Not trying to argue but here`s some interesting facts.

[dansouth]

[quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi: [b]I think that the analogy between Islamic Fundamentalism and cancer continues to be the most illustrative of the current world situation:[/b][/quote] You know, I try to take the high road in these discussions, but man, you are just so full of shit I can smell you clear over here on the East Coast. What the heck kind of axe do you have to grind with Islam? It's in every one of your posts! Obscure Qur'an passages that YOU say justify terrorist acts and suicide bombings, when every Islamic scholar I've seen thus far in the media agrees that Islam (1) forbids murder, (2) forbids suicide, and (3) considers martyrdom something that's done TO you, not something that you can bring upon yourself. Why can't you just say that RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM is like cancer? Or fundamentalism of ANY nature (communist fundamentalism, socialist fundamentalism, imperial fundamentalism, sexist fundamentalism)? Why is it always Islam that gets bashed in your arguments? Do you find less disturbing the Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and murder obstetricians? How about the Jewish fundamentalists who murdered Prime Minister Rabin? How about many other groups, both religious and secular, who have committed attrocity after attrocity throughout history? Is it too much to ask for a little balance, or do you despise Islam so absolutely that you can't see the sharply biased nature of your thinly veiled slander of a religion practice by a billion peace-loving people around the globe? How about you? Are you Christian? Jewish? Hundu? Shinto? Mormon? Sikh? Buddhist? Rastafarian? How would you feel if I were to compare the extreme right wing of your own religion to cancer? That's pretty ugly, but you don't have to worry, because I refuse to stoop that low. Please respect others as you would like to be respected. According to Jesus, that's a commendable approach.

[rold]

Thank you, Dan - very well said... :cool:

[LeiDeLi]

[quote], but man, you are just so full of shit I can smell you clear over here on the East Coast. What the heck kind of axe do you have to grind with Islam?[/quote] 1. I think we were trying to limit the discussion to rationality and presentation of facts :) If you doubt what I have said, simply read the Qur'an. 2. If you could read my post accurately, I specifically stated *Islamic Fundamentalism*...not all Islam. 3. It is NOT all fundamentalism that is the problem; it is specifically ISLAMIC fundamentalism. I'm sorry that this appears to single out a specific religion, but it is the simple fact. There are other fundamentalisms that hold very misguided beliefs that we all disagree with, but it is currently only ISLAMIC fundamentalism that is creating a world-wide organisation with the expressed purpose of killing all Americans and destroying western society. There are many other "fundamentalist" sects that just want to live peacefully with their own bizarre beliefs. I have no problem with them. 4. The fact that many, like you, seem to be offended by my pointing out that it is Islamic Fundamentalism that is the problem is exactly why I keep reiterating it. In the west, it is very politically incorrect to single out any religion for criticism. But let us not be so afraid of political incorrectness that we blind ourselves to abundantly clear FACTS. Virtually 100% of the deadly terrorist attacks carried out over recent years have been done by ISLAMIC fundamentalists. If noticing that fact tends to give "Islam" a bad name, I am sorry. It is not my fault. It is theirs. 5. I can't overemphasize the simple action of checking out the FACTS for yourself: Read the Qur'an....make a list of "Islamic" countries....look at the economic, social, and human rights situations in every one of those countries. THEN report back and discuss facts. Peace, LeiDeLi

[Charlie-brm]

Find me more facts this week: How many 'Islamic fundamentalist terrorists' involved in direct action against the west are among the dead in Afghanistan? How many Taliban members of Afghan birth, albeit total turds, (just like the Khmer Rouge) were involved in direct action against the west? You don't get rid of rats by burning down a house. Who let the dogs out? The west goes with the Alliance, these dogs of war got some air support, worked up the nerve to go for it and naturally went for Kabul. Didn't Patton go for Rome? What the hell made W think these guys were going to play nice and back off? A commander of the Northern Alliance announced when they find Taliban members, if they are Afghan they give them a chance to renounce and join them. If they are foreigners, they are executed; Pakistani, Saudi, misc. asian. These Afghanis definitely do not fuck around. They don't want any foreigners mincing about, friend or foe, period. And judging by open discussions amongst Afghanis in Canada, they definitely don't want either the Taliban or anyone from the Northern Alliance anywhere near them. But that's an Afghani problem, isn't it? The initial objective of rounding up the guilty parties is way off the current agenda. Can anyone say mission creep?

