Morality and the war on terror

[MobBoss]

The Shah existed only because the US deposed a democratic govt. that the US did not like. Its an interesting path.

I would also point out that the Shah only lost power because Jimmy Carter refused to support him any longer. Carter just wasnt much of a foreign policy guy and as a result our embassy got overrun and our people held hostage.

 

[Mott1]

well agreed, but Bush is not the man at least IMO to implement good decisions effectively or to follow them up well I should say. People like Gorbachev and dare I say it Raegan before he went senile are men who can win hearts and minds of their people and others. It's more important to win the hearts and minds of your enemies than your own people, at least if there is to be peace and understanding in the Middle East or am I being naive?

I wouldn't say you are being naive, just a bit too optimistic.
I'm not a big fan of President Bush, but his foriegn policies (as bad as they are) and the U.S. led war is not the cause of Islamic terrorism.
Bush will never win the hearts and minds of Islamic terrorists no matter how much he appeases them. No matter how good our relation is with the Muslim world, Islamic terrorism will exist.
This conflict, in the view of the Muslim extremists, is destined to end with the hegemony of Islam. In the words of OBL, jihad warriors the world over are fighting, "so that Allah's Word and religion reign supreme."
When jihad fighters streamed into Iraq in 2003, eager for a showdown with American troops, Mullah Mustapha Kreikar, leader of the Muslim terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, placed a larger religious context(from his safe haven in Norway):"The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion, it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate."
This struggle is an effort to bring back the caliphate."
This view has long since come to the West. This Islamic fundamental movement wishes to establish the flag of Islam in the west.

 

[Sidhe]

In response to posts above the last one: The Sha may have been considered a valuable ally to the west, but he slowly alienated his people by becoming more totalitarian and favouring more elitist policies which diserviced the poor, this alienated the religous in his country and lead to his eventual disposal, popular in the west but a terribly unpopular leader in Iran, had the US as you said seen where his policies might lead they could have predicted the eventual outcome, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. The deposal of democracy in Iran lead to a new democracy one which the US cannot support. I think leaving Iran well alone atm is the best policy, but I suspect that view may be unpopular to say the least.

I wouldn't say you are being naive, just a bit too optimistic.
I'm not a big fan of President Bush, but his foriegn policies (as bad as they are) and the U.S. led war is not the cause of Islamic terrorism.
Bush will never win the hearts and minds of Islamic terrorists no matter how much he appeases them. No matter how good our relation is with the Muslim world, Islamic terrorism will exist.
This conflict, in the view of the Muslim extremists, is destined to end with the hegemony of Islam. In the words of OBL, jihad warriors the world over are fighting, "so that Allah's Word and religion reign supreme."
When jihad fighters streamed into Iraq in 2003, eager for a showdown with American troops, Mullah Mustapha Kreikar, leader of the Muslim terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, placed a larger religious context(from his safe haven in Norway):"The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion, it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate."
This struggle is an effort to bring back the caliphate."
This view has long since come to the West. This Islamic fundamental movement wishes to establish the flag of Islam in the west.

I agree fundementalists can't be appeased but then fundementalists don't have ultimate control of many in fact nearly all countries in the Middle East and are not what the winning of hearts and minds should be aimed at, I am talking about the majority of Islamics, the liberal Muslims which outnumber by far and in many cases decry the seeming contradiction of fundementalist beliefs in reference to the Koran. If you can win the majority over then the rest will be marginalised.

 

[Paradigne]

Bush, in my opinion has made some bonehead moves this term. Knowing this I would STILL vote for him tomorrow over Kerry.

To say thet the US is the cause of terrorism is also pretty ignorant. To deny the fact that we have contributed to the terrorists hate of all things western is even more ignorant.

The point is, we are in Iraq now and CAN NOT leave until the region is stable. If we don't we are inviting anyone else in the middle east to walk in and take over (cough-Iran-cough). This would make things worse than they were 10 years ago.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

I would also point out that the Shah only lost power because Jimmy Carter refused to support him any longer. Carter just wasnt much of a foreign policy guy and as a result our embassy got overrun and our people held hostage.

That does nothing to rebut his point that we deposed a democracy to instate the Shah, whereas our stated aims are often to spread democracy. In the end this seems to have bitten us in the backside. You just took a barb at Carter that didn't really have much to do with the point he was making.

 

[MobBoss]

That does nothing to rebut his point that we deposed a democracy to instate the Shah, whereas our stated aims are often to spread democracy.

Careful there with that "we" stuff. Neither you nor I nor anyone remotely in power today had anything to do with that.

Besides, what is or is not a democracy can certainly be argued. Should we now work along with the terrorist group Hamas since it is now part of the democratically elected gov of Palistine? I dont think so. Such "democracies" are such in name only and are truly more dictatorships in action and deed than government by the people.

In the end this seems to have bitten us in the backside. You just took a barb at Carter that didn't really have much to do with the point he was making.

If it was a barb, it was still the truth. Carter was weak and thats why Iran is now what it is. It is certainly not coincedence that the Ayatollah turned over the hostages immediately after Reagan became president. If he hadnt, direct military action would have ensued and the Ayatollah would have immediately lost his newfound power.

 

[Tulkas12]

The moderation on this thread was due to what?

I begining to believe that we are being censored. . .

I'll prolly get reported calling out all the socialists on this. This is exactly where this "PC" socialist crap leads. Censorship of the Mind!

 

[Mott1]

I'm pretty sure you see term "PC" somehow negative so I see it as slanderous term coming from you.

Although I do hold a negative disposition towards political correctness, I did not use it as a slanderous label. I have read debates and debated people who vigorously defend PCism, and time after time I have endured their ridicule and accusations just because I firmly maintain my position.
I have grown accustomed to the insults and name calling directed towards me that I no longer become offended.
Perhaps I have become so accustomed to that type of aggressive debate that I had forgotten to tone it down here.

You simply couldn't resist quoting a well known forum members post, trying to make him look foolish, did you?

It was not my intention to make anyone look foolish, I did not look at the names simply because I did not recognize any of them.
I read various posts and quoted the ones that I felt reflected the mainstream PC views that I have encountered on other forums.

Rest of your post is the same old story about Islam and your consideration that it's very nature is about creating terrorists. However this part of your post have some parts that might create discussion but I'm pretty sure into what kind of contest this thread turns into if some people actually start to answer some of your points which have been discussed in this forum also before.

I am not interested in any contests or to try and claim victory on a debate.
My only interest is to exchange dialogue and refute view I believe to be erroneuos.
After all the idea is to express our opinions, even if their is no agreeable conclusion.
Listen I am not an arrogant person, and despite what you may think I am very open-minded. I approach all topics objectively, I put my foot in the other shoe, so-to-speak, and I will always consider the opposing view.
If you are so confidant in your knowledge to dismiss my views as if it is just a strawman argument, then perhaps you should start practising what you preach with respects to the rules of engagement.

 

[Tulkas12]

If you are so confidant in your knowledge to dismiss my views as if it is just a strawman argument, then perhaps you should start practising what you preach with respects to the rules of engagement.

Dismissal is all they know. You have to be wrong. This is true cause they "know" they are right.

 

[De Lorimier]

Nowhere in my post have I claimed that.
The grievances other nations have with the U.S., be they misguided or ligitimate, does not justify terrorism.

I'm not saying it justifies terrorism. Terrorism cannot be justified without using lame religious and political beliefs channeled in violence against civilians. It's unjustifiable.

Again, seeing the world in black and white, good or bad is not the premise of my post. What I am stating is that Islam is the root cause of Islamic terrorism, and the only way that we can begin to counter it is by first acknowledging that truth.
I think you can appreciate how much universalism and equality matter to people who are deeply committed to the spirit of democracy, however you must understand how deeply and profoundly the Islamic doctrine violates these principles, in its emphasis on tribal solidarity.

Islam is one root of Islamic terrorism. It's fair to say that the former foreign policies of the West is at the very least partly responsible for most of the problems our planet is facing today wether it's religious terrorism or the sad state of the African continent. I can't simply look at Islamic terrorism and stricly blame religion for it, it's more complicated than that. Acknowledging that Islam is one of the root of Islamic terrorism is a step forward. To think that it's the only reason for violent actions is not.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Islam creates Muslim terrorists. These terrorist acts are not only justified but are divinely mandated by the Islamic doctrine.
The proof is in the Quran and the Hadith, all one must do is read them.
Its time we start calling a spade a spade without the fear of offending Muslim sensitiveties.
Terrorism is a crime motivated by an ideology. Islamic terrorism is a crime of faith. The Muslim terrorists are Islamic to the core.

It is the PC and Muslim apologist view that Islam is certainly not the problem, they just can't understand that the problem is within Islam and will not go away, or be neutralized, until this fact is recognized.

This is an absolutely crazy assertion. I have read the Quran (in English only), the Bible and a few other books. Saying terrorism is rooted in Islam is like saying slavery is rooted in Christianity. While I can look in both books and misquote passages to make such assertions, it doesn't make them true. Yes, Islamic extremists misquote and misrepresent Islam the same way Christian terrorists misquote and misrepresent Christianity. Christianity is at a different stage right now than Islam so we no longer have things like the inquisition, but it wasn't long ago the IRA was bombing across England and the KKK was killing and persecuting minorities in the USA all in the name of God. The problem is not in Islam itself, but in how these wackos interpret it. Right now Muslim extremists happen to be the biggest and baddest terrorists on the block.

 

[Commie #4522]

This thread is so biased and obviously pro-american/bush. why can't you consdier the fact that the USA invaded another contry solely for oil, and yet you expect people to just live with that? NO! Theu will take up arms against such aggression, how can you not expect it? If someone invaded the USA would you just sit there or something? I admire the cause he represented, he told the world that it's NOT okay to just bully weaker nations into submission and taht there will be something done about it.

 

[Tulkas12]

This thread is so biased and obviously pro-american/bush. why can't you consdier the fact that the USA invaded another contry solely for oil, and yet you expect people to just live with that? NO! Theu will take up arms against such aggression, how can you not expect it? If someone invaded the USA would you just sit there or something? I admire the cause he represented, he told the world that it's NOT okay to just bully weaker nations into submission and taht there will be something done about it.

This coming from a commie. Yea, cause we bullied the commies around. Btw, we've seen zilch for oil and only hurt ourselves in regards to oil. France and Russia both imported alot of Iraqi oil before the war. Now no one gets much really, and as I understand any contracts before the war are still good after once its over. This means if anything regards to oil its that we secured a source for France and Russia, both who despise our very existence. Keep flying your pinko kite, someone might care.

 

[Commie #4522]

This coming from a commie. Yea, cause we bullied the commies around. Btw, we've seen zilch for oil and only hurt ourselves in regards to oil. France and Russia both imported alot of Iraqi oil before the war. Now no one gets much really, and as I understand any contracts before the war are still good after once its over. This means if anything regards to oil its that we secured a source for France and Russia, both who despise our very existence. Keep flying your pinko kite, someone might care.

Yeah, whered you get, that? Fox News, rofl? maybe you should consdier your sources and don't just listen to every single thing you are told.

I'm justgoing to sit here and wait for Vietnam 2.. I mean, Iraq, to be over by the 2008 elections, or the 2012 elections, when the democrats pull us out and you and your neocons are going to be disgraced out of credibility.

History movies in cycles and its just timebefore the aemrican people are fed up with Iraq like they were with Vietnam and we WILL pull outof this useless war that no one knows why we are figting for it and having our men die there for and wasting all the money there.

just keep waiting, I'll have the last laugh I promise

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

why can't you consdier the fact that the USA invaded another contry solely for oil, ...

Another crazy assertion from the other side. The US only gets about 25% of its oil from Persian Gulf nations. It would be far easier to let Saddam brutalize his people at will and get oil for far cheaper. The US used to try to deal with him, but when it was apparent he became more brutal and eventually invaded Kuwait the US stopped and has been against him ever since.

 

[Commie #4522]

Another crazy assertion from the other side. The US only gets about 25% of its oil from Persian Gulf nations. It would be far easier to let Saddam brutalize his people at will and get oil for far cheaper. The US used to try to deal with him, but when it was apparent he became more brutal and eventually invaded Kuwait the US stopped and has been against him ever since.

yeah Im sure the US governemnt invaded Iraq out of the kindness of their hearts in order to help the so called "oppressed" iraqi people. are you even reading what you're writing?

 

[Tulkas12]

Yeah, whered you get, that? Fox News, rofl? maybe you should consdier your sources and don't just listen to every single thing you are told.

I'm justgoing to sit here and wait for Vietnam 2.. I mean, Iraq, to be over by the 2008 elections, or the 2012 elections, when the democrats pull us out and you and your neocons are going to be disgraced out of credibility.

History movies in cycles and its just timebefore the aemrican people are fed up with Iraq like they were with Vietnam and we WILL pull outof this useless war that no one knows why we are figting for it and having our men die there for and wasting all the money there.

just keep waiting, I'll have the last laugh I promise

Whose being told what? Who are you getting your info from? Mindless speculation? Idoitic rantings of a commie wannabe? Maybe the Press Puppy Manifesto.

Whatever, I don't watch fox, I listen to NPR and watch CNN-BBC. So yeah prolly the same sources as you. I have a suggestion, if you are enamoured with your current line of thinking you should try the nation. Maybe then you could make a rational argument. at least a more rational than just yelling "WAR FOR OIL, WAR FOR OIL!".

Last point. Your might be right we might fail in Iraq. Don't blame the inept administration though, blame your fellow americans, who haven't had a spine since WWII.

 

[Tulkas12]

yeah Im sure the US governemnt invaded Iraq out of the kindness of their hearts in order to help the so called "oppressed" iraqi people. are you even reading what you're writing?

Moron. <-Warned for trolling.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

yeah Im sure the US governemnt invaded Iraq out of the kindness of their hearts in order to help the so called "oppressed" iraqi people. are you even reading what you're writing?

Well, there were many reasons the US invaded Iraq. They are spelled out in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. You can read it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Yes, one of those reason was freeing the people of Iraq.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime

The Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Yes, I'm reading what I'm writing. I was extremely disappointed we didn't remove Saddam in '91. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people died in the interum because we didn't. While I completely fault the terrorists, Sunni insurgents and criminals for the deaths now going on in Iraq, we again didn't handle the anti-insurgency well at all.

 

[Mott1]

Islam is one root of Islamic terrorism. It's fair to say that the former foreign policies of the West is at the very least partly responsible for most of the problems our planet is facing today wether it's religious terrorism or the sad state of the African continent. I can't simply look at Islamic terrorism and stricly blame religion for it, it's more complicated than that. Acknowledging that Islam is one of the root of Islamic terrorism is a step forward. To think that it's the only reason for violent actions is not.

I don't think that anyone will argue that U.S. foriegn policies are perfect.
American foreign policies change with each new president. Some of those policies have been wrong. Those mistakes can be attributed to ignorance, paranoia and faulty intelligence but rarely to sheer malice.
The same could be said about the foriegn policies of other nations. The problems our world is facing today cannot be attributed only to the U.S., all nations have a dynamic impact on world events some more than others.
As I have stated previously Islam is the root cause for Islamic terrorism.
It is encumbant upon all Muslims to wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim as mandated in the Islamic doctrine. This jihadi movement is not just some modern day phenomenon that is a direct result of U.S. foreign policy, this movement existed since the inception of Islam.
It loses momentum, gains momentum or lies dormant depending on the overall sentiment of the Muslim majority. This Jihadi movement is clawless without the support of the Muslim majority. This is not to say that all Muslims will actively engage in this Islamic fundamental movement, however world events that are dictated by political decisions such as the war on Iraq and afghanistan will inadvertantly cause moderate Muslims to support this movement. They will buy into jihadi propaganda that the West has waged war against Muslims, that that West has once again taken up the Crusades.
Unfortunatley this jihadi propaganda has been successful, it is successful only because one cannot deny what Islam demands of its followers.
Islam is the cause of Islamic terrorism,The political decisions of the U.S. or other nations only trigger this fundamental Islamic movement.