... and i hate to say...... a little biased too

Give me a break. When you have Islamo-fascists executing innocent men in women while chanting "God is great" you can't tell me that religion doesn't play a part in that. What about these people are promised a bunch of virgins in Heaven if they go blow up a shopping mall, killing themselves and dozens of innocent people in the process? Islam is exporting violent extremists who target innocent people. There's nothing but hatred, violence, intolerance, and human rights violence being spewed out of the Middle East and what's most disturbing is that this has been the story since the 14 Century.

They are obviously unable to coexist with non-Muslims... or even Muslims of different religious sects for that matter... and that is a result of Islam.

[Ana4Stapp]

I never said Bush is God. That is so absurd. I think Bush is in the wrong religion, I think he is often a nut head. I never said Islam is evil either. But would it surprise anyone I think they are responsible for a LOT of problems? I think the religion is totally false and built off a lie, it focuses on the degredation of women, the defeat of the infidels, war war war. Someone please show me where this HASN'T been a major thing Islam has focused on. When have they been peaceful? Im not saying every individual is a warmonger, but the religion as a whole seems to breed violence. You can say it doesn't mean to if you really want (I have never read much of the koran, or however you spell it) but regardless of what it means to do it DOES cause a lot of problems.

I can agree that islam is a religion still in the 14 century spreading violence...but still its our opinion...our western opinion...that of course is biased...but I cant say their religion is false...

B]When Christianity was expanding rapidly at the beginning of the calendar, it did so by conversion and peaceful means.[/B] Islam just conquered everyoneI think you miss you history classes...



You think I think America represents goodness? Ummm... hello? We murder millions a year and basically created the morally corrupt and depraved generation we now live in. Rampant sexuality, pornography, abortion, lack of morals, etc. etc. Are all children of America. America is the anti-Islam. Islam is what happens when you use a religious idea to make war. America is what happens when you get rid of all Religious ideals period. Islam isn't responsible for all the world's problems. America has plenty to do with that, as does Germany, Russia, Britain etc. etc.
I can see good points in here...and Im glad you at least recognize the (bad) part of your country in this situation...

But I'm not gonna sit here and say "Oh yeah, Islam has been a quiet peaceful state for all time and a few extremists are ruining its name" because that just is not true.Did you ever sit and notice that they think the same about your America...its too much a biased and naive opinion to put all the blame just in Islamism ...and completely ignoring the enormous problem WE have...

[uncertaindrumer]

I don't care what they think. I didn't go kill three thousand of them did I?

And yeah, Christianity DID initially spread through conversion. It ALWAYS spreads mthrough conversion. Some people TRY to force it on others but it has never and most likely will never work. You can't force someone to be a Christian.

[Ana4Stapp]

Give me a break. When you have Islamo-fascists executing innocent men in women while chanting "God is great" you can't tell me that religion doesn't play a part in that. What about these people are promised a bunch of virgins in Heaven if they go blow up a shopping mall, killing themselves and dozens of innocent people in the process? Islam is exporting violent extremists who target innocent people. There's nothing but hatred, violence, intolerance, and human rights violence being spewed out of the Middle East and what's most disturbing is that this has been the story since the 14 Century.

They are obviously unable to coexist with non-Muslims... or even Muslims of different religious sects for that matter... and that is a result of Islam.

Again...my point is...religion is being used by governements and fake leaders...to control people and keep them ignorant...what its necessary in my opinion is a revolution in islamic world to put the people aware of their social rights and consequently to take this kind of extremists off the power...

[uncertaindrumer]

and completely ignoring the enormous problem WE have...

And the enormous problem we have is...?

[uncertaindrumer]

and what's most disturbing is that this has been the story since the 14 Century.

Since the 8th century.

aware of their social rights

They don't really have any. And don't tell me they have intrinsic social rights either. Only a religion could ever logically claim such a thing and that's what you are blaming.

[Ana4Stapp]

I don't care what they think. I didn't go kill three thousand of them did I?
.

WOW!!!!!! Now you will help me to put my point....America (West) simply doenst CARE about others people...countries.. social probelms ...dictaorships ...abuses...whatever...you just care NOW...because you were attacked in your 'happy way of life'...and now you noticed that Islamic world exists...

Its a very christian position btw...

[Ana4Stapp]

Since the 8th century.



They don't really have any. And don't tell me they have intrinsic social rights either. Only a religion could ever logically claim such a thing and that's what you are blaming.


Hey...when you quote someone...put the name...right? --I thought you were quoting Chase...anyway...I didnt understand why you quote me ..I said they dont have rights...but that they need to realize the importance of it...

[Ana4Stapp]

And the enormous problem we have is...?

INTOLERANCE...in every possible kind of this ...

[eusebioCBR]

WOW!!!!!! Now you will help me to put my point....America (West) simply doenst CARE about others people...countries.. social probelms ...dictaorships ...abuses...whatever...you just care NOW...because you were attacked in your 'happy way of life'...and now you noticed that Islamic world exists...

Its a very christian position btw...
Besides suggesting we rely on the UN to solve all the worlds problems with resolutions and treaties that always end up ignored, what's the solution? Education?, sure if it can be delivered without an anti anybody bias.
I suppose western forces could've stayed out of the middle east, but did the middle eastern conflicts stay out of the western world?(Isreal)
I do tend to approach things sort of one sided. My way of life is under attack and I can't summon the "wisdom" of neutrality.

[Chase]

WOW!!!!!! Now you will help me to put my point....America (West) simply doenst CARE about others people...countries.. social probelms ...dictaorships ...abuses...whatever...you just care NOW...because you were attacked in your 'happy way of life'...and now you noticed that Islamic world exists...

Its a very christian position btw...

What are you talking about? Hitler never sent a bomb to North America, but we still shed American blood over the Old World (Europe)... twice in fact.

[Ana4Stapp]

What are you talking about? Hitler never sent a bomb to North America, but we still shed American blood over the Old World (Europe)... twice in fact.

Chase...im curious....what did you study besides WWII?

[RalphyS]

Ralphys! Were in sweden are you going? :D I live here... Not the best of times to visit us thuogh...

I visited the towns of Karlsbäck and Bjurholm and the city of Umio. I had an excellent time, with beautiful weather, outstanding food, great partying, meeting very exceptional people and a winning icehockey-team.

At a later time, I will put some photo's up on our website www.aowekino.nl .

[RalphyS]

I never said Bush is God. That is so absurd. I think Bush is in the wrong religion, I think he is often a nut head. I never said Islam is evil either. But would it surprise anyone I think they are responsible for a LOT of problems? I think the religion is totally false and built off a lie, it focuses on the degredation of women, the defeat of the infidels, war war war. Someone please show me where this HASN'T been a major thing Islam has focused on. When have they been peaceful? Im not saying every individual is a warmonger, but the religion as a whole seems to breed violence. You can say it doesn't mean to if you really want (I have never read much of the koran, or however you spell it) but regardless of what it means to do it DOES cause a lot of problems.

There is no true religion, all religions are false and there are extremists or a better word maybe fundamentalists of all religions over the world, who prove it on a day to day basis..., but that's just my humble opinion on the matter.

Someone wants proof? Islam took over half the world in a matter of years. there have been religious wars between Islam and... everyone... ever since. Don't try to tell me that isn't Islam's fault. When Christianity was expanding rapidly at the beginning of the calendar, it did so by conversion and peaceful means. Islam just conquered everyone.

You might think this is all lacking in tact but the gist is true. I am not saying, either, that "Christians" haven't used their own God for ridiculous purposes. But usually they do it in spite of their God, not because of their God.

The islam has been a religion, that depended on war to increase itself for a long time. But the Christian crusaders were maybe even more cruel and relentless, also Christianity has forced itself on the people of Africa and America with its missionaries, accompanied by soldiers, who forced natives to become Christian or be killed. Anyway I do believe Christianity has become more moderate and that Islam has a long way to go in that, but I don't think Christianity deserves any praise for that. The enlightenment and the increase in liberal-humanistic values and the separation of church and state and the freedom of expression, media and even the freedom to mock things c.q. institutions is what has made the west more moderate and less tolerant to the radical religious. In other words education about the atrocities made in the name of religion and the lies spread in the name of God has made the West less susceptible to being lied to about things happening in the name of God. This lesson still needs to be learned in most islam nations. And the most frightening thing to the radical islam is that the learning of lesson in the end will be inevitable, this is why they strike out so hard against anything that will open doors to do so.

You think I think America represents goodness? Ummm... hello? We murder millions a year and basically created the morally corrupt and depraved generation we now live in. Rampant sexuality, pornography, abortion, lack of morals, etc. etc. Are all children of America. America is the anti-Islam. Islam is what happens when you use a religious idea to make war. America is what happens when you get rid of all Religious ideals period. Islam isn't responsible for all the world's problems. America has plenty to do with that, as does Germany, Russia, Britain etc. etc. But I'm not gonna sit here and say "Oh yeah, Islam has been a quiet peaceful state for all time and a few extremists are ruining its name" because that just is not true.

The American dream used to be what many in the world aspired, but as the saying goes: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As long as the USA had a counterpart in the communist East, there seemed to be a worldwide system of checks and balances, ofcourse everyone in the free world, was on the side of the USA at that time. But as the iron curtain fell and the USA became the only superpower, its tendencies also became more dictatorial instead of based on cooperation. Statements like 'you are either for us or against us' leave no room for a third opinion. It is no longer allowed to disagree without being treated as an enemy. Laws are being fascillitated to invade friendly countries.

I both fear islam, because it is an unenlightened absolute religion, and the state to which conservatism has led the USA, I hope in both cases education is the answer and that in the end reason will prevail.

[RalphyS]

What are you talking about? Hitler never sent a bomb to North America, but we still shed American blood over the Old World (Europe)... twice in fact.

The USA entered WWI because an American passengership (the Lusithania, if I remember correctly) was sank by torpedos by German U-boats.

In the second World War the USA joined the allied forces when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese and by declaring war on Japan, they also did on their allies the Germans (and Italians).

In both cases thus the USA only entered the war after being attacked itself, while in both cases there was much more evidence of wrong-doing as in the case of the invasion of Iraq, so please don't bend history to fit your needs, Chase.

[uncertaindrumer]

Are you guys saying somehow its WRONG to not enter a war...? That is confusing.

And RalphyS, of course you don't think there is a true religion. Aren't you an atheist? But don't tell me the Crusaders were even "more cruel". First, they were fighting a defensive war, second, war is ALWAYS bad and there will always be abuses. But they were only trying to take back what Islam had taken already. Third, how does one define being "more cruel"? I mean, doesn't killing anyone who converts from Islam qualify as pretty darn cruel?

Our problem is intolerance, Ana? That is an absurd idea. It is ridiculous to even mention it. If one complains about intolerant people, one is being intolerant of intolerant people. Basically what those who claim we are intolerant want us to say is that everyone can have an opinion, EXCEPT the opinion that others are wrong. That is a ludicrous position, one brought on by the moral realtivistic and ethically bankrupt society of today. It also reeks of pantheism, which is extremely hard to defend.

I'm not saying the war on Iraq is good or that America is perfect or anything like that, but it is not because we are intolerant that we have done things.

And actually, Ralph makes a very good point about the Soviet Union being a sort of counter balance to America. I think America was probably headed down its current path anyway. After the WWII generation made us a superpower, the baby boomers used our extreme riches and influence to buy SUV's and other wasteful unnecessary things. Still, the end of the USSR probably accelerated this at the very least.

WOW!!!!!! Now you will help me to put my point....America (West) simply doenst CARE about others people...countries.. social probelms ...dictaorships ...abuses...whatever...you just care NOW...because you were attacked in your 'happy way of life'...and now you noticed that Islamic world exists...

Its a very christian position btw...

now I noticed the Islamic world exists? I always knew about the Islamic world. Unlike most, I actually know some history--something America's public school system does a crappy job of teaching, like almost everything else--and know just how big a problem they have always been. Try to think of a major period in the last 13 centuries when the Middle East HASN'T had lots of problems.... Won't happen.

As for proving your point... I said "I" Don't care what they think. My country for the most part does, but as far as my bias versus their bias, DUH! Of course I am biased. And I said I don't care what they think, not what they do.

I am surprised, you being somewhat feminist, that you don't hold a rather large grudge against Islam for continually holding your entire gender in relative contempt.

And as for the social rights thing, you are doing what I said not to. You claim they are important but have no basis for that. You can't just out of thin air claim something is important. Are you religious Ana? If not, where do you gt the idea that social rights are important? After all, in America we have plenty, and you seem to hate America.

Well that's all the unpolitically correct vituperations I've got time for right now. Cheers people.

[RalphyS]

Are you guys saying somehow its WRONG to not enter a war...? That is confusing.

And RalphyS, of course you don't think there is a true religion. Aren't you an atheist? But don't tell me the Crusaders were even "more cruel". First, they were fighting a defensive war, second, war is ALWAYS bad and there will always be abuses. But they were only trying to take back what Islam had taken already. Third, how does one define being "more cruel"? I mean, doesn't killing anyone who converts from Islam qualify as pretty darn cruel?


I never stated anywhere that it is wrong to not enter a war. Chase has a habit of comparing the offensive war in Iraq with his version of the 2 World Wars, where the USA came to the rescue of the Allied Nations 'out of the goodness of their heart' without any need to do so.

And although history is usually rewritten by the winners of the latest war, I once again couldn't let it slip by. Ofcourse I cannot deny that we owe a gratitude of debt to the USA for their part in the eventual victory in WWII, as we also do to England and Canada.

To describe the crusader's position as a defensive one is also an own interpretation of history. At one time the first Christians came to Jerusalem and it wasn't a Christian nation so it had to be conquered. I think, without looking this up now, that the crusades took place over a period of at least 2 centuries and the offensive and defensive parties changed all the time. If you come from France and England and other parts of Central or Western Europe with your armies to wage a war in Israel/Palestine I would not call it a defensive position. And the crusaders were very well known for being, to put it very mildly, harsh when conquering cities in the region, while the armies of Saladin were at times very generous to those who surrendered. Not to say that it is a totally reliable historical account, but watch the movie 'Kingdom of heaven' for a bit of an inkling of the situation. Ofcourse there is more and better literature on the subject.

[uncertaindrumer]

I never stated anywhere that it is wrong to not enter a war. Chase has a habit of comparing the offensive war in Iraq with his version of the 2 World Wars, where the USA came to the rescue of the Allied Nations 'out of the goodness of their heart' without any need to do so.

Well. Yeah. Chase has a habit of stretching things to defend the war on Iraq, but you can't blame him. You kinda have to stretch things to defend this war, heh.

And although history is usually rewritten by the winners of the latest war, I once again couldn't let it slip by. Ofcourse I cannot deny that we owe a gratitude of debt to the USA for their part in the eventual victory in WWII, as we also do to England and Canada.

Come on, don't make yourself look stupid by pretending Canada was responsible for WWII victory. Say what you will about the U.S. but we won that war. Sure others--especially Britain--helped, but without the U.S., not a chance.

To describe the crusader's position as a defensive one is also an own interpretation of history.

Umm... how? It was Christian, the Muslims invaded and conquered... taking it back (or attempting to) is a responsive, defensive action.

At one time the first Christians came to Jerusalem and it wasn't a Christian nation so it had to be conquered.

Show me where the Cristians militarily conquered Jerusalem.

I think, without looking this up now, that the crusades took place over a period of at least 2 centuries and the offensive and defensive parties changed all the time.

In terms of battle tactics, sure. But Islam started the whole thing.

If you come from France and England and other parts of Central or Western Europe with your armies to wage a war in Israel/Palestine I would not call it a defensive position.

that's because you look at it in a modern point of view. You can't do that and still understand what went on. It was not France attacking Jerusalem. It was Christianity attempting to free the Holy Land from Mulsims.

And the crusaders were very well known for being, to put it very mildly, harsh when conquering cities in the region, while the armies of Saladin were at times very generous to those who surrendered.

There are always those who will be harsh or needlessly destructive, but the Crusades were not nearly the parody of despicability most make them out to be.

Not to say that it is a totally reliable historical account, but watch the movie 'Kingdom of heaven' for a bit of an inkling of the situation.

:rolleyes:


Ofcourse there is more and better literature on the subject.

You got that right.

[Ana4Stapp]

Our problem is intolerance, Ana? That is an absurd idea. It is ridiculous to even mention it. If one complains about intolerant people, one is being intolerant of intolerant people. Basically what those who claim we are intolerant want us to say is that everyone can have an opinion, EXCEPT the opinion that others are wrong. That is a ludicrous position, one brought on by the moral realtivistic and ethically bankrupt society of today. It also reeks of pantheism, which is extremely hard to defend.

I'm not saying the war on Iraq is good or that America is perfect or anything like that, but it is not because we are intolerant that we have done things.



now I noticed the Islamic world exists? I always knew about the Islamic world. Unlike most, I actually know some history--something America's public school system does a crappy job of teaching, like almost everything else--and know just how big a problem they have always been. Try to think of a major period in the last 13 centuries when the Middle East HASN'T had lots of problems.... Won't happen.

As for proving your point... I said "I" Don't care what they think. My country for the most part does, but as far as my bias versus their bias, DUH! Of course I am biased. And I said I don't care what they think, not what they do.

I am surprised, you being somewhat feminist, that you don't hold a rather large grudge against Islam for continually holding your entire gender in relative contempt.

And as for the social rights thing, you are doing what I said not to. You claim they are important but have no basis for that. You can't just out of thin air claim something is important. Are you religious Ana? If not, where do you gt the idea that social rights are important? After all, in America we have plenty, and you seem to hate America.

Well that's all the unpolitically correct vituperations I've got time for right now. Cheers people.

I dont have enough time to comment all of your absurd post ...and Ill do it later....but saying that I hate America is...wow!!!!! :rolleyes:

[RalphyS]

I actually looked it up on wikipedia.org and the city of Jerusalem was under Arab/Islam rule from 638 CE to 1099 CE, when the first crusade conquered it.

It was never in Roman Catholic hands before that, so it seems the crusaders were the offensive force, they were apparently provoked to do so by stories of churches being destroyed in the city.

In the first centuries CE Jerusalem was a relatively small and unimportant Roman town.

The Byzantine Emperor Constantine, however, rebuilt Jerusalem as a Christian center of worship, building the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 335. Jews were still banned from the city, except during a brief period of Persian rule from 614-629.

The city was one of the Arab Caliphate's first conquests in 638 CE; according to Arab historians of the time, the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab personally went to the city to receive its submission, cleaning out and praying at the Temple Mount in the process. Sixty years later, the Dome of the Rock was built, a structure in which there lies the stone where Muhammad is said to have tethered his mount Buraq during the Isra. This is also reputed to be the place where Abraham went to sacrifice his son (Isaac in the Jewish tradition, Ishmael in the Muslim one.) Note that the octagonal and gold-sheeted Dome is not the same thing as the Al-Aqsa Mosque beside it, which was built more than three centuries later. Umar ibn al-Khattab also allowed the Jews entry into the city and full freedom to live and worship after 400 hundred years. Jews were allowed to move back into their homes.

Under the early centuries of Muslim rule, especially during the Umayyad (650-750) and Abbasid (750-969) dynasties, the city prospered; the geographers Ibn Hawqal and al-Istakhri (10th century) describe it as "the most fertile province of Palestine", while its native son the geographer al-Muqaddasi (born 946) devoted many pages to its praises in his most famous work, The Best Divisions in the Knowledge of the Climes.

The early Arab period was also one of religious tolerance. However, in the early 11th century, the Egyptian Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of all churches and synagogues in Jerusalem, a policy reversed by his successors. Reports of this were one cause of the First Crusade, which marched off from Europe to the area, and, on July 15, 1099, Christian soldiers took Jerusalem after a difficult one month siege. They then proceeded to slaughter most of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. Raymond d'Aguiliers, chaplain to Raymond de Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, wrote:

"Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious ceremonies were ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle-reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood. (Edward Peters, The First Crusade: The chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and other source materials, p. 214)"

Jerusalem became the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a feudal state, of which the King of Jerusalem was the chief. Christian settlers from the West set about rebuilding the principal shrines associated with the life of Christ. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was ambitiously rebuilt as a great Romanesque church, and Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount (the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque) were converted for Christian purposes. It is during this period of Frankish occupation that the Military Orders of the Knights of Saint John and the Knights Templar have their beginnings. Both grew out of the need to protect and care for the great influx of pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem in the twelfth century. The Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted until 1291; however, Jerusalem itself was recaptured by Saladin in 1187, who permitted worship of all religions (see Siege of Jerusalem (1187).

Comparing the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 with a defensive war because the Christians took it back would therefore be the same as describing an English invasion of the USA now as defensive for taking back its colonies.

And the quoted part in the text describes the atrocities of the crusaders quite accurately, it wasn't even written by the side that the atrocities where commited upon.

[uncertaindrumer]

Comparing the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 with a defensive war because the Christians took it back would therefore be the same as describing an English invasion of the USA now as defensive for taking back its colonies.

No, it wouldn't. Once again you look at this like states instead of religions. To have unbelievers in posession of the Holy Land was embarassing and unbearable. They wanted to take back the Holy Land because Christians were not always allowed in, pilgramages were nearly impossible, Christians had no rights when visiting their own origins, etc.

And I also said they were defensive in nature, if anything. I don't really think they were so clear cut. They were religious wars. After they started they never really ended. But Islam was the intial agrressor. That is all I mean by saying defensive in nature. Another problem with your Britain analogy is that Britan and the U.S. have not been constantly at war for the last two hundred years.

As for the Church never "owning" Jerusalem, that is because the Church rarely "owns" anything, except Vatican City. The only major exception was in the medeival era the ill-fated Papal States which... were a bad bad idea. Even then, the Pope was not in direct control of the countries. There were monarchs.

Also, the Church did not attack the Holy Land. Popes often organized the crusades and offered plenary indulgences to those who would go, but the rulers of the Christian nations gained what they conquered. Actually, one of the worst abuses in the Crusades was when, after promising the return of lands previously controlled by the Eastern Empire, the majority of the military commanders failed to do so.

I'm not saying bad things didn't happen. I mean, its war. Bad things ALWAYS happen. That's why I think the Iraq war is so wrong. But it was not a war the Christians ever wanted.

[uncertaindrumer]

And Ana, I said you "seem" to hate America. Before yelling about it, think about it. You are always anti-American in your posts. Why WOULDN'T someone think you dislike America? If you don't, GREAT, but clarify it.

[Chase]

Well. Yeah. Chase has a habit of stretching things to defend the war on Iraq, but you can't blame him. You kinda have to stretch things to defend this war, heh.



Come on, don't make yourself look stupid by pretending Canada was responsible for WWII victory. Say what you will about the U.S. but we won that war. Sure others--especially Britain--helped, but without the U.S., not a chance.



Umm... how? It was Christian, the Muslims invaded and conquered... taking it back (or attempting to) is a responsive, defensive action.



Show me where the Cristians militarily conquered Jerusalem.



In terms of battle tactics, sure. But Islam started the whole thing.



that's because you look at it in a modern point of view. You can't do that and still understand what went on. It was not France attacking Jerusalem. It was Christianity attempting to free the Holy Land from Mulsims.



There are always those who will be harsh or needlessly destructive, but the Crusades were not nearly the parody of despicability most make them out to be.



:rolleyes:




You got that right.

Yeah... you really "have to stretch" the thousands of people killed as a result of Saddam Hussein's genocide. Wise up.

[Ana4Stapp]

And Ana, I said you "seem" to hate America. Before yelling about it, think about it. You are always anti-American in your posts. Why WOULDN'T someone think you dislike America? If you don't, GREAT, but clarify it.

Always anti-American in my posts?? Are you uncertain really saying it? Well I could easily understand if Chase was saying it...but you...:eek:

But okay....i respond your biased comment: No, Im not anti american...like always Im saying that I have nothing against U.S.and americans (I do consider some of you here as my friends;) ) --what I clearly dislike is american foreign policy(im sick of saying it!)...and consequently Bush's position in using war as a solution to everything in the world....and as result painting a primitive scenario of good (america) and evil (muslim world)....btw its very disappointing to see that you are buying this 'simplistic' (?) scenario as true...

But maybe its the fact that being a foreing I can see (as Ralphy) things in others perspectives...I mean out of the american 'focus'...but of course inside a historical view...

Have you ever think why non-americans seems to be 'against' america? Are they ignorant, liers, bad people??? Well ...maybe they are not blind...

Do you believe that all of us outside US --HATE America???? Because if your answer is affirmative...you are the most naive person I know, Stephen...:rolleyes:

[Chase]

The USA entered WWI because an American passengership (the Lusithania, if I remember correctly) was sank by torpedos by German U-boats.

In the second World War the USA joined the allied forces when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese and by declaring war on Japan, they also did on their allies the Germans (and Italians).

In both cases thus the USA only entered the war after being attacked itself, while in both cases there was much more evidence of wrong-doing as in the case of the invasion of Iraq, so please don't bend history to fit your needs, Chase.

You're wrong. The RMS Lusitania was a British passenger ship... and the Germans declared war on the United States after Japan attacked the United States. Hitler wasn't concentrated on America and wasn't obligated to declare war on the U.S. due to the conditions of the Tripartite Pact of 1940. He actually had a problem with the U.S. being a neutral country because he knew that the Americans would do business with the British and provide sell them old naval destroyers.

Either way... the U.S. really didn't have to go to Europe. We could've just focused on Japan.

[Chase]

Always anti-American in my posts?? Are you uncertain really saying it? Well I could easily understand if Chase was saying it...but you...:eek:

But okay....i respond your biased comment: No, Im not anti american...like always Im saying that I have nothing against U.S.and americans (I do consider some of you here as my friends;) ) --what I clearly dislike is american foreign policy(im sick of saying it!)...and consequently Bush's position in using war as a solution to everything in the world....and as result painting a primitive scenario of good (america) and evil (muslim world)....btw its very disappointing to see that you are buying this 'simplistic' (?) scenario as true...

But maybe its the fact that being a foreing I can see (as Ralphy) things in others perspectives...I mean out of the american 'focus'...but of course inside a historical view...

Have you ever think why non-americans seems to be 'against' america? Are they ignorant, liers, bad people??? Well ...maybe they are not blind...

Do you believe that all of us outside US --HATE America???? Because if your answer is affirmative...you are the most naive person I know, Stephen...:rolleyes:

But Bush doesn't always use war. If that was the case, then we would be in war with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

[Ana4Stapp]

But Bush doesn't always use war. If that was the case, then we would be in war with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

hunm...how many years he still has as U.S. president???:rolleyes:

[Chase]

hunm...how many years he still has as U.S. president???:rolleyes:

I know you really, really want to think that America is a warmongering fascist state, but I'm you're going to be disappointed by the fact that it is not. Bush leaves office officially in January of 2009 and seriously doubt that we're going to have anymore wars unless Iran attacks Israel or if North Korea attacks Japan, or if Syria attacks Lebanon, Israel, or Iraq... or if China invades Taiwan.

[Ana4Stapp]

Our problem is intolerance, Ana? That is an absurd idea. It is ridiculous to even mention it. If one complains about intolerant people, one is being intolerant of intolerant people. Basically what those who claim we are intolerant want us to say is that everyone can have an opinion, EXCEPT the opinion that others are wrong. That is a ludicrous position, one brought on by the moral realtivistic and ethically bankrupt society of today. It also reeks of pantheism, which is extremely hard to defend. I'm not saying the war on Iraq is good or that America is perfect or anything like that, but it is not because we are intolerant that we have done things.

You can use all the concepts you want... but its clearly INTOLERANCE that puts all of us in this dramatic world full of wars...unless you dont know the meaning of intolerance...(do you? )

Intolerance is based in prejudice, and can lead to discrimination....Common forms of intolerance include racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, religious intolerance, and intolerance of differing political views.


now I noticed the Islamic world exists? I always knew about the Islamic world. Unlike most, I actually know some history--something America's public school system does a crappy job of teaching, like almost everything else--and know just how big a problem they have always been. Try to think of a major period in the last 13 centuries when the Middle East HASN'T had lots of problems.... Won't happen.

I didnt say literally YOU Stephen! And Im sure you know History....(btw you have a very good knowledge in History issues...;) ) but this has nothing to do with my point...I was refering to US governors who obviously ignored other countries until 11/09 attacks...

As for proving your point... I said "I" Don't care what they think. My country for the most part does, but as far as my bias versus their bias, DUH! Of course I am biased. And I said I don't care what they think, not what they do.
;)

I am surprised, you being somewhat feminist, that you don't hold a rather large grudge against Islam for continually holding your entire gender in relative contempt.

You know..you were offline for a while...so it must explain your innacurate statement...in the thread about muslim cartoons posted by Chase...I said that muslim women seemed to be more willing to changes...because they were so opressed that need these changes...

and yeah....being the only woman posting regularly on Political Banter..I need to be a feminist to defend women here ...lol

And as for the social rights thing, you are doing what I said not to. You claim they are important but have no basis for that. You can't just out of thin air claim something is important. Are you religious Ana? If not, where do you gt the idea that social rights are important? After all, in America we have plenty, and you seem to hate America.[

Wow...only being a religious woman I can see the social rights as important things?? Did I say that in America you dont have social rights? I dont remember saying this absurd...unless you are refering to the title of this thread...huh? ..:rolleyes:

Also...explain to me what do you consider as social rights...


sWell that's all the unpolitically correct vituperations I've got time for right now. Cheers people.

Cheers.... Stephen...Cheers!!!:D

[Ana4Stapp]

I know you really, really want to think that America is a warmongering fascist state, but I'm you're going to be disappointed by the fact that it is not. Bush leaves office officially in January of 2009 and seriously doubt that we're going to have anymore wars unless Iran attacks Israel or if North Korea attacks Japan, or if Syria attacks Lebanon, Israel, or Iraq... or if China invades Taiwan.


And I know you really, really want to think that I am a Osamas's fan or Saddam's admirer...but you are going to be disappointed by the fact that Im not...lol

Oh... Bush still has all this time? ...I think its enough time to find some excuse (evidences...) to start another war...but maybe you are right...:rolleyes:

[eusebioCBR]

"or if China invades Taiwan" The pledge to defend Taiwan was made long before Pres. Bush came to office. This is the possible conflict that makes me very nervous:bump:

[uncertaindrumer]

You can use all the concepts you want... but its clearly INTOLERANCE that puts all of us in this dramatic world full of wars...unless you dont know the meaning of intolerance...(do you? )

Intolerance is based in prejudice, and can lead to discrimination....Common forms of intolerance include racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, religious intolerance, and intolerance of differing political views.

I know what intolerance is. I don't think America is intolerant. I think we are too tolerant.




I didnt say literally YOU Stephen! And Im sure you know History....(btw you have a very good knowledge in History issues...;) ) but this has nothing to do with my point...I was refering to US governors who obviously ignored other countries until 11/09 attacks...

Ignored other countries? Exactly what did you want us to do? I mean, did we ignroe Kuwait? I don't think so.



You know..you were offline for a while...so it must explain your innacurate statement...in the thread about muslim cartoons posted by Chase...I said that muslim women seemed to be more willing to changes...because they were so opressed that need these changes...

They are oppressed. Very much so. I am amazed that America's super liberal feminist majority hasn't damned all of Islam for their treatment of women.

and yeah....being the only woman posting regularly on Political Banter..I need to be a feminist to defend women here ...lol

Meh. Don't worry about me. I greatly respect the inferior sex! (lol, in case you didn't catch that, I was totally joking)



Wow...only being a religious woman I can see the social rights as important things?? Did I say that in America you dont have social rights? I dont remember saying this absurd...unless you are refering to the title of this thread...huh? ..:rolleyes:

Only someone with a basis for even believing they are RIGHTS at all is what I mean. What leads you to believe social rights are important? If it is something besides religion, sobeit. But I can't think of anything else that would say social rights are good with any kind of logicality or authority.

Also...explain to me what do you consider as social rights...

Depends on what you mean. Do you mean what do I consider as what SHOULD be social rights, what ARE social rights...?



Cheers.... Stephen...Cheers!!!:D

Indeed. :smokin:

[uncertaindrumer]

Oh... Bush still has all this time? ...I think its enough time to find some excuse (evidences...) to start another war...

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice. I strongly strongly doubt the possibility of another war, unless some other country does something like... I dunno... blow up Pearl Harbor.

[Rocketqueen]

oh come now they will blow up something im sure they are cooking right now on another famous usa landmark

[Ana4Stapp]

I know what intolerance is. I don't think America is intolerant. I think we are too tolerant.

If you come back to my post youll see that I didnt say that especifically America was intolerant..btw...dont try to change my words here... (one person doing this is enough...two smell cowardice right?....lol)


Ignored other countries? Exactly what did you want us to do? I mean, did we ignroe Kuwait? I don't think so.

I dont want that America does anything...really...but its too strange that US only recently (your governement..not the people...right?) had noticed certain countries and consequently decided to spread 'democracy' ??? :rolleyes:

Seriously, despite all your excellent knowledge in History -- what was your familiarity with Afghanistan before the invasion/war ???

Kwait???? Of course not...it has oil...isnt it?

They are oppressed. Very much so. I am amazed that America's super liberal feminist majority hasn't damned all of Islam for their treatment of women.

Yeah..

Meh. Don't worry about me. I greatly respect the inferior sex! (lol, in case you didn't catch that, I was totally joking)
Of course I got what you meant...Im a woman...Im intelligent ;)...lol




Only someone with a basis for even believing they are RIGHTS at all is what I mean. What leads you to believe social rights are important? If it is something besides religion, sobeit. But I can't think of anything else that would say social rights are good with any kind of logicality or authority.

Well we live in a society...you have to cohabit ...so you need some rights and rules to make them work...

Depends on what you mean. Do you mean what do I consider as what SHOULD be social rights, what ARE social rights...?

Its amazing the way you try to avoid answering my questions...I want that you say what are social rights? Simple question....



Indeed. :smokin:

;)

[Chase]

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice. I strongly strongly doubt the possibility of another war, unless some other country does something like... I dunno... blow up Pearl Harbor.

Duped twice? Please don't tell me you consider going after the Taliban regime (the government directly behind the funding 9/11) duping the American people. C'mon... America is at least allowed to defend itself.

[Ana4Stapp]

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice. I strongly strongly doubt the possibility of another war, unless some other country does something like... I dunno... blow up Pearl Harbor.

So theres some possibilty ...well who knows? But anyway.. Bush still has lots of time to think (does he think?) about it...:rolleyes:

Also...you chose Bush for the second time...so its not so hard ...lol

[Rocketqueen]

this politic stuff is a languge i cant grasp i try and puts me in a oblivion so help me, i dont know one country from other :D you know what really ticks me off When I See These Big Flyers SAYING Pray For Our Country NOT THAT IT DOES NOT NEED IT, They send all our good men to war of course and make heroes out of theme and use theme to feed their hunger and laugh behind their back Not Public of course No they will give up and give their speaches of houner and respect to the poor victims and urge more to fight for the country... I Do Pray For Our Troops And Prisoners And I Know GOD IS BEHIND THEME ALL, Not Thir Country By No Means

[Ana4Stapp]

this politic stuff is a languge i cant grasp i try and puts me in a oblivion so help me, i dont know one country from other :D you know what really ticks me off When I See These Big Flyers SAYING Pray For Our Country NOT THAT IT DOES NOT NEED IT, They send all our good men to war of course and make heroes out of theme and use theme to feed their hunger and laugh behind their back Not Public of course No they will give up and give their speaches of houner and respect to the poor victims and urge more to fight for the country... I Do Pray For Our Troops And Prisoners And I Know GOD IS BEHIND THEME ALL, Not Thir Country By No Means

Sister...I think I *almost* got what you meant...:D

lol

Seriously politics is much more easy to me than your...hun...language..lol

[Rocketqueen]

:d

[RalphyS]

No, it wouldn't. Once again you look at this like states instead of religions. To have unbelievers in posession of the Holy Land was embarassing and unbearable. They wanted to take back the Holy Land because Christians were not always allowed in, pilgramages were nearly impossible, Christians had no rights when visiting their own origins, etc.

As stated in the quote of Wikipedia before the Arabs/Muslims were very tolerant towards pilgrims/pilgrimages, except for the brief period in which one leader wanted to destroy all the churches.

Also would you call it a defensive war now if Christians tried to take Jerusalem from the Jewish nation Israel? Was it a defensive war when Israel took it from the Palestines? If you have a religious claim on a city/area is it always defensive to take it back?

And I also said they were defensive in nature, if anything. I don't really think they were so clear cut. They were religious wars. After they started they never really ended. But Islam was the intial agrressor. That is all I mean by saying defensive in nature. Another problem with your Britain analogy is that Britan and the U.S. have not been constantly at war for the last two hundred years.

I already agreed that the status of early islam was very aggressive and could be considered war-mongering. The expansion of this religion in early days was almost always though conquest. I also agree that there was a certain state between the 2 religions that was open war at times and could be considered a cold war at other times, but in that light was the letting pilgrims come to the 'holy country' a sign of tolerance by the muslims. Although it would always be a hazard, just like in the wild west it would always be a hazard to travel through indian land, peace treaty or not, I suspect.

As for the Church never "owning" Jerusalem, that is because the Church rarely "owns" anything, except Vatican City. The only major exception was in the medeival era the ill-fated Papal States which... were a bad bad idea. Even then, the Pope was not in direct control of the countries. There were monarchs.

Also, the Church did not attack the Holy Land. Popes often organized the crusades and offered plenary indulgences to those who would go, but the rulers of the Christian nations gained what they conquered. Actually, one of the worst abuses in the Crusades was when, after promising the return of lands previously controlled by the Eastern Empire, the majority of the military commanders failed to do so.

I'm not saying bad things didn't happen. I mean, its war. Bad things ALWAYS happen. That's why I think the Iraq war is so wrong. But it was not a war the Christians ever wanted.

Actually I read up on most of the other history of the crusades yesterday on wikipedia, and I think it was the third crusade (out of 9 in total) that totally ransacked (sp?) the city of Constantinopel (present day: Istanbul), with the reason that they considered the there leading Eastern Orthodox church also heretical.

And about the land, once again, I do not consider a religious claim to be anything that could make you claim a defensive status in a war, but I think we have to agree to disagree on that.

[RalphyS]

I know what intolerance is. I don't think America is intolerant. I think we are too tolerant.

I wouldn't say that the USA is intolerant, but I surely would not say that it is too tolerant.

There are certainly more tolerant countries, but there are undoubtedly much more intolerant countries.

I think especially in the bible belt, there could be more tolerance toward homosexuals, or for that matter anyone who aspires any other relationship than the traditional family type, and people with other worldviews.

[RalphyS]

Lol. Nah. The American people are tough to dupe twice.

Well as Ana said, the re-election of Dubya proved this statement wrong.

In regard to Dubya starting another war, I don't think even he would be dumb enough to try that, unless indeed provoked by another 9/11 scenario, in which case the cry for revenge would have to be answered by any political leader. Otherwise he knows that the American military is too stretched already by the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and also the extra costs of another war could not be made clear to the American public without any direct attack, both in money and in human lifes.

[RalphyS]

You're wrong. The RMS Lusitania was a British passenger ship... and the Germans declared war on the United States after Japan attacked the United States. Hitler wasn't concentrated on America and wasn't obligated to declare war on the U.S. due to the conditions of the Tripartite Pact of 1940. He actually had a problem with the U.S. being a neutral country because he knew that the Americans would do business with the British and provide sell them old naval destroyers.

Either way... the U.S. really didn't have to go to Europe. We could've just focused on Japan.

So actually the USA did not enter the war in Europe just to help us out, they were declared war upon by the Germans?

I have to agree that the decision of the USA to enter the war in Europe was probably the deciding factor there, but if 'you had just dealt with Japan' and Europe would have become a total nazi-state, it would have become much harder for the USA too later on, I presume, to beat them. So it was probably a good tactic to join the effort in Europe.

Oh, and it may be true that the Lusithania was British, but the USA entered the war because many American passengers died, I believe.

[uncertaindrumer]

.

If you come back to my post youll see that I didnt say that especifically America was intolerant..btw...dont try to change my words here... (one person doing this is enough...two smell cowardice right?....lol)

I asked you what you thought our problem was and you said intolerance, didn't you? Or am I going insane...




I dont want that America do anything...really...but its too strange that US only recently (your governement..not the people...right?) had noticed certain countries and consequently decided to spread 'democracy' ??? :rolleyes:

Well like I said...I don't agree with this war.

Seriously, despite all your excellent knowledge in History -- what was your familiarity with Afghanistan before the invasion/war ???

Quite a bit actually. Unlike %99 of Americans, I knew who Osama Bin Laden was BEFORE 9/11...

Kwait???? Of course not...it has oil...isnt it?

Most Middle Eastern countries do.




Well we live in a society...you have to cohabit ...so you need some rights and rules to make them work...

But we created society. How do you know society isn't a problem to begin with?


Its amazing the way you try to avoid answering my questions...I want that you say what are social rights? Simple question....

I can't list every social right I think we deserve. I think we all need to be able live as those created in the image of God should live. But that comes from my religious beliefs. If I had no religious beliefs, I probably would not be able to talk about what I "believe" about social problems.

[uncertaindrumer]

Well as Ana said, the re-election of Dubya proved this statement wrong.

I disagree. I think the elecetion of Bush again came from a total lack of a countering candidate (Kerry? please.), and the thought that Bush would never be able to marshall support for another war, and the fact that Kerry supported this war to begin with too! So I think Bush getting elected again was not the result of people's happiness with the war but with a lack of a better candidate.

I wouldn't say that the USA is intolerant, but I surely would not say that it is too tolerant.

Well if one believes, abortion, contraception, engaging in homosexuality etc. etc. are wrong, certainly one could think that the U.S.A. is too tolerant? The world for that matter.

[Ana4Stapp]

I asked you what you thought our problem was and you said intolerance, didn't you? Or am I going insane...

You are probably going insane.. (jk)...because when I wrote WE --I was clearly considering the human beings as a whole....I didnt say especifically 'Americans'...sorry if you didnt catch it...:rolleyes:


Well like I said...I don't agree with this war.

Well...this is why I love you!! ;)

Quite a bit actually. Unlike %99 of Americans, I knew who Osama Bin Laden was BEFORE 9/11...

So you are helping me to confirming my theory...americans know nothing about what is 'outside america'...



Most Middle Eastern countries do.

And most of the Western countries want it...;)


But we created society. How do you know society isn't a problem to begin with?

I dont know if its a problem..proabably is... .but we live in society...so we need to live using and respecting rules and having socual rights...



I can't list every social right I think we deserve. I think we all need to be able live as those created in the image of God should live. But that comes from my religious beliefs. If I had no religious beliefs, I probably would not be able to talk about what I "believe" about social problems.

You know that I dont have ' religious beliefs' ..hum..like you...right? but I still belive in social rights and Im sure Im able to talk about them...why not?

See ...you are being intolerant...:rolleyes:

[uncertaindrumer]

...

You are probably going insane.. (jk)...because when I wrote WE --I was clearly considering the human beings as a whole....I didnt say especifically 'Americans'...sorry if you didnt catch it...:rolleyes:

Ah I see. Sorry for my misunderstanding.



Well...this is why I love you!! ;)

Only because of my political views? Doesn't this make you intolerant of those who don't have my views? lol jk



So you are helping me to confirming my theory...americans know nothing about what is 'outside america'...

No no no, you don't geti it. Americans don't know anything PERIOD!!! Inn a poll conducted the other day, only 1 in a thousand people even knew what five rights the first ammendment to the Constitution gives them. tons of people thought one of the rights was the right to own a pet! The vast majority of americans, thanks to this pathetic excuse for a school system we have, are totally lacking in knowledge.





And most of the Western countries want it...;)

Yeah. Well, one thing I DID agree with Bush on is that we are addicted to oil.




I dont know if its a problem..proabably is... .but we live in society...so we need to live using and respecting rules and having socual rights...

If society is a problem shouldn't we fix it or get rid of it and make something new instead of just dealing with it?




You know that I dont have ' religious beliefs' ..hum..like you...right? but I still belive in social rights and Im sure Im able to talk about them...why not?

Well you may have a few beliefs but where do they come from?

See ...you are being intolerant...:rolleyes:

I'm very tolerant of those in error. I know they are in error and won't compromise on that, but I do not persecute them for it.

[RMadd]

And yeah, Christianity DID initially spread through conversion. It ALWAYS spreads mthrough conversion. Some people TRY to force it on others but it has never and most likely will never work. You can't force someone to be a Christian.
I pretty much agreed with everything you said up until this comment. What of the colonial period, particularly in Africa?

[RMadd]

WOW!!!!!! Now you will help me to put my point....America (West) simply doenst CARE about others people...countries.. social probelms ...dictaorships ...abuses...whatever...you just care NOW...because you were attacked in your 'happy way of life'...and now you noticed that Islamic world exists...

Its a very christian position btw...
no, that is most definitely not a Christian view. if that's the way you see Christianity, I am deeply sorry for whatever you have experienced that has made it such. Political Christianity, as used by Bush and crusaders, is not truly Christianity. I won't get into it too much in this forum, but loving one another is at the heart of the religion. So, it is very un-Christian to be secluded in your "happy way of life" and to not care if something doesn't directly affect you. Yes, that might be how states that are historically Christian might act, but the fact that the U.S. doesn't act unless acted upon doesn't stem from its Christian roots. Instead, our country was isolationist, really, up until the Cold War, so we have a good 200-300 years (including the colonial period) of not caring entirely too much what was going on in the Eastern Hemisphere.

[RMadd]

There is no true religion, all religions are false and there are extremists or a better word maybe fundamentalists of all religions over the world, who prove it on a day to day basis..., but that's just my humble opinion on the matter.
i would hardly consider that humble lol


The islam has been a religion, that depended on war to increase itself for a long time. But the Christian crusaders were maybe even more cruel and relentless, also Christianity has forced itself on the people of Africa and America with its missionaries, accompanied by soldiers, who forced natives to become Christian or be killed. Anyway I do believe Christianity has become more moderate and that Islam has a long way to go in that, but I don't think Christianity deserves any praise for that. The enlightenment and the increase in liberal-humanistic values and the separation of church and state and the freedom of expression, media and even the freedom to mock things c.q. institutions is what has made the west more moderate and less tolerant to the radical religious. In other words education about the atrocities made in the name of religion and the lies spread in the name of God has made the West less susceptible to being lied to about things happening in the name of God. This lesson still needs to be learned in most islam nations. And the most frightening thing to the radical islam is that the learning of lesson in the end will be inevitable, this is why they strike out so hard against anything that will open doors to do so.
ditto



The American dream used to be what many in the world aspired, but as the saying goes: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As long as the USA had a counterpart in the communist East, there seemed to be a worldwide system of checks and balances, ofcourse everyone in the free world, was on the side of the USA at that time. But as the iron curtain fell and the USA became the only superpower, its tendencies also became more dictatorial instead of based on cooperation. Statements like 'you are either for us or against us' leave no room for a third opinion. It is no longer allowed to disagree without being treated as an enemy. Laws are being fascillitated to invade friendly countries.
that's why i don't like Bush so much anymore. this approach that he and his cronies use is dangerous in international politics. much like radical islamists will experience backlash for their views, i expect that, if it hasn't happened already (int'l opposition to the war in iraq), the u.s. will again have substantial difficulty in currying int'l favor.

I both fear islam, because it is an unenlightened absolute religion, and the state to which conservatism has led the USA, I hope in both cases education is the answer and that in the end reason will prevail.
I assume that, in regards to the U.S., you don't mean true conservatism. Conservatism, at least over here, indicates a desire for a smaller federal government, states' rights, and little government invasion of privacy. In this regard, Bush is certainly not politically conservative, only socially conservative (neo-conservative, as you may well know).

[RMadd]

Our problem is intolerance, Ana? That is an absurd idea. It is ridiculous to even mention it. If one complains about intolerant people, one is being intolerant of intolerant people. Basically what those who claim we are intolerant want us to say is that everyone can have an opinion, EXCEPT the opinion that others are wrong. That is a ludicrous position, one brought on by the moral realtivistic and ethically bankrupt society of today. It also reeks of pantheism, which is extremely hard to defend.
yesssssssssss! i love it! i can't stand it when i hear or see people of a more liberal moral persuasion deride me for being "intolerant," and, in the same breath, tell me that my beliefs are essentially wrong. helloooooo, irony! at least because i'm an absolutist, i can tell you you're wrong, and not have to worry about making statements that are antithetical to my beliefs lol.

[RMadd]

Oh... Bush still has all this time? ...I think its enough time to find some excuse (evidences...) to start another war...but maybe you are right...:rolleyes:
you're kidding me, right? Bush, Rummy, and Cheney might not be the brightest fellows, but I think they would realize that starting another war in which treaties and alliances are the reason for starting it (Taiwan, Israel, S. Korea) would probably kill the Republican party. In fact, as we're seeing inthe latest domestic issues--wire-tapping and UAE-owned ports--many Congressional Republicans are willing to disagree with Bush. The key here is that we have a fairly evenly-divided House and Senate, and Republican losses in heated districts and states in both '06 and '08 will obviously affect the future direction of the country. Plus, Congressmen who stand by Bush on such divisive (or even highly unpopular) issues seem to be headed back home next year.

[RMadd]

Ana & Stephen: I think you'uns (that is evidently an Ozark word indicating the plural "you") are at odds over the issue of intolerance simply because you're discussing different kinds of intolerance. Socially speaking, the majority of America is rather tolerant. Watching MTV or Bravo or HBO for a couple of hours will dispell any myths that we aren't. Yes, there are those, such as the KKK, who aren't particularly open to social change, but American culture, as a whole, allows for just about anything.
Politically speaking, however, President Bush at least conveys an image of intolerance. The Bush Doctrine--"you're either with us or you're against us"--is quite apparently intolerant of opposition. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole American political system is intolerant. It has adapted substantially over the years to changing social circumstance, so I don't see any reason why it will in the future. It just seems that some politicians, such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy, Bush, etc., are stuck in a Cold War mentality.

[RMadd]

I dont want that America does anything...really...but its too strange that US only recently (your governement..not the people...right?) had noticed certain countries and consequently decided to spread 'democracy' ??? :rolleyes:
this isn't exactly a new concept. all throughout the Cold War, the US used operatives in Latin America and Asia to bring about democratic change in certain countries, to "save" them from having a socialist or communist regime. we even supported corrupt bastards like Chiang (RoC/Taiwan) in an effort to prevent the spread of communism.


Seriously, despite all your excellent knowledge in History -- what was your familiarity with Afghanistan before the invasion/war ???

Kwait???? Of course not...it has oil...isnt it?
ohhh, oil... evidently, that's our only motive for doing anything internationally. if we wanted oil, we would've gone in all by ourselves. if I'm not mistaken, the UN saw Saddam pulling some pretty illegal shit. Article 51 of the UN Charter says that one state has no right to abrogate the territorial sovereignty of another state. Iraq invaded another state in an effort to reclaim a former province. What if we (the world) just let that happen? Then you would see China immediately try to take back Taiwan (they did nothing with their UNSC vote on Iraq in the '90s, but chose to abstain instead). By not doing anything in Iraq in '91, the UN would have essentially rendered itself useless by not punishing a country who directly violated its charter.

[Ana4Stapp]

no, that is most definitely not a Christian view. if that's the way you see Christianity, I am deeply sorry for whatever you have experienced that has made it such. Political Christianity, as used by Bush and crusaders, is not truly Christianity. I won't get into it too much in this forum, but loving one another is at the heart of the religion. So, it is very un-Christian to be secluded in your "happy way of life" and to not care if something doesn't directly affect you. Yes, that might be how states that are historically Christian might act, but the fact that the U.S. doesn't act unless acted upon doesn't stem from its Christian roots. Instead, our country was isolationist, really, up until the Cold War, so we have a good 200-300 years (including the colonial period) of not caring entirely too much what was going on in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Gezz... Ryan....lately you are misenderstanding all of my comments here...actually I was being ironic with uncertain about the christian view...

[Chase]

you're kidding me, right? Bush, Rummy, and Cheney might not be the brightest fellows, but I think they would realize that starting another war in which treaties and alliances are the reason for starting it (Taiwan, Israel, S. Korea) would probably kill the Republican party. In fact, as we're seeing inthe latest domestic issues--wire-tapping and UAE-owned ports--many Congressional Republicans are willing to disagree with Bush. The key here is that we have a fairly evenly-divided House and Senate, and Republican losses in heated districts and states in both '06 and '08 will obviously affect the future direction of the country. Plus, Congressmen who stand by Bush on such divisive (or even highly unpopular) issues seem to be headed back home next year.

One slight disagreement... I don't think the majority of Republicans oppose the wire tapping. They way they look at it is if someone is receiving calls from certain terrorist hotbed regions of Afghanistan... then the government has the right to know who it is you're talking to. I think the majority of the nation still sides with Republicans on issues... especially with the surge of liberalism within the Democratic Party... and with the antics of people like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Chucky Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi the Democrats are only hurting their chances. I honestly think the Republicans will wrap up the '08 election if John McCain runs... I don't think someone like Hillary Clinton stands a chance against him.

[Ana4Stapp]

this isn't exactly a new concept. all throughout the Cold War, the US used operatives in Latin America and Asia to bring about democratic change in certain countries, to "save" them from having a socialist or communist regime. we even supported corrupt bastards like Chiang (RoC/Taiwan) in an effort to prevent the spread of communism.


... used operatives in Latin America tobring about democratic changes incertain countries??
oh its amazing! and of course ... very democratic!!!!! .... supporting dictatorships that killed thousand of innocent men and women in Latin America--some of them maybe had ' affinity'.for comunism system ---but most of them were common peole taken away by the militaires to suffer all kind of torture ...like teachers, journalists, students, priests...common people who simply disappeared...because someone decided that they needed to save those countries before they become communist...
Very democratic!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

ohhh, oil... evidently, that's our only motive for doing anything internationally. if we wanted oil, we would've gone in all by ourselves. if I'm not mistaken, the UN saw Saddam pulling some pretty illegal shit. Article 51 of the UN Charter says that one state has no right to abrogate the territorial sovereignty of another state. Iraq invaded another state in an effort to reclaim a former province. What if we (the world) just let that happen? Then you would see China immediately try to take back Taiwan (they did nothing with their UNSC vote on Iraq in the '90s, but chose to abstain instead). By not doing anything in Iraq in '91, the UN would have essentially rendered itself useless by not punishing a country who directly violated its charter.[/QUOTE]

whats happening, Ryan? I remmeber you saying to Chase that Iraq was invaded becuase of oil...but anyway...youve must changed your mind...:confused:

[Ana4Stapp]

Ah I see. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Allright...I forgive you... :D
lol





Only because of my political views? Doesn't this make you intolerant of those who don't have my views? lol jk

Actually I must be very tolerant to say this...:D lol


No no no, you don't geti it. Americans don't know anything PERIOD!!! Inn a poll conducted the other day, only 1 in a thousand people even knew what five rights the first ammendment to the Constitution gives them. tons of people thought one of the rights was the right to own a pet! The vast majority of americans, thanks to this pathetic excuse for a school system we have, are totally lacking in knowledge.

That 'one' was you???? --lol

Actually I think that education is in a bad moment in everywhere:( ... especially public education ...because our (in a whole concept not only american--please!) wise politicians are much more interested in economics and consequently forget education...




Yeah. Well, one thing I DID agree with Bush on is that we are addicted to oil.

Well.. seems he knows what hes talking about ...he sent soldiers to invade Iraq...right?:rolleyes:





If society is a problem shouldn't we fix it or get rid of it and make something new instead of just dealing with it?

Suggestions???

Well you may have a few beliefs but where do they come from?

Have you ever heard about FAMILY?????


I'm very tolerant of those in error. I know they are in error and won't compromise on that, but I do not persecute them for it.

Oh you are a very tolerant person....;)

[facelessmike]

I honestly think the Republicans will wrap up the '08 election if John McCain runs... I don't think someone like Hillary Clinton stands a chance against him.

I agree. I'm a democrat, but would be 100% behind McCain. Besides, we're practically neighbors. I live about a mile away from him.

And it's looking more and more that it might happen:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0302mccain-money0302.html

[Ana4Stapp]

Ana & Stephen: I think you'uns (that is evidently an Ozark word indicating the plural "you") are at odds over the issue of intolerance simply because you're discussing different kinds of intolerance. Socially speaking, the majority of America is rather tolerant. Watching MTV or Bravo or HBO for a couple of hours will dispell any myths that we aren't. Yes, there are those, such as the KKK, who aren't particularly open to social change, but American culture, as a whole, allows for just about anything.

No prob....actually in average I think we are very 'tolerant ' to each other...:rolleyes:

Politically speaking, however, President Bush at least conveys an image of intolerance. The Bush Doctrine--"you're either with us or you're against us"--is quite apparently intolerant of opposition. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole American political system is intolerant. It has adapted substantially over the years to changing social circumstance, so I don't see any reason why it will in the future. It just seems that some politicians, such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy, Bush, etc., are stuck in a Cold War mentality.

You said everything. ;)

[Ana4Stapp]

I agree. I'm a democrat, but would be 100% behind McCain. Besides, we're practically neighbors. I live about a mile away from him.

And it's looking more and more that it might happen:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0302mccain-money0302.html

Wow! I think Chase will ask for your address...lol...seriously...do you have a pic of him ? I think I never saw him in pics or at Tvs(and Im too lazy to look for it :D) ...:confused:

[facelessmike]

I think there's one with that link...

[uncertaindrumer]

I pretty much agreed with everything you said up until this comment. What of the colonial period, particularly in Africa?

What ABOUT the Colonial period?

[uncertaindrumer]

Allright...I forgive you... :D
lol


:rolleyes:

Actually I must be very tolerant to say this...:D lol

Puh. I don' think you are very tolerant with Bushie, are ya.




That 'one' was you???? --lol

Nah. I have never participated in a poll... would be fun, though.

Actually I think that education is in a bad moment in everywhere:( ... especially public education ...because our (in a whole concept not only american--please!) wise politicians are much more interested in economics and consequently forget education...

Its not just that. Politicians often just pour money into education without any type of plan... or at least, in America.





Well.. seems he knows what hes talking about ...he sent soldiers to invade Iraq...right?:rolleyes:

Huh?



Suggestions???

Can't fix the problem until you identify it.



Have you ever heard about FAMILY?????

sorry. That doens't work. getting your beliefs from your parents only pushes the question back a generation. where did they get their beliefs becomes the new question. Can't just say family. All you are doing is continually pushing the question back.


Oh you are a very tolerant person....;)

Thank you for noticing.

[Ana4Stapp]

:rolleyes:

hahaha...:D

Puh. I don' think you are very tolerant with Bushie, are ya.

Well being tolerant with you is one thing (even though isnt an easy thing---lol)...but with Bush...:eek: lol




Nah. I have never participated in a poll... would be fun, though.


Would be awesome! You could show your abilities to the world...;)


Its not just that. Politicians often just pour money into education without any type of plan... or at least, in America.

No, you are wrong... they certainly have a plan: keep people ignorant...its their plan...here or there..its the same plan .;)






Huh?

What????





Can't fix the problem until you identify it.

What did you ask?? Honestly I cant remember...sorry :confused:





sorry. That doens't work. getting your beliefs from your parents only pushes the question back a generation. where did they get their beliefs becomes the new question. Can't just say family. All you are doing is continually pushing the question back.

We all live in society...our families live and learn obviously trhough the others genereations...do you want to me to answer "God"? Im confused...you confused me ...:D


Thank you for noticing.

You know...Im the tolerant person here!!! ;)

[RMadd]

... used operatives in Latin America tobring about democratic changes incertain countries??
oh its amazing! and of course ... very democratic!!!!! .... supporting dictatorships that killed thousand of innocent men and women in Latin America--some of them maybe had ' affinity'.for comunism system ---but most of them were common peole taken away by the militaires to suffer all kind of torture ...like teachers, journalists, students, priests...common people who simply disappeared...because someone decided that they needed to save those countries before they become communist...
Very democratic!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
in our government's eyes, it used any means necessary to ensure that a government that was communist in name or that was endorsed by the U.S.S.R. did not come to power. i'm not saying it was terribly democratic of us to do that. i'm just letting you know that Bush wasn't the first politician to say democracy needs to be supported by the U.S. in key areas around the world; he's merely the most publicized.

whats happening, Ryan? I remmeber you saying to Chase that Iraq was invaded becuase of oil...but anyway...youve must changed your mind...:confused:
I think we're talking about 2 different instances of Iraq. In my post which you just now quoted, I was referring to the first Gulf War. Whenever I made that comment to Chase in another thread, it was more than likely in reference to the current Iraq War. Just because the same country is in question (Iraq) doesn't mean all the circumstances surrounding it are. I, therefore, am I entitled to come to two wholly different conclusions regarding these two very different wars (and, most importantly, the circumstances leading up to them).

[RMadd]

What ABOUT the Colonial period?
evidently we can't use our knowledge of history to draw our own conclusions :rolleyes:

but, seriously, when European states (Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands) moved into Africa, it's really no secret that Christianity was basically forced upon the "pagan" natives. Religious organizations from those colonizing states played a key role in setting up colonial governments and, more importantly, education systems. Because of these rigid controls, the vast majority of Africans living under the various colonial administrations had Christianity forced upon them. Even today, the "brand" of Christianity practiced in most parts of Africa is blended with various rituals culled from the African Traditional Religions (the general name for the multitude of local and tribal religions), such that African Christianity differs a great deal from that practiced in the U.S. and Europe.

[Ana4Stapp]

our government's eyes, it used any means necessary to ensure that a government that was communist in name or that was endorsed by the U.S.S.R. did not come to power. i'm not saying it was terribly democratic of us to do that. i'm just letting you know that Bush wasn't the first politician to say democracy needs to be supported by the U.S. in key areas around the world; he's merely the most publicized.

Your statement amazes me...and its not because Bush...( I do know hes not the first to say this... ) :rolleyes:

Look..you are going to be minor in History isnt it? Do you really believe in this role that US has? I mean...spreading democracy in the world throughout wars your country is involved ???? Is this the first reason ???

I think we're talking about 2 different instances of Iraq. In my post which you just now quoted, I was referring to the first Gulf War. Whenever I made that comment to Chase in another thread, it was more than likely in reference to the current Iraq War. Just because the same country is in question (Iraq) doesn't mean all the circumstances surrounding it are. I, therefore, am I entitled to come to two wholly different conclusions regarding these two very different wars (and, most importantly, the circumstances leading up to them).

Yeah now I can see that...

[Chase]

... used operatives in Latin America tobring about democratic changes incertain countries??
oh its amazing! and of course ... very democratic!!!!! .... supporting dictatorships that killed thousand of innocent men and women in Latin America--some of them maybe had ' affinity'.for comunism system ---but most of them were common peole taken away by the militaires to suffer all kind of torture ...like teachers, journalists, students, priests...common people who simply disappeared...because someone decided that they needed to save those countries before they become communist...
Very democratic!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

.

whats happening, Ryan? I remmeber you saying to Chase that Iraq was invaded becuase of oil...but anyway...youve must changed your mind...:confused:[/QUOTE]

That's because the U.S. didn't invade Iraq for oil! Unless you can show me proof... I'm not going to believe your accusations.

[Chase]

Your statement amazes me...and its not because Bush...( I do know hes not the first to say this... ) :rolleyes:

Look..you are going to be minor in History isnt it? Do you really believe in this role that US has? I mean...spreading democracy in the world throughout wars your country is involved ???? Is this the first reason ???

).

Yeah now I can see that...

What? Like fighting for Cuba's freedom from Spain, like liberating the Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos from Imperial Japan? Like ending Hitler's rampage through Europe? If it wasn't for war... the political landscape of Europe and Asia would be very different. War sucks... but at times is necessary.

[Ana4Stapp]

What? Like fighting for Cuba's freedom from Spain, like liberating the Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos from Imperial Japan? Like ending Hitler's rampage through Europe? If it wasn't for war... the political landscape of Europe and Asia would be very different. War sucks... but at times is necessary.


Okay...but forget the WWII for one moment and try to put some recent examples...

[Ana4Stapp]

That's because the U.S. didn't invade Iraq for oil! Unless you can show me proof... I'm not going to believe your accusations

Well Chase ..you wont believe in my accusations...because I dont have proof...right?okay.. but how did you believe in Bush's accusations of Iraq having nuclear weapon if he didnt show any proof? :rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

originally posted by Ana4Stapp
... used operatives in Latin America tobring about democratic changes incertain countries??
oh its amazing! and of course ... very democratic!!!!! .... supporting dictatorships that killed thousand of innocent men and women in Latin America--some of them maybe had ' affinity'.for comunism system ---but most of them were common peole taken away by the militaires to suffer all kind of torture ...like teachers, journalists, students, priests...common people who simply disappeared...because someone decided that they needed to save those countries before they become communist...

Very democratic!!!!!!!! Im very curious, Chase....you quoted my post above but didnt comment it..can you answer me why??? :rolleyes:

.

