on the bbc...
Afghan on trial for Christianity
It's pretty twisted that they can claim Islam is a religion of tolerance, when they will sentence him to death in the name of Islam if he refuses to convert back."We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him"
But it's basically the same thing. Believing that you are right, ie. Islam is right and believing that Christ will unite the world under Islam. Well **** you Jesus Christ, you do not rule me and you will not unite me under Islam. Perhaps Christ when he turns up will kill me for not believing hey? Why cannot Muslims just live and let live? Why is there this desire to see everyone united under Islam? It's bull****. It's just another way of persuading the masses that they are right. Moderate enlightened Muslims simply just don't believe this crap, they have more respect for themselves and other people than to simply believe it. They make their own minds up rather than believing what a "scholar" has preached to them.Originally Posted by Lexicon
If you do a quick google you will find that there is Islamic terrorism in China. The Chinese crush any desent and hush it up thats why you don't here of it. Bin Laden would never attack China even though Muslims are being oppressed there because he knows he will get very little support and that Muslims in China and on it's North Western borders would be much worse off.
After all if Sept 11th had happened in China they certainly would be doing exactly what America has done and a damn sight more brutally. They would not take the chance of subversion at home and it would be a massive loss of face for them.
In America you are free to vote for whomever you chose once every 4 years. So you can change the government i.e. the law makers, who can then repeal or make new laws. Sharia Law is definitive in alot of middle eastern states and cannot be changed.
Who has the real freedom? Those who can chose who they are governed by or those who live under sharia law.
Give me America anyday, atleast I would have a choice. This lady expresses my view pretty much in a nutshell. http://switch5.castup.net/frames/200...050wmv&ak=null
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Ok Lexicon, Having read your post through I see you have an unerring ability to read between the lines, and see anything you actually want to see. Along with the unerring ability to see only positive things regarding Islam and Islamic extremists. I did not say that Muslims groups want to see all non-Muslims dead but that there are groups who want to see a world where there is only Islam. I'm sure there would be a choice with such groups, convert or die.
By profit margins I am not speaking in terms of money. Iranu put it much more clearly. There is no profit politically in attacking China in the same way. One reason is the lack of media coverage. The Chinese govt controls the media and could, if it so wished, simply blanket any coverage. Publicity is the lifeblood of terror organisations. Attacking America will give a much better yeild. Also the much more brutal reprisal that would be experienced at the hands of the Chinese make it an operation not worth the cost. I have no idea why he hasn't attacked Sweden. Possibly the same reason he hasn't attacked Iceland. Not much there for him to attack, only low priority targets. Much better targets in The US and the rest of Europe.
The ordinary citizens of any state ultimately finance the armed forces of that state. So by that token one could equally legitimately target the civil population of any state that one is in conflict with. The US, for example, goes to great lengths not to do this. That they are unsuccessful on occaision is highlighted in the media glare in which they operate. The Isrealis tried it too a couple of years ago at the cost of increased casualties to their own troops. But they still continued with the effort. Shall we list some of the 'operations' of Bin Laden and his supporting groups? The East African Embassies? The world trade centre, the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bombings, the London bombings. To name the more well known. How much attempt was made to avoid civilian casualties? Thousands, and it is thousands, of ordinary people deliberately murdered. Not killed by accident during a conflict but deliberately murdered. It doesn't help when we see images of people dancing in the street to celibrate such acts.
If influential religious leaders are not using religious texts to convince young people of the merits of becoming a suicide bomber then what are they using? Blaming western media for tarnishing the teachings of such individuals is rather convenient but hardly credible. The western media is not without it's bias or agenda.I agree. Much in the same way as Al Jazeera has it's agenda. And please don't continue to patronise me for my attempts at trying to be open minded. Certainly from someone as obviously closed minded as yourself. You constantly speak of haters. While conveniently glossing over the hatred from Islamic groups. It takes a huge amount of will and hatred to kill another human being in cold blood. Acts that have become all too commonplace in recent years. Acts that are overwhelmingly attributed to groups such as those led by Bin Laden. So far there has been very little violent backlash from ordinary western people. Hopefully that will continue becase the only ones who would suffer under that would be ordinary people. Which, as I have stated, I have no doubt is exactly what the likes of Bin Laden wants.
The Arab-Isreali situation is the result of a huge error brought about by the mass of emotion brought about as a result of the holocaust. As soon as the occupation troops left in 1948 the Arabs sought to take back the land. The newly formed Isrealis had nowhere to run to so they dug in and fought. When your neighbours publicly avowed intent is to drive your nation into the sea. Backed up by action to bring that about. Well one may be forgiven for a hardening of resolve. However, that is not central to this thread.
The origins of this thread were asking if Islam is a violent religion. No, it's not. But it is perceived as such by the acts of groups who are followers of that religion. If there is no spin on the teachings then by your own definition these groups are following the religion. Therefore it IS a religion of hatred and violence by your definition not mine. I personally believe that the teachings are spun and the meanings twisted to convince people to carry out violent and murderous acts in the name of Islam.
In case your rose tinted glasses have filtered out the situation in Waziristan. There is a marked increase in public execution by hanging and beheading (for example) since your fighter of oppression moved his base of operations there.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
I felt that I read and understood your lines properly given the clarity of expression, I'm sorry if you took offence to any possible misinterpretation and thank you for time you set aside for the full and calm reply. We were discussing the perception of whether someone is an invader:
I explained that al'Qaeda sees the 'West' as invaders of Muslim lands and have gone so unreasonably far as to retaliate violently against the citizens who support the Western states in question. In a later post, I explained that many Muslims feel the creation of Israel in 1948 was an invasion of Palestinian land, the Balfour Declaration in 1917 shows that this was not a result of "mass of emotion brought about as a result of the holocaust" but planned for a long time before the Holocaust which perhaps turned out to be a tragic, yet opportune, excuse for politicians. Were some hypothetical Islamic group to declare a part of America as a "Nation of Islam" I would consider this an act of aggression, so I see the Arab point of view with regard to Israel. I don't know if you feel Israel should have been allowed to form, as it did, even without compensation to, or consultation with the Palestinians that were about to be expelled from their homes in 1948. This is a major reason why al'Qaeda have a 'grudge' and one shared by many Muslims, moderate too, the difference being the criminal action al'Qaeda takes. Even though you feel the Arab-Israeli situation was brought about by an error (your wording maybe indicates on the part of the West) you somehow feel it is, "not central to the thread," despite bin Laden making it clear that it is a central reason for their terrorism. On the contrary, you seem far more willing to ignore the "error" of the method of the creation of Israel and point fingers at the Arab states who were attempting to get their land back.
You had replied with the question, "In fact when such groups proclaim their intent to see a world in which only Islam exists (and this has been said) then one could forgive Westerners for beginning to belive that their own religion is under threat perhaps? Maybe begin to see Muslims as invaders?" You were not completely specific as to which groups have this intent but I assume you mean the Muslims who proclaim this intent but are not admonished by the authorities i.e. use free speech, since we deal harshly with the violent ones.
This question also puzzled me somewhat because it was a reply to my comment about perception, thus you were essentially comparing a idealogical desire (to see the world under Islam) to the act of forcing the creation of a state (Israel) upon a people. I do not ever recall a group, in living memory, capturing a part of America and proclaiming it Islamic land, nor do I know of masses of Muslim military bases camped around America as there are military bases in Arabia. Furthermore, the "world in which only Islam exists" could mean one run by an Islamic state or a world of Muslims only, a significant difference. I took this as you meaning the former because you cannot force people to believe in Allah, a central belief in Islam. Taking your question, as I understand it, are you suggesting that certain Muslim groups who wish to see a world run under Islam could be possibly viewed as "threat" to you or anyone? Are these Muslims denied the ability to vote for the introduction of an Islamic state? On the other hand if you meant that groups would like to forcibly convert or kill every person on Earth by force regardless of their level of 'innocence,' I would like you to point out an reasonably significant organisation that demands this.
In your last post you stressed that you, "did not say that Muslims groups want to see all non-Muslims dead but that there are groups who want to see a world where there is only Islam." Fair enough, then you blow it by immediately claiming that "there would be a choice with such groups, convert or die." Ironically, this is the same as saying they want to kill all adamant non-Muslims.
I understood what you meant by profit margins, I didn't take it to mean money either. I'm sorry if you took offence but if you accuse me of patronising and reading between the lines to see anything I chose then you should at least recognise that you have been doing so yourself, for I never mentioned anything about money. Apparently to you, Iranu put it more clearly but frankly I skipped most of that eyesore of a post, according to him China keeps a tight lid on internal events yet somehow "Google" knows Muslims are oppressed and apparently he has no respect for people who can't make up their own minds yet he needs to point out a lady on the web who expresses his view for him. It's a bit naive to think that if al'Qaeda launched attacks at Chinese targets that there would be no press coverage. Certainly Western papers would be full of coverage and exciting speculation while China might be rallying its citizens to war. Furthermore you even claim China would have a more brutal reprisal (I don't know why you think this, America have been brutal enough in the past); surely by you own logic of "profit margins," China harshly lashing out at Middle Eastern states would be a great boost to the terrorist recruitment. In fact your theory doesn't answer anything because if bin Laden is attacking high profile targets merely in order to gain publicity, then it begs the question, what is his purpose for the publicity?
Apparently, and contradictory to what bin Laden himself indicates, you believe he hasn't attacked Iceland possibly because there is "not much for him to attack, only low priority targets." Whereas I have continually pointed out that his own words indicate that he attacks those he sees as attacking Muslims. I don't believe Iceland had much of a role in the creation of Israel nor has it been part of the Coalition of the Willing, on the other hand Spain was not exactly an al'Qaeda terrorist target before it joined the Coalition yet after it did, a train station was attacked. It doesn't take much thinking to see a connection. Additionally, the train station could not be described as a high priority target which only adds against your theory.
I admit that it is far easier to sheepishly believe the media and government tale of a crazed bogeyman coming to eat your children at night because they don't follow Islam and pass off those such as myself, who are trying to understand the enemy, as observers trying to justify their actions. Apparently you claim that I only see the good in extremists, but the issue of them as unjust is not even up for debate, we agree that the violent ones are clearly wrong-doers and need to be brought to justice however I try to inform people that there is a source to their hate and if you cut off that source it is a far more effective way than attempting to pick out the terrorists with bombs which will invariably hurt innocent people thus generating more terrorists.
Next you come out with something that's quite extraordinary, "The ordinary citizens of any state ultimately finance the armed forces of that state. So by that token one could equally legitimately target the civil population of any state that one is in conflict with. The US, for example, goes to great lengths not to do this." Hiroshima was not exactly an example of great lengths not to strike civilians, nor was Dresden in the Second World War, Fallujah in the current war or plenty of other examples in history. It is primarily a question of military ability and 'need' to strike civilians. The U.S. is vastly superior to Iraq so it easily disabled the Iraqi military capability, but when faced with the Germans or Japanese, powers of nearly equal might to America, where was the morality there; they went straight for the soft targets. The Americans, like others, weigh up how effective a strike on civilians areas would be compared to how much moral high ground they would lose. You then list al'Qaeda civilian targets to make some sort of comparison as though we should be thankful America do not act like al'Qaeda. I don't see your point frankly because I don't look to an enemy injustice in order to justify my own actions, if something is unjust it is because of my (country's, religion's) moral standards alone. I fully acknowledge that al'Qaeda uses unjust techniques to retaliate (just as America has done in the past) and that is why I support bringing them to justice.
You can chose to believe that "the teachings [of Islam] are spun," and that Islam is non-violent but if you actually understood Islam you will find that Islam does indeed accept violence but against oppression only; it is only a matter of the perception of who is the oppressor. Far from trying to make Islam seem a religion of hatred and agression, I am pointing out that Islam has little to do with reasons behind the terrorism situation. Nor am I being biased towards extremist groups, I am accepting they have legitimate grudges but if they do anything not sanctioned by the state in which they live they are to be treated as the criminals they are. You brought up the situation in Waziristan which is a region of Pakistan, if people practice acts contrary to Pakistani laws I would expect to see Pakistan do their best to deal with them.
I apologise if you found me patronising toward you, that was not my intent. However, it doesn't help your case if, for one of many examples, you try to point out that I, "use the word haters quite a lot," (your post #135) whereas I only used it once prior to that (in post #134) and with good reason. Furthermore, according to you I have the unerring ability to only see good in Islam. Most of my previous posts have not considered the religion of Islam itself but the perception of it, I've made it clear that Islam is not really an issue in this "War on Terror." If do seek to understand as much as possible about Islam, and find no fault in it I don't see why this should be a problem anyway.
I would hardly say it is naive for someone to post a link to a site that shows ones views in a nutshell. I expressed my view and linked to a video of someone sharing my view (as I stated) This cannot be construed as me having not formed my own opinion. The lady does not express my view for me, how can she, she does not know my view.
As for skipping a post you seem to be remakable informed of what I have said in it. How can you say my post was an eyesore if you skipped most of it? Once again we see a poster who has such preconcieved ideas that he or she is certainly not willing to countanence any view except their own. I did not say that China would assualt the middle east (you implied that), China cannot do it, they don't have the means to militarily. What I did say, if you had read my post more carefully was, Muslims on China's North Western borders - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Krygyzstan,Tajikistan and Kazakstan. Bearing in mind some of these countries have oil and gas (which China desperately needs) it would be silly to awaken the Red dragon (and have to fight on 3 fronts, The west, China and Russia. I never said Bin Laden was stupid.)
Both I and RVF500 have put forward the argument, that Islam the religion is not a violent religion. The reason we say people see it as such is because of the wide coverage of a small group of people who use Islam as an excuse for acts of terrorsim and state control, both of which are totally alien to us and as such we do not like it. Islam is linked to terrorism because certain terrorists bomb, kill, murder and maim and justify this under the guise of Islam the same way the IRA did but used "the republican cause". We do not now see all Irish republicans as terrorists, however, people were very wary of an Irish accent in London during the 70's and acted accordingly. They were frightened. Was IRA terror a plot by the media to show all Irish people as violent terrorists? No, so why the same argument for Islam?
If the media is at fault would you please comment on the poor soul who faces execution for changing from Islam to Christianity in Kabul. If Islam and the people who follow it are so peaceful why are certain sections calling for this man's death? We find this appalling, do you? Is this a story made up by the media? What is the media? I can get this same story from more than 50 sources. Are you saying that those soures are coluding in some manner to make Muslims in Kabal (or in general) look barbaric? How much "airtime" has this story got in the middle east? Will we see Imams and Arabic leaders plead for clemency?
We also understand that Muslims feel oppressed. However have you ever thought about why that is? What the real cause is. It's not Israel (*the creation of Israel was agreed by the fledgling UN - Palestine was British Territory in 1947 it was only the Arab instigated war that led to the current plight of the Palestinians who incidentally have rejected the creation of their own state some 53 times since the creation of Israel mainly at the behest of non-Palestinian Arab intervention) or American troops in Saudi at all. It's Arab media. Who controls Arab media? The governments of the Middle East. They could not exert control over the populace without resorting to either nationalist or religious extremism.
The middle east is a ****hole where the majority of the population are ill educated, poor, deprived, with a lack of opportunity. Their focus is taken away from their greedy rulers and the reasons for their own poverty and projected onto America/the west by claiming that the west is against them. They are the victims. It's this self victimhood that is now endemic in the Arab/middle eastern world. (you don't see the kind of furor or frenzy by Malays or Indonesians primarily because they are a diferent, more enlightened, culture) They have been indoctrinated by the (non free) press, their religious leaders and government propaganda. Funny how America was not called the great satan (apart from in Iran) when they were training and supplying the Mujahadeen during the Soviet occupation of Afganistan.
A good example of this stirring of the populace is the row over the cartoons. No-one in the middle east had heard of this at all UNTIL a group of Danish Muslims went to Egypt and got it exposed. They also added some material that had not been printed (which was much more provocative - why did they do that?). Once the Arab press and the good old Imams got a hold of this is it was like paradise for them. An easy way to stir up the populace. 4 months after the cartoons were printed we saw VIOLENT demonstrations across the middle east that resulted in the deaths of Muslims. How stupid is that? Well the people who stirred it up don't care about the deaths, they care about showing Muslims that they are the victim, the oppressed, the underdog crushed under the mighty western crusader boot.
And there you have it. The perception is created.
And there is the justification with the classic tinge of someone who cannot think for themselves. My country's moral code based on religion says it's wrong therefore I am justified in killing.
That is why Islamic terrorism occurs. These moral standards may well be ideologically perfect, the greatest thing since sliced bread but these moral standards are based on nothing but a book and it's this interpretation that causes the problems.
Who says that book is correct? The book is out of date. It needs to be revised, edited for the 21st century. It's stuck in the medieval age and those who interpret it for their morals and country's standards are stuck in the medieval age too.
That is also the reason why the west is so much more developed, a much nicer easier place to live, with freedoms. We are not controlled by religion anymore, we have thrown off those shackles. We do not base our morals on what the state or religion tells us, we base it on our own judgement and are ABLE TO CHANGE THOSE MORALS. (e.g. How women, homosexuals should be treated). Islam, in general, does not allow this. That's why Muslims have migrated here, much more opportunity. They also have the freedom and the education to be able to interpret that book for themselves, make up their own minds.
Once again I see the classic mindset of someone who will not confront the truth and will attack America or the west no matter what the reason, i.e bringing up Dresden or Hiroshima.
There is no way you can compare Hiroshima/Nagasaki or indeed Dresden with current events in the Middle East or Fallujah. Anyone who has any interest in the truth would not site these examples of needing to bomb civilians because they were part of the war effort or soft targets
Dresden was the perferct raid. Everything that the allies had tried in order to make their raids succesful (i.e. most devastating) over the past 4 years occured. It's also funny how Dresden is always cited even though greater death tolls occured in as short a space of time (on all sides during WWII)
As for Hiroshima there are a number of things the public do not know. eg, a German u-boat U234 (not to be confused with U235) was enroute towards the very end of the war to meet up with the 2 largest WW2 submarines. These Japanese submarines were capable of launching aircraft. The german sub had an awful lot of technology on board including an me262, heavy water and radioactive material. Luckily this sub was intercepted after Germany surrendered and docked in North America. The crew refused to offload the cases containing the radioactive material citing it was too dangerous.
There is no doubt that Japan planned to drop a dirty bomb on one of America's eastern cities. Less than two weeks after the capture of U234 the Americans dropped the atomic bomb. Could they have risked a dirty bomb being dropped on US soil killing US citizens? Of course not, they had no idea if Japan had already taken stock of other shipments. Could they invade? No, they were not ready. In any case it was predicted that 500,000 American casualties would result plus over 1 million Japanese soldiers and 2 million civilians would be killed in the invasion. Therefore the atomic bomb saved lives by bringing the war to a close.
After the war the allies discovered paperwork detailing the orders to execute all allied POW's if an invasion of mainland Japan occured. We also found out about comfort women and the experiments carried out by Unit 731, the using of chinese POW's for bayonet practice and the other attrocities commited by the Japanese, which incedentally originated from a superior racial mindset. I see a similar mindset, but one based on religion with respect to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. I don't think Ken Biggly had much to do with oppressing Muslims but it didn't stop people using the prophets name under the disguise of oppression to murder him did it? Lets hope that this war does not end in the same way that WWII did.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Indeed the idea of the Jewish state was not a new idea. However the impetus for bringing it about was as a result of the holocaust. You may call it an invasion, others call it a return. The argument that the Arabs are trying to get their land back is countered by the Jews saying exactly the same. Yes I do think it was an error. The status quo in the Middle East should not have been meddled with. Unfortunately one can't simply expect the Isrealis to leave now. Indeed America was instrumental in bringing it about. Which may explain one reason why they are so heavily involved.
Striking at non-military targets was done equally during the second world war. In fact after Guernica in the Spanish civil war attacking population centres by bombing was considered a valid military strategy by the Germans as a way of undermining national morale. The fact that it didn't work is historical. Perhaps the instigators of the current wave of terror bombings should take a look at history. Dresden was bombed by the British not the Americans. I assume you refer to the firestorm. The nuclear attack on Japan was considered as an option that would cause the least loss of life. The fact that ensuing deaths through radiation sickness multiplied the original toll was something that no one knew as we had no experience. Not an excuse, a fact. Subsequent historical discussion tends to agree that the overall death toll would in fact have been higher.
Terrorists consistently seek publicity for their actions. As a way to put pressure on states to submit to their demands and as a way to undermine the morale of individual citizens. By constanly appearing as a threat. Also as a way of advertising their cause and trying to win over disaffected individuals to that cause. You state the the Chinese would not be able to clamp down on the news. You may, therefore find it interesting that some people in Beijing itself did not even know the extent of what went on in Tianeman square. Whilst out in Asia recently I asked a friend who was a Beijing resident at the time what her view was. She told me that nothing much had happened and only a few soldiers had died in some unrest. It wasn't until she did some searches that she found out the true extent. This was just last year. A well educated person, so complete was the local news clampdown and so complete was the population control. Ok, China is more open now but when you get away from the population centres there is very little news that gets out without the Chinese allowing it. As for attacking the Middle East. Of course not. But internally that would be a very different story. Ethnically it would be very hard for Bin Laden to operate unless he had a large base of local support. Which brings us back to the internal reprisal. It is simply not a feasable operation. Bin Laden knows this. As for US military bases. They cannot exist without the permission of the incumbant state. I think we can agree that the situation in Iraq would be even worse without them. Iranu has already mentioned the US support of Mujahideen in the Afghan-Soviet war. A war in which Bin Laden himself benefited from US aid. One may ask why he didn't refuse this aid due to his high principle and desire to fight the US oppressor.
Another important basis for terrorist operations is local support. While there is support for the likes of Al Qaeda in the west and it is much easier to infiltrate support. This is much more difficult to bring about and sustain in a country like China. I stand by my point regarding the potential for reprisal and brutality of the Chinese govt. Due process has a somewhat different meaning there. It would be unlikely that there would be any high profile trial of suspects. Much more likely a short and unpublicised trip to an army firing range. The potential for success and impact is low. The potential for unpublicised reprisal on the local Muslim population is high. A train full of commuters is what terrorists call a 'spectacular'. Something headline grabbing with huge impact. You may not think that causing a high toll in death and injury, guaranteed high publicity, disruption of services impacting beyond the event itself much of a priority. Planners who do set these targets out do.
I agree with your point. You cannot force someone to believe in God. In fact with some people you can't even force someone to follow a given religion even under pain of death. I of course refer to the present case in Kabul. You may, or may not, know of a Russian soldier who saved himself from being killed by the Mujahideen by converting to Islam. How long do you think he held on to those beliefs once he got away from Afghanistan? You can coerce followers but that does not make them followers. In fact the liklihood is that they will reject the teachings in their hearts. Which takes us back to the 'convert or die' statement. No it's not the same. As most people would take the above approach. That is appear to collaberate while planning to remove the oppression they find themselves under.
Speaking of oppression, the people carrying out the acts of oppression in Waziristan are the very people whom you say see themselves as freedom fighters against oppression. The reason the Pakistani authorities don't do anything about it may well be because they barely control the cities in that country let alone the outlying areas. Perhaps they are unable to do anything about it.
That is exactly what I am talking about. The meaning is being twisted to convince people to carry out acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. I therefore choose to believe that certain distort the teachings to achieve this. The other option is to belive that Islam and Muslims are a violent threat. This I don't believe. But by arguing against the former you are arguing for the latter.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Specifically, you refer to the idea of a Jewish state on The Holy Land, not simply a "Jewish state." There was no way the Zionists would accept anywhere else when one of the negotiators with Balfour commented that "anything else would be idolatry." I prefer the term 'Zionist' rather than 'Jewish' here because not all Jews feel right about Israel. I used the term invasion (I'll be more specific by calling it aggressive invasion) because that is what it was, evicting people who did nothing to deserve eviction was a fact. Certainly an invasion could be a return, but I don't see how it was a valid return even, unless you think that Jews of ancient times are somehow reincarnated in present-day bodies.
You then determine that, "The argument that the Arabs are trying to get their land back is countered by the Jews saying exactly the same. Yes I do think it was an error. The status quo in the Middle East should not have been meddled with. Unfortunately one can't simply expect the Isrealis to leave now. Indeed America was instrumental in bringing it about. Which may explain one reason why they are so heavily involved."
I agree that we cannot expect every Israeli to pack their things up and leave. Certainly not the children (and their families) who were born and brought up there, to me, they now have a birthright. Where I disagree is that the Zionists in 1948 could not use the same argument of birthright or "returning." Their 'bid' to Palestinian land is based upon a millenia old text, even if these texts are true (which I'm sure they are) concerning the Jewish expulsion, the victims and culprits are long dead now, justice cannot be burdened upon those Palestinians in 1948 who were innocent of things done by others in ancient times. Perhaps we could see legal proof that the Zionists have heritage stemming back to those Jews that specifically lived in Israel, too. I'm sure then the Palestinians would consider selling their properties to the descendents of the 'rightful' owners (and I'm not being sarcastic). On the other hand the Palestinians have a case in living memory where they, still alive and in need of justice, have been evicted from land based upon text in the Bible. Frankly, if the same had happened to you or I as what happened to some Palestinians in 1948 perhaps one has to applaud the restraint shown by the majority.
In response to my mentioning of Hiroshima and Dresden, as being examples where the American military had not shown any restraint in limiting civilian casualities, you point out that, "striking at non-military targets was done equally [meaning Germans did so too] during the second world war," however I never said that the German military avoided civilian targets, in fact I never mentioned them because we accept they were wrong-doers and that is why they were punished. What about the winners of the war, does being a winner make evil alright? Which is more important to question, your own unchecked actions or those of people already punished for them? Again, you are looking to actions of the "bad guys," to say "they did it too, why can't we," I'll repeat my belief this is a very dangerous form of morality. If you call killing civilians acceptable because they have some connection or support for the military (Japaese factories making fighter planes), then al'Qaeda can say that the Twin Tower attacks were upon the financial resources of America, too bad about the collateral civilian death. If you support the American military in that action, you are logically validating al'Qaeda's attacks; frankly I wouldn't mind if one claimed both the US Army and al'Qaeda are equally justified, at least that is being consistent in reasoning. You attempt to defend these American military actions in turn:
Firstly, you attempt to correct me by stating that, "Dresden was bombed by the British not the Americans," but it is not the way I understood the bombing. I checked my information before writing that post with the 'fairly reliable' Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II which begins with the statment, "The bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) between February 13 and February 15, 1945 remains one of the more controversial events of World War II."
You then mention that, "The nuclear attack on Japan was considered as an option that would cause the least loss of life." The war was being fought in the pacific between military people. Perhaps it did cause least loss of soldiers' life, but our whole discussion was concerning civilian lives, what it did was increase civilian death undoubtedly. If they really wanted to test out their new toy on people, why not drop the bomb on the remaining Japanese troops, fleets, bases, and why did the Americans feel the need to drop two bombs, it strikes me as though it was some kind of grand experiment that determined the effectiveness of an enemy strike on cities using the two available designs, the gun-method with Uranium and the implosion design with Plutonium, no doubt all good reading for General Turgidson in 'World Targets in Megadeaths.' Concerning the later deaths from radiation, scientists knew about the effects of radiation poisoning decades before the bombs were dropped, even Marie Curie died from radiation-caused Leukemia who herself was a campaigner against the use of radioactive materials in cosmetics. There were experiments during the Second World War that involved subjecting animals and humans to radiation doses. Regardless, I don't really even need to look at the sickness related deaths, to know that thousands of men, women and children were knowingly killed on those two days.
For all I know you are not expressing you own personal views about Israel or Hiroshima. I acknowledge that you are consistently pointing out that (I paraphrase) 'the Zionists view it as a return' or that the 'Americans view it as a best option' but one cannot just take these views as though they are truth and accept action based upon it. That is prejudice, instead, we have to analyze claims and see relevant evidence, hence our discussion. You do state a personal view of Israel with some belief that it was an "error" but still you don't make it clear who you believe is at fault or what the penalty should be, we can leave that for another discussion though. Likewise, and back to the point of the teachings of Islam, a person getting his views of it from cartoons or critics is going to see a very one-sided (and irrelevant, since the critics do not practice it) view of Islam.
Concerning China and its ability to control media, you mention a friend who lived in Beijing and knew very little about Tiananmen. If you read my post I don't particularly disagree with the notion of China's strong ability to control its own media, but the world press it definitely cannot control and that is where the terrorist actions will be most known. Whether the information is true or not is of course not the point, as is always the case with propaganda. You said it yourself, that the events in Tiananmen Square were most known outside China, it was indeed so publicised every Westerner seems to know about it. Furthermore, that was an event that was controlled by the government itself, if terrorists destroy the equivalent of Twin Towers in China the government are not going to be able to hide it since they won't know to seal off the surrounding blocks beforehand like they could at Tiananmen.
I don't know why you complicate the matter with talk of press manipulation and profit, I'm sure it is there to some extent but it does not answer the reasons behind al'Qaeda's motives in the first place. Do you even appreciate the possibility that al'Qaeda is effectively ignoring (Muslim & West) government policies in order to avenge injustices (at least from the Muslim point of view) because the West itself will not do or even acknowledge so. You have the Palestinian situation from 1948, hence the attacks on Israel and America. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many states that had Muslim majority under the communist rule instantly wanted independence under Islam but the Russian government did not let Chechnya go independant (some speculate because of strategic oil importance) and thus there's terrorism in Russia. Finally, you have the situation in Iraq now, hence the ongoing threats to America, Britain and the threat carried out in Spain. You have China has distanced itself from the war so far so it should not surprise one that al'Qaeda left it alone thus far. How you can fit a theory to all this that ultimately the terrorists want popularity or promotion as the root cause I don't know. You think that the IRA want popularity? They want independence, popularity may or may not be a tool, but I don't see how the IRA striking China would help their popularity, likewise why would al'Qaeda strike China when they see America as the oppressor, hence they don't.
With regard to my stating that, "Islam is non-violent but if you actually understood Islam you will find that Islam does indeed accept violence but against oppression only; it is only a matter of the perception of who is the oppressor." I think you misunderstand me entirely when you reply, "The meaning is being twisted to convince people to carry out acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. I therefore choose to believe that certain distort the teachings to achieve this. The other option is to belive that Islam and Muslims are a violent threat. This I don't believe. But by arguing against the former you are arguing for the latter." I'm talking about the perception of who is physically oppressing you, not what you think a religion or idealogy commands you to do, this is why I made it clear in adding, "of who is the oppressor." Bin Laden feels that American presence in Iraq, Israeli presence in Palestine is an unchecked invasion (perception) thus he feels the right to retaliate. To speculate, who knows, Western media will soon strongly blame China for persecuting Muslims, bin Laden will fall for that perception (true or not) and attack China and we can add another nation to feast on Iraqi or Iranian oil.
This is why lies are so important to prevent and also why there are laws against lying. In Western nations, one can't even lie about the government but invariably the government does not prosecute to appear open to criticism however, private individuals often do. If people like the cartoonist want to give the impression that Islam (I mean the teachings of it, he could make a drawing of bin Laden and no-one is going to care) is a religion of suicide bombers then as far as the many ordinary practitioners of that religion are concerned that cartoonist has defamed them with lies.
Lastly in yet another deflection of the discussion you bring up more news reports of those 'evil Muslims' as though I'm somehow supporting their acts, this latest one concerning the your story about the Russian soldier saving himself from death by proclaiming coversion to Islam. I don't know if you actually know what happened to him subsequently, but regardless this Russian would have been a non-Muslim invader. We were discussing Muslim behaviour to non-Muslims who are not seen as performing acts of aggression. You initially stated that, "such groups proclaim their intent to see a world in which only Islam exists." As I mentioned in my last reply it was a question of whether you meant a world state where Islam is actually practiced (sincerely or not) by everyone or non-Muslims living under Islamic governments. We agree that the former definition is illogical because Islam requires sincerity, so I took you as meaning a world of Islamic governments. It may be that groups want such a world, but have they not the democratic right to vote for that? I have not heard of a group that demands all people convert their religion to Islam, not even al'Qaeda, unless there is a clear case of guilt (as in the Russian soldier example).
I sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. This is a typical response by someone who is not prepared to either listen to the truth or find out the facts for themselves.
The Japanese were beaten but they would not surrender (unconditionally). All previous battles across the pacific showed that the Japanese would rather die than surrender because of their warrior code. I have already said that America wanted to bring the war to a swift close. Dropping the weapon on so called military targets was not an option. America had to show Japan that it meant business. They dropped the second one because Japan refused to surrender, they thought that the atomic bomb was a one off and that they could take the casualties. America was dealing with fanatics who did not appreciate human life.
Death tolls for Hiroshima are roughly these. 70,000 killed in the initial blast, 70,000 dying soon after from the effect of radiation. There is no way to determine the number of people dying over the next 60 years. Even if it was 1 million it would still be 2.5 million lower than if the Americans invaded. There is absolutley no way as a commander of a military force that you are going to accept 500,000 casualties to your own men when there is an alternative available. I repeat again - estimates for Japanes casualties were 1 million+ for the military and 2 million for civilians if the yanks had invaded. The bomb was easily the best option it killed less civilians than an invasion. Just to give you another idea of civilian casualties, when America assualted the Japanese home island of Okinawa the Americans took 72,000 casualties (18,900 of whom were killed), the Japanese lost 100,000 soldiers killed (and 7,000 captured) and it's estimated that between 110,00-150,000 Japanese civilains were killed. Get an atlas and compare the size of Okinawa with "mainland" Japan. Compare the number of Japanese living on those two locations and extrapolate the estimated number of people killed had the US invaded.
Back to the topic of oppresion.
Bin Laden wanted the US out of Saudi (which has now happened). He also wants to remove the house of Saud as rulers. He may percieve that America is "invading" muslim land but surely it's upto individual Muslim states to decide whether they want American forces on their soil.
Who the hell is Bin Laden to say what is wrong and what is right? Again this is a problem due to the lack of democracy in the Middle East. There is no way that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida could claim to have the moral highground if the people of the countries concerned democratically allowed the US on their soil. Bin Laden uses Islam to justify his actions.
The use of Islam is a good way for terrorists to justify their actions because they can site Gods will, after all how many people are willing to standup and challenge the word of allah in the middle east? No-one, therefore it's a done deal.
As the world stands at this present time, the state is the mechanism for rule. Why does Bin Laden with all his money and connections not look to persuade governments or their peoples to change through argument and reason? Surely if the populaces of the middle east did not want American troops on their soil they would be protesting in the street and lobbying government. The reason they don't is that their govenments do not allow them. Bin Laden would be better off using peaceful means to achieve his aims but this would not neccesarilly lead him to power, which is what this is about. Laden wants the power that is why he uses violence, it grabs the headlines, makes him important.
Whilst I agree that the Americans have screwed up bigtime in Iraq and I question their methods, what gives non-Iraqi Al-Qaida the right to fight Americans? There is no justification for them at all (bearing in mind the state is supreme) however they believe that all Muslims are brothers and that a Muslim in Denmark is the same as a Muslim in Iraq. Therefore you automatically generate the religious justification for extremist acts whether they be in the UK, Spain or wherever. It's this religious angle that gets the young hot headed men wanting to leave the UK and fight UK troops in Afghanistan. It's almost as if Islam is incompatible with democracy, however we know this is not true, see Indonesia. Religious zealotry (read madness) is the reason for most issues and this comes down to education and the over powerful influence that Imams and preachers have over their followers, see Abu Hamza. Only when Muslims stop going to the mosque and believing carte blanche whatever the preacher tells them will this mindset change. And therein lies the rub, Islams power is based on it's clauses. It punishes anyone who desents, anyone who questions, especially if that person does not live in a part of the free world. The middle east is not the free world.
I do not understand why non-Iraqi Al-Qaida suicide bombers are killing fellow Muslims in Iraq on the pretence that they are fighting the "great satan" and protecting Muslims. There is much more to it. Only by creating another Afghanistan, with all of it's chaos, can the mad mullahs and extremists get the power. This is also the reason for the civil war there, Muslim factions are fighting each other for power. They don't want the people to decide how they want to live or be governed they want to replace Saddam with all the trappings he enjoyed. If America simply wanted to ensure that no WMD's were available they would have left long ago. They are trying (and failing) to produce the first true Arab democracy in the middle east. I'm pretty sure that the ordinary Iraqi does not want Bin Laden's henchmen in Iraq anymore than they liked being ruled by Saddam or seeing American troops in their country. What he wants is peace, the rule of law and a say in how he is governed, pretty much like the rest of us.
At the moment there is a world wide movement of radical Islamisist terrorists, from Thailand to Turkey to Nigeria. These people want power and use the guise of Islam for their justification because anyone can say they are oppressed - they are not interested in people even of "their own kind". Al-qaida attacks Muslim countries as well as those of the west, to use oppression to justify attacking muslim countries is illogical if that oppression is supposedly coming from the America.
Islam (in the middle east) must change. The only way that can happen is for Muslims to change and realise that relying on a medieval mindset is effectively whats holding them back. This will never happen if they do not have freedom, freedom to question their own governments, their preachers, their religion, their morals. What is needed is akin to the rejection of communism by Eastern Europe, an orange revolution in the middle east. This may well be bloody (see former Yugoslavia) but you have to remember that these states are far behind the west. (American civil war 1860-65, English (1st) civil war 1642-45, French revolution 1789-99, Spanish civil war 1936-39 etc).
Last edited by iranu; 24-03-2006 at 02:57 PM.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Since you at least refrained from the previous use of foul language, I will take the time to reply. Each facet of your logic concerning the reasons in defence of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is either flawed or missing the point. I assume you took issue with my speculation that there was a definite motive and reason for the U.S. military wanting to catalogue the effects of nuclear attack on cities. It is no more of a speculation than your belief about the true reasons why bombs were dropped on civilian targets, in any case you decided to skip the central argument about why one cannot claim the bombing of Hiroshima is justified and at the same time brand the destroying of the Twin Towers a terrorist act. I prefer to consider both as terrorism, evidently you don't.
Firstly, when you open by stating that, "The Japanese were beaten but they would not surrender (unconditionally)," one has point out your attempt to play down the use of the word unconditionally, which when used reverses the intent of your argument. No doubt you would rather have left it out completely. It is known that the Japanese were making requests for peace before the use of the atomic bomb, as a result of dissent within the Japanese leadership. The American government was simply adamant in wanting the Emperor himself, known to be viewed almost as a deity by the Japanese, to stand down unconditionally. For the ego of one Emperor, the American military would kill thousands of civilians.
Secondly, your concept that, "all previous battles across the pacific showed that the Japanese would rather die than surrender because of their warrior code." is clearly not true, the Japanese eventually did surrender perhaps when the Emperor himself felt threatened. My question is why did the American military go ahead and first drop the A-bombs on civilians, it would have been far more sensible to display its power on the Japanese military, rather than opt for the targets which house civilians. Furthermore, your claim that the Americans wanted a swift end is hardly a valid reason to target civilians, according to your reasoning, the American military should carpet nuke Iraq because that would swiftly put an end to the fighting - a view actually shared by many 'people' on certain internet forums.
Thirdly, your claim that, "estimates for Japanes casualties were 1 million+ for the military and 2 million for civilians if the yanks had invaded." is typical of an apologist argument for the use of the A-bomb. I don't know who comes up with these figures, no doubt the American military themselves do, so that people such as yourself can see how great an excuse it is. However, let me accept them, in fact you can double these if you like and it won't change anything with regard to the invalidity of it in this argument and I'll explain why. These projected figures of civilian death are undoubtedly based upon previous Dresden-style carpet bombings of cities, so really you are using projected figures from an alternative raid that I would disapprove of too. Whether we are discussing atomic or conventional methods does not matter, the point of debate is indiscriminate targetting of civilian areas. You, along with the pro-Hiroshima, pro-Dresden apologists avoid this most fundamental point entirely; perhaps you would care to address it.
Here's some interesting facts about the decisions behind the use of the bomb. The Target Committee attempted to reason their choice of targets http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html :
A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.
