Enough is Enough and you are right

[quasimodo]

did you read the whole bit about going in as a chaplain? Chaplain is the only position in the entire military that has no weapons training and is not required to carry a fire-arm, so that command will never come.

boliver

Indeed I missed that one...
Dang!

[mephisto]

Not at all, I know they do.

My question is, what is your point?

The war in Iraq is illegal(one isn`t allowed to attack a country or state that hasn\t attacked you in the begining). Yes, that is  why I don`t support it.

The war was started on wrong reasons(e.g that Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction, but they don`t). I think I can remember a country named the USA that has nuclear weapons and actually used it one time or another...

It is impossible for me to look away from the fact that the US army has killed thousand of civilians in Iraq. Do I support the killings of civilians? No, that be in World Trade Center or Iraq.

Or mayeb you are like  acertain american lade; Madelaine Albright. When confronted with the fact that half a million Iraqi children had died because of the UN sanctions set by the USA, she answered: We do not like it, but we think it neccesary.

[steve jones]

No.

My point is - how can we question the motivations of our governments when we dont understand them?

How can we qualify moral judgement that we arent able to comprehend?

And how can we condem our governments actions when we are not aware of the consequences?


Its all very well to use the logic 'killing civilians is bad, hence war in Iraq is bad'. But if that were the case, you have to ask why did they do it in the first place? Is it because the US administration is EVIL?

Imo, you paint a picture that is based to much on ideals and not nearly enough on reality.

And to use your blinkered OPINION as validation for the things you've said in this thread disgusts me. People like you are whats wrong with this world - hatemongers who would wish harm to those who dont follow their views to the letter.

SJ

[quasimodo]

No.

My point is - how can we question the motivations of our governments when we dont understand them?

How can we qualify moral judgement that we arent able to comprehend?

And how can we condem our governments actions when we are not aware of the consequences?

In that logic, you can't neither approve the governments actions/ you never know if it's right or wrong... then democracy is not even necessary if the only fact that someone has the power makes him necessarily right and, therefore, the citizen is not in position to condemn or approve decisions.

[BoliverAllmon]

The war in Iraq is illegal(one isn`t allowed to attack a country or state that hasn\t attacked you in the begining). Yes, that is  why I don`t support it.

according to you the, all wars are illegal.

boliver

[mephisto]

according to you the, all wars are illegal.

boliver

Have I said the opposite?

If some country decides to attack the USA I will defend the USA if they fight back.

[BoliverAllmon]

Have I said the opposite?

If some country decides to attack the USA I will defend the USA if they fight back.

I think that is a wrong mentality, if country A is openly building up arms and is openly claiming to destroy country B, why should country A wait until they start to get the snot kicked out of them to fight back?

Look at 9/11 Bush was ripped to shreds for not doing something about the terrorists before 9/11. They say he knew that they wanted to attack and were going to. What is different now? Is that idea thrown out the window?

boliver

[prometheus]

The US was building up arms and threatening Iraq? So Iraq was allowed to attack the US?

And no, it is not a reason to go to war. Look at all the countries building up arms, most countries are building up arms, and then look at the threats made. If we follow this logic half the world would be in war with each other.

Iraq was neither building up arms nor threatening to attack the US. And even if they did, it would still be meaningless because Iraq would never been able to attack the US. They would either need ICMB's or submarines armed with middle range ballistic missiles.

Iraq wasn't even a threat to the US when they had one of the strongest armies in the world. Then when they had one of the weakest they were a threat? How does that work?


Bush got critizesed because he didn't do anything about terrorism. Before and after 9/11. You can only fight terrorism with intel and with law and police. Just like the UK did with the IRA. The UK did not bomb Boston or Belfast. German police have dismantelled several Al Quada cells.

No, Bush started wars while from the beginning it was clear would increase terrorism and make american civilians less safe. Bush isn't doing anything to decrease terrorism.

[prometheus]

No.

My point is - how can we question the motivations of our governments when we dont understand them?

How can we qualify moral judgement that we arent able to comprehend?

And how can we condem our governments actions when we are not aware of the consequences?

It is to the government to defend their policies against the voters. If the voters give the government the benefit of the doubt then we have a problem. Then the government can get away with anything. Just pick a scenario from history where we now believe something bad happened.

The point is, you do not give the government the benefit of the doubt, ever. They are not to be trusted. If they want to start a war they better make a *** good case.

So you don't question their motivations. You question their actions. You can't ever question their movitations because they are not always know. When a war is started the real motivations are never stated.


About moral judgement. I don't think governments make any moral judgement, ever. First off, they all read Machiavelli. Now this doesn't mean they believe it. But they do know its lesson: If you want power to do 'something good' you will lose it. The only reason to want power that lets you keep it is if you want power because of its own sake. People that have power on average tend to care less about ethics, morals and ideology than those that do not have power. Because using power for these makes you lose it.

Even if this were not to be true, this idea is highly influencial. In the end it doesn't matter if it is really true. What matters is if those people believe it.


And about the consequences. No one knows about the consequences. But people do make educated guesses. For example, CIA predicted that an invasion of Iraq would increase terrorism. So the US government knew this. Other people predicted this as well. Middle east, Iraq and Al Quada experts analysing the outcome of the war before it started warned against this as well.
More striking, this was exactly the reason why Bush sr. didn't want to invade Iraq and  backed Hussain just after the war. Hussain was allowed to supress as serious shi'ite uprising because it would create unstability in the region. This uprising would probably have overthrown Hussain in 1991.

So no, I don't think we should know the consequences.

Its all very well to use the logic 'killing civilians is bad, hence war in Iraq is bad'. But if that were the case, you have to ask why did they do it in the first place? Is it because the US administration is EVIL?

Of course not. No one is really evil. The only thing that comes close is people that think they are but actually have serious mental health problems. Now people like serial killers may kill 10 or 20, sometimes more but often less. But then look at the people killed by nation-states. Look at the casualties of war and at famine, arguably intentional in some cases, caused by nation-states. They are much much much bigger. Nation-states don't have brains. So they can't have a mental disease either. This means that all those terrible acts commited by nation-states are rational ones. I guess that in a few cases there are nation-states governed by single people with mental health problems so I guess it can happen. But there is generally a coup attempt. An example is Hitler, I guess. Though most of the things he did and that we think are 'evil' were backed by his advisors. Not all of them were. But the coup attempt failed.

This means that nation-states going for war do have some rational reason behind their war. The fact that civilians die is often considered quite insignificant. No one in the Israeli government cares at all about the Lebanese people that are killed, except for the fact that it is bad for their media war, for their image. Imagine if they really cared about the people killed under their responsibility. They wouldn't be able to sleep. Furtermore, it would mean that 18 Israeli lives are at least as valuable as 400 Lebanese lives(don't know if these numbers are up to date or accurate, but it should come close.)

No, it doesn't work that way. The people in the Israeli government feel it as their duty to protect their people no matter what. No matter how many killed by Lebanon.

Ethics aren't considered. Consequences are just incovinient factors they feel they don't control and are thus not responsible for. If the consequence of the IAF bombing a building used by Hezbollah is that the 20 people inside die, well then they blame it on Hezbollah. Even when they have seen children play just outside the building.

This is the war statecraft works. Statecraft doesn't work in the same way you and me treat or family and friends. The people in a government feel both the pressure, reponsibility and the intoxication of power. They do not act like you would expect a human to act. They shouldn't be treated as humans either. While governments and corporations do have the rights of humans, and more rights, and while they consist of humans, they do not have souls or a conscience. No, eventhough these people are often nice and responsible, the nature of the government of corporation they consist of is totally different. One can really say it turns humans into monsters without them realising it. For example, look again at the revealing Albright statement. This while she was a mother of three herself. This shows the truth about Stalin's infamous death and statistic quote.

[steve jones]

In that logic, you can't neither approve the governments actions/ you never know if it's right or wrong... then democracy is not even necessary if the only fact that someone has the power makes him necessarily right and, therefore, the citizen is not in position to condemn or approve decisions.

Absolutely!

How can  I make a decision when I dont know any of the facts?

Answer - I cant.

But that doesnt stop people voting does it. Old grannies vote for the one they think is the 'nicest'. Young people for the one they think is the 'coolest' etc. Me dont know anything, other than the bs we are fed from the second we get up in the morning.

The real truth is that I have no idea who Tony Blair fills his days. And I have even less clue what shady dealings he has signed up for in my name.

So how am I to comment on a complex situation like the middle East? I guess I could base my views on what Im presented with, but my common sense tells that that would be a rather fruitless action. I mean, if I know that it is all political spin how can I possible make an educated decision?

Imo, people need to realise this and accept it. We are the masses, the peasants. Our only is to the fuel the fires of economy. It is not our place to make critical life and death decisions on a global scale.

Do you disagree?

SJ

[steve jones]

It is to the government to defend their policies against the voters. If the voters give the government the benefit of the doubt then we have a problem. Then the government can get away with anything.

Is that not what they have done over the Iraq war?

Did our protests stop Tony and George from invading?

No.

We are powerless. Your point is valid, but only on paper. The reality is that they do what they have to, and we sit back and watch it happen. What other choice do we have, start a revolution?

SJ

[steve jones]

This means that nation-states going for war do have some rational reason behind their war. The fact that civilians die is often considered quite insignificant.

Precisely.

I have faith that there is good reason for us and the Americans to invade Iraq, even though I dont know it. Why do I have this faith? Because if there were no good reason, they wouldnt have done it!

I find that the closest we as peasants can get to the truth is to read between the line. And most of all, be real - dont allow ourselves to get drawn in to the political bs (from all sides).

You see people like Michael More with his anti Bush documentaries. But all he presents is his 'hate Bush' leftwing crap. He never talks about the REAL truth, the alternatives and their consequences. All he succeeds in doing is getting feeble minded sorts like our friend 'Mephisto' brain washed to the point where they think its reasonable to make absurd statements like those in this thread.

SJ

[prometheus]

Steve, yes it is very hard to have the right opinion. But that is just the point.

Democracy isn't about the government making the best decision. Demcracy has only one idea behind it. And that is to prevent the goverment from suppressing its own population. If you look at history you will see that this is the big problem. Either the government suppsess the population or it launches its people into war.

If you want a government that makes the best decision possible then you want a technocracy. You can make different forms of technocracy. You can only give everyone with a high IQ/high education/a lot of money the right to vote. You could for example have referenda where only people with a high level of education in the field involving the referenda are allowed to vote. You can have the people of the intellectual class select the people that make up the government. You do away with the parliament and you have several counsels concerning different fields of government. They advise people of the administration. All of them are hand picked by the intellectual class.

You can also interchange 'intellectual class' with 'rich class', 'elite class' or 'royal class', etc.


This is precicely we don't want. Right? We want that our farmer next door can be minister of agriculture if he get enough votes. We don't want old rich kids with degrees in managment, business, politics and economics to tell 'us farmers' what to do.

So we don't care about the right decision at all. The only thing we want is that the government does what the people want.


But you are right, many people do not want to bear their democratic responsibility and many intellectuals, instead of helping the people, ally themselves with the government.

Recently, one of my favorite intellectuals critisizing my government told that he is going to help write the program of one of the opposition parties, one that is probably going to win the next election. Now, I don't like that one bit.

Still, people aren't stupid. People here know everything about football and people in the US now all kinds of cerebral stuff about american football. We also know the politics involved. We also know the politics involved in our community, our friends, of family, etc.
It's not that we are not intelligent enough. We either don't care or we do not have the time. The fact that we don't have the time is one of the ways governments try to keep the people from opposing the 'theocratic class' which rule most democracies through the political parties.

[prometheus]

Is that not what they have done over the Iraq war?

Did our protests stop Tony and George from invading?

No.

We are powerless. Your point is valid, but only on paper. The reality is that they do what they have to, and we sit back and watch it happen. What other choice do we have, start a revolution?

In the US a majority supported the war when it started. Same in the UK. Same in my country. But in the UK and in the Netherlands it was really almost 50/50. There were a lot of people strongly opposed to the wars and  they went to the streets. This has never ever happened before. During the Vietnam war in the US it took eight years before people took to the streets. And those people that did were seen as traitors.

Blair and Bush both won their elections after the war. Apparently people were in favor of the war in these countries.

And believe me that governments do care when many many people go to the streets. IF the people want a revolution there is absolutely no way for the government to stop them. You just need a very big majority. This is what happened in Turkey. So many people opposed Turkish support to the US that they couldn't get away with it. Eventhough the US pressued them with punishment on one side and reward on the other. Then we saw Rumsfelt condemn Turkey for being too democratic.

yes, if the people sit back then it will happen. If the people believe they have no power then yes it will happen. I am not really calling for a revolution. But people do need to take their democratic rights and powers more seriously. But you are right, people are very cynical about it. The problem is that many don't realise that there has been a huge improvement compared to only a few years ago.

[pianochild]

Are you going to carry on with piano after?.

[bernhard]

according to you the, all wars are illegal.

boliver

Of course all wars are illegal (and immoral and unethical). Didn´t you know that? The real problem does not lie there, but on enforcement. (Nuremberg could happen only because Germany had been defeated, disarmed and their generals put in jail. How are you going to bring obvious war criminals like Bush, Balir and Olmert to trial if they are armed to the teeth?)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

I have faith that there is good reason for us and the Americans to invade Iraq, even though I dont know it. Why do I have this faith? Because if there were no good reason, they wouldnt have done it!

Of course there were good reasons. But good reasons for whom? Not for you and certainly not for me. In fact the good reasons probably extended to a few very powerful and rich people, and that is basically it. For everyone else they were not good reasons. But it is everyone else who has to reap the bad consequences so that a few can have their "good reasons".

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[prometheus]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you apply the Nuremberg principles to Blair, Bush and Olmert, or any world leader involved in war.

And let's not forget what Chief US prosecutor Robert H. Jackson said at Nuremberg:


# "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." - Nuremberg Tribunal
# "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." - Nuremberg Tribunal


The nazi's were hanged based on the assumption that in the future anyone guilty of the same crime would also be hanged. This means that Jackson believed the Nazi's shouldn't be hanged because Bush was not hanged. This means that if we do not hang Bush, or any other of the US presidents and many other heads of state, the Nuremberg Trail was an unfair trial and the nazi leaders shouldn't have been hanged.

Actually, all this includes the Tokyo trials as well.

If you look at these trials it is interesting to see that (fire) bombing a city was not a war crime. Why not? Because the allies also did it. Because the nazis and because Japan started the war starting a war is a war crime and that's why they were hanged. And because the Nuremberg trials were so harsh on the aggressors all post-war US presidents should be hanged if Nuremberg was applied to them.

[zheer]

. (Didn´t you know that? The real problem does not lie there, but on enforcementminals like Bush, Balir and Olmert to trial if they are armed to the teeth?)

  O no do you know what that sad thing is, Bush and Blair are fighting a war that wont be won, they will both depart from their current position of power and be replaced by another pair of pen pushers.Slowly but surly the united state of America and the United Kingdom will be thrown into complete darkness, political figures will vanish and re-appera in bin bags. The sky will change colour , plunged into darkness and smoke. Influential figures like Doctors Lawers Politicians, will be captured totured and sistimatical shot one by one. Civilians will fight amongs themselves for food water and shelter, the military will remain defensless and weak nothing to do but wach their nation burn and suffocate, this will be the day of judgment , the day where west-side is under the full force of the new empire.

  Rispectfully .

[steve jones]

In the US a majority supported the war when it started. Same in the UK. Same in my country. But in the UK and in the Netherlands it was really almost 50/50. There were a lot of people strongly opposed to the wars and  they went to the streets. This has never ever happened before. During the Vietnam war in the US it took eight years before people took to the streets. And those people that did were seen as traitors.

Blair and Bush both won their elections after the war. Apparently people were in favor of the war in these countries.

And believe me that governments do care when many many people go to the streets. IF the people want a revolution there is absolutely no way for the government to stop them. You just need a very big majority. This is what happened in Turkey. So many people opposed Turkish support to the US that they couldn't get away with it. Eventhough the US pressued them with punishment on one side and reward on the other. Then we saw Rumsfelt condemn Turkey for being too democratic.

yes, if the people sit back then it will happen. If the people believe they have no power then yes it will happen. I am not really calling for a revolution. But people do need to take their democratic rights and powers more seriously. But you are right, people are very cynical about it. The problem is that many don't realise that there has been a huge improvement compared to only a few years ago.

Its funny, as my father and I were this only the other day. We were discussing the insane price increases in fuel and utilities in the UK.

I pointed out that, theoretically, it is us (the market) who have the power to dictate price. He quite rightly pointed out that, while we have the power, we lack the ability to use it. And if a minority group set about standing up for us, they would be locked up as terrorists!

So while I agree that technically we have the power to over rule our governments, the truth is that in REALITY they call the shots.

In the UK, our government has created a sub class of people on the quiet. And they have put proceedures in place to assure that it is them who breed, not the educated and professionals. Im quite certain that this is for several reasons (to help pay off baby boom pensions for one), but I cant help but feels its also aimed at 'devolving' the masses. In a few generations the British public will be so ignorant that they will never again try to pull any of this sh*t (ie, getting involved in the politics of goverment etc).

SJ

[thalbergmad]

 O no do you know what that sad thing is, Bush and Blair are fighting a war that wont be won, they will both depart from their current position of power and be replaced by another pair of pen pushers.Slowly but surly the united state of America and the United Kingdom will be thrown into complete darkness, political figures will vanish and re-appera in bin bags. The sky will change colour , plunged into darkness and smoke. Influential figures like Doctors Lawers Politicians, will be captured totured and sistimatical shot one by one. Civilians will fight amongs themselves for food water and shelter, the military will remain defensless and weak nothing to do but wach their nation burn and suffocate, this will be the day of judgment , the day where west-side is under the full force of the new empire.

  Rispectfully .

I have sent this to Warner Brothers.

You could be onto something here.

I'll go 50/50 on the royalties with you.

Thal

[zheer]

I have sent this to Warner Brothers.

You could be onto something here.

I'll go 50/50 on the royalties with you.

Thal

   

[BoliverAllmon]

yes, I will continue after I get out.

[quasimodo]

Absolutely!

How can  I make a decision when I dont know any of the facts?

Answer - I cant.

But that doesnt stop people voting does it. Old grannies vote for the one they think is the 'nicest'. Young people for the one they think is the 'coolest' etc. Me dont know anything, other than the bs we are fed from the second we get up in the morning.

The real truth is that I have no idea who Tony Blair fills his days. And I have even less clue what shady dealings he has signed up for in my name.

So how am I to comment on a complex situation like the middle East? I guess I could base my views on what Im presented with, but my common sense tells that that would be a rather fruitless action. I mean, if I know that it is all political spin how can I possible make an educated decision?

Imo, people need to realise this and accept it. We are the masses, the peasants. Our only is to the fuel the fires of economy. It is not our place to make critical life and death decisions on a global scale.

Do you disagree?

SJ

No, I don't disagree fundamentally. Yet, Bush's crusade is often presented as aiming at safeguard of democracy against Islamist totalitarian obscurity. There's something quite humoristic in all this.

[gilad]

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en

i found this while doing my daily middle east blog checking. it has much relevence to this topic.

[jakev2.0]

Everyone should see this film.

[prometheus]

I stopped watching because it started to dramatize by showing the 9/11 footage. It's not like not everyone hasn't seen that a thousand times before. Its there purely for propaganda reasons. Actually, it is funny that even some serious media call the 9/11 the worst terrorist attack ever. You wonder how they measure this because there have been terrorist attacks with a lmany many more deaths.

That and the line honestreporting.com and I couldn't take any more, the idea that it was Orwellian was quite strong It seems the video wasn't tagged 'propaganda' for nothing. Now, I may be paranoid, but I get the idea that this movie wants to slam down the idea of clash of civilisation, religious war and that the US 'war on terror' does actually exist. The name is about as rediculous as 'enduring freedom'. Do the Afghans have to 'endure' US-style 'freedom', or do they mean that the freedom should last a long time? I mean, everyone who known what terrorism is knows you cannot fight it with a war. I guess it just goes with the other names like 'war on drugs', 'War on crime', 'war on obesity'. Returning, I guess Orwell would also have said something insightful about the nature of a society that uses the word 'war' in this particular way. Then, look at the allies of the US led 'war on terror'. All terrorist states, led by the no.1 terrorist state. It is kind of funny.

[rimv2]

I find it very fitting and appropriate that you give Mr. Allmon by way of homage... a puppet. (you can even see the strings)

Bet you didnt even notice the wanton destruction in the background.

But if it means piece in the future, blow it all hell.

If it dont. Itll all be blowed to hell anyway


Now stop with your one paragraphers and hit us with some dissertations

[rimv2]

hahahaha that thought crossed my mind too.

Unfortunately, I think it is deadly serious.

Ah am American!
Ah believe in god, guns and greed!
Ah was raised on xenophobia, bibles and bigotry!
Ah was fattened on fast food an lies!
Ah live in the land chosen by god to rule thuh world!
Ah will spread democracy under thuh shadow of a fighter plane!
Ah will fight for mah freedom of speech
but don't call mah country a war mongerer you f**k or ah will blow your face off!
Ah remember the war in Vietnam! Ah rember the war in Vietnam!

God bless America!! God bless America!! God Bless America!!

Immitation might be the sincerest flattery, but it wont get you into my pants.

Sorry

[gilad]

prometheus, im sorry you are so closed minded that you wont even look at something that doesnt confirm your beliefs. I truly believe if anyone out there needs to see it, it is people like you. I think you are nothing more than a product of the media coverage you have been shown, i dont think you have made up your mind on these issues for yourself. The movie speaks truths, you dont have to believe them, but they are real and they are sick.

[prometheus]

I live in the Netherlands. That means media is compareble to that in the UK. They are only mildy critical about the things I critisize, US an Israel for example. My government blocked, together with the Germany and British government, an attempt of the EU to condemn the violence of Israel. Why? Minister of foreign policy and experienced diplomat Ben Bot said something along these lines: "Well, we choose not to do it because it is not realistic. It may be the right thing to do, but Israel will not care. If we condemn the violence it will not matter a bit; Israel will continue. That's why we decided to block it."

Now, the Lebanese war is one of the main subjects in the news here. But this didn't get reported at all.

No, I am not at all a product from the media here. I am a product of my own research, however competent or incompetent it is, and those of people that have influenced my opinion. Which are either friends or famous people.

Ok, I will watch this movie, just because you insist. I was just offened by the propaganda technique used. Actually, maybe Al Quada should have hired a professional camera team to make high quality recordings of the plane hitting the tower. No one can deny that the impact of the footage is much more significant than the actual death statistics.

[prometheus]

Ok, I just saw footage of Beslan and the Chechnya conflict. This is silly. It is an ethnic conflict. I can't understand that the people who made this movie, and want to back the US, also accept the fact that Beslan is added to the 'war on terror' list because this is just Russia killing and suppressing these people. Before 9/11 the US and Europe were able to critisize what happened in Chechnya. But after 9/11 Russia demanded to have the right to do anything in Chechnya in return of supporting the US 'war on terror'.

I can't believe they fell for it. Actually, maybe they didn't but they just wanted to invoke the vivid images of all those children that we all saw.

I didn't see a single image of the west carrying out atricities in the near-east yet.

Last night I saw a professor of international conflicts on tv. He explained how in the US they tried to draw the current Palestinian conflict in with 'the war on terror' instead of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Europe doesn't do this. And that was one of the main underlying issues behind the disagreement on the diplomatic level. To call all this an issue of Islam is really an American idea.


Ok this is funny as well. First we see palestinian suicide bombers in Lebanon. Then we have this professor explain that to him the absolute pillar of civilization is the sacredness of life itself. Then we get Nasrallah talking about dying in battle. I guess this professor will be embarresed that his comments attacking an idiology that only exists under shi'ite muslims, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, was been editted in with Hezbollah, sunni and stronly opposed to suicide attacks. Nasrallah was talking about dying while fighting against Israel. Which means fighting for your family, wife and children to them. The sacredness of their lives is violated by the Israeli soldiers.

[gilad]

Ok this is funny as well. First we see palestinian suicide bombers in Lebanon. Then we have this professor explain that to him the absolute pillar of civilization is the sacredness of life itself. Then we get Nasrallah talking about dying in battle. I guess this professor will be embarresed that his comments attacking an idiology that only exists under shi'ite muslims, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, was been editted in with Hezbollah, sunni and stronly opposed to suicide attacks. Nasrallah was talking about dying while fighting against Israel. Which means fighting for your family, wife and children to them. The sacredness of their lives is violated by the Israeli soldiers.

uh? what are you saying? islamic jihad are shiite and hamas are sunni, both emply suicide bombing attacks, i'm sure hezbollah who are shiite also do.
i also dont think it is the "splendor" of 911 that makes it so emotive, or the death toll which i think is massive by the way. what makes it so incredible for me is the thought of who would turn an airplane into a missile, who turns ordinary life into an unthinkable madness, who tries to kill thousands of innocent people, it could have been you or me or anyone.

[quasimodo]

Randomly, I was browsing the forum and the title of this thread, in some kind of auto-suggested hallucination, read "Enough is enough and you are tight".
what 

[prometheus]

Wait, I turned it around. Palestinians and Al Quada are Sunni.

No, Hezhollah don't use suicide attacks. Those who do are 'infidels'. Al Quada calls Hezhollah a shield of Israel.


Anyway, the documentary, showing all the insane anti-western propaganda in the arab world, has now switched to the 'why do they hate us'-issue. Now Wall Street journay did a poll under muslims, actually 'money muslims', those that work for western companies or those that are bankers, etc. They all said they liked the western way of life. But they didn't like the US supporting arab dictatorships. Now this video claims talking about the US supporting Israel and its occupation and the support for arab dictatorships is deriving attention from the main issue. Now, lets say that is does. Let say that it is totally true that there is a growing idiology that wants to destroy the west no matter what. Does that mean we shouldn't be discussing the west suppressing freedom in the arab world? Then the same video blames it all on the arab dictators. Most of which are supported by the west. I don't really get it.

&mode=related&search=chomsky%20terror

And even then, what can we do? Pick up the sword as well and fight? See who is the strongest? Or should we be critical of our own actions? If the west if so good and full of freedom and democracy why do we want to deny if from them? You lead by example. I guess I am their biggest enemy, a pure atheist and person of reason. I rather have them blow me up than that I support western violence against arab people in general. If we want to reduce terrorism and war we should stop participating in it. Easy. Then the few crazies, which christians and jews and atheists have as well, will never get any support.

[gilad]

hezbollah have carried out at least 3 as far i  could see. they havent used them since.

[prometheus]

There are some accusations. There is no evidence and Hezbollah denies it. Terrorists rarely deny 'great victories'. For example, both the US embessey and an Us barrack has been hit by a suicide attack during the Lebanese civil war. Many were killed but Hebollah didn't claim this as a victory. Now, I do not know who carried out this attack and if he was Hezbollah or not and if he was if he was authorised to do so. But Hezbollah wants an image that speaks out strongly against suicide attacks. Yet this movie suggests he is encoraging it.

And that is what this movie does time on time. Throughout history religion has always been a tool. The roman empire turned christian because it was good for the roman empire. The same goes here. This movie doesn't talk about actual goals, about different idiologies within Islam. And about the different radical idiologies. Then it says the dictators feed the radical idiologies but it does not explain what the goals and positions of these countries are. Neither does it tell if they mean Iran or Saudi Arabia. At least not up till now. The movie hasn't finished yet.

And about western violence against the arab world, which is far far bigger than the arab violence agains the western world, is not mentioned at all. Bit strange to say the least. There is also no person on the movie that disagrees with the central premise of the movie. It is very well possible that most of the people that speak in the movie don't even agree with the central premise of the movie itself, though they seem to be the basis for it. You can do everything when editing interviews. I have seen it being done many times before, on different subjects.

[gilad]

take what you want out of the movie, question everything about it. question the translations, research the the speakers, do whatever you can, it is good. yes, of course it is one sided, it is possibly the only one sided documentry i have ever seen tackle this issue. Very brave too, i promise you the man who made it could risk assasination as i'm sure you know what happened to van gough in holland after he released his movie.

[prometheus]

Ok, now I see Nasrallah calling the US the 'great plunderer'. They 'steal' all the oil and the people in the arab world are poor, except for a few. But at the same time the western world thank all their wealth to oil. This is of course entirely true. But it is also true in Nigeria.

Then we see this woman say: 'It is always the fault of the west. It is never the fault of the arabs'' Have you ever seen a western leader blame something on themselves? I mean, this is cheap rhetoric. Both sides use it. I don't really see a difference. You should dissect one of those Bush speeches. Horrible.

&mode=related&search=chomsky%20terror


Same goes for any other leader.

Furtermore, the US does more for recruiting anti-americans in the arab world than any amount of propaganda can do.



Af for children being brainwashed by religion. Doesn't it happen everywhere where there is religion? Can religion live without it? No.


Now it talks about muslim and the nazi's. How many people were at the side of the nazi's. Is shintoism as dangerous as Islam? Or in potentional? And what about those Muslims that did fight against Hitler in north-africa? There are tons of conflicts the movie mentions where muslims use violence but where they are met with more extreme violence from Christians, Hindu, the US and Israel. Why not say a word about that at all.

I can't really take it anymore. This video doesn't tell me anything new. Just endless images of sick islamic or arabic extremism together with blunt comments, building up and slamming down the point that we should fear islam over and over and over. This movie may not tell a single lie but surely it is total propaganda.


I was already very much an antitheist. I can't become one even more so. Actually, at some point the video says what I have been saying here before. That monotheism is dangerous because one god means one truth.

&search=root%20of%20all%20evil%20part%201

&mode=related&search=richard%20dawkins

(make sure you watch all of them in the right order, Part 1, 1-3 and Part II, 1-6)

Van Gogh was killed by a madman. The judge that condemned him for a terroristic act contradicted himself. He based the idea that the murder had a terroristic mark on the things the murderer declared. But the murdered declared that he killed Van Gogh because god told him to do so. He did not say that he wanted to shock us, or to drive us towards Islam, or to drive us away from the US and Israel, etc etc. He even said that Van Hogh's comments on Islam had nothing to do with his act. He was not offended by them. Van Hogh made a list of terrible comments, not only calling the Islamic prophet a pig. Let me just quote from wikipedia to avoid having to translate what he said myself:

He incurred the anger of leading members of the Jewish community by making comments about what he saw as the Jewish preoccupation with Auschwitz. This quote from a 1991 magazine interview is a typical example of such commentary. Van Gogh explained a "smell of caramel" by stating that "today they're only burning diabetic Jews." When he was criticized by the Jewish historian Evelien Gans, he wrote in Folia Civitatis magazine: "I suspect that Ms. Gans gets wet dreams about being fucked by Dr Mengele." He also expressed the wish that she would sue him so that she would have to explain in court why his remarks were false.

The reason Van Gogh did not fear any violence is because he though everyone would realise he was 'the town madman'.

The 'terroristic mark' can be translated to 'political mark'. There was no political mark. The reason why he was found guilty is because Muhammed didn't allow his lawyer to defend him. So there was no defence, no critisism of the arguments made by the Openbaar Ministerie/'Attorney General'.

The reason why he was not catogorised as 'insane' is because he distupted this process. You can understand that any religious person does not want to hear that he is actually a insane delusional.


I wouldn't fear assassinations from muslims. There are so many people critisizing all Islam and extremist Islam. Before you would be next ten thousands of people would already have been kiled. Yet how many cases are there? One?

[jakev2.0]

Muslim extremists want Islamic domination of the West. In other words, they want Israel, the United States, and UK, and Western society  gone. Extremists use the Qur'an to justify the idea of Jihad ('struggle') as a holy war against non-Muslims.  These extremists use extensive propaganda to incite hatred against the West - i.e., broadcasting during Ramadan a series portraying Jews slaughtering Christian children and using their blood to make Matzah. The terrorist acts that we have been seeing across the world are bound by a sick, unified ideology, comparable to Nazism.

THESE ARE INDISBUTABLE FACTS

If you think the terrorist attacks are unrelated, are committed for legitimate grievances you are not worth talking to.

-----
The movie clearly recognizes the REALITY of Islamic Fundamentalism.

[prometheus]

There are jewish people who want an Israel that includes the occupied territories, the Synai and Jordan.

There are jewish people that believe they are the chosen people.


There are christians who believe there will be a rapture their lifetime. There are christians that believe the jewish temple needs to be build over the location where now exists the dome of the rock.

There are monotheists that believe only their little sect will go to heaven and that everyone else will burn eternally in hell.


Now if we observe the actual violence then it is proportional to the potentional violence.  This is almost often the case. This means the western violence is much greater than the arabic violence. Then, if you want to relate it to religion; christian violence is greater than islamic violence. Now you may view christian and jewish violence as 'just' and Islamic violence as 'injust', this is politics.

Yes, sick idiology. But sick idiology is not at all unique to islam.


Many arabs oppose US and Israel. Some of them aren't even muslim. To explain this hate western intellectuals and media claim arabs have bad culture, they were left out by globalisation, they can't stand our freedoms, etc. In 1958 Eisenhower was so puzzled by the 'campaign of hatred' against the US, and not by the governments but by the population, that he asked the national security council to investigate. The answer the NSC gave him was that the people of the Middle East regarded the US as a hostile power that backed the tyrannies oppressing them and denied them their fundamental rights. They believed that the US did this because it wanted the material wealth of the Middle East to be used for its own interests and those of its client regimes, not for the benefit of the ordinary people of the region. The NSC went on to advise Eisenhower that it would be difficult to counter this view of US policy, mainly because it was accurate.

Now if you want to believe in a clash of civilisations or religion then that is sad because it will destroy the world. Don't you see that Europe has the most violent history of all countries? That Europe went to conquer the whole world? That Europe used force to impose the contemporary state system seen all over the world? And that this systen and the nature of the borders are the cause for all armed conflicts today?

Look at what the US and the UK did to Iraq. First the UK created Iraq to make sure Turkey didn't get the oil. Then they made Kuwait so Iraq couldn't export the oil themselves. Then, much later, we have Saddam Hussain. Uk and the US support him because he starts a war with Iran. Then UK and the US give him the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction, which he then uses against both Iran and the kurds. Then UK and the US continue to back him. Then Hussain invades Kuwait, which he 'has' to invade to be able to export his own oil. Uk and US push him out of Iraq. Then they back Hussain when there is a revolt that would probably have overthrown him. The UK and the US keep him in power. Then the UK and the US impose sanctions strenghtened Hussain but killed a half to one million children. Albright goes on to make a slip of the tongue trying to defend this. Then US and the UK invade Iraq. They turn 'disaster Iraq' into something much more worse by making terrible mistakes. The UK and US have a big responsiblity. They need to adhere the will of the people, which they don't. At this time 86% of the population want the US and the UK to set a solid time table for withdrawl. This means all arabs in Iraq want this. Bush and Blair refure to do this. And today we say  the US commander in Iraq desribe to the US senate that Iraq may slide down into civil war. The US and the UK have to pay reperations for all damage they have caused. They are not willing to do this either.

So we have analysed only one country and the west have damaged and damaged and damaged it. While during the same time we have gotten awfully rich because of their resources.

In the west we already start to hate muslims. And they haven't done anything to us yet. Imagine if Lebanon would bomb every major city in the US and Europe while Persia (Syria+Iran+Iraq), the only world super power give Lebanon support and all their weapons. They also block any possibility of peace. We already want to invade Iran because they want to enrich uranium. Isn't that an act of nothing? We are already outraged if a very small minority hit only three buildings, killing not even 3000. If arabs would be as outraged and hateful as we in the west it would be a lot a lot worse. Not saying that arabs should be as outraged if they are. But if you consider the proportions there is something wrong. We don't apply universality at all.

As for universality and pre emptive strikes. The country with the best case for a pre emptive strike is Iran. The US and Israel have announced they have clear plans for bombing Iran. It was even published openly that the US provided Irsael with 100 high tech bombers that were able to fly to Iran. They were also able to carry 'special weapons'. Now, if you are an Iranian intelligence officer. What do you think that means? Clearly you can make a worse care scenario out of that. Now if you apply Cheney's one-percent doctrine then Iran should strike pre-emptively against the US and Israel.

Well, that is if you believe in universiality and pre emptive war. No one in the western world does both. No one in the western world things Iran has the right to attack Israel or the US. That means people are either opposed to pre emptive war or immoral.

[gilad]

i give up prometheus, i can't follow your reasoning any longer it is circular and much of what you say is unfouded and exagerated. also far to time consuming to read. one is thing is for sure, you have a very unique perception of events, different to anyone i have ever spoken too

[mephisto]

To short it down:

You will find extremists in all religions.

[bernhard]

i give up prometheus, i can't follow your reasoning any longer it is circular and much of what you say is unfouded and exagerated. also far to time consuming to read. one is thing is for sure, you have a very unique perception of events, different to anyone i have ever spoken too

Maybe you need to meet more people.

BW
B

[prometheus]

Too bad you can't point out what you mean. Since part of it is historical fact, another part is applying unbiased logic, some healthy antitheism, and applying the principle of universalism.

[ada]

Immitation might be the sincerest flattery, but it wont get you into my pants.

Sorry

Oh dang! You mean my attempt has failed?

I is so dizappointed 

[quasimodo]

i give up prometheus, i can't follow your reasoning any longer it is circular and much of what you say is unfouded and exagerated. also far to time consuming to read. one is thing is for sure, you have a very unique perception of events, different to anyone i have ever spoken too

Maybe your reluctance at spending time in analyzing other peoples ideas explains it all... 

[gilad]

Maybe your reluctance at spending time in analyzing other peoples ideas explains it all... 

 i have spent lots of time doing that, but when im doing it with prometheus i feel like he is researching facts as they transpire and as he goes along. I'll tell you one thing about the middle east, time doesnt stand still for you to try and catch yourself up to speed, there is so much back history and off the record sentiment that you have yourself a very difficult task. maybe over a matter of weeks you can educate yourself somewhat, as i notice prometheus has done, and in doing so he makes a lot of factual errors and eronious claims. although he does seem to be getting better.

When I say he has a very unique perspective on things i am in no way saying that his rejection of the american and israeli position on the middle east is unique, what do you think i live in the white house? most of the people in my country agree with him, and i hear his opinion from people everyday, in the papers, on tv, from people when im out.
things are never black and white however, and i don't feel he sees any shade in between, and in my opinion that is often where the "truth" lies.
I am talking about the things in says in passing.
Like this.

it is funny that even some serious media call the 9/11 the worst terrorist attack ever. You wonder how they measure this because there have been terrorist attacks with a lmany many more deaths.

and this

We are already outraged if a very small minority hit only three buildings, killing not even 3000. If arabs would be as outraged and hateful as we in the west it would be a lot a lot worse. Not saying that arabs should be as outraged if they are. But if you consider the proportions there is something wrong. We don't apply universality at all.

i know there were people in the world that had hoped to see a larger number of dead, but i cant see how 3000 is a small number, every life is a world, an economy of lives is warped. would it deserve more attention if 20000 died? makes no difference to me.

As for universality and pre emptive strikes. The country with the best case for a pre emptive strike is Iran. The US and Israel have announced they have clear plans for bombing Iran. It was even published openly that the US provided Irsael with 100 high tech bombers that were able to fly to Iran. They were also able to carry 'special weapons'. Now, if you are an Iranian intelligence officer. What do you think that means? Clearly you can make a worse care scenario out of that. Now if you apply Cheney's one-percent doctrine then Iran should strike pre-emptively against the US and Israel.

when a leader of a country who is widely believed to be in the process of aquiring new clear weapons is talking about wiping another country off the face of the earth i think it is in the right of the country he would like to see destroyed to plan for there defense, even be it pre emptive.

[BoliverAllmon]

when a leader of a country who is widely believed to be in the process of aquiring new clear weapons is talking about wiping another country off the face of the earth i think it is in the right of the country he would like to see destroyed to plan for there defense, even be it pre emptive.

I totally agree.

[gilad]

There are jewish people who want an Israel that includes the occupied territories, the Synai and Jordan.

There are jewish people that believe they are the chosen people.


There are christians who believe there will be a rapture their lifetime. There are christians that believe the jewish temple needs to be build over the location where now exists the dome of the rock.

There are monotheists that believe only their little sect will go to heaven and that everyone else will burn eternally in hell.


Now if we observe the actual violence then it is proportional to the potentional violence.  This is almost often the case. This means the western violence is much greater than the arabic violence. Then, if you want to relate it to religion; christian violence is greater than islamic violence. Now you may view christian and jewish violence as 'just' and Islamic violence as 'injust', this is politics.

Yes, sick idiology. But sick idiology is not at all unique to islam.


Many arabs oppose US and Israel. Some of them aren't even muslim. To explain this hate western intellectuals and media claim arabs have bad culture, they were left out by globalisation, they can't stand our freedoms, etc. In 1958 Eisenhower was so puzzled by the 'campaign of hatred' against the US, and not by the governments but by the population, that he asked the national security council to investigate. The answer the NSC gave him was that the people of the Middle East regarded the US as a hostile power that backed the tyrannies oppressing them and denied them their fundamental rights. They believed that the US did this because it wanted the material wealth of the Middle East to be used for its own interests and those of its client regimes, not for the benefit of the ordinary people of the region. The NSC went on to advise Eisenhower that it would be difficult to counter this view of US policy, mainly because it was accurate.

Now if you want to believe in a clash of civilisations or religion then that is sad because it will destroy the world. Don't you see that Europe has the most violent history of all countries? That Europe went to conquer the whole world? That Europe used force to impose the contemporary state system seen all over the world? And that this systen and the nature of the borders are the cause for all armed conflicts today?

Look at what the US and the UK did to Iraq. First the UK created Iraq to make sure Turkey didn't get the oil. Then they made Kuwait so Iraq couldn't export the oil themselves. Then, much later, we have Saddam Hussain. Uk and the US support him because he starts a war with Iran. Then UK and the US give him the ability to develop weapons of mass destruction, which he then uses against both Iran and the kurds. Then UK and the US continue to back him. Then Hussain invades Kuwait, which he 'has' to invade to be able to export his own oil. Uk and US push him out of Iraq. Then they back Hussain when there is a revolt that would probably have overthrown him. The UK and the US keep him in power. Then the UK and the US impose sanctions strenghtened Hussain but killed a half to one million children. Albright goes on to make a slip of the tongue trying to defend this. Then US and the UK invade Iraq. They turn 'disaster Iraq' into something much more worse by making terrible mistakes. The UK and US have a big responsiblity. They need to adhere the will of the people, which they don't. At this time 86% of the population want the US and the UK to set a solid time table for withdrawl. This means all arabs in Iraq want this. Bush and Blair refure to do this. And today we say  the US commander in Iraq desribe to the US senate that Iraq may slide down into civil war. The US and the UK have to pay reperations for all damage they have caused. They are not willing to do this either.

So we have analysed only one country and the west have damaged and damaged and damaged it. While during the same time we have gotten awfully rich because of their resources.

In the west we already start to hate muslims. And they haven't done anything to us yet. Imagine if Lebanon would bomb every major city in the US and Europe while Persia (Syria+Iran+Iraq), the only world super power give Lebanon support and all their weapons. They also block any possibility of peace. We already want to invade Iran because they want to enrich uranium. Isn't that an act of nothing? We are already outraged if a very small minority hit only three buildings, killing not even 3000. If arabs would be as outraged and hateful as we in the west it would be a lot a lot worse. Not saying that arabs should be as outraged if they are. But if you consider the proportions there is something wrong. We don't apply universality at all.

As for universality and pre emptive strikes. The country with the best case for a pre emptive strike is Iran. The US and Israel have announced they have clear plans for bombing Iran. It was even published openly that the US provided Irsael with 100 high tech bombers that were able to fly to Iran. They were also able to carry 'special weapons'. Now, if you are an Iranian intelligence officer. What do you think that means? Clearly you can make a worse care scenario out of that. Now if you apply Cheney's one-percent doctrine then Iran should strike pre-emptively against the US and Israel.

Well, that is if you believe in universiality and pre emptive war. No one in the western world does both. No one in the western world things Iran has the right to attack Israel or the US. That means people are either opposed to pre emptive war or immoral.

fine, i'll reply to this drival.

yes there are jews that want want those borders, very few, the rest are not so stupid.

What does believing you're the chosen people do to someone "who is not" it makes no difference to them, the same way it makes no difference to me that some christians say ill go to hell for not believing in jesus. these are questions of belief, people can beleive what they like, as long as it doesnt become imposing and violent.

what is that rubbish about potential violence? sorry i dont get that.

The reason that zealot jews and members of other religions are not allowed to do what they wish is because the rest of the community are sane enough OR DISAGREE ENOUGH TO CODEMN THEM OR STOP THEM. Im afraid that there has not been enough said by muslims to condemn islamic terrorists, in fact i saw a poll that showed over 20% of englands muslims supported the london bombings and felt them just.

the dome of the rock that some christians want the temple build on is build on the site of the 2 temples that were destroyed, now talk about an imposition. the very same stone floor that the temple stood now support the dome of the rock.

as for your other ramblings about why arabs hate america im not wasting my time.