.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Yuusha
-
Posts
7 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Yuusha
-
-
@Tigranes:
So you think you have an objective and unbiased view of US foreign policy and Muslim fighters? You don't, and I don't. While for practical reasons it is pedantic to argue about some sort of 'true' objectivity (go postmodernism!), to assume that you or anyone are infallibly on that pedestal is dangerous in any argument.I partially agree with you. I do tend to not be as 'passionate' discussing Muslim terrorists as I am discussing the US foreign policy. But that still doesn't change the fact that most Muslims here in Indonesia (myself included) CONDEMN terrorism. Why? Because terrorism directly violates key principle teachings of Islam. Now I may understand the reason for terrorism commited by Muslim terrorist but I do not justify it. Understanding terrorism and justifying it are two different things. And I'd like to think I'm smart enough to know the difference.
Besides which, why does he have to learn to be objective or whatever, before you give your opinions on Muslim fighters? Why can't you just give your view first if you have one, because this isn't some sort of school or one-upmanship, right? If the most important thing is the debate and its points, then why not tell us what you think?Because he never seemed to get the idea that I do not support terrorism.
Your original post (with the a-bomb photos) - irrespective of whether I think you are right or wrong - is an independent opinion on US foreign policy, and it can't be somehow manipulated to express a comparative analysis between US foreign policy and Muslim fighters. Let's assume that I fully agree with you that US foreign policy has resulted in many unbelievable acts of 'terrorism', and they are truly despicable occurrences. Right? So, how does that relate to a small minority of Muslims in the Middle East right now that are killing people, kidnapping people, bombing things, so on? What are you trying to say? That compared to US' atrocities, Muslim terrorism is nothing? That is a completely illogical non-point. It doesn't matter if the US blew up an entire planet with a-bombs in 1945, why should that influence how acceptable or tolerable Muslim 'terrorism' is right now? Or are you trying to say US should get out of there and leave the Middle East alone because US isn't any better, they're worse? This isn't about one-upmanship. This isn't about "which country is cleaner" or "which country is more benevolent". You can't just say "US is worse!!!!!" and expect that to be a conclusive remark about the state of the world today.The A bomb was, or is, a controversy. Some may agree and some may not. However, I am troubled by the fact that the deployment of the bomb may have not been necessary. As the following passage will suggest.
US responses to dropping the A bomb on Japan.
"...the greatest thing in history."
- Harry S. Truman
President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
But then, that was a major presupposition of what your argument might be, because your original post didn't develop that at all. You stopped on "US is bad man, do you guys realise?". So where are you trying to go from after that? What is the US and the Western world supposed to do in regards to the conflict in the Middle East and why?Well I was actually on my way to post this:
USA Vetoes on UN resolutions:
- 1972, Condemning Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
- 1973, Condemning Israel for attacking Lebanese civillians.
- 1976, Condemning South Africa's attempt to impose APARTHEID on Namibia.
- 1976, Calling for the admission of Vietnam to the UN.
- 1977, Condemning the apartheid situationin South Africa.
- 1978, Condemning the Israeli human rights record.
- 1978, Critical of the living conditions of the Palestine.
- 1978, Urging the permanent members of the security council (USA, USSR, UK, China, France) to ensure the UN decision on peace and security.
- 1978, Calling for developed countries to quality and quantity of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
- 1979, Concerning negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
- 1979, Demanding that Israel desist from human rights violation.
- 1979, Requesting a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
- 1979, Offering assistance to the Palestinian people.
- 1979, For a United Nations Conference on woman.
- 1979. To include Palestinian women on the UN conference of women.
- 1980, Condemning Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinians.
- 1980, Condemning Israeli human rights practises in occupied territories.
- 1980, Emphasizing that development of nations and individuals is a human right.
- 1980, Calling for an end to nuclear tests.
- 1981, Affirming the right of every nation to choose its economic and social system in accordance to the will of its people, without outside interference whatever form it may take.
- 1981, Urging negotiations on prohibitions of chemical and biological weapons.
- 1981, Declaring that education, work, healthcare, proper nourishment and national development are human rights.
- 1981, Condemning an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
- 1981, Establishing rights of the Palestinian people.
- 1981, Concerning Israelis human rights violation in occupied territories.
- 1982, Condemning the Israelis invasion of Lebanon.
- 1982, Condemning the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerussalem by an Israeli soldier.
- 1982, To promote international actions against Apartheid.
- 1982, Calls for establishing a world charter on the protection of the ecology.
- 1982, For the nuclear test bans and negitiations and nuclear free outerspace.
- 1982, Prohibiting chemical and bacterilogical weapons.
- 1982, Against product harmful to the environment and health.
- 1983, Prevention of arms race in outerspace. No wonder the Death Star was built.
- 1983, Prohibiting the manufacturing of new weapons of mass destruction.
- 1983, Reversing the arms race.
- 1984, On elimination of discrimination.
- 1984, Affirming the rights of the Palestinian people.
- 1984, Prohibiting new types of WMD's.
- 1984, Condemning assasination attempts against Palestinian mayor.
- 1984, Proposing economic assistance for Palestine.
- 1985, Condemning Israel for the use of excessive force in occupied territories.
- 1986, Calling all governments (USA included) to observe international laws.
- 1986, Condemning Israel for its actions against the Lebanese.
- 1986, Calling for Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
- 1987, Calling for Israel to abide by the geneva convention in treating its prisoners.
- 1987, Opposing build up of weapons in outerspace.
- 1987, Opposing the development of new WMD's.
- 1987, Opposing nuclear testing.
- 1989, Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
- 2001, Condemning Israel for acts of terror in occupied territories.
If you look closely, the US 'seem' to favor the Israelis. So you'll understand if I want the US out of Iraq ASAP.
1. Are you saying U.N. Peacekeeping troops and missions are acutally more successful than U.S. troops in bringing 'peace' to the Middle East? Or just a question of legitimacy? If the former, what is the evidence?2. What will the cessation of bombing and patrol of Iraq do for peace? Will Iraq just become a peace-land if everything American goes away?
3. Sure.
1. The US vetoed the UN resolution of sending multinational peacekeeping troops to Iraq. There's no way to tell who will do better. I'll just have to take the US' word for it.
2. Oh yes!
3. Sure.
- 1972, Condemning Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
-
@GreasyDogMeat:
Never said I was trying to descredit you, I don't even know what credit you have. You sound like you are attempting to justify terrorism when you go on and on about US foreign policy and the so called 'real terrorism' of WWII. Talk about muslim terrorists... and you just talk about it. Talk about US policies and you go on paragraph long rants.Tell you what. When you start talking about the US foreign policy and its implications objectively and unbiasedly, I'll give you my insight on Muslim terrorists. How bout it?
Your very first post in a forum about ISLAMIC extremism is about... WWII bombings... then another post, which you just quoted which sure as hell sounds like a vague attempt at justification. "THEY MUST HAVE A REASON FOR DOING IT!". Then another huge rant about US foreign policy. You may not be supporting it, but it sure as hell doesn't seem to uppset you as much as the big bad ol' USA.To one as limited as you perhaps. I mean how many times do I have to say it? I DO NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM.
-
Terror is not a spontaneous human action without credence. People just dont hijack planes and commit harikari (suicide) without any weight of thought to the action. No one in the media seems to ask WHY DID THESE PEOPLE DO THIS HORRIFIC ACT OF VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION?
This does not mean that we should not find the guilty party(s), Bin Laden, or whoever they may be, and not try them. Put simply, as long as a major injustice remains, violence precipitates to the surface of life.
"Why not emphasize with the KKK? Surely those blacks did SOMETHING to deserve those lynchings. It wasn't after all, spontaneous human action without credence. Come on... the KKK can't be all bad... it must have SOME valid reasons, just like the Islamofascists... right guys??"
@GreasyDogMeat: Terrorism is not something that CAN or SHOULD be justified. I never said that I supported terrorism. And I sure as hell don't support the KKK/Black Panther or racism in general. If you're trying to discredit me, try harder.
-------
Regarding the A bomb, any of you guys think it's worth a topic of its own?
-
I never said I was offended. I was just saying that from a Muslim's point of view, you're understanding of Jihad is only half true.
But believe whatever rethoric you wish. It does not matter in the end. :sad: It's not like I can defend myself here.
-
Stop talking politics. Lest you wanna get this thread locked by the 'great' FIONAVAR!
Man I hate tyrants!
-
That's a nice shirt.
-
Woulda been cool if KOTOR 2 played like Fable. A Jedi has 'needs' to y'know.
-
USA Vetoes of UN Resolutions.
The USA has the power to veto UN resolutions. What follows is an incomplete list of some of the resolutions the USA has vetoed.
- 1972, Condemning Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
- 1973, Condemning Israel for attacking Lebanese civillians.
- 1976, Condemning South Africa's attempt to impose APARTHEID on Namibia.
- 1976, Calling for the admission of Vietnam to the UN.
- 1977, Condemning the apartheid situationin South Africa.
- 1978, Condemning the Israeli human rights record.
- 1978, Critical of the living conditions of the Palestine.
- 1978, Urging the permanent members of the security council (USA, USSR, UK, China, France) to ensure the UN decision on peace and security.
- 1978, Calling for developed countries to quality and quantity of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
- 1979, Concerning negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
- 1979, Demanding that Israel desist from human rights violation.
- 1979, Requesting a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupies Arab countries.
- 1979, Offering assistance to the Palestinian people.
- 1979, For a United Nations Conference on woman.
- 1979. To include Palestinian women on the UN conference of women.
- 1980, Condemning Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinians.
- 1980, Condemning Israeli human rights practises in occupied territories.
- 1980, Emphasizing that development of nations and individuals is a human right.
- 1980, Calling for an end to nuclear tests.
- 1981, Affirming the right of every nation to choose its economic and social system in accordance to the will of its people, without outside interference whatever form it may take.
- 1981, Urging negotiations on prohibitions of chemical and biological weapons.
- 1981, Declaring that education, work, healthcare, proper nourishment and national development are human rights.
- 1981, Condemning an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
- 1981, Establishing rights of the Palestinian people.
- 1981, Concerning Israelis human rights violation in occupied territories.
- 1982, Condemning the Israelis invasion of Lebanon.
- 1982, Condemning the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerussalem by an Israeli soldier.
- 1982, To promote international actions against Apartheid.
- 1982, Calls for establishing a world charter on the protection of the ecology.
- 1982, For the nuclear test bans and negitiations and nuclear free outerspace.
- 1982, Prohibiting chemical and bacterilogical weapons.
- 1982, Against product harmful to the environment and health.
- 1983, Prevention of arms race in outerspace. No wonder the Death Star was built.
- 1983, Prohibiting the manufacturing of new weapons of mass destruction.
- 1983, Reversing the arms race.
- 1984, On elimination of discrimination.
- 1984, Affirming the rights of the Palestinian people.
- 1984, Prohibiting new types of WMD's.
- 1984, Condemning assasination attempts against Palestinian mayor.
- 1984, Proposing economic assistance for Palestine.
- 1985, Condemning Israel for the use of excessive force in occupied territories.
- 1986, Calling all governments (USA included) to observe international laws.
- 1986, Condemning Israel for its actions against the Lebanese.
- 1986, Calling for Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
- 1987, Calling for Israel to abide by the geneva convention in treating its prisoners.
- 1987, Opposing build up of weapons in outerspace.
- 1987, Opposing the development of new WMD's.
- 1987, Opposing nuclear testing.
- 1989, Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
- 2001, Condemning Israel for acts of terror in occupied territories.
This is some of the reason why more and more people hate the USA everyday. People worldwide hate the US because they have been given a good reason to do so. Given these facts, the US Government continues to display acts of arrogance, ignorance and intrusion into other nations.
I hope this brief explanation has helped you understand why more and more people continue to hate the USA.
People from the countries of the world are forming massive alliances that includes a greater population than the American population 5 times over.
It could be said that KARMA is beginning to pay America a visit.
- 1972, Condemning Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
-
@Meshugger: US responses to dropping the A bomb on Japan.
"...the greatest thing in history."
- Harry S. Truman
President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-
"Bodies" by Drowning Pool! Awesome song!! A good song to listen to when you're preparin for an all out brawl. It builds tension.
-
@Tale: LOL!!! Oh man that's funny as hell.....
You really live up to your rep as the forum's jester.
One more thing, if this thread is really gonna get locked I suggest you do so before I start posting the list of the US vetoes of the UN resolutions.
-
Ok, let's continue where we left off shall we.
HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
In 1945, America became the first and only nation to use atomic weapons against another nation, when it bombed Hiroshima & Nagasaki. A commitee had been established to determine targets for the bombs. Their reasons for their particular target: A Military target would not be sufficient, because a large urban area would be missed. (TERRORISM). I mean they could've dropped the A bomb on the goddamn ocean for pete's sake! Why'd they have to choose a city? Hiroshima was chosen because it was a densely populated area, and the surrounding hills would have a focusing effect thus maximizing the destructive force. As many as 150.000 people may have been killed in Hiroshima and possibly 75.00 in Nagasaki. That's like 100 times worse than 9/11. Many generals regretted the event but that still doesn't change the fact that the US unleashed armageddon on Japan.
Military coups
The USA has been responsible for the removal of many democratically elected governments. An incomplete list follows:
- 1949 Syria. The elected government was pro Palestinian and against the USA
- 1949 Greece: Elected government was against the US business interest.
- 1952 Cuba. Elected government was against the US business interest.
- 1953 Iran. Elected government was against the US oil interest.
- 1953 British Guyana. USA wanted access to sugar and bauxite.
- 1954 Guatemala. Elected government was against the US business interest.
- 1955 South Vietnam. French backed leader was replaced by USA backed leader.
- 1957 Haiti. Elected government was against the US business in terest.
- 1958 Laos. Pro USA government wanted.
- 1960 Ecuador. Government against USA business interest.
- 1963 Honduras. Access to resources.
- 1964 Brazil. Access to resources and cheap labour.
- 1965 Zaire. Access to Cobalt, diamnonds and copper.
- 1970 Bolivia. Country took ownership of its oil and tin.
- 1972 Ecuador. Government was against USA business interest.
- 1973 Chile. Government against USA business interest.
- 2002 Venezuela. Foreign policy of the elected government.
- 2004 Haiti. Foreign policy of the elected government.
Military Intervention
The USA has bombed more countries than any other nation. The reasons presented in American media have ranged from communism to fundemantalism to weapons of terrorism.
Never is the question asked: "Does the USA have the right to dictate the behaviour of other nations?"
- 1949 Syria. The elected government was pro Palestinian and against the USA
-
@Laozi: I don't hate AMERICANS. What I hate is the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
And what do you mean by 'being exposed' to an American?
-
@Laozi: I'll get back to you on that....
I ain't done yet. There still so much I've yet to post.
-
Why do people worldwide increasingly continue to hate America? Here is a humble presentation to help Americans understand why.
Percentage of Muslims who view the US unfavorably:
- Saudi Arabia: 79%
- Jordan 65%
- Morocco: 49%
- Indonesia: 62%
Views from non muslim countries:
- 2/3 of Russians reagard the USA's invasion of Iraq is a greater threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear ambition.
- A recent poll showed that 40% of Canadian teens agreed that the US is a force of evil
- Among Quebec teens, this number reached 64%.
What is America?
On the worldwide stage, America is not understood in terms of citizens because people in other countries simply do not know them. If they do, they may even like them. America is also not defined by the principles its citizens believe in, because other people do not see these principles in action. America in global context, is defined by its actions on the international stage. What America has done on the international stage is what defines who or what America is.
Do I hate America?
If America is the Principles of America, then I DO NOT, because it stands for PEACE, FREEDOM and JUSTICE. Red, White and Blue just like the American flag.
If America is the sum of its citizen, then I DO NOT, because I honestly have friends and family who are American.
But if America is defined by its actions, then only an ignorant or immoral person would support its foreign policy.
Frequently Asked Questions.
"Don't they hate America because they hate FREEDOM?"
Mr Bush made this arguement: Many other nations are more free than the US but are not hated.
"Don't they hate America because we are powerful?"
If Canada became the most powerful nation overnight, the US would still be hated, and Canada would still be loved. Besides, true power serves, it does not enslave.
People who hate the USA worldwide do so because they are the victims of the US' aggresive and biased foreign policy. Or because they are aware of the unethical behaviour of the USA and are strongly against it. The actions of the USA worldwide are often hard to see as anything but immoral.
"Then why don't Americans know about it?"
"If America is so evil, why don't Americans know about it?"
"Isn't there a free press in America?"
"Wouldn't independent journalists cover these stories?"
While there is a free and independent press, the media is still subject to various pressures. Before a story reaches print, it must progress through a number of stages. During which it is subject to economic, social and political pressures. When a story finally reaches a reader, it has been distorted heavily in accordance with the vested interests of various individuals and systems. There is an inherent bias in the system towards corporate and national interests.
Therefore, the average American does not have an accurate picture of their country's activities on the international stage. For a detailed analysis on the unquestionable bias on American media, read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Conscent."
"What specifically has America done to cause so many people to hate them?"
One word:
TERRORISM!
Yeah that's right. TERRORISM.
Terrorism (OE): a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted, the employment of method of intimidation.
- Saudi Arabia: 79%
-
@Meshugger: Sun Tzu once said, and I qoute: "A diamond is still valuable even if it did come out the rear end of a flea ridden dog." Meaning that even if I were to reference a homeless bum for my arguement, what does it matter so long as what he/she said is true.
Believe it or not, I DON'T hate the american people. At least not all of them. The only reason I keep replying to this thread is because of the seemingly biased views of some of the members here. As a Muslim, I feel obligated to kinda set the record straight.
-
@Krookie: LOL! Pretzels huh? LOL!
But seriously man, you really wanna know?
-
Is it possible to seduce both the handmaiden and Visas?
-
@Meshugger: Umm... What was your point again?
Ok I'll play along, I won't mention the a bomb no more. You know what they say about hindsight. But I will say this: America is being targeted by terrorists for a reason. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that terrorism can be justified in anyway. But it CAN be understood and possibly prevented, providing the US government is willing to alter their immoral and aggresive foreign policy. What gets me though, is the fact that the average American don't know the real reason as to why the US is hated by more and more people everyday.
"Oh they hate us because they hate freedom."
"Oh they hate us because we're powerful."
"Oh they hate us because we are the champion of justice."
Yeah right....
-
@Kaftan Barlast: Yeah you do that. Ignorance is bliss after all.
-
An essay by Serj Tankian of the band System of a Down.
The brutal attacks/bombings this week in New York, and Washington D.C., along with threats of attacks there and elsewhere in the country have changed our times forever. While the mass media concentrates on the details of the destruction, and the blanketed words of politicians, I will attempt to understand and explain the events from the fence. BOMBING AND BEING BOMBED ARE THE SAME THINGS ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE FENCE.
Terror is not a spontaneous human action without credence. People just dont hijack planes and commit harikari (suicide) without any weight of thought to the action. No one in the media seems to ask WHY DID THESE PEOPLE DO THIS HORRIFIC ACT OF VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION?
To be able to understand the answer to this, we must first look at our U.S. Mideast Policy. During most of the 20th century, U.S. businesses have worked on attaining oil rights and concessions from countries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. After WWI, secret back door deals by our State Dept. yielded oil rights from then defeated Turkey to fields in what is now Iraq and Saudi Arabia, in return for looking the other way at a crime against humanity, the Genocide of the Armenians by the Turks. Oil profits have been the motivating factors behind many attempts at counterinsurgency of democratic regimes by the CIA and the U.S in the Middle East (such as Iran in the 1950s, where the Shah replaced the Prime Minister who refused to give up oil rights to the U.S., and since the people couldnt deal with the Shah, an extremist government headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini ultimately prevailed). During the Iran-Iraq war, America supplied both sides with weapons and advice. These are not the actions of a rich superpower wanting peace. Lets not forget that Saddam Hussein, before being Americas vision of the Anti-Christ, was a close ally of the U.S., and the CIA. So what was the firm belief system of consecutive American administrations that caused all this to occur ? PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST WILL LEAD TO HIGHER OIL AND GASOLINE PRICES. Lets not also forget the power of the Arms industry, disguised as defense, that still sells billions of dollars of weapons to the area. Therefore it has not been in the short-term economic interest of the U.S. to foster Peace in the Middle East. Using the above reasoning, the U.S. has encouraged extremist governments, toppled democracies, as in the case of Iran to replace it with a monarchy, rigged elections, and many more unspeakable political crimes for U.S. businesses abroad. Lets not also forget the Red Scare. During the war between the then Soviet Union and Afghanistan, the U.S. armed and supported the Taliban, a fundamentalist Muslim organization, and allowed them to export opium and heroin out of their country to pay for those weapons. Therefore the Taliban rose to power and control with the help of the U.S.A. Today, the bombing of Iraq still continues, no longer covered by the media, the economic embargo still remains, killing millions of children, and recently, while the world and the U.N. General Assembly have cried out to bring in peacekeeping forces into Israel and Palestine, to end the escalated war and recent assassinations, the U.S. has vetoed the rest of the Security Council and has halted the possibility of peace, there, in the most volatile place in the world.
