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."

quote:

If I say "I want to be the coolest person on earth," what does that mean? Do I not mean the entire earth?

Actually, you have just picked a sentence at random and added the phrase "on Earth" in the middle of it without really thinking about haven't you? You used the word "coolest" which means the "most cool" meaning it cannot be beaten. Therefore, by using a term that cannot be beaten, in your sentence, the phrase "on Earth" would mean the entire Earth.

The term "on Earth" means just that - ON EARTH

Only when (like yourself) do you add other words around it will it change its meaning. The sentence in which the phrase "on Earth" originally appeared (in al-Qaida's aims) does not contain any other word that could change the meaning of the phrase, therefore, it still means simply ON EARTH (and you will have by now actually done me the decency of reading that quote I gave you that says al-Qaida's aims are only for the Islamic world)

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew wow, you are really stuck in your thoughts

What if I said the same thing about you? I'm not sure why this thread is deteriorating like this, but its turning from a political discussion to a personal attack on belief systems. Not my intention, and not much fun.

quote:

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.

I realize they think in another way, as I said before. Their ideas of right and wrong are completely different from mine, I agree. I also really don't care if a poor middle easterner thinks I'm an asshole. A junkie will think I'm an asshole if I take away their source of addiction, but I will try to do it, because to me their views of what is best for them are distorted as well as harmful. When I see someone blinded by their religion, acting in a manner that compels them to kill non-believers, remove human rights and dignity and oppress women, then I do have something wrong with that. I realize their system of right and wrong is different, but that does not mean I am going to change what I believe to be right and wrong so it can fit theirs, nor will I be tolerant of blantant human rights violations.

quote:

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?"

Yes I will apologise. I think I have been confusing your views for some of the others who have been talking about Muslims (not specifically al-Qaida) So, soz ard!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yes I will apologise. I think I have been confusing your views for some of the others who have been talking about Muslims (not specifically al-Qaida) So, soz ard!

No problem, it seems this thread is getting overly heated for my tastes. I guess I need a nap.

Interesting, Yoepus. Thanks for the input.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus 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. ...

In order for the threat to be credible, however, it must be actualized. So the question becomes, how much force is necessary in order for others to take future threats from you seriously? I'm not sure of the answer, but my estimate -- somewhat verified by world events -- would be that almost constant force is necessary. Collectively, entire peoples have very short attention spans and memories, so you would have to "remind" them very often.

And this ties into the violence begets violence idea, of which I am positively sure. Are the 'hawks' on this board also convinced of this? Based on their policies and ideas (your ideas, I should say), I think not.

If we start using force to solve these things, or even threat of force (which is not much different -- see my note below), the problems will never be solved. They may morph into other, different problems which may even be worse.

Think of it this way -- if someone slaps you, what are you going to do? Slap them back! And if not, if for some chance you are of a higher understanding and development as a person, you will not slap them back. But we know that mobs work on the lowest common denominator. You "slap" a mob (or people, or nation), and they will retaliate.

Now, what happens if you merely threaten? Let's say someone says, "You better move, or I'll beat you up." Is this any better? No, it's the same thing. You'll respond, "Oh yeah? Well come and try!" etc. etc. And the analogy extends through to the mob. You cannot threaten a mob. They'll only get enraged, and might even start the violence themselves!

Yoepus I must admit that I don't really know every single detail of the policy the west has been taking on the middle east, so I myself wouldn't say, "Continue on the policy in a 'purer' way," which I agree is nonsense.

You are definitely right in that a different concept is needed for solving the "problem" of the middle east. I'm sure that the current policy is useless. But it's not an ideal one, it's not even half an ideal one. It's not even practical in any way. The way I understand it, the current policy on the middle east is a lot like sticking one's head in the sand, which is not what I and others are advocating.

We *do* need to take action, but not military action nor the threat of such an action. IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What if I said the same thing about you? I'm not sure why this thread is deteriorating like this, but its turning from a political discussion to a personal attack on belief systems. Not my intention, and not much fun.

no, that's not fun, but since my view on this is that you must understand their thinking, i must make you understand it... if you know what i mean sorry if you was personally hurt...

quote:

I realize they think in another way, as I said before. Their ideas of right and wrong are completely different from mine, I agree. I also really don't care if a poor middle easterner thinks I'm an asshole. A junkie will think I'm an asshole if I take away their source of addiction, but I will try to do it, because to me their views of what is best for them are distorted as well as harmful. When I see someone blinded by their religion, acting in a manner that compels them to kill non-believers, remove human rights and dignity and oppress women, then I do have something wrong with that. I realize their system of right and wrong is different, but that does not mean I am going to change what I believe to be right and wrong so it can fit theirs, nor will I be tolerant of blantant human rights violations.

no, i understand that you just want them to do well.. BUT they don't so you will get new enimies, you will get new terror attacks, and that is what we DON'T want, that's what the discussion is all about, eliminate terror.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Okay, so in N. Ireland you're saying that it has helped, not solved the problem.

it has helped more than the meaningless killings that the "war" brought before...

quote:

In Chechnya things are still "fucked up" as you put it.

yes they live in a coutnry where most of the cities are bombed to nothing, they have been in war for a long time, yes they are rather fucked up and there is always people there who wants more war, it takes some time for a country that has been in war so long to get back to a normal state, on the other hand, if they had used the diplomatic approach from the beginning, it had probably been much easier.

quote:

Lybia was scared into their current practices by the US invasion of Iraq

i don't think that lybia felt scared by the war in iraq. they must know that US cannot afford another war right now. they have also been under economic pressure for a long time and must come out of that in some way, this is one.

and of course, there is nothing wrong to use force as a threat when it comes to diplomacy.

quote:

and Iraq is an obvious example of diplomacy not working through the UN.

if i don't remember completely wrong, they let the weapons expectors into iraq but you attacked them anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus You can't starve them out of their caves unfortunatley, but the world could actually co-operate in this war, and confiscate all fiances. You realize Al Qaeda is probably a billion dollar organization or some high million figure. Where is all this money coming from? And why isn't it stopping?

hmmm, most of the world are actually freezing their fiances. but they seems to already have a rather good capital available

quote:

Fustration is not the cause for terrorism. If fustration was the cause, well we would see terrorism in far worse ways in other areas of the world that are fustrated, such as South America, AFRICA, Asia, and did I say AFRICA?

i think you answered that pretty much by yourself. they simple do not have the money for it. a lot of arabs are reeealy rich and can afford this international operations. there IS terror in south america, just that they keep it for themselves, they do not have the capabilities to do something against the US. And of course it is also the religion/coultural differences, south america is much closer to america when it comes to that. same thing goes for africa...