quote:

Originally posted by TrueToTheCrew U.S. Media = Propaganda = BRAIN WASHING + Arrogance

thanks for the useless, non-factually backed, flame inducing, over generalizing, post

you could stick in any countries name there and it would work, though it inherently wrong to begin with.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't really think it's right to blame Islam. Islamic fundamentalists are a problem - a human rights problem - but the real problem is the lack of education in predominantly Islamic regions, even about their own religion. Terrorists aren't real Muslims, they aren't even close to doing anything that is even remotely related to Islam. They're just being used by people who know how to use religion to manipulate people.

I partially agree with you. Terrorists think they are true muslims, but most of the muslims don't think so. But Islam has elements which has made the birth of fundamentalist sections. These elements are for example

1.dying for your faith --> you will go to heaven.
2.Killing a man from different religion is not a crime.
3."jihad"

Islamic countries have very tight laws and punishments are very violent. I see islam as the most aggressive religion and when culture is much based on religion, I think that this religion is one of the biggest problems in some of the middle east countries.

It doesn't have to be a problem but because leaders (dictators) use it as a way to keep people frightened and "on the line".

I see your point in lack of education, but hey propaganda wouldn't be so affective if they would be educated.

Country can work well with islam as its prime religion, but because islam is "religion created for war time" or atleast thats how I see it, with the name of islam you can easily manipulate believers.


Someone said: "talks wont solve problems, actions does"

There has been a lot of actions but not enough talks (or is it vice versa?). But as someone said talks won't solve things if both of the sides aren't willing to negotiate. Atm I'm not sure about US either. Is it willing to negotiate with Iraq or has it already decided to bomb it to the ground? If its so then I partially blame US if war against Iraq begins.

Actions makes only the athmosphere for negotiations (or they will destroy the athmosphere). This is a douple edged sword, if muslims declares "jihad" you can't negotiate with them anymore. Negotiations should have made earlier but no-one is perfect and I think no-one saw this coming or if someone did no-one listened. "If your ruling is based on force I can't promise you long rulership"
Don't you see it? think of ww2. No-one won anything, everyone lost, the only thing that war did, it showed the entire world that war is not worth it. Thats the way of the modern war. There isn't a country which could conquer the whole world not even a half of it.
I think talks are the most important way, I hope Hussein has learned his lesson to not to resist global opinion.

Is US controlling middle-east with brutal force? its not a long term solution. It can start hate against US which can last for generations. See albanian vs. serbian.

If u think I'm talking BS then point it out and I'll try to avoid it next time. This is only my opinion. I'm sorry for my english.

quote:

U.S. Media = Propaganda = BRAIN WASHING + Arrogance

Question: Who will take this kind of post seriously?
Answer: No-one

Why: There no explanations why this "nameless" person has come to this conclusion.

It is one opinion, but not a one I would take as a rational one.

First, I can see both yours, and Arbiter's view on the pacifism issue for the world of today, but I have to take exception to a what you said here:

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy (im not even going to get into america being christian, cause that is BS, the constitution specifies seperation of church and state).

This is true *in theory*, but as I vehemently stated in my sociology class a few weeks ago, must to the chargrin of people holding a similar position to yours, this is simply *not true* in the practical sense.

Examples:

- "In God We Trust" on the coins

- Pledge of Allegiance making specific reference to God.

- What does the leader of the country say every time there's a disaster? Let's pray for the victims, etc.

- How many people have secular funerals here? Less than 2%, in some parts of Europe it's a high majority.

- Protestant Work Ethic based disdain of poor, that, even if people don't realise it now, is heavily rooted in the classic notion that you can tell who the "elect" are by how hard they work, and those that fail are obviously moral failures, and pre-destined to burn in Hell.

And a minor point too, people tried to argue with me that "God" includes all religion, and I don't buy this either. God implied singular and masculine to me, ie: the Jewish/Islamic/Christian God.

I don't think the people who consider "God" to be a neutral term would feel the same way if you replaced God with say, "God & Goddess" or "The Great Spirit" or "The Unknowable Transcendent Force" or so on. Each religion has it's own specific way of talking about it's deities, to deny that God denotes a very specific concept is a mistake IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb This is true *in theory*, but as I vehemently stated in my sociology class a few weeks ago, must to the chargrin of people holding a similar position to yours, this is simply *not true* in the practical sense. Examples: - "In God We Trust" on the coins - Pledge of Allegiance making specific reference to God. - What does the leader of the country say every time there's a disaster? Let's pray for the victims, etc. - How many people have secular funerals here? Less than 2%, in some parts of Europe it's a high majority. - Protestant Work Ethic based disdain of poor, that, even if people don't realise it now, is heavily rooted in the classic notion that you can tell who the "elect" are by how hard they work, and those that fail are obviously moral failures, and pre-destined to burn in Hell. And a minor point too, people tried to argue with me that "God" includes all religion, and I don't buy this either. God implied singular and masculine to me, ie: the Jewish/Islamic/Christian God. I don't think the people who consider "God" to be a neutral term would feel the same way if you replaced God with say, "God & Goddess" or "The Great Spirit" or "The Unknowable Transcendent Force" or so on. Each religion has it's own specific way of talking about it's deities, to deny that God denotes a very specific concept is a mistake IMHO.

I agree. The influence of religion on public policy is, in my opinion, the single biggest obstacle to the proper function of our government. Unfortuately, that influence is pervasive to the point of being disastrous.

The separation of church and state is necessary for proper government function, simply because the church is an irrational institution by its very nature, and the government cannot afford to be considering the irrational in making decisions that affect the lives of millions. To this end, I would almost go so far as to say that people with religious beliefs ought not to be allowed to hold office. I think that is a little too extreme, at least for now, but they ought to have to swear that they will not allow their religious beliefs to affect their judgment in serving the country before they are allowed to take office. I'm pessimistic this would be sufficient, but it would at least be sending the right message.

Cheers,

Arbiter

yeah but most religions have some sort of "god".... whatever name you give it.

also, most religions pray. So, granted there isn't too much separation of the church and the state, the state is not specific on which church. jew, christian, muslim, what have you all pray and have a "god"/"allah".....

forgive the trite answer.. late for bed. hrhr

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline yeah but most religions have some sort of "god".... whatever name you give it. also, most religions pray. So, granted there isn't too much separation of the church and the state, the state is not specific on which church. jew, christian, muslim, what have you all pray and have a "god"/"allah"..... forgive the trite answer.. late for bed. hrhr

what do you mean by god, because when you say that most religions have some sort of god, it can be misleading since god is a vague term.

quote:

Originally posted by Jazz i honestly can't believe some of the comments i'm reading in this thread... like the above post... there is so much misinformation, half truths, and propaganda coming from the "pro-USA" side in this thread that it renders the whole discussion pointless... literally pointless because it accomplishes absolutely nothing... granted, the "anti-US" side in this discussion is not perfect, but at least there is some genuine information coming out of that side... to the "pro-USA" side in this discussion, specifically the ones who think (and have said) that the sudan pharmaceutical plant was producing weapons - not medicine, you are wrong. i don't know where you're getting your (mis)information, but you need to open your mind, and be objective when looking at your own country.

It's long been known that it was a weapons factory. The dictator of Sudan tried to cover it up as something else, like all good dictators do. Dictators are well known to put civilians in military buildings so they can say we kill civilians, or to stage medical facilities and the like. It's really the only way a dictator can make us look bad, and I choose to ignore it, because it's BS. Many people however, are fooled by dictators, the games they play, and the propaganda only dictators are able to put out in the way they do.

I choose not to buy into Al-Queda propaganda. I dont care about the US propaganda, it's the Al-Queda propaganda that's the real threat here.

___________________
Current fav albums

DNA, kick me up
Protoculture, Circadians

were pretty damn good at making ourselves look bad... remember this a few motnhs ago:

US justifies Afghan wedding bombing:

Saturday, 7 September, 2002
BBC

A US airstrike that killed dozens of guests at a wedding party in Afghanistan in July was justified, a US military investigation has concluded.

The US say their gunship was fired on

Its report says people at the party in central Afghanistan's Uruzgan province who fired at US aircraft were to blame, not the American pilots who returned the fire.

"While the coalition regrets the loss of innocent lives, the responsibility for that loss rests with those that knowingly directed hostile fire at coalition forces," the report says.

However, the Afghan Border Affairs Minister, Arif Noorzai, told the BBC that he doubted that the report would be accepted by Afghans.

The Afghan Government says 48 civilians - mostly women and children - were killed and 117 injured by the US AC-130 aircraft during the incident, which severely strained relations between Washington and Kabul.

Self-defence

The US report says that the crew of the AC-130 gunship acted "properly and in accordance with the rules" in attacking several sites in the Deh Rawood area.



It also says reconnaissance patrols heard gunfire and explosions at all hours of the day and night, and that the AC-130 came under fire itself.

"The operators of those weapons elected to place them in civilian communities and elected to fire them at coalition forces at a time when they knew there were a significant number of civilians present," the report says.

The US investigators say the airstrike was part of a larger operation in the area, which the report says was at the time home to families of several key Taleban leaders.

No evidence

The Afghan officials and survivors of the incident say the only gunfire from the area came from the guests who fired their rifles in celebration.


Many of the victims were children


Despite the report's claims that heavy weapons had been fired at the US aircraft in the days before the raid, the American investigators found no evidence of anti-aircraft weapons at the bombed sites.

The report says that the US investigation could only confirm 34 dead and about 50 wounded.

Washington has not used the word "apology" because of differing accounts of what happened during the 1 July airstrike.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer The Afghan officials and survivors of the incident say the only gunfire from the area came from the guests who fired their rifles in celebration.

ROFLMAO..... man you fell for that one hook, line, and sinker! I heard the al-qaeda is hiring...

___________________
Peace.

that was reported by the bbc

those were the people there were supposedly trying to free from "tyranny" aswell...

Last edited by trancedfarmer on Nov-14-2002 at 16:15

oh god.
i thought we had "enough" of that one.

Tuikkari, islam is not a religion created for war time.
and islam is not the only religion that warps their teachings.

the term that you need to know is eschatology.
Religious groups, see the coming of the apocolypse, and in order to prepare the world for the coming kingdom of god, must cleanse the world of all non-believers, or not of their religion.

Instead of just hating a particular group through scapegoating, now they have a "divine order" to kill and rid the world of people who are different. A "jihad". They feel that they are above earthly laws. Because being holy warriors, they are in the service of god.
And in their twisted view, what greater glory is there??

Through recent events, muslim extremists are associated with this mainly, but there are extremists in other religions who can be accused of the same. Especially here in the u.s. - jews, christians.

In my opinion, unfortunately, there is only one way to deal with these people. No pacificism, or negotiations.