interview with a jihadi

[Guard Dog]

[We should never underestimate the use of rhetoric. After all, one can easily change it to the other side of the coin. For example:

 

"The Wehrmacht surrendered after the death of Hitler, but there were still 2 million soldiers at the front and a lot of the German population left. It took 2 nukes to break our resolve. Not one, but 2 (TWO!) nukes to break our resolve. That is the extension of the Japanese spirit! Name any other civilization before and after that had such strength, determination, disciple, self-sacrifice and resolve that it scared the enemy to 'drop the bomb' twice. Walk proud men, for every other nation will follow the land of the rising sun when it comes to the strength of the human spirit."

Who said that?

 

I did.

 

I just wanted to point out that one should be careful with ones rhetoric, especially when talking about 'the bomb'.

 

Oh man did I walk into that one.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Yuusha]

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.

[Tale]

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." - Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisers

"a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." - Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945

"If a means is justified by an end, the use of the atomic bomb was justified for it brought Japan to her knees and ended the horrible war. If the war had gone longer, without the use of the atomic bomb, how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessely died and suffer ...?" - Philippine justice Delfin Jaranillla, member of the Tokyo tribunal

"I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy." - Japan's first defense minister Fumio Kyuma, who is from Nagasaki, in 2007

"It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime." - Emperor mo'frackin bloody Hirohito

Edited August 1, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

Game, Set, Match. Tale wins!

[GreasyDogMeat]

@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.

 

Why the hell should I start talking about US foreign policy here... that is NOT the topic and we have gone far enough off topic discussing WWII nuclear bombs. I really can't believe some of you can't see the difference between racist physchotic jihadi targetting women and children for the spreading of terror, destruction of jews and hatred of any religious differences to a military act used to END a war and PREVENT further deaths of military ground actions.

 

Limited as me?? Only because you limit my ability to judge your viewpoint by constantly shifting focus off of muslim extremism. It would be like me barging into a discussion of the atrocities of the KKK and giving statistics of black crime. Yeah, it is awful that large percentage of blacks have commited crimes, but what was the point of posting those statistics?? Maybe you somehow feel the KKK is justified. That is all you have been doing, shifting focus and making obvious 'I can sorta understand extremist (lynching)... but those crazy American pig dogs, (the blacks) they are just WAY out there! Look at this massive list of things they have done! Oh, and I really have nothing against the US (blacks)... really I don't!'.

[Walsingham]

Hold on, GDM, I think you're getting too het up with Yuusha. Fwiiw I don't think he's advocating anything close to terrorism. And you can hardly accuse me of being forgiving on this topic!

 

Thsi is an opportunity to get an insight into Indonesian views on the subject from educated mature chap. So let's keep it civil if possible.

[Guard Dog]

Hold on, GDM, I think you're getting too het up with Yuusha. Fwiiw I don't think he's advocating anything close to terrorism. And you can hardly accuse me of being forgiving on this topic!

 

Thsi is an opportunity to get an insight into Indonesian views on the subject from educated mature chap. So let's keep it civil if possible.

 

I'm not sure about that one Wals. Yushaa's first contribution to this board was a four page rant on how much he hates the US, and how much better the world would be if all Americans just went out and shot ourselves. (my words not his). He then tried to give a shred of legitimacy to that by backing it up with "facts" that were either false on their face or presented so out of context they are worthless. Everything GDM posted was correct even if it was not nice.

 

Which brings up the massive double standard around here when it comes to nationality bashing that I for one am getting a little sick of. But that is a topic for another thread.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Guard Dog

[GreasyDogMeat]

I'm trying not to sound rude, but he keeps making statements that my views are 'limited', asking to discuss US foreign policy, which I really don't see as relevant to the OP's article. Unless of course he is blaming us for their extremist views, attempting to justify their actions, or trying to make them look small fry in comparison to supposed US attrocities.

 

The thing is, whether it is Christian extremist terrorists bombing abortion clinics, or Muslim extremist terrorizing Israeli food courts, or KKK members burning crosses on lawns, it is all terrorism and equally abhorrent. He claims to understand this, but sure doesn't have much to say about it.

 

I frankly find his lists a little disturbing. The US not wanting Vietnam to have a seat in the UN in 1976, a year after the end of the war. Gee! America upset with Vietnam after the Vietnam war... That also really compares with terrorism and is something important and worthy of mention. While I can also understand that he might be upset about the US not condemning certain civilian shootings, we aren't getting all of the facts. Remember that many of these extremist terrorist organizations love twisting the truth and hiding behind civilians. Fire missiles at Israel from a populated civilian area, then call foul when Israel retaliates and civilians are killed as they hide behind them.

 

Whether it is in the Kuran, or they have twisted words, they believe anyone not of their faith, and many with slightly different interpretations are nothing but dogs and that they can lie, cheat, do or say anything to discredit their enemy. I'm not completly surprised at all of the extremist beliefs, we are talking about many areas that feature cartoons with kids blowing themselves up as they shout 'Allah Akbar!'.

 

While I am not Christian, if there is a discussion of Christian rooted terrorism with friends or family, abortion clinic bombings, KKK, etc. there is rage and disgust. The thing that frightens me about far too many Muslims, is that if Muslim extremism comes up the conversation somehow shifts to how awful the US and Israel are. That frankly frightens and disturbs me, but surprises me less and less.

 

There are some truly bright and courageous Muslims though. I've been particularly impressed with the intelligence and passion of one outspoken woman who has been on interviews recently. Can't think of her name, but she has a book coming out soon.

[Tigranes]

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.

 

You don't have to, really. But if you want to continue this discussion - and sure, I'm sure some of us would - then it's up to you to provide a complete argument that actually has a point. I think it's rather interesting that you choose to make disparaging remarks on everyone's intelligence in this situation, no need to descend to that - just give us an actual argument (instead of "US BAD"), and we can get on to it.

[Walsingham]

OK, GDM, I guess I understand your position better. I also now understand what I think is your main point about how whenever the topic comes up in some circles it leaps immediately to how bad the USA is. Personally I dislike such arguments because they serve as a legitimising smokescreen for the a-holes who perpetrate such acts.

 

I thought it was particularly interesting that of the 'Muslim' countries surveyed recently support for suicide bombings had plummeted in the last seven years except in two places - Palestine, and Nigeria. In Nigeria it had actually risen. I feel the fact that Nigeria has experienced few if any suicide attacks may have something to do with this. Far too many of the countries where radicalism is rising seem to have too little concern for what would actually happen if the jifascists get their way and a confrontation occurs.

 

Removing this tacit 'approval' of terrorism will not stop terrorism. But it would serve to halt a number of recruits who sign up to be heroes of the people.

[Yuusha]

Ok, firstly lemme just say that I know that I'm being out of topic here. I mean what do you want me to do? My thread regarding US foreign policy was closed. I would've posted there if it were possible.

 

Secondly, it pleases me a great deal to know that many of you 'patriotic Americans' here are reacting the way I had anticipated. No surprises there. And please don't pull any punches just coz I'm outnumbered.

 

And last but not least, BRING IT ON!!

 

@GreasyDogMeat:

Why the hell should I start talking about US foreign policy here... that is NOT the topic and we have gone far enough off topic discussing WWII nuclear bombs. I really can't believe some of you can't see the difference between racist physchotic jihadi targetting women and children for the spreading of terror, destruction of jews and hatred of any religious differences to a military act used to END a war and PREVENT further deaths of military ground actions.

I think I've explained why I went out of topic. Now I would like to start a new thread that is more appropriate for this type of discussion, but for whatever reason I'm afraid that it won't last very long.

 

Riiight... I'm sure the A bomb was smart enough to distinguish between military targets and civillians (women and children). And I'm sure that the bomb didn't struck terror to the hearts of the Japanese who survived the event. Now whether or not the A bomb deployment was necessary, is a matter of opinion. Therefore I arrived at the conclusion that if the deployment of the bomb was indeed unnecessary (just like Eisenhower and a few others had suggested), but the US went through with it anyway, then it can be considered an act of terror rather than an act of war.

 

Racist Psychotic Jihadi? Religion and Race are two different things. You're right about one thing though, the Muslim terrorist that committed 9/11 and various other acts of terrorism against the USA did so out of hate. But the source of that hatred is the US Foreign Policy!! Not because of the ethnic background of the US. I mean look at Canada, they aren't being targetd by terrorist despite the similiraties of racial background to the US.

 

Limited as me?? Only because you limit my ability to judge your viewpoint by constantly shifting focus off of muslim extremism. It would be like me barging into a discussion of the atrocities of the KKK and giving statistics of black crime. Yeah, it is awful that large percentage of blacks have commited crimes, but what was the point of posting those statistics?? Maybe you somehow feel the KKK is justified. That is all you have been doing, shifting focus and making obvious 'I can sorta understand extremist (lynching)... but those crazy American pig dogs, (the blacks) they are just WAY out there! Look at this massive list of things they have done! Oh, and I really have nothing against the US (blacks)... really I don't!'.

I honestly don't understand why you seem incapable of handling the fact that I do not hate Americans. What I hate is the American Government and not the people. Can you differentiate between the two?

 

Btw, are you related to Guard Dog? Inbreeding's unhealthy y'know.

-----------------------------------------------

 

@Tigranes:

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.

What bothers me the most is smart but ignorant people like you who is highly critical and philosophical about terrorism being comitted by Muslims, but turns a blind eye to terrorism comitted by your own government. Yes, I do think that the US government practises terrorism. My original response to you regarding this was a number of quotes from Truman, Eisenhower and a number of generalas and congressman. Truman stated that the a bomb was 'the greatest thing in history.' While Eisenhower advised against it. Now you may claim to know more about the situation then better than Eisenhower in an effort to justify the deployment of the A bomb, but you'll understand if I don't buy it.

 

Also, you asked me which was worse, the US or the Muslim terrorists? In response, I posted a list of US vetoes on UN resolutions. You can clearly see from that list that the US goverment was a supporter of, among others:

• Apartheid
  
• Israel's invasion of Lebanon
  
• South Africa's attempted coup of the Seychelles
  
• Nuclear testing
  
• Development of new types of WMD's. (Terrorism anyone?)
  
• Development of chemical and biological weapons
  

and so on and so forth. And don't get me started on my list of toppled government by the US.

Which is worse, the US Government or the Muslim terrorists? Why don't you decide for yourself.

 

 

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. Both. 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. And besides the US had no right to invade other countries no matter what.

 

2. There's no guarantee. But I wouldn't want someone who I do not like in my house. Especially when that someone is arrogant, intrusive, ignorant and a goddamn bully!

 

3. Sure.

[Guard Dog]

Riiight... I'm sure the A bomb was smart enough to distinguish between military targets and civillians (women and children). And I'm sure that the bomb didn't struck terror to the hearts of the Japanese who survived the event. Now whether or not the A bomb deployment was necessary, is a matter of opinion. Therefore I arrived at the conclusion that if the deployment of the bomb was indeed unnecessary (just like Eisenhower and a few others had suggested), but the US went through with it anyway, then it can be considered an act of terror rather than an act of war.

 

For the sake of my sanity I'm am going to try and ignore your rhetoric and address the few salient points you seem to be trying to make. But first I must attack some of the "facts" you are throwing out that you are presenting out of context, starting with this one. Since you are recycling things you've already posted I guess I can do the same.

 

Yushaa, all of those quotes you are throwing up regarding the use of atomic weapons were made after the war. In some cases 15 years after. On Aug 6 1945 all the US knew was that Japan was prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child. So Truman is looking at the casualty and cost estimates of an invasion on one hand, and the Atomic Bomb on the other. What other choice could he make? It is more than a little silly to castigate him after the fact on things he could not have known. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

To suggest that employing a weapon of war, in a declared war against a nation state (who I might add STARTED said war) is an act of terrorism is more than a little silly. And Eisenhower made no objections to the weapons use before hand. Indeed, he had very little knowledge of it since he was not in the Pacific Theater. By throwing out comments he made years later and suggesting that means he was against is from the start is false on it's face. I do understand that it is your opinion the use of atomic weapons was not justified and you are entitled to it. But based on your posting history I doubt you would find anything the US has ever done to be acceptable.

 

 

Racist Psychotic Jihadi? Religion and Race are two different things. You're right about one thing though, the Muslim terrorist that committed 9/11 and various other acts of terrorism against the USA did so out of hate. But the source of that hatred is the US Foreign Policy!! Not because of the ethnic background of the US.

 

Is that so? Allow me to resurrect a post from you last thread that you may not have read:

 

Besides, it's not like the followers of the "jihad" hate doctrine only target the US. In Bali it was just non Muslims in a night club. Australians mainly. England has been hit several times now. Spain has been hit three times in the last four years. And the terrorists there cited the reconquista as a reason. That was like 1491 for crying out loud (by the way the US had nothing to do with that one either). Germany and France have had violent riots when Muslims there did not get their way over something stupidly trivial. They hate the Danes over a newspaper cartoon. The Taliban hated the Chinese and there were a number of "border incidents" mainly consisting of Chinese being attacked. The Russians have been hit many times even back during the days of the USSR. India and Pakistan are mortal enemies. In the Philippines (particularly Mindanao) the Muslim guerrillas there kill non Muslims on sight. Sounds to me like Muslim hate is not reserved for America alone. It is directed at anything not Muslim.

 

I mean look at Canada, they aren't being targetd by terrorist despite the similiraties of racial background to the US.

 

Wrong:

Toronto Terrorism

Canada And Terrorism

Home Grown Jihadis: Terrorism a Rising Threat to Canada

ISLAMIC TERRORISM, SEPTEMBER 11 AND MISS WORLD 2002 MAYHEM IN NIGERIA: CONNECTING THE DOTS

 

That last article is long and tedious, but there is one VERY relevant paragraph I'd like you to read and comment on. I will quote it below:

 

Islamic terrorism such as the 9/11 attack on USA or Miss World 2002 Pageant mayhem in Nigeria is not really provoked by USA foreign policy or infidel immorality (Miss World) or a newspaper article. The Islamic terrorists use these excuses or grievances as a camouflage for their ultimate mission of imposing Islam on infidels or destroying them or grabbing political power/control by any means including terrorism. For the Islamist, it is either the Islamic way or war (jihad). If Islamic demand/goal is not met by infidels then Islamic terrorism is unleashed. My people (Igbo) warned the world about this Islamist threat in 1967 but nobody listened. In 1967, crushing Biafra and the Igbo people (

Edited August 3, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Tigranes]

Secondly, it pleases me a great deal to know that many of you 'patriotic Americans' here are reacting the way I had anticipated. No surprises there. original.gif And please don't pull any punches just coz I'm outnumbered.

 

The only person who is holding up a delusion that this is some kind of 'fight' is you. I'm a Korean living in New Zealand and I don't like US foreign poilcy either. I'm here for the debate, not for some kind of immature 'battle'.

 

What bothers me the most is smart but ignorant people like you who is highly critical and philosophical about terrorism being comitted by Muslims, but turns a blind eye to terrorism comitted by your own government.

 

Excuse me? Where am I turning a blind eye to terrorism committed by US or other western governments? I am very concerned with the US and have always opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that now they're already in there, it's very hard to pull out and not make things worse. I'm not even American. Why are you grouping everyone in the forum into one big "America-Loving-Stupid-Idiots-Who-Believe-CNN"? I think that's very rude and arrogant of you to assume that about other people. Why would I have a double standard about US and Muslim activities? I'm a Christian but I believe Muslim is another way to God and I respect that very much. I don't think you have the right to say anything like this about other people. Blanket statements don't help your case.

 

Also, you asked me which was worse, the US or the Muslim terrorists? In response, I posted a list of US vetoes on UN resolutions. You can clearly see from that list that the US goverment was a supporter of, among others:

 

No, I didn't. I DIDNT ASK THAT. --;;

 

I already know what you think. You've made your point that US has committed a lot worse atrocities. You've given us evidence. Everything. That's fine. Okay. Sure. You've made your point.

 

What I'm saying is, SO WHAT. Do you want everyone to nod their heads and say "Oh, right, US is worse than the Muslims"? Is that all? What do you want to happen on the world stage or a local one in a pragmatic sense?! Do you want US to pull out completely? Once again, you have never articulated why that would actually help the place! Do you think the violence wouldn't escalate if they pulled out? Do you think the US peacekeepers will break their long series of useless performances to actually restore order? Do you think the Muslims would no longer suffer, or terrorism from them would stop?

 

You're just posting the same thing over and over again right now and you have no conclusion.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Tigranes

[Yuusha]

@GuardDog:

 

I'm sorry if you thought I was ignoring some of your posts. It's a bit difficult to keep track of things when you're bombarded by arguements from practically everyone.

 

For the sake of my sanity I'm am going to try and ignore your rhetoric and address the few salient points you seem to be trying to make. But first I must attack some of the "facts" you are throwing out that you are presenting out of context, starting with this one. Since you are recycling things you've already posted I guess I can do the same.

Sure... That proves something doesn't it.

 

Since you are recycling things you've already posted I guess I can do the same.

I'll stop reposting my posts until someone actually debate them properly. I'm still waiting for someone to address my arguements as to why the US is allowed to topple democratically elected governments. And please, spare me the 'because we can,' crap.

 

Yushaa, all of those quotes you are throwing up regarding the use of atomic weapons were made after the war. In some cases 15 years after. On Aug 6 1945 all the US knew was that Japan was prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child. So Truman is looking at the casualty and cost estimates of an invasion on one hand, and the Atomic Bomb on the other. What other choice could he make? It is more than a little silly to castigate him after the fact on things he could not have known. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I agree that hindsight is always 20/20. That is exactly why I presented the quotes that I found to all of you. To raise a point that the bombings MAY HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY. And considering the conduct of the US government on the international stage following the incident, I don't feel like giving the US government the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Besides, it's not like the followers of the "jihad" hate doctrine only target the US. In Bali it was just non Muslims in a night club. Australians mainly. England has been hit several times now. Spain has been hit three times in the last four years. And the terrorists there cited the reconquista as a reason. That was like 1491 for crying out loud (by the way the US had nothing to do with that one either). Germany and France have had violent riots when Muslims there did not get their way over something stupidly trivial. They hate the Danes over a newspaper cartoon. The Taliban hated the Chinese and there were a number of "border incidents" mainly consisting of Chinese being attacked. The Russians have been hit many times even back during the days of the USSR. India and Pakistan are mortal enemies. In the Philippines (particularly Mindanao) the Muslim guerrillas there kill non Muslims on sight. Sounds to me like Muslim hate is not reserved for America alone. It is directed at anything not Muslim.

The US and its allies are indeed being targeted by Muslim terrorists. And that precisely the reason why I do not condone terrorism. The victims are usually innocent people.

About the Danes, their mistake was generalizing all Muslims to be terrorists. What better way to do so than to draw our Prophet Muhammad (which in itself is a deadly sin) in a violent manner. I wouldn't expect you to understand the pain and anger it inflicted on us peace loving Muslims. It may be trivial to you, but to us it's the worst kind of insult imaginable.

 

Wrong:

Toronto Terrorism

Canada And Terrorism

Home Grown Jihadis: Terrorism a Rising Threat to Canada

ISLAMIC TERRORISM, SEPTEMBER 11 AND MISS WORLD 2002 MAYHEM IN NIGERIA: CONNECTING THE DOTS

So? What does that prove apart from reaffirming Chomsky's theory.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I don't know how many times I have to say it... the bombs of WWII were dropped to avert a larger and very likely more horrific ground war. Please give me an alternative... without some knee-jerk "THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DROPPED THE BOMB". Please... let us hear what you would have done to end the Pacific Theater.

 

To compare the U.S. government with murderous terrorist who chop heads off innocent people on TV, brutalize their own if they don't follow their twisted religious doctrine to a T, directly target women and children, hide behind innocents and fire missiles from these locations, bomb historic land marks, and act as some of most racist people on the planet, directly targetting and murdering Christians and killing their own women if they date outside of their race . You really do fit your own insult of ignorance.

Edited August 3, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Yuusha]

@Tigranes:

The only person who is holding up a delusion that this is some kind of 'fight' is you. I'm a Korean living in New Zealand and I don't like US foreign poilcy either. I'm here for the debate, not for some kind of immature 'battle'.

It was just a figure of speech.

Btw, it woud've been helpful if you stated in your personals that you're Korean living in New Zealand. I mean how am I supposed to know that?

 

Excuse me? Where am I turning a blind eye to terrorism committed by US or other western governments? I am very concerned with the US and have always opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that now they're already in there, it's very hard to pull out and not make things worse. I'm not even American. Why are you grouping everyone in the forum into one big "America-Loving-Stupid-Idiots-Who-Believe-CNN"? I think that's very rude and arrogant of you to assume that about other people. Why would I have a double standard about US and Muslim activities? I'm a Christian but I believe Muslim is another way to God and I respect that very much. I don't think you have the right to say anything like this about other people. Blanket statements don't help your case.

Well since I've never actually converse with you outside of this thread, I think my mistakes regarding your political views are understandable.

 

What I'm saying is, SO WHAT. Do you want everyone to nod their heads and say "Oh, right, US is worse than the Muslims"? Is that all? What do you want to happen on the world stage or a local one in a pragmatic sense?! Do you want US to pull out completely? Once again, you have never articulated why that would actually help the place! Do you think the violence wouldn't escalate if they pulled out? Do you think the US peacekeepers will break their long series of useless performances to actually restore order? Do you think the Muslims would no longer suffer, or terrorism from them would stop?

Umm... Yeah that'd be a good start. And yes I do want to the US to stop putting its nose in where it doesn't belong, or they'll get something far worse than a nosebleed.

[Meshugger]

About the Danes, their mistake was generalizing all Muslims to be terrorists. What better way to do so than to draw our Prophet Muhammad (which in itself is a deadly sin) in a violent manner. I wouldn't expect you to understand the pain and anger it inflicted on us peace loving Muslims. It may be trivial to you, but to us it's the worst kind of insult imaginable.

 

 

1) The newspaper asked a couple of boys and girls on who they think Mohammad was, and drew some pictures. If you think that their views are jaded or that they are brainwashed, then this should've been handled in a civil and proper manner.

2) Drew in a 'Violent manner?' Is the destruction of the danish embassies in Syria and Jordan then completely understandable? Is that a perfect reaction to a cartoon?

3) Boycotting danish products and demanding a shutdown of newspaper and official apology from the danish government was completely unreasonable. Since there's a freedom of press and freedom of religion, it's completely ok to mock other religions, deal with it. The danish people and the government in general had nothing to do with it. Way to generalize the population of a country.

4) Social taboos and nono's are made to be questioned in a society through art and freedom of expression. Art is not the mirror, it's the hammer. Apparently, the middle east hasn't gone trough its own renaissance yet.

5) "The pain and anger inflicted on us peace loving Muslims" <-- Care to explain what you meant by that?

[Pop]

I'd dispute point 3. Freedom of the Press only extends to government interference. It doesn't protect a newspaper from the ill will of the public, nor does it immunize a newspaper from criticism. If direct pressure on the newspaper doesn't yield a desired apology, then applying pressure elsewhere, such as with a boycott of Danish goods, is acceptable in the pursuit of said apology. The point of a boycott would be to persuade Danish private enterprise to join the protesters in demanding an apology in the interests of returning business to normal. Arabs have no obligation to partake of Danish goods. They crossed the line with the violence, not the boycott.

[Meshugger]

I'd dispute point 3. Freedom of the Press only extends to government interference. It doesn't protect a newspaper from the ill will of the public, nor does it immunize a newspaper from criticism. If direct pressure on the newspaper doesn't yield a desired apology, then applying pressure elsewhere, such as with a boycott of Danish goods, is acceptable in the pursuit of said apology. The point of a boycott would be to persuade Danish private enterprise to join the protesters in demanding an apology in the interests of returning business to normal. Arabs have no obligation to partake of Danish goods. They crossed the line with the violence, not the boycott.

 

I wasn't pointing out the boycott as a separate point, it was just part of the whole package that escalated to something very, very silly.

[Tigranes]

Well since I've never actually converse with you outside of this thread, I think my mistakes regarding your political views are understandable.

 

No, it's not. Turn that on its head; if you don't know anything about me or other people in this thread, then why did you go ahead and make bold claims such as the fact that we are all Americans? I'm not bothered that you thought I was an American - that's a very trivial point. What I am saying is that you are groupoing everyone here into a big stereotype of "people who have been brainwashed by western media and don't realise anything bad the US has done, and think US is the big hero of freedom" or something. That colours your discourse.

 

Umm... Yeah that'd be a good start. And yes I do want to the US to stop putting its nose in where it doesn't belong, or they'll get something far worse than a nosebleed.

 

Once again you don't actually answer my questions. Do you actually have a real practical suggestion on what should happen from now on for the good of everybody, Muslim or Christian or US or Arab? If so, why don't you actually post that? That's what is relevant to the discussion, not a thousand pages of US IS BAD.

 

Are you for example suggesting that everybody leave Iraq alone immediately, and nobody else interfere? What do you think that would do to a country with no political, social or economic infrastructure left and a power vacuum? Why is the UN any better than the US? Is the UN magically better, more capable and more neutral and nice unlike the US? What makes you think that? Shouldn't it be the Iraqis anyway who decide this stuff, not you in Indonesia (right?) or Bush in US? But when the Iraqi government cannot adequately represent its people how are you supposed to know who wants US in Iraq, who wants US out of Iraq, UN, whatever?

 

You aren't going anywhere past "US IS BAD" right now, I'd be happy to move this discussion forward when you have a practical proposition on what should happen now and why that will work. No, "US GET OUT" doesn't suffice for very obvious logical reasons.

 

Got to run, but I'll come back on the parallel posts on pop and mes.

 

edit: also:

 

I'll stop reposting my posts until someone actually debate them properly. I'm still waiting for someone to address my arguements as to why the US is allowed to topple democratically elected governments. And please, spare me the 'because we can,' crap.

 

Do you have a clearly defined idea on the power of sovereignty then?

1. You think US should not have interfered with Iraq, because the US government does not have legal authority over the actions of other countries.

2. This means that you subscribe to the modern idea of sovereignty, and that the invasion represents a breach of that national sovereign integrity.

3. At the same time, have you not considered that Saddam Hussein's regime was not exactly a liberal democracy (Zakaria)? How does a government come to deserve sovereignty? At what point do you say "this government was not democratically elected"? When votes are rigged? When votes are probably rigged? When the presidency is practically for life? Was Saddam Hussein's presidency in your eyes democratical enough, that he could be considered an acceptable representative of the people? Did he have 'sovereignty'?

 

I never supported the invasion of Iraq, but it's not a clear cut "US meddling bastards" thing. It is extremely naive to suggest that.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Tigranes

[St_Jimmy]

@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.

 

I love how people of the Islamic faith in the States find it their duty to criticize not only the Jihadists of the Middle East, but the American culture that supposedly "discriminates" against them. As a Muslim you don't have to "Set the record straight" at all, and you should not have the obligation to do so because "Setting the record straight" is a form of justification not only for you, but for the Christian Crusaders and the Islamic Jihadists of the present. Everyone seems to want to set the record straight about whom or what they really are, whilst hating every other possible religion and/or culture.

 

Maybe the solution would not for us to think of each other as Muslims, Christians, Jews etc; or as Americans, Israelis, Palestinians etc; but rather as humans, humans who have a duty to one another in our great world.

 

This is coming from a Liberal Quasi-Socialist who is a member of an interfaith organization.

[Walsingham]

OK, Yuusha, I'm trying to be civil here, but maybe I'm too long winded. I'll restrict myself even further to one point at a time.

 

Simply because an act involves fear does not make it terrorism. You can hook me up to an intravenous drip full of fear juice and give me a big horror sandwich and it still isn't terrorism. For comparison, because jihad is involved in a terrorist's motivation does not make every muslim's pursuit of jihad terrorism.

 

*chews stub of cigar* Or maybe I'm not very bright?

[Guard Dog]

I'll stop reposting my posts until someone actually debate them properly. I'm still waiting for someone to address my arguements as to why the US is allowed to topple democratically elected governments. And please, spare me the 'because we can,' crap.

 

If you are referring to Iraq you will need to look hard around this forum to find someone in favor of that particular fight. although I will admit I was not so opposed to it in the beginning as I am now. But in my own defense I believed it was a step in a grand strategy towards militarily defeating the more violent islamic terror groups. It seems it was now there is no "grand strategy". However, the attack on Afghanistan was justified and necassary. Al-Qaeda was there, and the Taliban would not give them up. If they had, the invasion would not have happened. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed by muslims. The US made no response. In 1996 the Khobar towers are bombed by Muslims, 20 Americans killed, over 300 wounded. In 1998 two US embassies were bombed by Muslims, there were no survivors, over 200 dead in each. In 2000 the USS Cole was nearly sunk by Muslim terrorists. After all of these atrocities, the US did....nothing. Invaded no counties, toppled no governments. And this despite the obvious aid Al-Qaeda received from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan in all of those events. Finally 9-11. Did you really expect the US to do nothing again? Obviously it was not working.

 

I have made plain my views on what US Foreign Policy should be in other threads on this forum. But that is a discussion for another thread. If you wish to start one without mindlessley spouting propaganda and flame baiting hyperbole I'd be happy to debate the point with you.

 

As to the debate on the atomic bombs, it is obvious we are not going to agree. I do not see your logic and you are rejecting mine so I'll drop it.

 

About the Danes, their mistake was generalizing all Muslims to be terrorists. What better way to do so than to draw our Prophet Muhammad (which in itself is a deadly sin) in a violent manner. I wouldn't expect you to understand the pain and anger it inflicted on us peace loving Muslims. It may be trivial to you, but to us it's the worst kind of insult imaginable.

 

The Danes made no mistake. It was a newspaper cartoon printed in a non muslim newspaper in a non muslim country for non muslim readers. If muslims are caused "pain and anger" by the editorial opinions of a newspaper half a world away you guys really need to get over yourselves. Especially since the reaction was a violent one. I am a Christian and I do not kille people or blow things up when someone insults my religion. God/Allah is not some helpless waif depending on me, you, or bomb wearing lunatics to defend His honor. He is quite capable of that own. If someone insults God that is between them and God.

 

But that example does serve to debunk your point that the US is hated only for it's foreign policy. And bolsters mine that radical islam hates everything that is not islam.

 

Wrong:

Toronto Terrorism

Canada And Terrorism

Home Grown Jihadis: Terrorism a Rising Threat to Canada

ISLAMIC TERRORISM, SEPTEMBER 11 AND MISS WORLD 2002 MAYHEM IN NIGERIA: CONNECTING THE DOTS

So? What does that prove apart from reaffirming Chomsky's theory.

 

It proves that your assertion that Canada is not the target of muslim hate and terror is, like most of the things you say, wrong.

[Walsingham]

Pre-Iraq and Afghanistan Islamist propaganda said that US _non_ -involvement was the problem. Refusal to take action on Afghanistan (I know), Chechnya (because clearly going to war with Russia would have been achievable), Bosnia (I know).

[Yuusha]

@Meshugger:

1) The newspaper asked a couple of boys and girls on who they think Mohammad was, and drew some pictures. If you think that their views are jaded or that they are brainwashed, then this should've been handled in a civil and proper manner.

2) Drew in a 'Violent manner?' Is the destruction of the danish embassies in Syria and Jordan then completely understandable? Is that a perfect reaction to a cartoon?

3) Boycotting danish products and demanding a shutdown of newspaper and official apology from the danish government was completely unreasonable. Since there's a freedom of press and freedom of religion, it's completely ok to mock other religions, deal with it. The danish people and the government in general had nothing to do with it. Way to generalize the population of a country.

4) Social taboos and nono's are made to be questioned in a society through art and freedom of expression. Art is not the mirror, it's the hammer. Apparently, the middle east hasn't gone trough its own renaissance yet.

5) "The pain and anger inflicted on us peace loving Muslims" <-- Care to explain what you meant by that?

1. Boycott is civilized and proper don't you think?

2. Justifiable no. Understandable yes.

3. Unreasonable huh? Would you buy a product from someone who called you and your family terrorists? Freedom of the press is like a loaded gun, nothing will happen so long as the one who wields it is a responsible adult. But if an obnoxious kid gets a hold of it...

4. That's because unlike you 'the middle east' never went through the dark ages.

5. What is there to explain? Peace loving muslims, as in the non radical Muslims. Like me. Not all of us are terrorists y'know. Not all Muslims reacted violently to the 'cartoon.' Some of us cried. It truly hurt us.

-------------------------------------------------

 

@Pops:

I'd dispute point 3. Freedom of the Press only extends to government interference. It doesn't protect a newspaper from the ill will of the public, nor does it immunize a newspaper from criticism. If direct pressure on the newspaper doesn't yield a desired apology, then applying pressure elsewhere, such as with a boycott of Danish goods, is acceptable in the pursuit of said apology. The point of a boycott would be to persuade Danish private enterprise to join the protesters in demanding an apology in the interests of returning business to normal. Arabs have no obligation to partake of Danish goods. They crossed the line with the violence, not the boycott.

Agreed.

------------------------------------------------

 

@:Tigranes:

No, it's not. Turn that on its head; if you don't know anything about me or other people in this thread, then why did you go ahead and make bold claims such as the fact that we are all Americans? I'm not bothered that you thought I was an American - that's a very trivial point. What I am saying is that you are groupoing everyone here into a big stereotype of "people who have been brainwashed by western media and don't realise anything bad the US has done, and think US is the big hero of freedom" or something. That colors your discourse.

Well duh...

 

Once again you don't actually answer my questions. Do you actually have a real practical suggestion on what should happen from now on for the good of everybody, Muslim or Christian or US or Arab? If so, why don't you actually post that? That's what is relevant to the discussion, not a thousand pages of US IS BAD.

 

Are you for example suggesting that everybody leave Iraq alone immediately, and nobody else interfere? What do you think that would do to a country with no political, social or economic infrastructure left and a power vacuum? Why is the UN any better than the US? Is the UN magically better, more capable and more neutral and nice unlike the US? What makes you think that? Shouldn't it be the Iraqis anyway who decide this stuff, not you in Indonesia (right?) or Bush in US? But when the Iraqi government cannot adequately represent its people how are you supposed to know who wants US in Iraq, who wants US out of Iraq, UN, whatever?

I think the UN should intervene. Why? COMMON SENSE man. The UN pecekeeping troop would likely be a multinational troop, comprised of countries that are pro or neutral to Iraq. Granted, I have no way of knowing for sure what the majority of the Iraqi people want. But don't you think that a war torn Iraq would preffer to be supervised by a country/countries that DID NOT bombard Iraq on a weekly basis since the year 1991? The UN estimates that more than 500.000 iraqi children died from the US sanctions and bombardments.

 

You aren't going anywhere past "US IS BAD" right now, I'd be happy to move this discussion forward when you have a practical proposition on what should happen now and why that will work. No, "US GET OUT" doesn't suffice for very obvious logical reasons.

Lemme make this as short and as practical as humanely possible:

Hello UN, bye bye US.

------------------------------------------------------

 

@St Jimmy:

I love how people of the Islamic faith in the States find it their duty to criticize not only the Jihadists of the Middle East, but the American culture that supposedly "discriminates" against them. As a Muslim you don't have to "Set the record straight" at all, and you should not have the obligation to do so because "Setting the record straight" is a form of justification not only for you, but for the Christian Crusaders and the Islamic Jihadists of the present. Everyone seems to want to set the record straight about whom or what they really are, whilst hating every other possible religion and/or culture.

 

Maybe the solution would not for us to think of each other as Muslims, Christians, Jews etc; or as Americans, Israelis, Palestinians etc; but rather as humans, humans who have a duty to one another in our great world.

 

This is coming from a Liberal Quasi-Socialist who is a member of an interfaith organization.

Open your eyes man. Discrimination is a fact of life. If I don't stand up for what I think is right, then I'm screwed. I didn't make the rules but I do know how to play the game.

-------------------------------------------------------

 

@Walshingham:

OK, Yuusha, I'm trying to be civil here, but maybe I'm too long winded. I'll restrict myself even further to one point at a time.

 

Simply because an act involves fear does not make it terrorism. You can hook me up to an intravenous drip full of fear juice and give me a big horror sandwich and it still isn't terrorism. For comparison, because jihad is involved in a terrorist's motivation does not make every muslim's pursuit of jihad terrorism.

 

*chews stub of cigar* Or maybe I'm not very bright?

Let's not kid ourselves here. You and I both know that we don't see eye to eye, there's nothing wrong with that right? But even so I would never resort to calling you stupid or uncivillized coz that's just not true. Back on my US foreign policy topic, I remember you were being pressured to lock the thread by an angry mob hoding out pitchforks. "Would someone please lock this thread!!" "Oh dear... When Fionavar sees this..." "Where's a mod when you need one," and so on and so forth. You didn't back down and that was IMO one of the mark of a good leader. It's understandable to cater the needs of the majority but never on the expense of the minority.

 

My point is: Don't patronize me man. Don't restrain/restrict yourself and your views on my account. I'm not gonna do you any favours just coz you're a mod. Ok bro.

 

NEEEXT.....

----------------------------------------------------

 

@GuardDog:

It proves that your assertion that Canada is not the target of muslim hate and terror is, like most of the things you say, wrong.

Ah... The good ol media. Always a reliable source.

 

 

NOT!

Edited August 4, 2007 by Yuusha