War against terror

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]When talking about this "massive multi-media campaign backed by solid Islamic theology and the best of Western marketing techiques [...]" (a quotation from your next post) we must remember that most of Islamic countries are poor and people who live there don't have access to the mass-media or Internet. And I suppose that these people are the main target of interest to the terrorists. And till these people be living in poverty till any "multi-media campaign" won't affect them.

Well I have lived in the Middle East and travelled to many countries in the Middle East. One thing is common. In almost every city you go to you will find TV's or at the very least radios in tea and coffee houses. Men like to gather around and discuss politics at these areas. Furthermore, you are assuming that it is only poor Muslims that support Al-Qaeda. There are many middle-class (relatively speaking) Muslims who support extremist/militant Islamic ideologies.

Also most major cities in the Middle East have internet cafes that are very popular amongst middle income Muslims.

Quote[/b] ]However, I'd say that such campaign could (and should) be carry out in the USA and Europe and should focuses on Islam and Qur'an. Imo, after 9/11 many people are afraid of Muslims only because of they are Muslims or Arabs. And this is mainly caused by our ignorance about this world's second-largest religion. Common awareness of what Islam is could be helpful in putting some pressure on politicians to change their attitude towards terrorism.

No...that wouldn't work. That's like having Christian education programs in the Middle East. It would be met with resentment and immediate hostility. This can be done to a certain extent...but if Islam is thrown in the face of your average American they will get very pissed off. The best way to accomplish such programs is by encouraging schools to have education classes concerning Muslims. But it is very very tricky because there is a HUGE debate in America about whether any type or religion should be taught in schools. Christians would immediately attack such programs. It would have to be called "Middle Eastern culture education" or something like that. So I basically agree with you, but its a complicated matter that must be handled delicately and carefully. My focus is more on the immediate threat of terrorism. Trying to get Europe to see Muslims as more then 2nd class citizens is MUCH more difficult and a much longer process. That has more to do with Europe's immigration problems and the question as to how much Europe wants to accept the fact that their culture will change with increased immigration. Its very difficult. Personally I can sympathise with both sides of the issue.

Quote[/b] ]

I think that present situation in Iraq ain't any serious problem in this case. Imo, the main problem there are the US soldiers and their allies who stay there a way too long. Their presence there provokes terrorists and Saddam's supporters to attack not only soldiers and policemen but also civilians blaming them for their consent to presence of foreign military forces. I think that Iraqis are able to cope with their problems by themselves and they don't need our help anymore - or I should rather say they don't need that kind of help we're offering them today - too many rockets and soldiers and too few medicines and doctors, I'd say.

You are making dangerous assumptions. You are assuming that Iraqis can take care of themselves. However events have shown that very few Iraqi military units have been able to defend themselves well consistently. They suffer from extremely poor morale and many of them have only the most basic training. If we pulled out immediately right now, what you would likely have are Shi'a militias replacing an inept military and police force who can't defend them. Likewise the Kurds can take care of themselves. Mixed Shi'a/Sunni Army and Police units would likely disolve so as to go home and defend their fellow Sunni's or Shi'a.

This is also an assumption, but when based upon the fact that Shi'as have been heavily targetted at their mosques by Sunni militants. Most of them simply refuse to accept a Shi'a majority ruling Iraq.

So if we pulled out now, we would be taking a great gamble.

There is one solution which is to replace US troops with Islamic peacekeepers. Saudi Arabia put forth such a plan where Islamic countries that DO NOT border Iraq would send in peacekeepers in return for the removal of US troops. However they would NOT be under US command. The US refused this offer. The primary reason is simple....oil.

The Bush administration is still reluctant to release their hold on the Iraqi oil fields. Have you ever seen ANY public reports of where the revenue from Iraqi oil is going???

I sure haven't.

I'd be willing to bet that a big chunk is going to Haliburton and similar American corporations that are developing the Iraqi oil fields.

The British are also getting a piece of the oil action as well.

As for more doctors... in case you haven't noticed, several relief aid workers have been murdered in Iraq. If you're not Muslim the militants don't care if you're a mercenary or a doctor. More then likely they will kill you just as brutally either way. I agree they do not alot more doctors and they do need alot of reconstruction efforts, but right now most of that money is sitting around due to security problems or its going into the pockets of corrupt Iraqi government employees.

My old Army Reserve unit just came back from Iraq. While there they had 3 of their Iraqi contractors beheaded publicly.

These were good hard working men who were Iraqi patriots but were killed for nothing more then dealing with the American forces there. This holds true for anyone who tries to do reconstruction in Iraq. They do so at their own peril.

Even if the US left, anyone groups working for the current Iraqi government would still likely be killed for working for US puppets.

So the situation is very very complicated. The surest thing is to wait until the Iraqi Army is well equipped and very experienced fighting the insurgents. Once they are in a solid position of strength can I then envision the US pulling out its troops.

Quote[/b] ]

I really don't know if these above-mentioned methods would be sufficient to overpower global terrorism but I'm sure that they'd be extremely helpful.

However, there is one serious problem concernig them - what to do to put them into practice? How to persuade politicians that these methods are a real alternative to military solutions?

Exactly. I think I mentioned that currently this is where I'm having my biggest problems.... selling this form of counter-terrorism. This pacifist approach does NOT get votes for politicians. Americans want ACTION! They want ASS KICKING! They want tough guy politicians who won't take shit from any guy with a turban and who will show them the quick road to hell with AMERICAN MILITARY MUSCLE!!!

But these same people will complain about how horrible it is that our young men and women in uniform are dying all the time and will usually admit that they see no solution to terrorism.

So yeah its not easy selling this. That is why currently my focus is on covert action. Away from the eyes of politicians.

If the politicians won't do it, perhaps the intelligence agencies will.

If they won't then I approach private contractors working for US intelligence agencies.

If they won't then I approach NATO, the UN, and even the UK.

At a last resort, I will look in forming my own organization supported by wealthy patrons who are interested in developing such programs independent of the US government.

I dunno... maybe I'll call it "the Illuminati" to help sell it to some rich patrons. lol!

If nobody is interested, then I say screw it and go work as a high school teacher or at a community college... but at least I will have given it my best shot.

Quote[/b] ]

It's true but I'm not sure if we really want Muslims to become our friends and vice versa - do they want us to become their friends? Imo, there is too much antipathy, ill-feelings, incomprehension, intolerance, envy and hatred on either side now and I'm afraid that it will take many years before this situation be normalized a bit.

I wasn't speaking literally. What I was referring to is gradually decreasing tensions between America and the Islamic world while also promoting true democracies in the region using economic incentives.

I do not mean somehow miraculously making everyone best buddies.

Before the invasion of Iraq, America was not well liked in the Middle East but you still had quite a few pro-American Muslims. But afterwards, that percentage dropped enormously. Most now see America with great suspicion if not outright hatred...and for good reasons.

The goal of the counter-propoganda programs I mentioned is to change that image back to a pre-9/11 status at least, if not much better. If America is seen as a friend of Islam and helping to unify Muslims by ending stupid militant factionalism (which almost all Muslims will admit is a huge problem in the Middle East) via democratic institutions, then I think they will see that we do at least have SOME good intentions.

The matter with oil however...that ball is in the Bush administration's corner.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[walker 0]

Hi all

The CIA under TBA who increased the redition flights to now over 9,000 and now includes regular flights to drop even inocent civilians in third party countries where they can be tortured.

Those kidnapped for torture have included the citizens of other countries who have been taken to be tortured in countries they have never lived in.

Detention without trial, Kidnap and Torture seems to be common with the USA a country that used to have a constitution but now has had it raped and dishonoured by the Neo-ConMen who run the USA's once proud Republican party.

The increasingly Stalinist TBA seem bent on turning the USA into some gulag from Siberia.

Quote[/b] ]CIA's Assurances On Transferred Suspects Doubted

Prisoners Say Countries Break No-Torture Pledges

By Dana Priest

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01

The system the CIA relies on to ensure that the suspected terrorists it transfers to other countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and virtually impossible to monitor, according to current and former intelligence officers and lawyers, as well as counterterrorism officials who have participated in or reviewed the practice.

To comply with anti-torture laws that bar sending people to countries where they are likely to be tortured, the CIA's office of general counsel requires a verbal assurance from each nation that detainees will be treated humanely, according to several recently retired CIA officials familiar with such transfers, known as renditions.

But the effectiveness of the assurances and the legality of the rendition practice are increasingly being questioned by rights groups and others, as freed detainees have alleged that they were mistreated by interrogators after the CIA secretly delivered them to countries with well-documented records of abuse.

President Bush weighed in on the matter for the first time yesterday, defending renditions as vital to the nation's defense.

In "the post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack," he said at a news conference. "And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves." One CIA officer involved with renditions, however, called the assurances from other countries "a farce."

Another U.S. government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said: "It's beyond that. It's widely understood that interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used."  ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42072-2005Mar16.html

I ask if the USA uses such techniques how can a citizen of the USA hold there head up in public to say they took out Sadam when they are party to the same Acts themselves?

Everyday that TBA rule in the USA her honour slips further and her founding fathers are more covered in the mire.

Wake up America! The enemy is in your bed!

Sadly Walker

[chops 111]

Ah cmon now Walker! It's not that bad!

At least the US government feels ashamed enough to bother to abduct those people and transport them to other countries for torture. Saddam did it in his own back yard! How lucky the Iraqis must feel!

How many times did George W Bush say "Freedom and Democrasy!!!" in his speaches in Europe?

[quicksand 0]

Shamil Basayev exclusive interview in Sweeden Press

Quote[/b] ]The head of the military committee of the State Defense Committee - Majlis ul-Shura of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (Military Amir) Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris (Shamil Basayev) has given an interview to the Swedish TT news agency. The full text of this interview has been passed on to Kavkaz-Center.

Replies to questions from the Swedish TT news agency

Q: Has your role in the Chechen separatist movement changed since the death of [former Chechen rebel President] Aslan Maskhadov?

S.Basayev: In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

Glory to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, who created us as Muslims and delivered us with a Jihad on His direct path! Peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad, his family, his disciples, and all those who follow his direct path to the Day of Judgment!

First of all, I wish to point out to you that we are not separatists. A separatist is one who tries to distance himself from other people or other things. We are not isolating ourselves from anyone, because we are not a legal part of anyone. We restored our state's independence, which had been lost as a result of the centuries-long Russian-Caucasian war, in 1991. Any expert on the Caucasus or anyone interested in the history of the Caucasus knows this. Therefore, the term separatist does not apply to us.

As far as your question is concerned, I can say that since Maskhadov's death, my responsibility has increased, and I cannot allow myself to do many of the things I did before.

The Mujahideen received the news of Maskhadov's death calmly and with a certain amount of pride in their leader.

Many times I reminded him of the parable in the Bible, "Do not cast pearls before swine", but Aslan was an idealist. Today, a great many people are once again convinced that a brazen and unceremonious law of force, rather than the force of the law, is dominant in the world.

And no matter how much we try to come to terms with the rules of this world, neither so-called international law, nor democracy, nor human rights and other fancy things will save us from genocide; we merely grow weaker from relying on these terms and promises. While they talk to us about democracy, international law and the rest, 200,000 of our people have been killed; that is 25 percent of our people. Imagine 2.5 million Swedes out of your 10-million population being wiped out.

Today the whole world is willingly or unwillingly assisting in the genocide of our people, just by demanding that we observe certain rules. The situation is like that in a boxing ring, where a boxer and a kick boxer are fighting. The referee, in the form of the world community, allows the kick boxer to kick, while the boxer is not allowed to use his feet, even to block his opponent's kicks, because there are no such rules in boxing.

Many people understand that in order to survive and to triumph in this war you have to use the same weapons and use the same methods as your enemy. We must not try to please either the West or the East. We must be ourselves, clench our teeth, and fight on, without looking to the sides. As they say, "the path of evil is wide, and many people walk down it. But the path of good is narrow, and few walk down it."

This is damaging to us in the tactical sense, but strategically it is our only real chance of victory.

Q: Where are you at the moment?

S.Basayev: In Chechnya. Even if I gave you the name of a specific area as a joke, the place would immediately be cordoned off, and there would be a full-scale 'cleansing operation'—fields would be dug up, doors, attics, walls, and foundations smashed down, property and belongings confiscated, and part of the male population led away, to have their tortured and mutilated bodies subsequently bought back with bribes. So I will refrain from telling you exactly where.

Q: Why do you think that Aslan Maskhadov chose Abdul-Khalim Saydullayev to succeed him?

S.Basayev: As I recall, the powers of president and emir [commander] were bestowed on Sheikh Abdul-Khalim in accordance with our state law and the decision of the State Defense Committee of the CRI. This was an absolutely correct and legitimate decision.

Apart from that, Sheikh Abdul-Khalim is a fair and most acceptable leader for all the members of the resistance forces, and enjoys everyone's trust and respect. He was a sincere aide and advisor to Maskhadov, and always supported him in all the good deeds he performed. In most cases he was a counterbalance to my opposition to Maskhadov, preventing us from overstepping the mark. At the same time, he has one very good quality which is appreciated by the Chechen people, and which I, for one, lack—he is able to listen to everything anyone has to say.

Q: The Russian authorities believe that Aslan Maskhadov's death will reduce the terrorism of the Chechen separatists because funding from abroad will be reduced. Do you agree?

S.Basayev: I again point out to you my disagreement with the terms you are using—'terrorism' and 'separatism.' We do not accept these terms in relation to us. These terms are one of the forms of propaganda used against us.

As far as the crux of your question is concerned, this is not true. Whatever labels our enemies like to pin on us, we are waging a struggle for national liberation from Russian imperialism, and such a struggle does not depend on 'foreign funds.' We have taken this baton from our forefathers, and this struggle has continued for centuries.

Just to give you some idea of our mentality, I will give you an example dating back 126 years. The Russists [derogatory term for Russians] used trickery in calling for talks, and took prisoner 74-year-old Uma Duyev, one of the leaders of the Chechen resistance at that time. He was immediately sentenced to death by hanging. As he stood under the scaffold with the noose around his neck, waiting for the stool to be kicked away from under him, one of the local traitors went up to him and asked him, "Why did you resist? Surely the Russians are much stronger than you. You should have done what I did. Now you will die without getting what you wanted, whereas I will live." Uma replied: "I shall die happy to have lived as a free man, devoting my life to God and my people, having killed quite a few enemies of my fatherland, and relying on the mercy of the Almighty. You will live. But what will you do with your worthless, slavish life? You will have one big basket of maize and fill up one lavatory pit. And that's all!"

That sums up everything!

We are not restricted today by timetables, and we are guided by expedience. If it is to our advantage, we will become more active, and if it is to our advantage, we will keep our attacks to a minimum. We are never in a hurry, and life in a Jihad is better than Russian enslavement. And we are striving to end this war only to end the genocide of the Chechen people.

Q: Other people, on the other hand, think that there will now be more terrorist acts, because there are no longer any Chechen leaders who want to solve the conflict by peaceful means. What do you say to that?

S.Basayev: That is also untrue. We are not fighting for the sake of war. A Chechen proverb says, "A man is not one who knows how to fight, but one who knows where his enemy is."

We are fighting to defend our freedom and independence from Russian imperialism, and to protect ourselves from the next genocide of our people. On the contrary, it is Rusnya [derogatory term for Russia] where there are no leaders who wish to resolve this military conflict by peaceful means, and the insidious murder of Maskhadov by the Russists in response to his peace proposal is a clear testimony to this.

But never mind; we will carry on until their imperial revanchist ardor, combined with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's inferiority complex, is ended. The days of the imperialists are numbered, and the Russists will have to come to terms with this sooner or later.

Remember, I never said that I am fighting against the Russian people, but against the Russists. Because, in the definition of our first President Dzhokhar Dudayev, "Russism is an imperialist ideology which, in its misanthropy, is worse than fascism or racism."

Q: When Aslan Maskhadov was alive, you were carrying out terrorist acts even though he condemned them. Will you now obey his successor?

S.Basayev: I'm very fond of the Newton's third law, which states that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

I have always said, and I say again: If Putin observes international law, we will observe it with pleasure.

That’s what laws are for, so that all parties of a conflict would comply with them.

No one can prohobit me from responding to violence with violence. But I swear to God that I am prepared to give up further subversive actions (but not terrorist acts) against unarmed Russists if your news agency can just show me the difference in favor of the Russists between the murder of 267 women, children, and old people in a Grozny market place by surface-to-surface missiles (illegal, incidentally, under international law), and the blowing up of two of our martyrs at the Tushino market in Moscow, which killed 16 Russists.

Q: If Abdul-Khalim Saydullayev wants to enter into talks with the Russians, are you prepared to obey him?

S.Basayev: Talks are the logical conclusion to any war. And our President Sheikh Abdul- Khalim has said that he is open to dialogue and prepared to discuss any peace initiatives, but he will never himself ask for peace. I support this approach, and will do all I can to help him establish a just peace and stability, if this does not run counter to the laws of the Almighty.

I would also like to point out that I was the first to swear allegiance to him. But neither he nor anyone else can forbid me, while there is a war going on—I stress, while there is a war going on—from doing that which God permits me to do. And God says in the Qur'an:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors."

I have always been trying not to restrain myself from hostilities. But the victims of Nord Ost [the Moscow theater siege of October 2002] and Beslan [town in North Ossetia, site of the school siege of September 2004] are fully on Putin's conscience. All we were doing was holding people, demanding an end to the war and the genocide in Chechnya, and it was the Russists who killed their own people.

It was not we who poisoned them with binary gas (banned from use by international law) at Nord Ost, nor was it us who set fire to them with flame throwers (also banned from use by international law) in Beslan.

Q: Have you had any contacts with Osama Bin Laden or other members of Al Qaeda recently?

S.Basayev: Before asking questions, such a solid news agency as yours ought to look at my previous interviews, where I have always said that I am not acquainted with Bin Laden and have had no contact with him, although I would very much like to meet him. Anyway, Putin has already 'appointed' him as my commander.

One thing I know for certain is that he cannot fundamentally be a villain, because his face gives out a strong light in all the photographs which I have been lucky enough to see. From my own experience, I know that America and Rusnya love to decide who the guilty parties are without even allowing them to say a word to justify themselves.

An example of this is the story of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam, whose overthrow I always supported, not for the benefit of America, but because I saw in this an advantage for Muslims.

But they also pinned the bombing of houses in Moscow and Volgodonsk on us without any proof and started the war, but if I had blown up those houses, I would never deny it.

Q: What is your attitude to this organization [Al Qaeda]?

S.Basayev: My attitude is a normal one, with an element of caution, as one has with any unknown quantity. Because all my life I have only seen two 'members' of Al Qaeda. And not only were Khattab and Abu Walid not members of Al Qaeda, but they did not even know Bin Laden. They had only seen him a few times in Afghanistan, and then from a distance, in the company of people like them, who were ordinary Mujahideen during wartime. But now in Chechnya, a situation has developed where, as soon as any more or less well-known mujahid is killed, he immediately 'becomes' the organizer of all the worst subversive operations, and must have been a member of Al Qaeda.

It is a very interesting situation; so long as a mujahid is alive, he is my subordinate, but as soon as he dies, he becomes a member of Al Qaeda and the 'main source of funds.'

Q: In an interview for British television you said you were planning new attacks like Beslan. In what part of the world and when can we expect new terrorist acts?

S.Basayev: Again, before asking this question, you should read my previous statements.

We are fighting only against Rusnya, and so far, only on its territory. You can expect subversive operations, but not terrorist acts, only in Rusnya and in Qatar, and only against citizens of Rusnya.

But the fact that there were no major subversive activities this autumn and winter is down to Maskhadov, and not the Russian special services. In November, we spent 12 days together, and he got a commitment from me that I would not interfere if he wished to conduct talks to end the war, which the Russian leadership are surreptitiously proposing through mediators, and that I would altogether desist from all subversive acts during that time.

I have kept my word, although I have suffered losses as a result of my inaction. Maskhadov is dead as a result of the insidiousness of the Russists and because of his excessive desire for peace, and now I am free from my commitment.

Q: How and when do you think the war in Chechnya might end?

S.Basayev: Putin is a sick and ignorant person, otherwise he would have heeded the ancient Persian proverb which says, "When a Shah goes mad he goes to fight in the Caucasus."

Rusnya started this war, and all the 'keys' to peace are in the Kremlin.

The war, Insha’Allah [Allah willing], will end soon in Moscow, with the recognition of the full and unconditional independence of the CRI in exchange for Rusnya's security. And we will do anything to achieve this. Allah is Greatest!

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Sweden for the support and assistance you have given to our peaceful refugees. This is sufficient for us, and we will never forget this. In my mind, Sweden has always been associated with three words: 'Abba,' 'Volvo,' and 'Saab,' and before the war we even seriously studied the Swedish economic model of state administration, with the intention of introducing it in Chechnya. And now we can add to all this the fact that Sweden is among those few truly free countries who are not afraid to draw Rusnya's displeasure. Remain free!

Respectfully yours,

Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris (Shamil Basayev)

A very intresting read and I can't hide how surprised I am of the coherent tone the man I regarded as a savage has in this interview.Appearences always seam to wear thin,he does have a serious agenda and is not as ignorant as I thought.

My suspicion is that after Mashkhadov death he is the one who took the power among the rebels,but Abdul Khalim was appointed as succesor because he is a moderate and almost nothing is known about him.

The Chechen rebels have always tried to distance themselves from terrorism via websites explaining their position,restraint in attacks against civillians and openess to negotiations-Basayev would have ruined that forever.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The US justice under TBA seems to be bolshevism and represion as it turns out that the millitary tribunerals are locking people up on evidence they make up.

Quote[/b] ]Panel Ignored Evidence on Detainee

U.S. Military Intelligence, German Authorities Found No Ties to Terrorists

By Carol D. Leonnig

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A01

A military tribunal determined last fall that Murat Kurnaz, a German national seized in Pakistan in 2001, was a member of al Qaeda and an enemy combatant whom the government could detain indefinitely at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The three military officers on the panel, whose identities are kept secret, said in papers filed in federal court that they reached their conclusion based largely on classified evidence that was too sensitive to release to the public

In fact, that evidence, recently declassified and obtained by The Washington Post, shows that U.S. military intelligence and German law enforcement authorities had largely concluded there was no information that linked Kurnaz to al Qaeda, any other terrorist organization or terrorist activities.

In recently declassified portions of a January ruling, a federal judge criticized the military panel for ignoring the exculpatory information that dominates Kurnaz's file and for relying instead on a brief, unsupported memo filed shortly before Kurnaz's hearing by an unidentified government official.

Kurnaz has been detained at Guantanamo Bay since at least January 2002.

"The U.S. government has known for almost two years that he's innocent of these charges," said Baher Azmy, Kurnaz's attorney. "That begs a lot of questions about what the purpose of Guantanamo really is. He can't be useful to them. He has no intelligence for them. Why in the world is he still there?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3868-2005Mar26.html

With imprisonment without trial now normal and accepted by America's citizenry I fear that sadly here dies the last light of American justice.

For all those years fighting tyrany, injustice and communism the USA seems to have embraced the self same values of communism and its worst exesses under the cloak of a Republican party controled by the Commie NeoConMen.

Sadly Walker

[GoOB 0]

But it is very very tricky because there is a HUGE debate in America about whether any type or religion should be taught in schools.

American children don't get to read about the different world-religions at school? That's well... Odd?

[red oct 2]

But it is very very tricky because there is a HUGE debate in America about whether any type or religion should be taught in schools.

American children don't get to read about the different world-religions at school? That's well... Odd?

i don't think its odd. public school is for learning science, biology, math, english, and social studies. religion imo has no place in public schools. if somebody wants to learn about religion, than i think they should either go to a private school or a sunday school.

[Acecombat 0]

But it is very very tricky because there is a HUGE debate in America about whether any type or religion should be taught in schools.

American children don't get to read about the different world-religions at school? That's well... Odd?

i don't think its odd. public school is for learning science, biology, math, english, and social studies. religion imo has no place in public schools. if somebody wants to learn about religion, than i think they should either go to a private school or a sunday school.

Says who?

[red oct 2]

says me, along w/ half of the population of the country. its not any business of these religious zealots to be shoving their views down the throats of students and demanding the 10 comandments to placed in every school. everybody should just keep their religion to them selves. if somebody wants to learn about god, than go to a church, mosque or a synagogue. i don't see whats so difficult about that.

[FW200 0]

There is a difference between pushing people into a certain religion and creating understanding between religions etc by giving children lessons about how religion is viewed across the globe and what religions exist.

I've always been on public schools and still got lessons about religions across the globe, it helps open up your mind about what's going on in the world.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Agreed, but its easier for us to be relaxed in Europe about teaching religion in schools because most of us are god forsaken agnostics or atheists anyway , whereas in the the US there are still plenty of fanatical believers.

By 'religious teaching' in Europe, i think what is mostly meant is (unless im mistaken) fact based (non judgemental) information about different religions around the world (not espousing any one view), and thats what i got in 'RE' class.

As i went to a 'church school' as a kid i do vaguely remember when i was young also getting occasional (non curricular) Christian lectures from some bible basher (he actually once hit a kid on the head with a bible, fine Christian!) as well as dull and interminable Hymn singing, which none of the kids took seriously.

I think the broad, fact based and non judgemental type of curricular religious education i described first is definitely a good idea and would advocate its use in all countries (im actually kind of surprised there isnt something similar in the US- assuming thats the case).

Religious indoctrination on the other hand i objected to then, object to now and would discourage general use of in national education in any country. Whilst some might have difficulty seeing or drawing the line between them i think these two different forms of 'religious education' could certainly play a part in the success of this so called 'War on Terror'.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Agreed, but its easier for us to be relaxed in Europe about teaching religion in schools because most of us are god forsaken agnostics or atheists anyway , whereas in the the US there are still plenty of fanatical believers.

By 'religious teaching' in Europe, i think what is mostly meant is (unless im mistaken) fact based (non judgemental) information about different religions around the world (not espousing any one view), and thats what i got in 'RE' class.

As i went to a 'church school' as a kid i do vaguely remember when i was young also getting occasional (non curricular) Christian lectures from some bible basher (he actually once hit a kid on the head with a bible, fine Christian!) as well as dull and interminable Hymn singing, which none of the kids took seriously.

I think the broad, fact based and non judgemental type of curricular religious education i described first is definitely a good idea and would advocate its use in all countries (im actually kind of surprised there isnt something similar in the US- assuming thats the case).

Religious indoctrination on the other hand i objected to then, object to now and would discourage general use of in national education in any country. Whilst some might have difficulty seeing or drawing the line between them i think these two different forms of 'religious education' could certainly play a part in the success of this so called 'War on Terror'.

I agree.

If the fanatics on all sides would realise that their myths are no different than the myths of the other side, they'd stop trying to attack the infidels/ pagans/ whatever.

[Acecombat 0]

says me, along w/ half of the population of the country. its not any business of these religious zealots to be shoving their views down the throats of students and demanding the 10 comandments to placed in every school. everybody should just keep their religion to them selves. if somebody wants to learn about god, than go to a church, mosque or a synagogue. i don't see whats so difficult about that.

Well thats a very bold statement there , you got a survey or something which says the half of the populace doesnt support this .

You know what its opinion such as your and the ultra-atheistic and 'boohoo take that religion and hide it away' folks and their narrow mentalities to religion as a 'real' ANYTHING (subject/fact/truth) which has let to evolution of such FANATICs as you often like to call them and stand on your soapbox to rant on and on ....

If people like opinions such as your either RELIGIOUS or NON-RELIGIOUS hadnt distanced religion from the societys front and stripped it from its status as a subject to 'learn' upon and 'gain knowledge' from we wouldnt have any of these half-assed uneducated mullahs/bishops/whatever. We have taken out religion and separated it from our lives and let a bunch of isolated and xenophobic morons take it from us and then apply their extreme puritanical and fanatical version of it which evolved according to their UNDERSTANDING to it , which they got without ever gaining any WORLDLY knowledge. One fact to remember is religious knowledge can only be truly taken in to perspective with the respect to human (worldly) life if your capable enough and learned enough in worldly knowledge as well , after all what is religion without the world? The reason why it exists is for the world and US.

Example in reality the Muslim empire a few centuries back which took religion as a subject to be studied from , various scientific discoveries were made through it even and people were open minded to it , yet now where do we stand after shunning religion to a band of mullahs and isolating it too a bunch of madrassahs 'your sunday schools' as you like to call them.

My point being i am notof the opinion to FORCE anyone in to religion or even as a subject to studied upon but at a society level in school/colleges/universitys it SHOULD be a subject and should be studied and people should be encouraged to take it rather then seeking knowledge on it through sunday school and whatever and going to some uneducated indoctrinated with crap mullah/bishop/whatever. I dont see anything wrong in keeping it there as an option.

[Akira 0]

The fact that the constitution has a little thing called "seperation of church and state" is what says there shouldn't be prayer in school, a fact many prayer in school fanatics forget. Nor should there be teaching of religion is anything other than the academic sense in any public school...if you want to teach about judeo-christian religion, then you must teach islamic, buddhist, shinto, hindu, etc. belief structures as well like any simple Intro to Religion class would.

And it is quite a bold statement to say that stripping religion from one's life produces "isolated and xenophobic morons," especially since history supports the opposite. Religion is quite a proponate of "us" and "them" mentality leading to wars, ethnic seperation and persecution.

but I agree with you as religion should be studied academically as any other ancient mythology structure. But the problem is, at least in high school or elementary school, I doubt you are going to get many teachers that can give every religion an even hand without slighting those that rub against their own belief structure. Add to that that A) elementary school kids are hardly going to have the mental capacity to be able to rationally learn religion beyond what their teacher and parents say is "right", and B) High school kids for the most part just ain't gonna care (as well as a little of the above), teaching religion in school seems like a bit of a waste of time. Especially since funding for arts programs, and sports are being cut, and subjects like physics, math, and english (or equivalent) seem far more important subjects.

Religion should be a personal journey, so unless you are interest academically, I see little reason to teach dogma in public schools.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]And it is quite a bold statement to say that stripping religion from one's life produces "isolated and xenophobic morons," especially since history supports the opposite. Religion is quite a proponate of "us" and "them" mentality leading to wars, ethnic seperation and persecution.

Umm i am not sure you got me their correctly , i meant religious people who turn out to become 'isolated and xenophobic' not non-religious ones   .

And while i'm quoting you there might as well make the point that theres no such thing as ethnic separation in religion. Differences are based on values and views on life , not ethnicity. Religion only has a 'believers' and 'non-believers' approach. Religion is here to make sure that the believers message reach out to the non-believers , do remember that according to the religious ideology we're doing everyone else a FAVOUR by warning them of whats to come if they dont heed to message of God.

[denoir 0]

bThe point with removing religion from schools is not to ban religion. The point is that we live in a world where you have to in one way or another communicate with other cultures, which may have a different religion than you. That communication becomes difficult if every faction, every possible sect has a different picture of the world and how it works. We've been there and the results are not pretty.

The idea is that you take the real-world core that most people agree on, and use it in education. That core is the secular humanism. It is based on ethics that is common for all human beings and you get the world view through science - which is also independent of culture, religion or nationality.

Now after school, you still have the liberty to go and pray to God, visiting aliens, the santa claus or whatever you wish. While my personal opinion of those activities is very negative, it doesn't mean that I would advocate banning them. In a secular society, freedom of speech and of opinion are considered to be basic human rights, so nobody wants to ban your religious practice (at least not as long they don't go around violating the rights of other individuals in society).

I think this is very important especially now where there is an obvious clash of Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists. It makes the world a less safe place.

Then of course there's the question of religion practice when you hold an official office. Bush talking to God about various decisions doesn't exaclty inspire a lot of confidence in me..

Religion is about faith, not rationality and people who have bombs etc at their disposal should preferably be rational.

[Acecombat 0]

Oh please , not the bloody secular is the alpha and omega rant

Quote[/b] ]In a secular society, freedom of speech and of opinion are considered to be basic human rights, so nobody wants to ban your religious practice (at least not as long they don't go around violating the rights of other individuals in society).

So , how different is that too for ex. lets say a islamic society if we apply proper islam to it rather then corrupted versions of it tailor made to suit the needs of retarded backward mullahs or dictatoships in place.

In Muhammeds time there was no ban on other people celebrating their own religious customs they have their freedom to do so.

All this crap of 'secular' = 'humanism' makes me sick.

As if us religious folks are inhuman pricks who'd kill you for voicing your opinion .

[denoir 0]

So , how different is that too for ex. lets say a islamic society if we apply proper islam to it rather then corrupted versions of it tailor made to suit the needs of retarded backward mullahs or dictatoships in place.

In Muhammeds time there was no ban on other people celebrating their own religious customs they have their freedom to do so.

It's very different because not everybody agrees that islamic law is right. Hell, I'd rather have corrupt dictators making the laws than a specific religion. At least you can predict the dictators to make rational (even if bad), predictable choices. With religion everything is open to wide interpretation - there's no way of establishing who if anybody is right. That makes for crappy laws.

Quote[/b] ]All this crap of 'secular' = 'humanism' makes me sick.

As if us religious folks are inhuman pricks who'd kill you for voicing your opinion .

You still don't get it. Let me illiustrate:

Suggested rule: Killing another human being should be punishable by law:

Christians: Yes

Muslims: Yes

Jews: Yes

Hindus: Yes

Buddhists: Yes

Shintos: Yes

Whatever: Yes

Athesits: Yes

====> Obviously everybody agrees on it, so we make murder a crime in a secular system.

Suggested rule: Infidelity should be punishable by law.

Christians: Possibly

Muslims: Yes

Jews: Not really

Hindus: Don't care

Buddhists: No

Shintos: Absolutely not

===> No concensus. So in a secular system we should not enforce a law that bans infidelity.

This is a good example of secular humanism,

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Find anything you disagree with? Notice how this was accepted by nations practicing all possible religions.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's very different because not everybody agrees that islamic law is right. Hell, I'd rather have corrupt dictators making the laws than a specific religion. At least you can predict the dictators to make rational (even if bad), predictable choices. With religion everything is open to wide interpretation - there's no way of establishing who if anybody is right. That makes for crappy laws.

Spot on there Denoir.

[theavonlady 2]

Suggested rule: Infidelity should be punishable by law.

Christians: Possibly

Muslims: Yes

Jews: Not really

..........................

This is incorrect. Adultery is punishable by death according to Jewish Law.

EDIT: Are we off-topic or what?

[Acecombat 0]

In Islam theres a physical punishment and no death penalty.

And the law can only be verified and executed if theres sufficient proof of it happening.

Quote[/b] ]It's very different because not everybody agrees that islamic law is right. Hell, I'd rather have corrupt dictators making the laws than a specific religion. At least you can predict the dictators to make rational (even if bad), predictable choices. With religion everything is open to wide interpretation - there's no way of establishing who if anybody is right. That makes for crappy laws.

And your notunderstanding religion , Islam doesnt (or so its my impression , i am no jurist(islamic that is) and havent yet delved in to islamic law in detail.) But from what ive read in my basic history of islam , Muhammed passed off punishments to people based on their OWN beliefs rather then subjecting them to 'his' islamic law. For ex. A jew couple were incriminated for the crime of adultery which as avon said according to their laws is punishable by death so they came over to muhammed knowingly that islamic law was lenient and they might get off , but muhammed asked them what their book/scripture said about it and they told and he passed off the judgment according to their book and not islamic code as they werent muslim.

This i am talking about is only for serious offenses on which religion has its judgements. Other petty crimes and so forth were pretty much treated to everyone elses liking in general.

And i dont think Religion is THAT wide open for interpretation , its takes only a little bit of common sense to make out what religion wants and how it should be applied to modern day life. Unforunately as i said before this task has fallen in the hands of sunday school boys who have no knowledge of the world and therefore , it makes for crappy laws , WHICH other average religious folks dont counter because they dont think of them capable enough to intervene as their knowledge of religion isnt enough , its a jam of sorts both sides know only side of the coin when knowing BOTH is what matters to succeed in life/religion.

I'll read up later on the UN link.

[theavonlady 2]

But from what ive read in my basic history of islam , Muhammed passed off punishments to people based on their OWN beliefs rather then subjecting them to 'his' islamic law. For ex. A jew couple were incriminated for the crime of adultery which as avon said according to their laws is punishable by death so they came over to muhammed knowingly that islamic law was lenient and they might get off , but muhammed asked them what their book/scripture said about it and they told and he passed off the judgment according to their book and not islamic code as they werent muslim.

Jewish judicial capital punishment has not been allowed in practice since prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem, some 2000 years ago.

Here's the story in the Sunah. It was not the couple who came over - it was other Jews. And they were right. As I mentioned, capital punishment is abolished in Jewish courts of law.

The Jews weren't lying to Mohamed. Today's punishment would be announcing their crime (such people are to be socially excommunicated by all Jewish communities) and they would have possibly received lashes at that time.

Oops.

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]In Islam theres a physical punishment and no death penalty.

Oops again:

Quote[/b] ]Hadith Sahih, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 860:

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:

A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death.

Anyone can Google for Islamic texts on Islamic sites, siting stoning as the death penalty for adultery.

[theavonlady 2]

Argh! Let's try to get back on-topic. Connect the dots across the Pacific. From the Philippines:

Quote[/b] ]Abu Suspect: Militants Team Up in Philippines

By JIM GOMEZ, Associated Press Writer

MANILA, Philippines - Two of Southeast Asia's deadliest Islamic militant groups are collaborating in the southern Philippines to train extremists in explosives, weapons and combat tactics, graduating 23 Indonesian recruits just over a week ago, a jailed terror suspect said Wednesday.

The jungles in the south also are providing refuge to terrorists involved in major attacks elsewhere in the region, including the 2002 bombings in a nightclub district on the Indonesian resort island of Bali, the prisoner told The Associated Press in an interview.

U.S. officials have long worried that unrest in the Philippines' impoverished Muslim homeland could be exploited by terror groups.

The suspect, Rohmat, who like many Indonesians uses only one name, provided a glimpse into the workings of the already known liaison between the Southeast Asian group Jemaah Islamiyah and the Philippines' Abu Sayyaf movement, which authorities say also has links to al-Qaida.

Rohmat, a 26-year-old Jemaah Islamiyah member who was captured March 16, said he roamed with Abu Sayyaf guerrillas for about two years, providing combat training, dodging military assaults together and overhearing their terror plots.

He spoke in Tagalog, a sign of the depth of his immersion in the Philippines. He said recruits at the Jabal Qubah training camp run by Jemaah Islamiyah on Mindanao island finished their studies just days before he was caught at a military checkpoint.

"There were 23 men who have just finished the courses. I heard they would be sent back home and others would stay behind to train a new batch," a handcuffed Rohmat said during a 30-minute interview held at a military safe house in the presence of officials.

He said a separate group of 10 Indonesians from Jemaah Islamiyah — including two suspects in the Bali bombings that killed 202 people — were with Abu Sayyaf guerrillas near the camp, but he said he didn't know why. He identified one as Dulmatin but declined to name the other.

Rohmat, whose homeland is the world's most populous Muslim nation, said he traveled to the southern Philippines as a trainee with other Indonesians in January 2000.

Two years later, he said, he became an instructor in Islam and martial arts, teaching Indonesians and local Abu Sayyaf recruits in Mindanao's Maguindanao province and on nearby Jolo island. But he denied allegations by intelligence officials that he taught Abu Sayyaf members how to build bombs, particularly the use of mobile phones to trigger homemade explosives.

Around 2002, Rohmat said, he was designated by Zulkifli, then the Indonesian head of Jemaah Islamiyah operations in the Philippines, to be the contact man for dealings with Abu Sayyaf, including training its recruits and staying close to its leaders, Khaddafy Janjalani and Abu Sulaiman.

Abu Sayyaf planned attacks on its own, independent of Jemaah Islamiyah, which only provided training, he said.

Rohmat bore a fresh scar on his right cheek that he said was suffered during a military air strike in November in which Janjalani and Sulaiman scampered out of a targeted house just in time.

He said he was at a meeting where Janjalani and Sulaiman plotted Feb. 14 bombings that killed eight people and injured more than 100 others in Manila and two cities in the south. The two leaders also have ordered new bombings during the Easter holiday in Manila and one of two southern cities, probably Davao, he said.

Officials said Monday that three Jemaah Islamiyah operatives were suspected of plotting with Abu Sayyaf to stage bombings this week.

Soldiers and police have beefed up security in shopping malls, churches and other crowded places to guard against bombings threatened by Abu Sayyaf as revenge for the deaths of 23 inmates killed by police in a botched jailbreak last week. Among them were three prominent guerrilla commanders.

Citing the worries about planned attacks, Britain's government warned its citizens Wednesday against traveling to the Philippines.

"There continue to be threats against Western interests and there is a danger of collateral damage from terrorist attacks targeted at others," the Foreign Office said.

While back in Indonesia:

Quote[/b] ]Indonesia Denies Jemaah Islamiyah Faces Ban

March 23, 2005 09:29 PM,

Laksamana.Net -  A presidential spokesman has denied claims by a senior security official that Indonesia is planning to outlaw regional terrorism network Jemaah Islamiyah.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s spokesman Andi Mallarangeng on Wednesday (23/3/05) said the government did not intend to ban the group, which has been blamed for a series of deadly bombings.

"We know nothing about that. We have no plans," he was quoted as saying by the Australian Associated Press.

Ansyaad Mbai, head of counter-terrorism at the Coordinating Ministry for Political, Legal and Security Affairs, had on Monday said he was convinced Jemaah Islamiyah would be formally banned because of the president’s concern over terrorism.

Mbai, who said the ban had not happened yet because of political sensitivities, was said to be “out of the loop†on the government’s security policies.

Banning the group would win praise from the US and Australia, and make it easier for authorities to arrest and prosecute militants. But such a move would be opposed by certain Muslim groups and political parties, which fear it could usher in wider crackdowns on Islamic activists.

Yudhoyono, who vowed to get tough on terrorism when he came to power in October 2004, has said he will ban Jemaah Islamiyah only if there is "proof" the group exists in Indonesia.

Terrorism expert Sidney Jones, the Southeast Asia project director of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said Yudhoyono would be able to outlaw Jemaah Islamiyah if he first prepared a massive public relations campaign.

"It is doable, but there will be an inevitable counter-response from JI through linked groups like the Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia, who would have their own spin about the government bowing to western pressure," she was quoted as saying by AAP.

Among the terror attacks blamed on Jemaah Islamiyah are the October 2002 Bali nightclub bombings that killed 202 people, the August 2003 blast at Jakarta’s JW Marriott Hotel that killed 12 people, and the September 2004 bombing outside the Australian Embassy that killed 11 people.

The group has also been blamed for attacks in the Philippines, as well as a series of church bombings in Indonesia that killed 19 people on Christmas Eve 2000.

Jemaah Islamiyah was listed as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council in October 2002 and subsequently banned by many countries, including Australia, the US, Britain and Malaysia.

The group’s alleged spiritual leader Abu Bakar Baasyir was on March 3 sentenced to 30 months in jail for involvement in a "sinister conspiracy" that led to the Bali bombings.

Baasyir’s lawyers are appealing the verdict, which the US and Australia criticized as too lenient.

Pathetic.

[theavonlady 2]

WANTED: Swedish speaking forum members to do some translation work.

[Acecombat 0]

First of all that wasnt the incident i was narrating.

Read up here to clear your mis-conceptions thats all i can say its useless to quote it all here and explain the same twice.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/stoning_for_adultery.htm

http://www.irfi.org/article....ear.htm