People in Serbia, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan to name a few have seen bombs fall, not always at military targets and kill innocent civilians, as the scene in New York city yesterday. The wars waged by our government in our names has landed smack in the middle of our living room. The half hour of destruction closed down all world financial markets, struck the central headquarters of our military, and had our leaders running into bunkers, and our citizens into fear and frenzy. What scares me more than what has occurred is what our reactions to the occurrences may cause. President Bush belongs to a long generation of Republican Presidents who love war economies. The media has only concentrated on the bombings, if you will, and what type of retaliations are looming for the perpetrators. What everyone fails to realize is that the bombings are a reaction to existing injustices around the world, generally unseen to most Americans. To react to a reaction would be to further sponsor the reaction. In other words, my belief is that the terror will multiply if concrete steps are not taken to sponsor peace in the middle east, NOW. This does not mean that we should not find the guilty party(s), Bin Laden, or whoever they may be, and not try them. Put simply, as long as a major injustice remains, violence precipitates to the surface of life.
Native American folklore, the Bible, Nostradamus, and many other major religious beliefs point to this era with the visuals of yesterdays disasters, and conditions of ecological disasters we experience daily in our lives today. War, rumors of war, famine, long burning fires, etc., are at our doorstep. We can prevail over this possible vision with the power of the human spirit, understanding, compassion, and peace. ITS TIME TO PUT OUR NEEDS FOR SECURITY AND SURVIVAL, ACHIEVED ONLY THROUGH PEACE, ABOVE AND BEYOND PROFITS, ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES.
SOLUTION:
The U.S. should stop sidestepping the U.N. Security Council, and allow U.N. Peacekeeping troops and missions to the Middle East. Stop the violence first.
Stop the bombing and patrol of Iraq.
With todays gains in the use of alternative fuels, develop them to full usage with autos and other utilities, to make the country less dependant on an already depleting natural reserve, oil.
By initiating peace, we would have already shaken the foundations of support for Bin Laden, and/or all those that sponsor activities like those we saw yesterday, and break the stronghold of extremists on the world of Islam. On the other hand, if we carry out bombings on Afghanistan or elsewhere to appease public demand, and very likely kill innocent civilians along the way, wed be creating many more martyrs going to their deaths in retaliation against the retaliation. As shown from yesterdays events, you cannot stop a person whos ready to die.
-
This brings me toa further point - can we be sure that all suicide bombers are actually knowingly suicide bombers?
Terror is not a spontaneous human action without credence. People just dont hijack planes and commit harakiri (suicide) without any weight of thought to the action. No one here (heck no one in the media) seems to ask WHY DID THESE PEOPLE DO THIS HORRIFIC ACT OF VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION?
-
I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm just pointing out a certain american-related bloody event that happened in the past.
-
Unbelievable... You guys are truly mindless masses brainwashed by the american government.
You wanna know what terror is? Lemme show ya:
On August 6, 1945, 8.15 am, the uranium atom bomb exploded 580 metres above the city of Hiroshima with a blinding flash, creating a giant fireball and sending surface temperatures to 4,000C. Fierce heat rays and radiation burst out in every direction, unleashing a high pressure shockwave, vaporising tens of thousands of people and animals, melting buildings and streetcars, reducing a 400-year-old city to dust.
Housewives and children were incinerated instantly or paralysed in their daily routines, their internal organs boiled and their bones charred into brittle charcoal.
Now that's terrorism!!!
interview with a jihadi
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Jeez, do I have to spell everything out for you guys? Can't you read between the lines?
Fine I'll elaborate on my last post. But it's 9 PM here in Jakarta, I gotta catch some z's. I'll continue this tomorrow. You have my word.