Terrorism Discuss the War on Terrorism |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
Takeo,
Wake up to reality. The "war of civilizations" is already happening, and has been for hundreds of years. Its happening in Kashmere. Its happening in Indonesia. Its happening in the former Yugoslavia. Its happening in the Suddam. Its happening in France and Belgium and Germany and Spain and even England and the United States. Thanks to GWB, its also happening in Iraq, where now Iraqi's - Arab and Non Arab Muslims - will have the clear choice: Pan Arabist Islamic Imperialism and Terrorism...or the nation state system which adopts a live and let live approach to non-Muslim nations. The greatest thing that the War in Iraq has brought is that Arabs get to see the tools of terrorism tageting other Arabs. While it has killed plenty of Arabs in Israel, since the targets were non Arabs, the Arabs didn't care. Now they have to put themselves in the terror victim's shoes. Too bad you can't do the same. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
Takeo....
Its funny the little games you play saying dividing ethnic from national from religious, like they were neat little separate entities.... but reality isn't like that. I think in the DaVinci code, Dan Brown writes a Brilliant line "Christianity is more a birthright than a religion in France..." Something like that. Why do I bring this up? Because, it demonstrates that your attempt to divide the ethnic, the cultural, the political and the religious - as causes or inspirations...is falacious at best, and on a deeper level simply wrong. The idea that Muslim-Hindu or Muslim-Christain wars in Kashmeer or Africa or the Balklans aren't religious wars, but instead Ethnic wars, is intentionally misleading. THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Moreover, there are different levels of religiosity, and different manifestations...just because an Iman isn't directing the armies and calling for Jihad doesn't mean religion isn't a prime factor. Religion is a part of most of those conflicts, but not the most important one. For example if you analyse the wars in the former Soviet-union two of them were between two orthodox peoples (Georgia and Moldova) and 2 between a muslim and christian nation (Tchechnia and Nagorno-Karabakh). In Bosnia all peoples went along quite well under communism only end 80's politicians stirred up the populations, and Christians fought eachother as well as muslims fought eachother. besides, if you look at how islamic bosnians are, most of them have not seen a mosque from the inside in ages, it is not possible religion was the major drive behind this conflict. In kosovo one of the first decisions of the Albanian majority (who are both Muslim, catholic and orthodox) was to oppress and persecute the (muslim) gypsies... In Kashmir the conflict originated in the '40's when india and pakistan divided kashmir between thesmelves. the conflict between kashmiri and indians is very mediatised, but people often forget there's also a war going on between kashmiri separatists and pakistanese in the pakistanese part of kashmir. For example, the PLO has a HUGE muslim influence, although it is a "secular" movement and even involves some Christians - its basic mindset is defined by thought and ideas that stem from Islam, and Islam is a huge source of power and direction for the PLO. Now, the fact that Hamas is more overtly religious doesn't mean that the PLO isn't motivated by religion - its a matter of degree. islam gained more influence than before, but PLO basically is still a secular organisation and some associated organisations are ruled by christians. for sure islam is not the major ideological drive behind the plo and arafat. (married to a christian himself) Of course, you have never been very good at differentiating between degrees, takeo. Like many silly lefties, you tend to try to portray things in dualities....ironically one of the biggest dangers of relativism. actually dividing things in dualities is typical rightwing, remember "good against evil" and "you are either with us or against us"... it wasn't a lefty who said this... |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
Takeo,
Again, your willingness to neatly separate religion and ethnicity shows the lack of depth in your understanding of sociology and psychology. For example, most American's don't attend Church all that often, although more than Europeans. And yet Christians values, paradigms and traditions are embeded throughout American culture and the psyche of almost every American. American's see the world through a looking glass that is shaped by their Christian heritage, even non-Christian American...but moreso Christian Americans because they don't have competing world-paradigms. Degree is affected by religiosity, but there is not necessarily a direct relationship - the looking glass is in place regardless of religiosity - merely by belonging to the religious/ethnic/cultural group. Ditto Jews...Jews view the world through a lense that is shaped by core values in Judaism. Ditto the French. Ditto the Germans. Ditto the Japanese. DITTO MUSLIMS. Now, there are certainly major differences that can completely change behavior, but underneath these differences are commonly shared world views and lenses through which the world is interpreted and understood. Apparently takeo doesn't have this depth of understanding... This is even more apparent in his ignorance about Arafat. Yes, he is married to a Christian (a Non-Arab white woman! How can this be about nationalism if he doesn't even marry in his own nation??) But, apparently Takeo hasn't heard any Arafat speeches (translated) or read his statements or looked at PA schoolbooks or media or understood how the mosques are used by the PA.... ISLAM (or really one particular strain of Islamist interpretations of Islam) is THE MAJOR source of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which, at its core, is a Islamist-Jew conflict. It is the motivation. It is why the Arabs could not accept even the 1948 partition Jewish state. Sure, their are nuances...but you cannot let the trees and clearings blind you to the forrest. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
Your friend and mine G.W Bush first has to pull his country out of the Iraqi mud, untill now his policy in iraq making the Ayatollahs very very happy. They would detonate a nuke in a western city, stating they will do so again unless...israel allows all the arabs to move into israel proper who want to, or they receive one hundred billion dollars, etc etc. The pressure from EU and the world on israel, US or whoever the clerics target would be enormous. And the world would enter a terrible era, with the clerics possibly toppling regimes simply by demanding who can rule, simply by threatening that nation with a nuke going off in a major city. The easily ascertainable logical conclusions that one can reach from iran obtaining nuclear weapon capability would lead to a new Dark Age, and i cannot sit by idly - or silent - while the path is laid out for that murderous scum to make it happen. That would be an intolerable situation. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
Takeo....
Its funny the little games you play saying dividing ethnic from national from religious, like they were neat little separate entities.... but reality isn't like that. I think in the DaVinci code, Dan Brown writes a Brilliant line "Christianity is more a birthright than a religion in France..." Something like that. Why do I bring this up? Because, it demonstrates that your attempt to divide the ethnic, the cultural, the political and the religious - as causes or inspirations...is falacious at best, and on a deeper level simply wrong. The idea that Muslim-Hindu or Muslim-Christain wars in Kashmeer or Africa or the Balklans aren't religious wars, but instead Ethnic wars, is intentionally misleading. THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Moreover, there are different levels of religiosity, and different manifestations...just because an Iman isn't directing the armies and calling for Jihad doesn't mean religion isn't a prime factor. For example, the PLO has a HUGE muslim influence, although it is a "secular" movement and even involves some Christians - its basic mindset is defined by thought and ideas that stem from Islam, and Islam is a huge source of power and direction for the PLO. Now, the fact that Hamas is more overtly religious doesn't mean that the PLO isn't motivated by religion - its a matter of degree. Of course, you have never been very good at differentiating between degrees, takeo. Like many silly lefties, you tend to try to portray things in dualities....ironically one of the biggest dangers of relativism. That is the positive in believing in Moral Absolutes....then some actions are "more wrong" or "more right" than others...ie. curfews and fences and checkpoints versus deliberate murder of as many non combatants as possible... |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
Bush policy in Iraq will in the very near future create a second shiite fundaamentalist country, congratulations!
So Bush wants to attack Iran, I hope Kerry will use this in the public debates if he's clever, I don't think Americans are ready for yet another even more bloody and messier war... But of course his Saoudi friends, the only ones with close ties to al-quaida ( on the contrary to Iraq and Iran, Iran even helped the us during the latest war in afghanistan and handed over al-quaida and taliban membrs who took refuge over the borders) will be left untouched. Either Bush is insane or he really wants a total "war of civilisations"... perhaps it'll divert the attention from his socio-economic policy which benefitted the rich and created more poverty in the us (according to the latest undp-report) I think he'll attack Cuba as well and probably Venezuela as well, let us all pray that this insane motherer will loose the elections. In any case his reelection will mean burrying the trans-atlantic coalition once and for ever. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|