War against terror

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

What is it you think I am not open to on that BBC page?

nothing in general, its just a new think from the bbc on iran. basily saying dont presum you know everything about iran, or that iran are only evil.

[theavonlady 2]

What is it you think I am not open to on that BBC page?

nothing in general, its just a new think from the bbc on iran.  basily saying dont presum you know everything about iran, or that iran are only evil.

Then I think you're not open minded to what I'm already open minded to. Thanks anyway.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

What is it you think I am not open to on that BBC page?

nothing in general, its just a new think from the bbc on iran.  basily saying dont presum you know everything about iran, or that iran are only evil.

Then I think you're not open minded to what I'm already open minded to. Thanks anyway.

i think im being pretty open minded to be fair . Anywhom, Blair has said that his last few months in office will be didicated to sorting out the middle east, particularly Lebonen.

[*Pete* 0]

As for Nemesis' statement, I don't agree with it because whether an entity is a country or a militia is not the relevant criteria for justifying support or not. It's the cause that counts.

good answer.

but it is not always that when the cause is good, that it provides good results, or opposite.

the famous american scientist who helped to develop the nuclear weapon also helped sovjet to develop theirs...seen as a traitor of the worst kind, he most likely saved us from WW3.

cause good, result good.

USA wanted to "save" vietnam from communism, it was meant to be a good cause. not to steal oil or resources (that vietnam didnt have), but to help the south vietnamese goverment...result was 70000 american dead, 2-3 million vietnamese dead...and vietnam communistic today.

cause good, result bad.

as for the kurds and Hezbollah being armed by Israel and syria/Iran respectively, the cause CAN be good in both cases, but in both cases i expect bad results...

i would be very carefull to support the armament of ANY country/militia that is not already in a DEFENSIVE war against a agressor with a bad cause (such as finland vs sovjet in ww2, or poland/france/russia etc etc...vs germany)

[theavonlady 2]

As for Nemesis' statement, I don't agree with it because whether an entity is a country or a militia is not the relevant criteria for justifying support or not. It's the cause that counts.

good answer.

but it is not always that when the cause is good, that it provides good results, or opposite.

For sure.

Quote[/b] ]the famous american scientist who helped to develop the nuclear weapon also helped sovjet to develop theirs...seen as a traitor of the worst kind, he most likely saved us from WW3.

cause good, result good.

USA wanted to "save" vietnam from communism, it was meant to be a good cause. not to steal oil or resources (that vietnam didnt have), but to help the south vietnamese goverment...result was 70000 american dead, 2-3 million vietnamese dead...and vietnam communistic today.

cause good, result bad.

Hard to call. What Soviet and Sino communist expansion plans would have been implemented had the rest of the world simply folded every time the threats came around? We might never know. Maybe Vietnam was 2 steps backward but without it, the world might have been 6 or 8 steps backward instead. Maybe.

Quote[/b] ]as for the kurds and Hezbollah being armed by Israel and syria/Iran respectively, the cause CAN be good in both cases, but in both cases i expect bad results...

Well, we disagree.

Quote[/b] ]i would be very carefull to support the armament of ANY country/militia that is not already in a DEFENSIVE war against a agressor with a bad cause (such as finland vs sovjet in ww2, or poland/france/russia etc etc...vs germany)

Generally, that sounds like a good rule of thumb to me, too.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i think isreal training pretty much a private army in the north fundementally undermines the iraqi deomocratic government and the efforts made by the US and Britian to make the country better. Not only that its pissing of iraqis which will only lead to furher violence, and a potential three sided civil war. That means more US and Brit soldiers - not to mention civilians - dead. and the blood will be on the hands of the israelis training and equipting this militia.

[theavonlady 2]

i think isreal training pretty much a private army in the north fundementally undermines the iraqi deomocratic government and the efforts made by the US and Britian to make the country better.  Not only that its pissing of iraqis which will only lead to furher violence, and a potential three sided civil war.  That means more US and Brit soldiers - not to mention civilians - dead.  and the blood will be on the hands of the israelis training and equipting this militia.

Yes, blah-blah-blah, blood on the hands of the Israelis, who to remind you are rumored to be there.

But the important thing is to say that the blood is on the hands of the Israelis, whether it's true or farce.

Even the Al Jazeera article you linked to does not mention a "private army" and all of this is denied in any case both by Israel and the Kurds.

We're quite used to your ilk's blood libels against us.

Supper time. Have to find me a goy child to bake some blood matzas. Ta-ta!

[*Pete* 0]

Quote[/b] ]as for the kurds and Hezbollah being armed by Israel and syria/Iran respectively, the cause CAN be good in both cases, but in both cases i expect bad results...

Well, we disagree.

disagree?...about what?

the good cause, is depending on the point of view...maybe the cause for arming hebollah is to give then the strenght to scare Israel of attacking lebanon (or iran/syria)...as passive, threatening defence, it "could" be good, and as such..a good cause, unless you are an israeli citizen.

however..even if the cause could be "good" as seen by the eyes of hezbollah, the result has so far been only bad, tensions between the nations (or nation-militia), war and many deaths on both sides.

the fact that hezbollah did not fire all of the rockets indicates that they wish to preserve them as a sort of "deterrent" from future actions against them by israel...this is similiar to what happened during the cold war and the nuclear weapons balance.

why i consider it to be a good result that the Sovjet got nuclear weapons, is the fact that it created a terror-balance, or mutual assured destruction as most would call it.

neither side dared to risk as a war that is impossible to win, unless the aim of the war is to destroy both nations.

without nuclear weapons, there would have been a war, possible larger than ww2 was.

..notice the fact, that nuclear weapons have never been used after such balance was created...

now as the cold war is over, and sojvet no longer exists and russia is a friend and a ally, Bush wishes to create mini-nukes for battlefield usage.

shows that when you are much stronger than your enemy, you want to break/make the rules yourself...

however...i wish to make it absolutely clear, just in case of misunderstandings, what i do not wish a militia to get there hands on nuclear weapons.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i think isreal training pretty much a private army in the north fundementally undermines the iraqi deomocratic government and the efforts made by the US and Britian to make the country better.  Not only that its pissing of iraqis which will only lead to furher violence, and a potential three sided civil war.  That means more US and Brit soldiers - not to mention civilians - dead.  and the blood will be on the hands of the israelis training and equipting this militia.

Yes, blah-blah-blah, blood on the hands of the Israelis, who to remind you are rumored to be there.

But the important thing is to say that the blood is on the hands of the Israelis, whether it's true or farce.

Even the Al Jazeera article you linked to does not mention a "private army" and all of this is denied in any case both by Israel and the Kurds.

We're quite used to your ilk's blood libels against us.

Supper time. Have to find me a goy child to bake some blood matzas. Ta-ta!

well, i see it hard for the mto deny when there vidios of Israelis training the dam kurds. there speaking hebrew in there spare time, and even talking to the reporter what would happen to them if what they were doing was unvailed. they themselves said there governement would deny it. no offence but do you really want peace in the middle east? somtime some peoples attitudes would seriously suggest not.

[theavonlady 2]

well, i see it hard for the mto deny when there vidios of Israelis training the dam kurds.  there speaking hebrew in there spare time, and even talking to the reporter what would happen to them if what they were doing was unvailed.

I did not see the video until now:

.

So exciting! Some Israelis working for some shrowded Swiss registered company, run by former Israeli officers for the most part, training a whopping 100 Pashmergas and airport security personal in anti-terror tactics.

From there the BBC starts hypothesizing (with a stress on hype) how Israel will be able to use Kurd airfields should Israeli planes attack Iran.

Uh-huh.

We end off with Mr. BBC thinking that the Israeli running this company really itches for a phone interview about his setup which may or may not be violating Israeli export regulations, and the Israeli government says they are checking into it.

Big excitement and scandal here, yesiree!!!!  

Quote[/b] ]they themselves said there governement would deny it.

Who says this? At what time in the clip does any Israeli say this?

Quote[/b] ]no offence but do you really want peace in the middle east?

<sarcasm>No, I want rivers of blood to flow until eternity. Broohahahahahah!</sarcasm>

Yes. Once again, you should have a more open mind before accusing others of not having one.

Quote[/b] ]somtime some peoples attitudes would seriously suggest not.

You said a mouthfull!

[punishment 1]

bah terrorists groups are just a mob of cowards that somhow got a hold of weapons.

They inflict casualties on themselves in order to kill others because the posses no tactics, or training.

They prefere to kill unarmed civilians since if engaged directly with army forces they would certainly loose. Underhand and pathetic! They dont even fight for a flag , they fight for their own agenda and just stay in these countrys like iraq etc.

They are just frustrated at other countrys because they have better ways of life

At least the likes of the veitcong were fighting for their homeland and a cause.

I spit on these so-called terorists

[Nemesis6 0]

Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...

[Garcia 0]

Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...  

You just have to pop in a negative comment about Islam every time you get the chance, don't you? You have to force your silly hate towards Islam into every little thing.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are just frustrated at other countrys because they have better ways of life

Not necessarily. Most are frustrated that people from these countries are trying to bring that "better way of life" to their countries. The british sectors in Iraq were for example a lot quitere then the US sectors because the british allowed the Shia muslims to live according to their shia ways. In the US sectors however the muslims got all pissed off about how the US is enforcing stuff they just don't like.

Same thing in Afghanistan, the pushtun don't like the western way of living and they don't want it, yet the americans are rubbing it into their faces.

Don't believe everything that people like Reza Aslan promote on the daily show, the avg muslim dislikes the western way of living a lot more then you'd think. Reza is just one of those elite muslims, like the ones leading most of their countries, that are out of touch with the arab streets.

Lets reverse the scenario: If hindus invaded the United States and started enforcing a caste system you would be pissed off too would you not? They think the caste system is the best thing since sliced bread and want you to share in it's magnificence too, so with the best of intentions they'd royally piss you guys off.

Quote[/b] ]Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...

There are numerous terror organizations that are not islamic.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...

I'd be inclined to say that the problem is Arab tribalism, not Islam itself.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...

I'd be inclined to say that the problem is Arab tribalism, not Islam itself.

a good point. you cant just go about throwing the word islam around. Its exactly like saying all crisitans are extremists. which isnt true. but there are extremists christians who teach there children to die for god.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...

I'd be inclined to say that the problem is Arab tribalism, not Islam itself.

What about all those who are not arabs yet keep killing in the name of islam?

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]What about all those who are not arabs yet keep killing in the name of islam?

Who are you referring to? Persians? Africans?

[Llauma 0]

Quote[/b] ]What about all those who are not arabs yet keep killing in the name of islam?

Who are you referring to? Persians? Africans?

Southeast Asians perhaps... You know the Bali bombing etc.

[bucket man 2]

Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...

Islam is involved but not the reason why the conflicts involving Islam started. I can pretty much prove my point because I am almost sure you cant name even one war that was started because of Islam.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]I am almost sure you cant name even one war that was started because of Islam.

You could go back to the destruction of the Sassanid empire.

Quote[/b] ]Southeast Asians perhaps... You know the Bali bombing etc.

Then I'll have to plead ignorance, as I don't know much concerning the culture in that region.

[theavonlady 2]

Also, there's mostly this thing called Islam involved, but that's just a minor technicality. Even though they all seem to fight for it...  

Islam is involved but not the reason why the conflicts involving Islam started. I can pretty much prove my point because I am almost sure you cant name even one war that was started because of Islam.

Incomplete list:

The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)

The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)

The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)

The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)

The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)

The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)

The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)

The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)

The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)

The Jihad against Chinese (751)

The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)

The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)

The Crusade against Jihad (1096 ? 1291 ongoing)

The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)

The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)

The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)

The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)

The Jihad against Rumania (1350 to 1699)

The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)

The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)

The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)

The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)

The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)

The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)

The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)

The Jihad against Austrians (1683)

The Jihad against Israelis (1920 onwards)

The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)

The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)

The Jihad against the Germans (1945 onwards)

The Jihad against the Indians (1947 onwards)

The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)

The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)

The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)

The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)

The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)

The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)

The Global Jihad today (2001 ? ongoing)

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]What about all those who are not arabs yet keep killing in the name of islam?

Who are you referring to? Persians? Africans?

Afghanistan, southeast asia, persia, africa, chechnya, pakistan and so forth.

[denoir 0]

Is Islam intrinsically violent? Sure - but no worse than Christianity or Judaism.

It depends all on which parts of the scriptures you choose to read and follow. Islam grew with Mohammed and the quoran reflects almost chronologicaly his life. When he was a n00b and had no supporters he advocated peace and tolerance. As he and his followers grew stronger, the religion became more militant. So if you wish to claim that Islam is a pacifist religion, you can take some of the early teachings while if you wish to claim that it is militant, you can pick some of the later stuff.

Ultimately the quoran is full of contradictions (as with any such text). It is slightly more consistent than the bible or the torah, but that's only because it was assembled in a shorter time frame and at a later historical date.

The reason why you see muslims rioting over religious trivialities is well, because they are very religious, unlike for instance western christians who are mostly guided by secular values. Add poverty and political manipulation to that and you get what we have today.

Worth thinking about however is that for all their rioting and suicide bombings etc, Islamic radicals have killed far less people than say just this last Iraq war. Just as Allah and Mohammed are their carte blanche, so is democracy for us.

[Garcia 0]

The reason why you see muslims rioting over religious trivialities is well, because they are very religious, unlike for instance western christians who are mostly guided by secular values. Add poverty and political manipulation to that and you get what we have today.

And add the feeling of being oppressed by the western world, and the feeling that the western world is forcing our way of life on them...