Reasons for the crashing in WTC

[Vrylakas]

Moving slightly back towards the topic, here are Musharraf's comments, made today at an Islamic science & technology conference, which support what I said initially on this thread. The new Syrian President said something very similar about a month ago, and even suggested that the Moslem world should accept Israel and stop supporting anyone with a gun who spouts anti-Israeli causes.

Of particular importance is the following statement:

"Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race," he told the delegates. President Musharraf then made a comparison of the economic growth in Islamic countries with some developed countries. While the collective Gross National Product of the all Muslim countries stands at $1,200bn, that of Germany alone is $2,500bn and that of Japan $5,500bn.

 

[allhailIndia]

I hope and sincerely pray that no western leader takes Musharraf's promise of "cleansing " Pakistan seriously and gives him cash. Living on the right side of the LOC, I can quite confidently say that he has done nothing to prevent Islamic organizations from sending militants into India in the past few days. Just yesterday, Pakistani based militants killed 8 civilians in Kashmir and yet he calls them Freedom Fighters.

For any real change to come in Pakistan, it should come through a democratically elected goverment and not a dictator who legitimizes himself by calling himself "President".:rocket2:
:ripper:
:rocket3:
:rocket:

 

[Simon Darkshade]

He may be a military dictator, but he's OUR military dictator

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Feck! Sorry, double post

 

[allhailIndia]

Whatever, he's still a scumbag

 

[stavro]

Thanks everybody for responding to my post. I think its important to keep discussing subjects such as this.

Okay, so many nations aren't responsible global citizens. I did accept that, but I pointed out that America comes in for more attention because it is the world's greatest power. When the richest guy in town acts like he's owns the place - even if that lies within his rights - it annoys everyone else. You can't deny that, even if you disagree with it.

My real issue, however, is with the United States' hypocrisy. It CLAIMS to be a good global citizen. It IS seeking the moral high ground - do the words "good vs evil" ring a bell? So is it wrong to ask whether the US is living up to its high flown rhetoric? Does this make me a supporter of terrorism?

Greadius, you say that in the eyes of the US constitution, an American life is worth more than a foreign citizen's life. Well, I'm not talking about the Constitution. I'm talking about what is morally right. You seem very cavalier with other people's lives: if it came down to it, would you be happy to drop that bomb, not knowing if the people below were terrorists or non-combatants? I sure couldn't do it, and when it came to the crunch, I don't think that you would be able to either.

Then again, I admit that if the US had not attacked Afghanistan, its likely that Osama bin Laden would have launched more attacks. For me, this is a moral dilemma. Do you strike and kill, in the expectation that someone is going to try and kill you? I'm a Christian, and I find that a very hard question to deal with, considering that taking a life is probably the worst thing anyone can do. I don't think we should take civilian casualties and 'collateral damage' quite so lightly as we do.

Dingbat, you talk about the '.223 calibre migraine' used by the Israelis. It hasn't worked very well, has it? Now more than ever, the Israelis look like they're beat - and even if they had every single F-16 and Abrams tank in the world, it wouldn't do them any good. Until they realise that, and set about compromising with the Palesitinians, they're fighting a losing battle.

That really ties in with what I'm trying to say here. Sure, the US doesn't have to be a responsible global citizen if it doesn't want to be. No one can force the US to respect other nations - and it seems that there are many people who think that this would be dangerous and self-defeating. But ultimately, I think it is in America's self-interest to do so. While America is as strong as it is now, it can afford to pound its enemies with cruise missiles - and not care about whether those enemies happen to be global terrorists or nomadic tribesmen. Unfortunately, America is not going to be the top dog forever. And when it loses that position, then all the grievances and jealousies it has created will come back to haunt it. What goes around, comes around.

 

[joespaniel]

It was a loaded question to begin with.

 

[allhailIndia]

i agree with Stavro.
This mindless warfare has gone on too long with neither side having proved anything. If the US had decided to get tough with he Israelis and play fair with the Palestinians, a major cause of anti-US sentiment among ordinary Arabs would have been mellowed.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by stavro
Greadius, you say that in the eyes of the US constitution, an American life is worth more than a foreign citizen's life. Well, I'm not talking about the Constitution. I'm talking about what is morally right.

It comes down to this. If one of two people has to die, one American and one foreign, I would prefer it to be the foreigner. If it is a choise between a foreigner who is allied to me and a foreigner who has stated he hates my guts, I'd prefer it to be the one who hates my guts. People DIE in military operations. That is an unpleasant truth in all conflicts and one I think many people have yet to figure out. Morally, a Government is beholden to take into account its OWN population first. Once those needs are met, then it can start worrying about others.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by stavro
Dingbat, you talk about the '.223 calibre migraine' used by the Israelis. It hasn't worked very well, has it? Now more than ever, the Israelis look like they're beat - and even if they had every single F-16 and Abrams tank in the world, it wouldn't do them any good. Until they realise that, and set about compromising with the Palesitinians, they're fighting a losing battle.

That's all well and good, but it wasn't the point of this argument.

You submitted the viewpoint that the loss of innocent lives was not acceptable. I countered with the argument that war basically means innocent lives will be lost so your argument boils down to the complete renunciation of war as a viable option for nations to resolve differences.

I then proceeded to propose an alternative to war: the government sanctioned assassination. The point was to show that there were alternatives to war to eliminate dangers to a state which also limits loss of innocent life. The problem is that most people consider state sponsered assassinations to be repugnant.

My final point was that the non-American world is being a little hypocritical about this. The U.S. faces what it would consider to be a clear an present danger to itself and it's citizens. Yet many would deny them the right to defend themselves. In fact, we begin to see a transference of the blame from the agressors (the terrorists) to the people defending themselves (the Americans).

Hope that clears that up,
/bruce

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
i agree with Stavro.
This mindless warfare has gone on too long with neither side having proved anything. If the US had decided to get tough with he Israelis and play fair with the Palestinians, a major cause of anti-US sentiment among ordinary Arabs would have been mellowed.

Perhaps you would be kind enought to list the ways in which the U.S. doesn't "play fair" with the Palestinians.

Let's please concentrate on real grievances and not on arms sales.

Thanks,
/bruce

 

[allhailIndia]

Why does Arafat have to pull back his "terrorists" while the Israeli army can go around blowing up any no. of Palestinians

Why is it perfectly legitimate for the Israelis to treat Arafat as a terrorist, while Ariel Sharon bullies him around?

About arms sales, when the Israelis get hundreds of tons of weapons, if the Palestinians so much as get themselves a gun to defend themselves, there is International Condemnation, Israeli incursion and rocket attacks. IS THIS NOT UNFAIR

 

[DingBat]

Wait a minute. You said that the U.S. was not "playing fair" with the Palestinians. Perhaps you really meant to say the Israelis???

I fail to see how the U.S. is involved in any of the examples you have provided. Please provide examples of how the U.S. has not played fair with the Palestinians.

Thanks,
/bruce

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by D.Shaffer


It comes down to this. If one of two people has to die, one American and one foreign, I would prefer it to be the foreigner. If it is a choise between a foreigner who is allied to me and a foreigner who has stated he hates my guts, I'd prefer it to be the one who hates my guts. People DIE in military operations. That is an unpleasant truth in all conflicts and one I think many people have yet to figure out. Morally, a Government is beholden to take into account its OWN population first. Once those needs are met, then it can start worrying about others.

What if the choice was between an American who has stated that he hates your guts and a foreigner who has pledged his friendship?

Point being: stop playing national priorites and judge people on their own personal merit.

If I have to choose between a Bryan Adams CD and a Radiohead CD, I would buy the Radiohead one. Bryan Adams is Canadian, but his music is just plain awful.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by sysyphus

Point being: stop playing national priorites and judge people on their own personal merit.

If I have to choose between a Bryan Adams CD and a Radiohead CD, I would buy the Radiohead one. Bryan Adams is Canadian, but his music is just plain awful.

Judge people on their own personal merits. Laudable goal. Certainly something to strive towards. Rather unrealistic when dealing with nations and warfare. What a wonderful world it would be if we could stop and evaluate each person in a conflict and determine if they are truely an enemy, or just a victim of circumstances. If only we would have had such clarity in WWII, we could have spared all the Germans who hated Hitler and were good people that were stuck in the oppressiveness of the regime.

And is it just me, or did you just compare music purchase to the decision to end human life?

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by knowltok2


Judge people on their own personal merits. Laudable goal. Certainly something to strive towards. Rather unrealistic when dealing with nations and warfare. What a wonderful world it would be if we could stop and evaluate each person in a conflict and determine if they are truely an enemy, or just a victim of circumstances. If only we would have had such clarity in WWII, we could have spared all the Germans who hated Hitler and were good people that were stuck in the oppressiveness of the regime.

And is it just me, or did you just compare music purchase to the decision to end human life?

You know what... I kind of agree. Such verification IS, indeed, impossible. Wars are exercises of generalization, no arguments about that.

However, I don’t think that the comparison was exactly absurd, because it seems to me that it was not about raising the music to the same level of the human life, but just an example of how choices can be made based in other bases than nationality.

You are right that music is not something that can be compared to human life. But, all together, NOTHING is. So the example may not be perfect, but, as any other possibly would, I think it works fine as an illustration.

Besides, even if such a goal – judging each people for his or her own merits – is unrealistic, well, so it is to wish that never again the world will see a war. But I dream of it anyway. So, quoting someone that have a much greater ability with words than me… “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.” Thanks God to that, because dreams are how achievements begin.

Now, I understand that wars are, sometimes, impossible to avoid. And, within a war, it is foolish to think that there will be no generalization about the malice of the enemies, as well as no killing of “circumstance victims”.

But that kind of thinking: “it’s better them than us”… Well, that’s the very reasons WHY wars even start. Because there’s always something that people are willing to kill innocent people for.

I wouldn’t blame any nation for striking back with full strength after suffering a massive attack like the one on 11th September, even knowing that the price would be the killing of some innocent people. I probably would want revenge too, if it had happened in my country.

But to see that even the wealthiest and most advanced nation in the world will answer to a barbarian act with another barbarian act – a state-sanctioned counter-strike that would certainly kill innocent people – is something that makes me really sad.

Not with U.S.A., but with humanity.

As species, we still have a LOT to learn.

Regards .

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by knowltok2


And is it just me, or did you just compare music purchase to the decision to end human life?

Listen an entire Cyndi Lauper CD and I guarentee you will be willing to consider ending a human life...

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by sysyphus
What if the choice was between an American who has stated that he hates your guts and a foreigner who has pledged his friendship?

Keep in mind what I was replying too. A government has, in effect, a social bargain with its populous to look after their needs and wants. When it doesnt, bad things tend to happen. In effect, yes that American would have a better right to living through it then the foreigner would. On the personal level, it might seem callous, but think about it when scaled up. If by bombing a city and incinerating its one thousand inhabitants, I (I standing in for the government in charge) save the lives of 5000 of my own people, I would be negligent to not do so. The clarity of action involved gets a bit murkier as the ratio starts moving 'down' toward 1:1, but a government that starts sacrificing its own citizens to save those of another country isnt going to last very long.

Point being: stop playing national priorites and judge people on their own personal merit.

Who's definition of personal merit? Unfortunately, what I judge may be beneficial to me will be different from what others will be beneficial. If I had some means to read peoples minds on a wide scale basis and the ability to target only those who were hostile, it'd be a wonderful thing. But unfortunately that is in the realms of the fantastic. Until such a magic solution occured, we are going to continue to have 'innocents' die, but if they HAVE to die, I'd again prefer it to be the others rather then my neighbors, friends or potentially my family, many of whom are in military service.

 

[Vrylakas]

AllHailIndia wrote:

If the US had decided to get tough with he Israelis and play fair with the Palestinians, a major cause of anti-US sentiment among ordinary Arabs would have been mellowed.

Do you think the Islamic world would mellow towards the U.S. if Washington pressured India to give all of Kashmir to Pakistan...? And perhaps the U.S. hasn't been fair with the Uighurs by not pressuring the Chinese to give them a home land? Should the U.S. then force the Philippines to surrender half of their country to the southern Moros, and cease criticism of the Sudanese government for its near-genocidical policies towards the non-Islamic southern Sudan?

Also, if the Arab world is really so concerned about the Palestinian cause, why have they refused them citizenship or even settlement rights in most of their countries? Here's a quote from an article about Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi dissident: "Israel was built on the destruction of 400 Palestinian villages. [In Iraqi Kurdistan] there were three or four thousand villages destroyed by this {Hussein's] regime, just leveled. Bulldozed over. I handled in my own hands the register: date of elimination, name of village, map reference." The article continues to say, "Makiya arranged for the haul to be smuggled to the United States, and wrote up his findings in a book he entitled 'Cruelty and Silence'. It fiercely attacked Arab intellectuals in the West for colluding, through their silence, in the attrocities being committed in the Arab world. In placing the fight for Palestinian sovereignty before everything else, he argued, they gave succor to Saddam's campaigns of extermination." (WSJ, 17. Feb.)

The reality is, again, the Arab world is using the Palestinian cause and the West as a bogeyman, a scapegoat, for the real ills in the Arab world - ills whose causes are much closer to home than most Moslems like to admit, at least publically.

 

[allhailIndia]

Just when a real argument starts, It turns out I cant come online for another two weeks due to my finals. Anyway here is the parting shot

1.What I want is the VIOLENCE :ripper: :rocket2: :rocket3: :rocket: :ak47: to stop in Israel. I want the US to play a positive role in getting the violence to stop. I don't care what comes out of the talks as long as they are successful .

2.All right may be the Arabs are being hypocritical about their stand on Palestine, but what if a Palestinian, ordinary guy not Hamas or anything decides to do another 9/11???It is not ordinary issues like rights/land/regional dispute which causes people to go over the edge, but that awful feeling of helplessness when your family has been slaughtered by tanks and m,achine guns and nobody in the world raised a finger to stop the act. The other examples you mentioned are also equally dangerous. Kashmiris have now stopped taking to terrorism in great nos., because they were being targeted by the so-called freedom fighters. However, Uighurs are aproblem for not just the Chinese but also for those who are fighting Fundamentalist terror. All people ask for is fair treatment, when that is not given, and instead peace is seen as weakness, that is when terrorism starts and a one way road opens.