interview with a jihadi

[Walsingham]

The woman might sound younger than she is because the translator was a bit crude.

[GreasyDogMeat]

"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?"

 

In the end, it doesn't matter what they think, because directly targeting and murdering men, women and children is wrong. They are nothing but racist, xenophobic, hypocritical monsters and a slow painful death at the end of a noose would be too good for them.

 

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??

 

I also love it when people compare the nuclear bombs in WWII to brain washed lunatics blowing women and children up at a pizza spot. After the 30+ thousand American lives lost on the beaches of Iwo Jima, Japans refusal to surrender and the realization of the many more thousands of lives it would take to invade the mainland of Japan... that really compares to these nuts. I say it was good the US dropped the bombs. How many of you posting here had grandparents who fought in WWII... and how many of you wouldn't even exist if the war became a ground pounder in Japan. Yet another difference between WWII and suicide bombers... we cared about the lives lost. The nuclear bombs of WWII were a tragedy. After a bomb kills 30 men women and children in a bus... the islamofascists don't regret the loss of life for their twisted agendas... they only revel at the # of infidels killed.

Edited July 31, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Musopticon?]

"I say it was good the US dropped the bombs."

 

You lost any credence you had with that comment. Congrats.

[Walsingham]

Now hold on a minute. The civilian death toll of the two bombs was, what? 180,000 iirc. Taking Okinawa the old fashioned way cost 300,000 Japanese Civilians. How many would have died to secure a surrender by nice clean methods? And this is ignoring what some would argue is the more compelling question of how many Allied servicemen would have died.

[Guard Dog]

Truman sent a radio message to Japan on Aug 3 1945 giving Japan a surrender or else ultimatum. They refused. Hiroshima was hit. On Aug 8 another communication was made to surrender. They refused. Radio Siapan sent warnings into Nagasaki and the US Army Air Corps dropped leaflets that an attack was imminent. They were ignored. On Aug 9 Nagasaki was attacked. On Aug 10 George Marshall made one more call to surrender and announced that the US would begin systematicaly destroying every Japanese city with no further warning. On Aug 14 Hirohito capitulated.

 

They were given every opportunity to avoid the bombing. Tojo knew the US had the bomb from his agents in Russia. But the Japanese mentality (or at least Tojos) was to fight to the last man/woman/child. And Wals is right. They would have. An armed invasion of Japan would have been a nightmare beyond belief. The majority of the European war was fought in territory hostile to the Germans (France, Italy, Eastern Europe). By the time the allies reached German soil the Wehrmacht was destroyed. The Japanese military was still largely intact. Naval losses prevented them from mobilizing but they would have made a bloody hard fight for every inch of their soil and the Japanese casualties after the invasion would have been in the seven digits. To say nothing of allied casualties which the US would have borne the brunt of. So yes, as tragic as the bombings were, the alternative was worse.

 

Sorry to go OT Wals but it was a point I needed to make. Especially in light of recent threads on this forum.

[GreasyDogMeat]

"I say it was good the US dropped the bombs."

 

You lost any credence you had with that comment. Congrats.

 

What Guard Dog said. Both military and civilian casualties would have been just as high if not higher if the bombs had not been dropped. Any one ever see the old footage of Japanese women jumping off cliffs clutching babies and children as the US military ran after them begging them not to jump? We are talking about a society that was, at the time, brain washed that the US were brutal raping savages and every man woman and child either needed to fight to the death or kill themselves to prevent US soldiers from ravaging them and their children.

 

I said "I say it was good the US dropped the bombs." not in some horrible gratified way about how so many died... but over how many US soldier lives were saved... and what I believe would have been even worse civilian death tolls.

 

While it probably isn't a fair comparison:

10 Million soviet MILITARY personnel were killed on the Eastern Front during WWII.

14-17 Million soviet CIVILIANS were killed.

 

Now think of what may have happened in Japan with a brain washed 'fight till the end populace' mixed with standard WWII air bombings and soldiers going building to building. The 180+ thousand civilian deaths of the two nuclear bombs is horrible to think about... but with a government that waited 6 full days after the SECOND bomb was dropped... that says a lot about how truly unthinkable a ground war would have been.

Edited July 31, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Musopticon?]

I know about the propaganda, the Tojo and how Truman had to choose the lesser of the two evils, but killing 180 thousand civilians, completely vaporising a city and calling it good. I understand that it's just the wording that makes it appear so, I'd never assume anyone would think sacrificing civilians as good, but even so...dropping atomic bombs on cities should never. Appear in the sentence as "good". Such a huge tragedy can't be just ignored with "oh, we couldn't do anything else".

Edited July 31, 2007 by Musopticon?

[Guard Dog]

I know they seriously considered demonstrating the bomb to a Japanese ambassador on a deserted island. IIRC that idea was rejected because there was a real fear it was not going to work. If they dropped the bomb on a real target and it was dud the primer charge would be enough to destroy the bomb and no one would know what had happened. Incidently, IIRC the original target on Aug 6 was the Mitsubishi (the main aircraft supplier) factories at Yokohama. But clouds over the drop site made them divert to Hiroshima. Fate is a strange and fickle thing.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Wikipedia has a useful section on this debate (which is moving somewhat off the original topic of this thread, I think).

 

If anyone's going to Japan, I recommend the Holocaust museums in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well worth a visit. That the dropping of the bombs was the right thing to do seems to be almost received wisdom in the West, but this is certainly not the case in Japan itself. I also agree that we need to tread very carefully in terms of language when discussing these things.

[GreasyDogMeat]

The Japanese will to fight was not propaganda. Numerous Japenese fliers and leaflets were found that went on and on about how Americans would brutalize women and children. Proof of the effect of Japanese propaganda can be seen in old videos of women and children throwing themselves to their deaths on rocky cliffs. During many of the island hops of the Pacific Theater, very small percentages of Japanese soldiers surrendered... it was just part of their culture. Surrender was shame, which is part of the reason why allied POWs were treated so poorly... those who surrendered were nothing but animals and deserved to be treated as such. This wasn't propaganda.

 

It doesn't take a genius to figure that a culture with such views of surrender combined with a populace hyped on propaganda of US monsters would result in a massive horrific battle if it reached the Japanese homeland.

 

I do agree that using the word 'good' along with the nuclear bombings was a... poor choice of words, but I hold my ground that it was a lesser of two evils.

 

Does anyone know if the Manhatten Project "Trinity" test explosion on June 16, 1945 was shown to the world before Nagasaki/Hiroshima?

Edited July 31, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Guard Dog]

If anyone's going to Japan, I recommend the Holocaust museums in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well worth a visit.

 

I Hiroshima when I was stationed there. Very sobering. I felt kind of funny being there, US military in a place like that but everyone was nice. In Japan they usually were.

 

I also saw "Suicide Cliffs" in Okinawa where scores of civillians threw themselves off rather than face American occupation. There is a monument there as well.

[Yuusha]

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?

Edited August 1, 2007 by Yuusha

[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.

 

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.

 

"Terrorism is not something that CAN or SHOULD be justified." That has been your most outspoken comment on terrorism so far... and so detailed and long winded in comparison.

Edited August 1, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Yuusha]

@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.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Yuusha

[Tigranes]

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

I skim-read that SOAD essay you quoted, so let's take the 'solution's he presented... assuming you agree with them:

 

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..

 

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.

[Meshugger]

I know about the propaganda, the Tojo and how Truman had to choose the lesser of the two evils, but killing 180 thousand civilians, completely vaporising a city and calling it good. I understand that it's just the wording that makes it appear so, I'd never assume anyone would think sacrificing civilians as good, but even so...dropping atomic bombs on cities should never. Appear in the sentence as "good". Such a huge tragedy can't be just ignored with "oh, we couldn't do anything else".

 

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."

Edited August 1, 2007 by Meshugger

[Walsingham]

Obviously I'm not in any position to render judgement on quality of argument. However, I personally feel it is permissible to address the question of the nukes in light of the terrorist question. If only because so many people do. There are two substantive questions raised in my opinion, given the topic we are in:

 

1. How does the motivation of the crew of the Enola Gay (the nuke bomber) differ from our example jihadi/jifascist?

 

2. More tenuously, but linked to the above, is large scale warfare morally and intellectually distinct from acts of terrorism?

 

I haven't seen any attempt here to answer the first question.

 

As for the second question I shall have to forcibly restrain myself, and restrict my comments to a single point. This is that if civilisation is to exist (with all its benefits to the human condition) it must depend upon the axiom that actions by a freely appointed state can have legitimacy over the actions of an individual. Terrorism at the coal face is quite simply the decision by an inidividual that their opinion of right and wrong is sufficient to immediately go out and kill another human being.

[Lare Kikkeli]

The whole we = good, muslims = bad thing doesn't really work considering how much **** all goverments have done in the past. Can you blame the modern goverments for past atrocities? You don't have to, theres plenty of new ones. What about Mogadishu? The current Iraq war is pretty much the same as the rape of Nanking, only with less casualities. What about the **** the French Foreign Legion has done? What about Pinochet? By what right are we telling the muslims how to live and how to rule their people? By what right are the americans arming the Saudis? If you can't stop meddling in other peoples affairs, don't be surprised if people hurt by the meddling get mad at you. This stuff has been happening throughout history. For this whole war on terror to be succesful, the yanks and their allies should stop using terrorist tactics themselves first.

[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?

[Tigranes]

1. How does the motivation of the crew of the Enola Gay (the nuke bomber) differ from our example jihadi/jifascist?

 

Because that question is relevant to answer - and very relevant - on a sociological and psychological level, but it is less useful for a surfacial glance at the comparisons of foreign analyses. Presupposing an understanding of the jihad fighters that goes beyond a moronic diatribe against "crazy idiot bastards", this question is not a central one for foreign policy, only a societal understanding and contextualisation of jihad fighters.

 

In the end I'm limiting myself to a very specific discussion: when a hypothetical man decries the 'terrorist' actions of some jihadi, and another hypothetical man says "well look at the US", then stands there righteous as if the argument was complete, I have to ask, what is the point of that truncated comparison, that juxtaposition which may have meaning for the lesser questions but not the central one? And if the answer is that the US have no moral prerogative to interfere in the Middle East and therefore should leave (or restrain their activities to more morally acceptable ones) - at this stage in time, what does that in a practical sense do to the denizens of the Middle East? In a state of conflict what can you do but wound each other and create vendettas? And even if the US had never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, or dropped any bombs or made any direct 'terrorist' attacks, the social and religious suffocation some Arabs feel and have felt for the greater part of last century does not simply go away. The vendetta against the West is not some limited thing based on a select few causes, an animal whose front and end is conceivable: it is a worldwide phenomenon that is a tide too big to restrain that way. Muslim 'terrorism' will not go away just by the US troops leaving Iraq; perhaps there will be less bombs exploded and less people killed, but the greater conflict moves on to new waters.

[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.

[Tigranes]

A huge number of quotes and dates

 

Irrelevant, I was asking what your argument was. Is your argument "US is a lot worse than these muslim terrorists"? In that case, the argument is complete; but I would say that is an utterly pointless argument. If your argument actually develops from that observation, then you've got some writing to do. I'm not trying to insult you but I'm pointing out that the argument you have put forward is not relevant at all at the moment, because it remains a one-upmanship of "US is just as bad if not worse". So what if it is? Not relevant. All those pieces of evidence were supporting your initial point. I already said that I'm speaking to you presupposing for the sake of argument that you are right on that point. That point is not an argument iwth any practical application itself... and there is a massive logical gap if you say "US is bad too, so it should get out." Massive. Gap.

 

Now, if your argument is, as I seem to be able to pick up from a couple of places, that US should get out of Iraq immediately, get UN in there and leave them alone forever. As my latest post articulated (or attempted to), not the best idea. I wasn't happy with US invading Afghanistan or Iraq; but it takes a fool to say that everything will improve fi they get everyone and everything out of there right now. It might make it worse. And at what poitn do you leave them alone? Do you leave Hitler alone in WWII because it's not America's business to intervene in other people's sovereign nations? Or if the question is one of sovereignty, is it okay to not intervene at all as long as that country doesn't invade other peoples'? And if America really didn't send any troops to Iraq or bomb it or whatever, do you think muslim 'terrorism' will stop? Relations will get friendly? People will move on? No. America's involvement with the Middle East is *now* inevitable; the only practical question to ask is in what way it should involve itself that is most benefitial for both parties, not "GET OUT", because it can't "get out" anymore.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Tigranes

[Guard Dog]

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.

[Walsingham]

Tigranes has asked most of the question I was going to. He/she has also addressed your question of UN peacekeepers. The only other actors capable of large scale intervention would be (In order of willingness) China, Russia, and France. Given their behaviour right up to the invasion, and their past performance in (respectively) Central Asia and Africa, I don't know what you are suggesting. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but we aren't talking in the abstract here. Solutions have to be practicable.

 

BTW, I would rarely accuse anyone of supporting terrorism. It's a horrible thing to say. However it is reassuring to hear an affirmation from anyone from any background. You'd be amazed who IS willing to say that they do, and smugly barf out the old lie about freedom fighters.

 

Finally, Lare, are you serious about he Rape of Nanking being equivalent to Coalition behaviour in Iraq? I think such a statement deserves more proof. Unless you are happy making grossly insulting statements and running off.

[Meshugger]

[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'.