Full Version: Are we being drawn into Jihad?
CD article
Read the above article and answer:
1) Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Read the above article and answer:
1) Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Is America begining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith?
No.
I think Usama Bin Laden started a religious war and GW Bush foolishly picked up the gauntlet.
I do believe however, that between them, the two polar opposites of Islamic and christian fundamentalism are holding the rest of the world hostage in this pointless drama.
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
I have no idea what the majority of Arabs (or other Muslims) think about this. I suspect the vast majority of them though are well aware of the hypocrisy of the situation, but will inevitably back their hypocrites before they back ours.
I've seen and heard many people ask why it is that Muslims never seem to condemn Islamic extremist terrorist actions, and I've pondered that myself.
Perhaps its for the same reason that the west looks on with bored indifference as 100,000 Iraqi's are slaughtered in our name?
No.
I think Usama Bin Laden started a religious war and GW Bush foolishly picked up the gauntlet.
I do believe however, that between them, the two polar opposites of Islamic and christian fundamentalism are holding the rest of the world hostage in this pointless drama.
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
I have no idea what the majority of Arabs (or other Muslims) think about this. I suspect the vast majority of them though are well aware of the hypocrisy of the situation, but will inevitably back their hypocrites before they back ours.
I've seen and heard many people ask why it is that Muslims never seem to condemn Islamic extremist terrorist actions, and I've pondered that myself.
Perhaps its for the same reason that the west looks on with bored indifference as 100,000 Iraqi's are slaughtered in our name?
- Is America beginning a modern crusade against the Islamic faith?
I am go to go out on a limb here and the article is lame. It reminds me of the age old question, "Both teams pray to god to win the Super Bowl. Did the winner have more faith, was more moral, and that is why they won?" Who knows? What I do know that is that people's faith in something gives them strength, courage, and the ability to fight against the enemy.
The article lacks any attempt to take on what the Crusade Wars meant and tries to blanket the entire action of the war on terror as nothing more then a Hitler-like purification of the Middle East to become Christian. However let's look at the Crusade Wars, instead of tossing around the word like some sort taboo infraction of Christian v. Muslim: holy wars.
"For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands." At the time Muslims ruled the land with far superior intelligents, a progressive thought and capitol. Hell bent on ruling the world the sought battle after battle to take over Europe. The Muslim crusades began with the death of the prophet Mohammed. "They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul."
"The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East." It was this that began the mission to rid the Muslims from conquering Europe. A defensive move, not a motive to kill Muslims.
Yes. But then that is the nature of the extermist Muslim faith. As shown above, shortly after Mohammed death, Muslims began a land grab campaign equal to the Russians post World War II. Grabbing and converting area's that were dominantly Christian. But this was part of Mohammed's vision of dying by the sword. It is only natural for modern Muslim fundamentalist not to take the aspects of Peace from the Koran, but to use the parts of extremist justification of warrior behavior.
Yes. Since the beginning of the Crusades, to the extremists Muslims (like OBL), the wars have been about converting the non believers. However this in no means is the point of view of the coalition. The coalition is defending itself against further terror attacks. To claim that the coalition even has this thought of converting Muslims, is to deny the very thing the coalition stands for: freedom. The freedom to choose your religion.(Source)OVERALL, yes this is the Crusade Wars. Muslims going for land, converting the non believers, fighting hard to force their faith versus the Christians, Jews, Pagans, and the rest of the world forcing their faith in freedom and liberty for the world.
Respectfully, I don't think the point of the article in question was to "try to blanket the entire action of the war on terror as nothing more then a Hitler-like purification of the Middle East to become Christian." It seems more like one writer's pointed critique of what is taking place in Fallujah, against the backdrop of extreme viewpoints on both sides treating this as a crusade. If anything, I think the writer is trying to point out that anyone simplifying this to a crusade mentality "Muslim vs Christian" conflict is missing the point altogether. Whatever the case, it's only his view.
I did find the article Yehoshua referenced about the Crusades actually being the fault of the Muslims curious, however, so I did a little looking into that. Apparently, Thomas F. Madden is a Professor at a Christian Jesuit University and has authored a revisionist book, "The Real History of the Crusades." His views are not in accord with mainstream historian thinking on the origins of the Crusades, and in his article, "Crusade Propaganda," he writes:
I am curious how Professor Madden views the entry of the Christian Army into Jerusalem in the First Crusade in July 1099 and the Christian leadership's decision to promptly massacre every unarmed Muslim man, woman, and child (an event which took several days and numbered in the many thousands), and how he would integrate that with his view that the Crusades were no more offensive than the American invasion of Normandy.
I did find the article Yehoshua referenced about the Crusades actually being the fault of the Muslims curious, however, so I did a little looking into that. Apparently, Thomas F. Madden is a Professor at a Christian Jesuit University and has authored a revisionist book, "The Real History of the Crusades." His views are not in accord with mainstream historian thinking on the origins of the Crusades, and in his article, "Crusade Propaganda," he writes:
QUOTE
Pope Urban II called the First Crusade in 1095. Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the crusade's real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formerly Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy.
I am curious how Professor Madden views the entry of the Christian Army into Jerusalem in the First Crusade in July 1099 and the Christian leadership's decision to promptly massacre every unarmed Muslim man, woman, and child (an event which took several days and numbered in the many thousands), and how he would integrate that with his view that the Crusades were no more offensive than the American invasion of Normandy.
Yehoshuam, I agree that the article has bias, though I don't think it is lame. I won't insult the literature you referenced beceause I respect you, but don't assume that anyone here will accept christian rationalization of something like the crusades.
I like the Superbowl analogy, because it fits. (I personally think that religion exists only for this purpose... to give people strength and courage, and disillusionment).
I feel pretty sad when I hear arguments like yehoshua's about "extremist muslims" because extremist christians are just as bad. So are extremist anythings in my book because religion, or atleast violence in the name of religion is stupid. Even when it's the christian god invoking it.
I think both sides opportunistically believe that their faith is the right one, that their cause is the right one and that in the end they are justified and will be rewarded. I think they are both wrong.
We create our own distress. We create our own Jyhad... and certainly Bush has done quite a bit to feed those fires.
I like the Superbowl analogy, because it fits. (I personally think that religion exists only for this purpose... to give people strength and courage, and disillusionment).
I feel pretty sad when I hear arguments like yehoshua's about "extremist muslims" because extremist christians are just as bad. So are extremist anythings in my book because religion, or atleast violence in the name of religion is stupid. Even when it's the christian god invoking it.
I think both sides opportunistically believe that their faith is the right one, that their cause is the right one and that in the end they are justified and will be rewarded. I think they are both wrong.
We create our own distress. We create our own Jyhad... and certainly Bush has done quite a bit to feed those fires.
Right off the bat the atircle take's the battle out of context. Report's have been circulating about the situation in Fallujah under insurgent control and paints a very extreme rule more toward the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The fact that most of the population fled the city show's you that the population did not support the insurgent's dream for wahhabism. The voice's blaring from the mosque speaker's caused the cities resident's to flee, not take up arms.
I like how they come to a conclusion of a pessimistic that also show's me they know next to nothing about military strategy. The least they could have done is to say that the outcome is unclear - as it is - because like any other effective operation it need's logistics. In Vietnam the enemy had vast underground command and control centers and supply lines that reached all the way to China.
Let me counter this from a more military perspective as opposed to a dramatic emotional conclusion that believe's we have allready lost the war.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
They also seem to contradict the estimated insurgent's killed as of today.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/13/...main/index.html
Of course this estimate may be overblown but the US military estimated it to be around 700.
BZZZ wrong again.
Damned if you do damned if you dont.
Yea because we failed to cut off the supply lines and the command and control nerve's.
This article is bunk, and the point that they are attempting to make co-inside's with radical element's within the Muslim world. It's good to know what side some people are taking.
Is America beginning a modern crusade against the Islamic faith?
Not unless you view radical extremist's within the religion as a "war against Islam".
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Some will, but I do not believe the majority will. There are many conflicting view's withing the Arab world, but I have no doubt the propaganda coming out of Radical elements within the Muslim world will sway a small percentage of Arabs to view it as such.
The fact that most of the population fled the city show's you that the population did not support the insurgent's dream for wahhabism. The voice's blaring from the mosque speaker's caused the cities resident's to flee, not take up arms.
I like how they come to a conclusion of a pessimistic that also show's me they know next to nothing about military strategy. The least they could have done is to say that the outcome is unclear - as it is - because like any other effective operation it need's logistics. In Vietnam the enemy had vast underground command and control centers and supply lines that reached all the way to China.
QUOTE
Religion aside, Falluja is a political and strategic disaster. America will lose even if it wins, as it will militarily.
There is, in fact, little or no point left to the offensive. It is being waged because it had taken on a life of its own. The elaborate American military machine, like any big bureaucracy, cannot quickly adjust to changing reality.
There is, in fact, little or no point left to the offensive. It is being waged because it had taken on a life of its own. The elaborate American military machine, like any big bureaucracy, cannot quickly adjust to changing reality.
Let me counter this from a more military perspective as opposed to a dramatic emotional conclusion that believe's we have allready lost the war.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
QUOTE
The Fallujah battle, which is just winding down, should be seen in the context a wider campaign against the enemy in the Sunni triangle
...
Taking Fallujah then, was not merely a symbolic political act to reduce a 'symbol of defiance', but a sound operational move. It interdicts the conveyor belt of destruction that flowed from the Syrian border towards Baghdad. The logical next step is to cut the line again near the Syrian border, perhaps at Anah, so that by taking out both ends the middle is left unsupported. Alternatively, the US could roll up the enemy line of communication going north by taking out Ramadi which would force the enemy to sortie from Haditha, a little ville a lot farther from Baghdad. Although this will not totally destroy the insurgency, it will throttle movement along their lines of communication considerably. Guerilla warfare, like all warfare, is logistics. It just takes different forms.
...
Taking Fallujah then, was not merely a symbolic political act to reduce a 'symbol of defiance', but a sound operational move. It interdicts the conveyor belt of destruction that flowed from the Syrian border towards Baghdad. The logical next step is to cut the line again near the Syrian border, perhaps at Anah, so that by taking out both ends the middle is left unsupported. Alternatively, the US could roll up the enemy line of communication going north by taking out Ramadi which would force the enemy to sortie from Haditha, a little ville a lot farther from Baghdad. Although this will not totally destroy the insurgency, it will throttle movement along their lines of communication considerably. Guerilla warfare, like all warfare, is logistics. It just takes different forms.
They also seem to contradict the estimated insurgent's killed as of today.
QUOTE
Of the estimated 2,000 to 3,000 insurgents in Falluja, half had already fled. There may only be a few hundred left. The rest are busy elsewhere, in nearby Ramdi and Samarra, causing mayhem.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/13/...main/index.html
QUOTE
Iraqi official says 1,000 insurgents killed
Of course this estimate may be overblown but the US military estimated it to be around 700.
QUOTE
The chief rationale for the Falluja offensive was to capture Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist. Trying to force residents into turning him in, the Americans have been bombing the city for two months.
BZZZ wrong again.
QUOTE
If the bombing was designed to produce Zarqawi in time for the American election, the actual invasion was held back to avoid the intrusion of possible bad news into the campaign. The Marines stormed the city within hours of George W. Bush's re-election.
Damned if you do damned if you dont.
QUOTE
America may be losing control of Iraq, as it had in the later stages of Vietnam.
Yea because we failed to cut off the supply lines and the command and control nerve's.
This article is bunk, and the point that they are attempting to make co-inside's with radical element's within the Muslim world. It's good to know what side some people are taking.
Is America beginning a modern crusade against the Islamic faith?
Not unless you view radical extremist's within the religion as a "war against Islam".
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Some will, but I do not believe the majority will. There are many conflicting view's withing the Arab world, but I have no doubt the propaganda coming out of Radical elements within the Muslim world will sway a small percentage of Arabs to view it as such.
QUOTE(Hero @ Nov 12 2004, 01:53 PM)
CD article
Read the above article and answer:
1) Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Read the above article and answer:
1) Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
I don't believe that this is a modern crusade against the Islamic faith. I do however believe that there are many Arabs who see it this way. In most Arab countries, the government is still directly connected to religion -- as it used to be in Europe. I do not believe that they see the US government as being separate from the Christian religion behind it. In fact, many people don't believe there is a separation.
I remember hearing a story a few years ago about the Dalai Lama talking to a group of people in the US. He was asked whether, if he was allowed to return to Tibet, he would restore a religious government or set up a government like the one in the US. He chuckled and responded by asking if the person really believed the US government was not a religious government.
Of course, some Arabs might also believe that it is a crusade to capture Middle Eastern natural resources.
1) Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith?
Actually, I think that we are bending over backwards so as not to appear to be crusading against Muslims. My opinion is that we should be honest - The Islamic faith has allowed a great many of its adherents to become completely psychotically intolerant with any different views, including differing views of Islam. For example, I read a great piece on this just today, comparing the (lack of) reaction to Van Gogh's murder to what would have happened if a Christian wack had purpotrated this crime.
A Hush over Hollywood - by Pat Sajak of all people.
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Just the nut jobs, who unfortunately number in the millions and are growing. Add the South-east Asian nut jobs into this as well.
And to parallel radical Islam, which is actually killing people, with Christianity is really insulting. As for extremists of any kind "extremism in defense of virtue is no vice." There is a difference and there are both good and evil, even for those with their heads in the sand.
Respectfully, this is not true. When Christians are blowing themselves up on buses in your town, let me know. When Christians are mutilating women's genitals so that thet can't safely have sex, let alone enjoy it, let me know. When Jews start stoning unfaithful women or mis-behaving kids like is done in Africa, please cite a source. When Chrstians intentionally murder 3,000 innocent civilians and openly justify it in the name of religion, please post here. Until then, your words fall hollow.
Jihad = murder based on faith. Yes, you can compare the crusades, but that was 1,000 years ago! OK, the inquisition, 300 years ago, but please - George Bush as Jihadi warrior, you need to re-think things. The only religious danger to mankind's safety is that of Islam. Period. Christian fundamentalists are zero danger to an Oregonian's safety. No Christians are keeping the other anti-Bush forces from gathering signatures for John Kerry or worshipping the moon or whatever. On the other hand, Jihadists want you dead dead dead, and are actively planning and acquiring the means to do just that. For you to say that it's the same thing as some mythical 'christian jihad' and that terrorism is no danger is both false on its face and offensive to Christians.
Actually, I think that we are bending over backwards so as not to appear to be crusading against Muslims. My opinion is that we should be honest - The Islamic faith has allowed a great many of its adherents to become completely psychotically intolerant with any different views, including differing views of Islam. For example, I read a great piece on this just today, comparing the (lack of) reaction to Van Gogh's murder to what would have happened if a Christian wack had purpotrated this crime.
A Hush over Hollywood - by Pat Sajak of all people.
QUOTE
Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It’s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.
So I’m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.
....
Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they’re not Christians or Jews.
There’s another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?
So I’m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.
....
Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they’re not Christians or Jews.
There’s another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Just the nut jobs, who unfortunately number in the millions and are growing. Add the South-east Asian nut jobs into this as well.
And to parallel radical Islam, which is actually killing people, with Christianity is really insulting. As for extremists of any kind "extremism in defense of virtue is no vice." There is a difference and there are both good and evil, even for those with their heads in the sand.
QUOTE(Hero @ Nov 12 2004, 05:06 PM)
I feel pretty sad when I hear arguments like yehoshua's about "extremist muslims" because extremist christians are just as bad. So are extremist anythings in my book because religion, or atleast violence in the name of religion is stupid. Even when it's the christian god invoking it.
I think both sides opportunistically believe that their faith is the right one, that their cause is the right one and that in the end they are justified and will be rewarded. I think they are both wrong.
We create our own distress. We create our own Jyhad... and certainly Bush has done quite a bit to feed those fires.
I think both sides opportunistically believe that their faith is the right one, that their cause is the right one and that in the end they are justified and will be rewarded. I think they are both wrong.
We create our own distress. We create our own Jyhad... and certainly Bush has done quite a bit to feed those fires.
Respectfully, this is not true. When Christians are blowing themselves up on buses in your town, let me know. When Christians are mutilating women's genitals so that thet can't safely have sex, let alone enjoy it, let me know. When Jews start stoning unfaithful women or mis-behaving kids like is done in Africa, please cite a source. When Chrstians intentionally murder 3,000 innocent civilians and openly justify it in the name of religion, please post here. Until then, your words fall hollow.
Jihad = murder based on faith. Yes, you can compare the crusades, but that was 1,000 years ago! OK, the inquisition, 300 years ago, but please - George Bush as Jihadi warrior, you need to re-think things. The only religious danger to mankind's safety is that of Islam. Period. Christian fundamentalists are zero danger to an Oregonian's safety. No Christians are keeping the other anti-Bush forces from gathering signatures for John Kerry or worshipping the moon or whatever. On the other hand, Jihadists want you dead dead dead, and are actively planning and acquiring the means to do just that. For you to say that it's the same thing as some mythical 'christian jihad' and that terrorism is no danger is both false on its face and offensive to Christians.
QUOTE(Hero @ Nov 12 2004, 01:53 PM)
CD article
Read the above article and answer:
1) Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Read the above article and answer:
1) Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
NO. The terrorists have chosen us for many reasons not the least of which is our support for Israel – which is not likely to change. We are responding to the attacks of 9/11 which regardless of the motivation were inexcusable.
Certainly some Arabs have been drawn into the belief that the US is “evil” and this is part of the problem. The freeing of Iraq in the middle of this otherwise non democratic area will go a long way toward changing that opinion.
Peace between the Palestinians and Israel would also go a long way in this area.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Nov 13 2004, 09:37 AM)
Right off the bat the atircle take's the battle out of context. Report's have been circulating about the situation in Fallujah under insurgent control and paints a very extreme rule more toward the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The fact that most of the population fled the city show's you that the population did not support the insurgent's dream for wahhabism. The voice's blaring from the mosque speaker's caused the cities resident's to flee, not take up arms.
The fact that most of the population fled the city show's you that the population did not support the insurgent's dream for wahhabism. The voice's blaring from the mosque speaker's caused the cities resident's to flee, not take up arms.
No what those people cared about was their lives. Id be willing to bet they (the people that fleed Falluja) dont give a damn whether or not US soliders get killed and I also bet the majority are hoping the insurgents win so we get the hell out of there. Those people werent fleeing in support of US poilcy, they were fleeing for their very lives. They didnt want to die in a massive bombing campign. The people that did stay probably just didnt want to give up the only possesions that were theirs. They werent going to abondon their homes and in all likelyness most of them are dead now. There is a lot of truth to whether or not the US is being drawn into Jihad. Our president and defence secretary are so arrogant and clueless that they honestly think that what they are dealing with is simply a band of thieves and thugs. Theives and thugs dont make human bombs to send into the enemy base or they dont know how to hotwire a doorbell into exploding the second someone rings it. Whether or not any of you would like to admit it, the overwhelming majority are only fighting cause we are there and because they think thats what god wants them to. At that same token our soilders are being lead by a dunce of a commander and cheif who also thinks hes doing what god wants. We are in a Jihad.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "Jihad" that is very detrimental to the American interest in this struggle. Someone posted earlier that "Jihad = murder for religious beliefs". That is not so. The translation of the word "Jihad" would be more accurately "spiritual struggle". By using this word to describe resistance efforts, "WE" are spreading propaganda for "THE ENEMY". It gives validity to their efforts.
All of the Defense of Christianity cannot deny that we currently have a right wing, idealogical Christian administration. This war is certainly multi-faceted, and I do not think it is overtly religious, but the administration definately wants to get the upper hand for Christianity in the struggle against the Islamic interests in the middle east.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm
If you have not seen the "Message from Iraqi Insurgents" linked above, I highly recommend it. It does specifically reference Bush's "Bring it on" comments. It also references "Zionism" :links to explain that term http://www.wrmea.com/html/focus.htm#Zionist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
This is very much seen as the struggle against the Jews/Christians by the Muslims in the Middle East. They have stated their objectives, both Bin Laden and the Iraqi Insurgency, and for that matter, the Taliban as well.
I'm not sure how the US supporters of the Iraq War see it, as I am not one. Is it for Oil? Is it so we can establish a puppet regime in the Middle East? Why have I lost friends in this Idiotic War? Why, what is the point. Some supporter please answer. Don't give me the EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER lines about "Spreading Democracy" and "Liberating Iraq" That propaganda won't fly here. Why are my friends and family risking their lives? Why are my children and grandchildren racking up debt?
"THE ENEMY" wishes to "bleed" the US bankrupt by prolongued military endeavor. They are indeed being overwhelmingly succesful, and our deceptive, lying, misleading administration is playing right into their hands.
All of the Defense of Christianity cannot deny that we currently have a right wing, idealogical Christian administration. This war is certainly multi-faceted, and I do not think it is overtly religious, but the administration definately wants to get the upper hand for Christianity in the struggle against the Islamic interests in the middle east.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm
If you have not seen the "Message from Iraqi Insurgents" linked above, I highly recommend it. It does specifically reference Bush's "Bring it on" comments. It also references "Zionism" :links to explain that term http://www.wrmea.com/html/focus.htm#Zionist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
This is very much seen as the struggle against the Jews/Christians by the Muslims in the Middle East. They have stated their objectives, both Bin Laden and the Iraqi Insurgency, and for that matter, the Taliban as well.
I'm not sure how the US supporters of the Iraq War see it, as I am not one. Is it for Oil? Is it so we can establish a puppet regime in the Middle East? Why have I lost friends in this Idiotic War? Why, what is the point. Some supporter please answer. Don't give me the EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER lines about "Spreading Democracy" and "Liberating Iraq" That propaganda won't fly here. Why are my friends and family risking their lives? Why are my children and grandchildren racking up debt?
"THE ENEMY" wishes to "bleed" the US bankrupt by prolongued military endeavor. They are indeed being overwhelmingly succesful, and our deceptive, lying, misleading administration is playing right into their hands.
Maybe I can help you in this conversation because I am a muslim and can give you a Muslim point of view.
I live in Turkey(a NATO country), which is one of the bordering nations of Iraq. We have suffered a lot because of America's actions in Iraq: Our economy has gone upside down, our people have died due to American Missiles that have gone off-target and we are constantly receiving pressure from US Government for military aid.
Thankfully, our situation is much better than that of Iraq. People are dying there because someone wants their oil. I do not understand much from religion but to me, killing - for whatever reason it might be - is plain wrong.
The opinion of an average citizen in Turkey about America was quite high before Afganistan and Iraq. Turkey has lived throughout the Cold War under a military threat from the Soviet Union. The Istanbul Bosphorus and the Dardanelles had attracted Russia's attention ever since the WW2 ended. As a result, America was viewed as a big brother who protected us like a big brother.
But after Iraq, the opinion of an average Turkish citizen about America has dropped dramatically. A poll done by a local newspaper showed that over 80% of the mid-low class viewed Bush as the Hitler of our age.
Before Bush's crusade for oil, most Muslims did not hate the US but now, after the atrocities committed by the US government, people are starting to hate the US.
I live in Turkey(a NATO country), which is one of the bordering nations of Iraq. We have suffered a lot because of America's actions in Iraq: Our economy has gone upside down, our people have died due to American Missiles that have gone off-target and we are constantly receiving pressure from US Government for military aid.
Thankfully, our situation is much better than that of Iraq. People are dying there because someone wants their oil. I do not understand much from religion but to me, killing - for whatever reason it might be - is plain wrong.
The opinion of an average citizen in Turkey about America was quite high before Afganistan and Iraq. Turkey has lived throughout the Cold War under a military threat from the Soviet Union. The Istanbul Bosphorus and the Dardanelles had attracted Russia's attention ever since the WW2 ended. As a result, America was viewed as a big brother who protected us like a big brother.
But after Iraq, the opinion of an average Turkish citizen about America has dropped dramatically. A poll done by a local newspaper showed that over 80% of the mid-low class viewed Bush as the Hitler of our age.
Before Bush's crusade for oil, most Muslims did not hate the US but now, after the atrocities committed by the US government, people are starting to hate the US.
QUOTE(Fma @ Feb 2 2005, 03:41 PM)
Maybe I can help you in this conversation because I am a muslim and can give you a Muslim point of view.
I live in Turkey(a NATO country), which is one of the bordering nations of Iraq. We have suffered a lot because of America's actions in Iraq: Our economy has gone upside down, our people have died due to American Missiles that have gone off-target and we are constantly receiving pressure from US Government for military aid.
Thankfully, our situation is much better than that of Iraq. People are dying there because someone wants their oil. I do not understand much from religion but to me, killing - for whatever reason it might be - is plain wrong.
The opinion of an average citizen in Turkey about America was quite high before Afganistan and Iraq. Turkey has lived throughout the Cold War under a military threat from the Soviet Union. The Istanbul Bosphorus and the Dardanelles had attracted Russia's attention ever since the WW2 ended. As a result, America was viewed as a big brother who protected us like a big brother.
But after Iraq, the opinion of an average Turkish citizen about America has dropped dramatically. A poll done by a local newspaper showed that over 80% of the mid-low class viewed Bush as the Hitler of our age.
Before Bush's crusade for oil, most Muslims did not hate the US but now, after the atrocities committed by the US government, people are starting to hate the US.
I live in Turkey(a NATO country), which is one of the bordering nations of Iraq. We have suffered a lot because of America's actions in Iraq: Our economy has gone upside down, our people have died due to American Missiles that have gone off-target and we are constantly receiving pressure from US Government for military aid.
Thankfully, our situation is much better than that of Iraq. People are dying there because someone wants their oil. I do not understand much from religion but to me, killing - for whatever reason it might be - is plain wrong.
The opinion of an average citizen in Turkey about America was quite high before Afganistan and Iraq. Turkey has lived throughout the Cold War under a military threat from the Soviet Union. The Istanbul Bosphorus and the Dardanelles had attracted Russia's attention ever since the WW2 ended. As a result, America was viewed as a big brother who protected us like a big brother.
But after Iraq, the opinion of an average Turkish citizen about America has dropped dramatically. A poll done by a local newspaper showed that over 80% of the mid-low class viewed Bush as the Hitler of our age.
Before Bush's crusade for oil, most Muslims did not hate the US but now, after the atrocities committed by the US government, people are starting to hate the US.
I appreciate your viewpoint as a muslim and as one who is living so close to Iraq. I am sure people are upset to see war going on. But I am curious. Do the turkish people also hate the muslim extremists who carry out acts of terrorism? From what you say I am assuming that they do not distinguish between the acts of the U.S. and the acts of terrorists in the region. If that is the case, why do they not make a distinction? Terrorism is when the perpetrators use violence to TARGET innocent people. In contrast, the U.S. does not TARGET innocent people by its actions. I understand that the U.S.'s actions have caused innocent people to die, and that is horrible but it is not the same thing. There is a distinction. Do you see that? If not, why not?
Is America begining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? Not even close, the United States has bent over backwards to show just the opposite. As several others have pointed out better than I could.
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?That I can say that not just many, but in fact most Arabs view it that way. A large majority also believe that the CIA and/or Mossad attacked the World Trade Center just to start a crusade against the Arabs. Even after OBL said that he committed the act, nothing can sway their beliefs in this matter
More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?That I can say that not just many, but in fact most Arabs view it that way. A large majority also believe that the CIA and/or Mossad attacked the World Trade Center just to start a crusade against the Arabs. Even after OBL said that he committed the act, nothing can sway their beliefs in this matter
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Feb 3 2005, 11:14 PM)
That I can say that not just many, but in fact most Arabs view it that way. A large majority also believe that the CIA and/or Mossad attacked the World Trade Center just to start a crusade against the Arabs. Even after OBL said that he committed the act, nothing can sway their beliefs in this matter
This seems to be the main belief in the parts of Turkey where I live. Many people think that Bush needed an excuse to invade Iraq and Afganistan and thus CIA organised the attack on the WTC.
About OBL saying he did it, I do not believe it. Let me give an example: About 10 years ago the PKK Terrorist Organization was very strong in Turkey (Turkey is fighting with terror for nearly 20 years without any outside support) and was frequently bombing places in Istanbul and Ankara when a lot of people were present. But after every bombing more then ten different organizations claimed responsiblity. Only one of them did it but others wanted credit as well. Same could be true for 9-11 as well. The chances that CIA has done it is no less than OBL or any other Organization.
I do not want to form a clear opinion at this time because I have no proof but I probably will never have.
Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
Actually, I see the history of this (both old and recent) as being a struggle among three desert religions, all of which I personally have shelved among other considered intellectual ideas of philosophy. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the three religions.
Using the word "crusade" carries too much baggage, as does "Jihad." I am sure that some Americans look at this all as a crusade, and some Muslims look at it as Jihad, but spiritually speaking, physically killing other people isn't a part of anything good. So, when people toss about these terms, look for the political motivation, not the spiritual. Politicians have been messing up religion since religion began.
This is not to say that some folks on either end of the struggle don't honestly believe they have God on their side, it's just to say that they are wrong. Strong belief alone never makes the belief right. Quite the opposite, actually -- gentle belief -- the faith of a child -- brings us closer to what really is.
And so, I have to say yes, some Americans, perhaps many Americans, are falling for the political lie that what we are doing is like the historical Crusades. Okay, very much like the historical Crusades, and that should give us reasons to be very suspicious of motivations for anyone pushing the idea that somehow we are accomplishing something good for Christianity, and that Christianity is somehow threatened by Islam. It's not such a leap to include Judaism in here, and not much of a leap from that to throw any other religion on the heap.
In the end it becomes bloodshed for religion, an ancient and still wrong contradiction.
However, I don't see *most* Americans falling for the lie. I doubt that *most* Muslims fall for it either. Killing in the name of God is both a blasphemy and terrible sin, so what I see as being more acceptable is to kill in self-defense. That is forgivable, right?
Um, maybe not. It's just more acceptable. Turning the other cheek isn't a very popular idea anywhere. It never has been. I think trying to make the current political struggle into anything resembling a crusade or Jihad isn't very popular either. The world seems more sophisticated than the world during the Crusades, and that's a good sign. That the world can't get through issues without bloodshed is a bad sign, but not a new one. Seems to be a feature of this world, something built into its creation, and that falls in line with the scriptures I've seen.
We're too far along to do holy wars, but not far enough along to not do war. That's what most people think -- or feel without expressing it, from what I see. It gives me hope that most people will realize that war is too expensive now, producing greater problems than it solves. We have to figure out other ways of dealing with issues and problems.
I'm including everyone in this hope, no matter what the spiritual belief. Consider the reaction to the tsunami disaster -- such an outflowing tells me that people crave to do something good for others in this world. That Americans responded as we have indicates to me that heavy burdens are carried for the political attempts at making the world better through war. Eh, it's just my take. Still, the sense of it rings true. Nothing opens up the pocket book wider than guilt.
Actually, I see the history of this (both old and recent) as being a struggle among three desert religions, all of which I personally have shelved among other considered intellectual ideas of philosophy. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the three religions.
Using the word "crusade" carries too much baggage, as does "Jihad." I am sure that some Americans look at this all as a crusade, and some Muslims look at it as Jihad, but spiritually speaking, physically killing other people isn't a part of anything good. So, when people toss about these terms, look for the political motivation, not the spiritual. Politicians have been messing up religion since religion began.
This is not to say that some folks on either end of the struggle don't honestly believe they have God on their side, it's just to say that they are wrong. Strong belief alone never makes the belief right. Quite the opposite, actually -- gentle belief -- the faith of a child -- brings us closer to what really is.
And so, I have to say yes, some Americans, perhaps many Americans, are falling for the political lie that what we are doing is like the historical Crusades. Okay, very much like the historical Crusades, and that should give us reasons to be very suspicious of motivations for anyone pushing the idea that somehow we are accomplishing something good for Christianity, and that Christianity is somehow threatened by Islam. It's not such a leap to include Judaism in here, and not much of a leap from that to throw any other religion on the heap.
In the end it becomes bloodshed for religion, an ancient and still wrong contradiction.
However, I don't see *most* Americans falling for the lie. I doubt that *most* Muslims fall for it either. Killing in the name of God is both a blasphemy and terrible sin, so what I see as being more acceptable is to kill in self-defense. That is forgivable, right?
Um, maybe not. It's just more acceptable. Turning the other cheek isn't a very popular idea anywhere. It never has been. I think trying to make the current political struggle into anything resembling a crusade or Jihad isn't very popular either. The world seems more sophisticated than the world during the Crusades, and that's a good sign. That the world can't get through issues without bloodshed is a bad sign, but not a new one. Seems to be a feature of this world, something built into its creation, and that falls in line with the scriptures I've seen.
We're too far along to do holy wars, but not far enough along to not do war. That's what most people think -- or feel without expressing it, from what I see. It gives me hope that most people will realize that war is too expensive now, producing greater problems than it solves. We have to figure out other ways of dealing with issues and problems.
I'm including everyone in this hope, no matter what the spiritual belief. Consider the reaction to the tsunami disaster -- such an outflowing tells me that people crave to do something good for others in this world. That Americans responded as we have indicates to me that heavy burdens are carried for the political attempts at making the world better through war. Eh, it's just my take. Still, the sense of it rings true. Nothing opens up the pocket book wider than guilt.
Carlito'sWhey:
Well, the term "Jihad" accurately means "spititual struggle", not murder. That is one of main problems whith America's use of the word, repeatedly. They legitimize the effort by using the word that means "spirtual struggle" to describe acts of murder.
dictionary.com
I don't know, nor could I write whatever the arabic word for "murder" is, but it would wager that using "murder" to refer to the actions of terrorists, as opposed to "spiritual struggle" would be a better propaganda move. In the same way that you don't call "insurgents" something like "freedom fighters" you shouldn't use "Jihad" to describe terrorist actions. We should use a word with more negative connotations. Anyone speak Arabic? What would the Arabic word for "murder" be?
Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
We are legitimizing it as a "Jihad" by using the term ourselves. We are amplifying their message. Yes, this looks to be a religious war to the Arabs. Christianity and Islamism both want to convert non-believers. They also both have signifigant Imperialistic histories. They have been in direct competition peacefully, and militarily for a long, long time.
America is very Christian in it's State. I will simply laugh at anyone who tries to convince me that the American government is "secular". We may not officially declare religious imperatives for our actions, but Christianity is a big part of American decision making.
I would certainly like to point out that the Christianity's Apacolyptical beliefs are every bit as much a danger to mankind as any radical islamic idea. If that is offensive to Christians, so be it. I cannot let CarlitosWhey get a comment like
That is a powerful statement that I believe is wholly wrong. Christianity has it's Zealots, and those who believe in the Book of Revelation, seven angels blowing horns, kill a third of mankind, the Lamb and the 144,000, the Harvest of the Earth, Plagues, Wrath, and so on and so forth. Those Christians, who truly look for signs of that "Prophecy" and are ready and willing to usher in the "End of Days" with no fear because they are "believers" is every bit as much of a "danger to mankind's safety" as is any radical element of Islam. Especially if those people happen to be in command of the most powerful military on the planet, and are heavily armed with Nuclear Bombs.
If you're objective is to destroy the world, so the believers will be saved at the 2nd Coming of Christ, we might have an issue.
In closing, I do believe that this is a Holy War, but moreso it is about global dominance. With Israel as an ally, and Iraq now the site of future major military installations, America will stand to be very powerful in the middle east strategically. We still have a major base in Qatar. This is military Imperialism and there are more factors at work than Holy work. It is, however one of the key factors.
QUOTE
Jihad = murder based on faith. Yes, you can compare the crusades, but that was 1,000 years ago! OK, the inquisition, 300 years ago, but please - George Bush as Jihadi warrior, you need to re-think things. The only religious danger to mankind's safety is that of Islam. Period. Christian fundamentalists are zero danger to an Oregonian's safety. No Christians are keeping the other anti-Bush forces from gathering signatures for John Kerry or worshipping the moon or whatever. On the other hand, Jihadists want you dead dead dead, and are actively planning and acquiring the means to do just that. For you to say that it's the same thing as some mythical 'christian jihad' and that terrorism is no danger is both false on its face and offensive to Christians.
Well, the term "Jihad" accurately means "spititual struggle", not murder. That is one of main problems whith America's use of the word, repeatedly. They legitimize the effort by using the word that means "spirtual struggle" to describe acts of murder.
QUOTE
Jihad: A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
dictionary.com
I don't know, nor could I write whatever the arabic word for "murder" is, but it would wager that using "murder" to refer to the actions of terrorists, as opposed to "spiritual struggle" would be a better propaganda move. In the same way that you don't call "insurgents" something like "freedom fighters" you shouldn't use "Jihad" to describe terrorist actions. We should use a word with more negative connotations. Anyone speak Arabic? What would the Arabic word for "murder" be?
Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
We are legitimizing it as a "Jihad" by using the term ourselves. We are amplifying their message. Yes, this looks to be a religious war to the Arabs. Christianity and Islamism both want to convert non-believers. They also both have signifigant Imperialistic histories. They have been in direct competition peacefully, and militarily for a long, long time.
America is very Christian in it's State. I will simply laugh at anyone who tries to convince me that the American government is "secular". We may not officially declare religious imperatives for our actions, but Christianity is a big part of American decision making.
I would certainly like to point out that the Christianity's Apacolyptical beliefs are every bit as much a danger to mankind as any radical islamic idea. If that is offensive to Christians, so be it. I cannot let CarlitosWhey get a comment like
QUOTE
"The only religious danger to mankind's safety is that of Islam"
That is a powerful statement that I believe is wholly wrong. Christianity has it's Zealots, and those who believe in the Book of Revelation, seven angels blowing horns, kill a third of mankind, the Lamb and the 144,000, the Harvest of the Earth, Plagues, Wrath, and so on and so forth. Those Christians, who truly look for signs of that "Prophecy" and are ready and willing to usher in the "End of Days" with no fear because they are "believers" is every bit as much of a "danger to mankind's safety" as is any radical element of Islam. Especially if those people happen to be in command of the most powerful military on the planet, and are heavily armed with Nuclear Bombs.
If you're objective is to destroy the world, so the believers will be saved at the 2nd Coming of Christ, we might have an issue.
In closing, I do believe that this is a Holy War, but moreso it is about global dominance. With Israel as an ally, and Iraq now the site of future major military installations, America will stand to be very powerful in the middle east strategically. We still have a major base in Qatar. This is military Imperialism and there are more factors at work than Holy work. It is, however one of the key factors.
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 19 2005, 07:35 PM)
Well, the term "Jihad" accurately means "spititual struggle", not murder. That is one of main problems whith America's use of the word, repeatedly. They legitimize the effort by using the word that means "spirtual struggle" to describe acts of murder.
dictionary.com
QUOTE
Jihad: A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
dictionary.com
I understand you point here. However, having been in a few Arab speaking countries and interacted with a variety of Muslims I can tell you that the definition you are quoting is the moderate definition, and thus the most accepted definition of the word. You're not taking into account how some Islamic extremist have twisted both the meaning of the word and the concept behind it, to promote their own warped vision of how things should be. That version being that all people of the world should either be converted and subjugated or killed. This is not the belief of the majority of the followers of Islam, but it is the twisted belief of many extremist Islamic factions.
QUOTE
I don't know, nor could I write whatever the arabic word for "murder" is, but it would wager that using "murder" to refer to the actions of terrorists, as opposed to "spiritual struggle" would be a better propaganda move. In the same way that you don't call "insurgents" something like "freedom fighters" you shouldn't use "Jihad" to describe terrorist actions. We should use a word with more negative connotations. Anyone speak Arabic? What would the Arabic word for "murder" be?
Not sure of the word for murder myself, but then a little over a year ago I could convey basic concepts in a few variations of the language and yet right now, the most frequent word I had used (that being the word for "Stop") just can't be found within the echo chamber of my mind tonight.
QUOTE
We are legitimizing it as a "Jihad" by using the term ourselves. We are amplifying their message. Yes, this looks to be a religious war to the Arabs. Christianity and Islamism both want to convert non-believers. They also both have signifigant Imperialistic histories. They have been in direct competition peacefully, and militarily for a long, long time.
Good point about legitimising the radical use of the term by using it ourselves.
However, the short term issues, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, are not seen as religious wars to the majority of the people I have met in the Middle-East. However, on a larger scale of both geography and time there is a certain logic to the suggestion that there is a religious war afoot, though I am not sure this is actually true other then in the case of extremist groups on all sides. QUOTE
I would certainly like to point out that the Christianity's Apacolyptical beliefs are every bit as much a danger to mankind as any radical islamic idea.
Blind faith is a very dangerous combination, regardless ones beliefs. Combined with Ignorance and death and destruction can easily result. This is true regardless of which faith we are discussing and even in the absense of faith.
QUOTE
In closing, I do believe that this is a Holy War, but moreso it is about global dominance. With Israel as an ally, and Iraq now the site of future major military installations, America will stand to be very powerful in the middle east strategically. We still have a major base in Qatar. This is military Imperialism and there are more factors at work than Holy work. It is, however one of the key factors.
I think you're off base here (no pun intended
). For one I can't see how Iraq for example, could be part of a holy war if when we push for free elections that everyone knew would bring a religious faction we do not generally agree with and tend to be wary of to power. Two, what future major military installations? It is of course possible that we might create permanent bases there, but we have yet to do so, and I have not seen any official statement that we will in the future. So, is this conjecture on your part (that I would not completely disagree with) or do you have a reputable source for this assertion? Military Imperialism? Ok, how so? Where did we take territory? Are you of the belief that nothing has been done that was good for the people of Iraq. And what is your basis for a religious factor in our actions in Iraq? Is it simply that many of the government leaders happen to be Christians (Like Senator Ted Kennedy for example)? Or is there more to this line of thinking? And what does Israel have to do with this?
QUOTE(overlandsailor @ Feb 19 2005, 08:22 PM)
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 19 2005, 07:35 PM)
Well, the term "Jihad" accurately means "spititual struggle", not murder. That is one of main problems whith America's use of the word, repeatedly. They legitimize the effort by using the word that means "spirtual struggle" to describe acts of murder.
dictionary.com
QUOTE
Jihad: A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
dictionary.com
I understand you point here. However, having been in a few Arab speaking countries and interacted with a variety of Muslims I can tell you that the definition you are quoting is the moderate definition, and thus the most accepted definition of the word. You're not taking into account how some Islamic extremist have twisted both the meaning of the word and the concept behind it, to promote their own warped vision of how things should be. That version being that all people of the world should either be converted and subjugated or killed. This is not the belief of the majority of the followers of Islam, but it is the twisted belief of many extremist Islamic factions.
QUOTE
I don't know, nor could I write whatever the arabic word for "murder" is, but it would wager that using "murder" to refer to the actions of terrorists, as opposed to "spiritual struggle" would be a better propaganda move. In the same way that you don't call "insurgents" something like "freedom fighters" you shouldn't use "Jihad" to describe terrorist actions. We should use a word with more negative connotations. Anyone speak Arabic? What would the Arabic word for "murder" be?
Not sure of the word for murder myself, but then a little over a year ago I could convey basic concepts in a few variations of the language and yet right now, the most frequent word I had used (that being the word for "Stop") just can't be found within the echo chamber of my mind tonight.
QUOTE
We are legitimizing it as a "Jihad" by using the term ourselves. We are amplifying their message. Yes, this looks to be a religious war to the Arabs. Christianity and Islamism both want to convert non-believers. They also both have signifigant Imperialistic histories. They have been in direct competition peacefully, and militarily for a long, long time.
Good point about legitimising the radical use of the term by using it ourselves.
However, the short term issues, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, are not seen as religious wars to the majority of the people I have met in the Middle-East. However, on a larger scale of both geography and time there is a certain logic to the suggestion that there is a religious war afoot, though I am not sure this is actually true other then in the case of extremist groups on all sides. QUOTE
I would certainly like to point out that the Christianity's Apacolyptical beliefs are every bit as much a danger to mankind as any radical islamic idea.
Blind faith is a very dangerous combination, regardless ones beliefs. Combined with Ignorance and death and destruction can easily result. This is true regardless of which faith we are discussing and even in the absense of faith.
QUOTE
In closing, I do believe that this is a Holy War, but moreso it is about global dominance. With Israel as an ally, and Iraq now the site of future major military installations, America will stand to be very powerful in the middle east strategically. We still have a major base in Qatar. This is military Imperialism and there are more factors at work than Holy work. It is, however one of the key factors.
I think you're off base here (no pun intended
). For one I can't see how Iraq for example, could be part of a holy war if when we push for free elections that everyone knew would bring a religious faction we do not generally agree with and tend to be wary of to power. Two, what future major military installations? It is of course possible that we might create permanent bases there, but we have yet to do so, and I have not seen any official statement that we will in the future. So, is this conjecture on your part (that I would not completely disagree with) or do you have a reputable source for this assertion? Military Imperialism? Ok, how so? Where did we take territory? Are you of the belief that nothing has been done that was good for the people of Iraq. And what is your basis for a religious factor in our actions in Iraq? Is it simply that many of the government leaders happen to be Christians (Like Senator Ted Kennedy for example)? Or is there more to this line of thinking? And what does Israel have to do with this?http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...uring-bases.htm
14 "enduring bases". That means military installations. It is going on. No doubt about it.
The new Imperialism isn't about setting up your flag and taking power under your nation. It is about setting up governments who will do what you say. The list of our interventions to do that is too long to engage in on this thread. We have been installing regimes for years. CIA has undoubetdly been very active. We have made sure that we have enough military presence in the middle east that we can crush anyone there. As I said before, we have a massive base in Qatar, the enduring support, and alliance with Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq (sort of) under our military control, we have troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan. We may not call them American, but we undoubtedly have a major military presence.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayS...tory_id=2517421
If you want, Google American Imperialism go ahead...
Latin America: http://counterpunch.org/hylton07052004.html
I say Holy War, mainly because I do believe that religion plays a strong role in the fundamental world view of both sides of the Global Conflict as I see it. Those idealogical religious forces are very powerful. That's a lot of energy being unleashed. A whole lot of hate, and religion is a deep divisive wedge that is central to the issue. That is why it is a "Holy War"
If I were in charge of the world, there would only be one religion, and it would not have a book, or any dogma. But then, I'm not in charge of the world, thankfully.
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 20 2005, 03:22 PM)
14 "enduring bases". That means military installations. It is going on. No doubt about it.
Yes it does mean military bases. However it does not mean military bases that will last beyond the conflict. I resided in one of these "Enduring" bases when I was there. I guess if you think tent cities, with galleys (chow halls) made from linked mobile trailers and recreational services scrounged together within whatever space was available is an example of
QUOTE
future major military installations
then I think you need to re-examine the bases in question (or else seriously call into question the ability of military architects ). QUOTE
The new Imperialism isn't about setting up your flag and taking power under your nation. It is about setting up governments who will do what you say.
I agree with that, I just don't see how it applies to Iraq, or US actions in general.
QUOTE
As I said before, we have a massive base in Qatar, the enduring support, and alliance with Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq (sort of) under our military control, we have troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan. We may not call them American, but we undoubtedly have a major military presence.
OK, so, though we have had forces forward deployed for years in areas where they can react to threats worldwide, this is somehow proof that we are actually Imperialists? What governments have we installed or toppled, outside of Afghanistan and Iraq in the last dozen years? What governments do we now control?
I personally think the time for troops in Germany and Europe in general is over, they would be better stationed in the Middle-East considering that the greatest potential treats of the future are in the Middle-East and the Pacific. Our troops currently in South Korea are there as a peace keeping force to benefit the people of South Korea, I would like to see them removed, except I am not so sure that the north would not see their removal would not be seen as an invitation to invade the south. Worse yet, if we did remove them, and the North did invade, and we did choose to act to protect the south, many in the world would suggest that we setup the north by withdrawing. I think we should pull out of Japan, and leave them to defend themselves, but we do have obligations there that we would have to negotiate a release from. As for Qatar, why is it a problem that we have a base there? Doesn't it make sense when you consider that more then likely, if we face a threat in the future that threat will come from the Middle-East of the Pacific?
QUOTE
If you want, Google American Imperialism go ahead...
No need, I see enough in the way of new world order conspiracy theories around here.
QUOTE(OverlandSailor asked)
And what is your basis for a religious factor in our actions in Iraq? Is it simply that many of the government leaders happen to be Christians (Like Senator Ted Kennedy for example)? Or is there more to this line of thinking?
Which could be expanded to ask, what is your basis for a religious factor / motivation in our foreign policy in general?QUOTE
I say Holy War, mainly because I do believe that religion plays a strong role in the fundamental world view of both sides of the Global Conflict as I see it. Those idealogical religious forces are very powerful. That's a lot of energy being unleashed. A whole lot of hate, and religion is a deep divisive wedge that is central to the issue. That is why it is a "Holy War"
So then this is strictly your opinion then? If so I can respect it, though I reserve the right to respectfully disagree.
QUOTE
If I were in charge of the world, there would only be one religion, and it would not have a book, or any dogma. But then, I'm not in charge of the world, thankfully.
Ok, I am assuming this is a joke. But, just in case it is not, are you suggesting that if given the chance, you would eliminate religion from the world for the betterment of the world? Isn't that rather Imperialistic of you?
Always enjoy your posts, OS. Exchanging information and viewpoints as it should be! Much respect for you!
I don't have the advantage of having been there, so I will have to take your word on it. Perhaps the 14 installations were not intended for long term use. I don't know for sure. I'll take your word on it, but I will wager that we will have signifigant long term bases there. We have fought too hard for that piece of real estate to turn it over.
Here's an interesting article for you to peruse about the World Domination project. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm
This one goes with it as well. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm
Seen the list of interventions in the Middle East?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm
If that doesn't constitute Imperialism, I don't know what does.
To the best of my knowledge, Information Clearing House has a pretty good reputation for accuracy.
My comment about Religion was deeper than it looked. It is my belief that "dogma" stands in the way of what I consider to be true spirituality. In other words, I cannot justify basing one's present day beliefs about the supernatural by reading words written by the hands of man, especially words written thousands of years ago, interpreted, edited and translated into it's present form.
I would not "enforce" anything, but If I could snap my fingers and make one thing different in the world, that would be it. People would only believe what they saw, and experienced. Sort of like the gnostics I suppose. Regardless, I think that "dogma" is a massive problem for humanity.
You don't think that religious factors play a part in this? I listened to a Christian talk radio show in my car. Being a "non-believer" I listened closely, just trying to understand what they were saying.
The sermon was on "Justifications for War in the Bible". It went into the story in Genisis about the "first recorded war". Apparently, Lott, Abraham's nephew, was kidnapped by the ruler of what is present day Iraq. The very astutely pointed about this fact. Abraham and the Israelites gathered their forces, and went to War to rescue Lott. Now, the circumstances were completely different, but the preacher very adamantly concluded that God would want us to go to War with Iraq.
It is also interesting to me that he concluded that the teachings of Jesus were meant for people living their individual lives, and did not apply to the actions of government.
You can certainly disagree with me, but at least read my evidence. Here are a couple of excerpts from sources to support the "Holy War" theory.
Comparing himself to a follower of Islam, General Boykin offers the taunt that "my God is bigger than his."
http://www.irregulartimes.com/holywarriorbush.html
Now that, my friend sounds like a Holy War to me.
For more information on what the Conservatives think of General Boykin.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonybla...b20031022.shtml
More interesting passages:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0520-03.htm
And so, I again reaffirm my position that this IS a Holy War, for our side, and theirs.
It remains my opinion, though it is based on evidence. You still disagree?
I don't have the advantage of having been there, so I will have to take your word on it. Perhaps the 14 installations were not intended for long term use. I don't know for sure. I'll take your word on it, but I will wager that we will have signifigant long term bases there. We have fought too hard for that piece of real estate to turn it over.
Here's an interesting article for you to peruse about the World Domination project. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm
This one goes with it as well. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm
QUOTE
I agree with that, I just don't see how it applies to Iraq, or US actions in general.
Seen the list of interventions in the Middle East?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm
If that doesn't constitute Imperialism, I don't know what does.
To the best of my knowledge, Information Clearing House has a pretty good reputation for accuracy.
My comment about Religion was deeper than it looked. It is my belief that "dogma" stands in the way of what I consider to be true spirituality. In other words, I cannot justify basing one's present day beliefs about the supernatural by reading words written by the hands of man, especially words written thousands of years ago, interpreted, edited and translated into it's present form.
I would not "enforce" anything, but If I could snap my fingers and make one thing different in the world, that would be it. People would only believe what they saw, and experienced. Sort of like the gnostics I suppose. Regardless, I think that "dogma" is a massive problem for humanity.
You don't think that religious factors play a part in this? I listened to a Christian talk radio show in my car. Being a "non-believer" I listened closely, just trying to understand what they were saying.
The sermon was on "Justifications for War in the Bible". It went into the story in Genisis about the "first recorded war". Apparently, Lott, Abraham's nephew, was kidnapped by the ruler of what is present day Iraq. The very astutely pointed about this fact. Abraham and the Israelites gathered their forces, and went to War to rescue Lott. Now, the circumstances were completely different, but the preacher very adamantly concluded that God would want us to go to War with Iraq.
It is also interesting to me that he concluded that the teachings of Jesus were meant for people living their individual lives, and did not apply to the actions of government.
You can certainly disagree with me, but at least read my evidence. Here are a couple of excerpts from sources to support the "Holy War" theory.
QUOTE
George W. Bush has used the word "Crusade" to describe his war against the people he calls "evildoers." Bush clearly believes that the United States of America is a Christian nation, and that the government should be used to promote Christian religious projects.
QUOTE
Preaching in his military uniform before a religious congregation in Oregon this June, General Boykin proclaimed, "we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian. Did I say Judeo-Christian? Yes. Judeo-Christian."
He continued, "The enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy. His name is Satan. And if you do not believe that Satan is real, you are ignoring the same Bible that tells you about God."
To that same congregation, still in military uniform, General Boykin said of George W. Bush that, "He was appointed by God" to be leader of the United States.
To another religious group in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, General Boykin declared that the true enemy in George W. Bush's wars "is the principalities of darkness. It is a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy."
In a religious flyer, General Boykin is quoted as saying, "Bin Laden is not the enemy. No mortal is the enemy. It's the enemy you can't see. It's a war against the forces of darkness."
He continued, "The enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy. His name is Satan. And if you do not believe that Satan is real, you are ignoring the same Bible that tells you about God."
To that same congregation, still in military uniform, General Boykin said of George W. Bush that, "He was appointed by God" to be leader of the United States.
To another religious group in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, General Boykin declared that the true enemy in George W. Bush's wars "is the principalities of darkness. It is a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy."
In a religious flyer, General Boykin is quoted as saying, "Bin Laden is not the enemy. No mortal is the enemy. It's the enemy you can't see. It's a war against the forces of darkness."
Comparing himself to a follower of Islam, General Boykin offers the taunt that "my God is bigger than his."
http://www.irregulartimes.com/holywarriorbush.html
Now that, my friend sounds like a Holy War to me.
For more information on what the Conservatives think of General Boykin.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonybla...b20031022.shtml
More interesting passages:
QUOTE
Boykin was not removed or transferred. At that moment, he was at the heart of a secret operation to "Gitmo-ize" (Guantánamo is known in the US as Gitmo) the Abu Ghraib prison. He had flown to Guantánamo, where he met Major General Geoffrey Miller, in charge of Camp X-Ray. Boykin ordered Miller to fly to Iraq and extend X-Ray methods to the prison system there, on Rumsfeld's orders.
QUOTE
Just before Boykin was put in charge of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and then inserted into Iraqi prison reform, he was a circuit rider for the religious right. He allied himself with a small group called the Faith Force Multiplier that advocates applying military principles to evangelism. Its manifesto - Warrior Message - summons "warriors in this spiritual war for souls of this nation and the world ... "
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0520-03.htm
And so, I again reaffirm my position that this IS a Holy War, for our side, and theirs.
It remains my opinion, though it is based on evidence. You still disagree?
QUOTE
Is America beggining a modern crusade against the Islamic faith? More importantly, do you think that many Arabs view it this way?
A very strong NO to the first part, and a qualified not really, to the second part.
Those radicals who form the core of the various Islamic extremist organizations certainly do perceive us in that way. But many Muslims do recognize the threat that these radicals pose, and although they are leery of US military operations in the region and do not want a greater US presence, they do not perceive it as a religious-based "crusade". In that context, lately the general Muslim population and governments in the Muslim world are getting sick and tired of terrorists associating themselves with Islam - and are beginning to address it with indigenous policy measures.
Along those lines, did anyone else pay attention to the Counter-Terrorism International Conference held in Riyadh, KSA the 5th - 8th of this month? It was unique in that, at least in the statements that came out of it, it seems to portend a significant shift in strategy on not just the Saudis part, but also the Arab/Islamic world as a whole - and in conjunction with the international community in the context of the GWOT. If words do turn into actions, then indigenous actions against Islamic extremism and terrorism could become the norm rather than the exception.
Regarding Saudi specifically, CSIS published a decent paper back in January: Al-Qa'ida in Saudi Arabia: Asymetric Threats and Islamic Extremists
Another example: since the recent Iraqi elections, the Iraqi police in Mosul have been broadcasting videos on a local TV station showing former masked kidnappers who have been captured and are now quivering, broken men. The government officials are using to the videos in an attempt to divest the terrorists and criminals of their religious platform by challenging them with questions about Islam. The official stance is that by declaring this behavior to be un-Islamic, it is the beginning of turn toward inward reflection and a step on the road to rejecting the "jihad" and declaring the terrorists apostates.
...and in Malaysia, a series of ads are denouncing terrorism, “Violence dishonors faith” is one slogan being used. Another ad begins with a baby boy and takes him through school and university, he then turns to militancy and dies in conflict, the goes on to say this is not the dream for Malaysians. So, Malaysia is also striving to promote anti-terrorism and break the terrorist link with Islam.
The whole notion of the GWOT being a "Christian Crusade" against the Muslim world is utter and complete nonsense.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.