[LeiDeLi]

[quote]The initial objective of rounding up the guilty parties is way off the current agenda. Can anyone say mission creep? [/quote] By *their own admission*, the Taliban have been providing a home for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. They were asked repeatedly to cooperate with the International coalition to stop training camps and hand him over. They refused. Hence, they became direct accomplices of Bin Laden. Mullah Omar (Taliban Leader), has also *by his own admission* in videotaped messages, advocated killing of all Americans. There has been no "mission creep" whatsoever. The goal was, and still is, to dismantle Al-Qaeda, and accomplices. If the Northern Alliance is also killing additional of their own enemies, that is their decision. They have already come under criticism and intense scrutiny for committing some alleged atrocities. My *personal* opinion is that it would be nearly impossible to commit an "atrocity" against anyone supporting the Taliban, since they are the enemy in a time of war. LeiDeLi Why is it that many people seem to want to wallow in self-recrimination and criticism of every action of their government during a time of crisis ? Don't they realize that there is an world-wide organization out there whose expressed purpose is to kill them and destroy everything they hold dear...including the right to express absurdly uninformed opinions on internet forums ? :) Just try to imagine what the world will be like if we DON'T destroy the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: LeiDeLi ]

[Martin O]

First of all, anyone who thinks that the whole thing is 'really very simple'....come on! All of this is anything but simple. I say this to both sides of the argument. Yes U.S. did/does bad things, but do you think thats because the heads of oil companies and such are 'evil'? Yes the Middle East hates us, but do you think it's really because they're 'evil' & 'jealous'?? It's not black & white. Also, I think insulting people for their opinions is a cheap & despicable way to try to win an argument. Super 8: "Even outragously stupid views like Hippie's "Let's just nuke'm all" opinion can be respected and tolerated." Is calling someones opinion 'outrageously stupid' showing respect? Dansouth: "You know, I try to take the high road in these discussions, but man, you are just so full of shit I can smell you clear over here on the East Coast." Dan, you can make your point without the insults. If your argument is strong, you don't need insults to bolster it.

[Hippie]

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b] Who exactly do we nuke? A bunch of starving innocents whose country has been at war since 1989, whose government was overtaken by oppressive extremists in 1996, who have walked hundreds of miles on foot to the relative shelter of refugee camps because the land won't produce food after three years of drought? What would YOUR town look like after twenty-two years of war, three years of deadly drought, five years of oppressive government, and six weeks of being bombed by the United States Navy? Give me a break! If you can't tell the difference between the criminals who perpetrated the acts of September 11th and the millions of innocents who are caught in the crossfire, maybe you should do a little research before you suggest nuking an entire country into oblivion.[/b][/quote] First off, the statement of "nuclear or otherwise" was an exaggeration; I'm pissed, take it for what it is. Secondly, It's hard for me to accept the rational of "only punishing those responsible" for the horrific acts of 9/11, when that common courtesy was not extended to our US civilians. I dont think we owe them shit. Besides, I have never known of a conflict in the history of the world, where only the guilty were served justice and I doubt it will happen any time soon. -rememeber the old saying "war is hell", it's true. Just ask the families of the emps. of the WTC. Hippie

[dansouth]

[quote]Originally posted by Martin O: [b]Yes the Middle East hates us, but do you think it's really because they're 'evil' & 'jealous'?? ... Dan, you can make your point without the insults. If your argument is strong, you don't need insults to bolster it.[/b][/quote] Agreed. And by the same token, can you refrain from making broad, inaccurate, sweeping statements like "the Middle East hates us?" That's like saying "white people hate black people." While it may be true in some instances, it is not an accurate statement.

[masternfool]

I say CLOSE the damn borders to all foreigners till we get things sorted out HERE. These roaches are hiding underground here just waiting amongst the confusion. It will take ALL americans to weed these pests out, not just our military. If they keep F***in with the American people the PEOPLE will eventually take care of the problem ourselves....

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b] It's hard for me to accept the rational of "only punishing those responsible" for the horrific acts of 9/11, when that common courtesy was not extended to our US civilians. I dont think we owe them shit. [/b][/quote] and [quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi [b] We might offend the Muslims ? Who here cares ? They should be begging our forgiveness for offending us. [/b][/quote] It's these kinds of attitudes that gets us in serious shit. Innocent people are innocent people, no matter what side of the fence they are on. The people in the towers did not deserve to die, nor do innocent people in Afghanistan in the name of retaliation, justice or whatever. And it wasn't Muslims or Islam that offended us, it was a group of terrorists who happen to be using ambiguous Fundamentalist Islamic teachings as an excuse. That doesn't make all Muslims responsible. I agree with taking down the Taliban, knocking out the training camps, military establishments, etc., but I still can't agree with innocent people dying. Two wrongs don't make a right. Innocent people are innocent people.

[Martin O]

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b]And by the same token, can you refrain from making broad, inaccurate, sweeping statements like "the Middle East hates us?" That's like saying "white people hate black people." While it may be true in some instances, it is not an accurate statement.[/b][/quote] You're right. I should have said there are SOME people in the middle east that hate us. I felt while I was typing that that I should have been more specific, but I didn't take the time to correct it, as I should have.

[dansouth]

[quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi: [b] Virtually 100% of the deadly terrorist attacks carried out over recent years have been done by ISLAMIC fundamentalists. If noticing that fact tends to give "Islam" a bad name, I am sorry. It is not my fault. It is theirs. [/b][/quote] Sorry to come across as your nemesis, LeiDiLei. I'm sure that you are a nice, well-meaning person, but you do NOT have the facts straight. The statement above is a prime example. You have completely ignored the terrorist acts by Basque separatists in Spain (not Moslems). You have also ignored the bloody violence by separatists in the Chiapas region of Mexico. You have ignored the highly visible IRA in Northern Ireland. You have ignored abortion clinic attacks in the United States. You have ignored the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Kansas City. You have ignored violence against white farmers in South Africa. You've ignored paramilitary "death squads" in Central and South America. You have ignored the Unibomber. You have ignored outbreaks of violence by "skinhead" Neonazi's in Germany and Scandinavia. You have ignored the sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway. You have ignored violence against American blacks and gays by the Klan and other organizations and individuals. You have ignored the Columbine rampage (and similar murderous attacks). And you have ignored the recent anthrax attacks. None of these events were perpretrated by Islamic fundamentalists, with the possible but unlikely exception of the anthrax scare. So how do you justify this statement? "Virtually 100% of the deadly terrorist attacks carried out over recent years have been done by ISLAMIC fundamentalists." This is completely untrue; face it. It's not even CLOSE to the truth. If you have an issue with Islam that's clouding your judgement, I'm sorry, but it behooves you to sort that out. I'm not trying to pick on you, personally. Lots of people feel the same way that you do, but those feelings are based on inaccurate and incomplete information. The truth will make you free. [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: dansouth@yahoo.com ]

[Charlie-brm]

____ My *personal* opinion is that it would be nearly impossible to commit an "atrocity" against anyone supporting the Taliban, since they are the enemy in a time of war. LeiDeLi ______ Well finally you have an opinion instead of the logic of your 'facts'. And the first thing you opine violates the Geneva Convention and common sense. _______ LeiDeLi: ..including the right to express absurdly uninformed opinions on internet forums ? ______ You know squat about just about everyone else here, like we know little about you, but other opinions are absurdly uninformed? Search a few posts; I've served in the military (which means jack in my book), I study history, I've travelled to the middle east and europe, spent days in business and pleasure with central bank officials in the middle east, dealt with the Colt arms agent in Thailand (who was my company's agent at the time of an attempted coup in the '70s), listen to my elders and strive to learn from wiser mentors than myself but what the fuck do I know, right? BTW, all that could be BS, but you don't really know. ___ LeiDeLi: what the world will be like if we DON'T destroy the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. ____ Same as it was last week. Same shit, different bucket. They kicked over the wrong bucket this time.

[LeiDeLi]

[quote]Sorry to come across as your nemesis, LeiDiLei. I'm sure that you are a nice, well-meaning person, but you do NOT have the facts straight. The statement above is a prime example. You have completely ignored the terrorist acts by Basque separatists in Spain.....[/quote} You are correct here. I meant to say "terrorist acts against Americans." I know that terrorist acts of *any type* against *anyone* are atrocities, but frankly, the world is a big place, and there are lots of atrocities that escape our attention because we are not directly involved. But then you go on... [quote]. .....You have ignored abortion clinic attacks in the United States. You have ignored the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Kansas City. You have ignored violence against white farmers in South Africa. You've ignored paramilitary "death squads" in Central and South America. You have ignored the Unibomber.....[/quote] Seriously folks...the Unabomber ? :) One nut killed...4 ? people ? :) He even killed someone in MY CITY, but I never felt terrorized. :) Abortion clinic killings amount to...6 ? Of the world-wide and historical atrocities you cite, the ones against Americans simply add up to nowhere near the WTC+USS Cole+Beirut barracks+Nigerian Embassy. That is how I justify the statement, because I am talking about attacks against Americans...which is my primary concern. Note: That I am not UNconcerned about all the worldwide and historical atrocities which you reach out to include, just that my primary concern is for my own country. [quote] You have ignored outbreaks of violence by "skinhead" Neonazi's in Germany and Scandinavia. You have ignored the sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway. You have ignored violence against American blacks and gays by the Klan and other organizations and individuals. You have ignored the Columbine rampage (and similar murderous attacks). And you have ignored the recent anthrax attacks. None of these events were perpretrated by Islamic fundamentalists, with the possible but unlikely exception of the anthrax scare. So how do you justify this statement?[/quote] See above. So my intended point (which you may have misinterpreted because I did leave out te "against Americans") remains valid. There is a worldwide organization of ISLAMIC terrorists whose avowed goal is to destroy American Society. I am sorry that they are Islamic. I am sorry that they are murdering nutcases. But I can't ignore the fact that they EXIST...And the are able to exist because ISLAMIC fundamentalism is such a widespread movement (even though a minority of Muslims.) These are valid facts. So we have to come back to my secondary point: What motivates people such as yourself to create arguments that reach across the entire world and ancient history to try to find some reason why America is to blame for defending herself forcefully against an organized group of murdering nutcases (who happen to be Islamic) ? If you are arguing that innocent Afghanis are killed in war, then I simply direct your attention to the statistics that on average approx. 300 Afghani citizens were killed each day during Taliban occupation before Sept. 11. Then I also ask you to look at some of the scenes of the rejoicing people in the streets of liberated Kabul ! Don't you trust the Afghans to know when they are dominated and when they are liberated ? Exactly what is your point ? (I am serious...I don't understand the purpose of your line of reasoning.) My point is very simple: All-out war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is fully justified. Once a war is fully justified, the prime directive becomes to win it as soon as possible by invoking overwhelming brutal force. In this way, the length of war is minimized and the suffering of *all parties* involved is actually minimized. In this case, the ISLAMIC fundamentalist groups Al-Qaeda and Taliban are equally guilty enemies through their cooperative and symbiotic relationship. peace, LeiDeLi

[LeiDeLi]

[quote]I agree with taking down the Taliban, knocking out the training camps, military establishments, etc., but I still can't agree with innocent people dying. Two wrongs don't make a right. Innocent people are innocent people. [/quote] If it hasn't been clearly stated: I actually agree with you. See my post above about why winning the war as quickly as possible creates the minimum of suffering (and death) for all. War is very nasty business to be used only as a last resort. Once we are in it, it serves no purpose to whine, wring our hands, and furrow our brows in "deep concern". It serves no purpose to speculate about how bad we are and how we deserved it. That is EXACTLY what the enemy wants. We can both become proper academics again as soon as the enemy is utterly destroyed. Peace, LeiDeLi

[dansouth]

Scoff at the Unabomber. Scoff at the 189 people that Tim McVeigh blew up. Scoff at the 20,000 lives taken by U.S. supported death squads in Nicaragua. No problem, here, apparently, because the perpetrators weren't those nasty Islamic fundamentalists. [b] There is a worldwide organization of ISLAMIC terrorists whose avowed goal is to destroy American Society.[/b] There was a worldwide organization of communists whose avowed goal was to destroy American Society. Should we have nuked countries full of innocent people in order to stave off that threat, or were we wiser to employ intelligence and diplomacy to win over our enemies (who have since adopted many of our political ideals and are proving themselves as valuable allies)? [b]So we have to come back to my secondary point: What motivates people such as yourself to create arguments that reach across the entire world and ancient history to try to find some reason why America is to blame for defending herself forcefully against an organized group of murdering nutcases (who happen to be Islamic) ?[/b] I must have been sleepwalking when I "created" those "arguments." Kindly bring them to my attention so I may review them. [b]If you are arguing that innocent Afghanis are killed in war, then I simply direct your attention to the statistics that on average approx. 300 Afghani citizens were killed each day during Taliban occupation before Sept. 11. Then I also ask you to look at some of the scenes of the rejoicing people in the streets of liberated Kabul ! Don't you trust the Afghans to know when they are dominated and when they are liberated ? Exactly what is your point ? (I am serious...I don't understand the purpose of your line of reasoning.)[/b] My point is that you don't classify all members of a religion as bloodthirsty criminal simply because a few members of that religion have made it a point to attack Americans and American interests. How could that not have been clear in my previous messages? Everyone else got it the first time. [b]My point is very simple: All-out war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is fully justified.[/b] Whether it's justified is for historians to decide, but as a practical matter for our national defense, it is necessary. There's a difference. If, for example, we had defenses that al Qaeda could not penetrate, or if our intelligence could circumvent their schemes reliably, war would no longer be necessary. [b]Once a war is fully justified, the prime directive becomes to win it as soon as possible by invoking overwhelming brutal force. In this way, the length of war is minimized and the suffering of *all parties* involved is actually minimized. In this case, the ISLAMIC fundamentalist groups Al-Qaeda and Taliban are equally guilty enemies through their cooperative and symbiotic relationship.[/b] No, the "prime directive" is to reach your objectives as efficiently as possible. Winning a war implies subjucating the losing country. That is not our objective in this conflict. Rather, we are trying to eradicate a terrorist network that threatens our nation. Defeating the Taliban and capturing al Qaeda's principals is only one small step in the war. Other steps include building global coalitions to make it difficult for such organizations to operate in the future, supporting Afghanistan and other countries financially so that they won't become havens for terrorist groups in the future, increasing international dialog in order to defame the objectives of terrorism and to defuse the social conditions that breed terrorists, and finally, plugging the holes in our domestic security that allowed the snakes to come in in the first place. These objectives can't all be won with bombing raids. Much of this will require an increased understanding of our role in world affairs and a willingness to reach out to our neighbors as friends instead of adversaries.

[Dogfur]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LeiDeLi: [QB] "War is very nasty business to be used only as a last resort. Once we are in it, it serves no purpose to whine, wring our hands, and furrow our brows in "deep concern". The ignorance of this statement says more than I could possibly say to derail this ludicrous train of thought. :( Dogfur

[LeiDeLi]

I think we have both made our viewpoints as clear as they will ever be made. It is obvious that you still do not understand my point. Perhaps I still do not understand yours (although I feel as though I do.) I will make no further points here, leaving you guys with the effective "last word". Thanks, Peace, LeiDeLi

[dansouth]

[quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi: [b]I think we have both made our viewpoints as clear as they will ever be made. It is obvious that you still do not understand my point. Perhaps I still do not understand yours (although I feel as though I do.) I will make no further points here, leaving you guys with the effective "last word". Thanks, Peace, LeiDeLi[/b][/quote] My point is that people should be judged on their own merits, not lumped into groups and attributed the negative traits of some members of that group. People generalize when they don't have enough information; it's better to seek information than to treat innocent people unjustly. As an example, drugs and drug violence kill more Americans than acts of terrorism do. Most of the actors in the drug world are from Christian backgrounds, from the growers to the gangs the the kingpins of organized crime. Is it therefore right to disparage Christians because of the drug problem? If anyone feels misunderstood, please restate your position in a paragraph or two.

[lrossmusic]

[quote]War is very nasty business to be used only as a last resort. [/quote] Agreed. [quote]Once we are in it, it serves no purpose to whine, wring our hands, and furrow our brows in "deep concern". It serves no purpose to speculate about how bad we are and how we deserved it. That is EXACTLY what the enemy wants. We can both become proper academics again as soon as the enemy is utterly destroyed. [/quote] Looking back to the Vietnam situation is enough for me to rule out the idea of blind trust in our government's policies. Since in this situation the possibility of 'utterly destroying' terrorism on the conventional battlefield is highly unlikely, we must question our leadership just like we did then. Again I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the immediate perpetrators but in the long run we can't afford to wait until we reach some imaginary goal before we re-evaluate our policies. Even after bin Laden and his crew have been killed or captured we are still faced with an enormous challenge and one that can not be solved only with military options. It would be nice if we could all be of one accord in these matters but unfortunately given the political complexities of the real world this seems highly unlikely now or ever. Thank God our government includes a system of checks and balances and although some of this can be by-passed during war, constructive criticism even now is still a necessary part in plotting a well thought out future course of actions. [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: lrossmusic ]

[LeiDeLi]

Hi IROSS... Since you are responding to me, I will point out that I agree with many of the principles you stated. But, as with most things, the problem is applying the proper emphasis, at the proper time, in the proper situation. For example: [quote]Looking back to the Vietnam situation is enough for me to rule out the idea of blind trust in our government's policies.[/quote] I am 50 years old. I was 19 at the peak of the Vietnam war. I was also 1-A draft status. (Luckily, I simply wasn't drafted.) I even took part in anti-war demonstrations :) So, I don't know how old you are or what you know about that war and that era, but I can assure you that the situation was **completely different**. The reasons are so compelling and numerous that I won't even start ranting about that unless you really disagree. All I ask you to do is think about it. Also, no one would ever advocate *blind* trust in our government, but geez !...the war has only been going for 6 weeks, and it is in response to the worst atrocity on American soil of all time. Can't we give our elected leaders a little bit of temporary trust in an emergency situation ? :) That is one of the main reasons for a government at all. [quote]Since in this situation the possibility of 'utterly destroying' terrorism on the conventional battlefield is highly unlikely, we must question our leadership just like we did then. [/quote] With the events of recent days, it seems that we are doing a miraculously good job ! :) So again, a little temporary trust ? [quote]Again I'm not saying we shouldn't hunt down the immediate perpetrators but in the long run we can't afford to wait until we reach some imaginary goal before we re-evaluate our policies.[/quote] But that rests on the assumption that our "policies" had something to do with it. That is exactly why it is important to read the Quran. The Islamic Fundamentalist have been preaching hatred of Christians and Jews from long before there was an America, Big Oil, or Israel (Quran written in 600 AD). They just keep coming up with new excuses to blame us for things. If a fanatic is determined to hate you, they will always find a reason. [quote] Even after bin Laden and his crew have been killed or captured we are still faced with an enormous challenge and one that can not be solved only with military options.[/quote] I agree that it cannot be *only* military options. But immediately there is also a dark corner of human psychology that must be faced: when dealing with barbarians, any attempt to "talk" or "negotiate" or be reasonable is simply regarded as weakness....and it enflames their fanatacism (as recent history of Islamic terrorism shows true.) They (as with all barbaric people) only understand and respect one thing: overwhelming force. That being the case, I don't want to have to nursemaid them for 20 years and leave the problem to my children. I want to kill them. Sorry that sounds so blunt and brutal, but it is true. Luckily, it seems that the vast majority of Americans agree with me. [quote]It would be nice if we could all be of one accord in these matters .......constructive criticism even now is still a necessary part in plotting a well thought out future course of actions.[/quote]I agree. I don't think that the naysayers, whose theories rest upon speculation and innuendo instead of facts, are *constructive*. We all want the war to be over ASAP. But I don't want to leave any residue for future generations to have to clean up. Already we see that the Taliban is collapsing, top Al-Qaeda thugs are dead, hostages are freed, and the people of Kabul are rejoicing at their liberation. I think things are successful beyond our greatest hopes. Let's give our military and government a little temporary trust. They may not be perfect (and i didn't vote for Bush) but they are basically very moral people and are doing a great job in the most stressfull situations that anyone can possibly imagine. peace, LeiDeLi

[dansouth]

[quote][b]But that rests on the assumption that our "policies" had something to do with it. That is exactly why it is important to read the Quran. The Islamic Fundamentalist have been preaching hatred of Christians and Jews from long before there was an America, Big Oil, or Israel (Quran written in 600 AD). They just keep coming up with new excuses to blame us for things. If a fanatic is determined to hate you, they will always find a reason.[/b][/quote] When the Qur'an was written, the "infidels" in Saudi Arabia were neither Jews nor Christians. Most Saudis at the time practiced an older religion which has since faded into obscurity. Some of the Jews at Medina questioned Mohammed's views, but Mohammed's biggest detractors were the non-Jewish, non-Christian citizens of his home city of Mecca. This, coupled with the fact that Islam (a) embraces the teachings of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, et al., and (b) is an inclusive, non-disciminatory religion that is open to anyone from any background - one of the reasons why it has prospered in a diverse array of nations - demonstrates how vapid and poorly researched your "preaching hatred of Christians and Jews" argument is. Further, Moslems didn't invade Europe en masse looting and killing Christians, but Christian crusaders took it upon themselves to travel great distances to do wage war on Islam. Your "preaching hatred" idea is a very good description of Catholic institutions such as The Spanish Inquisition. If we convince ourselves that our policies - any policies, at home or abroad - are beyond contempt without the benefit of periodic review, we are destined to face a multitude of troubles. What if we had never examined our policies that excluded women from voting? That supported child labor? That permitted slavery? To argue that policies should not be re-examined in the light of catastrophic events constitutes arrogance and stupidity of the highest order. This does not mean that the terrorist attacks where JUSTIFIED in any way. There is no justification for what happened on September eleventh. But when trouble manifests itself in such a desperate fashion, it behooves us as a society to examine the situation from many perspectives, including our immigration policies, our domestic security systems, and ADDITIONALLY internation situations that give rise to vehement anti-American sentiments. If we ignore the hornets and the circumstances that are stirring them up, we had better not be surprised when they endeavor to sting us on occasion.

