• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War on Terror is bogus

Status
Not open for further replies.
nkgupta80 said:
I can see why many are against the War in Iraq, but why the War in Afghanistan?

Actually, I don’t think operation in Afghanistan was erroneous. I’ve written “Afghanistan, Iraq” just because they are often mentioned together, (kind of “conditioning” result :doh).
Perhaps such operations could be estimated on their feed back that is the resistance.
After the end of Taliban power in Kabul it was minimal, and only now it grows, being obviously connected to Sunni resistance in Iraq.
As PR–action US operation in Afghanistan was successful, imho, and all of the countries (even Pakistan that supported Taliban) appreciated it, or at least kept silence like Iran.

Nevertheless, the real success there also should not be overestimated. Afghanistan is the land of rocks and mountains where live many quite separate tribes those belong to Uzbecks, Pushtu and some other smaller peoples. Power in Kabul is nominal to great extent, it doesn’t mean the control over such a peculiar land*, nor it determines the life of those tribes (or does it to the smallest extent).
They live their life: run Heroin business, bargain, have permanent conflicts with each other.
If tribe elders will get some money, they will be loyal, if they will get some money from another side or if their interests will be somehow restricted they may begin resist.
The fact that US commandos and their Afghan allies have taken Tora-Bora doesn’t mean that they have completely wiped Al-Qaida out of Afghanistan. Caves and mountains are all over there. As well as Al-Qaida has plenty of space except Afghanistan.
___________________
*Otherwise, perhaps Osama bin Laden would have been captured already (if he’s not a fake at all, and doesn’t live at the Bush ranch). Saddam in his plain Iraq was caught much sooner.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
“to extinguish fire with gasoline”

As arussian said.
I've been away for a while but I see some of the same things are being said. The war of Afghanistan was to wipe out the people that where responsible for Sept.11. If you ignore them(not attacking) they will do it again because it emboldens them. There is a list of attacks that we received.The 1st. attempt on the World Trade Center Towers, an attack on an embassy, USS Coal and some others I can't remember. The point is, there IS NO WAY to make nice with these people. They hate us for who we are. I don't know about you but i am not converting to their radical screwed up version of Islam. The only other choice is to kill them and keep on killing them. A dead enemy is no threat.
 
alienken said:
I've been away for a while but I see some of the same things are being said. The war of Afghanistan was to wipe out the people that where responsible for Sept.11. If you ignore them(not attacking) they will do it again because it emboldens them. There is a list of attacks that we received.The 1st. attempt on the World Trade Center Towers, an attack on an embassy, USS Coal and some others I can't remember. The point is, there IS NO WAY to make nice with these people. They hate us for who we are. I don't know about you but i am not converting to their radical screwed up version of Islam. The only other choice is to kill them and keep on killing them. A dead enemy is no threat.

You will never kill every single terrorist. You won't. Violence spreads hatred, especially violence in retalliation.

When it comes to ignoring them, that is not at all what I have suggested. This is not a problem you can ignore any more than it is a problem you can bomb to death.
 
I think it was Clinton who thought he could bomb his problems to death.

In retrospect, I’d have to say it worked.
 
You're trying to tell me that Clinton solved terrorism?

I thought it would be fairly obvious that he didn't.
 
If you think this "war on Terror" is bogus, it is because you don't want it to exist. What you want or don't want does not change it's existence. It really doesn't matter what American civillians think to us about this. We know what the enemy is because we see it. You all see Al-Queda and Bin Laden as the enemy and would have us pick up one "martyr" at a time for the rest of our history. We will get Bin Laden when we get him. He is believed to be harbored in Pakistan. He won't get away, but men like him are tools and replaceable. Until the Middle East turns away from their perversions of Islam and embraces their once true Muslim roots like the majority of Muslims all over the world, the "martyrs" will never end. That means Americans will continue to be murdered and slaughtered through terrorist attacks.

How many more terrorist attacks were we supposed to sustain, before we stopped forgiving them for their "heritage". Should we have waited until the next President, or the next, or the next, or the next? This is what we have been doing since 1949. Those of us in uniform have had enough of them killing our people, of which, we were supposed to have been protecting. What makes it harder for us is knowing that we have Americans that can't see this. These people in the Middle East must change what they think of us. As long as they are being influenced by forced and learned anti-American rhetorics by dictators, clerecs, and the house of Saud, Americans will always be in danger. The final outcome of this will be decided on whether or not this change affects Saudi Arabia, since they are the true parents of Islam terror and the true bigot. We do not look down on Muslims. It is they that preach hatred towards other races and religions. Our religious diversity proves this. What keeps us out of there, militarily, is the hostage keeping of the worlds oil supply, of which, by the way, we receive a small percent compared to Europe and Asia. So, our government isn't the only one's that do not want us to risk disrupting such a globally effected commodity.