Evidently, the 'intellectual' population (rather than the government) is supposed to find the bomb terrifying and somehow order their dictator Emperor to surrender. Surely if the military or the Emperor himself saw, or was subject to, the blast that would be far more convincing and strategic. If you read these reasons they seemed more interested in showing the World some power rather than showing it to the Japanese decision-makers themselves.
Regarding reasons for not striking a military target, one reason was given:
A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.
Apparently there was a chance of missing a target with an atomic bomb blast, and if you miss just make sure you kill some civilians at least. In an even more impressive display of logic, even though Kyoto was top of the target list at this point, the Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson vetoed Kyoto off the list due to its cultural status. Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." So whether you were dead or not depended on whether a certain American had a nice honeymoon in your city.
Fact of the matter is that the American military value their own soldiers' lives over those of civilians generally. In the case of Iraq these are the very civilians they are supposed to protect, and in the case of Japan the civilians were seen as innocent under the, "authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" (Potsdam Declaration). It is inexcusable to bomb civilian areas for this reason. You defend the use of nuclear weapons upon Japan essentially because America was having difficulty in making Japan surrender, therefore I take it you do not have a problem with a nation using them on civilian population centres in any future war where a country is facing a tough fight. By justifying attacking civilian areas, where you know you are going to kill civilians is by definition accepting that al'Qaeda attacking the Twin Towers is a valid military strategy. This brings me to the next part of your post.
You point out that "Bin Laden wanted the US out of Saudi (which has now happened)", which is true, he did, but I don't know exactly how much of the U.S. military has actually left Saudi Arabia as yet. In any case, moving them out of Saudi Arabia, effectively giving in to his demands, but sending them into Iraq is not exactly improving the situation. You then go on to note that, "He also wants to remove the house of Saud as rulers. He may percieve that America is 'invading' muslim land but surely it's upto individual Muslim states to decide whether they want American forces on their soil." Surely in this case the "Muslim state" decision comes from the House of Saud, which is not a democratic government and does not speak for the people. You mentioned yourself that the problem is, "due to the lack of democracy in the Middle East."
If the House of Saud stepped down, then maybe we could see what the Saudi people think about the American military presence, too. Maybe they, "want American forces on their soil," just as much you want Saudi military forces on your soil. You seem to be encased in what can only be described as a dream world, on the one hand you wonder if, "the people of the countries concerned democratically allowed the US [military] on their soil" yet on the other you seem convinced that "the ordinary Iraqi does not want ... American troops in their country." If the Iraqis, with their years of secularism, do not want to play host to the American military you can be even more convinced that the Saudi people do not.
You go on to argue that, "Bin Laden would be better off using peaceful means to achieve his aims but this would not neccesarilly lead him to power, which is what this is about. Laden wants the power that is why he uses violence, it grabs the headlines, makes him important." Peaceful means may or may not lead to power, just as violent means may or may not, so I don't see your how you figured that he would be 'better off' using peaceful means. His money itself had no chance of competing with the oil-rich rulers. Has bin Laden ever made claim to any position of authority? His rhetoric is mostly about revenge but you somehow conclude it must be about ego and power. He had both before he gave them up to fight in Afghanistan. Obviously, bin Laden should have used peaceful means and hopefully he will be subject to justice for whatever crimes he commited but the fact that he is one who uses violence does not lessen the significance of the reasons why terrorism exists.
A fine example of pointing out the speck in another's eye is your question, "Whilst I agree that the Americans have screwed up bigtime in Iraq and I question their methods, what gives non-Iraqi Al-Qaida the right to fight Americans?" What gives the right of any nation or organisation to team up and fight the opposition. What gives the right of America to form a Coalition, or the Germans to be part of the Axis. In Iraq the same thing is effectively happening on both sides. Yes, al'Qaeda believe Muslims are "brothers" regardless of nation just as President Bush believes the Coalition and the people of Iraq are "brothers" who want "Freedom." What's the difference? None of these "brothers" asked to be "brothers" of Bush or bin Laden.
You have a habit of mixing up Islam, the religion, with actions of certain Muslims or government, a folly that will only encourage the thinking that Islam is defined by actions of people. You feel Islam in the Middle East must change, if you mean the teachings, no they won't and nor should they have to. If you mean the governments, which by many opinions are not Islamic anyway, as you pointed out democracy can encompass Islam. So I'm confused as to what you mean, in your last paragraph, by Islam "holding them back."
Much of my last few posts have been against the popular concept that Muslim groups are wanting to eradicate all non-Muslims regardless of their military stance toward Muslims. I reason that this notion is made up by the Western media (such figures as Billy Graham or Daniel Pipes have plenty of material that I can link to) and used by the Western governments as a tool for unquestioned military support. I believe that if the West did not give such groups a reason to start terrorism (method of creation of Israel, military presence in the Gulf, Iraq) we would not have the situation today. Consistently this most valid point of debate, the sources of terrorism, is avoided.
The Dresden firestorm was attributed directly to the British raid on Dresden. The Americans followed it up but it was the RAF that caused the firestorm that is most recognised about the raids.
Isreal is a mess that needn't have been a mess. The Palestinians and Isrealis were never allowed to try and sort out the mess that had been created. The surrounding Arab states attacked the new state of Isreal and the conflict degenerated into a round of increasing violence. One side bent on anihilation and the other on survival. The palestinians seem to have become secondary to that for a while at least. Neither side is right. You can blame who you like for the creation of the mess but the fact remains that outside influence has contributed hugely to the situation that now exists. What doesn't help is the Palestinians voting in a terrorist group who denies Isreal's right to exist. Hardly a promising backdrop for a political dialogue. That and the continuing refusal of Hamas to drop that from their policy. Nor did Hamas offer a permenant ceasefire. Only a long term one which when pressed the Hamas leader refused that there would be a permanent one. Which means that they intend to return to violence when it suits them but would like a breathing space now.
From your own recommended reference source.The surrounding Arab states supported the Palestinian Arabs in rejecting both the Partition Plan and the establishment of Israel, and the armies of five Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) attacked the newly formed State of Israel.
I suggest you study the history of the second world war and in particular the war in the Pacific in a bit more detail. You should have a good look at teh Greater South East Asian Co-prosperity sphere too. To see the spirit in which the pacific war was fought. That final stages alone in Okinawa saw widespread civilian suicide. Saipan is another battle that springs to mind with this particular phenomina. Up to that point civilians had been heavily involved in guerilla type warfare (mainly in the occupied countries) they were also deemed a valid target by the Japanese military. From the history of the island hopping campaign the closer the US forces got to the Japanese home islands the sharper the increase in civilian casualties was by their own hand. Also, when undertaking military operations you do what you can to keep your own troops alive. If you feel you will lose in excess of 100 000 soldiers in an upcoming battle and you can avoid that. Then you avoid that. The fact that Japanese civilian casualties alone were predicted to be enormous in the event of conventional warfare, let us not forget the levee en masse that was expected to occur, means that the loss of life on BOTH sides was significantly reduced and the conflict ended. Either decision would mean huge loss of life. We don't know what the cost would have been in terms of conventional assault. No one will know. But lets' not forget. The allies would not be feeling hugely magnanimous towards the state of Japan at the time. The proclivity for suicide attacks shown by the Japanese won't have helped their cause much either. Why should Japan be allowed to dictate terms? To allow them to retain their current leadership and perhaps take us into world war III 20 years later? The German army had not been defeated in the field in 1918 and this laid the ground for the second war in Europe. Do you not think such considerations were not in the minds of the planners? In fact they did get terms. The Emporer was allowed to remain. Given the atrocities carried out in his name this was indeed a concession.You then mention that, "The nuclear attack on Japan was considered as an option that would cause the least loss of life." The war was being fought in the pacific between military people. Perhaps it did cause least loss of soldiers'
The twin towers were occupied by civilian office workers of private companies with no direct financial support of military operations as far as I know. Whereas an aircraft factory in in a time of declared war between nation states is producing material directly for a war effort directed specifically at fighting that war. You comparison is totally invalid. You are comparing an act in peacetime against a civil target with an attack after a formal declaration of war against a target making military material. I'm sure you would like to hear people claiming Al Queda and the US military are equally justified. As would any other apologist for that terror group. And yes I do believe from that statement that is exactly what you are. Bin Laden got his retaliation in first in regards to Iraq. The Americans weren't in Iraq when he attacked the twin towers or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In fact his opressors hadn't that long ago stopped financing his war against the Soviets.
I disagree on your point on China. They do control what get's out. They were defeated in Tianamen square because western journalists were on site at the time. China as you know is a huge country and much of what goes on outside the major population centres is largely unknown. Western jounalists are restricted when they visit the country. An unauthorised aircraft in the wrong part of Chinese airspace is likely to be shot down. The Chinese are not quite so soft in their approach to security as the west. In fact they are a much tougher target at all levels. So why pick on a tough target with limited impact and high probability of reprisal against yor own people carried out behind closed doors. Against a softer target with a much higher chance of success in both operational and goal achievement terms. So I disagree with your point.
The ongoing situation in Iraq seems largely to me to be muslims killing muslims. So I find it strange that you bring that up. Or do you believe that the US had a hand in the destruction of the Askari shrine and the subsequent raft of bombings shootings and mass murders? Make no mistake. Binding groups of people and then gunning them down is nothing else but mass murder. And has nothing to do with the coalition prescence and everything to do with power struggle.
Bin Laden may go on about revenge but he is in a very powerful position. He has power of life and death over a lot of people. A power he has exercised frequently. Perhaps he is a homocidal magalomaniac? Perhaps he sees himself on a seat of power and it will only be a matter of time before he has a place of national or international power? Who knows? By the way. Where do the Saudi rulers come under the heading of invaders? Hardly a non-muslim bunch either.
I am intrigued at the end of you post about the phrase 'clear case of guilt' when descibing the Russian soldier. I would have said he was a victime of circumstance. He would hav paid with his life if he hadn't obeyed orders and gone to Afghanistan. He would have paid with his life if he hadn't the presence of mind to 'convert'. Where is he guilty of anything except being scared and alone? One can vote for an Islamic state or one can do as many other groups have tried, in Algeria and Egypt for example, and try force one on the people. Should the latter be achieved I wonder how long it would be before Islam was enforced by law? We have the case of Abdul Rahman where very influential people have been calling for his death. But he hasn't turned his back on God, he's chosen to recognise Him in a different way. His 'crime' is to choose his method of worship. It seems a way out has been found. But without the international spotlight he would be dead. Indeed he will be unless he is taken out of the country as his neighbours are likely ot lynch him. Not a law I want my children and grandchildren to grow up under. Choice is a basic freedom and one which I personally hold dear. As do most westerners.
You do mention perception a few times. Well the 'perception' in the west is that Islam is violent and oppressive. Your arguments largely seem support acts of violence and terror. Putting a case forward for legitimising the attack on the world trade centre. Putting forward cases for legitimising the actions of Al Quaeda. Putting forward arguments that the anti-cartoonist demonstrations were merely harmless requests to change government policy. All you have done is actually begin to change my own view that perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is more than just a perception that Islam is in fact a violent and oppressive culture? Your statements about upholding law and prosecuting those who have broken it I don' buy. I believe they are nothing more than a smokescreen to try and disguise the fact that you are very pro Bin Laden etc and very anti US. I don't actually care about you being anti US. I'm not over fond of the US and it's policies myself. I'm less fond of people who feel they have the right to kill indiscriminately in the name of a religion though. Such as Bin Laden, his followers and other groups like his.
Last edited by RVF500; 27-03-2006 at 01:38 PM.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
I don't understand why you still refuse to accept America's full role in the Dresden bombing. You objected to my pointing out that Dresden was an example of America showing no regard for civilian life by stating blankly that, "Dresden was bombed by the British not the Americans." I confirmed, with references, that your belief was completely misleading. I get the impression you did not even know that the American air force took any part at all.
You claim that, "the Palestinians and Isrealis were never allowed to try and sort out the mess that had been created." In yet another continuation of your replies you refuse to make yourself clear upon whom you place the blame for that initial "mess." I've repeatedly pointed out your vague approach to this, such as the one shown in your latest reply, "you can blame who you like for the creation of the mess." Instead you like to point out reactions to the crime (your quote about the surrounding Arab states) and place the blame on the Arabs, rather like if a guest in your house decides to live there without your permission and blames you and his neighbours for trying to make him leave. Of course the surrounding states tried to help Palestine in removing Israel just as countries joined forces against Hitler in Europe.
I see no relevance in mentioning the Okinawa civilian suicide. If the civilians effectively turn into soldiers then I don't have a problem with the America military fighting them. What I have a problem with is the bombing of civilian populations that posed no direct threat to America or the American military. It's all very well to point out that there were factories in the area, but perhaps you could spare a thought for the people and children who had no choice but to live near them.
Regarding identifying the validity of the Twin Towers compared to Hiroshima. On the one hand you claim that a factory worker making his living creating aircraft parts in support of companies that build Japanese aircraft is a valid target whereas workers for companies that support the American economy (which ultimately finances the military) are not. I suppose it's akin to a debate about the Eichmann guilt, but whether you see one group as guilty you should at least apply the same principles to the other.
In any case, I pointed out reasons why Hiroshima was targetted, reasons given by the Americans themselves and you cannot really argue with this when it's from the very people that planned the bombing. Clearly, top of the agenda seemed to be the creation of fear of America's power throughout the world. Similiarly the Twin Towers were most probably picked for their symbolic effect also but bin Laden himself stated he wanted to ruin the economy of America as some kind of validation. So in arguing for Hiroshima, you argue for 9/11.
Regarding China, once again you ignore the point. What China tells the world isn't so crucial. The world press will make up stories if they have to or get it from whatever sources they can, that is all part of propaganda. We were discussing the spread of terrorist propaganda, not necessarily truth or the Chinese government version of truth. Even for a controlled government event, there was a flurry of news reports regarding Tiananmen outside of China. You repeat the question of, "why pick on a tough target with limited impact and high probability of reprisal against yor own people carried out behind closed doors." I've already answered this, it is because al'Qaeda do not regard China as attacking the Middle East, that is why they have not struck China. I'm not making this up, bin Laden's speech confirms this making it an argument you have no answer to, thus you try to completely side-step it. You seem to fixated by a concept that all terrorists do what they do simply for 'fun' or publicity.
I don't see why you are intrigued by my calling the Russian soldier caught in Afghanistan an invader. You are in a fantasy if you don't consider an unauthorised, armed soldier in foreign lands as an invader. What is ironic and intriguing is that you claim the soldier was an innocent "victim of circumstance," 'just' doing his job by directly killing Afghans, whereas Japanese factory workers are clearly guilty according to your twisted logic.
You point out that the perception in the West of Islam is one of violence and oppression. I agree that is a perception held by some people in the West, however I'm specifically pointing out that the perception comes from those within the West trying to link any act of violence or oppression with Islam.
I have stated that I view the mass-killing of civilians by the American military (Hiroshima, Dresden) as a crime, the creation of Israel, resulting in the immediate mass-eviction of Palestinians as a crime, the attacks on the Twin Towers as a crime, and it would seem those on Fallujah will be viewed as one too. I've clearly stated that I view all the above as crimes. Yet somehow you claim my arguments, "support acts of violence and terror." On the contrary, you supported the nuking of cities, which we know from documents was done for the purpose of creating terror. You pretend that I'm changing your view about Islam, into one of it actually being aggressive and oppressive, it sort of reminds me of people commenting, "I wasn't racist before 9/11, but I am now," as though 9/11 was an excuse to come out of the closet. If you must know, the "joke" in your location tag suggested your views of Islam to me, initially.
You are the one who his talking about crime and guilt. Not me. I didn't call anyone a criminal or guilty of anything. You have accused the Russian of a crime. Yet if he didn't participate then, as I said, he would have surely paid with his life. It's very easy to be cavalier with other peoples lives when you are in the comfort of you own home. On the one hand you condemn a soldier for being stuck between a rock and a hard place and on the other seek to excuse the actions of random murderes. I suggest you come out of your own fantasy before accusing others of living in one.
You seem hooked on blaming people. I don't point the finger at anyone in particular because I don't regard one single group wholly responsible for the present debacle in Palestine. All parties share portions of the blame. Though you leap at finding excuses for any Palestinian action while roundly condeming US or Isreali.
My comment on Dresden regards the firestorm that was initiated by British bombing. Why are you so adament that the Americans should be blamed? They bombed the city,no doubt. But detailed history puts the burden of responsibility for the Dresden firestorm that is synonymous with that raid on the RAF. Which responsibility they have accepted. If it was after 1948 you would probably have tried to find some way to blame the Isrealis too.
The joke in my tag is no joke. Two characters posing as the drivers sent to pick me up actually tried to abduct me from the airport. Though for purposes of robbery or pulling a scam not hostage taking. Ever been to Africa? It's a common occurance. I don't know if they were mulsim or not. I didn't make an assumption. So you can take your oversensetive assumption and park it alongside the rest of your fantasy. It does however serve to show how your mind works. Once again you have sought a link to anti-Islamic feeling where there is none. If you must know I really don't care what you think of me.
You blame the media for anti-Islamic feeling. They report what happens. Do you deny any of the events reported hapened? If I were to attach blame for that sentiment. I'd say it was more due to the actions of a small group of muslims who hide behind their religion to carry out atrocities. A group protested in Kabul shouting "death to Christians" over the release of Abdul Rahman. This isn't calling for violence this is suggesting govt policy change in your world.On it's own wouldn't do much to alter perceptions. But added to similar events it does add to the perception that is becoming something that is taken for granted. Will you blame the western media for reporting this? Probably. The Americans too. While you're at it have a pop at the Isrealis.Hundreds of clerics and students chanted "Death to Christians" at a protest against dropping the charge.
Furthermore, you compare uniformed, identifiable and recognisable military action against targets actively engaged in manufacture of materiel for a war effort in time of a declared war between recognised nation states. Whose workers are aware of war in progress and their liklihood of being in a target area with a terrorist attack by people with no mandate against non-military targets in a time of peace. Motivated by a PERCEPTION of invasion and oppression.
You have pointed the finger of blame at the western media for fuelling a perception of a violent and oppressive Islam, yet I see no mention of the negative way in which US and coalition forces are also highlighted whenever they step out of line. A british soldier headbutting a rioter gets as much if not more airtime than a bomb that kills 40 people. When US troops went into Najaf the building that housed Moqtada's HQ had the bodies of tortured and executed people in the basement. He is invited into the political process and nothing more is said. You make no mention of the treatment of allied POWs during the first gulf war. Which, if I may remind you , was in response to an invasion. You make no mention of the steps being made by Isreal to return settlements to Palestinians even in the face of their own [Isreali] people. You don't do this because you are too busy trying to shift blame to The US, Isreal and the western media for the present conflicts and ongoing strife. As well as past conflict.
Last edited by RVF500; 29-03-2006 at 12:22 PM.
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Hahahahaha - I'll attack you without warning but when you defeat me I am the one who shall dictate surrender terms.
Quality Lexicon argument!
You cannot equate WWII actions with those of Islamic terrorists. The whole scope is completely different. You seem to think that there was a clear diference between civilian and military targets and that the RAF and USAF had the technology to a) distinguish between the two and b) hit only military targets. Is a factory producing shells using civilian labour a military or civilian target? You look at WWII through the eyes of 21st century AMERICAN technology. Only now do we have the ability to strike military targets in civilian areas. One Tornado GR7 has the equivalent firepower of 1 Lancaster bomber due to the accuracy of it's weapon systems.
"Secondly, your concept that, "all previous battles across the pacific showed that the Japanese would rather die than surrender because of their warrior code." is clearly not true" You really must learn some history of the war in the pacific. There are plenty of documentaries that have interviews from the men who fought those campaigns. Obviously you have not heard of the Kamikazi pilot. nce again i get the feeling that you would rather not accept the truth if that truth conflicts with your anti-americanism.
"However, let me accept them, in fact you can double these if you like and it won't change anything with regard to the invalidity of it in this argument and I'll explain why. These projected figures of civilian death are undoubtedly based upon previous Dresden-style carpet bombings of cities," No they are not. Again you fail to do the absolute basics and READ someones post. Once again I shall re-iterate for your behalf. PLEASE READ. The estimates were based on American and Japanese casualties (both civilian and military) upto the point at which America needed to invade Japan to end the war. It is a well known historical fact that the closer the battles came to the Japanese homeland the more ferocious the Japanese became. Guadalcanal and Okinawa showed this. Please accept it.
You keep going on about civilian lives yet seem to think that 2 million civilian dead is not worse than 140,000 dead (plus others - less than 1 million easy - due to the weapons effect) just because a certain type of weapon was used. All EVIDENCE at the time pointed to an Okinawa level of resistance on the Japanes home islands. This level of resistance would have lead to the casualties of some 3.5 million people. 140,000 seems cheap in comparison. We are talking about WWII and the pacific campaign, not 2001.
"So whether you were dead or not depended on whether a certain American had a nice honeymoon in your city." hahahahahaha - again such a stupid argument. WWII caused the greatest number of deaths in human history. People died due to the most random of circumstances all over the world minute by minute. Again you take each individual snippet of information to use for your own Anti-American agenda.
Again you seem to ignore your own logic. Once again this is proof that you will bury your head in the sand so long as you can attack America. If America really does not care for civilian casualties then there would be no point in spending billions of dollars on hightech laser, thermal, or gps guided weaponry. We would simply go back to a total war approach. Even B52 and B2 bombers use these hightech weapons, gone are the days of carpet bombing.
Therefore, you cannot equate the targeting of the Twin Towers with previous American military campaigns on the basis that America targets civilians anyway. Once again we see the mindset of someone who believes that American soldiers are randomly butchering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians just for the hell of it. It's simply not true.
"I don't know exactly how much of the U.S. military has actually left Saudi Arabia as yet." Lexicon - you crack me up. You can't even be bothered to find this out. I woulkd have thought that anyone who was trying to speak with any authority on the subject would at least find this basic piece of information out. I'll widen your knowledge base. America no longer has any military bases, hardware, soldiers etc in Saudi Arabia.
"If the House of Saud stepped down, then maybe we could see what the Saudi people think about the American military presence, too. Maybe they, "want American forces on their soil," just as much you want Saudi military forces on your soil. You seem to be encased in what can only be described as a dream world, on the one hand you wonder if, "the people of the countries concerned democratically allowed the US [military] on their soil" yet on the other you seem convinced that "the ordinary Iraqi does not want ... American troops in their country." If the Iraqis, with their years of secularism, do not want to play host to the American military you can be even more convinced that the Saudi people do not."
Once again we see you taking snippets. Again your logic is false. There are already foreign forces on British soil, they have been protecting this country for the past 60 years against the threat of communism. Smilarly those same forces have been in Saudi protecting that kingdom from Saddam Hussein. There was no feeling of "yanks go home" when Saudi Arabia would have been swept away in a matter of weeks. No-one with any logic (read not religiously indoctrinated) would be opposed to foriegn soldiers on their soil if it protected their country. Once again we see your duplicity when you try to expose my statements concerning troops in Saudi and Iraq. Anyone knows that the ORDINARY Iraqis want self determination and would prefer their country not to have American forces stationed there on a long term basis, say 50 year. However, ORDINARY Iraqis realise that if American soldiers went home tomorrow then their country would decend into total civil war. It's a good example of practicality in action. Again, America and it's allies do not want to be in Iraq for the long term.
Once again you seem to defy belief when you say that Iraq is or was a secular country. To a certain extent that is true however it is not secular in the same way GB is. Saddam kept the lid on Islam for a good reason. It would have eroded his power and secondly forced the country into civil war due to the two brands of Islam in the country, something we see happening now. A country cannot be said to be secular when that state of being is forced upon it anymore so than forcing me to go to a mosque 5 times a day makes me a Muslim.
Again there is no justification for your statement.
Right now onto Bin Laden and the reason to use force against the reason for peaceful means. Again this is very simple.
Lobbying and persuation through argument is much more productive than using force. Bin Laden is hardly winning is he? By using force he is guaranteed an adverse reaction. No-one in their right mind is going to listen willingly to someone using force to get their point across. If I came round to your house and started assulting you and your family with an iron bar, would you TRULY come around to my way of thinking? Of course not.
there is a very big difference between the use of force by the Americans in both gulf wars and that used by Bin Laden. America has used force under UN law. That's law according to the world. You may not agree with this but UN resolutions certainly back this up. Where is Bin Laden's justification? It does not come from the UN.
"Peaceful means may or may not lead to power, just as violent means may or may not, so I don't see your how you figured that he would be 'better off' using peaceful means"
haahahhaahha And there we have it in a nutshell. You have just shown exactly the same mindset as Bin Laden. POWER POWER POWER POWER. Can you not see that you do not have to assume power to achieve your aims? Why does'nt the Conservative party start bombing government buildings and murdering Labour MP's and their supporters? Surely if violence is equivalent to peaceful means then they are fully justified. You seem to think that the end justifies the means. Unfortunatley when this mindset is used to obtain power an awful lot of innocent people die. Surprising coming from someone who values so highly the lives of civilians.
"A fine example of pointing out the speck in another's eye is your question, "Whilst I agree that the Americans have screwed up bigtime in Iraq and I question their methods, what gives non-Iraqi Al-Qaida the right to fight Americans?" What gives the right of any nation or organisation to team up and fight the opposition. What gives the right of America to form a Coalition, or the Germans to be part of the Axis. In Iraq the same thing is effectively happening on both sides. Yes, al'Qaeda believe Muslims are "brothers" regardless of nation just as President Bush believes the Coalition and the people of Iraq are "brothers" who want "Freedom." What's the difference? None of these "brothers" asked to be "brothers" of Bush or bin Laden."
That's easy to answer - Rule of International law. Again I shall reiterate that the state has prime status within international law. You are a member of a state first and a religion second. This is why America treats those individuals who fight against it without the authority of a state as enemy combatants (and not POW's) and as such are completely within their rights to detain those people as such. (I will let you know that I believe they have the right to detain those persons under international law, however, I also believe that they must have some judicial process for those held, otherwise just kill them as combatants - the UN must address the isssue in law but this will change the role of the state and the individual). I have no problem with coalitions within UN law, ie coalitions of states. To do otherwise is simply not recognised. Once again we see the problem with Muslims thinking that their fellow muslims are brothers and recoginising their religion before the state. This must change.
"You have a habit of mixing up Islam, the religion, with actions of certain Muslims or government,......" That makes me laugh so hard I almost died.Saudi Arabia is the perfect example. The government makes law. Is that correct? I was lead to believe so. The Saudi government IMPLEMENTS sharia law. QED.
"......a folly that will only encourage the thinking that Islam is defined by actions of people."
You are a laugh a minute I tell you. Of course any religion is defined by the actions of it's followers. You cannot have religion without people!! If there were no Christians alive there would be no Christianity!! Again this is looked upon by religious people who believe that what they have been indoctrinated with is the absolute truth. Any religion is dead without it's followers therefore the ACTIONS of it's followers define what that religion is and how that religion is seen.
This is why some people percieve Islam to be dangerous. The actions of the fundamentalists is driving the perception of the religion. Again we see how spineless the moderate section of Muslims are. They will not stand up and be counted. They moan about the perception the west have of Islam but are not prepared to confront the Imams the preachers, the ayatollahs, the fundamentalists, the koran. They are rabbits stuck in the headlights. Only when the moderates stand up for what they believe in will we see a sea change, not only in the way Islam is interpreted and acted upon but the way it is percieved in the west. Generally Christianity has slowly evolved , Islam is still stuck in the 15th century.
"Much of my last few posts have been against the popular concept that Muslim groups are wanting to eradicate all non-Muslims regardless of their military stance toward Muslims. I reason that this notion is made up by the Western media (such figures as Billy Graham or Daniel Pipes have plenty of material that I can link to) and used by the Western governments as a tool for unquestioned military support. I believe that if the West did not give such groups a reason to start terrorism (method of creation of Israel, military presence in the Gulf, Iraq) we would not have the situation today. Consistently this most valid point of debate, the sources of terrorism, is avoided."
Funny how America invaded Afghanistan/Iraq before11/11/2001 due to the American people's wish, heavily influenced by their right wing Christian fundamentalist/Jewish controlled media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again you have split my sides. CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!! Funny how Tony Bliar was using the stance that all Muslims want to eradicate non-Muslims as his justification to invade Iraq. Strange how we have not seen a total backlash against Muslims in this country due to the medias relentless attack on Muslims especially after the London bombings. Funny how we do not see huge groups of people demonstrating in London asking for further attacks on those dastardly Muslims in the Middle East. Funny how the influence of the anti-Muslim media has not produced ethnic cleansing in Birmingham. Funny how the anti-Muslim media in the UK showed restraint and did not publish those cartoons, think of the publicity and outrage it would have generated, perfect for another attack on the Muslim hordes!!!
Let us be grateful that the media does not push an anti-Muslim line in the west, because if the people of the west truly feel that their way of life is at an end due to the threat of Islam it will not be the west that comes off worst. The likes of Bin Laden really ought to consider (bearing in mind we have been talking about total war and it's consequences) the fight against facism and what we were prepared to do to avoid it's jackboot. The west is way too powerful with far to many resorces to antagonise to the point of WWIII.
I tell you what creates terrorism. It's crazy people with distorted views of the world who have no respect for the values of human life. It's crazy people who are so paranoid and religiously indoctrinated that they see oppression in every facet of life and believe that killing people is the best way forward. It's crazy people who crave power at all costs and in this case justify their actions through their religious beliefs.
The free world will not bow to terrorism it will simply fight it and win. Recently we have seen how western terrorists are packing it in. They realise they cannot win by force, Islamic terrorists from Thailand to Turkey will do the same when they realise they cannot win by force. Bin Laden will not change American policy to the way he wants it he is simply acheiving the opposite.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
I took the liberty of using the link given by Lexicon regarding the firebombing of Dresden. I also took the opportunity to read beyond the first paragraph which was quoted in the post. The preceding text is from further down the page.
Now, I stand by my point that the responsibility for the firestorm which is synonymous with the Dresden raid is borne by the RAF. The USAAF did indeed bomb the area in raids beforehand. Their target was the railyards. Daytime raids in October 1944 and January 1945
As you can see the US raid after the firebombing was a smaller affair and targetted once again at the railyards.Later on the 14th from 12:17 until 12:30 311 American B-17s dropped 771 tons of bombs on Dresden, with the railway yards as their aiming point. "Part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos"[15]
Why have I posted that here? Because you were adamant that I should accept US blame. Despite knowing that my own countrymen had planned and executed the raid I refuse to shift that responsibility. Because it also shows again that you will see only what you want to see. I'm sure you will argue that the task was originally given to the USAAF. But that does not transfer the burden of responsibility as it was planned by the British "do you blame the sword or the hand that wields it?".
"You want loyalty? ......get a dog!"
Apparently you feel that a Russian soldier present with an invading army in Afghanistan is not a crime according to the Afghan state/people, since you wonder why I, "have accused the Russian of a crime. Yet if he didn't participate then, as I said, he would have surely paid with his life." You also tell me to come out of my "fantasy" with regard to this. If a Russian army invades your country, would the Russian soldiers walking on your streets be treated as 'innocent' people minding their own business? I guess you see others in a fantasy if you are in one yourself.
The American military are responsible for their own actions and they took part in the Dresden bombing. A shared responsibility results in a shared blame, therefore I can blame the American military (I blame the British command too, if that makes you feel better), it was you who made that comment into this blown-up affair. History rightly puts the burden of responsibility on the Allies, not simply the British as you claim. On the one hand you are eager to view the Palestine situation as a shared blame, yet you seem keen to point the finger purely at the British military with regard to Dresden; I suspect purely to cover up your earlier ignorance about Dresden.
You claim that I saw the abduction in your location tag as a joke. I didn't specify the part of your tag that was a joke, but I actually referred to "Sunny Dakar," which, if other readers did not get the joke, is meant to be read as 'Sunni Muslim,' which Dakar is. Apparently, you claim you didn't know that your "abductors" were Muslim yet you imply, 'Sunni Muslim Dakar... only one attempted abduction so far.'
I blame the media, when I have said media I include entities such as those that are specifically anti-Islamic, Daniel Pipes etc. I made that clear several times. News outlets just report what is exciting, not simply "what happens." You ask will I blame the Western media for reporting Afghan clerics and students chanting 'Death to Christians' at a protest, of course I blame the media for reporting since they, by definition, report news. Even if they reported that incident everyday for eternity and if it is true and translated properly, I have no problem with them doing so and I don't see how you construed that I would. The problem happens when people analyse these reports to determine or imply something about Islam which simply is not true.
In your final paragraph you point out the negative way in which the "US and coalition forces are also highlighted whenever they step out of line," compared to a generated perception of Islam. Again you must like to mix up religion/ideals and man. I have no problem with the media accusing this or that about Muslim individuals or American soldiers, so long as they back it up with evidence. If parts of the media pin the blame on Islam especially when a relatively small group of Muslims do something, as though they speak for Islam, then that is a problem.
I don't mention such things as how an allied POW was treated by the Iraqi army (or by the Axis in WWII for that matter) simply because to do so is superfluous almost to the point of being childish. They (Iraqis, Germans) were regarded as criminal by our nations and thus disposed of, end of story; unlike you I don't have a need to jump over their bodies and call them names. However, what about our behaviour, our victorious armies may be reluctant to punish themselves so we must keep an eye on them because they are acting in our name, hence this apparent bias.
In regard to post #158 concerning your actual reading, this time, of more of the Dresden Wiki article. You claim that because the Americans used the, "railway yards as their aiming point," must mean that they didn't bomb the surrounding city, I am sure the American air force are quite keen to stress their 'aiming points.' I suppose the same bent argument could be used with Hiroshima where they aimed the bomb at the important Aioi Bridge. What is quite gratifying is your own pasting of, "part of the American Mustang-fighter escort was ordered to strafe traffic on the roads around Dresden to increase the chaos," explicitly confirming targetting of ordinary civilians. Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox makes a remark of this fighter escort, "Amongst these people who had lost everything in a single night, panic broke out. Women and children were massacred with cannon and bombs. It was mass murder."
Both Dresden and Hiroshima were done to put terror into the minds of the ordinary civilians as well as to show off (to the Russians) primarily, even according to the planners themselves certainly in the case of Hiroshima; Osama must have learnt well off them. You changed stance slightly by now only stressing that, "it was planned by the British," making it seem as though the British decided the plan and the American air force followed like poodles. Whereas in truth, Allied meetings involving both American and British officers decided on the planning as mentioned in the article. Even suppose it was the British fully planning the operation, then you are suggesting it was a matter of chance or ability that the American bombers were given the 'railyard' target and were they told to swap bombing roles then they would have.
I'm sorry if snippets of fact get in the way of your apologism for the American military's past actions. Despite my pointing out of documents that explained the terror tactics employed in the use of the atom bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki you persist, this time your tissue-thin defense is that 1945 American technology could not distinguish between civilian and military target, which makes everything alright to you. If that was the case then why was a nuclear bomb aimed at the centre of the city rather than a barrage of conventional bombs purely upon the factories in question. In any case, having this new technology doesn't really mean anything when the attitude of military leaders is that civilians are worth less than their own soldiers; we have had the ability to avoid civilians all along (soldiers could go in on foot after the air defense is disabled), it was a question of how much risk they were willing to take weighed against risk to civilians.
In defense of the nuclear attack which gives a favourable comparison against estimated death by conventional firepower, you point out that, "the estimates were based on American and Japanese casualties (both civilian and military) upto the point at which America needed to invade Japan to end the war." Yes, based upon firebombings such as Dresden. You haven't really said anything new here. Desperately telling me to "please just accept" sounds like you're hiding something, perhaps you can provide some sources as to how your estimates were worked out. I would regard the nuclear attack and the imaginary conventional attack that provided figures of over a million casualties as both being atrocities. As I pointed out the Japanese leadership was willing to surrender with a condition that would have been worth so many lives.
The part about the American politician and his honeymoon in Kyoto isn't my argument nor was it a joke if you read the post and reference. It was the apparent reason why Kyoto was not chosen and thus why Hiroshima was bombed since it was next on list. Rather than addressing this serious issue of military thought you decide to make this random speech about the war in general: "WWII caused the greatest number of deaths in human history. People died due to the most random of circumstances all over the world minute by minute."
I did not say, "America really does not care for civilian casualties." In each post I have been reasonable careful to say 'American Military' rather than 'America,' where appropriate. The American people are more humane in that many strongly object to unnecessary loss of civilian life, the military would probably rather use nuclear weapons much more but it would not go down well with most of America itself.
I commented that I did not know the extent of the American military withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, I had only read that the U.S. military planned on withdrawal sometime ago. While this seemed cause for uncontrollable amusement on your part, I simply didn't see it as an entirely relevant issue since there is still a major visible U.S. military presence in Arabia right around Saudi, and partly because it would be offset by increased presence in Iraq (which I explicitly stated before) and partly because the military often operates with a "stealth" presence so we cannot be entirely sure. Furthermore the military can easily blur definitions by replacing uniformed soldiers saluting to a flag with contracted U.S. companies and still call it a "withdrawal." Since you pressed the matter I checked and found out that a small presence does indeed remain http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...an-village.htm in order to train the Saudi National Guard in support of the Vinnell Corporation http://www.vinnell.com/ArabiaRecruiting/recruiting.htm (a military subsidiary of Northrop). I wonder whose knowledge base "needs widening" now.
The major U.S. air force presence in the 1990s was a result of the first Gulf War but the U.S. military and Vinnell had been in the Arabian state helping to prop up the dictator Saud family long before and this is most likely what bin Laden has been offended by. Essentially the military and Vinnell took over the job of the warriors that put the House of Saud into power early on in the 20th Century. It works well, the Saud get protection and America secure oil. This is in stark contrast to the U.S. presence upon U.K. soil which is run by a democracy, the people may well have a significantly different view than the House of Saud but cannot express it.
When I commented that Iraq was a secular state under Saddam (point being was to compare it to Saudi Arabia which is far from secular), you reply by saying this view seems to "defy belief" yet in the very next line you agree it was secular. However, you claim that it had to be secular "due to the two brands of Islam in the country." You mean that if one large group was favoured over another then there would be civil war. Perhaps you could then explain why the small minority of Christians and Jews were allowed to live and practice, even Saddam gave gifts to a church. Surely this country that you claim really wants to enforce Islam (but is forced to keep the lid on it) could just be secular in as far as Islam (Sunni and Shia) was concerned. Furthermore, your whole argument about secularity could apply anywhere where there are large sects of religion/race, Britain, America, Ireland.
When I claim that, "you have a habit of mixing up Islam, the religion, with actions of certain Muslims or government," you immediately follow up with proof of my claim by commenting, "That makes me laugh so hard I almost died. Saudi Arabia is the perfect example. The government makes law. Is that correct? I was lead to believe so. The Saudi government IMPLEMENTS sharia law. QED." shari'a law is not explicitly written out in Islam texts, but made up for the modern world based upon those texts and the interpretation can vary significantly. shari'a law is different in different countries because it is made up by different people and their own interpretation of Islam. You might claim that the Saudi government acts upon shari'a law but it is their version of shari'a law. Well, I really hope that doesn't makes you laugh any harder.
Concerning my belief that claims by the media and government that 'the terrorists are a crazed bunch of people that want to eradicate others regardless of their stance' is a made-up doctrine of a real enemy. In true fashion you claim exactly that by ranting about "crazy people with distorted views of the world who have no respect for the values of human life." Conversely to you, I argue that such events as the manner of the creation of Israel are reasons for certain strands of terrorism to exist, my posts explain why and backs the explanation up with speeches by bin Laden himself whereas you involve yourself in sarcastic, irrelevant details about conspiracies.
Rather like Bush you boast that, "the free world will not bow to terrorism it will simply fight it and win." Advertising the pull-out of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia seemed a lot like bowing to Osama, in any case a policy of fighting that creates more terrorists will not 'win' anything. You claim that, "we have seen how western terrorists are packing it in," but I still see mention of and execution (failed or successful) of terrorist activity even within the U.K. (7/7). In the "War on Terror," the U.S. government has chosen a path that will most likely lead to more terrorism. Probably the main reason why America has seen less terrorist activity within its borders at the moment is because they have essentially moved the fight to the east.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote