|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2006 12:15:41 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "cpanaioti":
Protecting us from the bees by stirring them up hasn't worked very well. |
Well, these are not bees but ticks. They don't need stirring up because they're already out for blood!
As for the video forgery. I have a friend, if you saw photos of him from 2001 and photos from a couple of years later you'd likely be surprised. The differences are far more staggering than between those videos.
So let me think, pre-2001 Osama is living the good life in Afghanistan. Probably packing on pounds since his days against the Soviets. The following years he's been transitory, in hiding, and also dealing with a kidney disease. So the odds that he'd in fact lose weight are pretty high.
*shrug*
Not saying it's not possible, but it is also plausible. But then again. Some say JFK wasn't really shot, it was just a look alike. And Elvis didn't die either... |
So your friend's nose changed shape and proportion like that? And look at the shape of the forehead. I studied art for many years and learned a great deal about facial proportions. There's no way that I'm convinced that is the same person. I'd superimpose the images in PS, but it's a waste of my time to prove what my eyes can see. It would be simple for the FBI to give a demonstration using facial recognition technology to disprove the "conspiracy theorists" on this one. But I doubt that will happen.
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 12:17:09. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:28:15 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the recent 2 day airing of "The Path to 9-11" on ABC, one quote was attributed to Usama bin Laden "we must convert america to islam or destroy them" (or something akin to this). This is the very basis of the fundamentalists movement that is lost on those that advocate some measure of appeasement or tolerance. |
You start by quoting your recollection of a TV show and end by saying it's "us or them." No thank you. |
I sense an attempt to minimize my intended contribution via a cavalier discard of my evidence. You have either failed to read my post or your mind is/was prejudiced from the outset.
Giving you the temporary benefit of misreading my post, I'll detail it for you.
1. I gave reference to the source of the qoute (this was a written quote not a "dramatization")
2. If the quote is accurate, then it defines the "terms" of Usama and his followers
3. If the terms are to be believed (and as evidenced by others here of the long history of attacks on americans / american interests), then at some point we will either be killed or choose to fight this murderer.
4. America choose to fight this murderer now.
5. Many in the world prefered a "later" timetable.
6. This is a religious war.
7. If this is a choice between them or me, I would prefer them.
Where is this thought sequence so void of sense that it warrants your dismissal?
I grant you that any post may be dismissed by anyone for any reason. However, to make the effort to post your dismissal, is evidence to me that either a nerve was struck, or you simply mis-read it.
I'm hoping that you mis-read it and that I have clarified any points needing so.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:39:26 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Flash:
They simply do not "get it", that they (the radicals) are coming. Regardless of what "you" do (short of converting to radical Islam), they are targeting you. No matter who you are, where you live or what your family does. They're "purpose" is to eliminate all non-belivers. |
Flash - I get this. I understand that there are a lot of people out there who are out to get me - conversion to Islam would not be sufficient to protect me (cf the case of Margaret Hassan, an aid worker of dual British and Iraqi nationality and who had converted to Islam - Britishness was enough to do in for her).
Originally posted by Flash:
This is a religious war first. ... |
I am not so sure - there are a lot of reasons for the malcontent (as I suggested before - nationality appears to be more important than religion, and IMO that is because the resentment arises out of national policies than religious differences)
Originally posted by Flash:
Either address the threat now or latter. We waited too long as it was. |
I agree that the threat needs to be addressed - but how it should be addressed is another issue. What military solution do you propose? The military "solutions" undertaken so far don't really seem to be making the world any safer.
Originally posted by Flash:
If it truly is a matter of them or me, then I would much rather it be them. |
How about trying for a solution where it is not a matter of "them or me", but instead a solution that permits "them and me"?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 01:15:52 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
How about trying for a solution where it is not a matter of "them or me", but instead a solution that permits "them and me"? |
No opposition here, if a solution is possible. One reason that I posted "the link between Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam, is both the solution and the failure...". However, given that the solution lies in adherence to the "peace" of each religion and the stated and quoted purpose of Usama to "convert or eliminate", I do not see much chance for a solution without someone getting removed. Unless of course Usama sees the light and becomes a beacon of compassion to the Israelis and Americans.
My reference to this being a religious war first was in direct relation to the Usama quote of converting "all others" to Islam. Specifically the radicalized form. I do not suppose for amoment that Usama would spare the life of an infidel (upon conversion). I use his quote to illustrate that for him it is jihad (Holy War) fought for "his" God. Although there are many many State policies that help inflame him and his miriad of followers, those policies are merely fuel and further catalysts to support what is already their position.
Therefore, unless a religious solution is reached between Jewish, Muslim and Christian fringes, then I see no "peace" for those who practice those faiths in good stead.
For the record, I support the address of any fringe group (muslim, christian or jew) that has as its stated purpose the elimination or removal of another.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 02:34:20 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
How about trying for a solution where it is not a matter of "them or me", but instead a solution that permits "them and me"? |
No opposition here, if a solution is possible. One reason that I posted "the link between Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam, is both the solution and the failure...". However, given that the solution lies in adherence to the "peace" of each religion and the stated and quoted purpose of Usama to "convert or eliminate", I do not see much chance for a solution without someone getting removed. Unless of course Usama sees the light and becomes a beacon of compassion to the Israelis and Americans.
My reference to this being a religious war first was in direct relation to the Usama quote of converting "all others" to Islam. Specifically the radicalized form. I do not suppose for amoment that Usama would spare the life of an infidel (upon conversion). I use his quote to illustrate that for him it is jihad (Holy War) fought for "his" God. Although there are many many State policies that help inflame him and his miriad of followers, those policies are merely fuel and further catalysts to support what is already their position.
Therefore, unless a religious solution is reached between Jewish, Muslim and Christian fringes, then I see no "peace" for those who practice those faiths in good stead.
For the record, I support the address of any fringe group (muslim, christian or jew) that has as its stated purpose the elimination or removal of another. |
Let me state for the record that Flash and I rarely agree politically.
This is one of those instances.
The Muslim Extremists want nothing more than to exterminate all non-Muslims and most support the elimination of moderate Muslims as well. If you are not a fellow Muslim Extremist, they would not hesitate to murder you, your parents, your children and everyone you know in the most brutal way possible to further their goal. In short, their goal is genocide on a scale that would make the Holocaust look like a skinned knee. They will NOT stop until their goal of eliminating ALL who do not agree with them.
I'm all for being friendly and accomodating toward people of other beliefs. When their goal is the extermination of all others and they will not be swayed from it, it's time to stop singing "Kum Ba Yah" and pick up an M-16. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 02:52:16 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm all for being friendly and accomodating toward people of other beliefs. When their goal is the extermination of all others and they will not be swayed from it, it's time to stop singing "Kum Ba Yah" and pick up an M-16. |
I think that is what happened in Afghanistan when the US stormed Osama's cave systems, and you will hear no complaint for me.
However, in respect of the massive majority, the moderate, everyday people, sufferring great oppression as a consequence of Western policies and who see only one group of people standing up for their interests (the extremists), is the better solution to oppress them harder, or to give them a reason to reject the extremists within their community?
I was speaking with the family of a Lebanese friend a couple of weeks ago, all sheltering from the Israeli bombing of their home area (the Bekaa Valley). My friend is a lawyer, supremely rational. Her family are well educated professionals. They are only lightly religious (they drink, for example), and have strong French connections. However, they were furious, wanted to know who was standing up for their interests? There was no-one other than Hezbollah and the extremist elements. They complained vociferously that the failure of the UK and the US to prevent the Israeli aggression was forcing them into a very uncomfortable position politically.
People who are less educated and Westernised than my friends will feel less conflicted: the polarisation of the conflict (encouraged by both the US and the extremists), "them and us", and the perceived opposition of the US/UK to all Arab causes, is creating the enemy.
A change in foreign policy could achieve more than a hundred thousand troops in securing the West from fundamentalist threat. Not by giving into the extremists, but by eliminating their popular support. It is not an overnight solution, and in the meantime there will be some causes that will require us to act militarily, but it is the only way that we can win the war.
There is a glimmer of hope: there were reports today that he US may be reconsidering its approach to Syria (following on from the attempted embassy bombing). In Afghanistan, Syria provided the most significant intelligence. Rather than declaring it part of the "axis of evil", the US may have to enter dialogue and the politicians may have to engage in politics.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 04:46:15 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm all for being friendly and accomodating toward people of other beliefs. When their goal is the extermination of all others and they will not be swayed from it, it's time to stop singing "Kum Ba Yah" and pick up an M-16. |
I think that is what happened in Afghanistan when the US stormed Osama's cave systems, and you will hear no complaint for me.
However, in respect of the massive majority, the moderate, everyday people, sufferring great oppression as a consequence of Western policies and who see only one group of people standing up for their interests (the extremists), is the better solution to oppress them harder, or to give them a reason to reject the extremists within their community?
I was speaking with the family of a Lebanese friend a couple of weeks ago, all sheltering from the Israeli bombing of their home area (the Bekaa Valley). My friend is a lawyer, supremely rational. Her family are well educated professionals. They are only lightly religious (they drink, for example), and have strong French connections. However, they were furious, wanted to know who was standing up for their interests? There was no-one other than Hezbollah and the extremist elements. They complained vociferously that the failure of the UK and the US to prevent the Israeli aggression was forcing them into a very uncomfortable position politically.
People who are less educated and Westernised than my friends will feel less conflicted: the polarisation of the conflict (encouraged by both the US and the extremists), "them and us", and the perceived opposition of the US/UK to all Arab causes, is creating the enemy.
A change in foreign policy could achieve more than a hundred thousand troops in securing the West from fundamentalist threat. Not by giving into the extremists, but by eliminating their popular support. It is not an overnight solution, and in the meantime there will be some causes that will require us to act militarily, but it is the only way that we can win the war.
There is a glimmer of hope: there were reports today that he US may be reconsidering its approach to Syria (following on from the attempted embassy bombing). In Afghanistan, Syria provided the most significant intelligence. Rather than declaring it part of the "axis of evil", the US may have to enter dialogue and the politicians may have to engage in politics. |
FWIW, the US did not "storm" any caves, that's certain suicide. The US employed a new weapon, the thermobaric bomb.
I'm sorry that your friends are caught in the crossfire, but, despite the significant history of US support and aid for Israel, they are certainly not a puppet of the US, a friend and ally certainly. Israel's decision to bomb targets in a country controlled by a terrorist organization was their own. They may have told Washington they were planning to do so, they may not, who knows what communications happen on diplomatic back channels, but the decision was theirs.
Israel is surrounded by countries that would be happy to blow them off the map. The fact that a terrorist group (and don't give me any B.S. about the political arm of Hezbollah vs. the militant arm, they are the same group) has taken power is not something that Israel can take lightly. Their decision to strike is hardly surprising.
As far as Syria goes, I think that's an encouraging sign that US diplomacy may be working there. You make it sound as if the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue. That's simply not the case, but when the other side supports and encourages terrorists and/or engages in terrorist acts on their own without remorse, the US is hardly going to give them a hug and a cookie.
Look at Lybia, they blew up a jetliner over Scotland and the US bombed them. Yet today, it's possible go to Lybia as a US tourist and be greeted as a friend.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 04:51:29 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I was speaking with the family of a Lebanese friend a couple of weeks ago, all sheltering from the Israeli bombing of their home area (the Bekaa Valley). My friend is a lawyer, supremely rational. Her family are well educated professionals. They are only lightly religious (they drink, for example), and have strong French connections. However, they were furious, wanted to know who was standing up for their interests? There was no-one other than Hezbollah and the extremist elements. They complained vociferously that the failure of the UK and the US to prevent the Israeli aggression was forcing them into a very uncomfortable position politically. |
Anyone who has tried to take a bone away from a dog knows how foolhardy such an undertaking is - the dog guards that bone with every fiber of its body. But the question that needs to be asked is, does the bone really derive a long-term benefit from such a staunch defense?
It would do well for your Lebanese friends to ask themselves whether the support of and defense by Hezbollah is really a long-term benefit for them, or are they, like the bone, being defended not for their own benefit, but solely for the benefit of the defender - in this case, Hezbollah itself. I have seen more than enough evidence to convince me that Hezbollah used Lebanese civilians as "human shields" around their rocket launchers, knowing full well that civilians would be killed by Israeli counterstrikes against those positions.
If peace, that is the absense of hostilities, is to be desired above all else, then you must consider this: solitary confinement in a maximum security prison is extremely peaceful. But, such peace is only possible when all freedoms are eliminated. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 05:28:01 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sad and troubling as it may be not all people hate the fact those people died. We have plenty of people in the U.S. who thought they and to a larger extent, the country deserved what they got on 9/11. This being the internet I don't assume anything about people I don't know. |
Ah, so the call to not be political turns out to be the most political, and most archly conservative, sentiment on this thread. Hmm... who are those "plenty of people" who think the 3,000 Americans "deserved" to die? Could it be... liberals? progressives? leftists? |
Wow. I can see there is no point in continuing this conversation. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:51:49 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Israel is surrounded by countries that would be happy to blow them off the map. The fact that a terrorist group (and don't give me any B.S. ... |
The US singularly failed to seek the cessation of violence (even Condoleeza was embarrassed by GWB on this one). However, I did not mean to get back onto the subject of Israel - I am making a generic point. By pursuing policies that are perceptibly anti-Arab/Muslim, we are exacerbating the problem, not making it better. By pursuing and supporting unwarranted military aggression, we make the problem worse.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You make it sound as if the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue. That's simply not the case, but when the other side supports and encourages terrorists and/or engages in terrorist acts on their own without remorse, the US is hardly going to give them a hug and a cookie. |
Syria was declared to be part of the "axis of evil" - diplomatic relations have stopped, it has been tagged as a terrorist state. Another member of the club, Iraq, was invaded, and Syria looked to be next on the list until the Iran nuclear issue arose. The US singularly failed to act to stop the Israeli bombing of half a country over the seizure of 2 soldiers. I don't think that this is an exaggeration.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Look at Lybia, they blew up a jetliner over Scotland and the US bombed them. Yet today, it's possible go to Lybia as a US tourist and be greeted as a friend. |
You can go to Syria and I would guarantee you a warm welcome. Libya has only become open in the last couple of years with Gaddafi's defrosting of the rhetoric and apology etc - ie it was the politics and the diplomacy that resulted in the thawing of relations, not the bombing.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:58:07 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It would do well for your Lebanese friends to ask themselves whether the support of and defense by Hezbollah is really a long-term benefit for them, or are they, like the bone, being defended not for their own benefit, but solely for the benefit of the defender - in this case, Hezbollah itself. |
I think that this is at least in part my argument: they question it, in fact they do not support Hezbollah, but they see no-one else standing up for their interests. How far should they go in letting their homeland be destroyed, friends and family be killed, before they start supporting the only perceived political party whose policies they disagree with, but which is the only one offering a defence? Should they wait until they are in the same position as the Palestinian refugees? If my friends are some of the most moderate and well educated Muslims that you will find, how far do you expect ordinary people will apply this reasoning before being forced to support the extremists?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:01:00 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Israel is surrounded by countries that would be happy to blow them off the map. The fact that a terrorist group (and don't give me any B.S. ... |
The US singularly failed to seek the cessation of violence (even Condoleeza was embarrassed by GWB on this one). However, I did not mean to get back onto the subject of Israel - I am making a generic point. By pursuing policies that are perceptibly anti-Arab/Muslim, we are exacerbating the problem, not making it better. By pursuing and supporting unwarranted military aggression, we make the problem worse. |
I don't think it's unwarranted to attack a nation governed by terrorists (i.e. Hezbollah) Would you expect the US not to take action if Osama bin Laden were somehow elected PM of Canada? Especially if cross border rocket attacks were a routine occurrence? It wasn't just becasue two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, though that may have been the triggering event.
The scale of the Israeli attacks may have been disproportionate, but overwhelming response is part of the Israeli military doctrine. The terrorists in Lebanon had to know that.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You make it sound as if the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue. That's simply not the case, but when the other side supports and encourages terrorists and/or engages in terrorist acts on their own without remorse, the US is hardly going to give them a hug and a cookie. |
Syria was declared to be part of the "axis of evil" - diplomatic relations have stopped, it has been tagged as a terrorist state. Another member of the club, Iraq, was invaded, and Syria looked to be next on the list until the Iran nuclear issue arose. The US singularly failed to act to stop the Israeli bombing of half a country over the seizure of 2 soldiers. I don't think that this is an exaggeration. |
I'm sure that while formal diplomatic ties were severed, considerable discussion was taking place through backchannel means or via 3rd parties. Complete non-communication with governments only happens when there is no government to communicate with as is the case in Somalia. The US even has discussions with what is arguably the most closed country on earth, North Korea.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Look at Lybia, they blew up a jetliner over Scotland and the US bombed them. Yet today, it's possible go to Lybia as a US tourist and be greeted as a friend. |
You can go to Syria and I would guarantee you a warm welcome. Libya has only become open in the last couple of years with Gaddafi's defrosting of the rhetoric and apology etc - ie it was the politics and the diplomacy that resulted in the thawing of relations, not the bombing. |
Exactly, it was Lybia's expression of remorse, renunciation of terrorism and settlement with the victim's families. I never suggested that dropping a few bombs on Lybia solved the problem, but it was a justifiable response to a state that was actively sponsoring terrorist acts on a global scale. Lybia should be a model for other terrorist states, showing that it is possible to turn back from the path of destruction. If they too, would renounce terrorism, express remorse and stop in their pursuit of WMD and the extermination of non-Muslims, I expect that the US and other civilized nations would welcome them. Until they come to the realization that they are on a path of destruction, I expect they will continue to be treated as rabid dogs.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2006 04:59:40 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think it's unwarranted to attack a nation governed by terrorists (i.e. Hezbollah) Would you expect the US not to take action if Osama bin Laden were somehow elected PM of Canada? Especially if cross border rocket attacks were a routine occurrence? It wasn't just becasue two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, though that may have been the triggering event. |
I would be interested to know if you equate Hezbollah with Al Quaeda?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You make it sound as if the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue. That's simply not the case, but when the other side supports and encourages terrorists and/or engages in terrorist acts on their own without remorse, the US is hardly going to give them a hug and a cookie. |
Syria was declared to be part of the "axis of evil" - diplomatic relations have stopped, it has been tagged as a terrorist state. Another member of the club, Iraq, was invaded, and Syria looked to be next on the list until the Iran nuclear issue arose. The US singularly failed to act to stop the Israeli bombing of half a country over the seizure of 2 soldiers. I don't think that this is an exaggeration. |
I'm sure that while formal diplomatic ties were severed, considerable discussion was taking place through backchannel means or via 3rd parties. Complete non-communication with governments only happens when there is no government to communicate with as is the case in Somalia. The US even has discussions with what is arguably the most closed country on earth, North Korea. |
I don't think that this really answers my point: there is the perception that "the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue", based on very recent history (although it probably does not have the capacity to open another front at the moment).
Message edited by author 2006-09-13 05:00:44.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2006 08:13:08 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would be interested to know if you equate Hezbollah with Al Quaeda? |
Although this question was not asked of me, my reply would be no and yes. No, I do not equate the two as one and the same, or even one being an offshoot of the other. I believe they have different leaderships and thus different organizations.
Yes, in that each has as a stated goal (also Hamas and a miriad of other groups) the destruction/elimination of Israel. Regardless of "why" they want Israel destroyed, the end result is that they are kindred spirits and would help each other if it served their interest.
I question why some muslims hate so much the Jewish people. Not just Israel, but the people themselves.
The response of Israel to Hezbollah was a planned event awaiting a catalyst. Hezbollah obliged, and the result is history. If Hezbollah had not violated the UN resolution on armaments, then Israel would not have needed the plan to address their stockpile. If Hezbollah had not raided and kidnapped 2 soldiers (presumably for barter and support of Hamas), then the "disproportionate" response would not have occurred - when it did. Life is full of choices. We all make them. Hezbollah chose to defy UN resolutions and stockpile weapons for an eventual attack on Israel. Israel chose to prepare for that attack, and address it preemptively when Hezbollah offered up a reason to do so. The civilians caught in the cross fire, were primarily muslim, located in enclaves where Hezbollah operated. The Christian areas of Lebenon, escaped much of the carnage. Any thoughts on why? Perhaps because there was no Hezbollah threat there? Perhaps that is a lesson to be learned by your friends. No Hezbollah stockpiling weapons to be used against Israel = little carnage by Israel.
This lesson might be useful for Usama as well. No attacks on US interests = no response by the US.
This all seems so logical to me.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2006 11:41:08 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think it's unwarranted to attack a nation governed by terrorists (i.e. Hezbollah) Would you expect the US not to take action if Osama bin Laden were somehow elected PM of Canada? Especially if cross border rocket attacks were a routine occurrence? It wasn't just becasue two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, though that may have been the triggering event. |
I would be interested to know if you equate Hezbollah with Al Quaeda?
|
Hezbollah and Al Quaeda are certainly not the same thing, but there are many similarities.
While Hezbollah has a more public face with their "political" faction, they also have a significant portion of their membership dedicated to terrorism as does Al Quaeda.
I don't think it too much of a stretch to say that Israel's relation to Hezbollah is similar to the US's relation to Al Quaeda.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2006 11:48:04 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You make it sound as if the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue. That's simply not the case, but when the other side supports and encourages terrorists and/or engages in terrorist acts on their own without remorse, the US is hardly going to give them a hug and a cookie. |
Syria was declared to be part of the "axis of evil" - diplomatic relations have stopped, it has been tagged as a terrorist state. Another member of the club, Iraq, was invaded, and Syria looked to be next on the list until the Iran nuclear issue arose. The US singularly failed to act to stop the Israeli bombing of half a country over the seizure of 2 soldiers. I don't think that this is an exaggeration. |
I'm sure that while formal diplomatic ties were severed, considerable discussion was taking place through backchannel means or via 3rd parties. Complete non-communication with governments only happens when there is no government to communicate with as is the case in Somalia. The US even has discussions with what is arguably the most closed country on earth, North Korea. |
I don't think that this really answers my point: there is the perception that "the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue", based on very recent history (although it probably does not have the capacity to open another front at the moment). |
My perception is that the US message is: "Don't support terrorists and we can talk, otherwise the gloves are off." |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 02:02:50 PM · #92 |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 02:20:26 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My perception is that the US message is: "Don't support terrorists and we can talk, otherwise the gloves are off." |
Let's rephrase that:
"Don't support terrorists and we can talk, otherwise maybe the gloves are off." It seems the gloves only come off if the country in question has some comodity the US wants.
Some countries are supporting terrorists by not doing anything to stop them in their own country. Pakistan claims not to endorse/support the Taliban yet does nothing to stop their movement between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
(If you have info to the contrary, fire away)
Message edited by author 2006-09-14 14:20:55. |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 03:52:34 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My perception is that the US message is: "Don't support terrorists and we can talk, otherwise the gloves are off." |
Let's rephrase that:
"Don't support terrorists and we can talk, otherwise maybe the gloves are off." It seems the gloves only come off if the country in question has some comodity the US wants.
Some countries are supporting terrorists by not doing anything to stop them in their own country. Pakistan claims not to endorse/support the Taliban yet does nothing to stop their movement between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
(If you have info to the contrary, fire away) |
As I said in an earlier post, it's not that the Pakistani Government won't track down the Taliban, it's more like they can't. Mostly because the Government has little real authority in the border regions. The only real authority is the tribal leaders and the Pakistani Government has limited influence there. It's not unrealistic to compare the border region between Pakistan to the Wild West. |
|
|
|
09/14/2006 04:57:19 PM · #95 |
I don't think that this really answers my point: there is the perception that "the US would rather blow up half of a country rather than sit down for a dialogue", based on very recent history (although it probably does not have the capacity to open another front at the moment).
In a perfect world we the US, United Nations, Hezbollah, Taliban,Osama bin Laden and his merry men, Iran, Syria and the rest of the people can all sit around sipping wine and talking ,and all the issues can be resolved.
There is no dialoque with these people. Talk until your face is blue. Where do you draw the line? Perhaps we should just let them run amok and if they attack us, we get the United Nations on them! That will work! |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 05:55:20 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hezbollah and Al Quaeda are certainly not the same thing, but there are many similarities.
While Hezbollah has a more public face with their "political" faction, they also have a significant portion of their membership dedicated to terrorism as does Al Quaeda.
I don't think it too much of a stretch to say that Israel's relation to Hezbollah is similar to the US's relation to Al Quaeda. |
Sorry for taking a long time to respond (work!).
I have noted this sentiment in a number of places. However, I would draw your attention to a number of very significant differences.
Hezbollah was established in response to the occupation of Lebanon and is locally regarded as a legitimate resistance organisation. While the rhetoric stemming from the 80s and early 90s might include a call for the destruction of Israel, its modern rhetoric calls for the withdrawal of Israel to pre-67 borders. It condemns suicide bombing (a policy it has not operated for some years) and condemned the WTC attack.
Importantly, even the military wing (which is the more radical element of Hezbollah) responds to political negotiation and has respected the UN brokered ceasefire (contrary to many assertions here (and elsewhere) including bcoble's last post that "they are terrorists and cannot be negotiated with").
For every allegation of Hezbollah's monstrosities in the recent war, there are examples of Israeli monstrosities: neither are well substantiated and I prefer to think that neither side was perfect, but neither committed the worst of the crimes attributed to them (Israel deliberately targetting civilian areas to turn them against Hezbollah nor Hezbollah encouraging civilian casualties in order to gain sympathy).
While I certainly do not endorse Hezbollah nor its extreme rhetoric, nor its historic extremism, the modern face of Hezbollah is very different to that of, say, Al-Quaeda or the Taliban.
Message edited by author 2006-09-18 05:57:27.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 06:03:46 AM · #97 |
Noted, but I would draw your attention to the following section of that article:
Originally posted by Amnesty International:
He said Amnesty probably came under U.S. and Israeli pressure to issue a report critical of Hezbollah's actions during the war after issuing a similar report against Israel last month.
In a report released Aug. 22, the human rights organization accused Israel of violating international law with indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure in Lebanon. |
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 06:14:36 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My perception is that the US message is: "Don't support terrorists and we can talk, otherwise the gloves are off." |
And in the case of Iraq? The Senate Intelligence Committee confirms that there was no link between Saddam and Al-Quaeda (nor has there ever been any real suggestion (perhaps outside the US) that there was a connection).
In Lebanon, the "terrorists" were ultimately the party with which talks needed to take place (and the current peace only arose as a consequence of those talks).
In Palestine, the "terrorists" form the democratically elected government, with whom any meaningful talks must be conducted.
How do you propose to resolve these issues?
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 09:07:05 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Noted, but I would draw your attention to the following section of that article:
Originally posted by Amnesty International:
He said Amnesty probably came under U.S. and Israeli pressure to issue a report critical of Hezbollah's actions during the war after issuing a similar report against Israel last month.
In a report released Aug. 22, the human rights organization accused Israel of violating international law with indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure in Lebanon. |
|
The "he" in "he said" is a Hezbollah Legislator, after he admitted to the targeting of civilians etc. There is something fundemantally wrong with the Islamic attitude (being reported in the press) towards Christians and Jews. The recent "outcry" over the Popes quoting of an Islamic Ruler (13th century I believe), is another example of how the faith is being hijacked by some which is causing detriment for all.
My sense is that the prevailing "attitude" of muslims is not kind towards christians and/or jews. I do not believe it is solely the "policies" argument. I believe it is grounded in the delivery of the faith. My perception is that believers and converts to Islam misunderstand some key points of the Koran. I do not know how else to explain movements like Louie Farakhans "Nation of Islam" that preaches the evils of the jews. I am familiar with many christian atrocities throughout history and many attrocities against them. The Islamic Fundementalists movement seems more world wide and consistent from non-related group to non-related group. The common thread with each is the apparrent "authority" to take up arms against the "infidels" who are defined as christians and jews. If the Islamic Leaders will not be "tolerent" of christians and jews, then how can the masses be expected to be. If a Hezbollah Legislator admits to targeting civilians and that is apparently "OK" in violation of international rules of war, then what message is this indicating for the movement. To me it signals that Islam as being protrayed in the world today, is not a "tolerent" religion and my religious beliefs are under attack. This does not bode well for "us" of differeing views, to work out a sustained agreement and lends itself to more positioning of either win or lose. Thus, war not political negotiation.
Which is why this 9-11 thread has expanded to these other elements of the attitude to harm Americans/Israelis.
Muslim reaction
[The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."]
[The secretary-general of the Turkish HUKUK-DER law association submitted a request to the Justice Ministry asking that the pope be arrested upon entering Turkey]
Message edited by author 2006-09-18 14:03:05.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 09:58:27 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Amnesty International:
He said Amnesty probably came under U.S. and Israeli pressure to issue a report critical of Hezbollah's actions during the war after issuing a similar report against Israel last month.
In a report released Aug. 22, the human rights organization accused Israel of violating international law with indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure in Lebanon. |
|
The "he" in "he said" is a Hezbollah Legislator, after he admitted to the targeting of civilians etc. |
The important part of my quote was the second paragraph: to suggest that criticism is one way would be selective reporting. The quote that you object to is speculative only.
Originally posted by Flash:
There is something fundemantally wrong with the Islamic attitude (being reported in the press) towards Christians and Jews. |
I don't think that there is a problem re: Christians. There is an issue with certain western countries and their foreign policies. Similarly, there is an issue with Israeli foreign policy, which is disintegrating into a hatred for Jewish people.
Similarly, the western portrayal of Muslims is causing people in the West (and your posts are an example of this) to make generalisations leading to misunderstanding, distrust and/or hatred of Muslims generally.
If you exercise your power of empathy, can you understand why the divide is growing, and your national foreign policy issues that motivate some of the feeling being expressed in the Middle East?
Of course I disagree with the misunderstanding of the Pope's expression - but at the same time, recognise that there are similar misunderstandings in the other direction. I don't condone the reactionary attitudes being expressed by either group against the other and am horrifed by the suspected reprisal attacks.
Originally posted by Flash:
I do not know how else to explain movements like Louie Farakhans "Nation of Islam" that preaches the evils of the jews. I am familiar with many christian atrocities throughout history and many attrocities against them. |
Think back to the many times in history that the Jews have been persecuted. The exclusivity of their faith and the perception of wealth has historically, time and time again, created an environment of distrust and resentment resulting ultimately in accusations of persecution. EG - Jewish people were banned and expelled from the UK between the 13th and 16th centuries.
IMHO, the most recent issues have arisen as a consequence of similar fears and resentment, combined with the aggressive foreign policy exercised by Israel resulting in the '67 occupation of neighbouring territories: this occupation and the seizure of land is well within living memory and (unless the land is returned) will take a hundred years or more for the reasonably immediate dispossessed to die out and the issue to be substantially resigned upon.
Originally posted by Flash:
If a Hezbollah Legislator admits to targeting civilians and that is apparently "OK" in violation of international rules of war, then what message is this indicating for the movement. |
The counter argument is that Hezbollah only started targetting civilian assets after Israel targetted civilian targets in Lebanon.
Message edited by author 2006-09-19 09:58:40.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 06:35:04 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 06:35:04 PM EDT.
|
