Targeting Girls School

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:
PGJ wrote:
pat36 wrote:
orion wrote:
Some of them call it Jihad, some of them don`t and some call it that and do not believe a word of it.

I am not saying your wrong, I just haven’t heard a single peep refering to the insurgency as mulifaceted as it is, as anything else other than a Holy endevour to kill the infidel. Do you have any text that would show there is any secular based violence in Iraq?

That is a great question. The answer is NO. There is no “secular” in Islamic society. These guys chant “Allah Akbar” as they blow up public places and saw off people’s heads. Converting to a religion other than Islam is still punishable by death. The society is totally centerd on Islam.

That is BS, Iraq was probably the most secular society in the Middle East.[/quote]

Perhaps, but still dominated by Islamic religious law. Saying Iraq is the most secular is like saying Hillary is the most moderate Democratic candidate.

Western society is not centerd on Christian belief. Muslim society IS dominated by Islamic law. Religious police, Ministries of Virtues and Vice…not real tolerant.

62

[quote]Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:

It depends on what you think they’re in Iraq for. I don’t think troops are in Iraq to make the world safe for democracy.

Dustin

what do you think they are there for? Are you saying we are not building a democracy there?

We are there to gain strategic control of the one of the largest oil reserves in the world and to install a government that will be more pro-U.S. than Saddam was.

In a way one could argue that we are building a democracy in Iraq, but whether it will be the type Iraqi’s want remains to be seen.

Dustin
[/quote]

The did have a good turn out for the votes, which leads me to believe they want it. If they were opposed to it they would not have turned up.

Do we have are own reasons for being there, of course but that does not mean thats are only reason.

63

[quote]PGJ wrote:

WTF, Orion? Name some other religions that tell people to kill in the name of God?

And I have never heard of ANYONE seriously saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for giving me the strength to saw that man’s head off. All Glory is yours”.

All I hear is “Lord, please protect us and our great nation.” I have never heard in 14 years of military service anyone praying for the death of anyone.

Why is it so freaking hard for people to realize that the “insurgency” is fueled by radical Islamic religious fervor? They do kill for Allah and the virgins. [/quote]

Some surely do kill in the name of Allah.

Some kill so they do not have to live in a society that is ruled by people that kill in the name of Allah.

Now to what other people kill in the name of their religions.

Well, a lot.

Not even beginning to describe Aztec customs, Jews and Christians also did.

Contrary to popular belief Crusades and the burning of heretics was not an abberation from Christs teachings but the logical conclusion of some Christian dogmas as explained by Augustin from Hyppo in his writings on the Donatists.

Basically the argument is this.

We kill murderers.

What should we do with people who refuse Jesus and the churches teachings, publicly talk about it and thereby endanger other peoples eternal souls salvation?

Should we not punish their flesh to save their souls or at least stop them from endangering other peoples souls?

Absolutely flawless logic and given that the Lord wants you to be stoned if you touch a pig skin on schabbath…

It is true though that most Christians no longer truly believe all that nonsense, thank God. Even though they insist on calling themselves Christian, I somehhow doubt that their faith is strong.

What religious people rarely get is that if God is the source of ethics or morals everything God demands is morally right, even the most barbarous atrocities.

That is the counterpoint to the argument that if there is no God anything goes, which is usually meant as an attack on atheists.

64

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Perhaps, but still dominated by Islamic religious law. Saying Iraq is the most secular is like saying Hillary is the most moderate Democratic candidate.
[/quote]

As much as US laws are influenced by Christian values. As long as churches, courts and the executive remain separated that is a secular society.

Even their democracies will never look like ours, but why should they?

Drug laws, laws on prostitution or gambling, laws that make it illegal to have anal or oral intercourse…

It is not a religious police though breaking down your door, it is a para-military trigger-happy SWAT team.

Granted that their bigotry has an Islamic touch, but you hardly need Islam to find a way to let it out, if only to save the children.

65

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
There’s no way muslim extremists would ever blow up a school full of little girls if America wasn’t sticking it’s big fat nose where it doesn’t belong. [/quote]

As much as a monster as Saddam Hussein was, this sort of thing (terrorists rigging a girls’ school to explode) would never have happened on his watch.

It is, actually.

66

[quote]PGJ wrote:WTF, Orion? Name some other religions that tell people to kill in the name of God?

And I have never heard of ANYONE seriously saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for giving me the strength to saw that man’s head off. All Glory is yours”.

All I hear is “Lord, please protect us and our great nation.” I have never heard in 14 years of military service anyone praying for the death of anyone. [/quote]

This, PGJ, is how you pray for the death of your enemies:

[i] O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; to see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.

Because thy loving-kindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee.

Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name.

My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips: when I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches.

Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice.

My soul followeth hard after thee:thy right hand upholdeth me.

But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth.

They shall fall by the sword:
they shall be a portion for foxes.

But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.[/i]

Psalm 63. One of George Patton’s favorites.

67

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Iraq also had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, along with having universal healthcare. [/quote]

Very good point.

Compare to the report released yesterday by the STC organisation and where Iraq ranks lowest in the world in child mortality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_he_me/child_deaths

[quote]JeffR wrote:
…
[/quote]

Saddam was a monster; that’s not open to debate. He slaughtered anyone who opposed him and that’s what dictators do. But for the great majority of people (kids, women…), life was better under his rule, and that’s not open to debate either.

68

[quote]lixy wrote:
This thread has gotten out of hand.

JeffR, nobody ever justified attacks on innocent civilians. Neither Orion nor myself would ever do such thing. I repeatedly pointed out that, had it not been for the invasion, things would be a lot better in Iraq. And yes, even under Saddam’s oppresive regime. [/quote]

I haven’t read the rest of this post and am curious to see if anyone else actually went beyond this point.

69

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I don’t know maybe because they call it Jihad? I believe that is arabic for Holy War.

This statement is exactly what is wrong with the western perception of Islam.

Jihad is Arabic for, to struggle in the way of God. Jihad is considered, unofficially, the sixth pillar of Islam and is loosely translated by all sects of Islam. As a point of contention to your statement I offer this by the Prophet Muhammad.

“Holy is the warrior who wrestles (“struggles”) with himself.”[/quote]

You’re very well-versed in the Koran and in the Islamic mindset.

70

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Well, they could go to the market without fear of being blown up. Iraq also had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, along with having universal healthcare.

[/quote]

Their daughters could also go the market and meet up with one of Saddam’s sons ---- what a treat!

After we leave, I’m sure the universal healthcare will get a big boost.

71

[quote]orion wrote:
PGJ wrote:

WTF, Orion? Name some other religions that tell people to kill in the name of God?

And I have never heard of ANYONE seriously saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for giving me the strength to saw that man’s head off. All Glory is yours”.

All I hear is “Lord, please protect us and our great nation.” I have never heard in 14 years of military service anyone praying for the death of anyone.

Why is it so freaking hard for people to realize that the “insurgency” is fueled by radical Islamic religious fervor? They do kill for Allah and the virgins.

Some surely do kill in the name of Allah.

Some kill so they do not have to live in a society that is ruled by people that kill in the name of Allah.

Now to what other people kill in the name of their religions.

Well, a lot.

Not even beginning to describe Aztec customs, Jews and Christians also did.

Contrary to popular belief Crusades and the burning of heretics was not an abberation from Christs teachings but the logical conclusion of some Christian dogmas as explained by Augustin from Hyppo in his writings on the Donatists.

Basically the argument is this.

We kill murderers.

What should we do with people who refuse Jesus and the churches teachings, publicly talk about it and thereby endanger other peoples eternal souls salvation?

Should we not punish their flesh to save their souls or at least stop them from endangering other peoples souls?

Absolutely flawless logic and given that the Lord wants you to be stoned if you touch a pig skin on schabbath…

It is true though that most Christians no longer truly believe all that nonsense, thank God. Even though they insist on calling themselves Christian, I somehhow doubt that their faith is strong.

What religious people rarely get is that if God is the source of ethics or morals everything God demands is morally right, even the most barbarous atrocities.

That is the counterpoint to the argument that if there is no God anything goes, which is usually meant as an attack on atheists.
[/quote]

Absolutely classic. You have to go back to the Crusades and ancient history to prove your point. You said something like “just like every other organized religion promotes violence”…

I asked you to name one religion othern than Islam that promotes violence. You couldn’t and had to reach back 1,000 years to provide examples. Very weak. Show me a verse in the New Testament where Jesus promotes violence and asks followers to kill in his name.

72

[quote]orion wrote:
PGJ wrote:

Perhaps, but still dominated by Islamic religious law. Saying Iraq is the most secular is like saying Hillary is the most moderate Democratic candidate.

As much as US laws are influenced by Christian values. As long as churches, courts and the executive remain separated that is a secular society.

Even their democracies will never look like ours, but why should they?

Western society is not centerd on Christian belief. Muslim society IS dominated by Islamic law. Religious police, Ministries of Virtues and Vice…not real tolerant.

Drug laws, laws on prostitution or gambling, laws that make it illegal to have anal or oral intercourse…

It is not a religious police though breaking down your door, it is a para-military trigger-happy SWAT team.

Granted that their bigotry has an Islamic touch, but you hardly need Islam to find a way to let it out, if only to save the children.
[/quote]

Ok, Orion. What is your experience in America? WTF do you know about SWAT teams? Nobody is going to jail for having anal sex (unless it’s rape). You have a twisted mind.

Just come out of the closet and join the insurgent movement. You already hate America, so why not join the fight against us?

73

[quote]lixy wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Iraq also had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, along with having universal healthcare.

Very good point.

Compare to the report released yesterday by the STC organisation and where Iraq ranks lowest in the world in child mortality.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_he_me/child_deaths

JeffR wrote:
…

Saddam was a monster; that’s not open to debate. He slaughtered anyone who opposed him and that’s what dictators do. But for the great majority of people (kids, women…), life was better under his rule, and that’s not open to debate either.[/quote]

Nice one. “Saddam was a brutal monster who killed millions, but he wasn’t really that bad…” They said the same about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot…

“life was better under his rule, and that’s not open to debate either”

Really? You speak for the entire Iraqi population now. The guy who was slowly fed into the industrial shreader feet first in front of his family might disagree. The Iraqi soccer team that was tortured for loosing might disagree with that statement. The families of “dissidents” whose children were held in prison would probably disagree as well. I could go on and on…

But you, a teenager from Sweden of all places, speak for an entire nation half way around the world.

74

[quote]John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:

It depends on what you think they’re in Iraq for. I don’t think troops are in Iraq to make the world safe for democracy.

Dustin

what do you think they are there for? Are you saying we are not building a democracy there?[/quote]

If one accepts de Tocqueville’s assessment of democracy as “the tyranny of the masses,” then yes, I suppose you could say that’s what we’re building. Perhaps not intentionally, but by default.

75

[quote]pat36 wrote:

What’s hard about that notion. The sooner the violence stops the sooner the U.S. is gone. Want the U.S. gone? stop being violent.[/quote]

In other words, the executions will continue until morale improves.

I think you’re asking the impossible, Pat. Or at least the unrealistic.

And who is to say that Al Qaida doesn’t have spies right on this board, who have read your post, and right now, as we speak, are formulating their Cunning Plan with the rest of the cell members in Baghdad:

"It is so simple! All we must do to rid our land of the filthy infidel is to just stop being violent! As soon as the Americans leave, we can return to being violent once more!

"And if they come back (which they probably will not, because it will be inconvenient for them), we simply temporarily stop being violent once again!

“Think of the millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel they will have to expend just to move that huge and cumbersome mechanized army back and forth. And our Saudi friends sell them the oil, and we get our percentage! War is so good for business! Al hamdulillah!”

76

[quote]pat36 wrote:
2. Do you contest the notion that is the insurgents were not attacking the U.S. military and Iraqi civilian targets, that we would be gone? Do you honestly think anybody wants to be there?[/quote]

I contest it. A government that does not want to be in a country does not build the world’s largest embassy (anyone have any idea how many Marines will be garrisoned there as “guards?”) in that country’s capital.

Violence or no violence, we are planning to be in Iraq for a good long time.

77

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I don’t know maybe because they call it Jihad? I believe that is arabic for Holy War.

This statement is exactly what is wrong with the western perception of Islam.

Jihad is Arabic for, to struggle in the way of God. Jihad is considered, unofficially, the sixth pillar of Islam and is loosely translated by all sects of Islam. As a point of contention to your statement I offer this by the Prophet Muhammad.

“Holy is the warrior who wrestles (“struggles”) with himself.”

You’re very well-versed in the Koran and in the Islamic mindset. [/quote]

Lifticus, unlike some, has done his homework.

Resorting to violence to spread the message of Islam was a prerogative of the prophet and by no means was the practice supposed to outlive him. Of course, in this day and age, with the proliferation of books and the ease with which one can procure info on the web, the notion of spreading the word through the sword is simply absurd.

Yes, some still managed to do it in the past for political reasons. Al-Qaeda and other groups soiled the name of Islam because of their whackiness. The crushing majority scorn at their methods, but some sympathize with them the way some Basques sympathize with ETA or some mexicans sympathize with the EZLN.

So, if their “caliphate” dream is not taken at all seriously by anyone, it doesn’t delegitimize some of their other concerns (i.e: getting foreign troops out of Muslim countries). And that’s precisely the reason why keeping US troops in Iraq is only giving them more fuel.

Back to the point. The big Jihad cannot be tranlated into “Holy war” or be associated with violence. It’s an internal struggle between good and bad; i.e: the hedonic part that wants to abuse life’s pleasures and the part that thrives to alleviate you from earthly concerns.

78

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:

In fact, I was all for kicking ass and taking names in Afghanistan to kick the shit out of the Taliban. And if things keep going in the direction they seem to be going, I might end up being for a war with Iran, depending on whether or not they develop nuclear capability and threaten to use it one Israel. I’m am by no means a pacifist.

Beowolf,

This is where democratic logic gets murky to me.

If the goal is to kill al qaeda, it seems to me that we should all be in aggreement with staying in Iraq.

We know that Iraq is the central front of the War on Terror. al qaeda has broadcast this fact.

If you are for killing taliban for supporting al qaeda, then it follows you should be for killing al qaeda in Iraq.

Again, the logic escapes me here. For the sake of argument, let’s accept every looney theory about going in to Iraq (kickbacks for cheney, reelection, personal vendetta, Bush thinks it’s cool, etc…) it still doesnt justify pulling out when the enemy is there.

The only thing I can think of, is that people want so badly to punish any idea associated with Bush, that they would rather he lose any undertaking than deal with the larger issue.

One cannot in good faith say, “Well, if we leave, everything will be ok.”

It won’t. It would be a monumental victory for the forces of darkness.

I think that the Americans should plan on eventually pulling back to regional bases. Withdraw most of the manpower. But, be available for some heavy hitting. Further, act as a deterrant to iran.

As long as the Iraqi’s ask for and allow us to maintain these regional bases, I say we stay. See Japan and other areas of our vital national interest.

Friends, leaving Iraq altogether would be an enormous error. Bush isn’t the best person to persuade doubters. However, I think he’s quite correct.

JeffR

I see your point. It’s weird that I don’t want to stay, but thats more because I didn’t think we should have gone. That’s why I don’t support withdrawal without some form of Iraqi referendum. Not a government decision, but a real, people’s vote on whether or not they want us there. If they do, well then I guess we’re stuck, and I’ll support the war to the best of my ability, besides joining up.

However, knowing what you now know, would you go back and (if you were a congressman) vote to go into Iraq, like Cheney has said he most certainly would?[/quote]

My friend,

I actually think a nationwide vote would lead to a surge in violence in the short term. The terrorists would bascially know that if they stopped the voting, they will have won the war.

Therefore, I think we’re going to have to follow the suggestions of the elected leaders. We do the same. It’s a representative Republic and the public has vested their trust in their elected leaders.

You asked whether using 20/20 I would have voted to go into Iraq. The answer is yes. Please don’t think I’m being stubborn or refusing to admit error.

The premises for invasion were sound. The fact that more WMD weren’t found doesn’t negate the firing on our planes, supporting terrorists, flirting with al qaeda, trying to assasinate our ex-President, refusing to disclose illegal convential arms, pouring money into reconstituting WMD, bribing un officials, breaking the 1991 cease fire on a routine basis, butchering his own people, threatening our allies and our national interests–oil.

We need Rudy to say these words on a regular basis. If we havent pulled back to regional bases by his inauguration, then he needs to be on television, print, radio, and the internet reminding everyone at least weekly what this war is about. Further, he needs to get the saddam tapes translated and disseminated to the world.

This is Bush’s great failing. If he was a better politician, there would be no democratic Congress. There would still be resistance to any war. However, it would be far more muted.

If he would just stand up with a big ass blackboard with a picture of Baghdad and update us, he wouldn’t have to veto anything.

So to answer your question: Yes, I still agree wholeheartedly with the mission and the goal of a democratic Iraq.

JeffR

79

[quote]lixy wrote:

Very good point.

Compare to the report released yesterday by the STC organisation and where Iraq ranks lowest in the world in child mortality.[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/...me/child_deaths[/quote]

“Iraq’s mortality rate has soared by 150 percent since 1990. Even before the latest war, Iraq was plagued by electricity shortages, a lack of clean water and too few hospitals.”

Iraq was good before Saddam turned to the Dark(er) Side. Funny how when he was compliant and friendly with the Western World his people prospered (except the ones he killed), and his nation thrived. But for some reason, he chose to invade Kuwait and adopt more religious values and the cooperative prosperity evaporated.

Human Rights Watch (criticized for having an Anti-Israel slant) feels there’s room for debate;

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

[i]Women’s Status in the Post-Gulf War Years

In the years following the 1991 Gulf War, many of the positive steps that had been taken to advance women’s and girls’ status in Iraqi society were reversed due to a combination of legal, economic, and political factors. [b]The most significant political factor was Saddam Hussein’s decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power.

[/b] In addition, the U.N. sanctions imposed after the war have had a disproportionate impact on women and children (especially girls). For example, the gender gap in school enrollment (and subsequently female illiteracy) increased dramatically due to families’ financial inability to send their children to school.

When faced with limited resources, many families chose to keep their girl children at home. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as a result of the national literacy campaign, as of 1987 approximately 75 percent of Iraqi women were literate;

however, by year-end 2000, Iraq had the lowest regional adult literacy levels, with the percentage of literate women at less than 25 percent.

…

In 2001, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Violence against Women reported that since the passage of the reforms in 1991, an estimated 4,000 women and girls had been victims of “honor killings.”

…

In 1998, the government reportedly dismissed all females working as secretaries in governmental agencies. In June 2000, it also reportedly enacted a law requiring all state ministries to put restrictions on women working outside the home.[/i]

Saddam, at one point, was just a dictator who slaughtered his own people, then he started invading other nations, defying the UN, and further oppressing his own people to gain greater power.

HRW seems to feel that this coincided with his adoption of Islam as a basis for national policy. But you’re right, it’s not open to debate, just because you say so.

80

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You’re very well-versed in the Koran and in the Islamic mindset.

[/quote]
No, not at all–at least no more than the typical “Christian”.

Don’t you think it is important to understand the real philosophy of Islam to help us understand better how it is twisted to manipulate ignorant people?

We are judging an entire culture through the lens of a magnifying glass based solely on the violent acts of less than 1% of the Muslim population. I don’t think that is fair.