TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- At least 186 killed in Madrid bombings.
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Arabs don't want America's version of liberal democracy, you cannot force it on the Arabs. This is becoming clearly a war on Islam so that liberal democracy can be shoved down our throats so American companies can make more profit.

what the hell? a war agianst islam? No, a war agianst the extremest islamo-facist philosophy. One of the tennants of liberalism is the freedom to worship any god and believe any religion. this however is not allowed in radical islamic countries, freedom of religion is not exsistant. so this isnt a war agianst islam becuase we are fighting for people to believe in it, and any other religion as well.

and this war being about american comanpies making more profit? ever thought about how the arab countries might prosper under a free economy? Instead of a dictator or monarch prospering over their peoples misery we are fighting for the arab private business sector that is currently shackled.

quote:

The only way to solve the problem is to first solve Israeli/Palestinian problem.

honestly i dont find it that important. its a side issue at best.

quote:

Second STOP SUPPORTING AND FUNDING NASTY DICTATORS AND MONARCHS IN THE MIDDLE EAST! E.G. SAUDI ARABIA

ok if america were to stop funding 'nasty' monarchs like in saudi arabia then two options will occur

*a more liberal and democratic government will take its place
*a more 'nastier' islamo fasict takes power

since we all know the current US support governments in egypt, saudia, and jordan are all keeping their terrorists at bay a sudden withdrawl of this support and all of a sudden more extreme dictators come in. at least this way we can nudge, impose and create a gradual democratization process.

quote:

That's it. Then grab your popcorn and watch the Arabs as they revolt against their dictators and impose democracy.

i'm done with my popcorn

Izzy, Yoepus, and others who say that you cannot negotiate with a non-nation like Al-Qaeda, what is your suggestion? Retaliatory force / military aggression? But how can you attack a non-entity like Al-Qaeda? Badda-bing. This suffers the same problem as diplomacy. You can't just invade arbitrary countries. Even if you did, the terrorist networks are, by definition, not tied to any particular nation and will move. So where do you stop? What happens when you get to your own doorstep?

sifntj0r, what you are suggesting is extremely dangerous and I'm glad that such a preposterous idea would never actually materialize in any half-sane civilized nation. You cannot simply kill someone out of hand, even if you have "evidence." We all know that things such as death penalties themselves have error rates ("false positives," shall we say).

"Well, you have to make a tradeoff ... a few lives taken by mistake versus hundreds or thousands prevented!" <- This is even more dangerous thinking. Where do you draw the line? How would you feel if you were falsely accused and slain? "Oh well, statistical error got the better of me!"

No thanks, none of these solutions work. This, however makes much better sense:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So in effect, while the cylce of violence may continue, over time, the random, indiscriminate attacks (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Iraq, whoever) will only strengthen global resolve and cooperation against these groups. Furthermore, the mere nature of the attacks alone unite the majority against the Al-Qaeda cause since their attacks directly affect the very group they are attempting to recruit from. Lastly as each attack against indiscriminate innocents unites global resolve, it also serves to remove the capability of Al-Qaeda type groups the ability to operate freely in ANY country that desires some kind of good relations with the rest of the world.

(Why isn't there a thumbs-up smiley?)

Hehe:

quote:

Or the west does something extremely stupid ...

Like invade a certain large middle eastern country on shady pretenses? Like you yourself have said, Occ, this has only increased violence and hatred against the west!

---

I am also of the mindset that Al-Qaeda will bring their own downfall. People don't just naturally tend to adopt insane fundamentalist and terrorist thinking. It requires a certain environment and brainwashing to emerge.

One of the only places for hope, IMHO, is to remove the causes for this kind of militantism (as others have said here). There is no way that merely a religion can cause this kind of widespread behaviour. Religion, or rather fundamentalism in this case, serves as a label over all of the woes that these people are suffering (no, they're not doing this because they are bored).

What do you think is a better recruitment vehicle? Explaining how your living conditions are horrible for whatever reason (the west?) etc., or proclaiming war on Satan and setting the conquering of the world as your goal?

More than anything, ignorance is what fuels this kind of crap. Again, I think it would be far, far, better to transfer spending of billions upon untold billions of dollars of military money (talking about the world here, though America takes the cake on this one) and use it for more constructive social uses. Or, as some more aggressively-minded people here would say, for "pacifist" purposes.

Violence is never a solution for violence. Not now, not before, not ever. It's up to every individual to see this for themselves. If you cannot, then look at the cold hard facts of history and you'll find it there.

My apologies to several people here with intelligent posts that I simply haven't had the time to respond to at the moment, whether in agreement or disagreement.

I'd like to say one last thing regarding the Madrid bombings. I had very similar feelings to 9/11, though maybe not as pronounced.

Just looking at the photos of bodybags and blood-soaked innocent people, who were simply living out their normal lives like all of us, elicited a mix of horror, sadness, immense grief, and rage.

In case some may have gotten the wrong idea from my previous post, I am vehemently against terrorism and am a firm supporter of its eradication. But I do not agree that invading entire countries will do the trick, or any other such drastic measures, including sacrificing civil liberties for a mostly false sense of security.

On a final note, I must admit that these feelings reminded me of the fact that my post-9/11 outrage had been watered down, mainly because of suspicious American activity. But what we all need to keep in mind is that people WERE killed, innocent people, including just now in Madrid. Let's not allow political debates about merits or faults of particular countries or governments get in the way of that fact. (But the debates should continue, of course!)

F*ck. Folks getting blowed up everywhere these days. Well, the US has some SF to hunt down and kill the bastards. Blowing up people really doesn't foster any political change. The hard handed extremists need to learn the hard handed covert repercussions of the political right. So pissed off I don't want to further comment.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Izzy, Yoepus, and others who say that you cannot negotiate with a non-nation like Al-Qaeda, what is your suggestion?

I've already given my suggestion. And not a lot of it is based on pure military force or action. Rather the threat of its use, and simply rallying around it.


Heres where me, Izzy, and other sound minded individuals you like to call 'hawks' look at it.

We've tried the approach you've described, pacifism/appeasement/diplomacy/UN support call it what you will, for the past 30,40 years in this region. It's been a live, let live as far as the middle east and the west can term their relationship. European/pacifism/appeasement has been the policy of the west towards the middle east for the past 30-40 years!

Well it hasn't worked. Its done quiet the opposite.
(In the past 15 years, the middle easterns have got fed up with this policy and decided to stop letting us live)

And you might be now apologizing for the history of such events, "but it wasn't pure diplomacy, it wasn't pure appeasement, it wasn't pure pacifism, if we actually try and be pure this time in our diplomacy, if we really try this time we will get it to work, all we need is a stop to the violence".

You can't apologize for it, a new diplomatic approach will not be any 'purer' today than an initiative 10 or 30 years ago. We've tried it. Just like people say... if we would have been tougher with sanctions, if we would have been more diplomatic, we could have gotten Iraq to change. Why? It didn't work for the past ten years, why would you expect it to work in the next five? The conditions wouldn't change, nothing mind changing would have happened..

And nothing did happen, nothing even seemed to look different, a diplomatic solution only looked a little feasible when the US threatened to use FORCE.

But let me return to the point I'm trying to make here its rather simple. For the history of the middle east the USA has tried the European approach to handling Middle Eastern affairs, and admittedly it has been a great blunder. Its now time the USA tries its way now, and I suggest the rest of you the world around should join boat in this new attempt instead of wailing for your destroyed ideologies.

Admit it, your approach hasn't worked. Don't go continue throwing money at it, it won't help the problem, you need to look at the concept differently.

You guys are just like US congressmen when it comes to education. The USA has the one of the highest if not the highest funded eduation system in the world (I'm talking primary and secondary here). Yet the quality of this schools is disgraceful. What is the Congress's solution? Throw more money into the problem, they've been doing it for the past 20 years, more and more, and more and more money into education in attempts to make the US have a better education system. Did it work? No. Why? Because money's not the answer, their whole apporach to the problem is wrong. Yet some will deny this and complain we haven't given money "purely" enough, we need to spend more money, if we spend money better and more right this time....

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy what the hell? a war agianst islam? No, a war agianst the extremest islamo-facist philosophy. One of the tennants of liberalism is the freedom to worship any god and believe any religion. this however is not allowed in radical islamic countries, freedom of religion is not exsistant. so this isnt a war agianst islam becuase we are fighting for people to believe in it, and any other religion as well. and this war being about american comanpies making more profit? ever thought about how the arab countries might prosper under a free economy? Instead of a dictator or monarch prospering over their peoples misery we are fighting for the arab private business sector that is currently shackled. honestly i dont find it that important. its a side issue at best. ok if america were to stop funding 'nasty' monarchs like in saudi arabia then two options will occur *a more liberal and democratic government will take its place *a more 'nastier' islamo fasict takes power since we all know the current US support governments in egypt, saudia, and jordan are all keeping their terrorists at bay a sudden withdrawl of this support and all of a sudden more extreme dictators come in. at least this way we can nudge, impose and create a gradual democratization process. i'm done with my popcorn

Islam tells you how to run your state. This conflicts with capitalism which tells you another way of running your state. This is why there is conflict between the two. Muslims are often made to look bad in the media, many are also racially profiled and detained or deported.

Arabs want democracy but American companies taking taking over the country isn't freedom.

Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt suppress all demonstrations against their governments. You don't realize the extent to which the majority desires democracy but the governments are always too powerful due to American support because you don't live there. I don't blame you. The dictators are nasty as it is to their people. Anti-American sentiments would disolve from the majority of people if America stopped supporting the dictator oppressors. You don't realize this because you don't live there and again, I don't blame you.

Solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem is extremely crucial. The majority of Palestinians desire a democratic Palestine. If this is achieved:

1. Palestine becomes an example to the rest of the Arab world.
2. Arabs would be motivated to solve the next crucial problem i.e. dictatorships.

You'll need another bag of popcorn.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem is extremely crucial. The majority of Palestinians desire a democratic Palestine. If this is achieved: 1. Palestine becomes an example to the rest of the Arab world. 2. Arabs would be motivated to solve the next crucial problem i.e. dictatorships. You'll need another bag of popcorn.

This is very true. But if the Palestinian problem is solved through islamo-fascisim (read terrorist methods) this will be the greatest detrement to the Arabs since the Turkish conquests. It will prove that islamo-facisim works and can defeat the western democratic philosophies. Such an outcome will only strengthen and deepen the root of the problem.

If the Palestinians developed a liberal democratic state that then could achieve peace with Israel, this would be the proudest success for both the people of the middle east and the west in their shared histories.

But I haven't even started popping the popcorn. I wouldn't recommend any of you do either

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode (Why isn't there a thumbs-up smiley?)

Hey dont insult religions here.

Look, we dont make fun of god.We dont make fun of Jesus.We dont make fun of your Wailing wall.We dont make absolutely creepy south park episodes where all of the world's religion main figures are being made fun of.

Fair enough. You dont believe in god.Fair enough, you dont believe in the black book or the Koran.Fair enough you think Jesus is a myth.I dont give a fuck.But lets not start criticising each other's beliefs just because what YOU believe is right.

Lets all not be some self-righteous prick here.

What we believe in is our choice.We follow by its rules and aint nobody is gonna change it because of some 3rd person perspective.Some of you have very shallow knowledge about some religions and suddenly you're talking like you're some kind of harvard professor whose been studying about that specific subject for 20 years.

quote:

As occrider and I have pointed out before, their main purpose is to rid the world of western culture and to spread their own fundamentalist ideologies about Islam. That is the root of the problem, we aren't like them. So, unless you're proposing we become like them, to get rid of the "root" or the problem, there is not much we can do to appease them. Their goals are very simple.

NeoPhono, could you give me the source for your opinions? Or is it just uninformed speculation on your part?

I suspect it is a popular opinion in the US that al-Qaida's aims are to take over the world (just like in a typical Hollywood film). And the US Gov stands to gain a lot from promoting that view (ie huge support for the war on terror, AKA, Project for a New American Century!!! )

I don't think that is the case as such, altho I do think you're nearly there. I believe the ideology of al-Qaida is to unify the Islamic World under that Shira law (fundamental Islam, equivelant to the Evangleical Christians in America). I dont think they have any designs on the entire world. The Islamic world, funnily enough, consists of all Islamic countries (and unfortunately Israel). This is where al-Qaida want rule and set up their ideology, but their ideology means expelling all non-Muslim influence in the region (ie Israel for a start, capitalism/globalisation and the American military presence)

If the aims of al-Qaida are what I have just stated above, then the West is left with a choice...do we pull out of the Middle East economically/militarily or do we continue facing terrorism?

Or do we try and find a way to continue investing in the Middle East at the same time as reducing support for al-Qaida? If Muslims dont see the West as a threat, why take up arms against us?

You have to realise it is one of al-Qaida's main aims to muster as much support for their cause as possible and how does it do that? By convincing normal Muslims that it is right - that the West are a threat and how does it do that? Attack us, knowing full well America will want to retaliate against anyone it chooses...convincing the Muslims that the West is a threat, and swelling the ranks of al-Qaida...

Attacking Islamic countries at random may mae Americans feel better about themselves, but every time this happens you are going to make the situation ten times worse...

quote:

But lets not start criticising each other's beliefs just because what YOU believe is right.

Agreed. It's much better to criticize other people's beliefs because they're completely irrational.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley NeoPhono, could you give me the source for your opinions?

Sure, I actually listed it earlier. It's from the Council on Foreign Relations (LINK)

Here's what they say:

quote:

Does al-Qaeda have a charter or manifesto? In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the �Goals and Objectives of Jihad�: 1. Establishing the rule of God on earth 2. Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God 3. Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity In 1998, several al-Qaeda leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans�including civilians�as well as �those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan.�

I take number one to mean the establishement of a fundamentalist Islamic society throughout earth, not just the middle east.

Why do you assume that? Establishing the rule of God on Earth could mean in my back garden...why do you assume it means the entire world? Do you have a source for that?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why do you assume that? Establishing the rule of God on Earth could mean in my back garden...why do you assume it means the entire world? Do you have a source for that?

Just my interpretation. When someone says "earth" I usually take it to mean the whole earth. I could look around though.

EDIT: Here's a copy of the original NY Times article that led to the list. LINK

Here's a link to the text of Osama's 1998 fatwah calling for the death of Americans. LINK

quote:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'" We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered." Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."

It doesn't say anywhere the 'entire' Earth does it? It says ON Earth, which means anywhere ON Earth. You have only interpretated that way because that is what you want to believe cos it fits nicely into your opinions of Muslims and what you would like to see done to them no? It somehow justifies that in your mind...

Okay, assume that you are right, al queda want to take over the world. Still doesn't make sense to invade every islamic country in the world that do support them in any way though (or in no way as in the iraq case).

lets compare their thinking with yours, you don't seem to understand. I actually see many similarities with the bush administration and al queda (yeah i know you can't really compare them, but still). Al qaeda believe strongly in islam, they want to spread it all over the world, and they want to kill all the ones that don't believe in islam. The bush administration on the other hand, strongly believe in the capitalism market, democracy, free speech etc. and they want to spread it all over the world and kill everyone who don't believe in it (for example al queda). I hope you see the similarities, i know you know what you think is right or wrong and i know what i think is right or wrong.
You think it's right to attack for example iraq to get rid of an dictator, and to establish democracy etc. yeah, sure that sounds good for us who believe in this. BUT there certainly is a lot of people (not necessarily fundamentalists) that thought saddam was a good ruler and that everything was good before. BUT that now think USA are the biggest idiots out there who has destroyed everything so that they now actually support the fundamentalists (or any other islmaic countrys, much like all western countries condemned the 9/11 attacks). Compare this to your own case, after you was attacked by al qaeda on sept 11, a lot of people, that before wasn't supporters of a war against islamic states, now are supporters of that. i'm not sure if you understood my train of thoughts there, it can be hard to realize, but you have to learn to think in others thoughts...

quote:

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It doesn't say anywhere the 'entire' Earth does it? It says ON Earth, which means anywhere ON Earth. You have only interpretated that way because that is what you want to believe cos it fits nicely into your opinions of Muslims and what you would like to see done to them no? It somehow justifies that in your mind...

Much the same way you intepret "on earth" to not mean the entire earth. If I say "I want to be the coolest person on earth," what does that mean? Do I not mean the entire earth? I guess I have to say "I want to be the coolest person on the entire earth," from now on so I don't confuse anyone. Since Islam is already present on the planet I interpret someone saying to spread the rule of God on earth to mean the entire planet. If it wasn't here to begin with, I can see your point.

It's a mute point however if you merely look at the definition of Jihad which Osama called for. It is by his definition a holy war to spread Islam throughout the entire earth.

LINK

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew You think it's right to attack for example iraq to get rid of an dictator, and to establish democracy etc. yeah, sure that sounds good for us who believe in this. BUT there certainly is a lot of people (not necessarily fundamentalists) that thought saddam was a good ruler and that everything was good before. BUT that now think USA are the biggest idiots out there who has destroyed everything so that they now actually support the fundamentalists (or any other islmaic countrys, much like all western countries condemned the 9/11 attacks).

The reason it was right to attack Iraq to get rid of Saddam wasn't because dictatorships are evil and democracy is oh-so-great, it was because Saddam's regime had no respect for individual rights. It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of all the people in Iraq thought Saddam was the greatest - as long as that other 0.0001% were being deprived of their fundamental rights as individuals, then there is a moral imperative to protect them.

Now, whether or not that's what the U.S. is doing... is another question altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The reason it was right to attack Iraq to get rid of Saddam wasn't because dictatorships are evil and democracy is oh-so-great, it was because Saddam's regime had no respect for individual rights. It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of all the people in Iraq thought Saddam was the greatest - as long as that other 0.0001% were being deprived of their fundamental rights as individuals, then there is a moral imperative to protect them.

according to your morals, yes. according to someone else morals, no.

according to al qaeda it's moraly right to attack US cause some 0.0003% of the american people are islamic fundamentalists.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Okay, assume that you are right, al queda want to take over the world. Still doesn't make sense to invade every islamic country in the world that do support them in any way though (or in no way as in the iraq case). lets compare their thinking with yours, you don't seem to understand. I actually see many similarities with the bush administration and al queda (yeah i know you can't really compare them, but still). Al qaeda believe strongly in islam, they want to spread it all over the world, and they want to kill all the ones that don't believe in islam. The bush administration on the other hand, strongly believe in the capitalism market, democracy, free speech etc. and they want to spread it all over the world and kill everyone who don't believe in it (for example al queda). I hope you see the similarities, i know you know what you think is right or wrong and i know what i think is right or wrong. You think it's right to attack for example iraq to get rid of an dictator, and to establish democracy etc. yeah, sure that sounds good for us who believe in this. BUT there certainly is a lot of people (not necessarily fundamentalists) that thought saddam was a good ruler and that everything was good before. BUT that now think USA are the biggest idiots out there who has destroyed everything so that they now actually support the fundamentalists (or any other islmaic countrys, much like all western countries condemned the 9/11 attacks). Compare this to your own case, after you was attacked by al qaeda on sept 11, a lot of people, that before wasn't supporters of a war against islamic states, now are supporters of that. i'm not sure if you understood my train of thoughts there, it can be hard to realize, but you have to learn to think in others thoughts...

I do realize where others are coming from. I too would like a world where we could sit down and iron out all of our differences. However, I do not believe this to be the case.

I also do not see the Bush administration attacking civilian targets to bring about its change. I also do not see them trying to install relgious, repressive governments, methods of rule looked upon with disdain on this board in other threads (especially the American religious right so prevelant in its government), but seemingly looked over in this one.

Only time will tell in Iraq. It is unarguably in a state of turmoil. I do not know many countries that have undergone such change and have come out smelling like roses the day after. To me, it is much too early to tell for sure if the installation of a diplomatic government was in anyones best interest. I do know however that it was in both my and the Iraqi peoples best interest to remove Saddam. You could argue that last point, but that is my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew according to your morals, yes. according to someone else morals, no. according to al qaeda it's moraly right to attack US cause some 0.0003% of the american people are islamic fundamentalists.

I don't believe in moral relativism, and I don't believe it is a "matter of opinion." If al-qaeda believes terrorism for any reason is moral, they are simply mistaken. Of course, if they had used reason instead of relying on fairy tales as the basis of their "moral code," they probably wouldn't have come to the same conclusion.

quote:

Much the same way you intepret "on earth" to not mean the entire earth. If I say "I want to be the coolest person on earth," what does that mean? Do I not mean the entire earth? I guess I have to say "I want to be the coolest person on the entire earth," from now on so I don't confuse anyone. Since Islam is already present on the planet I interpret someone saying to spread the rule of God on earth to mean the entire planet. If it wasn't here to begin with, I can see your point. It's a mute point however if you merely look at the definition of Jihad which Osama called for. It is by his definition a holy war to spread Islam throughout the entire earth.

Wow. I must say I am impressed. You gave me a link defining 'Jihad' from somebody who is criticising Islam. Wow.

You honestly think bin Laden wants to set up fundamental Islam in non-Muslim countries? Did you just totally ignore the quote I gave you?

The aim of al-Qaida is NOT the establishment of Shira law around the ENTIRE world. It is within the ISLAMIC WORLD.

You only want al-Qaida's aims to be worldwide so you can justify your own disgusting opinions of ALL Muslims and the way in which you wish them to be dealt with...are you religious by any chance? Or have you, along with most of your country men, been sucked up in the bullshit your government tells you to allow it to go full steam ahead in its quest for the Project for a New American Century?

Now I agree 100% al-Qaida needs stopping, but Americans always go that one step further and lump every Muslim in the world with al-Qaida in their opinions of them. That is an extremely dangerous viewpoint to be promoting as if your not careful, your wishes will come true and every Muslim in the world WILL take up arms against America if they are continued to be threatened by people with your attitudes...

wow, you are really stuck in your thoughts

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I do realize where others are coming from. I too would like a world where we could sit down and iron out all of our differences. However, I do not believe this to be the case. I also do not see the Bush administration attacking civilian targets to bring about its change. I also do not see them trying to install relgious, repressive governments, methods of rule looked upon with disdain on this board in other threads (especially the American religious right so prevelant in its government), but seemingly looked over in this one.

they are just using another way to reach their goal. they think in ANOTHER WAY. at least, TRY to think how they think, perhaps we know what's right and what's wrong, but that doesn't really matter, the people in those poor countries won't know, they will think that you are assholes who thinks that you know better etc, and you have crated yourself more enemies.

quote:

Only time will tell in Iraq. It is unarguably in a state of turmoil. I do not know many countries that have undergone such change and have come out smelling like roses the day after. To me, it is much too early to tell for sure if the installation of a diplomatic government was in anyones best interest. I do know however that it was in both my and the Iraqi peoples best interest to remove Saddam. You could argue that last point, but that is my opinion.

yeah, iraq may have been the right decision, but it's probably not, and it's a _really_ dangerous path to go.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You only want al-Qaida's aims to be worldwide so you can justify your own disgusting opinions of ALL Muslims and the way in which you wish them to be dealt with...are you religious by any chance? Or have you, along with most of your country men, been sucked up in the bullshit your government tells you to allow it to go full steam ahead in its quest for the Project for a New American Century?

Yes, because even if I were to agree with you and he only wanted to "take over" Muslim countries that would be fine. I have no problem with him using his terrorist tactics to convert the middle east to his extremeist ideologies. Go ahead Osama, blow up innocents in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, wherever you want, as long as its in the middle east.

I also love it that now I'm talking about "all Muslims." Thanks for clarifying that since up until this point I was talking about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. I believe this entire thread, past being about the Spanish terrorist attacks, was about dealing with terrorism, namely al-Qaeda. I have never called for the elimination of Islam, or all Muslims, but al-Qaeda. Now who's "interpretated [what I have said] that way because that is what you want to believe cos it fits nicely into your opinions?"

Again, I have no idea how you find me talking about "all Muslims."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.