The war on Terror

Phife
Posts: 286
Joined: 05 Sep 2004 14:28
Location: Somewhere West of Phoenix!

Post by Phife » 24 Jul 2005 09:41

The cause of the terrorism problem right now is simple: Islamic fundamentalist (AKA Islamo-fascists, Muslim extremists, Jihadists, Wahabists, etc). Their hate for the West--our ideals and way of life--is the cause...period.

Dere33
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 09:49

Post by Dere33 » 24 Jul 2005 11:15

You have a good point, but I have to wonder, such as Hitler mobilized the masses against the jewish race for being impure, all to ultimately fullfill his own personal desire to be a world conqerer, if Islamic Fundamentalism is the middle east's impure jews, whats the motivation of the islamist leaders?

For the sake of I don't think I have fully explicated myself, I think an Analogy would be sufficent:

Hitler: World Domination; German Populace: Cleaning The Race

Islamic Fundamentalists Leaders: ____?_____; Muslim Minority of Islamic Fundamentalists: Keeping out the westerners.

steampunk
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 Sep 2004 00:55

Post by steampunk » 24 Jul 2005 23:17

Money and/or power, just like Hitler?

When they were burying that old terrorist, Yasser Arafat, not many news publications reported the dude was worth/had-access-to $1.3B. That's billion, not million.

Phife
Posts: 286
Joined: 05 Sep 2004 14:28
Location: Somewhere West of Phoenix!

Post by Phife » 25 Jul 2005 04:34

World domination would fit in the blank just fine.

Black Angel
Posts: 4
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 19:04
Location: Dubai - Bombay

Post by Black Angel » 26 Jul 2005 06:17

Dere33 wrote:Double Standards? You are one dumb motha fucker.

Your intelligence and your eloquence in the power of your arguments truly amaze me !!
Name me ONE double standard that the US has imposed upon another country in the middle east! Just one. (Dumbasses always misuse the asian eco treaty argument as a point for their own; and even then we didnt' impose our own policy on other countries, just opted out of a new eco treaty - STOP JUST REPEATING WHATEVER THE FUCK THE KIDS AT THE GREEN PEACE RALLIES ARE SAYING)
I couldn't care for those green peace fucks, you see my post even hint of mentioning them ???
'interfering' with internal matters of other, less developed, and unstable countries is the right of any superpower and should continue to be.
Then you brawl and whimper and cry why the the rest of the fucking world hates your guts ??
Wow I finally met one of them sit for brains neo-imperials...glory be , now my day is complete.
What you do in your country is your business and thats fine. But if what you're doing in your country is going to harm the citizens of mine or our breathren, even to the xth degree, then by damn your business just became my business. Rural war lords are a dangerous thing and anytime they continue to act inhumanly, they must be eliminated.
You should have thought of that before you Armed/trained and funded them, no ?
What happend in Iraq? Honestly, out side of propaganda used by creative minds against economic globalization( and the stupid shits that hear it, don't understand it, and just repeat it over and over  ), the only problem anyone has with the war in iraq is the misdirection or lack of hard proof the British PM and American President used to invade.
Its not what happend in Iraq, its what happend out side.
Man you are deluded ! Seriously what drugs are on ????
Your countrymen needlessly died in a war that you did not have or need to fight.
YOU INVADED A COUNTRY !!!
You even understand what that means ??
Asia, Africa, Latin America? Do you even know the prevailing bodies of government in these areas? Asia is a pool of hard workers just waiting for a leader to mobilize the region.
Where did you get that from ? FOX NEWS ????? :lol: :lol:
Africa is a bunch of war lords that have found the means to take power while the country is in termoil and massive strife over viruses.
Man where do you live ? Seriously...are one of those retard neocons that one hears so much about in the news ?????
Dude, open a feckin newspaper once in a while. Jesus h. christ.
I do, I get my news in a fair and a balanced manner and no I am not talking about the single digit IQ retards at FOX that pass propaganda for news ! I get my news in three different languages from multiple news sources.


Instead of solving the problem, and asking why it has happened, you guys aggravated the situation a thousand fold by Invading Iraq.
Look at the root 'causes' of terrorism, not it's symptoms.

What you guys are seeing now is just the opening act, worst is yet to come. I know this because my country is facing this problem since the last 15 odd years.

Dere33
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 09:49

Post by Dere33 » 27 Jul 2005 05:18

I couldn't care for those green peace fucks, you see my post even hint of mentioning them ???
No dumbshit, I simply stated you are using the wrong argument in your origional case. The only even remotely concievable case in which the double standards argument, which might I add was the sumation (half assed as it was) of your origional post, applies in this region might be Isreal. But thats not where dumbfucks get this argument from. Your type seems to misplace the idea from the G8 treaty the US failed to sign because the automotive and labor lobbies in this country wouldn't be able to sustain the paycuts it would cause in the scaling back of manafacturing to a level more correspondant with that of the current chinese and south asian manafacturing markets. A concievable notion but misplaced none the less. The cause of your argument was illfounded and taken from anti-globalization committies of the States. This doublestandard argument doesn't belong in here. Dont worry though; you, like alot of other mindless idiots, have fallen for the same mistake where groups trying to push their adjenda - namely antiglobalization - get people who don't know any better to repeat anything they hear and try to relate it to the isssue of the year: this time Iraq.

Try not to become the dancing monkey of such committies again. You won't look like such a twelve year old. :)
Then you brawl and whimper and cry why the the rest of the fucking world hates your guts ??
Wow I finally met one of them sit for brains neo-imperials...glory be , now my day is complete.
I am not even sure what you are referencing there in 'brawl and whimper', unless you are misreading what I would consider a decently articulate argument debunking the idea that a superpower doesn't have the right to remove a genocidal, destabalizing, and totalitarian dictator.
You should have thought of that before you Armed/trained and funded them, no ?
Yes yes, I actually funded the entire thing myself.
Why must people no deal with the now? Why is it when your argument comes to a dead end your side always ends up comming back to the same point: "Well, why don't we just go back in history and change what happend that eventually contributed to the current situation?"

The problem is: no one wants to take responsability for the situation we are in today. "It was before my time so that gives me a right to bitch alot and complain when there is only one solution." But, if you enjoy the freedoms the constituion grants you then you sir are just as much at fault for the current situation. By being in a society whose government has safeguard checks and balances, who allows for wars to be fought at the will of the majority of your local favorite son, then you are just as much responsiable for the actions of the past as I am.

So stop your bitching about the past and start trying to think in the now. You can't change the situation so bite the bullet and consider yourself lucky that you can enjoy such freedoms and all that is required is to help vote somebody else to make the tough choices.
Man you are deluded ! Seriously what drugs are on ????
Your countrymen needlessly died in a war that you did not have or need to fight.
Oh my, aren't you quite the debator. It's not like you actually refute anything I am saying, provide a contridictory idea, or suggest some other ideal that maybe I haven't thought of. No, you simply state that I must be on drugs and I have no idea the implications of war.

You suggest we didn't need to fight this war but only lines before did you conceed that sure we may be justified now but it was everyone else that caused the current situation. How can you argue both sides of the point? Conceeding that I shouldn't have trained the troops or funded the first regieme change that cuased the situation to be bad enough to need a war; and then continue to say that we infact did not need to fight? You're sitting here writing it out! Maybe next time go through what you write and check for consistancy.
YOU INVADED A COUNTRY !!!
You even understand what that means ??
Ahh my favorite part! You suggesting I dont' understand the implications of war. Again, not refuting anything I say, but simply suggesting disreguard for I can't know the cost of what I advocate.

Yes, we (not I as you seem to think but we as a nation of elected representatives) agreed to go to war. We had the then thought facts, and with those, as a collective decided to go to war. With an army. That we pay for.

Yes there is a cost of human life. Our own boy, courageously fighting in their duty. But the simple fact remains that they were not forced into that job. The risk of their own lives was a chance they willingly imposed upon themselves by joining the army. It is under stood by every soldier that they can be killed and that this is what they are risking. This isn't to suggest that we should be constantly at war for the sake of killing our own army (decided to go ahead and stop you from turning this into that argument) but that when we collectively decide to go to war, we as a nation utilize an army of men willing to risk their life for what our representatives deem nessicary.
Where did you get that from ? FOX NEWS ????? laugh.gif laugh.gif



Man where do you live ? Seriously...are one of those retard neocons that one hears so much about in the news ?????
Wow, I am so glad you didnt' resort to name calling for lack of anything contributory to add to your argument or refutory of mine. It's almost like a cliche neo-con. (Notice I only responded to your comment. Not calling you names for the sake of name calling but suggesting that in the same style of Whitehouse, your lack of a point is diverting the argument to meaningless and trival nonsense.)
I get my news in three different languages from multiple news sources.
Oh, thanks for clearing that up. See, I thought you just read the same news cast or journal in three different languages.

However, seems that no matter how many newscasts you preport to understand, doesn't keep you from being a retard - at least in a debating sense.
Instead of solving the problem, and asking why it has happened, you guys aggravated the situation a thousand fold by Invading Iraq.
Look at the root 'causes' of terrorism, not it's symptoms.
Ok, maybe, if you can wrap your head around it, look at it like this:

SOLVING PROBLEM = Taking out Sadamm and Co.
ASKING WHY IT HAPPEND = Instead of regieme installation, simply allowed for the creation of a democracy by local politicans.

I am pretty sure both of those actions have cleared up the little problems of genocide, radicalism, and inhumanism caused by the bathh party.
What you guys are seeing now is just the opening act, worst is yet to come. I know this because my country is facing this problem since the last 15 odd years.
Well I do hope you forgive minor inaccuracies found in my writing above if you aren't of the States, however the points stand. You seem to have a good heart, and in it I am sure you think you are correct and probably very little could happen to change your mind. However, if you do think you actually have a counter point on something I have written, please by all means, explicate away; if its more name calling and suggesting I am on drugs, do your reputation a favor and stay out of this thread.

Have a great day. :)

Phife
Posts: 286
Joined: 05 Sep 2004 14:28
Location: Somewhere West of Phoenix!

Post by Phife » 27 Jul 2005 14:07

I'll make a quick point, unlike my counterparts.

Islamo-fascism raged well before 9/11 and the "invasion" of Iraq. Remember the first Twin Towers bombing in 1993? Or the explosion of a US military barricks in Saudi Arabia in 1996? Or the attack against USS Cole in Yemen in 2000? All of these events happened before the current war in Iraq, thus could not have been caused by the current war in Iraq.

Muslim fascists hate the West because of our way of life. We are impure and must be irradicated (according to a literal and fundametalist interpretation of certain passages in the Quran). It is hate couched in religion, akin to the KKK but on a much bigger scale. It harkens back to the Crusades of the Middle Ages, which are surely a low point in the history of Christianity and Islam. Thankfully Christianity has moved on beyond that barbarism; its too bad that Islam has not.
Last edited by Phife on 27 Jul 2005 14:10, edited 1 time in total.

UncleMao
Posts: 401
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 12:30
Location: The Heart of the Proletariat

Post by UncleMao » 27 Jul 2005 14:54

That's pigeonholing. Majority of Muslims are honest to goodness, hard working and pleasant people with a desire for peace like anyone else.

What stands to be the difference is that hotbeds of religious fundamentalism and extremism run more rampant in the Middle East than in the West. But that stands to reason as much from poverty, class divide and sheer ignorance than anything else.

Islam is not the enemy. Gun-toting Islam-breaking Abdul is the enemy.

Eliminate poverty, ignorance and disenfranchisement and you eliminate the fertilizer to create hatred and animosity.

Of course that's easy to prescribe, but much harder to put into practice.

steampunk
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 Sep 2004 00:55

Post by steampunk » 27 Jul 2005 21:49

UncleMao wrote:Eliminate poverty, ignorance and disenfranchisement and you eliminate the fertilizer to create hatred and animosity.
That almost sounds like "invade their countries and institute freedom and democracy". :D

--------

Below is a rant, not directed at Mao.



On a strategic level, too bad the media doesn't spend much time pointing out:

o The ouster of Syria from Lebanon directly due to peaceful demonstrations by the people. Just a few days ago, the American Secretary of State visited Lebanon. That is absolutely historic!

o The municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, the first in that country's history (all though they were mainly a PR sham, but still...).

o Speaking of "sham" elections: ". . . in late February 2005, President Hosni Mubarak announced on a surprise television broadcast that he has ordered the reform of the country's presidential election law, paving the way for multi-candidate polls in the coming election. For the first time in Egypt's history, the people will have a chance to elect their leader in a closely watched election." (quote from Wikipedia) Granted, Egypt isn't suddenly a Jeffersonian democracy, but it is one step closer.

o Polls in Muslim countries are showing that, while still popular, al-Qaeda and terrorism are becoming less popular than they were before. Just the other day, Muslims in Egypt were rallying against terrorist bombings!

o How the terrorists are turning on their fellow Muslims, like kidnapping and killing the Egyptian envoy to Iraq, bombing the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik, and now the kidnapping of the Algerian envoy to Iraq. Hell, they're now bombing and killing the Sunnis(!), because the Sunnis are going back to the table. Just a few days ago, two Sunni government officials were killed. It sure looks like they hate to see any kind of recognition of a legitimate, based-on-the-will-of-the-people government in Iraq.

o Are the democratic gains in Afghanistan a success? I don't know. But they are sure a lot better than the Taliban they had in place before. Men (and women!) are voting!

o And last, but not least, how the Sunnis have returned to the Iraqi government and a constitution is taking form.

What is causing this democratic reform throughout the Middle East and North Africa?



The Iraqis are free from Saddam and his exploitation, they are remaking their country, and they are voting. I'd like to hear what the anti-Bush / anti-conservative side would rather have had. Really. What is the opposition's road map to ending terrorism? Treating it as a police action resulted in the above-mentioned terrorist events (Khobar, USS Cole, WTC '93, African embassy bombings).

And don't tell me we "went to war for the wrong reasons". We didn't enter WWII to save the Jews, but no one will argue that ending the Holocaust was wrong. People praise the "greatest generation" but they forget they used the A-Bomb, they used internment camps (for Italians and Germans, not just Japanese - but kids don't like to study history), they destroyed entire cities with "terror bombing" (look up the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo). They did those things because the alternative, to leave the Japanese and German governments intact and able to reconstitute in a non-democratic way, would lead to more strife. Just study WWI and how it led to WWII if you don't believe me. WWII was ALL ABOUT "regime change"!

And please don't tell me the solution is for more aid to be poured down a rathole. If you want to see the failure of money thrown at a problem, please look at Africa. You can read <a href='http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms. ... ry_id=3098' target='_blank'>this piece</a>, which talks about failing states, most of which are in Africa. Do some googling on Mugabe and his "success" with land reform there. Do you think giving aid to these failing states, without helping them clean up their governments, will actually work?




And what about the tactical successes during the "War on Terror" (or the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" as the administration is calling it today)?

o Has anyone on here mentioned <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Q_Khan' target='_blank'>A. Q. Khan</a>? We now have effectively shut down his nuclear-peddling network with the help of his own country, Pakistan. Yeah, he's under "house arrest" - but Pervez Musharraf is walking a tight rope in trying to control his Muslim country and also help the US. Khan is Pakistan's "father of the bomb", so Musharraf can only do so much. It would have been like the US locking up Oppenheimer.

o And speaking of Pervez Musharraf, what about the fact that Pakistan is an ally of ours? They've gone from a country that actively trained and funded terrorists to a country that is struggling to overcome their Islamo-extremist tendencies. You have to remember that Pakistan was the main supporter of the Taliban and now they are our main supporter (in the region) of our efforts to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Are they perfect? No way. Are they a lot better than they were on September 10th, 2001? You bet.

o What about Libya? You remember ole' Colonel Qaddafi, yes? Haven't heard a peep from him lately, have you? If you'll do some research on him, you'll find he was another "state sponsor of terror" (Lockerbie, German nightclub bombings). He even had a WMD program (to include researching nukes). After Saddam's ouster, in 2003, Qaddafi has invited in UN weapons inspectors and given up his WMD programs. The rumor is that he phoned the Italian premier and said, "I saw what they did to Saddam..."

o Afghanistan itself is a tactical success. One of the largest safe-havens for terrorists in now crawling with red-blooded American (and Canadian and French and ...) troops.

o And even Iraq is a success from a less-terrorist-threat perspective. People are quick to point out that Saddam didn't have WMDs and he wasn't behind September 11th. What they will not say is that he wasn't trying to obtain WMDs and that he wasn't a sponsor of terrorism. It's a fact that he desired WMDs and would most likely have gone after them once the threat of the US and sanctions were lifted. It's also a fact that he supported terrorism, from his funding of suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel to his flirting with al-Qaeda to his harboring of nasty folks like <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Abbas' target='_blank'>Abu Abbas</a> (the hijacker of the Achille Lauro).



It is very clear that these fundamentalists are trying to achieve certain goals (Islamification, the Caliphate) and they will use terror tactics to bring them about. They had a visible sign of success when Spain pulled out of Iraq because of the Madrid bombing. But they have now had a setback when London has stood resolute in the face of their own attacks. To me, it appears that these folks are nothing more than schoolyard bullies that need to be punched in the nose. They are thugs and criminals that have wrapped themselves in religion. Our goal must be to eliminate them, but more importantly, we must convert their safe havens into regions that are hostile to their actions and beliefs. I believe that all those purple fingers are much more effective than a few pounds of nails and C4. And from their desperate actions, it appears that the terrorists think the same thing.
Last edited by steampunk on 27 Jul 2005 23:55, edited 1 time in total.

Phife
Posts: 286
Joined: 05 Sep 2004 14:28
Location: Somewhere West of Phoenix!

Post by Phife » 27 Jul 2005 23:49

UncleMao wrote:That's pigeonholing. Majority of Muslims are honest to goodness, hard working and pleasant people with a desire for peace like anyone else.

What stands to be the difference is that hotbeds of religious fundamentalism and extremism run more rampant in the Middle East than in the West. But that stands to reason as much from poverty, class divide and sheer ignorance than anything else.

Islam is not the enemy. Gun-toting Islam-breaking Abdul is the enemy.

Eliminate poverty, ignorance and disenfranchisement and you eliminate the fertilizer to create hatred and animosity.

Of course that's easy to prescribe, but much harder to put into practice.
That is my point exactly! I have said it a million times in a million places; most Muslims are kind enough and peaceful. But the extremists of their religion have officially gone off the deep end, obviously.

And you are right when pointing out that hard economic times breed extremism. Just look at the make up of extreme right wing Christian groups -- 90% below the poverty line. But say that we take your advice Mao and try to fight what you call the underlying problem. How do we stay safe until then?

Here's my proposal. Until things calm down (even if its 50 years or more), Muslims in the West are going to have to sacrifice some of their freedoms. They are going to have submit to racial profiling, to the FBI sitting in on mosque services, etc. They shouldn't worry or fret...unless they have something to hide. Only the people who make bombs, preach hate, and train terrorists should be scared.

Dere33
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 09:49

Post by Dere33 » 28 Jul 2005 02:26

Steampunk - Wow... just wow. You seem to be realy really articulate on this topic and I would like to thank you for taking the time to write what you did. I really appreciate it and nkow that from the looks of it you might be the most read person on this matter. Thanks!

Phife - While I do agree with your refutation of Muslims inhairently breeding extreamism, your easyness about muslim americans expecting to have their personal liberties momentairly stripped is a bit disconcerting. Intermant camps were a very base section of american history and no american should even be willing to entertain the idea of a related practice happening today.

While muslims will need to take out DEEPEST apologies for maybe once in 10,000 times, mistaking joe bob for hashmireDaBombar, no legal citizen of the united states should ever be racially profiled for any reason. Racial profiling is a vastly ineffective means to an end and generally doesn't end at just one race or people. (a la Patriot Act)

Phife
Posts: 286
Joined: 05 Sep 2004 14:28
Location: Somewhere West of Phoenix!

Post by Phife » 28 Jul 2005 14:35

When the next 18-35 yr old male Arab Muslim suicide bomber blows up something and kills 500 people but wasn't searched because the ACLU and others had the security officers scared to do their job for fear of litigation...I'll be sure to find you Dere and thank you for advocating that racial profiling not be put into action!

Dere33
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 09:49

Post by Dere33 » 28 Jul 2005 19:58

And when Americans start dissapearing, are held without charge for years on end, and are sent to military tribunals without public review or checks from other branches of government I'll be sure to thank you phif.

Its not like the only people who ever bomb us are or look like a muslim. The capability has been proven for extreamist groups to recruit people of the west to their cause. It makes racial profiling a vastly ineffective means to security.

steampunk
Posts: 132
Joined: 16 Sep 2004 00:55

Post by steampunk » 28 Jul 2005 22:14

Interesting news from the religious side of things.

First, the Pope on Monday (from <a href='http://unspun.mithuro.com/content/view/319/36/' target='_blank'>here</a>):
Pope Benedict XVI today refused to declare Islam a religion of peace.

Asked by journalists whether Islam could be considered a religion of peace shortly before entering the church of Introd for a meeting with priests and deacons of Valle d'Aosta, the region of northwest Italy where he is spending a brief holiday, the pontiff refused reply positively.

"I would not like to use big words to apply generic labels," he replied. "It certainly contains elements that can favor peace, it also has other elements: we must always seek the best elements."
Uh-oh. That's fighting dirty. He didn't call Islam a religion of peace!

Second, from a leading Imam in Mecca, on the 15th of July, a week after the London Tube bombings (from <a href='http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD93905' target='_blank'>here</a>):
Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam of Islam's most holy mosque, Al-Haram in Mecca, holds one of the most prestigious posts in Sunni Islam. Following the terrorist attacks in London, Al-Sudayyis's controversial June 2004 visit to the U.K. for the opening of the London Muslim Centre has been headlined in the British media.

A month before his visit to London last year, Sheikh Al-Sudayyis had been barred from Canada, where he planned to give a series of lectures. The ban followed a report about his sermons by MEMRI that included Al-Sudayyis calling Jews "the scum of the earth" and "monkeys and pigs" who should be "annihilated." Other enemies of Islam were referred to by Sheikh Al-Sudayyis as "worshippers of the cross" and "idol worshipping Hindus" who must be fought.

In his Friday sermon of July 15, 2005, Sheikh Al-Sudayyis said: "Oh Allah, liberate our Al-Aqsa Mosque from the defilement of the occupying and brutal Zionists… Oh Allah, punish the occupying Zionists and their supporters from among the corrupt infidels. Oh Allah, scatter and disperse them, and make an example of them for those who take heed."

It should be noted that the website www.alminbar.net, which regularly posts Al-Sudayyis's sermons, edited out the above segment, as did the Saudi Gazette, which regularly reports on his sermons.
I'm sure the Sheikh meant, ". . . Allah, punish the occupying Zionists and their supporters from among the corrupt infidels. Oh Allah, scatter and disperse them, and make an example of them. . ." in a very peaceful way. :P

Dere33
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 09:49

Post by Dere33 » 29 Jul 2005 00:30

in a peaceful way or in pieces?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests