• 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.

Why did the War start?

alphieb said:
Very true, what do you think is going to happen when we leave Iraq? Do you think it will be a pleasant happy ending? I smell a rat.

We'll declare "mission Accomplished' again and then split and then blame any problems on the Iraqis for not fighting enough for the democracy we fought to give them! :spin:
 
Mr. D said:
GySgt,

Originally Posted by Mr. D

The support that the "murdering terrorist" Osama Bin Ladin gets from many is because his goal is to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East and reduce it's blind support of Israel! Those are the unifying cards he's playing! Our leaders' stubborn ignorance have played right into his hand!


You said,

"Bin Ladin's goal is not worldly. Try to be smarter than his contradictory words.

Somehow you got the idea I said some majority of Muslims support Bin Ladin. I didn't, but he does have support among uniformed and mistreated Muslims. Every time we make a dumb move that hurts innocent Muslims we help his recruiting!

Three questions for you, (1.) What did Osama Bin Ladin specifically say his reasons where for attacking the U.S.? (Not Bush's words, Osama's words!) (2.) What do you think Osama Bin Ladin's long term game plan/strategy was in attacking U.S. Embassies and 9/11? Is he so dumb as not to have learned the lesson of Pearl Harbor and predicted we'd respond? What did he hope our response would be? (3.) Have we thwarted his long term strategy or played right into it?

I won't be rude enough to assume anything about your knowledge about Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda, but a person needs to know about Bin Ladin's background, level of intelligence, administrative and organizational abilities and past accomplishments before answering. How many Americans know about Bin Ladin's role in driving the USSR out of Afghanistan and saving tens of thousands of lives by stopping the initial genocide against Muslims by the Serbians? He's vastly underestimated as it should be obvious by now. Clinton missed a number of assassinations in Sudan and he's still out there today. We'd be wise to start listening and learning about our enemies instead of making the Vietnam mistake over and over again!

Good discussing with you! I was a Staff Sgt. in the U.S. Army! Never in combat. Thank you for your service to our country!

Bin Laden is wrong. Review the history of Iran. Focus on last century during and after WWII. His worldy goals match the Ayatollah Khomeini's. However, Bin Laden is twisted and wants to jump start armegeddon.

1) His claims are wild. He fights for revenge of a largely imagined "Palestine" and he claims that we order Arab governments to mistreat Muslims. He also does not like American bases on Muslim soil.

*He's full of ****. He claims to be this great man for Islam, but when it all boils down to the core, he is just one more theologic tyrant who wants conquest, but because of us he can't have it. We are a scapegoat. He blames us for his own people's self inflicted wounds. The Saudi elite have not built schools, libraries, maintain a low valuation on education. Their own religion oppresses them. Fanatics always look to blame "non-believers" and in the Middle East the narcotic of choice is blame.

2) He is practicing the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood and of the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini. He wishes to wage enough terror on us to exact our response to unite the Muslim people. Thisis the same old tactic we saw from Saddam and his of scuds on Israel during the Gulf War and the same tactic Khomeini sought to use.

3) There is no way around it but to fight it. The key to victory against Bin Ladden is the IO war, in which we are losing. The robot Radical element of the Middle East, who already hate us thanks to theologic brainwashing to divert blame from their own governments to the "Great Satan" are falling right in line with what the narcotic demands of them.

Let's talk about Bin Laden...

A man named Sayyid Qutb was an Egyptian intellectual, author, and Islamist associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He created the Muslim Brotherhood in 1929. He is best known for his theoretical work on redefining the role of Islamic fundamentalism in social and political change. He is known as the father of modern-day Radical Islam. His extensive Quranic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of Islamic concepts such as jihad, jahiliyyah, and umma. He was accused of plotting to overthrow the state of Egypt and executed by hanging in 1966 by Egypt.

Qutb's brother, Muhammad Qutb, moved to Saudi Arabia where he became a professor of Islamic Studies. The influence of Qutb and his work extends across the whole spectrum of Islamism and is seen across the Middle East. One of Muhammad Qutb's students and an ardent follower was Ayman Zawahiri, who later became the mentor of Osama bin Laden. His teachings has indeed been deep rooted in Saudi Arabia and has been adopted by the "House of Saud," the true lords of terror, as a means to oppress and control their people. (I find their current efforts of running around the Saudi desert chasing down their own fundamentals as poetic justice.) America's guilt in this is that, as long as the oil flowed, we have traditionally looked the other way while they have used us as a scapegoat for everyone of their self-inflicted failures.

"Religion" is often only a tool to masque a person's own selfish needs. A civilization has gotten lost within it's passed down traditions, which do not work in the 21st century. Osama Bin Laden is the perfect example. The health of any religious community can be gauged by the degree to which it rejects these bloody apostles of terror, and the Islamic world's acceptance of apocalyptic terrorists as heroes is perhaps the most profound indicator of it's spiritual crisis and decay. Make no mistake: The terrorist "martyrs" of 9/11, and Osama Bin Laden will be remembered by Islamic historians and by generation after generation of Muslims children as great heroes in the struggle for true religion and justice - no matter what Islamic governments may say to please us, many millions of Muslims around the world felt tremendous pride in the atrocities of New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. This makes it all the more vital that the United States kill Osama Bin Laden, exterminate Al-Queda, destroy the Taliban completely, and depose any governments found to have supported theirs or their own Islamic terrorism. If Osama survives to thumb his nose at an "impotent superpower," he will attract hundreds of thousands of supporters, and tens of millions more sympathizers. He is already a hero, and he must not be allowed to remain a triumphant one. An apocalyptic terrorist of the worst kind, his superficial agenda (deposing the government of Saudi Arabia, expelling U.S. troops from the Middle East, imposing Sharia Law) is nothing compared to his compulsion to slaughter and destroy.

Although his vision is closer to the grimmest passages of Revelation than to anything in the Koran, Osama has been able to convince countless Muslims that his vision is of the purist and proudest Islamic form. This should be a huge warning flag to the west about the spiritual crisis in the Middle East. This battle is being fought within the realms of the emotions and soul, not of the intelligent. We face a situation that is so perverse that it is as if tens of millions of frustrated Christians decided that Kali, the Hindu Goddess of death and destruction, embodies the true teachings of Jesus Christ. One cannot have much sympathy with Osama bin Laden, whose vision of a vengeful god, thirsty for infidel blood, is utter blasphemy. Nor could any decent human being excuse the acts of terror committed by his followers, or by Palestinian suicide bombers or by any of the morally crippled youths who murder in the name of their religion.
 
Mr. D said:
GySgt,

I would have liked to discuss the issue with you, but most of your remarks were just cutsie pie, catty digs rather than substance! Don't know where to go from there!

The only direct question I got out of your remarks was about Zionists. I suspect you know that I am referring to the fact that following WW II Jewish Zionists came from Europe and later all over the world and many of them forced Muslims off legitimately owned farms they had owned for centuries. Laws were made to take away the vote of Muslims and the Arab world refused to take in the Palestinian Muslims. Britain and the U.S. stood by because of the P.C. emotional atmosphere after the Holocaust and did not require Zionist Jews to treat the Palestinian Muslim legally.

I support and respect Jews and Israelis, but Zionism is racial and ethic prejudice! It was the establishment of a state for Jews by the misreating of innocent Palestinians! Jews had a right to move to Palestine to live a safe life, but they became the oppressers to accomplish that goal! Christians, Jews and Muslims co-existed in Palestine until the Zionist Jews came after WW II. Since then, they have payed a heavy price in hate of the Muslim nations surrounding them. Until a home is made for the evicted Palestinian Muslims by the Israelis and the Arab Nations who did not take in them in, I suspect they will be no peace. There are many dirty hands in the terrible situation in the Middle East!


They have payed a price for not sharing and lacking the ability to play well with others. The uprisings and the violence that ensued the day after the UN declared Israel a nation is what drove them off of their lands. The Muslims of Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia did this. You hit the nail on the head....."the Arab Nations who do not take them in." Saudi Arabs look down on Palestinians. They always have. They don't care what is going on over there, just as long as the conflict continues to be the nice diversion for Arabic oppression.

You've got your history one sided. Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Jews and Muslims walk the streets and enjoy the same rights. The bigotry is on the other side. The Jews and the Muslims both claim "ownership" of that land and it goes way back to anchient history. Palestinians are just as creative as Israelis (and the Saudi Arabs know it). If they would have rolled up their sleeves a long time ago instead of succumbing to temper tantrums and pity, they too would have a flourishing society instead of being used as tools by the Arab and Persian elite. Iran and Saudi are willing to destroy Israel to the very last Palestinian.

In theory, the goal of a Palestinian state makes sense and, in reality, its creation appears inevitable. Our error is to imagine that the creation of that state will bring peace. On the contrary, it will only elevate the struggle to another level. Too many Palestinians are now the enemies of any peace that allows Israel’s continued existence, and, beyond the near-Babel or rhetoric, for many militants, the ultimate destruction of Israel is a far more captivating goal than is the establishment of a rule-of-law Palestinian state that expects them to deal with unsatisfying daily reality.

Palestinian progress has been relatively swift in historical terms. The source of the radicalization lies elsewhere. The Palestinians, who are in many respects the most successful, educated, secular and “Westernized” Arabs since the shattering of Lebanon a generation ago, have been catching the contagion sweeping the Arab world. Increasingly, Israel is more of a mythologized object than a tangible reality (although, for Palestinians, the reality admittedly can be pretty harsh), more a demon to be slain than a state to be challenged. The thorough demonization of Israel is now the single biggest object to any peace plan. While there always was a religious and civilizational element to the conflict in Palestine, the change over the past decades has been profound. No matter how generous the terms offered to a future Palestinian state, a substantial, deadly portion of the Palestinian population (to say nothing of Arabs of other nationalities) will never be satisfied, materially, more importantly, psychologically. The Arab world’s spiritual crisis, born of a generalized failure, needs the demon Israel (and the demon America) far more than it needs peace in the Middle East.

Islam’s sense of failure is only going to intensify (because its counter-productive behaviors and values will not change), and the apocalyptic, vengeful impulse will intensify in turn. It is one of the tragedies of the Arab world that a deadly, crippling segment among Palestinians – who had at least a chance of performing competitively-have been collapsing backward into a medieval vision of religion just as they approach their long-championed secular goals.

As Israelis have already learned, even if they cannot acknowledge it, there is no solution to this challenge, only a determination to survive on the most advantageous terms possible.
 
Last edited:
The war was started to preserve the US petro-dollar hegemony
 
teacher said:
If Atta had a nuke would he have used it on 9/11 instead of planes?


Boogey man knocked down some buildings, remember?

Boogey man often publically brags he's gonna get us.

Lot's of little Jewish children have been blown up by the boogey man.

What's your point dude? I'm not getting it. Just say it.

Lot's of little Iraqi and afghani children have been blown up by the US's bombs. I believe a total of 5000 civilians died while bombing Afghanistan. About 1000 died on 9/11. If you even try to justify those numbers it will only prove how little you know.
 
Sir_Alec said:
Lot's of little Iraqi and afghani children have been blown up by the US's bombs. I believe a total of 5000 civilians died while bombing Afghanistan. About 1000 died on 9/11. If you even try to justify those numbers it will only prove how little you know.

I believe the point was that no civillinas would be dead were it not for the continued attacks by them. How long did we ignore their terrorists attacks and slaughterings until 9/11?

You think people would learn from all the wars in history. Don't lead your life through violent means and start wars. The result is always the death of civillians. I wonder how often the Radical Islamists and their terrorists really give a thought to their people before they embark on a killing and slaughtering spree with civilians as their targets.
 
GySgt said:
I believe the point was that no civillinas would be dead were it not for the continued attacks by them. How long did we ignore their terrorists attacks and slaughterings until 9/11?

You think people would learn from all the wars in history. Don't lead your life through violent means and start wars. The result is always the death of civillians. I wonder how often the Radical Islamists and their terrorists really give a thought to their people before they embark on a killing and slaughtering spree with civilians as their targets.

Stop trying to justify yourself when the US's killing of 5000 civilians in a few months is the amount terrorists can kill in a decade.
 
Sir_Alec,

Stop trying to justify yourself when the US's killing of 5000 civilians in a few months is the amount terrorists can kill in a decade.

Try 3000 killed in one day human. Are you a pacifist? Or does this only apply to the US?
 
Ivan The Terrible said:
Sir_Alec,



Try 3000 killed in one day human. Are you a pacifist? Or does this only apply to the US?

NO im not a pacifist! I just dont see any reason to bomb a city full of civilians. And while were at that explain this to me; if we had the responsibility of going to Iraq we should also go and help the following places who need it more:

The philippines (civil war)
Sudan (oops too late)
Rwanda (oops too late)
Somolia (why did we pull out in the first place?)
Iran (they really pose a threat to the world)
 
Sir_Alec,

I just dont see any reason to bomb a city full of civilians.

Do you understand the term WAR? Apparently not... Just for the record what city are you referring to?
 
Ivan The Terrible said:
Sir_Alec,



Do you understand the term WAR? Apparently not... Just for the record what city are you referring to?

So in a war where were trying to save the civilians we bomb them instead? What a great way of winning the hearts and minds of the people. And I was talking about the bombing in Afghanistan, but I guess I could be talking about any bombing we have done in the Middle East
 
Sir_Alec said:
Stop trying to justify yourself when the US's killing of 5000 civilians in a few months is the amount terrorists can kill in a decade.

5000? Is that the latest number on anti-war sites and on the lips of liberal college professors who are campus veterans, but not quite seasoned by reality?:roll:

They reap what they sew.
 
Sir_Alec said:
So in a war where were trying to save the civilians we bomb them instead? What a great way of winning the hearts and minds of the people. And I was talking about the bombing in Afghanistan, but I guess I could be talking about any bombing we have done in the Middle East

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Introduce yourself to Billo.
 
Mr. D said:
I've traveled to most every country from Ireland to the Baltics, from Turkey to China and the American people are loved everywhere I went contrary to what we are told here! They just fear Bush and our current leadership and don't understand why half of Americans are blind to what's going on!

Americans are not loved everywhere. There are many anti-American demostrations in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. Anti-American sentiments have also rose in Indonesia. That's not to mention those who dislike American practices but don't resort to violence -- such as as Amnesty Int'l and other human rights watchdog groups.
 
WilliamH said:
Americans are not loved everywhere. There are many anti-American demostrations in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. Anti-American sentiments have also rose in Indonesia. That's not to mention those who dislike American practices but don't resort to violence -- such as as Amnesty Int'l and other human rights watchdog groups.

You speak of Muslim populations that have been beaten down with anti-western propaganda that stems from their elite and religious leaders.

He was speaking of other places.
 
GySgt said:
You speak of Muslim populations that have been beaten down with anti-western propaganda that stems from their elite and religious leaders.

He was speaking of other places.


Still, other populations dislike us, rightly so, for US foreign policy -- the policy of global supremacy.
 
WilliamH said:
Still, other populations dislike us, rightly so, for US foreign policy -- the policy of global supremacy.



:roll: How very trite and obtuse.

They hate us, because life in the Middle East should be about abuse and terror under Islamic law. It should be full of religious zealots who behead the sinful and execute the infidel. This is not allowed, and therefore, they hate us. We did not allow the Iranian theorcracy to roll over Muslim lands to the Egyptian pyramids and we did not allow Saddam to roll down to the sands of Saudi Arabia. They hate us, because we a successful "infidels" while they are failing "believers." They hate us, because they are subjected to hate speech by their religious leaders. They hate us, because they have armed their hatreds, bigotries, racisms, and religious persecutions by attacking the tiny successful speck that is Israel and have received embarrassing defeats for the last fifty-six years. And finally, they hate us because freedoms in the West is a threat to their continued oppressive regimes and theocracies.

Our foriegn policy of maintaining unstable governments and abusive tyrants for the sake of "stability" will only take you so far. Take away the foreign policy and you are left with unstable oil flows to the world and still left with a civilization that is failing and looking to blame anyone that will accept the blame. We are largely a scapegoat offerred up by the true tyrants of that civilization and the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict is largely just a mere diversion for their populations. They are to blame for their own self-inflicted restrictions and the diversity that has shaped such extreme forms of their religion.

It's simply amazing how so many cluless Americans simply withdraw into this idea that our foreign policy is the sole problem.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Although his vision is closer to the grimmest passages of Revelation than to anything in the Koran,

Revelation leaves things to God. Koran gives OBL the authority. = Apples and oranges.

GySgt said:
We face a situation that is so perverse that it is as if tens of millions of frustrated Christians decided that Kali, the Hindu Goddess of death and destruction, embodies the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
It is quite a perverse imagination. You imagine Christians suddenly believing in Hindu Goddess. Again, Osama stays within Islam. = apples and oranges.
Why don’t you leave us, pour bloody Christians alone? We did what we could and how we could to bring you to the point where you are. We were holding our civilization together under attacks of Jihad and all barbarians and Little Ice Age, and plague and starvation, and little feudalists relentlessly fighting with each other for a disorder.
Why don’t you stay away from your emotions about Christians? We are your best allies. Why do you need to use entrenched stereotypes?

I cannot agree with all of this, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages :The term "Dark Ages" has now fallen from favour, partly to avoid the entrenched stereotypes associated with the phrase, but also partly because more recent research…
Petrarch wrote that history had had two periods: the Classic period of the Romans and Greeks, followed by a time of darkness, in which he saw himself as still living... Humanists believed one day the Roman Empire would rise again and restore Classic cultural purity. The concept of the European Dark Ages thus began as an ideological campaign by humanists to promote Classical culture, and was therefore not a neutral historical analysis. It was invented to express disapproval of one period in time, and the promotion of another. …. Why did Petrarch call it an age of darkness?... He wanted to restore the classical Latin language to its former purity. Humanists saw the preceding 900-year period as a time of stagnation.


Can you imagine tons of literuture disapproving 900 !!! years of “stagnation’’? We have very little unbias knowledge in the result. I respect your humanistic views, and your dream about restoration of the Roman Empire, but it is like history written by all left liberals in period of 500 years, with a little chance to restore the unbias truth now.

The Christian Church, the only centralized institution to survive the fall of the western Roman Empire intact, was the major unifying cultural influence, preserving its selection from Latin learning, maintaining the art of writing, and a centralized administration … The centralized administrative systems of the Romans did not withstand the changes for lack of a tax base, and the institutional support for large scale chattel slavery largely disappeared.
The Islamic invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries, which conquered the Levant, North Africa, Spain, Portugal and some of the Mediterranean islands (including Sicily), increased localization by halting much of what remained of seaborne commerce….This background in the Christian West must be matched with that in the Muslim East. Muslim presence in the Holy Land goes back to the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. This did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land of Christendom, and western Europeans were not much concerned with the loss of far-away Jerusalem when, in the ensuing decades and centuries, they were themselves faced with invasions by Muslims (justone:ends don’t meet???) and other hostile non-Christians such as the Vikings and Magyars. However, the Muslim armies' successes were putting strong pressure on the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire. A turning point in western attitudes towards the east came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed.
Much earlier, of course(justone –what do you mean “of course”???) , the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy, as well as a powerful pincer movement on all of Western Europe, created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands, starting at the most important one of all, Jerusalem itself.
The violence against the Orthodox Christians culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, The fact that Western Christians had been mistreated in the past (by Constantinople) has never justified this sack in the eyes of the Church. Indeed, as soon as the Pope learned of the sack of Constantinople, all who took part were immediately excommunicated


By the way –what a coincidence – Mongols showed up just in the middle of the last events and took the side of the Orthodox Christians!

Now the country was at the mercy of the invaders but, instead of advancing, they (Mongols) suddenly(justone: nothing happens” suddenly”!) retreated and did not reappear for thirteen years, during which the princes went on quarrelling and fighting as before, until they were startled by a new invasion.

There was no Mongols there, but just few Russian princes unifing Russia under the Orthodox Christianity. Such supposition gets the most inconsitences resolved in a blink.

I am picking on nickles and dimes, otherwise you provide EXCELLENT analyses and give me an opportunity to think.
I am not sure but:I may think Islam was born as a challenge to Christianity and Mohammed started his acts with concurring and cutting throats. (very different from other religions)
I may think Judeo-Christian tradition and Islam have been in a struggle throughout all the history existence of Islam.
I may think that Islam would never forgive Jews/Christians for continuing defeat.

What do you think?
 
GySgt said:
:roll: How very trite and obtuse.

They hate us, because life in the Middle East should be about abuse and terror under Islamic law.

And this isn't...

Islamic law doesn't mandate that violence be used to solve problems, just as Christianity doesn't condone radical zealots forcing their views on other. The fact is, there is a growind tide of imperialism in the US and I hardly consider that a trite statement. We have been involved in covert CIA ops in foreign countires to displace power, overtaken democratic gov'ts and set up a network of bases to cement control. That is imperialism: control by the use of long-distance force. I.e. rule from Rome/Athens/America.
 
justone said:
Revelation leaves things to God. Koran gives OBL the authority. = Apples and oranges.

The point was that Bin Laden, while adhering to his version of Islam acccording to his interpretation of the Qu'ran, is actually welcoming armageddon as is written in the Bible. It was to show how religiously perverted this man is.

justone said:
It is quite a perverse imagination. You imagine Christians suddenly believing in Hindu Goddess. Again, Osama stays within Islam. = apples and oranges.
Why don’t you leave us, pour bloody Christians alone? We did what we could and how we could to bring you to the point where you are. We were holding our civilization together under attacks of Jihad and all barbarians and Little Ice Age, and plague and starvation, and little feudalists relentlessly fighting with each other for a disorder.
Why don’t you stay away from your emotions about Christians? We are your best allies. Why do you need to use entrenched stereotypes?

I am a Christian, though not a blind one. You mistake my post for that of a bashers. It was to show contrast of two different religions and how Bin Laden has a nact for crossing them to suit his needs.

justone said:
(justone –what do you mean “of course”???)

Meaning common knowledge and written history.



justone said:
There was no Mongols there, but just few Russian princes unifing Russia under the Orthodox Christianity. Such supposition gets the most inconsitences resolved in a blink.

What is it with you and the Mongols? It's recorded history.

"The Mongols were a nomadic people who in the 13th century found themselves encompassed by large, city-dwelling agrarian civilizations. However, none of these civilizations, with the possible exception of the Islamic Caliphate located in Baghdad, were part of a strong central state. Asia, Russia, and the Middle East were either declining kingdoms, or divided city states. Taking the strategic initiative, the Mongols exploited this power vacuum and linked all of these areas into a mutually supportive trade network."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols






justone said:
What do you think?

I believe that there is a lot of embarrassment on the Islamic side and most of it has been self-inflicted. The Iranians reach all the way back to world's first global empire, under Cyrus the Great in 540 BC. Their desire to return to this glory has a lot to do with this need to spread their brand of Islam. The rest of the Middle East is just trapped under brutal regimes and dictators that came into power once oil was discovered in the desert sands.

The very next day after the UN sanctioned Israel in 1949, Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt invaded. They have been attacking and have been handed embarrassing defeats ever since. This is a civilization that has withdrawn into a narcotic of blame and revenge that is as destructive as it is comforting.
 
WilliamH said:
And this isn't...

Islamic law doesn't mandate that violence be used to solve problems, just as Christianity doesn't condone radical zealots forcing their views on other. The fact is, there is a growind tide of imperialism in the US and I hardly consider that a trite statement. We have been involved in covert CIA ops in foreign countires to displace power, overtaken democratic gov'ts and set up a network of bases to cement control. That is imperialism: control by the use of long-distance force. I.e. rule from Rome/Athens/America.


Once again..trite. You speak of true Islamic law when what is practiced in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are something else all together. It is a perversion and this is wht we are left to deal with. The religious elite in this region of the world very much "condones" their martyrs.


The events of the Cold War were unfortunate. America rushed into action wherever a poor country had it's hand out to Moscow. In South America, we merely acted to keep Soviet influence out of our side of the world. We already had a nuclear scare with the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and our country was not going to allow for a future threat anywhere else.


I agree with Rome. It is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
I am a Christian, though not a blind one. You mistake my post for that of a bashers. It was to show contrast of two different religions and how Bin Laden has a nact for crossing them to suit his needs.
I did not see as a basher at all. I guess I misunderstood you about Revelation.
My fault.

GySgt said:
Meaning common knowledge and written history.
It was not a question to you but to wikidpedia. I did not see a logical construction as I was reading. I avoid common knowledge, and especially written history and the statements like suddenly, with no reason.The same article just shows you how bias written history can be. Actually how it is bias.

GySgt said:
What is it with you and the Mongols? It's recorded history.
Nothing, just "by the way". I hope new researches will prove me right and you and the recorded history (the whole world) wrong. Just pay attention if it comes by you in 20 years. Or in 5 years.
Thank you. It would be interesting to find time and take a look at Cyrus the Great, may be I will find some kind of Mongols are hiding under this name (just some irony towards myself with a bit of my true attitude towards history)
 
WilliamH said:
And this isn't...

Islamic law doesn't mandate that violence be used to solve problems, just as Christianity doesn't condone radical zealots forcing their views on other. The fact is, there is a growind tide of imperialism in the US and I hardly consider that a trite statement. We have been involved in covert CIA ops in foreign countires to displace power, overtaken democratic gov'ts and set up a network of bases to cement control. That is imperialism: control by the use of long-distance force. I.e. rule from Rome/Athens/America.


History of Christianity is quite complex. SySgt said to you :"Religion" is often only a tool to masque a person's own selfish needs. I agree changing often for sometimes. It is true for some moments in Christianity too.
I doubt your words about Islamic law, but you must be an expert, are you?
I just see what I see.
Even if the means may look quite similiar at the first glance, the goals of imperialism and USA are totally opposite.
Also, blaming USA, you for some reason are forgiving the same things to others --- how do they call such views?
 
justone said:
Thank you. It would be interesting to find time and take a look at Cyrus the Great, may be I will find some kind of Mongols are hiding under this name (just some irony towards myself with a bit of my true attitude towards history)

Cyrus the Great is a source of pride for the Persian people and rightfully so. He was a true leader in every sense of the word.

"Cyrus was distinguished no less as statesman than as a soldier. His statesmanship was particularly evident in his treatment of newly conquered peoples. By pursuing a policy of generosity instead of repression, and by favoring local religions, he was able to make his new subjects into enthusiastic supporters. A good example of this policy is his treatment of the Jews in Babylon. The Bible records that a remnant of the Jewish population returned to the Promised Land from Babylon, following an edict from Cyrus to rebuild the Temple, fully reproduced in the Book of Ezra. As a result of Cyrus' policies, the Jews honored him as a dignified and righteous king. He is the only Gentile to be designated as a messiah (divinely-appointed king) in the Tanakh. Koresh (Hebrew for Cyrus) is a common name for streets in Israel and is a relatively common Israeli family name."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

What is so very sad in present day is how the Iranians that choose to remember his greatness prefer not to remember that he paved the way and allowed Jews to return to their lands in Israel.

Like I have said, the history invoked by the Muslim masses in the Midle East is very selective. They celebrate what will bring them remebered glory and what will bring them sympathy and forget anything that would smack them in the face.
 
GySgt said:
Cyrus the Great is a source of pride for the Persian people
Like I have said, the history invoked by the Muslim masses in the Midle East

Cyrus didn't have anything to do to Islam? Am I correct? Was he an atheist if I am correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom