The Left and Islam

[Katheryn]

I came up with a simple search you could have done on your own. I did answer your question: "yes US military deliberately targets civilians". You could have done the same yourself. My claims are backed.... try and learn how to use Google, ok?

First of all, how do you know a 'civilian' from an 'enemy belligerent'?

Per the Geneva Convention: A uniform.

If they wear no uniform, how are these guys supposed to know the difference? If these civilians want protection, then they should be identified as such, or the insurgents should identify themselves. They don't really need a uniform, they can just put an armband the same color on their arms, or headbands or hats. If they care about the civilian population, they would do that. They obviously don't care. Why should the U.S. soldiers put themselves at risk because no one cares about civilians? Why are they the ones forced to pull back at the critical moment.

Secondly, these guys are not policemen. They are not rescue workers, they are not construction workers, youth group leaders, advisers to loya girgas or anything else. They are soldiers. They are trained to KILL. They want to treat them as peace officers, they are NOT.

The Iraqi people need to get to work building their country. Instead, they want to bash heads. That is BS. We need to get out now. Unfortunately, they only want us to get out, soon, not now. They aren't ready.

They need to stop worrying about revenge and power and start working together. We let them think it is OK to be sooo sensitive!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Seriously, I think this thread should be stickied and all threads that overlap with it should be deleted, that way we can corrall all the Islam-obsessives into one thread where they can post dumb links at each other.

 

[Gelion]

It doesn't mater what other sources you dig they will point to the same stories.

Not one of your links pointed out any proof that the US targets civilians as a tactic. What it does show is there are some criminals, some accidents, some questionable acusations and some collateral damege.

One: Follow my first link. There are other stories than the ones from BBC (that is if you dare)
Two: Now we are narrowing it down to "tactics"? No US does not deliberately target civilians as a tactic. Happy now?

 

[blackheart]

First of all, how do you know a 'civilian' from an 'enemy belligerent'?

If they wear no uniform, how are these guys supposed to know the difference? If these civilians want protection, then they should be identified as such, or the insurgents should identify themselves. They don't really need a uniform, they can just put an armband the same color on their arms, or headbands or hats. If they care about the civilian population, they would do that. They obviously don't care. Why should the U.S. soldiers put themselves at risk because no one cares about civilians? Why are they the ones forced to pull back at the critical moment.

You don't win a war against a superior opponent by fighting fairly. US soldiers are expected to be able to differentiate because that is their mission goal, the US Armed Force's longtime standing of being judicious and fair in combat and the honor of America is on the line. That's why we have professional soldiers and professional standards.

Secondly, these guys are not policemen. They are not rescue workers, they are not construction workers, youth group leaders, advisers to loya girgas or anything else. They are soldiers. They are trained to KILL. They want to treat them as peace officers, they are NOT.

That adds to the point that the war is being waged ineffectively.

They need to stop worrying about revenge and power and start working together. We let them think it is OK to be sooo sensitive!

What? Being sensitive would be having them hold massive demonstrations every other day coupled with labor strikes. Car bombings and daylight gunfights is not sensitive action.

 

[De Lorimier]

I'd be interested to know why that article didn't touch on the cosy relationship between the Western right and Augusto Pinchet and the Saudi Royals.

I'll make a note here (even though I'm not a true "leftist") that mine and the opposition of so-called "leftists" to Islamaphobia is not a defence of extremism, but rather a struggle against it.

And if you think that's rubbish, maybe you ought to note that those who decry Islam on these boards start thread after thread after thread on this subject and post very little else, whilst those on this forum who argue against have a much broader range of subjects to discuss.

Who is the extremist I wonder?

Seriously, I think this thread should be stickied and all threads that overlap with it should be deleted, that way we can corrall all the Islam-obsessives into one thread where they can post dumb links at each other.

Two best posts of the thread. I like PP's idea a lot.

 

[sonorakitch]

It works because certain people are not willing to accept information unless it comes from "approved" sites. I find it dull.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6152118.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5311056.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5037124.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3209426.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5096660.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5134106.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5028830.stm

This is only from BBC...

Your series of links are pretty funny. They concentrate on specific isolated incidents, two of which overlap, and a roadblock shooting.

Where does your evidence cite that the US Military is actively seeking civilian casualties? Did you not agree with naziassbandits view that terrorists inflicting maximum casualties upon civilians was akin to bombing Iraq? And now you provide these links to demonstrate your hypothesis?

Come on...

~Chris

 

[MamboJoel]

Some, but not all Leftists do show an unhealthy and irrational support, or at least tolerance, for radical Islam. In the US, when Hezbollah or Hamas blows up a civilian target, everyone condemns it. In Europe, when Hezbollah or Hamas does the exact same thing, the government says something like "We regret that these actions were the inevitable result of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank", or some other crappy speech that turns the blame around on Israel.

Come on, you deserve more than this... This is clichés again : Europe = Left = Blame Israel.

Europe = Left is another fallacious shortcut, and I think most leftist Europeans hardly could write anything contradicting this because they would just find it hilarious.
I don't know if a debate between a right wing european like me and any conservative american would be very rich, but let me tell you the difference between us and them : we do not give any credit to the way today's american conservatives view the world outside America, we (in our great majority) think it's naive, fallacious, manichean, dangerous, full of préjugés and easy disgusting shortcuts.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The article and many who praised it just can't seem to notice there's a small difference between Islam, and militant Islam. Between Muslims and violent Extremist Muslims.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero2005/cohen.html

Cohen says he’s not frightened: “Immigrants have always been part of our city and Amsterdam is, and remains, tolerant. Jews should not be afraid to walk the streets wearing their skullcaps, Moroccans must be able to find jobs, and homosexuals must not be insulted. The only ‘us and them’ that exist are the citizens who want to live together in peace and those who don’t.”

 

[Gelion]

Your series of links are pretty funny. They concentrate on specific isolated incidents, two of which overlap, and a roadblock shooting.

Where does your evidence cite that the US Military is actively seeking civilian casualties? Did you not agree with naziassbandits view that terrorists inflicting maximum casualties upon civilians was akin to bombing Iraq? And now you provide these links to demonstrate your hypothesis?

Come on...

~Chris

These links are there to show to the likes of you that the things I talked about do happen. They have been carefuly selected from a relatively "safe" source (read undamaging to a common pro-Iraq war brain) on purpose. If you want other sources (and those other sources do prove that all of this is on a large scale) then google them. I've shown that it can be done.

In very simple words:
"The BBC links are not there to show that "this" happens on a large scale, they are there to show that even BBC cannot excape reporting that. The scale of "thoe acts" (more detailed information) can be found on other sources"

I'm yet to see a military that accepts that they have commited large scale atrocities during the war they are currently in. So isn't it logical that certain information is hard to find?

 

[Winner]

I find it facinating how new political terms, ordered from the very top, like "Islamofashist" enter the everyday use. Propaganda machine in action. I would not mind that if the word "propaganda" was used for all sides of the conflict. The funniest part however is that the "true" side always claims that the other one is "brainwashed"...

That term is completely wrong. Islamism has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is an ideology based on strong nationalism, while Islamism is based on religion and much less on the idea of strong nation.

So, I usually use

Islamism for the ideology based on Islam (in this respect, organizations and movements like Hamas, Hezbollah or UIC are Islamist)
Jihadism for the idea of global holy war against the perceived enemies of Islam (so Al-Qaeda is Jihadist organization, but you don't have to be affiliated to it in order to be a Jihadist)

I think many people simply want to box the various violent movements based on Islam into well-known categories. But it is not that simple.

 

[Sidhe]

Oh? Possibly.... so you judge the world in black and white?

No I merely meant that not judging the world in black and white being hard to do is not as hard for a European, it was a joke, a sort of sarcastic dig at the US. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously anyway.

 

[Gelion]

That term is completely wrong. Islamism has nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is an ideology based on strong nationalism, while Islamism is based on religion and much less on the idea of strong nation.

So, I usually use

Islamism for the ideology based on Islam (in this respect, organizations and movements like Hamas, Hezbollah or UIC are Islamist)
Jihadism for the idea of global holy war against the perceived enemies of Islam (so Al-Qaeda is Jihadist organization, but you don't have to be affiliated to it in order to be a Jihadist)

I think many people simply want to box the various violent movements based on Islam into well-known categories. But it is not that simple.

Good post man I use "Islamism" myself.

No I merely meant that not judging the world in black and white being hard to do is not as hard for a European, it was a joke, a sort of sarcastic dig at the US. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously anyway.

I forgot where I was meant to go after your reply so lets just leave it at that

 

[Azash]

This put me of. I didnt' start reading the article and I already know what it is going to talk about. Sorry this is toomuch propaganda for me to find any logical sense in this.

Same here. I will not give any credit to anything that article says.

 

[Elrohir]

Come on, you deserve more than this... This is clichés again : Europe = Left = Blame Israel.

Europe = Left is another fallacious shortcut, and I think most leftist Europeans hardly could write anything contradicting this because they would just find it hilarious.
I don't know if a debate between a right wing european like me and any conservative american would be very rich, but let me tell you the difference between us and them : we do not give any credit to the way today's american conservatives view the world outside America, we (in our great majority) think it's naive, fallacious, manichean, dangerous, full of préjugés and easy disgusting shortcuts.

Did I say that all Europeans are leftists? No. But Europe is, on the whole, much more liberal ("Liberal" in the way it is used in the US, not in the classical sense) than the United States, and much more friendly to groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, as opposed to Israel, even if it's by not wanting to take any side at all.

As for how Europeans in general, and European "conservatives" in particular view us, that doesn't concern me a great deal, because I don't think America could, or would change enough to ever make you all satisfied with us. If we don't take action, then we're heartless and greedy; if we do we're imperialistic monsters. I suppose it's only natural in a way, the top dog is usually hated simply for being the strongest. It's still irritating though.

 

[Commie #4522]

Maybe it's because we both understand the neocon agenda and that an enemy of an enemy is a friend? Think about it. Hell, I'd rather believe in Islamists than murdering neocon fascist capitalist pigs.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Truronian]

Maybe it's because we both understand the neocon agenda and that an enemy of an enemy is a friend? Think about it. Hell, I'd rather believe in Islamists than murdering neocon fascist capitalist pigs.

You forgot smelly.

 

[Elrohir]

Maybe it's because we both understand the neocon agenda and that an enemy of an enemy is a friend? Think about it. Hell, I'd rather believe in Islamists than murdering neocon fascist capitalist pigs.

Those "neocons" that you despise so much are the ones that keep you safe and alive, and able to speak your mind. The Islamists that you seem to admire so much would gladly cut your athiestic communist head off and call it a good days work. That's the difference between the conservative Americans whom you hate, and the murderous Muslims you support.

Try growing up sometime, you insufferable little troll.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Commie #4522]

Those "neocons" that you despise so much are the ones that keep you safe and alive, and able to speak your mind. The Islamists that you seem to admire so much would gladly cut your athiestic communist head off and call it a good days work. That's the difference between the conservative Americans whom you hate, and the murderous Muslims you support.

Try growing up sometime, you insufferable little troll.

How naive of you. The Neocons are keeping me safe? Yeah, I sure feel safe after they beat up a beehive (the Middle East) for no reason. But serioulsly, I think we'd be way safer if we didn't invade countries millions of miles away for special interests.

And you say Muslims would kill me? I think not. They would surely kill you however. I've done nothing to the Muslims and I've never supported any war you guys started. And your image of Muslims being bloodthirsty murderers is just Bush sponsored propaganda. I'd feel safer in a room with a Muslim than a racist imperialist neocon Republican conservative white male.

Perhaps it is you that should grow up and learn to accept other peoples and opinions.

 

[Sidhe]

Those "neocons" that you despise so much are the ones that keep you safe and alive, and able to speak your mind. The Islamists that you seem to admire so much would gladly cut your athiestic communist head off and call it a good days work. That's the difference between the conservative Americans whom you hate, and the murderous Muslims you support.

Try growing up sometime, you insufferable little troll.

Yeah pardon me if I don't thank them personally for making the ME even more of a crap hole than it already was, introducing torture to the menu. Basically misquoting facts, lying, and trying to push through a strategy that before 9/11 was considered nuts. Keeping the world safe by making it a more dangerous place

 

[Commie #4522]

Yeah pardon me if I don't thank them personally for making the ME even more of a crap hole than it already was, introducing torture to the menu. Basically misquoting facts, lying, and trying to push through a strategy that before 9/11 was considered nuts. Keeping the world safe by making it a more dangerous place

Yeah seriously. These neocons are a walking contradiction. Good thing they are the end of their lifespan.