[dansouth]

[quote][b]when dealing with barbarians, any attempt to "talk" or "negotiate" or be reasonable is simply regarded as weakness....and it enflames their fanatacism (as recent history of Islamic terrorism shows true.) They (as with all barbaric people) only understand and respect one thing: overwhelming force.[/b][/quote] Israel has been employing "overwhelming force" against the Palestinians since 1947. Today, the situation there is more desperate than ever. In the early part of the twentieth century, the colonial powers of Europe employed "overwhelming force" to carve up the Middle East into the unstable mess that's extant today. One might wonder whether discussions at the outset, discussions with the goal of mutually beneficial solutions, might not have achieved a better result in the long run. (A worse result is difficult to imagine.) Overwhelming force can quickly turn to oppression. Oppressed peoples resort to desperate measures. The equation gets ugly very quickly. There's no correllation between negotiation and weakness. Negotition requires more strength and more resolve than violence, because it mandates being able to see the conflict from your adversary's point of view. That's why our prisons are full of feeble minded individuals who lashed out instead of employing the discipline and conviction to work out their difficulties with others. That's why Ghandi and Mandela are seen as exemplary human beings, while Hitler and Stalin are seen as monsters. Overwhelming force only works in the short term. Lasting change, and lasting peace, is a product of policies that provide for the mutual benefit. How can mutual benefit ever be achieved without negotiation?

[LeiDeLi]

Well, once again DANSOUTH, I can't possibly respond to all your contentions which are simply wrong and inaccurate, except by urging anyone who is doubtful of our arguments to check the factual references that I have repeatedly begged you to consult. For example, you say: [quote]When the Qur'an was written, the "infidels" in Saudi Arabia were neither Jews nor Christians.[/quote] Well here is what the Quran actually says. There are three translations of this one passage, so as to make sure that it is not just a mistranslation or taken out of some other context. [quote] Book 5 Verse 51 I YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. II PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. III SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [/quote] So you can see that Christians and Jews are singled out specifically. This is just one example of many, so just check it out. I don't understand why you persist in spouting your preconceived philosophies, which bear no relation to fact, when it would be much easier to simply consult some factual references, even if you don't believe me. Maybe you just enjoy arguing on internet forums ? :) Peace, LeiDeLi

[LeiDeLi]

[quote]Israel has been employing "overwhelming force" against the Palestinians since 1947. Today, the situation there is more desperate than ever.[/quote] In case you haven't noticed, Israel still EXISTS. The goal of many in the Arab world is to deny them existence at all. So to persist in existance is a victory for them. True, it is *far* from ideal, but the have persisisted in their goal to exist. If they did not resist forcefully, they would have been overrun long ago (don't you read the papers ?) Also, in case you haven't noticed, Israel is the only democracy on the Arabian penninsula, and the only reasonably prosperous economy. I agree wholeheartedly that the final solution should be based on negotiations. But first, there has to be a *basis* for negotiations, such as a recognition of the right to *exist*, and a cessation of suicide bombings and occupations by both sides (I consider them *both* dangerously close to barbarians....but the Palestinians have the "Islamic Fundamentalist" factor dragging them slightly lower.) That is why now, even with Yassir calling for peace, the bombings and snipings continue. Peace, LeiDeLi [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: LeiDeLi ]

[lrossmusic]

(on my comparison to Vietnam) [quote] ,,,,but I can assure you that the situation was **completely different**. The reasons are so compelling and numerous that I won't even start ranting about that unless you really disagree. [/quote] I favor our military action in this situation as far as going after the culprits but like during the Vietnam war I question our government's involvement in Mid-Eastern (Southeast Asian) affairs in general. This is the particular similarity I was referring to. I did not mean that the reasons for both wars are the same. >Since in this situation the possibility of 'utterly destroying' terrorism on the conventional battlefield is highly unlikely, we must question our leadership just like we did then.< [quote] With the events of recent days it seems that we are doing a miraculously good job! [/quote] It's yet to be seen that our success in removing the Taliban will have the desired effect in diminishing the frequency of further terrorist strikes. As Ashcroft fails not to remind us the opposite might be even more closer to the truth at least for the time being. Even when we do eventually kill or capture bin Laden and his crew, we will be nowhere near "utterly destroying' terrorism. Furthermore, from the information we are now learning about, it appears nothing short of a miracle will be needed to get us out of what appears to be some very questionable entanglements in this part of the world. [quote] But that rests on the assumption that our "policies" had something to do with it. That is exactly why it is important to read the Quran. The Islamic Fundamentalist have been preaching hatred of Christians and Jews from long before there was an America, Big Oil, or Israel (Quran written in 600 AD). They just keep coming up with new excuses to blame us for things. If a fanatic is determined to hate you, they will always find a reason. [/quote] We are definitely at a disadvantage in accurately diagnosing what's really going on because we don't have access to all the facts. On the other hand we have no choice but to gather as much information as we can and not "assume' that even that is accurate. I haven't had a chance to consult anyone about the Quran who is as knowledgeable as you imply that you are so I can't debate it's content but I have a small booklet published by the Islamic Affairs Department of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington DC. In it under the heading "What Do Muslims Think About Jesus?' it reads; “Muslims respect and revere Jesus, and await his Second Coming. They consider him one of the greatest messengers to mankind. The Quran confirms his virgin birth ( a chapter in the Quaran is entitled "Mary” ) and Mary is considered the purest woman in all creation.” (under another heading it also reads) The Quran says: God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loves those who are just. (Quran,60:8) Is the Embassy of Saudi Arabia referring to the same Quran as you ? I could be wrong but I'm more inclined to "assume' that the embassy people are closer to the correct interpretation than I am inclined to "assume " that you are. [quote] I agree that it cannot be *only* military options. But immediately there is also a dark corner of human psychology that must be faced: when dealing with barbarians, any attempt to "talk" or "negotiate" or be reasonable is simply regarded as weakness....and it enflames their fanatacism (as recent history of Islamic terrorism shows true.) They (as with all barbaric people) only understand and respect one thing: overwhelming force. That being the case, I don't want to have to nursemaid them for 20 years and leave the problem to my children. I want to kill them. Sorry that sounds so blunt and brutal, but it is true. Luckily, it seems that the vast majority of Americans agree with me. [/quote] The vast majority of people everywhere want the culprits to be caught and sentenced to death. Unfortunately however our problem is not limited to these hardcore fundamentalists who committed this barbaric act. The very real potential of future young minds being swayed towards terrorism in part because of injustices supported by the U.S.government seems to guarantee that our children and grandchildren will inherit an even worse nightmare. [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: lrossmusic ]

[LeiDeLi]

[quote]In it under the heading ‘What Do Muslims Think About Jesus?’ it reads; “Muslims respect and revere Jesus, and await his Second Coming. They consider him one of the greatest messengers to mankind. The Quran confirms his virgin birth ( a chapter in the Quaran is entitled ‘Mary” and Mary is considered the purest woman in all creation.”[/quote] I will reiterate: 1. It is not all Islam, it is the FUNDAMENTALISTS who are the problem. 2. Although a minority, it is a SIGNIFICANT minority of Islam. Much larger than, say, the KKK in Christianity. 3. The reason it is a significant minority is because the PASSAGES THAT SUPPORT HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE QURAN. So even "moderate" Muslims who are not fundamentalist have read them, heard them, and have a much greater degree of tolerance for the fundamentalists than, say, Christians tolerate the KKK or white supremicists. It is more akin to tolerating Jerry Falwell :) 4. Factual evidence: The two single most popular baby names among Muslims in the past 10 years are "Mohammed" and "Osama" (source: CNN) 5. Now that frightens me ! ;0 LeiDeLi

[lrossmusic]

[quote]3. The reason it is a significant minority is because the PASSAGES THAT SUPPORT HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE QURAN. [/quote] As soon as I can catch up with some of my Muslim friends I will run this past them and see what their take on it is. Then maybe I can discuss this particular point a little better. [ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: lrossmusic ]

[LeiDeLi]

Hey Irossmusic: If you have some Muslim friends, why not invite them here to discuss this directly ? I *wish* I knew some Muslims to help straighten this out. I was actually quite shocked by reading the Qur'an. (Yes, I was also shocked by the Old Testament.) A good bit of the difference comes from the literary styles. In the OT, the scenes of ancient barbarism are clearly described as historical and applying to a particular situation (whether you believe them or not). The Qur'an is just a long, open-ended and disorganized rant. By doctrine, it is the direct, literal word of God. But the voice shifts constantly from God Himself, to Mohammed talking about God, to pronouncements that "We shall ....." with the subject of the sentences being indeterminate. Check it out ! Peace, LeiDeli

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi [b] I am 50 years old. I was 19 at the peak of the Vietnam war. I was also 1-A draft status. (Luckily, I simply wasn't drafted.) I even took part in anti-war demonstrations [/b][/quote] and [quote] Originally posted by LeiDeLi (in an earlier thread) [b]I am a 51 year old Vietnam veteran. [/b][/quote] I'm a little confused here...which statement is more true? I'm not attempting to make a personal attack, just curious... :) [ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: 'rold ]