What Is The "War On Terror"?

[BodiSatva]

mikhail
Stability? Who destabalized Iraq? That depends. Huessin killing his own people was not really a stable thing. It is worse now though, and we did that.

And "war on fear"? This, makes no sense at all . . . It makes as much sense as much as the "War on Terror"…it is about the amorphous nature of terminology

If the war on terror was a war on terror, then the US would not be allied with the likes of Turkey . . . or are they on the list somewhere? The list is fairly weak, and that is also irrelevant.

Besides terrorism is just a tactic, Obviously that's like having a "war on rioting", or "war on propaganda". Yep

So what is your point? It seems as if you just took in what I said, chewed it a bit until it was malleable, and then essentially agreed with me. But it sounds like you didn’t agree, and that is confusing, since you did not refute one thing that I said.

 

[VTA]

Stability? Who destabalized Iraq?

And "war on fear"? This, makes no sense at all . . .

If the war on terror was a war on terror, then the US would not be allied with the likes of Turkey . . . or are they on the list somewhere?:roll:

Besides terrorism is just a tactic, that's like having a "war on rioting", or "war on propaganda".

No one was trying to stabilize Iraq. Iraq is a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East, to fight the ideology of Islamic extremists, who use terror as a tactic.

Getting caught up in the naming convention seems to be more prevalent than accepting the tangible aspects - such as the humans who enact the above mentioned tactic - of the war, in order to decry the effort.

The U.S. conducted airstrikes in Somalia yesterday. Far enough from Iraq, and certianly not to benefit the citizens of Iraq, but relative to why the U.S. is in Iraq.

 

[niftydrifty]

As Rumsfeld was leaving the hotseat, he unloaded on some of the madness with some rare candor and insight. Perhaps he was finally "free" to do so...

"I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean to be critical of those who have or did or -- and certainly I've used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? I say it because the word "war" conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War, and it creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within the 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. And it isn't going to happen that way.

Furthermore, it's not a war on terror. Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and impose their -- in the hands of a small group of clerics, their dark vision on all the people that they can control.

So "war on terror" has a problem for me, and I've worked to try to reduce the extent to which that's used, and increase the extent to which we understand it more as a long war or a struggle or a conflict, not against terrorism but against a relatively small number, but terribly dangerous and lethal, violent extremists."

-- Donald Rumsfeld, December 7, 2006

Why do I refer to the use of the term "war on terror" as madness? We're talking about what the war on terror is. And that, by the way, is the topic. Just as Rumsfeld points out above, the term "war on terror" promotes confusion. It becomes hard to explain what the war on terror is. It's an extension of a paranoid delusionary mindset. It can only make sense to anyone whom shares delusion and paranoia.

So, just, what is the "war on terror?" It's a heaping pile of contradictory hooey used by the Bush Administration for whatever the current post-9/11 "threat" is. Nearly any warlike action against us will contain acts of terror, and so we will continue to wage an endless war on terror against these states, individuals, and groups. Iraq had no connection with al Qaeda. But Bush and Cheney tried to make one, in order to legitimize the threat. The threat was outlined as a part of the "war on terror." To understand how the confusion is not only spread, but inherent, please consider actual Bush administration quotes:

"The enemy is not one person. It is not a single political regime. Certainly it is not a religion. The enemy is terrorism—premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

"We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won."

"The war on terror is a battle for the future of civilization. It's a battle worth fighting. And it's a battle we are going to win."

"The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless."

"I don’t think you can win it [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."

"You bet the war on terror can be won. And not only can it be won, we're going to win it."

"The war on terror is a fight against evil."

"We'll wage the war on terror against every enemy who plots against our forces and our people."

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

"The enemy we face today in the War on Terror is not the same enemy we faced on September 11."

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

"When I speak about the war on terror, I not only talk about al Qaeda, I talk about Iraq -- because, after all, Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction and he's used them."

"Confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror."

"[Y]ou can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

"Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror."

"The central front on the war on terror is Iraq."

"The war on terror is broader than Iraq, but Iraq is the key battlefield right now."

"The war on terror is more than a military conflict - it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

"Our strategy in the war on terror is based on a clear understanding of the enemy."

"I did say it's a war, the first war of the 21st century, but I've been emphasizing it's a different kind of war."

"And just as America and Great Britain stood together to defeat the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century, we now stand together against the murderous ideologies of the 21st century."

"In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed."

"Well, first of all, the war on terror goes on, as I continually remind people."

 

[Flea]

We certainly do not want 1984 to have started on Sept 11th, 2001.

I agree that it is convoluted. I guess that I don't have a problem because I look at in realistic terms and to me it is just a name. But what should it be called so that it can be defined clearly to those that are unsure of what we are doing. I say the war or radical extremism a lot and people get in a huffy about differentiating betweeen all Muslims and the radicals. It seems that there is no clear route, so what do we do?

 

[VTA]

Why do I refer to the use of the term "war on terror" as madness? We're talking about what the war on terror is. And that, by the way, is the topic. Just as Rumsfeld points out above, the term "war on terror" promotes confusion. It becomes hard to explain what the war on terror is. It's an extension of a paranoid delusionary mindset. It can only make sense to anyone whom shares delusion and paranoia.

So, just, what is the "war on terror?" It's a heaping pile of contradictory hooey used by the Bush Administration for whatever the current post-9/11 "threat" is. Nearly any warlike action against us will contain acts of terror, and so we will continue to wage an endless war on terror against these states, individuals, and groups. Iraq had no connection with al Qaeda. But Bush and Cheney tried to make one, in order to legitimize the threat. The threat was outlined as a part of the "war on terror." To understand how the confusion is not only spread, but inherent, please consider actual Bush administration quotes...

This is still getting hung up on the definition. It ignores events which have taken place and that have shaped the actions being taken today. Simply laying out an opinion, an opinion hampered by not being complete.

The war, regardless of what anyone feels they should call it, is based on recent historical facts that fit together to form a strategy. A strategy that has been given a tangible voice and legitimacy by people like bin Laden and Zawahiri.

I happen to agree with Rumsfeld. It's senseless to try to encapsulate any struggle in terms define-able, under these circumstances. There does exist the events which have brought about reactions. From the early 90's to the present, there exists a time line that tells the story.

It transcends Bush and Cheney.

From reading the original topic, I don't find that original poster was asking this. He/She was talking about the physical war itself, not the label it was given.

 

[niftydrifty]

You should re-read my post also, VTA.

my point is that the label the "war" was given is confusing. even the decider seems confused.

also, the administration uses the confusing label in rather vague ways. I sought to demonstrate this with my quotes.

For the record, I agree with Rumsfeld also, but only in this regard -- speaking about the conflict with accurate terms.

I said that the "war on terror" was madness. the way that the people waging this war on terror frame the conflict is an example of that madness.

 

[Flea]

What is really wierd is that you have been thanked only one time and it was by me.

 

[VTA]

You should re-read my post also, VTA.

my point is that the label the "war" was given is confusing. even the decider seems confused.

also, the administration uses the confusing label in rather vague ways. I sought to demonstrate this with my quotes.

I know you did, and I understood that. I think that discussing the label given the war is senseless. Whether it's confusing or not, it doesn't matter. If anyone is interested in what this war is about, they should forget about Op-Ed pieces and Gore Vidal quotes and take a look at the all too real history - dating farther back than 9/11 - that tells of it concisely.

The words mean nothing, the actions everything and perhaps this administration is run by someone smarter than most people are giving it credit for: Simply look at the number of people taking every literal translation of the words and arguing them with such wit, all the while accomplishing nothing but arguing with other people in no position to make a change in policy. Divide and rule... A policy that might be in place in the Middle East and definitely in place in America.

For the record, I agree with Rumsfeld also, but only in this regard -- speaking about the conflict with accurate terms.

I said that the "war on terror" was madness. the way that the people waging this war on terror frame the conflict is an example of that madness.

When you consider the larger picture, it really makes sense. Plant yourself on the enemies borders: Iraq to the West, Afghanistan to the East, Iran is beset on both sides by America. Not very surprising that they've escalated their hate and nuclear expansion in the last 3 years, now ist it?

When you take into account America's backing of the Ethiopian government and it's recent actions in Somalia, in regard to knocking out an Islamic rule, plus America's own actions yesterday in Somalia, plus bin Ladens assertion that the horn of Africa is an integral part of the war on the West, it all fits into a pattern, not governed by madness, but by strategic necessity.

Of course war is madness. Man hasn't evolved away from it yet, and apparently isn't inclined to any time soon. But you can only move as fast as evolution will allow, so you work within the confines of what evolution has given you: a world's population that hasn't figured out how to rid itself of insecurity.

 

[Makhno]

No one was trying to stabilize Iraq. Iraq is a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East, to fight the ideology of Islamic extremists, who use terror as a tactic.

Not, prior to 2003, though . . . certainly nowhere near the scale of terrorism (or, indeed suspected terror), since the US-UK forces went in.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by BodiSatva:
So Billo...

1. How should people address the situation at hand regarding Radical Islam?

2. What do you believe is Radical Islamic agenda?

3. If somebody wants to kill you, and they try...what do you do? Seriously. Do you talk to them while they are taking a swing at you?

Sorry it's taken awhile to answer. But they are as follows:

1. By addressing the fact that the overall problem does not rest soley with Radical Islam. There are other contributing factors that are driving this engine of hate. Like our foreign policy. We are not going to solve anything, until we look at all the factors that have created this situation and our role in it.
2. I'm more concerned with our agenda of military aggression against soveriegn nations and the $500 billion per year that goes to the war machine.
3. If someone try's to kill you, you do whatever it takes to nuetralize the threat. After that is done, you analyze why that situation manifested. Mainly, why did this person want to kill you. Did you draw cartoons of their parents? As ridiculous as that example is, the point is we have to break this problem down to the causal level. Maybe there is some things we can change on our end. Like possibly, stop bombing their god-damn countries and interfering in their internal affairs. Instead of scapegoating them for every problem in the world.

Were no great satan, but we ain't angels either. We need to stop thinking we can walk on water and do whatever we god-damn please. That's not what America stands for.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by leejosepho
Maybe you cannot have a moral, legitimate or justifiable war against an ideology, or maybe you cannot ever win an immoral, illegitimate or unjustifiable war against an ideology, but the so-called WOT is about ridding the earth of the exclusivity (fundamentalism) of at least one of the big three: Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

Unfortunately, that is more to the truth than I would like to admit.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
Err... Perhaps it was against Fascism? Nazism? Ideologies.

There most certainly are tangible enemies, but for the most part they have remained, quite wisely, non institutional so as to avoid being easily identified.

There will never be a VE or VJ day; it's not a conventional war and can only be truly finished by a cataclysmic event, like the complete destruction of one side or the other, or by burning itself out after years of victories, concessions and stalemates.

Since neither side will be completely wiped out, it's probably going to be the latter.

It's this "us" or "them" mind set that is a big part of the problem. There is no us or them. Unless it's a song on a Pink Floyd album, it's all us. Whether your a muslim "us", or a christian "us", it's all us. And your mindset is no different than the terrorists that chop off heads.

WWII was against the Axis powers and their military's. That's a tangible enemy. Fighting terror with our military, is not. Unless it's done in concert with world opinion and with alternative diplomatic avenues of dispute resolution.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA
That's simply an arguing of linguistic semantics. Taking a literal translation of something used to describe the real struggle of ideologies, is no less idiotic.

There's plenty going on around the world, not directly involving the U.S. or Israel, to indicate a strategic goal of some trying to shift global power.

Look at the events in Thailand and Indonesia. Look at the events in the horn of Africa, which is also directly linked to the anti Western movement in word as well as deed. They're all part of a cohesive strategy.

Are saying this is a coordinated effort? Kind of like Spectre in the James Bond movies. If the whole world hates us, the first thing that pops into my head is "why?" But too many of us got this holier-than-thou attitude about the good ole' US of A and conveniently blow off the rest of the world as nuts because we are the good guys. Well, sometimes we are, sometimes we are not. We were in WWII, were not now in Afganistan and Iraq.

No one is going to get the better of us militarily. That will never happen. But if the world hates us, maybe it's because we gave them reason too.

 

[VTA]

It's this "us" or "them" mind set that is a big part of the problem. There is no us or them. Unless it's a song on a Pink Floyd album, it's all us. Whether your a muslim "us", or a christian "us", it's all us. And your mindset is no different than the terrorists that chop off heads.

WWII was against the Axis powers and their military's. That's a tangible enemy. Fighting terror with our military, is not. Unless it's done in concert with world opinion and with alternative diplomatic avenues of dispute resolution.

Yes, in an ideal world, there is just us. But in this world, there is us and them, made all too real by human insecurity. It's on a larger scale and even more prevailant on a small scale; in neighborhoods, in schools, in offices, everywhere.

The current struggle can not be satisfied by diplomatic means, since there is no vocal state sponsor. It's a movement devoid of a base of operations, uniformity and dictation. The way they want it; a loosely banded of like-minded people fighting for the same cause, each with different modes of operation, from the foot soldiers that die with their victims, to the subversive organizations like CAIR, to the groups of 'minorities' disregarding the laws of their host countries and looking for civil liberties while doing so. Which brings us to...

Are saying this is a coordinated effort? Kind of like Spectre in the James Bond movies. If the whole world hates us, the first thing that pops into my head is "why?" But too many of us got this holier-than-thou attitude about the good ole' US of A and conveniently blow off the rest of the world as nuts because we are the good guys. Well, sometimes we are, sometimes we are not. We were in WWII, were not now in Afganistan and Iraq.

No one is going to get the better of us militarily. That will never happen. But if the world hates us, maybe it's because we gave them reason too.

Yes it is a coordinated effort, but you're laying it all on the U.S., doing inversely what you're accusing others of doing. While many blowhards have the US of A, good guy attitudes, just as many have the attitude that America is wrong, full and complete. Irresponsible and crass. The only difference between the two groups is the side of the line they choose to stand on.

The struggle is about much more than America, just that America right now is viewed as the top world power. It's occuring in China and it's happening in Australia. In Africa and in Europe.

It's not a military movement, it's an ideological and human movement. Defeating a military is not possible or absolutely necessary. Defeating the values and laws held by the nations they're migrating to is all they need to do. Not allowing the traditions of their host countries to be applicable, or respected, therefore cheapening them, all while maintaining their own traditions and laws on foreign soil.

It's a grand disservice to both sides to denigrate these people as ignorant and small, as far as world stage goes. It's a very focused, well thought out effort. While everyone is busy complaining about the likes of Bush and Iraq, the larger picture is being obscured.

Like terrorism, Iraq is merely a means to an end, a tactic. The larger struggle transcends Bush, Cheney, Iraq, Afghanistan and will continue long after all are just written in history.

 

[VTA]

Not, prior to 2003, though . . . certainly nowhere near the scale of terrorism (or, indeed suspected terror), since the US-UK forces went in.

Which tells you what? That part of the idea of centralizing a group people, previously scattered around the globe is working. There was no nation to attack to hit extremists, so America made itself open them, and as suspected, they flocked to Iraq. To die in great numbers.

Does this mean the total war is a success? The war goes far beyond Iraq and will go far beyond this administration.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
Yes it is a coordinated effort, but you're laying it all on the U.S., doing inversely what you're accusing others of doing. While many blowhards have the US of A, good guy attitudes, just as many have the attitude that America is wrong, full and complete. Irresponsible and crass. The only difference between the two groups is the side of the line they choose to stand on.

The struggle is about much more than America, just that America right now is viewed as the top world power. It's occuring in China and it's happening in Australia. In Africa and in Europe.

It's not a military movement, it's an ideological and human movement. Defeating a military is not possible or absolutely necessary. Defeating the values and laws held by the nations they're migrating to is all they need to do. Not allowing the traditions of their host countries to be applicable, or respected, therefore cheapening them, all while maintaining their own traditions and laws on foreign soil.

It's a grand disservice to both sides to denigrate these people as ignorant and small, as far as world stage goes. It's a very focused, well thought out effort. While everyone is busy complaining about the likes of Bush and Iraq, the larger picture is being obscured.

Like terrorism, Iraq is merely a means to an end, a tactic. The larger struggle transcends Bush, Cheney, Iraq, Afghanistan and will continue long after all are just written in history.

I know that it is a popular belief to think that I put "it" all on the US. However, nobody can show where, in all my posts for the last year and a half, that I have said that. I'm just making the point that if your going to solve a problem in your life, you need to first analyze your role in causing the problem. It is especially true when the particular problem is why do people hate you? So, when I see discussions on why people hate "us", without "us" being in the equation, to me, that's a red flag there is something wrong with the picture.

Originally posted by VTA:
Defeating the values and laws held by the nations they're migrating to is all they need to do.

Aren't we guilty of that as well?

Could you explain the following statement in a little more detail? I'm a little un-sure of the point your making here.

Originally posted by VTA:
Not allowing the traditions of their host countries to be applicable, or respected, therefore cheapening them, all while maintaining their own traditions and laws on foreign soil.

 

[VTA]

I know that it is a popular belief to think that I put "it" all on the US. However, nobody can show where, in all my posts for the last year and a half, that I have said that. I'm just making the point that if your going to solve a problem in your life, you need to first analyze your role in causing the problem. It is especially true when the particular problem is why do people hate you? So, when I see discussions on why people hate "us", without "us" being in the equation, to me, that's a red flag there is something wrong with the picture.

Aren't we guilty of that as well?

Could you explain the following statement in a little more detail? I'm a little un-sure of the point your making here.

Because of time I can't post as much as I'd like right now, so I'll give you this food for thought, now and talk more later...

"Muslims must grow in strength... then take over."

 

[Flea]

I am not sure how long you have had that article link up, but thanks. Did you post that in the Breaking News catagory?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
Because of time I can't post as much as I'd like right now, so I'll give you this food for thought, now and talk more later...

"Muslims must grow in strength... then take over."

Every muslim I have ever personnally met in 30 years of engineering (except the youngbloods working at 7/11's. Their just as big a pricks as our young guys) that follow Islam have been the complete opposite of that article. It would be nice if they recorded tapes of these speeches to verify these guys are saying all this instead of getting 3rd party interpretations of what was said. And if those guys are saying all that, that's some pretty whacked out stuff! Lunatics are lunatics. They have Dr Ijaz Mian and Abu Usamah , we have Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson.

It's more comical than anything else. Trying to create a muslim state within Britain. A muslim coup! It is hard to believe educated people of any race would not be cognizant of the laws of the country they are living in. I worked with a bunch of Fluor guys that went to Saudi to build all those oil refineries. And when they came back, they told me about what it was like in those camps. No alcohol. Don't touch Saudi women. No pornography. They knew exactly what laws they needed to be aware of. So they kept the vodka in lockers and poured it out in the sand if they heard Saudi officials coming up to their bungaloes.

As for the muslim's in Britain (or this country), tough s.h.i.t.s.k.i guys. You break our laws, we give you free room and board at the Graybar Hotel. It is pretty funny about the force their going to rise too to be reckoned with. I'm sure they could get quite a lot of C4 and assault rifles. But you'd need a little more than that to impose your will on countries that have Bradley's, Cruise Missles and smart bombs. As well as the stuff that really goes boom!

So the muslims have their own version of Jonestown. Let the Bobby's deal with them.

 

[leejosepho]

So the muslims have their own version of Jonestown. Let the Bobby's deal with them.

I hear you there, my fellow, but the so-called (and thus never-ending?) "war on terror" is supposed to take care of all such lunatics ... uh, all at once?!

As wrong as "us" or anyone else might be in whatever is (or has been) done to arouse terroristic radicals, the fact remains that the situation is now global and man cannot resolve it either by ending his arousals or chilling the aroused.

 

[leejosepho]

Here is an interesting statement I just read:

Now world peace is a very desirable thing from a Jewish perspective; but this is not going to happen until there is a full reconciliation between Christianity and Islam. Such a full reconciliation is not going to happen unless both religious systems are overtaken by a world religion that is a syntheis of the two. This won't happen tomorrow, but history says its eventual happening is an inevitability.
lethargic_man: Notes from Limmud 2006: How to Convert the Pope: Successful and Failed Attempts to Bring the Messiah (emphasis added)

I did not read all of that article, but at least that excerpt sounds consistent with this:

From: "President Declares 'Freedom at War with Fear'", September 20, 2001

THE PRESIDENT:
This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear" (emphasis added)

Pluralism
A theory that there are more than one or two kinds of ultimate reality;
A theory that reality is composed of a plurality of entities;
A state of society in which members of diverse groups maintain autonomous participations in and developments of their respective groups within a common, global civilization.

 

[VTA]

Every muslim I have ever personnally met in 30 years of engineering (except the youngbloods working at 7/11's. Their just as big a pricks as our young guys) that follow Islam have been the complete opposite of that article. It would be nice if they recorded tapes of these speeches to verify these guys are saying all this instead of getting 3rd party interpretations of what was said. And if those guys are saying all that, that's some pretty whacked out stuff! Lunatics are lunatics. They have Dr Ijaz Mian and Abu Usamah , we have Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson.

It's more comical than anything else. Trying to create a muslim state within Britain. A muslim coup! It is hard to believe educated people of any race would not be cognizant of the laws of the country they are living in. I worked with a bunch of Fluor guys that went to Saudi to build all those oil refineries. And when they came back, they told me about what it was like in those camps. No alcohol. Don't touch Saudi women. No pornography. They knew exactly what laws they needed to be aware of. So they kept the vodka in lockers and poured it out in the sand if they heard Saudi officials coming up to their bungaloes.

As for the muslim's in Britain (or this country), tough s.h.i.t.s.k.i guys. You break our laws, we give you free room and board at the Graybar Hotel. It is pretty funny about the force their going to rise too to be reckoned with. I'm sure they could get quite a lot of C4 and assault rifles. But you'd need a little more than that to impose your will on countries that have Bradley's, Cruise Missles and smart bombs. As well as the stuff that really goes boom!

So the muslims have their own version of Jonestown. Let the Bobby's deal with them.

The link isn't intended to be an absolute indictement, but an example of the overall theme... It's happening in alot of countries and it's no accident. They're trying to introduce an enviroment where their cultural considerations take precedence over local law.

We can't apply our experiences because we are civilians. What I mean by that is, we're lucky enough to be able to follow our own self-centered pursuits, and allow for others to manage the bigger picture: a strong, secure nation.

We're a product of Western culture (I'm assuming here, but with a Sam Kinison avatar, I think it's safe to say you're of a Western mind) and so are the people we deal with. In work and in pleasure.

I'm very good friends with an Iranian, and he, his family and network of friends are nothing like the extremists he himself had to deal with before leaving Iran more than 20 years ago.

The people of the mind to fight like this, to really take the time and coordinate and have no regard for their own life beyond being of use to the bigger picture is an outstanding reality that we don't understand.

We can laugh off our own radicals (Falwell and such), but they're not doing it because they have nothing better to do. They have purpose, it just so happens ours also enjoy the self centered pursuits we do; if they were hungry, they'd be just as deadly.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Identity Crisis

"Identity Crisis"

It's more comical than anything else. Trying to create a muslim state within Britain. A muslim coup! It is hard to believe educated people of any race would not be cognizant of the laws of the country they are living in.

Perhaps you have not levied concepts in debate with muslims, or fictional zealots in general.

Firstly, do not presume an open minded audience, much less an educated audience. When the leading islamic cleric of Australia, in bafoon manner, compares women in short dresses to an inanimate piece of meat without rightful will, and, who can blame the cat, a certain someone is at least eighteen credits shy of a liberal arts background.

Secondly, a point of allowing members a different cultures into another would be for reflection upon oneself, where from that experience one can influence the culture of one's origin through the trust and insight of a native, in order to manifest a positive change in cultural value.

Immigration, where the culture does not integrate and remains isolated, and that does not foster a transition to the libertarian ideology, should be timely regulated until a proper transition can occur. As has been demonstrated in the west worldwide, the immigration has been too fast and too many.

Moreover, which is more sensible, to sustain cultural identity perhaps socializing birth and labor or, farming out ideologies by exploiting low skilled immigrants?

An inoculation can be good, a full blown infection might send one to the grave or at least make them terribly miserable for a while.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
The people of the mind to fight like this, to really take the time and coordinate and have no regard for their own life beyond being of use to the bigger picture is an outstanding reality that we don't understand.

Why something cannot be understood has more to do with internal influences than external ones. However, you are heading in the right direction by raising the issue of "WHY" the hatred between cultures. I don't know the answer either. But I do know that someone who hates so much they have no regard for their own life, has forces driving that hatred that are externally based. Internally, they are pre-disposed for such action. But it is the external forces that ratchet that hatred up and keep it sustained long enough to commit pre-meditated acts of violence.

I'm all for understanding more. The solutions are always a result of truth and education.

 

[VTA]

Why something cannot be understood has more to do with internal influences than external ones. However, you are heading in the right direction by raising the issue of "WHY" the hatred between cultures. I don't know the answer either. But I do know that someone who hates so much they have no regard for their own life, has forces driving that hatred that are externally based. Internally, they are pre-disposed for such action. But it is the external forces that ratchet that hatred up and keep it sustained long enough to commit pre-meditated acts of violence.

This is not absolute. On a smaller scale; a child brought up to hate someone based on race, religion and ethnicity is at the mercy of internal influences of his/her sphere and the people they hate have nothing to do with that.

Can we apply the rationale that Muslims have a reason to hate Infidels to the White Supremists reasons for hating blacks, Mexicans, and on an on with that list of hate? Of course not. All choices are internal. At some point, the child reared on bigotry can come across a force/voice of reason, and will willfully deny it, in lieu of the comfort the familiarity a life long ideology affords.

Ignorance in this day has an age limit. Unless a person is bound to a cellar, he/she will have contact with the broader world and will be faced with different facets of society that are undeniably at odds with the ideology initially taught. At that point, personal consideration is the drug of choice.

We're all responsible for our own actions.