[RalphyS]

no, that is most definitely not a Christian view. if that's the way you see Christianity, I am deeply sorry for whatever you have experienced that has made it such. Political Christianity, as used by Bush and crusaders, is not truly Christianity. I won't get into it too much in this forum, but loving one another is at the heart of the religion. So, it is very un-Christian to be secluded in your "happy way of life" and to not care if something doesn't directly affect you. Yes, that might be how states that are historically Christian might act, but the fact that the U.S. doesn't act unless acted upon doesn't stem from its Christian roots. Instead, our country was isolationist, really, up until the Cold War, so we have a good 200-300 years (including the colonial period) of not caring entirely too much what was going on in the Eastern Hemisphere.

All religions claim to be about peace and love, but history and current news time and time again show us the atrocities committed by 'true believers'. Most Christians in the USA consider the islam a terrorist religion, I believe. I think the part that Uncertain Drummer claims as being his backbone, the absolutism of religion, is just the thing that is the most terrifying about religion. How can you be tolerant towards other views, if your religion teaches you that your view is right and that other views are absolutely wrong. But still I don't begrudge anyone his absolute belief as long as they do not impose it upon me or others, who do not share it. And this is were religion mostly goes wrong, because God's law should be imposed onto everyone. Muslims will not allow non-muslims to draw cartoons about Mohammed, Christians will not allow non-Christians to have an abortion or marry someone of their own gender, the list goes on and on. This is also the problem I have with religion. Do not tell me about the laws of your Christian God or of Allah, to me they hold no ground, unless they have proven themselves to be beneficial for the society I live in. There should be no absolute laws, every law is up for change in certain situations or if circumstances change.

[RalphyS]

this isn't exactly a new concept. all throughout the Cold War, the US used operatives in Latin America and Asia to bring about democratic change in certain countries, to "save" them from having a socialist or communist regime. we even supported corrupt bastards like Chiang (RoC/Taiwan) in an effort to prevent the spread of communism.

Well I do think the 'spread of democracy'-concept is a new one. Sure the US was very busy involved with governments in Latin America and Asia during and even after the cold war, but it had nothing to do with spreading democracy. They didn't care if the countries were democratic or led dictatorialy as long as they were not under communistic or even socialistic influence. I think the support of the military coup by Pinochet in Chili and the opposition to the democratically elected Allende is the perfect example for it. Another good example is the support that the oppressing apartheid-regime in South Africa got from the US. It might not be always out in the open, but the US backed those governments, which were all but democratic.

So involvement of the US in other nation's governments surely isn't a new concept, but calling it 'the spreading of democracy' is, but in fact I think it's just another slogan for the same game. We see how democracy has triumped in Palestine and how the USA is now standing on the barriers to support the democratically elected government there :) The same thing applies to Iraq, in totally free elections there would probably come a very islamist government that might even adopt sharia-law, I do not think that is what the US wants. They want influence and a government that is friendly to the US, whether it is democratic or placed in any other way. And in these cases I even agree, democracy isn't always the answer, because not only in the USA, as Uncertain Drummer stated, but all over the world the majority seem to be d.mb f.cks, pardon my French.

[Chase]

Okay...but forget the WWII for one moment and try to put some recent examples...

The Kosovo war in 1999 ousted Slobadan Milosevic.

[RalphyS]

I disagree. I think the elecetion of Bush again came from a total lack of a countering candidate (Kerry? please.), and the thought that Bush would never be able to marshall support for another war, and the fact that Kerry supported this war to begin with too! So I think Bush getting elected again was not the result of people's happiness with the war but with a lack of a better candidate.

I never understood what was so wrong about Kerry, ofcourse I considered him to moderate and not liberal enough, but nonetheless. But the major thing is in this case, I wouldn't have needed a better candidate, less worse than Bush was enough, which comes down to anyone but Bush. And I do blame the American public for his re-election, especially the red(neck) states ofcourse. There were very few times that I was more disappointed than after Dubya's re-election.


Well if one believes, abortion, contraception, engaging in homosexuality etc. etc. are wrong, certainly one could think that the U.S.A. is too tolerant? The world for that matter.

I advice you to not engage in things that you think/belief are wrong and let others make their own decision about these things (unless their decision would be harmfull to you as a person, and I don't mean psychologically). That would be the tolerant position, in my opinion.

[RalphyS]

I honestly think the Republicans will wrap up the '08 election if John McCain runs... I don't think someone like Hillary Clinton stands a chance against him.

I wished McCain would have beaten Bush as a Republican nominee, I could have lived with him and many Europeans with me, I think.

He isn't a bad candidate, he could maybe lessen the democratic-republican rift that's driving the US apart at this time, if, and I do think it's a big if, he can resist the urge to play nice for the right wing of the republican party.

However I would still support any democratic candidate more, but at least it wouldn't be a choice between good and evil. :)

[RalphyS]

The Kosovo war in 1999 ousted Slobadan Milosevic.

Actually Milosevic is another example of how democracy can fail, as he was democratically elected.

And in this case he is also an example of how a democratic revolution can triumph, as he was ousted by the Servian people after he tried to corrupt a new election.

So he wasn't exactly removed by the USA, although the Kosovo-war surely was of influence.

[uncertaindrumer]

evidently we can't use our knowledge of history to draw our own conclusions :rolleyes:

but, seriously, when European states (Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands) moved into Africa, it's really no secret that Christianity was basically forced upon the "pagan" natives. Religious organizations from those colonizing states played a key role in setting up colonial governments and, more importantly, education systems. Because of these rigid controls, the vast majority of Africans living under the various colonial administrations had Christianity forced upon them. Even today, the "brand" of Christianity practiced in most parts of Africa is blended with various rituals culled from the African Traditional Religions (the general name for the multitude of local and tribal religions), such that African Christianity differs a great deal from that practiced in the U.S. and Europe.

Which Christians did this exactly? I know it must not have been a majorly Catholic problem. If it was, I'd hear about all the time...

[uncertaindrumer]

I never understood what was so wrong about Kerry, ofcourse I considered him to moderate and not liberal enough, but nonetheless. But the major thing is in this case, I wouldn't have needed a better candidate, less worse than Bush was enough, which comes down to anyone but Bush. And I do blame the American public for his re-election, especially the red(neck) states ofcourse. There were very few times that I was more disappointed than after Dubya's re-election.

Well I think Kerry was worse than Bush, so we disagree there. But either way, I agree on Bush's total incompetance.



I advice you to not engage in things that you think/belief are wrong and let others make their own decision about these things (unless their decision would be harmfull to you as a person, and I don't mean psychologically). That would be the tolerant position, in my opinion.

And this is the opinion of a self proclaimed atheist. No offense but seeing as you believe in nothing, your opinion carries very little weight. But nonetheless I wsa talking about what is socially acceptable, not necessarily what is legal. I would not ban contraception even though I think it is a great evil that has contributed to many of the problems of the last century. I just find it deperessing that it is now not only socially acceptable but socially expected.

On other issues, such as abortion, I certainly WOULD outlaw it if given the chance, since many lives are at stake.

But yeah, anyway I was talking more along the lines of what is seen as acceptable/unacceptable. I mean, just the way people dress these days is disgusting, but is seen as usual and desirable.

[uncertaindrumer]

Actually Milosevic is another example of how democracy can fail, as he was democratically elected.

I think the modern obsession with the idea that democracy is perfect and incorruptible and always works is one of the most ridiculously pathetic and incorrect notions of all time...

[Ana4Stapp]

The Kosovo war in 1999 ousted Slobadan Milosevic.


Sorry my friend..but did U.S. take Slobodan Milosevic away from the power ALONE ? The U.S. was involved in the Kosovo War...but its different from removing Milosevic from the power...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

March 24, 1999: NATO sees its first broad-scale military engagement in the Kosovo War, where it wages an 11-week bombing campaign against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The United States has opposed efforts to require the U.N. Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the ongoing action against Yugoslavia. France and some other NATO countries have said the alliance needs U.N. approval. American officials say that would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they note that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia. Conflict ends on June 11, 1999, when Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milošević agrees to NATO's demands. Currently, NATO operates the military peacekeeping mission in Kosovo as part of the 18,000 personnel KFOR force.

And Ralphy is right, his downfall was the result of a popular revolution ...
see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_Revolution

[facelessmike]

Well I think Kerry was worse than Bush, so we disagree there. But either way, I agree on Bush's total incompetance.

:laugh: How true!

All religions claim to be about peace and love, but history and current news time and time again show us the atrocities committed by 'true believers'. Most Christians in the USA consider the islam a terrorist religion, I believe.

It is important to make a distinction between the terrorists and the religion itself. Most Americans, Christians or not, do this. Islam is not considered a terrorist religion; most Muslims are not terrorists, but peace-loving people. Islam does not teach or encourage terrorism. Its just that the terrorists happen to be Muslim and have a distorted peprception of a supposedly religious agenda. This isnt a holy war against the religion of Islam; its a fight against terrorism.

But nonetheless I wsa talking about what is socially acceptable, not necessarily what is legal. I would not ban contraception even though I think it is a great evil that has contributed to many of the problems of the last century. I just find it deperessing that it is now not only socially acceptable but socially expected.

You wont find many disagree that the moral position of society has greatly declined over the last century. However, contraception is vital to modern society by preventing more serious problems on a great scale.

So involvement of the US in other nation's governments surely isn't a new concept They want influence and a government that is friendly to the US.

Bingo!

What? Like fighting for Cuba's freedom from Spain, like liberating the Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos from Imperial Japan? Like ending Hitler's rampage through Europe? If it wasn't for war... the political landscape of Europe and Asia would be very different. War sucks... but at times is necessary.

It's sad but true. Democracy may not be perfect, but is not evil.

[uncertaindrumer]

No, you are wrong... they certainly have a plan: keep people ignorant...its their plan...here or there..its the same plan .;)

Not really. Politicians are just as dumb as everyone else, lol



We all live in society...our families live and learn obviously trhough the others genereations...do you want to me to answer "God"? Im confused...you confused me ...:D

You are evading the question. You can't just say they "learn". First off, whatever they "learned" is not working, and second, where did they "learn" it from?

There should be no absolute laws, every law is up for change in certain situations or if circumstances change.

This is despicable. That whole post was the definiton of why we as a people are in such deep poop. If every law can change, there are no real laws. They don't DO anything, since they can "change" at will. By your logic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me taking a gun and killing you. Nothing. After all, laws are subject to change, and if I want to change them I can.

And you say how can we be tolerant when we claim someone else is wrong? First off, that is ludicrous, and second off, who says we should be tolerant? As usual people throw out these words as if they are just known to be good. You have no idea why we should be tolerant. You just assume that.

[Ana4Stapp]

I think the modern obsession with the idea that democracy is perfect and incorruptible and always works is one of the most ridiculously pathetic and incorrect notions of all time...


Looking through this perspective, democracy is very far from perfection...even in Athens democracy wasnt for everybody...there were restrictions to certain groups :women, children, slaves, foreigners and resident aliens had no rights to participate in the assembly. The Citizenship rights were limited strictly to male, adult, non-slave Athenians of citizen descent. So, this concept of democracy as something 'perfect and incorruptible' is very recent and obviously wrong...:rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

Not really. Politicians are just as dumb as everyone else, lol

Not sure...this is a very naive conclusion...

You are evading the question. You can't just say they "learn". First off, whatever they "learned" is not working, and second, where did they "learn" it from?

So YOU in your extreme wisdom and tolerance could explain your points to me...:D

who says we should be tolerant? As usual people throw out these words as if they are just known to be good. You have no idea why we should be tolerant. You just assume that.
Religions should advocate tolerance...right?

[uncertaindrumer]

Not sure...this is a very naive conclusion...

Nah. I'm just not being serious.



So YOU in your extreme wisdom and tolerance could explain your points to me...:D

?? You can't come up with a basis for your thoughts on social rights at all?


Religions should advocate tolerance...right?

Uh... maybe? Who knows? I'm playing dumb here but that is often necessary to show people the massive, MASSIVE assumptions they make.

[uncertaindrumer]

Looking through this perspective, democracy is very far from perfection...even in Athens democracy wasnt for everybody...there were restrictions to certain groups :women, children, slaves, foreigners and resident aliens had no rights to participate in the assembly. The Citizenship rights were limited strictly to male, adult, non-slave Athenians of citizen descent. So, this concept of democracy as something 'perfect and incorruptible' is very recent and obviously wrong...:rolleyes:

Actually, "democracy" and "democratic" are two way overused words. We don't actually live in a world with a ton of democracies. Most free (while we are at it, what does "free" mean anyway?) countries are republics. This is good though, because republics tend to protect minorities, democracies tend to destroy them.

But anyway, the idea that total freedom to do whatever one wants fixes everything is nonsense. In a country where everyone can do whatever they want, 'they' are quite capable of destroying th very country that lets them do it.

[Ana4Stapp]

Actually, "democracy" and "democratic" are two way overused words. We don't actually live in a world with a ton of democracies. Most free (while we are at it, what does "free" mean anyway?) countries are republics. This is good though, because republics tend to protect minorities, democracies tend to destroy them.

Seriously I cant see republic playing this role of 'protection'...anyway are you insinuating that people need less social rights?

But anyway, the idea that total freedom to do whatever one wants fixes everything is nonsense. In a country where everyone can do whatever they want, 'they' are quite capable of destroying th very country that lets them do it.

So you arent talking about democracy... but maybe about anarchism ???

[uncertaindrumer]

Actually what a lot of people do advocate is anarchay. They don't always realize it, but nonetheless it is true. People want to be able to do anything and that leads to anarchy.

And yes republics play that role of protection. Any look at the press, filibusters, etc. etc. shows how much minorities are protected. not necessarily enough in some areas, (and, I think, TOO much in other areas), but it does a much better job than a pure democracy.

[bilal]

This is totally unpolitically correct, but the middle east has ALWAYS had bad relations with the rest of the world since the rise of Islam. I mean sure, there are periods of relative peace, but there has been constant Islamic wars since Mohammed started. It is definitely not just the events of the past fifty years that have the tensions as they are.



i dunno what ur saying here man................. i cant seeem to find any reason why ur Blaming the time 15 centuries ago ......when Islam was spread by our Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.)to blame all whats happpening today........... imean....u seem to be having a very closed view of Islam .......as if u really think Islam should'nt have been here in first place......... what was the world before islam or Chritianity......... actaully its only religion.......the law of ALMIHTY................. that have in any way brought some law and order and way of living in the world............

u say middle east has always had bad relation with the world...........kindly tell me what world??............. may be indirectly ur refering hte mulims had bad relations with christians and jews............casue ......most of part of the history....most of hte palestine was under Mulims rule..............or say atlest Jerusalem..... the hole place to all religion...........was under Muslim emporors......till it was invaded by Israell....

ill be glad if u can clear my confusion here....i mean....i am lost why u hate middle east.....or as u said..... what do u see in middle east history that makes u hate it ................. please ....if you share that ....ill be most gratefull................... cause by just baseless acquisitions..... u and i are not gonna acheive anything!!.......................

[RalphyS]

And this is the opinion of a self proclaimed atheist. No offense but seeing as you believe in nothing, your opinion carries very little weight. But nonetheless I wsa talking about what is socially acceptable, not necessarily what is legal. I would not ban contraception even though I think it is a great evil that has contributed to many of the problems of the last century. I just find it deperessing that it is now not only socially acceptable but socially expected.

On other issues, such as abortion, I certainly WOULD outlaw it if given the chance, since many lives are at stake.

But yeah, anyway I was talking more along the lines of what is seen as acceptable/unacceptable. I mean, just the way people dress these days is disgusting, but is seen as usual and desirable.

This is despicable. That whole post was the definiton of why we as a people are in such deep poop. If every law can change, there are no real laws. They don't DO anything, since they can "change" at will. By your logic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me taking a gun and killing you. Nothing. After all, laws are subject to change, and if I want to change them I can.

And you say how can we be tolerant when we claim someone else is wrong? First off, that is ludicrous, and second off, who says we should be tolerant? As usual people throw out these words as if they are just known to be good. You have no idea why we should be tolerant. You just assume that.



So just because I do not believe in any deity, I'm a second class citizen and my opinion isn't equal to that of a believer. This is indeed 'a very tolerant position'. Your opinion is outright racist towards non-believers.

The line between what is socially acceptable and legal is very thin btw, usually we (the democraticly chosen lawmakers) make laws in regard to what is socially acceptable, some minor things we do not put into law, but are frowned upon at times, so the big distinction you are trying to make I do not understand.

This is also were I as a non-absolutist get most of my morality from, and ofcourse out of my own opinion in regard to subject. I do not feel your need to have a higher authority, who needs to tell me what is absolutely right or wrong, I have my own judgement and the society which I live in to back me up on that.

There is no absolute law that states, to kill is always wrong. We allow people to be killed in wartime, we allow people to kill in self defense, in the US you even allow people to be killed as punishment. There are always circumstances in which certain things that are usually 'bad' can be tolerated. If I am correct it even states in the bible that the Israelites where allowed to 'take' the daughters of their enemy, if this is your absolute morality, please leave me alone with it.

Why should people be tolerant, you ask. If you want to get along with someone, you have to be respectful of him, you don't have to condone everything he does, but you have to be willing to respect his opinion on things or force your opinion on him, are there any other options? Well the latter is a thing that I find truly despicable and therefore I choose tolerance.

I disagree heavily with you, but I do not consider your opinion lower than mine, at least not to anyone else, ofcourse I consider my own opinion better in my mind, otherwise I wouldn't have had that particular opinion.

But my tolerance stops if you want to tell me what to wear, or how to have sex or for what reason, just because you think your opinion or your God's opinion is morally superior to mine. If it is an absolute, be prepared to prove it and not based upon faith.

[Ana4Stapp]

Actually what a lot of people do advocate is anarchay. They don't always realize it, but nonetheless it is true. People want to be able to do anything and that leads to anarchy.

And yes republics play that role of protection. Any look at the press, filibusters, etc. etc. shows how much minorities are protected. not necessarily enough in some areas, (and, I think, TOO much in other areas), but it does a much better job than a pure democracy.


Actually your understanding of Anarchy is too simplistic:

The word "anarchy," as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society. In place of what are regarded as authoritarian political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals, mutual aid, and self-governance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

[RalphyS]

But anyway, the idea that total freedom to do whatever one wants fixes everything is nonsense. In a country where everyone can do whatever they want, 'they' are quite capable of destroying th very country that lets them do it.

People want to be able to do anything and that leads to anarchy.


Actually that is exactly the kind of freedom that I would want to fight for.

As a society we accept certain rules to get along. We do not accept it if you harm others physically. We accept certain rules, because it promotes our security and reduces the cause of accidents (traffic laws, gun laws), but otherwise I should indeed have the right to do whatever I want as long as it does not harm anyone else.

What is our freedom worth, if it can be crushed from within?

Anarchy of itself is theoretically a nice idea, but it just won't work. People need rules, but these rules should not be used just to force your opinion on others. There has to be a balance.

[uncertaindrumer]

We do not accept it if you harm others physically.

Why?

We accept certain rules, because it promotes our security and reduces the cause of accidents (traffic laws, gun laws),

An accident is bad? Security is good?

but otherwise I should indeed have the right to do whatever I want as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Says who?

What is our freedom worth, if it can be crushed from within?

What is freedom worth, period?

Anarchy of itself is theoretically a nice idea, but it just won't work. People need rules, but these rules should not be used just to force your opinion on others. There has to be a balance.

Again, you say this, but why should I believe you?

And Ana, anarchy can mean different things. I should have clarified that when I referred to it I was reffering to the negative sense of anarchy. I am actually a utopian anarchist I believe, if I remember that term correctly, because I beieve it states that in a perfect world government would be unneccessary, which I do believe. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and government is necessary.

[RalphyS]

You wanna play dense now?

Why are certain things bad and certain things considered good?

Not because some fantasy figure told us so, but because we as humans learned or felt that certain things are desirable for humans living together and certain things are not and we made rules about that.

The fact that there is no absolute objective morality does in no way hinder us from making us as a society a moral law to which its inhabitants have to subject itself, and if they do not, they will have to suffer the consequences.

You are using your belief as a crutch, you basically state that you cannot decide for yourself what is good or bad, that you need a higher authority to do so, that you are basically a child that will never grow up.

[RMadd]

Look..you are going to be minor in History isnt it? Do you really believe in this role that US has? I mean...spreading democracy in the world throughout wars your country is involved ???? Is this the first reason ???
I think it'd be great if every country in the world had a democracy that works, for the most part, as well as the US or Britain, etc. There exists one theory that democracies simply don't fight each other. However, I don't believe in using wars to get democracy going. Something created under certain circumstances that are antithetical to that something probably won't be fully realized as was initially hoped for.

[RMadd]

All religions claim to be about peace and love, but history and current news time and time again show us the atrocities committed by 'true believers'. Most Christians in the USA consider the islam a terrorist religion, I believe. I think the part that Uncertain Drummer claims as being his backbone, the absolutism of religion, is just the thing that is the most terrifying about religion. How can you be tolerant towards other views, if your religion teaches you that your view is right and that other views are absolutely wrong. But still I don't begrudge anyone his absolute belief as long as they do not impose it upon me or others, who do not share it. And this is were religion mostly goes wrong, because God's law should be imposed onto everyone. Muslims will not allow non-muslims to draw cartoons about Mohammed, Christians will not allow non-Christians to have an abortion or marry someone of their own gender, the list goes on and on. This is also the problem I have with religion. Do not tell me about the laws of your Christian God or of Allah, to me they hold no ground, unless they have proven themselves to be beneficial for the society I live in. There should be no absolute laws, every law is up for change in certain situations or if circumstances change.
I think what we're dealing with here is two different sets of circumstances that can combine together. first is the nature of the religious belief: are your religious beliefs absolutist, or do they take a relativist slant?

second is the degree to which those beliefs are pursued throughout the society or political entity in which they are present and, more than likely, are dominant? i would argue that, so long as i do not see it as right to force my religious beliefs upon others, an absolutist belief system is not as dangerous as you allege it to be. i don't know that most americans see islam as the religion of terror. i'm sort of isolated (at a university with other, hopefully, enlightened individuals), but i think there is a general consensus that the radical elements and factions of Islam are faaaaaaaar more dangerous than those of Christianity (after all, Pat Robertson has yet to depose Chavez).

as for my personal beliefs, because i live in a democratic society (in which the minority peacefully accepts that he cannot now control the direction of the political entity) and realize that my beliefs are likely in the minority (insofar as that religion is not supposed to be state-sponsored in the US), i try not to allow my personal beliefs on ethical and moral questions (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc.) affect the candidates or party for whom I vote. thus, although i might personally be opposed to these three issues i mentioned, it is not politically right to elect people just because they do. i would suspect that most other Christians would find this view to be somewhat radical, by not using whatever means necessary to spread God's word, but I also believe that using democracy to spread God might not be how God wants others to find out about Him.

[RMadd]

Well I do think the 'spread of democracy'-concept is a new one. Sure the US was very busy involved with governments in Latin America and Asia during and even after the cold war, but it had nothing to do with spreading democracy. They didn't care if the countries were democratic or led dictatorialy as long as they were not under communistic or even socialistic influence. I think the support of the military coup by Pinochet in Chili and the opposition to the democratically elected Allende is the perfect example for it. Another good example is the support that the oppressing apartheid-regime in South Africa got from the US. It might not be always out in the open, but the US backed those governments, which were all but democratic. if you're going to be cynical there, then why not just assume that the US isn't really trying to spread democracy in the Middle East, that we're there solely for economic gain, and it has nothing to do with trying to help out Israel (with a more agreeable political climate)?

So involvement of the US in other nation's governments surely isn't a new concept, but calling it 'the spreading of democracy' is, but in fact I think it's just another slogan for the same game. We see how democracy has triumped in Palestine and how the USA is now standing on the barriers to support the democratically elected government there :) The same thing applies to Iraq, in totally free elections there would probably come a very islamist government that might even adopt sharia-law, I do not think that is what the US wants. They want influence and a government that is friendly to the US, whether it is democratic or placed in any other way. And in these cases I even agree, democracy isn't always the answer, because not only in the USA, as Uncertain Drummer stated, but all over the world the majority seem to be d.mb f.cks, pardon my French.
hey, I think Hamas should be given a fair shake. they won the elections fair and square, and it's only fair they be given a fair chance to do what they want. i'd honestly like to see if the theory that giving radical minority groups power helps them to become more involved in the political society.

[RMadd]

Which Christians did this exactly? I know it must not have been a majorly Catholic problem. If it was, I'd hear about all the time...
Protestants and Catholics, alike. what do you mean you'd hear about it all the time? i've never had anyone give me grief over this before, as most people really aren't aware that it happened. i assume you're trying to make the connection that, because no one's said anything to you about it, it didn't happen at all. but, whether you like it or not, European Christians forced conversions of Africans, much in the same way the Spanish and French (in particular) did in the 'New World.'

[RMadd]

Not sure...this is a very naive conclusion...
not really.... seems to me that most politicians, at least in the US, make it there based on how much $$$ their parents have. and while a republican form of government may be designed to prevent public ignorance from playing too great a role, the US has become more democratic over the years. at any rate, contemporary politicians aren't the brilliant ones. they're recruited for their good looks or ability to win over crowds.

[RalphyS]

I think what we're dealing with here is two different sets of circumstances that can combine together. first is the nature of the religious belief: are your religious beliefs absolutist, or do they take a relativist slant?

second is the degree to which those beliefs are pursued throughout the society or political entity in which they are present and, more than likely, are dominant? i would argue that, so long as i do not see it as right to force my religious beliefs upon others, an absolutist belief system is not as dangerous as you allege it to be. i don't know that most americans see islam as the religion of terror. i'm sort of isolated (at a university with other, hopefully, enlightened individuals), but i think there is a general consensus that the radical elements and factions of Islam are faaaaaaaar more dangerous than those of Christianity (after all, Pat Robertson has yet to depose Chavez).

as for my personal beliefs, because i live in a democratic society (in which the minority peacefully accepts that he cannot now control the direction of the political entity) and realize that my beliefs are likely in the minority (insofar as that religion is not supposed to be state-sponsored in the US), i try not to allow my personal beliefs on ethical and moral questions (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc.) affect the candidates or party for whom I vote. thus, although i might personally be opposed to these three issues i mentioned, it is not politically right to elect people just because they do. i would suspect that most other Christians would find this view to be somewhat radical, by not using whatever means necessary to spread God's word, but I also believe that using democracy to spread God might not be how God wants others to find out about Him.

Separation of church and state (god/belief and politics) in one's own mind, on one side I'm very impressed and admire you for that stand. And surely it makes coexistence with people from other worldviews much easier.

On the other hand, I always wonder about moderate religious people, while I personally like there to be more, but that is just out of convenience, I mostly have a hard time grasping their view.

As previously stated and well-known around here by now I'm an atheist and therefore lack any belief in any deities, but if I would be religious, I mean if I had a belief in a God and it was according to that belief my primary target to worship or at the very least pay my respect to that loving God, who demands that of us in his holy scriptures I would have a hard time being a moderate.

Isn't any belief in any God absolute, and is it therefore not required to live by the absolute standards of this religion? How can I, if I am a true believer, pick and choose what parts of religion I adher too and what not, or at what time I do or I do not. I mean my views are totally opposed to that of any fundamentalist, but somehow I think that if I was a believer I too would be one. Religion is somehow a very black and white issue, either the God of the bibler or of the koran exists, in which case you should at all times and in every situation go by your holy book, or god doesn't exist, in which case the holy books are nice fairytales, written by men, with maybe some moral lessons to learn from, but surely no foundation for anything.

I'm probably not making much sense here, since I first preach tolerance (letting everyone live their life according to their own worldview and ideas) and now I'm saying that I cannot understand tolerance in a religious person, because to me religion cannot be relative and must be absolute, but it does somehow describe my view to religion as a sometimes slumbering, but mostly permanent danger to society. I understand that there is much 'love' involved in religion, but there always has to be absolutism at some point, because God as described in the holy books (and in my opinion therefore as invented by people) is absolute.

I hope you get the drift of what I wanted to explain.

[RalphyS]

if you're going to be cynical there, then why not just assume that the US isn't really trying to spread democracy in the Middle East, that we're there solely for economic gain, and it has nothing to do with trying to help out Israel (with a more agreeable political climate)?


hey, I think Hamas should be given a fair shake. they won the elections fair and square, and it's only fair they be given a fair chance to do what they want. i'd honestly like to see if the theory that giving radical minority groups power helps them to become more involved in the political society.

I do not believe I was cynical. The foreign policy of the USA was always directed against communism or socialism spreading and instead putting in governments or supporting them, who had economic ties and where politically allianced (is that a correct word?) to the USA, whether they were democratic or dictatorial. Maybe nowadays there is more of a tendency to democracy, but the primary target still is that they are not becoming or being anti-USA.

Hamas cannot be a partner to foreign governments as long as they don't accept the right of Israel to exist and they cannot accept that, because it would make them totally unbelievable to those who elected them, they are between a rock and a hard place, but they will hold on to their support, because they will claim the same thing you do now, that they were not given a fair chance.

[Chase]

http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-27T173123Z_01_ISL99765_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-PRISON.xml

Another example of the stable Afghanistan


And yes bilal- after the Soviets were turned out of Afghanistan, for example, no help was forthcoming for the devastated country, and 'chaos' made it possible for the Taliban to come to power.

Indeed, Osama bin Laden was an obvious 'protege' of the west, which was 'happy' to support his fighters in the struggle for Afghanistan against U.S.S.R. , in the Cold War days.

So... now America and its allies in West are seeing the consequences of their actions in the past.

In 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. However, it was not until 1984 that Osama bin Laden actually made an impact. He started Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) ("Office of Order" in English). It was not a militant group, but instead it funneled money to Afghan fighters. While some people accuse Pakistan and the United States... there hasn't been any substantial proof to put any truth to this claim. The U.S. only sent aid to Afghan fighters... not Osama bin Laden's financial network. If any money went to MAK it was more than likely through indirect means. Upon Soviet withdrawal bin Laden split from MAK and established the militant group Al Qaeda. Therefore, for you to say that the United States directly funded bin Laden is baseless. Besides, bin Laden had was born into an extremely wealthy Saudi family with immense connections... bin Laden could have very easily established a militant network without any American dollars... and he did so in the very last stages of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden's status as a militant leader wasn't established until the war was about 95% finished. So... accusing the U.S. of funding a non-existent Arab terror network and a millionaire Saudi doesn't seem plausible.

[Chase]

i dunno what ur saying here man................. i cant seeem to find any reason why ur Blaming the time 15 centuries ago ......when Islam was spread by our Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.)to blame all whats happpening today........... imean....u seem to be having a very closed view of Islam .......as if u really think Islam should'nt have been here in first place......... what was the world before islam or Chritianity......... actaully its only religion.......the law of ALMIHTY................. that have in any way brought some law and order and way of living in the world............

u say middle east has always had bad relation with the world...........kindly tell me what world??............. may be indirectly ur refering hte mulims had bad relations with christians and jews............casue ......most of part of the history....most of hte palestine was under Mulims rule..............or say atlest Jerusalem..... the hole place to all religion...........was under Muslim emporors......till it was invaded by Israell....

ill be glad if u can clear my confusion here....i mean....i am lost why u hate middle east.....or as u said..... what do u see in middle east history that makes u hate it ................. please ....if you share that ....ill be most gratefull................... cause by just baseless acquisitions..... u and i are not gonna acheive anything!!.......................

Well if Islamic extremists are carrying out against innocent people in the name of your prophet it would make sense for people to question the fundamentals of your religion. The religion that was here before Christianity and Islam was Judaism... I don't know if you were referring to that. That actually brings me to my next point... for being a primarily anti-Semitic religion... Islam is merely a descendent of Judaism and Christianity. Explain to me where this hatred comes into play. The Islamic empire in the Middle East has had TERRIBLE relations with the rest of the world. The Muslims invaded Spain and waged war on Christianity at that point... and that pretty much prompted the Crusades (and the Reconquista in particular) and Catholic retalliation.

Israel has every right to exist. At least recognize the holy significance of Jerusalem has to Jews and Christians. How would you like to have Israeli bombs blowing up Mecca? I doubt that would sit well with you. Look at the entire picture. Israel was a nation for Holocaust survivors... people who could finally live in peace in their holy land. Instead... they have to deal with Islamo fascists telling them that they don't have the right to exist. Israel is one tiny country in a sea of Islamic states. The population of Israel is about 7 million... in contrast to the roughly 200 million Muslims in the Middle East. Obviously there are quite a few of Muslims who are unwilling to coexist judging by the amount of Palestinian suicide bombers who attack innocent Israelis... non military targets. We already know of the aggression towards Hindus in India. Today, someone set off a bomb at a Hindu temple in India killing at least 15 people and wounding at least 22 in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4782618.stm

Wow... what a threatening target... holy, peaceful Hindus going to their place of worship.

The other day, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... some college student of Iranian descent ran down fellow students with his car because he wanted to avenge the treatment of Muslims and said that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah." Apparently Allah wants Muslims to carry out terrorist acts against non-military targets. Apparently Allah is telling people to be cowards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186946,00.html

[bilal]

Well if Islamic extremists are carrying out against innocent people in the name of your prophet it would make sense for people to question the fundamentals of your religion. The religion that was here before Christianity and Islam was Judaism... I don't know if you were referring to that. That actually brings me to my next point... for being a primarily anti-Semitic religion... Islam is merely a descendent of Judaism and Christianity. Explain to me where this hatred comes into play. The Islamic empire in the Middle East has had TERRIBLE relations with the rest of the world. The Muslims invaded Spain and waged war on Christianity at that point... and that pretty much prompted the Crusades (and the Reconquista in particular) and Catholic retalliation.

Israel has every right to exist. At least recognize the holy significance of Jerusalem has to Jews and Christians. How would you like to have Israeli bombs blowing up Mecca? I doubt that would sit well with you. Look at the entire picture. Israel was a nation for Holocaust survivors... people who could finally live in peace in their holy land. Instead... they have to deal with Islamo fascists telling them that they don't have the right to exist. Israel is one tiny country in a sea of Islamic states. The population of Israel is about 7 million... in contrast to the roughly 200 million Muslims in the Middle East. Obviously there are quite a few of Muslims who are unwilling to coexist judging by the amount of Palestinian suicide bombers who attack innocent Israelis... non military targets. We already know of the aggression towards Hindus in India. Today, someone set off a bomb at a Hindu temple in India killing at least 15 people and wounding at least 22 in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4782618.stm

Wow... what a threatening target... holy, peaceful Hindus going to their place of worship.

The other day, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... some college student of Iranian descent ran down fellow students with his car because he wanted to avenge the treatment of Muslims and said that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah." Apparently Allah wants Muslims to carry out terrorist acts against non-military targets. Apparently Allah is telling people to be cowards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186946,00.html



chase ............i admire ur reply............. but u see........... u and i dont see eye to eye on many points....u said...............islam had wars and muslims invaded coutnryies.............dats true...........but ur point is just one sided.......i mean.........in early days of islam.......... the other religions......dat were more powerfull and dominatiing..........had itself raged wars against islam...........so in early days...........the wars fought by muslims were to defence purpose .....................ahh....as far as bad relations of middle east is concerend................ if u just take the current senarios......... the main issue is the israeli palestenian issue................ ur absolutely right........ israles have every right to exist............ but so does palestinean people who have suffered long enough know man..............dey have suffereed to and exteent dat people are villing to do sucidde bombing.........and for me.........dats the extereeme action any one could ever take................. i mean............ when suicide bombing comes in to play........dayer is no religion invollvved................ its just poor misery.......helplessness...hatred.....and preferecne of deeath over life............. a child who has seen hatred for the other side since the time he was born and has witnessed looss of loved ones can only be willing to dod dat........... Islam stickly prohibits self killing .........to sound more politically............ i believe the only soulution to many world problems is to first eliminate all the occupations all around the world................. israle should move back to its early boraders......and then ull see dat all muslims will (atlest for Pakistan i can say) will acknoldge israles.......our president did recently visited Israel.................. man..........u know........ today the world is in such shape............. dayer is so much hatered all along................ the least we can do is to try to remove hatered dat is cause only by false generalisationn.............. i mean...... the example u quoted of the iranian students........... idunno hte facts ........... but that is rediculllous................all i want to say here is dat.............i have no reason to hate u..........and u have no reason to hate me........did i broke ur window pane wid my base ball?........i want u too be happy in ur country...........live peacefull and happy............and i hope u wisht the same for me............ justice and freedom will let us remain in our own very limits.............. u dont have any right to violate my circle of freedom and so doesnt i.............. but still dayer are regions dat are far from this............... it only fuels hatred if we go into more and more discrimination............. u can lable a bad guy as a muslim and then generalise it to all..........and justify lots of crime as preventive/defencive measures.........time requires us to try to do justice of hte highest degree.......wether its ur countries diecision ot invade iraq..........or not to VITO the palestinan state independence in UN councels...........or for my country to prevent all the ill-doing so called Islamic fundamentals...........dat no body i know believes in.........................damn.......... i hope i can express my self as good as you...... the truth is always always out dayer............it touches heart.........misery and sufferening of all human beings effects ohters ....irrespective of relgion....creed.........place or time..............all i am saying is dat we should no think in terms of who belongs to us and who belongs to others................if osama is in afghanistan.....we can bomb afghhanistan hopin hell die.........and alll his helpesrs...........and dont care if a civilian afghani dies.......but wont do the same if u find out osama is in New york....so bomb new york and dispense few americans................... i want to see justice and reson................based on rationalism reflecting sincere goodwill and healthy co-existance for the future..........self motivated......politically greaced........ well hidden agendas............we had enught of it.............. we goota OPEN OUR EYES and realise were one!!!( damn...................could have used a beter outro.....but hey...fourm related to it)

[Chase]

I can only respond briefly because I was out all night and it's early in the morning. I will say this though... no one has suffered more than the Jews. Unless you can show me proof that Palestinians were mass murdered by Adolf Hitler Nazi war machine... I don't think you can make that argument. Also... Muslims invaded non Islamic regions to spread the religion... Europeans (with support from the Vatican) retaliated. The Mongols invaded Baghdad... why don't terrorists go attack Mongolia?

[bilal]

yes......Muslims did invaded to spread the religoin of God ........... but the fight was for the justice.............. the places Muslims invaded are know Islamic states...........cant u see............... its only because the Muslim invations were non-violent......... and they followed strick rules of fight............ justice and security.......... the non-muslims converted to Islam............... its becuse of these invations in early Islamic history...... that whole nations of peole converted to Islam...... If Muslims did invation like US or Irael has done................ those invations would have only created hatered and further wars................... so man ................ dont keep on saying same thing again and again ........................... and yes.......... ur right............. jews have suffered .............. but man.......... why u only keep onesided view.......... why the heck are u saying that jews have suffered more and the other group has suffered less .......... we are talking about saving humanity and not some jew or palestinian............. ............ WE DONT HAVE TO SETTLE NO GODDAM SCORE (creed song ......remember!!!....we all love it)........................ nodoubt both side have commited crimes agains each ohter ........... Israel till to day is executing people without trials........by just droping bombs......... and humaliating arabs......... while the palestinian youth..... keep on suicide bomibing.......... if u keep on defending ur side and i keep on mine........... man.............. if u have this point of veiw ...............and u think like this........... then i feel sorry all abut this............. we are debating to find a solution............ not settle some gaddam score!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!