If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message ... I wasn't talking about morals. I was talking about reality and history. If the Arab nations who sponsor these terrorists succeed in their plans, their own history books will write it off as the Great War for Islamic Independence during which their freedom fighters performed attack after attack until the Imperialist Oppressors were finally conquered. Where is Islam being opressed by a western nation? |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Jay,
I can probably find sources that would indicate that innocent people were killed in many wars for independence. But that is not the point. I think you missed my point. People like you and I absolutely recognize the agenda of the Arab terrorists, and the Arab nations that sponsor them (some of whom we call "allies"). But the agenda of these terrorists must not be clear to many people because there are still people out there, like the poster to whom I replied and at least one other in this thread, who believe that the way to stop terrorism is to change foreign policy and "keep our nose out of other country's business." At the end of it all, if that were our position, the Arab nations would very possibly accomplish their goals, or at least some of them. And it would be documented in the Arabic History Books as the Great War of Islamic Independence, where Arab Nations sent freedom fighting martyr after martyr to attack the Imperialist Western Infidels in the former nation of Bush until they surrendered and the Radical Islamic nations ruled the world... Of course I might be exaggerating just a bit, but I do believe that history is slanted in favor of the author... And I'm not quite ready to hand over the pen yet... "Jay Honeck" wrote in news:OZ_4c.11522$1p.210809@attbi_s54: I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists. Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung, unrelated locales. Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence. When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising, or a failed coup-de-tat... To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the world, for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and suffering in mind, all in the name of Allah. If anything can truly be classified as "insane," this is it. Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and control of their own countries... Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization, in the name of God. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
I think you've got it backwards...
I would say that the Native Americans were the Freedom Fighters, trying to win back their land from the Oppressive colonialists. However, because we won that war, for the next 150-200 years, American Indians were portrayed in US History books and media as scary, stupid mostrosities who gave away their land for a few beads and fur pelts, and then terrorized frontiersmen and their families by taking their scalps in the dead of night, for "absolutely no reason at all". Had the Indians been able to repel the Colonialists, their history books would have written of the events and of the characterizations of the people of the time very differently. I can't go through and cite every single example of terrorists in history. And I can't quantify to what level innocent people were killed by terrorists in wars. I'm not a history expert or even a history buff. All I can tell you is that it seems to me that the current Arab Terrorist tactics are working, and there is not much I can think of to do about it, except perhaps to call upon our "allies" in the Arab Nations to stop supporting them and harboring them or suffer a price. But the thought of "keeping our nose out of other country's business" as suggested by a prior poster, is repulsive because I don't want to go down in history as a member of the Fallen Imperialist Bush Empire. "S Green" wrote in : "Judah" wrote in message ... I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists. Just as they believed that the Israeli freedom fighters were terrorists in 1948. Just as the they believe the IRA are terrorists... Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence. When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising, or a failed coup-de-tat... The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American Independence took place in America. So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom fighters were the colonialists. They secured independence and then began a genocidal assault on the native Americans. Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace. Maybe that does not count? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
In article vl15c.12593$_w.289553@attbi_s53,
Jay Honeck wrote: We don't, actually. We fight criminals. There's no expectation that crime will cease. Really? I was under the impression that our criminal justice system was meant to be a deterrent. In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment. Perhaps as an academic theory, but even then only on paper. The key thing to remember is that criminals (most at least) break the law because they do not think that they will be caught. They know that they could be caught, but commit the actually crime assuming that they will not. For example, most of us speed. But we do NOT do so when we see a cop on the side of the road. If you mean that punishment of criminals that have been caught and convicted is meant to be a punishment against future crime the states don't really show that either. And even if they did new criminals would only appear. Throughout the history of the human race murder has basically been illegal (note murder is often defined differently in different culture). Yet murders still happen. In the US will even excute people for murder, some nations (esp in the past) really tried to prevent murders from happening. But like war in 'part of the human condition.' That doesn't mean that we do nothing, but what it does mean is that it's a battle we can't win/defeat. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote: But let's be realistic here - anybody who doesn't see the Bush administration, with its "faith-based" initiatives and connection to the very right wing Church as crossing the line toward making the US a Christian country must be fairly blind or strongly believe that this direction is the Right Thing To Do. or they don't see boogey men behind the actions of those they hate. -- Bob Noel |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Steve never kids...
mike regish "Rosspilot" wrote in message ... You wrote; "For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment." Where did you get those figures? Oh, I researched it thoroughly . . . the "figures" come from the World Almanac and from the Encyclopedia Britannica and from the Terrorist Handbook, and from . . . you gotta be kidding me. www.Rosspilot.com |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:47:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: We are all Spaniards today. Hi Jay, That alliance is probably what the terrorists are fighting. And you also know this, so would want to make them angry by using it. But it is now a more pained relationship. This could continue, and likely will. But not all of us consider ourselves Spaniards. It isn't that we have something against Spain; but that we don't have the time, nor the internals to become so emotionally involved. And it isn't just Spain with whom we might want to limit our personal relationships. Commitment of militaries is not the only cost; and that is a cost. You make the statement grandly, to anger the terrorists; believing they have no valid complaint. (I am not without sympathy for Spain.) But are the terrorists acting out of only insanity? Is no one discussing their motives at all? Our habit of ignorance developed out of the Middle East troubles, to protect Israel. (We know what the trouble is there. It is religion. Huh?) But now we're stuck in this 'quiet' mode, and ignoring a complaint which some might believe to be valid. We choose to be silent about what? Sovereignty, for it would interfere with our vision of the world; which is ours to mold. We are NOT for sovereignty (at least, the World Trade Center is not), and that is what those oil-rich, sand-bound terrorists are so insecure about. They are not the only ones. Mike |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Hotze wrote: On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:44:32 -0800, C J Campbell wrote: They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and Germans. to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT. stick a finger up your ass and whistle. Be that as it may he is correct. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: In other words, we expect crime to cease, given enough punishment. Nobody expects that in the general sense; only in the specific. If the Bible is to be believed, we've had crime with us since the second generation of man. Even back when God himself was levying the punishments, it didn't go away. George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
I need to take up one more point with your comments...
In principal, I do selfishly agree with you that American values of freedom are preferred to Radical Islamic values of, well, whatever Radical Islamic values are. However, I would tend to say that you are naive if you truly believe that innocents don't die in most wars. The difference is that the winner of the war generally doesn't talk about it because it is not honorable. And at least with respect to American History - we don't generally admire our heroes killing innocent people. Perhaps Radical Islamists will honor and recall the names of their "martyrs". More likely, the suicide bombers will be categorized as an attack method, and only the names of the political and military leaders will be remembered. However, I would categorically point out that innocents have died at the hands of Americans in many wars... And in other democratic countries, innocents have died during wars too... It's war. That's what happens. Of course, we've all heard about the innocent Vietnamese that were killed. But we lost that war, so the heroes aren't portrayed for their winning war tactics. One of the other posters brought up the Native Americans... Do you think any innocent Native Americans might have been killed back then? I haven't read much about it in the history books, so maybe it didn't happen... Do you think that no innocents died by American hands in World War II? How about at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think the A-Bomb of death distinguished between civilians and military personnel when it liquidated everyone there? The problem is that the terrorists today give themselves scary sounding names, pretend to be poorly organized, and hide their infastructure in the shelter of countries who claim to be our allies, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Morroco. Our problem is the same with Foreign Policy as it is with TFRs - sure the Prez will pull the trigger on Iraq - it's easy and he's just finishing Dad's work anyway. But if he's too afraid to pull the trigger on the nations who harbor and train our terrorists, he may as well give up now because it's just a big show to make people feel safe when they are not... "Jay Honeck" wrote in news:OZ_4c.11522$1p.210809@attbi_s54: I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists. Terrorists kill innocents. America's rebels fought the British for independence -- they didn't pointlessly blow up schools in far-flung, unrelated locales. Basically, when history finds a band of rebels or oppressed people who fought their way to freedom, they war is called a War of Independence. When they were suppressed, the war is called a rebellion, an uprising, or a failed coup-de-tat... To even suggest that El Queda operatives are fighting a "war of independence" is offensive. They are killing innocents around the world, for no apparent reason, with no goal other than terror and suffering in mind, all in the name of Allah. If anything can truly be classified as "insane," this is it. Perhaps the agenda of modern-day terrorists is not as clear as the agenda of the Independence fighters who fought for independence and control of their own countries... Their agenda is not freedom -- it is the downfall of Western civilization, in the name of God. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|