Of course, as soon as you’re gone, the support base of Al-Qaeda and other groups will be cut because their main rallying cause will cease to exist.
Did they leave Afghanistan when the Soviets left?
There’s actually quite a few articles about the British channel 4 NPO poll. Not sure why you couldn’t find other sources citing it, Lixy.
I provide another citation of that poll below. Sorry, I don’t have the time tonight to look up more sources for the other polls. However, someone did link the Pew Poll for you. As for the information you gave about the author, as I said, I never intended to represent him as unbiased. Feel free to disregard what he says as it was the collection of polls I was drawing attention to.
l?rdag, augusti 19, 2006
"7/7 bombings ‘justified’ say a quarter of British Muslims
Mon 7 Aug 2006
ALMOST a quarter of British Muslims say the 7/7 bombings can be justified because of the Government’s support for the war on terror, according to an opinion poll.
And nearly half of those polled, or 45 per cent, believe the 9/11 attacks on New York were a conspiracy between the United States and Israel. The survey, for a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary to be screened tonight, found Muslims under 24 were twice as likely to justify the 7/7 attacks as those aged over 45. It found 24 per cent either agreed or tended to agree that the 7/7 bombings were justified, although 48 per cent said they “strongly disagreed”.
A third of those questioned said they would rather live under Sharia law in the UK than British law.
The survey also reveals concerns among Muslims about Britain’s moral standards, with 40 per cent saying it is a country of bad moral behaviour."
[quote]lixy wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Are we pissing up a rope to assume that Muslims would prefer liberty and freedom over fascist religious fanaticism?
I’m not sure what you meant by that. Are you suggesting Muslims somehow voluntarily choose fascism over freedom? [/quote]
Yes. Find me an Islamic nation that is even close to a Western nation in terms of personal liberty and religious freedom. When you are forced to practice a particular religion almost at gunpoint, is that freedom? What happens if Afghanistan if you decide to convert to Christianity?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Lawrence of Arabia is the only person to have ever united them.
It’s Lawrence’s fault we’re in this mess.
Like I said in another post, Alexander the Great noted this during his conquest of the Persian Empire. He recognized that although the Persian Army was massive, they were weak because they were not united. Alexander defeated the largest empire in the world with only about 50,000 Greek troops.
Alexander’s army defeated the Persians because his phalanx was better armored, better armed, and better drilled than Darius’ army. The Persians could have been the most unified, most homogenous, most striving-for-a-common-cause bunch in the world, and the result would have been the same. With those wicker shields and short spears, there was literally nothing they could do but be butchered.
Technology, not ideology, wins battles. Unfortunately, some nations assume that because their technology is superior, then their ideology must be as well.
It is hilarious that people think this middle eastern hatred for the west is a recent phenomenon.
Even more hilarious is that some people think this Middle Eastern hatred of the West can be defeated militarily. [/quote]
Wrong. You missed this part of what I said:
“Like I said in another post, Alexander the Great noted this during his conquest of the Persian Empire. He recognized that although the Persian Army was massive, they were weak because they were not united.”
The man himself witnessed their natural state of in-fighting and tribalism
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Wrong. You missed this part of what I said:
“Like I said in another post, Alexander the Great noted this during his conquest of the Persian Empire. He recognized that although the Persian Army was massive, they were weak because they were not united.”
The man himself witnessed their natural state of in-fighting and tribalism
[/quote]
I didn’t miss what you said.
Although the fact that the Persian Army was supplemented with barbarous tribes from the outskirts of the empire, such as the Parthians, the Scythians, and the Anatolians, probably contributed to their poor showing at the decisive battle of Arbela, this disunity was not the major cause of Darius’ defeat.
The Persian core of the army, particularly the cavalry and charioteers, was quite well-unified, and of course the 10,000 Immortals of the emperor’s bodyguard were there to bolster the infantry (notably supplemented by a company of highly skilled Greek mercenary hoplites in full panoplia).
My point was that the very highest in Persian
technology, courage, and skill-at-arms – including the very best soldiers, armor and weapons money could buy – were completely useless against Philip’s Macedonian phalanx (I say Philip’s phalanx because although pretty-boy Alex wielded the tool, it was his father who perfected it. Philip doesn’t get enough credit for this, in my estimation).
Darius did everything humanly possible to defend against the Macedonian invasion. It was insufficient, just as the Polish cavalry was insufficient to defend against the Panzer divisions of the Nazi blitzkrieg.
…or for that matter, just as the Republican Guard was insufficient to defend against the M1 Abrams divisions of the American blitzkrieg.
Technology, not ideology, wins battles. Unfortunately, Alex’s ideology was not strong enough to outlive him by more than a few years, and the Macedonian phalanx was itself defeated by superior military technology, namely the Roman legion.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
They had no reason to hate us in the first place. But they started killing us first remember? (Talking about terrorists, not Iraq)
Since they started attacking us for no reason or made up reasons how in the flying fuck do you expect US to control whether or not more are made. Perhaps the Jedi mind trick. I’d piss on a spark plug if I thought it would help.
[/quote]
Actually, they did have a reason to hate us. We support Israel (jewish people), and we support the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We fund Israel and provide them with weapons.
They don’t hate us because we are a free nation. If that were the case they would be busy hating Amsterdam, hell they have more freedoms.
U.N. security resolution 446 called for Israel to withdraw the military occupation from Palestinian land, but Israel refuses and thumbs it’s nose at the U.N.
The U.N. has 88 resolutions criticizing the actions of Israel. Because the media in the US filters most of this out, most IS citizens do not even know Israel is holding an illegal military occupation of Palestinian land.
How would you like it if soldiers came to your mother’s house, kicked out of it, told her she has no right to live there, then ran it over with a tank? If it were my mother, I would be pissed.
It is interesting to contrast that during the Revolutionary war the US used unconventional warfare to win a war for what they believed was right and they were heros, yet Palestinians are criticized for fighting in a similar manner for what they, and many other nations believe is right.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Actually, they did have a reason to hate us. We support Israel (jewish people), and we support the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We fund Israel and provide them with weapons.
[/quote]
Gosh, how vile of us, we support “Jewish people!” By the way, we also give tons of support to muslims. There is a military reason for Israel occupying that land, after a number of wars with it’s muslim neighbors. The West Bank and Gaza being favored launching sites of rockets and guerrilla attacks, after all. Do you really think Israel is going to allow Hamas to launch rockets, completely unopposed? And, if you believe Hamas and their ilk simply want the occupied territories back, you haven’t been listening to their own words.
Do me a favor. Ask yourself how reconquering Spain is related to Israel. Then, get on the internet and search for all the Islamic terrorist hot spots around the world. Ask yourself how those are related to Israel.
[quote
U.N. security resolution 446 called for Israel to withdraw the military occupation from Palestinian land, but Israel refuses and thumbs it’s nose at the U.N.
The U.N. has 88 resolutions criticizing the actions of Israel. Because the media in the US filters most of this out, most IS citizens do not even know Israel is holding an illegal military occupation of Palestinian land.
[/quote]
Ever thought to ask yourself why the UN has such a disproportionate amount of resolutions leveled against Israel? Look at the link below. Doesn’t seem skewed?
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367
And, the UN is pretty much only useful for shielding Hezbollah as they rearm themselves.
By the way, why is the talk always centered around US intervention? What about various muslim/arab nation’s intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or, all the wonderful intervention funneled into the pockets of violent Islamic separatist groups?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gosh, how vile of us, we support “Jewish people!” By the way, we also give tons of support to muslims. [/quote]
You send weapons to Turkey and Egypt knowing they will be used to massacring the Kurds and smother any opposition against the dictatorship. Tons of support, alright…
In case you didn’t notice, the Israelis use your weapons on OTHER people, most of whom’s only crime is being born on the wrong side of the fence.
Gee. I wonder why people voted for Hamas. Maybe because Palestinians saw that Arafat was being duped? After the PLO laid down their weapons and moved from tacit approval to formal acceptance of the two state solution, the response of Israel was that “there can be no additional Palestinian state between the Jordan and the sea”. In case you’re wondering, Israel considers the Palestinians already have a state in Jordan.
On a side note, the Mossad was no alien to the rise in power of Hamas.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html
Get some historical background before judging the situation.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
So, now you’re invoking some kind of global conspiracy where Israel is the victim and the US the only one who dares to oppose it. Give me a break! All it shows is the unconditional support the US gives to shield Israel from accountability so they can continue to slaughter and oppress Palestinians.
Explain to us why the US and Israel stand totally isolated in refusing the international consensus on two-states reintroduced recently by the Arab league.
They don’t hate us because we are a free nation. If that were the case they would be busy hating Amsterdam, hell they have more freedoms
ah, yeah they do:
Hey, Lixy, did we tell the Turks and Egyptians to kill Kurds and others? If they didn’t buy our arms, they would get them elsewhere, just another chance for you to blame everything on the US.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Even more hilarious is that some people think this Middle Eastern hatred of the West can be defeated militarily. [/quote]
Best comment of the thread.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
ah, yeah they do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)[/quote]
It would be helpful, Genghis, if you were to learn to use the quote button: that way we know whom you’re quoting, and what.
You are claiming that the Arabs and Muslims hate the Netherlands for its freedoms, using as evidence the murder by a Dutch-Arab Muslim of a racist and anti-Semitic Dutch filmmaker who habitually called the Muslims “goat-fuckers” and produced an inflammatory film that was insulting to Arabs and Islam? I’m sorry, but that’s a bit of a weak argument.
Admittedly, the murderer used the murder as a vehicle to launch his political agenda against Western governments, the Jews, and a Somali woman who also criticized Islam and insulted the Prophet Muhammad. However, the attack itself targeted a specific individual, not an ideology or a political policy.
I don’t think Muslims or Arabs hate any nations for their “freedoms”… as long as those “freedoms” are not exercised in ways that insult the Prophet, slander Islam, aid and abet militant Zionism, kill Muslim civilians, or invade and occupy Muslim countries.
[quote]Gkhan further wrote:
Hey, Lixy, did we tell the Turks and Egyptians to kill Kurds and others? If they didn’t buy our arms, they would get them elsewhere, just another chance for you to blame everything on the US.[/quote]
That’s an even weaker argument than your first. If I know that my neighbor beats his wife, I would certainly not sell him a baseball bat, a ball peen hammer and a cattle prod, on the grounds that if I don’t, somebody else will.
Speaking of ball peen hammers, here’s an interesting piece from the Clinton era:
[i]The United States – in order to guarantee access to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Force Base, from which we fly missions to protect the Kurds of northern Iraq from Saddam Hussein – provides hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to Turkey, which it in turn uses to decimate the Kurds of southeast Turkey.
That’s a rationale that might have left even Swift’s Lilliputians with Brobdingnagian headache.
But it does not seem to trouble the Clinton administration, which is expected to press for congressional approval next month of a $130 million deal to sell 120 Army tactical missiles (ATACMS) to Turkey – the first-ever export of these ballistic missiles with cluster munition warheads.
Over the past decade, the United States have provided $5.3 billion in military aid to Turkey, making it the third-largest recipient after Israel and Egypt. In 1994, Turkey was the largest weapons importer in the world and the United States has long been seen its dominant supplier, now accounting for 75 to 80 percent of all its military equipment.
Even the State Department admitted in a 1995 report, that U.S. weapons have “been used in operations against the PKK during which human rights abuses have occurred. It is highly likely that such equipment was used in support of the evacuation and/or destruction of villages.”
Such uses directly contravene the weapons export provisions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which the United States is a member – a fact that has caused Europeans weapons exporters to suspend sales to Turkey on various occasions. But not the United States. While “there is no question that Turkey’s human rights record is very bad,” said the undersecretary of Defense Walter Slocombe, “for us to base our policies solely on Turkey’s human rights record would be very shortsighted.”
What is shortsighted is the failure of American arms export policy to grasp the wisdom of an old Turkish proverb: “Give a man a hammer and he will think all problems are nails.”[/i]
It would be helpful, Genghis, if you were to learn to use the quote button: that way we know whom you’re quoting, and what.
Ok, done.
You are claiming that the Arabs and Muslims hate the Netherlands for its freedoms, using as evidence the murder by a Dutch-Arab Muslim of a racist and anti-Semitic Dutch filmmaker who habitually called the Muslims “goat-fuckers” and produced an inflammatory film that was insulting to Arabs and Islam? I’m sorry, but that’s a bit of a weak argument.
It is?
Admittedly, the murderer used the murder as a vehicle to launch his political agenda against Western governments, the Jews, and a Somali woman who also criticized Islam and insulted the Prophet Muhammad. However, the attack itself targeted a specific individual, not an ideology or a political policy.
Who cares if it targeted an individual, he was speaking out againt the Islamic fascist agenda.
Freedom of speech is a freedom, if this guy was using inflamatory speech against Muslims, maybe they should have went to the authorities and had it investigated, but since as you say:
Muslims or Arabs (don’t) hate any nations for their “freedoms”… as long as those “freedoms” are not exercised in ways that insult the Prophet, slander Islam…
That being the case, you think it is ok for this guy to have killed the film maker? I think this was terrorism pure and simple, and it was because the film maker had the freedom to make this film which was critical of Islam.
As far as the Turkish atrocities go, what is your opinion of the situation in Sudan? Are there also US weapons going to the government there?
120 Army tactical missiles (ATACMS) to Turkey – the first-ever export of these ballistic missiles with cluster munition warheads.
Bet they killed a bunch of Kurds with these babies!
Hey, I’m not saying I agree with everything America has ever done, I don’t think we should be in Iraq to begin with, but I’m not going to sit here while people justify the actions of their religion by constantly pointing the blame at America.
We’re wrong because we support dictators, we’re wrong when we take them down, we’re wrong when we support Israel, we’re wrong when we support Islamic governments.
And every other country, inspite of any human rights violations they committed in their own countries or others, are never criticized, ever.
Your info says you’re from Japan, don’t know if you are Japanese, but if you are, how’d you like me to start saying things about WWII atrocities to make my point? You’d think it was ridiculous, I’d bet.
America is not the sum of all evil in the world, I hope you don’t buy into that propaganda.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Explain to us why the US and Israel stand totally isolated in refusing the international consensus on two-states reintroduced recently by the Arab league.[/quote]
Sorry Lixy, I caught this a bit late. I was entertaining in the conspiracy thread with what time I had. Tell me, what are the official reasons given for not signing onto that plan? Not your opinions, but stated reasons why Israel would not sign on. Interested in your response.
I ask because you portray Israel as having rejected the plan entirely. That’s not the case. Israel is in fact still conducting meetings to negotiate over certain provisions. Did you imagine it was going to be a one-sided “here, sign, not questions asked,” type of deal? I’ll let you do more research on the matter yourself.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Who cares if it targeted an individual, he was speaking out againt the Islamic fascist agenda. [/quote]
But mostly calling the Muslims “goat-fuckers.”
Indeed it is. That’s why it is called freedom of speech. Strangely enough, however, the statements Mr. van Gogh made were in violation of the Dutch blasphemy laws, so he actually did not have the freedom to say them.
Ergo, for whatever other reason he was murdered, it was not in protest of the freedoms of the Netherlands.
I suspect that perhaps you don’t understand what terrorism is, which is not surprising, simply because the word has been so overused and misused in the last six years or so.
Terrorism is an act of apparently random violence, usually against civilian targets, whose aims are political in nature:
-
instilling fear in the general population, leading to
-
a call by the populace for increased security measures to be enacted by the government, which inevitably leads to
-
an overreaction on the part of the government, which enacts oppressive antiterrorist measures that snare the innocent as well as the guilty. This leads, then to
-
a mistrust of the government, resistance activities against it, and perhaps even open revolt and revolution.
Theo van Gogh’s assassination was politically motivated, perhaps, but it was not terrorism. It was the act of a single man (another native-born Dutchman, by the way, of Moroccan heritage) to protest the fact that van Gogh, personally, had insulted Islam and Arabs… not to protest any abstract notion of Freedom in the Netherlands.
The equivalent would be if Michael Moore exercised his First Amendment rights by producing a “documentary” about the life of Jesus, implying that he was a pimp and a child molestor.
If a rightfully outraged Italian-American Catholic blew six holes in him with a .44 magnum and hacked his throat with a bowie knife (beautiful image, isn’t it?), would you conclude that all Catholics hate us for our freedoms?
It’s the Nicaragua of Africa.
Nah. I said Nicaragua, not El Salvador. We’re sending weapons to the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, and they are the ones that are committing the atrocities with them.
[quote]120 Army tactical missiles (ATACMS) to Turkey – the first-ever export of these ballistic missiles with cluster munition warheads.
Bet they killed a bunch of Kurds with these babies![/quote]
Without doubt. Missile-delivered cluster bombs are extremely effective against fleeing villagers.
Then there’s two points on which we agree.
Lixy’s religion has committed no atrocities that I am aware of. Nor, in my estimation, has he ever justified the actions of those who pervert his religion for their own political agenda.
If he defends anyone, it is usually men and women fighting for their freedom against what they consider to be an oppressive occupying army, whether in Palestine, in Lebanon, or in Iraq. And the finger commonly points not only at America, but at Israel and Britain as well.
[quote]We’re wrong because we support dictators, we’re wrong when we take them down, we’re wrong when we support Israel, we’re wrong when we support Islamic governments.
And every other country, inspite of any human rights violations they committed in their own countries or others, are never criticized, ever. [/quote]
I assume this remark is leveled at Lixy again, so I’ll let Lixy answer for himself. But in my own experience, the United States have supported some really dirty characters in the past, people who chop off the heads of four-year old girls and mount them on stakes…
who are then praised by the President, who implies that these stinkers are the “moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers.” To know a man, look at his friends. The same goes for nations.
No, it says I’m in Japan.
Be my guest. It would be good for a laugh to watch you try to prove any of your points by bringing up Japanese atrocities.
Have you ever actually been to any of the sites of Japanese atrocities? I have. I’ve been to Changi and Seoul and Nanking and Bataan and Saipan, and to Pearl Harbor as well.
I have also been to Hiroshima, and seen photos of the aftermath of the world’s first atomic attack on a civilian city. The Japs were atrocious bastards in World War II. Everyone was an atrocious bastard in every war. Including the Americans.
I don’t buy into any propaganda: neither the irritating whine that says “the United States is the root of all that’s wrong with the world”… nor the equally annoying and lately much louder propaganda that proclaims that “America is always right, even when it’s wrong.”
I am a student of history, and of the rise and fall of great empires. I wasn’t around to see the Roman empire collapse, nor the Spanish, nor the British. However, I’m still young, and the way things are going, I figure I might get lucky this time.
I have no political agenda or affiliations. I just call 'em as I see 'em. And I’m not Japanese.
Oh, and Genghis? That quote button thing still doesn’t seem to be working out very well for you. You can do it manually by typing “quote” in brackets at the start of what you are quoting, and “/quote” in brackets at the end.
Makes for much clearer reading.
Thanks.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Have you ever considered using your brain. That might help.
And let’s call pissing on a spark plug plan b, ok?[/quote]
Sure, but I dominate you intellectually with out having to annoy my brain with your senseless and incredibly stupid drivel. So why bother my brain when my asshole would do?
If you do say anything worth bothering my brain about, I’ll let you know.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
reckless wrote:
Have you ever considered using your brain. That might help.
And let’s call pissing on a spark plug plan b, ok?
Sure, but I dominate you intellectually with out having to annoy my brain with your senseless and incredibly stupid drivel. So why bother my brain when my asshole would do?
If you do say anything worth bothering my brain about, I’ll let you know.[/quote]
POST OF THE YEAR!!!
HANDS DOWN!!!
JeffR
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Freedom of speech is a freedom,
Indeed it is. That’s why it is called freedom of speech. Strangely enough, however, the statements Mr. van Gogh made were in violation of the Dutch blasphemy laws, so he actually did not have the freedom to say them.
Exactly my point, so instead of killing him and forewarding the cause of Islamic Extremism, they could have protested and maybe had his film banned.
Ergo, for whatever other reason he was murdered, it was not in protest of the freedoms of the Netherlands.
I believe it was the same thing as the Ayatollah putting a death sentence on Rushdee. They put fear into anyone else who wants to come out in protest against islam. The film he made was about muslim abuse toward women.
you think it is ok for this guy to have killed the film maker? I think this was terrorism pure and simple, and it was because the film maker had the freedom to make this film which was critical of Islam.
Terrorism is an act of apparently random violence, usually against civilian targets, whose aims are political in nature:
- instilling fear in the general population, leading to
It was to instill fear of insulting Islam. The people who killed him were Islamic extremists. They killed him to further their agenda of instilling fear into the population.
Theo van Gogh’s assassination was politically motivated, perhaps, but it was not terrorism. It was the act of a single man (another native-born Dutchman, by the way, of Moroccan heritage) to protest the fact that van Gogh, personally, had insulted Islam and Arabs… not to protest any abstract notion of Freedom in the Netherlands.
But the reason he said it was because he had the freedom in the Netherlands to say it and because he did, they killed him.
The equivalent would be if Michael Moore exercised his First Amendment rights by producing a “documentary” about the life of Jesus, implying that he was a pimp and a child molestor.
If a rightfully outraged Italian-American Catholic blew six holes in him with a .44 magnum and hacked his throat with a bowie knife (beautiful image, isn’t it?), would you conclude that all Catholics hate us for our freedoms?
I think most Catholics would condemn the killing, if most Muslims condemn this killing, show me proof.
As far as the Turkish atrocities go, what is your opinion of the situation in Sudan?
It’s the Nicaragua of Africa.
Are there also US weapons going to the government there?
Nah. I said Nicaragua, not El Salvador. We’re sending weapons to the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, and they are the ones that are committing the atrocities with them.
So the arabs riding camels with AK-47’s picking off villagers are doing nothing wrong?
120 Army tactical missiles (ATACMS) to Turkey – the first-ever export of these ballistic missiles with cluster munition warheads.
Bet they killed a bunch of Kurds with these babies!
Without doubt. Missile-delivered cluster bombs are extremely effective against fleeing villagers.
Show me proof that they used these weapons agains civilians.
Lixy’s religion has committed no atrocities that I am aware of. Nor, in my estimation, has he ever justified the actions of those who pervert his religion for their own political agenda.
I thought you said you were into history.
If he defends anyone, it is usually men and women fighting for their freedom against what they consider to be an oppressive occupying army, whether in Palestine, in Lebanon, or in Iraq. And the finger commonly points not only at America, but at Israel and Britain as well.
Who’s currently occupying Lebanon? Syria?
I assume this remark is leveled at Lixy again, so I’ll let Lixy answer for himself. But in my own experience, the United States have supported some really dirty characters in the past, people who chop off the heads of four-year old girls and mount them on stakes…
I know of a guy who would make pyramids of human heads. Then today, you got guys like that in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan doing it on video we’re not supporting them. But next you’ll say it’s our fault their doing it. If you are against Islamic Extremism, this is something muslims must come to terms with: their religion has become corrupt by Wahabbis and it should be their duty to rein these bastards in, just like the Ottoman Empire once tried to do.
don’t know if you are Japanese, but if you are, how’d you like me to start saying things about WWII atrocities to make my point? You’d think it was ridiculous, I’d bet.
Be my guest. It would be good for a laugh to watch you try to prove any of your points by bringing up Japanese atrocities
You’d think it was ridiculous, I’d bet.
I was right.
Have you ever actually been to any of the sites of Japanese atrocities?
Was at Pearl Harbor.
Everyone was an atrocious bastard in every war. Including the Americans.
Yes that is why we are not winning the current war.
America is not the sum of all evil in the world, I hope you don’t buy into that propaganda.
I don’t buy into any propaganda: neither the irritating whine that says “the United States is the root of all that’s wrong with the world”… nor the equally annoying and lately much louder propaganda that proclaims that “America is always right, even when it’s wrong.”
Never said it was.
I am a student of history, and of the rise and fall of great empires. I wasn’t around to see the Roman empire collapse, nor the Spanish, nor the British. However, I’m still young, and the way things are going, I figure I might get lucky this time.
You lost out. Were you around when the Soviet Union fell. Too bad if you missed that one also.
I have no political agenda or affiliations. I just call 'em as I see 'em. And I’m not Japanese.[/quote]
Got it.
If the quote button does not work this time (I think I deleted the quote marker last time) then screw it.
Later.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Exactly my point, so instead of killing him and forewarding the cause of Islamic Extremism, they could have protested and maybe had his film banned.[/quote]
Who is “they?” The Dutch Muslim community? The European Muslim community? All of Islam? Mohammed Bouyeri did not represent any of these groups. He was a lone assailant, politically motivated, yes, and connected with the Hofstad Network perhaps, but essentially acting on his own impulses.
You may come back and state that he was inspired by Imam Fawaz, who condemned van Gogh from the pulpit and hoped he would catch an incurable disease… but no fatwas were issued, nor does the Imam speak for all the Muslims.
[quote]
I believe it was the same thing as the Ayatollah putting a death sentence on Rushdee. They put fear into anyone else who wants to come out in protest against islam. The film he made was about muslim abuse toward women. [/quote]
Salman Rushdie was himself a Muslim, so his blasphemy was considered even more grave than the kafir van Gogh’s (a heretic is always worse than an infidel, in every religion).
Had he been writing in his native Pakistan, Satanic Verses would likely never have been published in the first place, and nobody would ever have known Rushdie’s name.
If, as you claim, the Muslims hate the West for their freedom, then Khomeini, whom you seem to imagine speaks for all Muslims (he does not), would have issued a fatwa against Great Britain, for allowing Rushdie the freedom to publish his blasphemous (and, by the way, not very good) book.
If Rushdie had in fact been killed, this would not have been an act of terrorism against the West, for the reasons cited in my previous post. It would have been the assassination of a heretic and mediocre writer.
He did not have the freedom to say it: committing blasphemy against any religion in the Netherlands is a violation of Article 147 of the Dutch penal code.
And if “they” imagined that his film or his statements were an example of hateful Dutch freedom, then why did “they” not attack a member of the Dutch Parliament, or bomb a coffee house, where freedom can be found in great quantities.
I think it’s time for this horse to stay dead. In my experience, and generally speaking, Muslims do not hate the West for its freedom.[quote]
I think most Catholics would condemn the killing, if most Muslims condemn this killing, show me proof.[/quote]
The Friday after van Gogh was killed, several Dutch imams did condemn the killing, reminding their congregations that murder is not condoned in Islam. However, I regret that I can’t show you proof that most of the world’s Muslims condemn the killing of van Gogh… any more than you can show me proof that most Catholics would condemn the killing of Michael Moore for making a “Jesus was a pervert” movie.
And anyway, it is irrelevant to our discussion. The point is that the statement “All Muslims hate the Netherlands for allowing Theo van Gogh freedom of expression” is not exactly the same as the statement “Some Muslims hated Theo van Gogh for calling them goat-fuckers and producing a film insulting to their religion.”
Which of these two statements is nearer to your opinion?
Well, if the camels are the ones picking off the villagers with the AK-47s, as your statement seems to imply, then yes, the Arabs are definitely doing something wrong.
Personally, I have never picked off a villager with a Kalashnikov while riding a camel, but it sounds extremely challenging. If the Arabs can do it, then they are better marksmen than I am.
Seriously, though, how on earth can you take my statement that the US is arming the rebel army (who are forthwith committing atrocities with said weapons) and infer that I find nothing wrong with the ruling party also committing atrocities with non-US weapons?
I’m sorry, I’m not privy to Turkish military intelligence, more’s the pity. However, the main objection in Congress to the sale of the missile systems to the Turkish government was that they likely would be used against the Kurds. Which makes sense, after all: if you have a hell of a lot of nails to deal with, you tend to want to use the biggest and best hammer you have.
Yes, you are correct. That is what I said.
Genghis, you must learn to be more precise in what you say. Religions do not commit atrocities. People acting in the name of these religions commit them. And the fact that they are committing the atrocities pretty much indicates that they have not fully grasped their own religion. [quote]
Who’s currently occupying Lebanon? Syria?
[/quote]Yes, and so is Israel.
I know of several. Were you referring to Tamarlane, by chance, or to Pol Pot? Actually, judging by your screen name, you are probably thinking of Hulagu Khan: he made pyramids out of Iraqi heads!
Do you mean to tell me that there are guys in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan who make pyramids out of human heads on video? Cool! Do you have a YouTube link? 
I’m sure the United States government doesn’t feel obligated to support everyone in the world who decapitates civilians, only the people it deems to be useful at the time.
Yours and mine, you mean? I would never make such a claim. And unless you happen to be a member of the President’s cabinet, the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and/or Halliburton Corporation, I would never presume to blame anything concerning the war in Iraq on you personally.[quote]
If you are against Islamic Extremism, this is something muslims must come to terms with: their religion has become corrupt by Wahabbis and it should be their duty to rein these bastards in, just like the Ottoman Empire once tried to do.[/quote]
Ironic, then, that it was Britain and her allies (including the United States) that broke the back of the Ottoman Empire, which allowed the Ibn Saud family and the Wahhabis to return to power.
Yes, you were right in predicting that I would think it was ridiculous. You win that point.
I said great empires. The Soviet Union wasn’t even a good empire.
Rule of thumb: great empires generally don’t run out of toilet paper.