Any other argument of oil, money, individual revenge, WMD, and any other political partisan issue doesn't really matter. Of course there is benefit. In war, there always has been and there will always be. I wish that we knew, without a doubt, that Hussein did not have WMD, but we didn't (Considering the huge football field size weapons bunkers we have found, we still might). Either way, I wish we would have just pointed out to the world, of the last 50 years of Islamist murder that has gone unchecked. It would be wonderful if we had more American support instead of the constant undermining of current day Vietnam protesters. Even the Russians grew silent from their anti-war chants after suffering a terrrorist attack from their own part of the world in one of their schools last year. This is not just an American war. We and a few other nations are just the only one's finally taking these terrorists seriously. There is a greater magnitude of change in the Middle East that we have sparked. Only time will tell what that change will be, but it had to be done. 20 years from now we may look back and see where a great tide was turned in world security, and it all would have started from Iraq. Of course, excepting this, we also need to accept that when we look back we may find that we accomplished nothing. Either way, America will be fine in the end, because we are America, but we have to try. Every attack and every time a host nation harbored that attack proves that diplomacy with these people had failed, long ago.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Until the Middle East turns away from their perversions of Islam and embraces their once true Muslim roots like the majority of Muslims all over the world, the "martyrs" will never end.

These people aren't killing solely out of religious beliefs. There is as much in the Quran about peace as there is about "Killing the infidel." These are people that believe what they are doing will improve the lives of themselves and those they care for. They are people see "a means to an end." Violence as a means to an end of prosperity for each other. I do not agree with these ideas, that is why I do not believe that reducing our selves to using violence as a means to an end of no terrorism is flawed and irrational.

That means Americans will continue to be murdered and slaughtered through terrorist attacks.

I believe the best way to end the slaughter of our citizens is to not let anyone have reasons for such things.

How many more terrorist attacks were we supposed to sustain, before we stopped forgiving them for their "heritage". Should we have waited until the next President, or the next, or the next, or the next? This is what we have been doing since 1949. Those of us in uniform have had enough of them killing our people, of which, we were supposed to have been protecting. What makes it harder for us is knowing that we have Americans that can't see this. These people in the Middle East must change what they think of us.

They must change. I completely agree, but I do not think you can shoot them or bomb them into changing. Violence does not encourage a change into peace. It encourages hatred. I am not suggesting that you ignore the enemy, I am asking you to catch them completley off guard by forgiving them completely and unmake this enemy and unmake this threat. You will not do that with violence. I am asking you to actively and non violently pursue peace. I do not believe it to be beyond you or anyone.

There is a greater magnitude of change in the Middle East that we have sparked. Only time will tell what that change will be, but it had to be done. 20 years from now we may look back and see where a great tide was turned in world security, and it all would have started from Iraq.

In the next twenty years I believe we will have been hit at least twice with terrorist attacks of 9/11's magnitude if not greater. We have done much to crush terrorists, but what have we done to crush terrorism?

Either way, America will be fine in the end, because we are America, but we have to try. Every attack and every time a host nation harbored that attack proves that diplomacy with these people had failed, long ago.

What kind of diplomacy has been attempted with these people?
 
This is entirely about religion. They don't like Israel, because they live on their holy land. We stand between them and Israel. They are angry that they lead decreptit lives and blame America for keeping them down, when they should be blaming their own governments. If you think there is more to it, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and you are giving them too much credit.

America has stood between Israel and Egypt and brought them to the peace tables time and again until Egypt finally stopped attacking them. America stood between Israel and Palestine time and again, but Palestine will not stop attacking them. America has stood between Israel and Syria time and again. Syria has refused to stop attacking. We have forgiven Middle Eastern governments from one terrorist attack after another. The attacks continued. Americans continued to be bombed, skyjacked, and murdered. America has given money and aid to palestine, because they are too busy attacking Israel through Syrian and Iranian backing to take care of their own people. They receive no such help from their own Muslim brothers. You do realize that 9/11 wasn't the first time right and there has been terrorist history that goes back to before you were born? The world is an evil place. The only way to battle it is through equal force.

Reducing ourselves to violence is going to be what kills the enemy, because they are animals and they only care about violence. Kissing the bully on the cheek only demonstrates weakness.
 
Last edited:
What I am truly unable to understand and what truly makes me curious about is why it was necessary to invade Iraq? Why not to use common American tactics of bombings and then supporting the dissident movements, as it was in Yugoslavia? (I don’t approve it morally and these tactics is surely one of the reason for US to be hated by peoples in the countries that suffered, but it is rather effective and quite understandable).
Why it was thought to be clever to start ground operation in Iraq?
Why the neo-con administration has forgot Korean and Vietnamese and Soviet Afghanistan experience?
Wasn’t it evident from the beginning that ground operation will inflame resistance war, that all of the anti-American motivated persons from all over Arabic world will now have chance to act, to travel to Iraq to blast a Humvee (or something like this) instead of just seating and being unable to do something?
Why lose people, time, money? It is somehow not an American style, isn’t it?
Invasion is also hardly a solution for the problems of internal US security. To prevent terrorist act on their territory one should care about the borders, airports, etc. Invasion abroad may lessen the probability of such acts if you will significantly lessen the number of persons willing to perform them, but may also raise it if you will increase that number. Anyway, it is internal security on which it depends, will a terrorist act happen or it will not.
I can’t believe that US administration is so short-sighted that it couldn’t foreseen ever growing resistance, the regionalization of conflict*. And if it could, then what were the goals?
Oil? But what is the price of oil now? It has been constantly raised from March 2003.
Incomes of Bush family that is closely connected to oil companies?
But is it possible to use the whole of American nation and its war machine for such little interests? It is also somehow strange to accept this.
The goals like to bring a whole of American society into some other state http://www.alternet.org/story/15935 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html or perhaps supporting Israel without paying attention to the American interests come into mind.
Of course, I doubt that such ideas are also somehow plausible.


* well, perhaps US army will do with the Sunni resistance. Is it really supposed that Shia will simply turn to Democracy and other American stuff? Shia- the same kind of Islamic confession like in Iran?
Why Shia is collaborating with the US against Sunni? They just wait for their Shia state like in Iran with that Americans will supply them! Otherwise, next wave of resistance 4 (at least) times harder because there are 4 times more Shia than Sunni in Iraq. To say nothing about Iran etc, etc.
 
If "morally" you disagree with the war in Iraq, then "morally" you agree with Saddam's treatment of his people. Although some people try, you can't have it both ways.

That is very pascive and defensive thinking. We cannot pull within our borders and hope that terrorism just goes away and sacrifice future Americans that will die. Pulling withing our borders is a mistake that the world payed for twice. In both instances, America payed a heavy price cleaning up the mess. If we had pulled back within our borders after WWII, would there have been a WWIII? I think so and it would have been against the U.S.S.R. and China. The best defense of any territory is to go out from your borders. We have learned this. Why should we even have to be afraid that terrorist might attack us? Why shouldn't we be like everyone else? Perhaps we would be if we turned our back on our Ally in the Midddle East like everyone else has since the UN approved Israel as a soverign nation.

I will not speak about or against President Bush, his office, or the intel community like so many people seem to think they can do accurately. The insurgency, actually, makes a lot of sense. The battle ground is over there. This is there chance to fight Americans and die for their God. We are winning. The terrorist attacks have reached an all time low. It seems the opposite, because their bombs are bigger and cause more death in one shot. The Marines have chased them from Fallujah to Najaaf back to Fallujah and on to the Syrian border from where they came from. What the media reports is the civillian casualties inflicted by the enemies of Iraq. What the media does not report is 100's of fighters that we are killing whole sale every day. Their numbers are smaller and Syria and Iran are running out of bodies to throw to the sacrifice. If Iraq can hold their government together, it will signify the beginning of the end of these radical zealots that preach hate towards America. Democracy in the Middle East is the answer to a peaceful coexistence. Remember, considering the attacks since 1949, it is not us that can't get along. It's them.
 
Last edited:
Gandhi>Bush said:
You're trying to tell me that Clinton solved terrorism?

Don’t be silly. Clinton couldn’t solve a crossword puzzle unless it was a scripted telecast. Clinton was afraid to do anything about terrorism unless it involved firing missiles or dropping bombs. He was too big a coward to allow American body bags to make the news here in America.

The body bags got filled on his watch but there weren’t enough Americans in them to concern him.

Bush has the testicular fortitude to send US troops into harms way because he knows the Middle East is a breeding ground for those that will continue to kill pacifists like you until they are killed, imprisoned or their power over others in the region is diminished to a such point they are imprisoned, killed or re-educated by those new governments we install and support.

That takes boots on the ground unless you support the Clinton strategy and think launching missiles and dropping bombs can solve all military problems. If you think we can negotiate with these terrorists, I suggest you hop on a plane and do just that.

Be sure to wear a titanium turtleneck though or it might be you begging for your life right before your head is sawed off with a dull knife.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
If "morally" you disagree with the war in Iraq, then "morally" you agree with Saddam's treatment of his people. Although some people try, you can't have it both ways.

That is very pascive and defensive thinking. We cannot pull within our borders and hope that terrorism just goes away and sacrifice future Americans that will die. Pulling withing our borders is a mistake that the world payed for twice. In both instances, America payed a heavy price cleaning up the mess. If we had pulled back within our borders after WWII, would there have been a WWIII? I think so and it would have been against the U.S.S.R. and China. The best defense of any territory is to go out from your borders. We have learned this. Why should we even have to be afraid that terrorist might attack us? Why shouldn't we be like everyone else? Perhaps we would be if we turned our back on our Ally in the Midddle East like everyone else has since the UN approved Israel as a soverign nation.

I will not speak about or against President Bush, his office, or the intel community like so many people seem to think they can do accurately. The insurgency, actually, makes a lot of sense. The battle ground is over there. This is there chance to fight Americans and die for their God. We are winning. The terrorist attacks have reached an all time low. It seems the opposite, because their bombs are bigger and cause more death in one shot. The Marines have chased them from Fallujah to Najaaf back to Fallujah and on to the Syrian border from where they came from. What the media reports is the civillian casualties inflicted by the enemies of Iraq. What the media does not report is 100's of fighters that we are killing whole sale every day. Their numbers are smaller and Syria and Iran are running out of bodies to throw to the sacrifice. If Iraq can hold their government together, it will signify the beginning of the end of these radical zealots that preach hate towards America. Democracy in the Middle East is the answer to a peaceful coexistence. Remember, considering the attacks since 1949, it is not us that can't get along. It's them.

GySgt, I understand your personal position. Nevertheless, I've heard that kind of optimistic statements more than 2 years ago.
We shall see. What else could be said.
 
You'll hear it for a few years more. It is going to take time to dig out the ignorant hate that creates terrorist. I still fail to see where we have done anything wrong unless I consider that we waited too long to grab a hold of the Middle East which resulted in needless American deaths. The Middle East is like the ghetto of a city. The people living there blame the more fortunate for what they can't fix themselves. Their civilization had become stagnate in the first century. The few individuals that have become rich, selling and extorting the earth's energy supply, have failed to pass the wealth around while placing blame on the ugly American. Of course, I'm referring to the House of Saud. The people of the Middle East focus their hate on us rather than there own leadership. After all, their leaders, the Muslim Clerek, wouldn't lie. They speak for Allah. Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all subscribe to this perversion. (Sort of like the Catholics in the Middle Ages.) Of course, throw in the deep rooted bigotry and hatred for the Jew, and you have a whole Middle Eastern religion that has a crusade; A big enough crusade that would bring cheers to the skyjacking of two airplanes and the crashing of them into the "satans" heart. Of course, you won't hear the President say something like this on television. It wouldn't be politically correct. I have the benefit of being on the ground and looking at the ugliness through my iron sights. We've seen it throughout the Middle East. I'm not afraid to say it, because I see it as truth and it's not mistaken for bigotry. The peaceful Muslim are as much a victim as American civillians, but they also share our government's guilt of not rising up against their oppressors long ago. This is a festering problem that had to be dealt with. We haven't created more terrorists. We've just exposed and brought them all out in the open.

I think underneath the surface, many people might see this. Their political parties just won't allow them to admit it.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
This is entirely about religion.

That's a convenient answer and one I don't think is entirely correct.

They don't like Israel, because they live on their holy land. We stand between them and Israel. They are angry that they lead decreptit lives and blame America for keeping them down, when they should be blaming their own governments. If you think there is more to it, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and you are giving them too much credit.

I don't think you give them enough. These people aren't stupid. Terrorist tactics aren't used by those who simply can't think of better ones. They are instilling fear and weakening moral, etc. These are not tactics used by animals and idiots. These are tactics of the desparate and the outnumbered. They don't like Israel becuase they feel as if their land was stolen from them. You have to change these feelings. Both Israelis and Palestinians believe that they have THE SAME right to the land as both are children of Abraham and both are promised rights to this land. Palestinians feel they are denied this right that the Israelis have and hold claim to. If you do not know of the injustices done to the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis, Google it.

America has stood between Israel and Egypt and brought them to the peace tables time and again until Egypt finally stopped attacking them. America stood between Israel and Palestine time and again, but Palestine will not stop attacking them. America has stood between Israel and Syria time and again. Syria has refused to stop attacking. We have forgiven Middle Eastern governments from one terrorist attack after another. The attacks continued. Americans continued to be bombed, skyjacked, and murdered. America has given money and aid to palestine, because they are too busy attacking Israel through Syrian and Iranian backing to take care of their own people. They receive no such help from their own Muslim brothers. You do realize that 9/11 wasn't the first time right and there has been terrorist history that goes back to before you were born? The world is an evil place. The only way to battle it is through equal force.

So one way or another evil will win.

Reducing ourselves to violence is going to be what kills the enemy, because they are animals and they only care about violence. Kissing the bully on the cheek only demonstrates weakness.

No, what demonstrates weakness is giving up on diplomacy. What demonstrates weakness is giving up on patience and compassion and resorting to hatred and war.

Reducing yourself to violence makes you just as much an animal as them. You will never ever completely kill this. You won't. This is a problem not solved by any number of bombs or military spending.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Don’t be silly. Clinton couldn’t solve a crossword puzzle unless it was a scripted telecast.

I hear Bush is really good with words maybe he could give it a wack...

Clinton was afraid to do anything about terrorism unless it involved firing missiles or dropping bombs. He was too big a coward to allow American body bags to make the news here in America.

The body bags got filled on his watch but there weren’t enough Americans in them to concern him.

I don't agree with these tactics either.

Bush has the testicular fortitude to send US troops into harms way because he knows the Middle East is a breeding ground for those that will continue to kill pacifists like you until they are killed, imprisoned or their power over others in the region is diminished to a such point they are imprisoned, killed or re-educated by those new governments we install and support.

If we were a nation of Pacifists and peacemakers, I believe we would not have a terrorist problem to begin with.

That being said I don't feel safer now that this war has started. I believe it as only drawn more hatred/scorn/resentment to America.

That takes boots on the ground unless you support the Clinton strategy and think launching missiles and dropping bombs can solve all military problems.

I don't think dropping bombs can solve virtually any problem unless of course that problem is too many bombs.

If you think we can negotiate with these terrorists, I suggest you hop on a plane and do just that.

Be sure to wear a titanium turtleneck though or it might be you begging for your life right before your head is sawed off with a dull knife.

I believe we can unmake these terrorists, and if it meant getting on a plane and losing my head to do so, I would. I don't believe you or I believe it would though. I believe there are steps that can be taken to unmake the "great white satan of the west" that do not include bombs, bullets, or anything in between.
 
Gandi>Bush said:
If we were a nation of Pacifists and peacemakers, I believe we would not have a terrorist problem to begin with.
No, we would have no nation. You live in a dream world if you think being a pacifist or peacmaker nation would somehow make everyone love us.

Gandi>Bush said:
believe there are steps that can be taken to unmake the "great white satan of the west" that do not include bombs, bullets, or anything in between.
As long as they don’t involve you putting your neck on the line to prove these ideas, I’m sure you have many of them.

Start by taking that plane ride to Iran, Iraq or Syria and return with your head attached to your body Gandi>Bush. Only then will you be a true pacifist who thinks the terrorists can be dealt with.

Why do you still take sides with the terrorists? When’s the last time you tried convincing a terrorist he should unmake the “innocent civilian murdering religious fanatic of the Middle East” image?

If you were a real pacafist and thought for a second your ideas would work, you’d be on a plane to the Middle East in a heart beat.

Yet here you are referring to the USA as the “great white Satan” while refusing to put your own neck on the line.

I’m serious! Go to the Middle East and preach to them Gandi>Bush. We both know your head will end up lying between your shoulder blades. Am I wrong? Do you really understand whom we are fighting?

Get a clue Gandi>Bush.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Don’t be silly. Clinton couldn’t solve a crossword puzzle unless it was a scripted telecast. Clinton was afraid to do anything about terrorism unless it involved firing missiles or dropping bombs. He was too big a coward to allow American body bags to make the news here in America.

The body bags got filled on his watch but there weren’t enough Americans in them to concern him.

Bush has the testicular fortitude to send US troops into harms way because he knows the Middle East is a breeding ground for those that will continue to kill pacifists like you until they are killed, imprisoned or their power over others in the region is diminished to a such point they are imprisoned, killed or re-educated by those new governments we install and support.

That takes boots on the ground unless you support the Clinton strategy and think launching missiles and dropping bombs can solve all military problems. If you think we can negotiate with these terrorists, I suggest you hop on a plane and do just that.

Be sure to wear a titanium turtleneck though or it might be you begging for your life right before your head is sawed off with a dull knife.

I've just gotta say that I like the above post, every word of it! Well said. :)
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
These people aren't killing solely out of religious beliefs. There is as much in the Quran about peace as there is about "Killing the infidel."


Not really. The peace stuff is all up front when Muhammad had no power and was afraid of being taken advantage of.

Once people started listening a bit he became the Prophet of Doom.

In depth commentary on the Koran.

I. Fighting
° Terrorism
° War
° Jihad
° Martyrs/Mercenaries
° Muslim Militants

II. Murder
° Torture
° Thievery & Slavery
° Peace, Islam Style
° Peaceful Muslims
° No Freedom, No Choice
° Deception
° Intolerance

III. Eye Witnesses
° Megalomania
° Inspiration
° Allah, Islam's Ilah
° Ar Rahman

IV. Demons & Devils
° Predestination
° Muhammand's Morality
° Love of Money
° Lust
° Muhammad's Paradise
° Allah's Hell
° Jews

V. Christians
° Racism
° Women in Islam
° Stupidity
° Islamic Science
° Allah's Astronomy


Another interesting review



There is no kinder softer "New Testament" version of any of this.
 
GPS_Flex said:
No, we would have no nation. You live in a dream world if you think being a pacifist or peacmaker nation would somehow make everyone love us.

I do not claim such a thing would give anyone reason to love us, however, I would claim that such a thing would not give anyone reason to hate us.

As long as they don’t involve you putting your neck on the line to prove these ideas, I’m sure you have many of them.

Start by taking that plane ride to Iran, Iraq or Syria and return with your head attached to your body Gandi>Bush. Only then will you be a true pacifist who thinks the terrorists can be dealt with.

Why do you still take sides with the terrorists? When’s the last time you tried convincing a terrorist he should unmake the “innocent civilian murdering religious fanatic of the Middle East” image?

If you were a real pacafist and thought for a second your ideas would work, you’d be on a plane to the Middle East in a heart beat.

Yet here you are referring to the USA as the “great white Satan” while refusing to put your own neck on the line.

I’m serious! Go to the Middle East and preach to them Gandi>Bush. We both know your head will end up lying between your shoulder blades. Am I wrong? Do you really understand whom we are fighting?

Get a clue Gandi>Bush.

Get a clue?

Okay. I'm talking about a permanent end to islamic terrorism for all generations. You're talking about a temporary end that will only come back to both mine and your children in the face. Hard.

People have been trying to violently excise this problem for ages. Tell me: How has that worked out thus far?

As far as my head between my shoulder blades goes, as far as myself getting on a plane goes, I am only one man, and if truly believed that it would only take one man to unmake this hatred, I would go. It would take many. It would take many people willing to put their lives on the line with a guarantee that if anyone were to die, it would not be their enemies. It is about doing unto others as you would have them do to you as opposed to doing unto others lest they do to you. Do you see the difference?

It is about doing what every great man in history has told us to do, from Christ to MLK and everyone in between. It is the hardest and most difficult solution there is. It is infinetly more difficult then war. It takes a finger to pull a trigger, it takes quite a man to let down his guard and leave his neck open to try and aide and love strangers who may want you dead.

You don't give aide to government to distribute, you put boots on the ground and you give the aide to the people, straight from a man with US flag on his shoulder and white face with big smile.

I'm asking everyone to risk their lives so that the whole world may be safer.

I do not take the side of terrorists, you twist my words, again. You see anyone with compassion for these people as your enemy that is not what this is. If you do not understand that, I ask you to try. You have no excuses for not understanding, you have even less for not trying.
 
Well, Ghandi, you are very naive to what we are facing. I find that the terrorist movement, being based on a religion gone bad, is horribly inconvenient. While I find your youthful insights to world peace refreshing, they are also frustrating and dangerous. Not every place is like India. I would invite you to go with me, so that you can see and experience what the real world is like out there, but I don't think you belong there. You would meet the vast majority of peaceful Muslims that live in the Middle East. You might even get the chance to provide first aid to one as he dies, because one of their Muslim brothers decided that a car bomb in the middle of a bazaar would please their God. These "Muslim brothers" of theirs are not one of the majority. They are a raised level of zealot that believes in the things that has been taught to them. They believe that religion above democracy is the only life worth living. The one's that do not subscribe to such teachings are only in it for the violence and sense of belonging. They are the perverted Muslim we refer to as militant Islamists. Their ideology mirrors the Black Panthers or the KKK except they are militarized and through the 90's became organized. We have destroyed that organization and now fight the scraps that eagerly hurl themselves to an assured death. Unfortunately, their target isn't us. It is their own Muslim peaceful that seek a better life than what they have been used to. We cannot take that away from them in the "name of peace". All peace has a price and sometimes it has to come from force.

You are right about one thing. They are desperate. The Syrian and Iranian government do not want Iraq to work. It would be a slap in the face to everything they are clinging to. Do you not find it convenient that Iran had a few bomb attacks right before their "elections" and the Iranian security council blames it on former Saddam Baathist Party individuals almost immediately? This is a tactic frequently used among Muslim governments to keep their people in check. The only difference with this particular attack was that they didn't blame America. Of course, with us sitting in the adjacent country, why would they.

Diplomacy has always far outweighed the outcome of conflicts, but it doesn't always work. War is sometimes innevitable and most of the time way over due. We have to be able to realize when that time is. War is for the military. It is why we exist. It is our job to take the risks and deaths. In the abscense of military action, civillians are the ones who pay. How many civillians of all religions have died at the hands of these militant Islamists over the decades because we just kept pushing diplomacy in the face of tyrants?
 
In depth commentary on the Koran.

I. Fighting
° Terrorism
° War
° Jihad

This is pure rubbish. Terrorism didnt exist until the late 19th century and for a large religion that has divisions to suddenly adobt it is totally innaccurate propaganda.

War it could be argued is a Christian virtue, who has created more wars? Christians. To call it a part of the Islamic faith is also rubbish.

Jihad is the policy of defending one's homeland. Problems?
 
GySgt said:
Well, Ghandi, you are very naive to what we are facing. I find that the terrorist movement, being based on a religion gone bad, is horribly inconvenient.

It's convenient in that you can write them off as fanatics working toward the will of an invisible man. It makes it easier to justify violent opposition.

While I find your youthful insights to world peace refreshing, they are also frustrating and dangerous. Not every place is like India.

I didn't suggest such a thing. What I find frustrating and dangerous and not at all refreshing is the haste at which we are ready to resort to violence to solve problems. I truly believe that our current set of wars will do nothing to deter terrorism but will actually encourage such ideas.

I would invite you to go with me, so that you can see and experience what the real world is like out there, but I don't think you belong there. You would meet the vast majority of peaceful Muslims that live in the Middle East. You might even get the chance to provide first aid to one as he dies, because one of their Muslim brothers decided that a car bomb in the middle of a bazaar would please their God.

Being a peaceful man, Muslim or otherwise, is irrelevant when combined with inaction. If the vast majority of the residents of the middle east are truly peaceful muslims, how would we know? What have they actively done to stop terrorism. Peaceful people who do nothing aren't really peaceful, they're indifferent.

I still don't believe that these men kill because of their religion. There are many other factors.

These "Muslim brothers" of theirs are not one of the majority. They are a raised level of zealot that believes in the things that has been taught to them. They believe that religion above democracy is the only life worth living. The one's that do not subscribe to such teachings are only in it for the violence and sense of belonging. They are the perverted Muslim we refer to as militant Islamists. Their ideology mirrors the Black Panthers or the KKK except they are militarized and through the 90's became organized. We have destroyed that organization and now fight the scraps that eagerly hurl themselves to an assured death. Unfortunately, their target isn't us. It is their own Muslim peaceful that seek a better life than what they have been used to. We cannot take that away from them in the "name of peace". All peace has a price and sometimes it has to come from force.

Peace achieved through war will be temporary.

Tell me: How did we unmake the ideas of the KKK and Black Panthers? Did we invade Mississippi? Did we declare war on them? Did we kill KKK members?

Diplomacy has always far outweighed the outcome of conflicts, but it doesn't always work. War is sometimes innevitable and most of the time way over due. We have to be able to realize when that time is. War is for the military. It is why we exist. It is our job to take the risks and deaths. In the abscense of military action, civillians are the ones who pay. How many civillians of all religions have died at the hands of these militant Islamists over the decades because we just kept pushing diplomacy in the face of tyrants?

What have politicians ever done to unmake the hatred of terrorists and secure the safety of civilians with diplomacy? Nothing. They have only waged war which, as you will one day see, incite more terrorist activity and hatred.
 
slim said:
This is pure rubbish. Terrorism didnt exist until the late 19th century and for a large religion that has divisions to suddenly adobt it is totally innaccurate propaganda.
I agree, your statement is pure rubbish.Countries were sending insurgents into other countries to disrupt, long before the 19th century.

slim said:
War it could be argued is a Christian virtue, who has created more wars?
Ah, revisionist history.I guess we'll just dismiss all the wars occuring before the birth of Christ.

So that puts us at 1 A.D. So now how many wars have been fought in the name of Christianity as opposed to "just ordinary" wars?

slim said:
Jihad is the policy of defending one's homeland. Problems?

Yea, one BIG one, your definition of jihad.

Here's the correct one according to the well established and world renowed Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ji·had
Variant(s): also je·had /ji-'häd, chiefly Brit -'had/
Function: noun
Etymology: Arabic jihAd
1 : a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
2 : a crusade for a principle or belief
 
Slim....Crashing two air planes full of civillians into two buildings in the middle of a city is hardly defending one's homeland. It's terrorism. Learn the difference before you bury your lips too far up the enemy's ass. Your definition of Jihad is a train wreck at best. The Muslim religion that you keep spewing from the Koran is not the Islamist religion being practiced by the militants. They are seperate and perverted. They exist, because people like you tell them that their behavior is acceptable, because it is their heritage and they are just doing what they think is best. You are being obtuse and generic about this. There is a distinction between the Muslim you refer to and the militant Islamist. There are Muslims all over the world. Only Muslims in the Middle East would skyjack airplanes, bomb embassies, and kidnap and behead hostages; All of which are coward attacks against non-military targets. Most of the Muslims in the Middle East do not subscribe to this behavior. This should be more than obvious as seen in Iraq right now. The majority of Iraq has been rallying behind their new government and their new military is fighting side by side with us against the perverted of their religion. However, in the rest of the Middle East, the majority are not in control. They would rather tolerate their leadership, because they are scared of punishment. Our lines of diplomacy have always been open to these people. You liberals out there, should probably understand this. You go through leaps and bounds trying to seperate government from religion. Now imagine being in a government completely controlled by religion where the leadership interprets it as he sees fit. This is the Middle East that you seem to respect and would preserve. This is why liberals are the champion hypocrits of Earth.

Ghandi......It is that easy. You just don't want it to be. 56 years of tolerating their behavior is hardly "hasting" to war. You know they are peaceful because I just told you. "Indifference" would be what the Sunni were when Saddam catered to their lives and not caring what treatment their fellow Iraqi's got. "Indifference" would be what liberals were to this treatment until America caused some accidental deaths liberating them. Any "indifferent" Iraqis, currently, are like this because they expect America to continue to protect them. They've spent decades living in fear and being beat down. They are only learning how to protect themselves from these perverted Islamists that would use the Koran to oppress them once again.

The rest of the Middle East have lives and families just like yours. However, they live in fear. Fear of rape rooms, beheadings for "sinning", and torture for disobeying. They are ruled by tyrants that use the Koran as they see fit.

We got rid of the KKK through police action. We did not turn our head and allow them to run amok all the while declaring that it's OK, because they're just misunderstood. The KKK also were not militarized and subjected to decades of oppression from their government.

Revolutionary War = Peace
Civil War = Peace
WWI= Peace
WWII = Peace
Gulf War = Peace

There will always be wars and three types of people. The oppressers, the liberators, and the ones that stand on the side line not understanding enough to choose a side, but yell peace through the duration.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Ghandi......

No, no, no. Gandhi. Look at the 'H.'

The rest of the Middle East have lives and families just like yours. However, they live in fear. Fear of rape rooms, beheadings for "sinning", and torture for disobeying. They are ruled by tyrants that use the Koran as they see fit.

When a tyrant twistst a verse of the Quran, the people know it. They may be afraid to stand up against it, but they haven't lost the ability to "call bullshit."

We got rid of the KKK through police action. We did not turn our head and allow them to run amok all the while declaring that it's OK, because they're just misunderstood. The KKK also were not militarized and subjected to decades of oppression from their government.

It is good that that isn't all we did, or the problem never would have been solved. We educated. We put the children together and they learned how similiar they were. They learned the truth. And the Klan and it's ideals died into the organization that is seen as a bunch or moron rednecks today.

Revolutionary War = Peace

War of 1812?

Civil War = Peace

The southern economy was beyond the ability of fighting again, thought their ideas remained that's why the civil rights movement had to be fought. Because all the blood that was shed during the Civil War didn't do enough to unmake the hate.

WWI= Peace
WWII = Peace

Uhh... hello? There's a reason that there is 1 and a 2.

Gulf War = Peace

And we've returned to the same place to fight the same guyt(though we've locked him up this time).

There will always be wars and three types of people. The oppressers, the liberators, and the ones that stand on the side line not understanding enough to choose a side, but yell peace through the duration.

4 types of people.

The A-holes, the idiots who fight with the A-holes, the cowards that remain indifferent, and the hippies that think that there just might be a better, more civil way of doing things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom