Blair is on his own

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2799377.stm

Watching politics is becoming a bit like watching a slow-motion car crash.

We now have a situation where, in arguably the oldest democracy in the world, Prime Minister Blair seems intent on leading his country into war without the backing of his party, the British public, or international opinion. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Even during Suez 50% of the population supported war. With a 2nd UN resolution looking increasingly unlikely Blair looks exposed like never before. 121 labour MPs voted against him, and 100 more have told him they will not support him in a future vote on war without a 2nd resolution - leaving Blair depending on the tories for support in the house of commons.

If this turns out to be a short war, and the aftermath turns out beneficial then Blair may yet survive unscathed. If it is prolonged, and if there are many casualties, and if in retrospect it turns out to have been a mistake then God help Mr Blair, because one hell of a lot of people (most of his own party, 90% of the public, the leaders of both protestant and catholic church, and three of the permanent members of the security council is quite a list) have told him he is wrong, and he has chosen not to listen. He looks like a very worried man.

I never thought the situation would hold together even this long.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2799377.stm

Watching politics is becoming a bit like watching a slow-motion car crash.

We now have a situation where, in arguably the oldest democracy in the world, Prime Minister Blair seems intent on leading his country into war without the backing of his party, the British public, or international opinion. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Even during Suez 50% of the population supported war. With a 2nd UN resolution looking increasingly unlikely Blair looks exposed like never before. 121 labour MPs voted against him, and 100 more have told him they will not support him in a future vote on war without a 2nd resolution - leaving Blair depending on the tories for support in the house of commons.

If this turns out to be a short war, and the aftermath turns out beneficial then Blair may yet survive unscathed. If it is prolonged, and if there are many casualties, and if in retrospect it turns out to have been a mistake then God help Mr Blair, because one hell of a lot of people (most of his own party, 90% of the public, the leaders of both protestant and catholic church, and three of the permanent members of the security council is quite a list) have told him he is wrong, and he has chosen not to listen. He looks like a very worried man.

You call France and Germany, "international opinion"? That is laughable.

Mr. Blair will walk away from this standing tall and looking good. What is going to be really funny is when the Iraqis rip up the French contracts after we take out Saddam.

Rip....rip...rip...rip...rip...lol

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You call France and Germany, "international opinion"? That is laughable.


Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

[Pak_43]

Undercover,

an alternative and extremely cynical and depressing appraisal of events might be:

At the next election Blair may well be gone anyway, there is no way the government is going to meet it's self-imposed targets for transportation, health or education....

The Blair government in the last 12 months has been wracked by controversy on all 3 of these issues....

This could well be a desperate gamble which if it pays off might fool the electorate into giving him a second term...

Like I said, cynical and depressing...

Although your statement :
(most of his own party, 90% of the public, the leaders of both protestant and catholic church, and three of the permanent members of the security council is quite a list)
is a bit lazy IMO, I don't think you can make either "Most of his own party" or "90% of the public" stick as assertions...

Your Suez analogy is interesting but most historians don't see the parallels....
12 Historians compare the current crisis to 1939 and Suez (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/artsandhumanities/story/0,12241,898626,00.html)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

And you are a propagandist...

As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States. On top of that, more than a dozen other non-voting countries have publicly either expressed their support and/or have offered their assistence.

Compare that to France, Germany, Russia and China...

[Dazza]

My take on this is that Blair is fed up with being PM and may not mind too much if he is ousted. I think he really believes in what he is doing and is (finally) determined to do the right thing whatever the focus groups say. If that costs him his job then I don't think he can care that much.

Shame really. I sort of admire his approach, but completely disagree with his policy. If he goes to war with Iraq then I think the Labour Party will dump him within the year.

I think UCEs figures were fair. A recent poll (sorry no source but I really did see this) said that only 11% would support war without UN backing. As for the majority of the labour party. Well as a member of that august institution I can guarantee you that opinion is overwhelmingly against war without a clear UN mandate.

Oh and that 'second resolution' is nowhere near being a clear mandate for war.

Scary times.

Originally posted by Kodiak


And you are a propagandist...

As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States. On top of that, more than a dozen other non-voting countries have publicly either expressed their support and/or have offered their assistence.

Compare that to France, Germany, Russia and China...

And how many of those countries will be sending troops like last time, or helping pay for the operation like last time? From what I can gather, none. That's a pretty feeble sort of support.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by sundog


And how many of those countries will be sending troops like last time, or helping pay for the operation like last time? From what I can gather, none. That's a pretty feeble sort of support.

I'm ready to concede to your point, but let me do some checking first...

Couldn't find anything (not to say there isn't anything to find).

Originally posted by Kodiak


And you are a propagandist...

As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States. On top of that, more than a dozen other non-voting countries have publicly either expressed their support and/or have offered their assistence.

Compare that to France, Germany, Russia and China...

RE Mexico :

Not the way I heard it. The way I heard it Bush had previously made a personal commitment to the President of Mexico to give an Amnesty to Mexican Immigrants into the US (or something along those lines). Anyway - apparently Bush didn't keep his word (Honour? Honesty? Of course not. This is America. They don't need honour. They have guns.) and the Mexican President has a long memory.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


RE Mexico :

Not the way I heard it. The way I heard it Bush had previously made a personal commitment to the President of Mexico to give an Amnesty to Mexican Immigrants into the US (or something along those lines). Anyway - apparently Bush didn't keep his word (Honour? Honesty? Of course not. This is America. They don't need honour. They have guns.) and the Mexican President has a long memory.

The intent of my post was to respond to your "just about everywhere else except for Spain" remark. What you posted in that regard isn't true.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


RE Mexico :

Not the way I heard it. The way I heard it Bush had previously made a personal commitment to the President of Mexico to give an Amnesty to Mexican Immigrants into the US (or something along those lines). Anyway - apparently Bush didn't keep his word (Honour? Honesty? Of course not. This is America. They don't need honour. They have guns.) and the Mexican President has a long memory.

The way I heard it was, Fox and Bush were all set to open the borders for Mexicans to come work freely in America. 9/11 of course shot that down. No one can accuse me of being a Bush supporter but I don't see how he can be blamed for that.

Anyone who thinks opening the border is a good idea doesn't live on it.

[Pak_43]

Dazza,

possibly this is the poll you had in mind??

http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq.shtml

Whichever poll you look at on this page it 'ain't 90%of the British public......

And your claim is now:
I can guarantee you that opinion is overwhelmingly against war without a clear UN mandate....which isn't what undercover said (or implied..)

We could argue about how clear the 2nd mandate is, and I'm sure many will but that's not the point I made....

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
121 labour MPs voted against him, and 100 more have told him they will not support him in a future vote on war without a 2nd resolution - leaving Blair depending on the tories for support in the house of commons.


Hmm.

Just to put that in context, the Labour party currently (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hcio/stateparties.cfm) has 410 seats in Parliament. 122 Labour MPs voted for the amendment (i.e. against the Government). While that might be unprecedented, it does mean that 298 Labour MPs voted Against the amendment - in favour of the Government. That's more than twice as many.

As for your second point, you are assuming that the second resolution will not be forthcoming.

I'd like to know why it is that a war on Iraq is a dreadful concept if done without UN backing, but magically becomes Okay if a second resolution is passed?

Originally posted by Kodiak


I'm ready to concede to your point, but let me do some checking first...

Couldn't find anything (not to say there isn't anything to find).

I hate it when you conservatives are reasonable. Upsets all my preconceptions. ;)

Richard


Just to put that in context, the Labour party currently has 410 seats in Parliament. 122 Labour MPs voted for the amendment (i.e. against the Government). While that might be unprecedented, it does mean that 298 Labour MPs voted Against the amendment - in favour of the Government. That's more than twice as many.


150 of those had to support Blair because they are paid memebers of the government, whose careers and income depend on it. They would have been sacked for voting against him and their careers would have been over. Many others made it very clear to him that they would not support him again without a 2nd resolution.



I'd like to know why it is that a war on Iraq is a dreadful concept if done without UN backing, but magically becomes Okay if a second resolution is passed?


That is dead simple. Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council. Nobody believes that is a good idea except the chimp in Washington and a large proportion of the American population. Quite frankly, if the US (with Blair in tow) attacks Iraq against the wishes of the security council then my own view would be that AMERICA MUST BE STOPPED, BY ANY MEANS. No less. I do not believe the American public, or the people in the White House actually understand the level of anti-Americanism that will follow an illegal invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN. What they have seen so far is peanuts by comparison.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by sundog


I hate it when you conservatives are reasonable. Upsets all my preconceptions. ;)

It's that streak of libertarian in me... :)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

Wow, nice opinion there, huh.

JK

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council.

Wrong, UCE...

Legality or illegality has nothing to do with whether or not a sovereign nation gets UN approval before invading another country, though you are right about preserving the legitimacy of the UN.

Whats wrong with a powerful long-time ally having more authority and influence than an, IMO, largely impotent UN?

So let's recap. Three years ago Clinton was president, the economy was cooking right along, and while we may not have been the most popular nation in the world, neither were we terribly disliked by most.

The greatest scandal we had to deal with was a President who lied about getting a BJ. (Get used to how absurd that sounds - that's the way it's going to read in the history books. We impeached a man for lying about sex.)

Now, a short three years later, we have become the most unpopular country in the world, everyone hates us, everyone thinks we're the bully of the world, our foreign policy is in tatters in a dozen directions, and we're looking at not two but a THREE-front war (I love how Rumsfeld appears to simply forget to count Afghanistan as a front any more). The economy is in ruins and, although that can't really be laid at Bush's feet, his absurd voodoo economic theory is going to bankrupt us for years and years to come. Our civil rights are trampled so fast we can't even respond to the attacks fast enough.

Far from having many friends in the world, we now snarl at anyone who doesn't toe the line. Canada. Mexico. France. Get ready for Great Britain. We have no friends left and we don't care!

Here's MY prediction. A few years from now historians will recognize Bush's election as the event that turned the tide from America being a great nation to an America that unquestionably has seen its best days and its power fade into the past.

And it will all be George Bush's fault.

To sum up:

Bill Clinton gets an illicit BJ and the Republicans are STILL chewing up the scenery about it.

George Bush will go down in history as the president who ended America's dominant role in the world.

Maybe I'm wrong... let's wait and see.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
That is dead simple. Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council.
Actually, the UN already deserves to be in the dustbin of history. Its failure to enforse resolutions IT ALREADY PASSED ensures that. Well, that and the UN failure to actually do anyting useful in the past few years. Remember, the UN stood by while people were killed in Kosovo. And remember, the head of human rights in the UN is Libya. The UN is based on a voting system, where many (of not most) of the member countries deny that vote to their own people.

Let me explain that to you in simple terms....

The security council passed a resolution that said "Iraq, you will disarm, and cooperate". Iraq said "No". If the security council says "Ok, we won't do anything" then what is the point of even having a UN?
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Nobody believes that is a good idea except the chimp in Washington and a large proportion of the American population. Quite frankly, if the US (with Blair in tow) attacks Iraq against the wishes of the security council then my own view would be that AMERICA MUST BE STOPPED, BY ANY MEANS. No less. I do not believe the American public, or the people in the White House actually understand the level of anti-Americanism that will follow an illegal invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN. What they have seen so far is peanuts by comparison.
American foreign policy should not be made in Europe or any other country. It is the president's job to make decisions to ensure the well being of the American people, even if those decisions are not supported in other countries (or even in America). If he makes the wrong decision, then he will be voted out of office. Simple as that.

And remember, the president has intelligence reports that all those protestors do not have.

And quite saying that it is only the US which supports the war. More European governments support American efforts than oppose them. And even in contries where there have been protests, there are still large numbers of people who support American military action.

The problem is, people keep calling this a 'unilateral' action... its not. Its multinational. It just doesn't have the backing of an organization filled with dictatorships and other undesirables.

Originally posted by Segnosaur


The problem is, people keep calling this a 'unilateral' action... its not. Its multinational. It just doesn't have the backing of an organization filled with dictatorships and other undesirables.

Not correct. From the information I've seen, not only is that "multinational" support NOT sending any troops (as they did in Gulf War Take 1), they are NOT going to be reimbursing us for part of the costs (last time Allies picked up $50 of the $60 billion cost).

If this is "multinational support", that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant



That is dead simple. Doing it with UN backing preserves the authority of the UN and is legal. Doing it without UN backing dumps the UN into the dustbin of history, is illegal, and basically sets a precedent which places the White House as a higher authority than the UN security council. Nobody believes that is a good idea except the chimp in Washington and a large proportion of the American population. Quite frankly, if the US (with Blair in tow) attacks Iraq against the wishes of the security council then my own view would be that AMERICA MUST BE STOPPED, BY ANY MEANS. No less. I do not believe the American public, or the people in the White House actually understand the level of anti-Americanism that will follow an illegal invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN. What they have seen so far is peanuts by comparison.

The UN can only blame itself for being a useless and irrelevant debating society. Perhaps that is simply the limit of the UN's ability? The UN seems to be able to handle 3rd world problems fairly well...but will never be able to reign in a determined superpower. Hell, they haven't even been able to reign in a determined Saddam!

Calling US actions against Iraq "illegal" is pretty funny. What should have been "illegal" is the willful flauting of UN resolutions. 17 of them at last count. The fact we can learn from this situation is that unless you have force to back up your paper...then all you have is paper. Paper is not law. Law is what is first agreed upon on paper...next stage is implementation and enforcement.

Your idea of UN "international law" is an empty shell. Saddam defys it's implementation...the US ignores it as unenforceable. International law as you have defined it is of no real use to anyone, unless you mean the protesters who get to shout "illegal" at the top of their lungs.

You say the US must be stopped....truth is the US wouldn't have gotten started down this road if not for 9/11. Then you will say that US policy is why 9/11 happened in the first place...but we all know that no nation can allow terrorism to dictate it's policy. There are channels for such complaints....the UN for instance. Yet another failure of that body. Next you will say that our actions will incite more terrorism....I and many other Americans are willing to take that risk. The only way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them. Iraq is the next step on that journey. Since we as Americans are damned if we do or damned if we don't, we're ready to DO. If we must be stopped...then by all means stop us. The simple fact is that the only nations on this planet with the cajones to actually do such a thing lack the means to. They will merely resort to killing more civilians, which will merely serve to put them on GWB's to-do list.

Eventually states will stop sponsoring terrorism, or they will face forceable regime change. This is our brave new world. Foisted upon us by the 9/11 terrorists. Blame the US all you want, but the fact remains that we did not start this war...but we will finish it. With or without the ridiculous UN. When the US is determined we are unstoppable. Another attack on us will merely serve to galvanize public opinion here, and perhaps speed up the terrorist extinction/regime change program. The US military is composed of people who live for this kind of conflict, it's time to let them do what they do so well.

-zilla

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by sundog


Not correct. From the information I've seen, not only is that "multinational" support NOT sending any troops (as they did in Gulf War Take 1), they are NOT going to be reimbursing us for part of the costs (last time Allies picked up $50 of the $60 billion cost).

If this is "multinational support", that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

Good points sundog. Also worth pointing out is that public opinion in those countries that are supporting Bush is massively against war. So its only the governments of those countries in favour-prolly because they are licking their lips at the bribes they will receive in return.

Zilla: I have to agree that the UN has a poor-track record (starting with Isreal and Palestine and going on from there). However, it is vital that we have some international law- although Americans might not think so because they are powerfull enough at the moment to be a law unto themselves. All of that might soon change after Bush ruins America though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
As of Monday, the United States and Britain were only guaranteed two other votes, those of Spain and Bulgaria, but Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan are expected to be won over by a series of motivating factors offered by the United States.

Translation: The US government will be buying their support, as they always do.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Zilla: I have to agree that the UN has a poor-track record (starting with Isreal and Palestine and going on from there). However, it is vital that we have some international law- although Americans might not think so because they are powerfull enough at the moment to be a law unto themselves. All of that might soon change after Bush ruins America though.

Well Jon....that's the gamble. Life's just one big ole game of chance ain't it? You pays your money...you takes your chance.
I know where my money is riding.

Anyhow,...you are right...there must be law. This whole thing is becoming a referendum on UN relevance. The debating society has it's chance to prove it's viability....if it's not then some other body is going to have to write and enforce international law. My guess would be a completely reformed UN.

-zilla

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


Translation: The US government will be buying their support, as they always do.

Ahhh...diplomacy and statecraft... :)

[Jon_in_london]

By the way, the whole problem that Blair has is that no-one trusts him anymore. And thats his own fault. He rode into power on a wave of optimism and promises for a new Britain.

All of the flagship policies that he used to gain power and votes have come to nothing. Transport is probably the most galringly obvious. Labour's ten-year transport plan is in absolute tatters- to the point of there being nothing left of it at all. The British people are tired of spin and of being lied to. Of corruption and sleaze assocaited with Labours PFI deal- most of which have ended up costing the taxpayer more for less in return.

Now, at the time when Blair really needs the Publics trust and support- he is finding that he has already exhausted it. The cut&paste UN dossier presented by Colin Powell was prolly hte last straw.

I think Blair has already done himself so much damage that he will not get elected again- provided we get some reasonable alternative in the near future.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
By the way, the whole problem that Blair has is that no-one trusts him anymore. And thats his own fault. He rode into power on a wave of optimism and promises for a new Britain.

All of the flagship policies that he used to gain power and votes have come to nothing. Transport is probably the most galringly obvious. Labour's ten-year transport plan is in absolute tatters- to the point of there being nothing left of it at all. The British people are tired of spin and of being lied to. Of corruption and sleaze assocaited with Labours PFI deal- most of which have ended up costing the taxpayer more for less in return.

Now, at the time when Blair really needs the Publics trust and support- he is finding that he has already exhausted it. The cut&paste UN dossier presented by Colin Powell was prolly hte last straw.

I think Blair has already done himself so much damage that he will not get elected again- provided we get some reasonable alternative in the near future.

I think all this will change if the invasion of Iraq is successful in accomplishing a regime change.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I think all this will change if the invasion of Iraq is successful in accomplishing a regime change.

I think that this is almost certain; what I'm not convinced of is whether or not the leader(s) of the new regime will be any better than Saddam.

[Jon_in_london]

*conspiracy theory alert* Has it occured to anyone else that the reason Spain is so sweet with Blair is because Blair has promised to give Gib to the dagoes in return?

[Dazza]

Originally posted by Pak_43
Dazza,

possibly this is the poll you had in mind??

http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq.shtml

Whichever poll you look at on this page it 'ain't 90%of the British public......



No.

This is the one I was thinking of



BBC poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2751471.stm)

[Dazza]

Originally posted by richardm



Hmm.

Just to put that in context, the Labour party currently (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hcio/stateparties.cfm) has 410 seats in Parliament. 122 Labour MPs voted for the amendment (i.e. against the Government). While that might be unprecedented, it does mean that 298 Labour MPs voted Against the amendment - in favour of the Government. That's more than twice as many.

As for your second point, you are assuming that the second resolution will not be forthcoming.

I'd like to know why it is that a war on Iraq is a dreadful concept if done without UN backing, but magically becomes Okay if a second resolution is passed?


I take your point that a majority of Labour MPs were prepared to support the Government on the motion put forward (which was very carefully worded). The figure isn't as high as you suggest though because of the number of abstentions, and UCE is right that you have to take account of the 'payroll vote' which gurantees the government a large number of votes. This vote was on a three line whip and so the size of the rebellion is hugely significant.

I also agree with your last point. Personally I think the way in which the US and the UK have sought to manipulate the UN to endorse a plan that they are already settled on completely devalues any mandate the UN may now give. However the perception of UN backing is important in terms of public opinion, so the passing of that second resolution is vital for Blair's political future.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON.

spain isn't international opinion? The 18 other countries in NATO are not international opinion? So we can say that you are not intetrnational opinion since you are someone I don't personally consider to be part of international opinion?

Troll :

Of course Spain is part of international opinion. But if you think the majority of world opinion (at any level from top to bottom) is backing America then you have been duped by the propaganda. Very few people outside the US back military action without a 2nd resolution. That is why I said Blair is on his own.

Bush said "Either you're with us or against us." Well, one hell of a lot of people are being forced into a position of "against the US". I feel like I am being herded into a position where I have to support Bin Laden because America is so out of order.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Troll :

Of course Spain is part of international opinion. But if you think the majority of world opinion (at any level from top to bottom) is backing America then you have been duped by the propaganda. Very few people outside the US back military action without a 2nd resolution. That is why I said Blair is on his own.

Bush said "Either you're with us or against us." Well, one hell of a lot of people are being forced into a position of "against the US". I feel like I am being herded into a position where I have to support Bin Laden because America is so out of order.

No no no. You said, and I quoted "Yes, I call France, Germany, RUSSIA, CHINA and just about everywhere else except for spain "international opinion".

YOU ARE A MORON. "

You state there. very clearly, that you do not believe \spain to be of international opinion.

and as I stated, only two nations that are part of NATO are against action, those being france and Germany. And yet you fail to mention the number of countries that have offered support. Support in one way or another. we're talking about some 40 plus countries. But since they disagree with France, Germany, china, and Russia, I suppose they don't count either?

Troll


You state there. very clearly, that you do not believe \spain to be of international opinion.


No, that's not what I meant. Spain may be part of international opinion, it just isn't in the anti-Bush majority.

How can Spain not be part of international opinion? :confused:


and as I stated, only two nations that are part of NATO are against action, those being france and Germany. And yet you fail to mention the number of countries that have offered support.


You mean they think they might have something to gain by supporting the US?

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Troll



No, that's not what I meant. Spain may be part of international opinion, it just isn't in the anti-Bush majority.

How can Spain not be part of international opinion? :confused:



You mean they think they might have something to gain by supporting the US?

You're kidding me, right? I mean do I need to even be sober to counter this?

Prove that there is an anti-Bush majority. List the countries that are pro and con so that we may all see you are correct via the numbers.

You don't think France and Russia have nothing to gain with Hussein in control of Iraq do you? Or that other nations may not have something to gain by arguing against the US point of view and perhaps getting their own way about things?

Is this seriously the best you could come up with as a reply?

[Troll]

oh, and just to add to the yucks here. why is there a second resolution being offered and sent to the UN? To do what? appease the world? Well there's a second resolution. Be appeased already or admit your true feelings.

Originally posted by Troll



Prove that there is an anti-Bush majority.

This is scary, and surreal. From where I am sitting, not exposed to US propaganda, it looks to me like nearly the entire world is opposed to Bush. Apparently within America people think that the situation is such that not only is it neccesary to prove there is a majority opposed to Bush, but you don't even need to be sober to demonstrate there is no anti-Bush majority. Scary times. America, and Americans, appear to have completely lost the plot. :(

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


This is scary, and surreal. From where I am sitting, not exposed to US propaganda, it looks to me like nearly the entire world is opposed to Bush. Apparently within America people think that the situation is such that not only is it neccesary to prove there is a majority opposed to Bush, but you don't even need to be sober to demonstrate there is no anti-Bush majority. Scary times. America, and Americans, appear to have completely lost the plot. :(

well in NATO alone only 2 countries are against him. That leaves a silent majority in favor. Adding Russia and China to those against leaves a total of 4 against to over 16 for.

I say silent majority because you just don't seem to get a chance to hear about them so much.

I also said that I personally don't need to be sober to see the flaws in your posts. well actually I asked if I even need to be, as I'm not 100% at the moment and yet I can see the bias in your posts

oh, and just to add to the yucks here. why is there a second resolution being offered and sent to the UN? To do what? appease the world?


To show some respect for international law.


Well there's a second resolution. Be appeased already or admit your true feelings.


I think I have made my true feelings very clear. America is the biggest threat to world peace and the biggest obstacle to acheiving international equality and stability. The American Empire must be brought down, and since they themselves do not recognise any rules, then there are no rules. The Bush administration was described by Harold Pinter as "A bunch of criminal lunatics." He was not wrong. There can be no appeasement of Bush. Sooner or later America will be held to account for its crimes.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


To show some respect for international law.



I think I have made my true feelings very clear. America is the biggest threat to world peace and the biggest obstacle to acheiving international equality and stability. The American Empire must be brought down, and since they themselves do not recognise any rules, then there are no rules. The Bush administration was described by Harold Pinter as "A bunch of criminal lunatics." He was not wrong. There can be no appeasement of Bush. Sooner or later America will be held to account for its crimes.

well good. You've admitted you are anti-american. Thanks for your honesty

well actually I asked if I even need to be, as I'm not 100% at the moment and yet I can see the bias in your posts


have spent many years slowly getting more and more p**sed off with American foreign policy and the attitudes of American people. For me, trashing Kyoto because it "threatened US jobs" was the final straw. I cheered when then the WTC came down. I saw it as the first real sign of hope for the world. Finally somebody had provided a message to the US in the only language it is capable of understanding - that of violence and dollars.

If you think I sound like an extremist, and that my views are not echoed from one end of planet Earth to the other then I suspect you, like most Americans, have a very poor understanding of the way your country is percieved from outside. My views are reflected all over the globe. America is internationally despised.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


have spent many years slowly getting more and more p**sed off with American foreign policy and the attitudes of American people. For me, trashing Kyoto because it "threatened US jobs" was the final straw. I cheered when then the WTC came down. I saw it as the first real sign of hope for the world. Finally somebody had provided a message to the US in the only language it is capable of understanding - that of violence and dollars.

If you think I sound like an extremist, and that my views are not echoed from one end of planet Earth to the other then I suspect you, like most Americans, have a very poor understanding of the way your country is percieved from outside. My views are reflected all over the globe. America is internationally despised.

Not at all. I understand your ilk quite well. I also understand that though that may be your view it's apparently not the view of your country as a whole. I understand that protesters in the US feel they are the majority when in fact they are not. It's about power. You lack it and crave it and create the falsehood of actually having it. My views are also reflected all over the globe. In france, in canada, in Mexico in china and russia. In every country there are those that feel the way I do. They're just not so uppity as your kind are so ya hear less from them. Big whoop.

[armageddonman]

Luckily, one can be against certain actions of the US government without cheering at the death of innocents.

UC, you've really lost it.

Originally posted by armageddonman
Luckily, one can be against certain actions of the US government without cheering at the death of innocents.

UC, you've really lost it.

I want you to understand the depth of anti-US feeling that exists in the world today.

The US government will change only when US public opinion changes. Bush needs to be put under as much pressure from US public opinion as Blair is from British public opinion.

What will it take to change US public opinion?

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I want you to understand the depth of anti-US feeling that exists in the world today.

The US government will change only when US public opinion changes. Bush needs to be put under as much pressure from US public opinion as Blair is from British public opinion.

What will it take to change US public opinion?

People making more sense than you? Just a thought. Maybe realistic and viable reasons are a better way to change a persons mind than emotional outbursts?

Hey, what would it take to change your opinion?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


have spent many years slowly getting more and more p**sed off with American foreign policy and the attitudes of American people. For me, trashing Kyoto because it "threatened US jobs" was the final straw. I cheered when then the WTC came down. I saw it as the first real sign of hope for the world. Finally somebody had provided a message to the US in the only language it is capable of understanding - that of violence and dollars.

If you think I sound like an extremist, and that my views are not echoed from one end of planet Earth to the other then I suspect you, like most Americans, have a very poor understanding of the way your country is percieved from outside. My views are reflected all over the globe. America is internationally despised.

though you may feel this way about (hopefully some and not all) Americans, cheering the deaths of innocence surprises me. It is rhetoric like what you posted that pushes folks towards a Jedi Knight attitude (not all but some). It is rhetoric like JK's exagerated lable filled diatribes that sadly seem to push folks (like it seems to have you UCE) toward this massive anti-Americanism, to the point where you cheer the deaths of thousands.

See through that ***** dude.

[Dazza]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


have spent many years slowly getting more and more p**sed off with American foreign policy and the attitudes of American people. For me, trashing Kyoto because it "threatened US jobs" was the final straw. I cheered when then the WTC came down. I saw it as the first real sign of hope for the world. Finally somebody had provided a message to the US in the only language it is capable of understanding - that of violence and dollars.

If you think I sound like an extremist, and that my views are not echoed from one end of planet Earth to the other then I suspect you, like most Americans, have a very poor understanding of the way your country is percieved from outside. My views are reflected all over the globe. America is internationally despised.

Since I've largely agreed with UCE up to this point, I just want to make it clear that I totally disagree with this post. I don't know anyone who wasn't shocked and appalled by what happened in New York. I am completely against the foreign policy of the US and the UK. That doesn't make me anti-American any more than it makes me anti-British.

UCE, you help nobody's cause by posting things like this.

Originally posted by LeFevre


though you may feel this way about (hopefully some and not all) Americans, cheering the deaths of innocence surprises me. It is rhetoric like what you posted that pushes folks towards a Jedi Knight attitude (not all but some). It is rhetoric like JK's exagerated lable filled diatribes that sadly seem to push folks (like it seems to have you UCE) toward this massive anti-Americanism, to the point where you cheer the deaths of thousands.

See through that ***** dude.

JK comes across as a neo-nazi. "All children should salute the flag of the fatherland every day". JK is an extremist, but I get the distinct impression that he's not that much of an extremist.

Why did three times as many people demonstrate on the streets of London than on the streets of New York?

Originally posted by Dazza


Since I've largely agreed with UCE up to this point, I just want to make it clear that I totally disagree with this post. I don't know anyone who wasn't shocked and appalled by what happened in New York. I am completely against the foreign policy of the US and the UK. That doesn't make me anti-American any more than it makes me anti-British.

UCE, you help nobody's cause by posting things like this.

Maybe you are right.

I am no politician. My background is that of a radical environmentalist. I saw Kyoto as the last hope for saving the world. Everybody signed it except the Americans. I saw this betrayal as unforgiveable. Americans don't seem to think it matters all that much.

Perhaps I should put it like this :

9/11 was shocking and appalling, but I know very well what kind of feelings drove Bin Laden and his followers to carry out such an act. America was in a state of total disbelief : "How could anyone hate us so much as to do this to us?". There was a different attitude elsewhere - a thinly veiled "it was horrible - but they were asking for it."

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Maybe you are right.

I am no politician. My background is that of a radical environmentalist. I saw Kyoto as the last hope for saving the world. Everybody signed it except the Americans. I saw this betrayal as unforgiveable. Americans don't seem to think it matters all that much.

That's a blatant lie. Not everyone backed it. and some that did asked for and got concessions that left them untouched in some areas. For the longest time, Canada, Australia and the UK held off as well as the US. In fact it was less than a full year ago that I posted this link http://unfccc.int/resource/conv/ratlist.pdf and those countries including russia had not ratified.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Perhaps I should put it like this :

9/11 was shocking and appalling, but I know very well what kind of feelings drove Bin Laden and his followers to carry out such an act. America was in a state of total disbelief : "How could anyone hate us so much as to do this to us?". There was a different attitude elsewhere - a thinly veiled "it was horrible - but they were asking for it."

Nope. My view was "it finally happened." It's been happening all over. France, Germany, Israel, Spain and on and on. All those countries have had similar incidents . Maybe not leading to the number of deaths in one hit like we had. But they've had more hits over the years. It was only a matter of time. But the difference here is that we're not planning to let it continue

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


From where I am sitting...

...it looks to me like...

This is what you used to conclude that there is an anti-Bush international majority!? :confused:

You must really get around! :rolleyes:

[Pak_43]

Dazza,

Thanks for the link...

And what the poll clearly shows is that:

"Fewer than one out of every 10 Britons believe it would be right for the country to take part in a war against Iraq without the UN passing a new resolution in favour of it, the survey suggests.

And 45% of people polled said the UK should play no part in a war on Iraq - whatever the UN decides"

And as I said in my previous post:

And your claim is now: can guarantee you that opinion is overwhelmingly against war without a clear UN mandate....which isn't what undercover said (or implied..)

So what do we have? It would appear clear from your polls that

A proportion of the population (let's have your figures of say 90%) is against the war without a 2nd mandate
(and based on your evidence let's say the same proportion of the UK labour party)

And a large minority (45% from your poll, if you wanted to twist some figures you might even get away with half) are against war with a 2nd mandate...


So the conclusion has to be that for just over half the population of the UK the issue isn't whether we go to war with Iraq but HOW they do it...
This is hardly the anti-american revolution that UCE is going on about is it??
From where I am sitting, not exposed to US propaganda, it looks to me like nearly the entire world is opposed to Bush

As I said in my first post:
I don't think you can make either "Most of his own party" or "90% of the public" stick as assertions...
and I still don't think he can.....

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

To show some respect for international law.

Sorry, but not at the cost of our sovereignty...

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

America is the biggest threat to world peace and the biggest obstacle to acheiving international equality and stability. The American Empire must be brought down...

You seem very adept at talking the talk...

There are several organizations around the world recruiting people just like you, UCE. Maybe you should check them out...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
have spent many years slowly getting more and more p**sed off with American foreign policy and the attitudes of American people. For me, trashing Kyoto because it "threatened US jobs" was the final straw.
Someone from Britian does NOT have the moral high ground when it comes to Kyoto.

The way Kyoto is arranged, members have to reduce their production of carbon dioxide levels relative to the amount produced a decade ago. Problem is, Britian has pretty much matched those targets, because previous governments had cut back on coal production (not because of the environment, but because they were not economical.) Thus, Britian doesn't really need to do anything for Kyoto. (Same with countries like Germany, where they've pretty much met their targets just by closing down inefficent Eastern Germany industries.)

Another problems with Kyoto is that it doesn't really address the developing world and their pollution record.

And what is the punishment for failing to live up to Kyoto? Do you really think all the people who have ratified it will really have the ability to live up to it? And what if they don't? Kyoto was pretty much a feel-good document with no real brains behind it.

It also ignores the ability of technological development in the U.S. and other western contries to overcome problems in the world.
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I cheered when then the WTC came down.
Ok, I could be going out on a limb here, but I think you've just alienated all the people who may have agreed with you to this point.

Ok, I could be going out on a limb here, but I think you've just alienated all the people who may have agreed with you to this point.


Very likely. :(

I didn't cheer. I was as horrified as everybody else was. But I understand why it happened.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


have spent many years slowly getting more and more p**sed off with American foreign policy and the attitudes of American people. For me, trashing Kyoto because it "threatened US jobs" was the final straw. I cheered when then the WTC came down. I saw it as the first real sign of hope for the world. Finally somebody had provided a message to the US in the only language it is capable of understanding - that of violence and dollars.

If you think I sound like an extremist, and that my views are not echoed from one end of planet Earth to the other then I suspect you, like most Americans, have a very poor understanding of the way your country is percieved from outside. My views are reflected all over the globe. America is internationally despised.

Well Geoff,

I'm not going to take you to task for your comments. I long ago learned that there is no way to reconcile our divergent political thought. Were I still mad at you I'd take that little comment of yours as a quote. I appreciate the fact that I have dialog with a person of your views. I appreciate your candor, you are I believe a very honest, yet emotional person. You know my views...we've been over all this a hundred times, it doesn't need to be revisited.

But there is one thing...the thought of you cheering the death of any person moves me to remind you of one thing. Taoism teaches that the furthest a person can be from "enlightenment" is when they are celebrating death. I know how important to you your search for enlightenment is....so get ahold of yourself. You're not a bad person....I know you're not. I know you didn't mean what you said...take it back. Don't give in to a self destructive and clearly irrational hatred. You will only damage your own well being by holding on to such an emotion.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


JK comes across as a neo-nazi. "All children should salute the flag of the fatherland every day". JK is an extremist, but I get the distinct impression that he's not that much of an extremist.

Why did three times as many people demonstrate on the streets of London than on the streets of New York?

Maybe because London didn't lose over 3,000 people in a massive act of ignorant evil.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Richard

I do not believe the American public, or the people in the White House actually understand the level of anti-Americanism that will follow an illegal invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN. What they have seen so far is peanuts by comparison.

And I think you over-estimate that feeling. I live in an Arab State (Sharjah, UAE), and the general feeling amongst the Arabs that I know (and I know a lot of them) is that they'd rather get the whole thing over. They don't particularly like Bush or Blair, but they really don't like Hussain, and "why are we worried about all thet anyway, Sharon is the real monster". Yes, a lot of people have demonstrated, in nice safe places where their voice is not very loud, but the people in the front-line states (to steal a phrase from the Anti-Apartheid crowd) are basically sitting tight, hoping for a quick war, and Hussain to leave... in a body bag.

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well Geoff,

I'm not going to take you to task for your comments. I long ago learned that there is no way to reconcile our divergent political thought. Were I still mad at you I'd take that little comment of yours as a quote. I appreciate the fact that I have dialog with a person of your views. I appreciate your candor, you are I believe a very honest, yet emotional person. You know my views...we've been over all this a hundred times, it doesn't need to be revisited.

But there is one thing...the thought of you cheering the death of any person moves me to remind you of one thing. Taoism teaches that the furthest a person can be from "enlightenment" is when they are celebrating death.
-zilla

Rik,

I know this. I do not celebrate death. And I hear the voices of people like sundog and headscratcher. I should stay away from politics. I think I said once before that a good politician is a good liar. I'll leave politics to the politicians.

Geoff

Originally posted by Hypocolius


And I think you over-estimate that feeling. I live in an Arab State (Sharjah, UAE), and the general feeling amongst the Arabs that I know (and I know a lot of them) is that they'd rather get the whole thing over. They don't particularly like Bush or Blair, but they really don't like Hussain, and "why are we worried about all thet anyway, Sharon is the real monster". Yes, a lot of people have demonstrated, in nice safe places where their voice is not very loud, but the people in the front-line states (to steal a phrase from the Anti-Apartheid crowd) are basically sitting tight, hoping for a quick war, and Hussain to leave... in a body bag.

Sharon is indeed a monster. :(

I agree with you about this. The Arabs want rid of Saddam too. I think it is the anti-Americanism in Europe that is most relevant. For them it is a fear of American empire-building and the death of the UN.

[rikzilla]

The real problem Geoff, is that terrorism works. The reason that it works is that the exact "solution" you have come up with rewards terrorism. By addressing the "root causes" of terrorism you are rewarding the terrorist's cause. You may actually succeed in reducing specific terrorist acts by your method Geoff...but there are many, many other groups...all with "root causes" of their own. You encourage widespread terrorism when you give in to the demands, or advance the cause of any terrorist.

Listen to the words of Zehdi Labib Terzi, the PLO's chief observer at the United Nations:
"The first several hijackings aroused the consciousness of the world and awakened the media and the world opinion much more--and more effectively--than 20 years of pleading at the UN."

The Palestinians were rewarded for their terrorism by increased awareness of their "root causes". Attention that resulted in their leader being welcomed by the UN General Assembly, their organisation being granted observer status at the UN...and many nations recognising their so called "government". That was back in 1968 I believe. The modern era of political terrorism was born at that time. Guess what? Terrorism did not decrease....it has increased over the years....mostly because it has been proved to work. It has been continually rewarded by our "friends" in the international community. Why wouldn't it grow and thrive?

Things are different now. 9/11 made them different. We're going to try the new aggressive approach to terrorism reduction. GWB's approach is a good common sense tactic of deterrence, an approach that doesn't seem to have been thought of seriously before! :confused:

Of course root causes should be addressed, but not at the point of a gun. Actually the root causes of groups which resort to terrorism Should Never be addressed at all until such groups repudiate the tactic. Just MHO.

-zilla

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I want you to understand the depth of anti-US feeling that exists in the world today.

The US government will change only when US public opinion changes. Bush needs to be put under as much pressure from US public opinion as Blair is from British public opinion.

What will it take to change US public opinion?

Geoff,

You couldn't say it better. There is an anti-USA feeling as well in countries from LA.

But, don't hold your breath about changing the "American way of thinking", it is like talking to the walls. The majority of them cannot understand because they want to live in Hollywoodist bubble.

I have seen a huge difference between British and US public opinion. My respect and admiration for British people...

Q-S

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I agree with you about this. The Arabs want rid of Saddam too. I think it is the anti-Americanism in Europe that is most relevant. For them it is a fear of American empire-building and the death of the UN.
Ironic, considering its the actions of a few countries in Europe that is leading to the death of the U.N. (Namely, French, German and Russian attempts to prevent the U.N. from enforcing resolutions it passed itself.)

(Edited to fix a typo)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source

But, don't hold your breath about changing the "American way of thinking", it is like talking to the walls. The majority of them cannot understand because they want to live in Hollywoodist bubble.

I have seen a huge difference between British and US public opinion. My respect and admiration for British people...

Why do you respect British public opinion? Just because a large number are anti-war?

Have they also protested against Saddam? Have the protests brought through any real possibilties for improving the situation, instead of just "Wait (and forget about innocent Iraqis killed by Saddam)"?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Geoff,

You couldn't say it better. There is an anti-USA feeling as well in countries from LA.

But, don't hold your breath about changing the "American way of thinking", it is like talking to the walls. The majority of them cannot understand because they want to live in Hollywoodist bubble.

I have seen a huge difference between British and US public opinion. My respect and admiration for British people...

Q-S

I suppose if I had said such an ignorant mean spirited comment full of biased sterotypes, I would be an "arrogant" American...

Ahh that is consistency for ya...

[DanishDynamite]

Mike B.I suppose if I had said such an ignorant mean spirited comment full of biased sterotypes, I would be an "arrogant" American...

Ahh that is consistency for ya...Good point.

UCE is living in a dream world. The world as such doesn't despise the US. Its true that large proportions of the western world, even majorities, do not agree with the current US policy towards Iraq, and large proportions likewise feel that the US disdain for the UN, Kyoto, International Court, etc, is reprehensible and arrogant, but I would like to see UCE show proof that people generally despise the US. I've seen "US approval polls" within the last month or two, and while the approval rating had dropped, it was still a majority in most countries.

UCE, there is a difference between disagreeing with the current administration of the US or their policies, and despising the US itself.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Maybe because London didn't lose over 3,000 people in a massive act of ignorant evil.

True, but many in the towers were British.....

And we have lost over 3000 because of the Northern Ireland issue. (acts of ignorant evil)

Not making any point here other than to say, that in the wake of one terrible attrocity lets not forget the victims of other (allbeit more protracted) atrocities.

And all hopefully agree that all terrorism needs to be adressed.

[Mike B.]

Always good to hear from ya DD:)

Originally posted by rikzilla


Of course root causes should be addressed, but not at the point of a gun. Actually the root causes of groups which resort to terrorism Should Never be addressed at all until such groups repudiate the tactic. Just MHO.

-zilla

Then you learned nothing from the experience of the British and the IRA. Your MHO is a recipe for stalemate and bloodshed unending. So long as the British government refused to talk to the IRA the bombs kept on blowing up and no progress was possible. We now have some hope of a solution, and for one reason only : The British government decided the only solution was to address the source problem and hope the IRA would disarm when it was dealt with.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mike B.Good point.

UCE is living in a dream world. The world as such doesn't despise the US. Its true that large proportions of the western world, even majorities, do not agree with the current US policy towards Iraq, and large proportions likewise feel that the US disdain for the UN, Kyoto, International Court, etc, is reprehensible and arrogant, but I would like to see UCE show proof that people generally despise the US. I've seen "US approval polls" within the last month or two, and while the approval rating had dropped, it was still a majority in most countries.

UCE, there is a difference between disagreeing with the current administration of the US or their policies, and despising the US itself.

I don't despise the US. I despise the attitudes and behaviour of a segment of the population.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


The British government decided the only solution was to address the source problem and hope the IRA would disarm when it was dealt with.


Which still remains to be seen.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Why do you respect British public opinion? Just because a large number are anti-war?

Don't you think that it is enough to respect them??? :eek:


Have they also protested against Saddam? Have the protests brought through any real possibilties for improving the situation, instead of just "Wait (and forget about innocent Iraqis killed by Saddam)"?

I don't know if they have protested in this regard. Maybe, they don't want to change any country's statuo quo or they don't want to impose their own foreign policy on other countries. This is what I hate about the US foreign policy.

They think that democracy in other countries cannot exist without their "help". They use democracy and human rights to get what they really want : access to natural resources and political power.

Q-S

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Don't you think that it is enough to respect them??? :eek:
No, because the anti-war protestors tend to chant their little 'No War for Oil' slogans like empty-headed parrots, without understanding anything about what's going on over in Iraq, or of all the resolutions that have been passed by the UN against Iraq, or the real reason France opposes U.S. actions. Look at the video on brain-terminal.com... that's your typical anti-war protestor...

And I would have more respect for them if at least a few carried signs urging Saddam to disarm or leave Iraq.

Originally posted by Q-Source
They think that democracy in other countries cannot exist without their "help". They use democracy and human rights to get what they really want : access to natural resources and political power.
Guess what? Iraq isn't a democracy. And without U.S. intervention, it won't be. The U.S. still may not be successful in turning into a democracy, but it won't go that way any time soon without help. Or do you think the magical democracy fairy will somehow wave her wand and bring peace and freedom to Iraq?

Oh, my god, they are threating to bring HUMAN RIGHTS to get natural resources? My god, the barbarity. Next thing you know, they'll be threating to eliminate world hunger in order to get what they want. Will those evil Americans never stop?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Undercover Elephant:
Then you learned nothing from the experience of the British and the IRA. Your MHO is a recipe for stalemate and bloodshed unending. So long as the British government refused to talk to the IRA the bombs kept on blowing up and no progress was possible. We now have some hope of a solution, and for one reason only : The British government decided the only solution was to address the source problem and hope the IRA would disarm when it was dealt with.

There's reason to believe that successfull SAS campaigns were hitting the IRA very hard indeed, leading them to the conclusion that the "struggle" could be lost and the negotiating table wasn't a bad alternative in this instance.

Far from disarming, the IRA has been nabbed smuggling guns from Florida, three IRA members are on trial in Colombia for aiding marxist rebels and the ceasefire has allowed both sets of homicidal thugs extend their reign of terror in their respective communities.

You seem oblivious to the experience of the Irish government and the IRA. The Irish state was established when the Irish peole approved the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 by giving the Pro-treaty factions a clear majority in the State's first election. This wasn't to the liking of the anti-treaty IRA who embarked on a campaign of terror against the new state (sounds familiar) and plunged the country into civil war. They were speedily defeated by the Irish army. Thereafter successive Irish governments (including those who had supported and fought with the anti-treaty side in the civil war) failed to take the enlightened step of reasoning and entering into dialogue with the IRA during their sporadic attempts at destabilizing the Irish state, rather they used internment without trial and the English executioner Albert Pierrepoint to bring the terrorists to their senses. The horrific consequences of this was a democracy that survives to the present day, and an IRA that was almost extinct by the 1960s.

That is until Unionist boneheadedness and bigotry, aided and abbeted by the acquiesence of succesive British governments (including bleeding heart Labour administrations), gave them the kiss of life again. Thanks a heap.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Guess what? Iraq isn't a democracy. And without U.S. intervention, it won't be. The U.S. still may not be successful in turning into a democracy, but it won't go that way any time soon without help. Or do you think the magical democracy fairy will somehow wave her wand and bring peace and freedom to Iraq?

Oh, my god, they are threating to bring HUMAN RIGHTS to get natural resources? My god, the barbarity. Next thing you know, they'll be threating to eliminate world hunger in order to get what they want. Will those evil Americans never stop?

This is the typical opinion of the USA people who think that the only possible way to bring democracy and human rights to other countries is by US intervention.

Ohhh....God bless "America" :rolleyes:

Guess what?, there is a whole world outside the USA !

Pathetic !

[Troll]

Originally posted by Q-Source


This is the typical opinion of the USA people who think that the only possible way to bring democracy and human rights to other countries is by US intervention.

Ohhh....God bless "America" :rolleyes:

Guess what?, there is a whole world outside the USA !

Pathetic !

Yeah there is. But you twits never really have much going on by way of action, do ya? Nope. Face it. You standback and wait to see what the US wants to do then you try to see how to work it for you. It's "Oh that could help so we support it" or "Oh taking an opposing view may help my campaign". Aside from Russia, China and most times the UK that's how it works for the rest of ya

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

I am beginning to fear a certain amount of racism is pervading in the US and other countries, particularly France, in which the Iraqi people are "not us" and "just don't matter."

It seems appeasers are willing to parrot anti-sanction rhetoric--"FOR THE CHILDREN"--yet, when asked to actually do something to allieviate them . . . well . . . cannot do that. Let us have more sanctions!

Let us, instead, subordinate humanity to jealously. I am afraid much of this can be understood as a "bar room testosterone fight."

Allow me to digress [When does he not?--Ed.] Put two martial artists together and they start wondering "who can take whom." They will even wonder, "I bet I could take out Tyson with my Kick of Doom! [All Rights Reserv'd.--Ed.]"

No, they cannot.

Similarly, take Australia . . . please. . . . [Stop that.--Ed.] Okay . . . another foreign country . . . is Canada a foreign country?

Right, other countries have a problem that, deep down inside, they know they cannot "win" a hypothetical war with the US. Even North Korea knows it has a bunch of nuclear weapons parked off its waters more than capable of turning it and its precious regime into glass.

Well . . . this power bothers countries.

Rumsfeld comment was apt--"old Europe" use to shake the foundations of the Earth.

France, Germany . . . heh . . . heh . . . Belgium . . . and others cannot shake a one-armed man out of a tree. The jealousy is bothersome.

Nevertheless, jealousy of American military power--and American desire to demonstrate it occassionally to see if she can still piss farther than everyone else--CANNOT detract from the real humanitarian and security threat that is Sadam Hussein.

--J.D.

[Supercharts]

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69808.htm

"March 3, 2003 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "fully supports" President Bush's Iraq policy, her office said last night - on the eve of her visit today to an upstate arsenal that makes military hardware like mortars and howitzers for U.S. troops.
"Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source
This is the typical opinion of the USA people who think that the only possible way to bring democracy and human rights to other countries is by US intervention.
Ok, just how would you bring democracy and human rights to Iraq, in a way that will reduce the number of people who die by Saddam's own government? Do you have a real solution? I'd love to hear it.
Originally posted by Q-Source

Ohhh....God bless "America" :rolleyes:

Guess what?, there is a whole world outside the USA !

And most of that world is filled with brutal dictatorships.

By the way, I'm not in America, nor do I believe in the 'god' that will be blessing it. However, I feel that certain things (like human rights abuses, and the slaughter of innocent people) are worth standing against. For that reason, I support military action against Iraq.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Ok, just how would you bring democracy and human rights to Iraq, in a way that will reduce the number of people who die by Saddam's own government? Do you have a real solution? I'd love to hear it.

Why don't you give any credibility to the political parties and people that live in those countries?
Solutions have to come from within, from the own nation's population decision.

I would support any military action if the real purpose were to impose democracy and human rights. But this is not the case. But what Bush really wants is to get international political power and oil.


And most of that world is filled with brutal dictatorships.

So, our Uncle Tom is the only one who can save us ?


By the way, I'm not in America, nor do I believe in the 'god' that will be blessing it. However, I feel that certain things (like human rights abuses, and the slaughter of innocent people) are worth standing against. For that reason, I support military action against Iraq.

I also believe that those abuses should be end immediately. But, why with military action (more violence)?

Q-S

P.S. Segnosaur, please remove UCE's words in your sig. He already apologised.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Q-Source
I also believe that those abuses should be end immediately. But, why with military action (more violence)?

Great.

How would you go about ending those abuses, then Q-Source?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Why don't you give any credibility to the political parties and people that live in those countries?
Solutions have to come from within, from the own nation's population decision.

Because whenever one of those political parties speaks out, they get imprissoned, tortured, or killed. Dead. Can't speak when you're dead. Unless you talk to John Edward.

That's the nature of a dictatorship. Dissent is silenced under threats from the government.
Originally posted by Q-Source

I would support any military action if the real purpose were to impose democracy and human rights. But this is not the case. But what Bush really wants is to get international political power and oil.

Blah, blah... War for oil... blah, blah.

As many people have said, if Oil were the only reason for this war, the U.S. would be much better off simply making a deal with Saddam.
Originally posted by Q-Source

So, our Uncle Tom is the only one who can save us ?

First of all, they have the desire to take risks to 'save' Iraq.

Secondly, remember, this is NOT unilateral.... there are over a dozen countries supporting the U.S. on this. (It is not just 'Uncle Tom'.)
Originally posted by Q-Source
I also believe that those abuses should be end immediately. But, why with military action (more violence)?

Umm... Because there are no other solutions which would end the abuses immediately? At least no reasonable solutions have ever been suggested.
Originally posted by Q-Source

P.S. Segnosaur, please remove UCE's words in your sig. He already apologised.
Well, a couple of points about that:
- Other people have quotes from fellow posters in their sig. Are you going to complain about them too? If you agree to write to everyone who has a quote from another poster in their sig, I will remove UCE's quote from mine.
- Although he has 'appologized' and has said he didn't really cheer, his words were really very disturbing. Should other people immediately accept his apology?
- He's made many other comments (like how Americans only understand violence) where were either disgusting, or downright boneheaded.

(Edited to fix a typo)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Blah, blah... War for oil... blah, blah.

If the protestors were honest, the placards and picket signs would read: "No War for Freedom"

Where were they during Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia??

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kodiak


If the protestors were honest, the placards and picket signs would read: "No War for Freedom"

Where were they during Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia??
Probably because Janeane Garofalo said it wasn't hip.

http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/janeanegarofalo/index.htm

(edited to add the link)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Kodiak


If the protestors were honest, the placards and picket signs would read: "No War for Freedom"

Where were they during Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia??

As far as I remember these were all "popular" wars. There were plenty of people pushing the idea of external intervention. The opposition came from the political diplomatic and military elites who feared that entanglements in these regions would be lengthy, costly in lives and money and lead to unpleasant political consequences as electorates blamed politicians if it all started to go wrong.

As far as Iraq is concerned the war seems uniformly unpopular everywhere in the democratic world (regardless of expressions of support from elected leaders) except amongst the US electorate.

There is a case to be made for war and I think Blair genuinely believes in it but nevertheless the majority in the UK and Europe are not convinced.

As regards freedom in Iraq.......well a less worse oppressive regime is probably the best that can be hoped for given the state of the Iraqi opposition.

My bet is that 18 months after the war is over, occupying allied forces will be unwelcome and largely restricted to major garrisons and heavily armed convoys in order to avoid attacks by a variety of opposition forces. Terrorist attacks against western targets will continue but at a higher level and Saudi Arabia will be looking even less stable than now. As for oil prices....... I hate to think. Meanwhile Kurdish militants will be pushing for a state of their own and giving increased problems to the Turks. I could go on. This isn't precognition. I'm just a pessimist about the Middle East.
:D

What do you expect to happen?

Might be fun to start a thread and let people make their own predictions for say 18 months ahead.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Supercharts
"Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines."

Well, that tears it—it must be a bad idea!

Ironically, I just got finished creating a topic about Clinton supporting the National ID card. As I've said before, when Democrats and Republicans actually agree on something, watch out! Because it means our sovereign rights are in jeopardy.

I would get worried but there's womens mud wrestlying on channel 9.

I had a really funny joke about the Blair "which" project..

It was really funny, but I can't remember the punch line. Maybe I should cut back my dosage.

[Mike B.]

I love the mentality of Q-Source.

It is fine for someone like that to speak about how stupid typical Americans are and how they only get information from Hollywood. The ugliest ugliest stero-types are used freely.

Yet you can believe that if someone from America said the exact same things about other countries, she would be the first to scream about "arrogant" Americans.

Hypocrisy as an art form really...

BTW,
I have read the "progressive" musing of Undercover Elephant. (If you get down to it, someone who feels the death of me and my child is justified because, well violence is the only thing I understand...) He did not really apologize for what he said. He was sorry what he said was so impolitic and would lose him followers, which it did.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Why don't you give any credibility to the political parties and people that live in those countries?

Could you name all the political "parties" (note the plural) in Iraq?

Or do you mean that since Husein got 100% of the "vote" that the people overwhelmingly love him and we must respect their heartfelt "vote" ?



P.S. Segnosaur, please remove UCE's words in your sig. He already apologised.

Could you point me to the apology -- my memroy may be faulty, but I do not recall it as being particularly . . . apologetic, as apologies go -- but I may have missed it.

NA

Originally posted by Mike B.

I have read the "progressive" musing of Undercover Elephant. (If you get down to it, someone who feels the death of me and my child is justified because, well violence is the only thing I understand...) He did not really apologize for what he said. He was sorry what he said was so impolitic and would lose him followers, which it did. [/B]

Mike.

There are many different people in America. Some of them are very reasonable human beings who I respect a great deal. Others (unfortunately quite a large number of them) are more like Jedi Knight...."US sends 60,000 more troops to the gulf...LOL!...Hey!...We gonna blow those Arabs to the moon...LOL!...Hick!."

Yet when JK comes along and makes posts like this, it seems nobody actually challenges it. This attitude is accepted. It is not something to laugh about. It's not a video game. It's the lives of thousands of Iraqi conscripts who did not choose to be in the Iraqi army. It is people with attitudes like his which drive the sort of anti-Americanism I have expressed on this board. Yet my comment, which I withdrew, continues to be repeated whilst JK goes on spouting Americanised low-IQ neo-nazism unchallenged. I think the reason for this is that even though I may have apologised there is a residual anger that anyone should have expressed such a profoundly anti-American sentiment in public - that anyone should actually think such a thing. Well get used to it. I have a life outside this board. I have spoken to quite a few people about the comment I made (about cheering the WTC attack) and the ongoing reaction of the denizens of this board. I live in a country that is supposed to be your closest ally. Not many of my compatriots would come along and post such an inflammatory comment themselves. But I think you might be surprised how many of them feel no different than I when it comes to America, the attitudes of American people, and the extent to which the 9/11 attacks were to some extent 'asked for' by the unchallenged attitudes of people like JK (and several others I can think of). In short - you can vilify me as long as you like but it won't change the fact that the sort of anti-Americanism I have expressed is becoming endemic in western Europe, even though most of them aren't stupid enough to say so in a place like this.

[Shane Costello]

UCE,

You must have gotten really annoyed when Chirac insulted the "gang of eight" countries that signed that letter supporting the current US stance on Iraq? I mean, French arrogance must be at least as bad as American arrogance, right?

Arrogance exists all over the place. But the answer is no - nothing comes close to what comes out of America. Maybe if France was the most powerfull country on the planet it would be abusing its position to the same extent the US does. Maybe not though. I think there are cultural/psychological reasons why its worse in America. Most countries have at some point in their history been brought down a peg or two and come out of it as a more mature society. America behaves more like an adolescent with hormone problems, too much money and and inbuilt proneness to be trigger-happy.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Undercover Elephant:
Arrogance exists all over the place. But the answer is no - nothing comes close to what comes out of America.

Spoken like a true Euro-dope.

Maybe if France was the most powerfull country on the planet it would be abusing its position to the same extent the US does.

France was the most powerful country on the planet for long periods of it's history, and it wasn't pretty. IMO the French are trying to restore the levels of power and influence they once enjoyed in the guise of "Europe". Anyone living in Europe needs to take notice.

I think there are cultural/psychological reasons why its worse in America. Most countries have at some point in their history been brought down a peg or two and come out of it as a more mature society.

The French have been taken down a peg or two on annumber of occasions this century, yet we see the French president regretting that his peers in Europe "missed an opportunity to shut up" and "werern't very well brought up".

America behaves more like an adolescent with hormone problems, too much money and and inbuilt proneness to be trigger-happy.

At least eight European leaders disagree. As for adolescent behaviour, what about Gerhard Schroeder, who currently is presiding over a meltdown in the German economy, but spends most of the time suing the press over speculation about his hair colour, while members of his cabinet compare Bush to Hitler. That's grown up, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Shane,

Not sure how to respond to your post - Europe isn't perfect - nowhere is - and I never said it was.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Shane,

Not sure how to respond to your post - Europe isn't perfect - nowhere is - and I never said it was.

UCE

Your mailbox is full

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Undercover Elephant:
Shane,

Not sure how to respond to your post - Europe isn't perfect - nowhere is - and I never said it was.

Well maybe you could start a thread expressing your annoyance at the democratic deficit and mismanagement of funds at the EU, instead of expressing your delight at the deaths of 3,000 innocent people at the WTC.

Shane


instead of expressing your delight at the deaths of 3,000 innocent people


I made one flippant comment which I have withdrawn and repeatedly apologised for making. I did not start a thread to express my delight at the deaths of 3000 innocent people. So why say that I did?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Undercover Elephant:
I made one flippant comment which I have withdrawn and repeatedly apologised for making. I did not start a thread to express my delight at the deaths of 3000 innocent people. So why say that I did?

Freudian slip, perhaps?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mike B.
It is fine for someone like that to speak about how stupid typical Americans are and how they only get information from Hollywood. The ugliest ugliest stero-types are used freely.


And the stero-types are reinforced over and over again

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source


And the stero-types are reinforced over and over again
Ummm... you do know what a stereotype is, don't you?

By the way Q-Source... Nice sig. Just curious, do you support Rik's views? Or did you include his quote because I included UCEs? Or is it only ok for the anti-war people to include other's quotes in their sig?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Mike.

There are many different people in America. Some of them are very reasonable human beings who I respect a great deal. Others (unfortunately quite a large number of them) are more like Jedi Knight...."US sends 60,000 more troops to the gulf...LOL!...Hey!...We gonna blow those Arabs to the moon...LOL!...Hick!."

Yet when JK comes along and makes posts like this, it seems nobody actually challenges it.

That's because most people here regard JK as a kook and expect nothing of substance from him. No expectations=no outrage. And that's something you two have in common.

Hope you enjoyed the 24/7 coverage of 9/11, kook. Pardon me for summarily dismissing your idea of international justice, but your stance has just placed you somewhere between chimpanzees and sewer rats on the I-give-a-**** scale.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Yet when JK comes along and makes posts like this, it seems nobody actually challenges it.

If you think that nobody challenges him, then see his postings in the religion forum. Personally, while I agree with the idea that Iraq should be invaded, I disagree with almost everything else he says. (And I've challenged him on certain points on the past.) Most people probably just tune out what he posts; for me, its not worth my time and effort to challenge him on small points of his posts, while people like you post opinions and facts which are more deserving of challenge. (At least on politics.)

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Q-source (a former communist and current socialist) is on the same side of the war debate as shanek (a libertarian). Jedi (christian) is on the same side of the debate as myself and other athiests.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

But I think you might be surprised how many of them feel no different than I when it comes to America, the attitudes of American people, and the extent to which the 9/11 attacks were to some extent 'asked for' by the unchallenged attitudes of people like JK (and several others I can think of).
Am I one of the 'others'? Really, I'd like to know.

Keep in mind, I'm not American, I'm Canadian. I support military action after hearing from many news sources (both pro and anti war), and coming to my own conclusions.

Do you have a list of the 'others' that you think have attitudes that lead to 9/11? I'd like to see your list. I'm sure the 'others' would like to know how you characterize them.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Ummm... you do know what a stereotype is, don't you?

Of course I know.

I just copied literally the word from Mike B.'s quote

Originally posted by Mike B.
It is fine for someone like that to speak about how stupid typical Americans are and how they only get information from Hollywood. The ugliest ugliest stero-types are used freely.

As you have noticed, English is not my first language. I trust on English speakers' grammar. But in this case, I shouldn't have trusted on his grammar. Blame Mike too.

BTW, anytime you want, we can discuss in Spanish.


By the way Q-Source... Nice sig. Just curious, do you support Rik's views? Or did you include his quote because I included UCEs? Or is it only ok for the anti-war people to include other's quotes in their sig?

I don't support that guy's views (they are disgusting). But, yes, in this case I have to thank you for giving me a brilliant idea of how to discredit people.

Q-S

[Mike B.]

UE,

Are you so sure that Al Queda and other terrorists do what they do for what you would consider noble reasons?

You have put yourself out as a radical environmentalist and anti-globalization. You feel that it is important to stop the American "empire" because it is a threat to these two things. You seem to be sayint the Sept. 11 attack was a reaction against the US for its actions in these regards.

According to OBL's own words his agenda is quite different from yours. His anger over "crusader" and "kafir" women going around uncovered in the holy land where "the prophet received the word of Allah" (Saudi Arabia) and the fact that western armies (non-Muslim) were guarding these holy shrines was his main motivation. The Kyoto Protocols and other things had nothing to do with it.

In his latest tape (if it is him) he specifically railed against "socialism" in the Muslim world because it was an affront to the Shiaara law which must be instituted.

It could be that the people you see as quasi-freedom fighters are nothing of the kind, but are instead bigots who wish to impose their religious views on those around them...

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


If you think that nobody challenges him, then see his postings in the religion forum. Personally, while I agree with the idea that Iraq should be invaded, I disagree with almost everything else he says. (And I've challenged him on certain points on the past.) Most people probably just tune out what he posts; for me, its not worth my time and effort to challenge him on small points of his posts, while people like you post opinions and facts which are more deserving of challenge. (At least on politics.)

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Q-source (a former communist and current socialist) is on the same side of the war debate as shanek (a libertarian). Jedi (christian) is on the same side of the debate as myself and other athiests.


Am I one of the 'others'? Really, I'd like to know.

Keep in mind, I'm not American, I'm Canadian. I support military action after hearing from many news sources (both pro and anti war), and coming to my own conclusions.

Do you have a list of the 'others' that you think have attitudes that lead to 9/11? I'd like to see your list. I'm sure the 'others' would like to know how you characterize them.

I too would want to know this. Is there a hierarchy of people that are "asking" for it? If a terrorist from the South Pacific blows up something in Paris would that be fine because it was a reaction to the French testing their bombs there and sinking the Rainbow Warrior, and France is so much more powerful than the South Pacific.

Would African farmers be justified blowing up things in Europe in retaliation for the high tarriffs that are hurting their economies that the EU has?
I don't believe this for a second, but I think UE's ideas are a slippery slope that quickly justify any type of terrorism.

I mean if you want to go back, even not that far, in history every one in the Western World is asking for it from the Third World.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Of course I know.

I just copied literally the word from Mike B.'s quote

As you have noticed, English is not my first language. I trust on English speakers' grammar. But in this case, I shouldn't have trusted on his grammar. Blame Mike too.

BTW, anytime you want, we can discuss in Spanish.

It wasn't the spelling of stereotype I was concerned about. (In fact, I may be spelling it wrong myself.)

The concept of a stereotype is that you assign qualities to people based on some characteristic. (All French will surrender, all Canadians play hockey, etc.) You seem to condem the U.S. for its actions, but then turn around and stereotype them. As it ever occured to you that many (if not most) supporters of the war give their support based on logical reasons?
Originally posted by Q-Source

I don't support that guy's views (they are disgusting). But, yes, in this case I have to thank you for giving me a brilliant idea of how to discredit people.

Well, you can't really credit me... others have been doing it long before I did it.

However, I do find it hypocritical. You condemmed me for doing it, yet you are willing to do it yourself. Did you somehow lower your standards? Or did I convince you of the validity of doing it? Or perhaps your 'condemnation' wasn't really that strong. (Based only on the fact that UCE had your same viewpoint.)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

Could you point me to the apology -- my mem[or]y may be faulty, but I do not recall it as being particularly . . . apologetic, as apologies go -- but I may have missed it.



While waiting, I came agross this gem:


Poster:
I am merely stating the fact that sometime it may be actually more moral to take the least evil tragic choice.

UCE:
Some people would say that about 9/11.


So, as killing thousands of innocents during 9/11 was the moral choice for the terrorists, I tend to doubt the apology.

Was it an apology in that the sentiment was obviously wrong, or that it was received badly?

NA

Originally posted by Mike B.
UE,

Are you so sure that Al Queda and other terrorists do what they do for what you would consider noble reasons?

You have put yourself out as a radical environmentalist and anti-globalization. You feel that it is important to stop the American "empire" because it is a threat to these two things. You seem to be sayint the Sept. 11 attack was a reaction against the US for its actions in these regards.

According to OBL's own words his agenda is quite different from yours. His anger over "crusader" and "kafir" women going around uncovered in the holy land where "the prophet received the word of Allah" (Saudi Arabia) and the fact that western armies (non-Muslim) were guarding these holy shrines was his main motivation. The Kyoto Protocols and other things had nothing to do with it.

In his latest tape (if it is him) he specifically railed against "socialism" in the Muslim world because it was an affront to the Shiaara law which must be instituted.

It could be that the people you see as quasi-freedom fighters are nothing of the kind, but are instead bigots who wish to impose their religious views on those around them...


There are many reasons for anti-Americanism. I do not agree with the Islamic motivations of Al-Qaeda.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

The concept of a stereotype is that you assign qualities to people based on some characteristic. (All French will surrender, all Canadians play hockey, etc.) You seem to condem the U.S. for its actions, but then turn around and stereotype them. As it ever occured to you that many (if not most) supporters of the war give their support based on logical reasons?

Yes, I think I made the mistake to use stereotypes (correct word). So, then I completely disagree with those "logical reasons" that you are referring to. I know that the US public opinion has a very particular point of view about the world outside them. It is quite comprehensible, such as my point of view. Ultimately, our opinions depend on our background, on what we consider to be unfair and wrong.


However, I do find it hypocritical. You condemmed me for doing it, yet you are willing to do it yourself. Did you somehow lower your standards? Or did I convince you of the validity of doing it? Or perhaps your 'condemnation' wasn't really that strong. (Based only on the fact that UCE had your same viewpoint.)

I came to this forum and I was very honest about asking you to remove that sig. But I have seen that the tactics of people here are very low and mean. Many of them do not deserve the respect that I thought they deserved. It is quite disappointing.

Q-S

NA


So, as killing thousands of innocents during 9/11 was the moral choice for the terrorists, I tend to doubt the apology.


I am not a muslim. But I can guarantee you that the people who carried out the 9/11 attack did so believing very much that it was an act of great moral value. Islam sees America as a glorification of everything which is evil. Money, greed, idolatry, etc...


Was it an apology in that the sentiment was obviously wrong, or that it was received badly?


I have been quite clear about this. I apologised because I made a false statement for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. I did not cheer when the WTC came down, and saying that I did served no purpose other than to be deliberately offensive.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I am not a muslim. But I can guarantee you that the people who carried out the 9/11 attack did so believing very much that it was an act of great moral value. Islam sees America as a glorification of everything which is evil. Money, greed, idolatry, etc...


OK, so why did Sheiky Kalid Mohammed, the force behind he S11 attacks lead the life of a millionaire playboy before he was driven into hiding?

Why did the "holy matyrs" of the S11 attacks freely avail of the evil ways of western culture before the attack? Prostitutes, pay per view movies and luxury hotels was the order of the day for some.

Once again your claims don't stand up to even the most cusory tests against availble information.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2799377.stm

OK, so why did Sheiky Kalid Mohammed, the force behind he S11 attacks lead the life of a millionaire playboy before he was driven into hiding?

Why did the "holy matyrs" of the S11 attacks freely avail of the evil ways of western culture before the attack? Prostitutes, pay per view movies and luxury hotels was the order of the day for some.

Once again your claims don't stand up to even the most cusory tests against availble information.

So now they weren't muslims? :rolleyes:

And I suppose George Bush isn't a Christian?

To be honest, I don't really see the point in this line of debate. Politics and religion really don't mix.

And getting back to the title of this thread......

Blair is ever more on his own. It looks right now like there isn't even going to be a vote on a second resolution. If so, Blair is in deep political doo-dah. The Americans will go without any 2nd resolution, but his own party will rebel en masse if he tries to send British troops into action without UN backing. And lame arguments about how 1441 already authorises war might work on the US public but they won't work on the European public and they won't work on the parliamentary labour party. Blair needs that second resolution.

[crackmonkey]

His point - a valid, cogent one - was that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not a religious zealot. The hijackers weren't following the dictates of the Koran regarding living the holy life.
They were obviously motivated by something other than religious fanaticism, since living according to the Koran wasn't that important to them, apparently.

Originally posted by Troll
The hijackers weren't following the dictates of the Koran regarding living the holy life.

Maybe not, but felling the most potent symbol of American capitalism and slaughtering loads of Infidels at the same time is considered the highest form of moral behaviour according to Islam.

They were far closer to being true Muslims than George Bush is to being a true Christian. Islam encourages violence. Christianity expressly forbids it, even when it is being used against you.

[Giz]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


So now they weren't muslims? :rolleyes:

And I suppose George Bush isn't a Christian?

To be honest, I don't really see the point in this line of debate. Politics and religion really don't mix.

And getting back to the title of this thread......

Blair is ever more on his own. It looks right now like there isn't even going to be a vote on a second resolution. If so, Blair is in deep political doo-dah. The Americans will go without any 2nd resolution, but his own party will rebel en masse if he tries to send British troops into action without UN backing. And lame arguments about how 1441 already authorises war might work on the US public but they won't work on the European public and they won't work on the parliamentary labour party. Blair needs that second resolution.

"So now they weren't muslim"
- Don't be deliberately obtuse, the point was why millionaire playboys would have a beef with "Money, greed, idolatry, etc", which you didn't answer.


"Blair is ever more on his own"
- Actually today's paper gives a poll showing support has just gone to 3/4's in favour. The increase probably due to it now being impossible for any honest person to deny that Iraq is stalling/concealing it's WMD program from the Inspectors.

"It's the lives of thousands of Iraqi conscripts who did not choose to be in the Iraqi army"
- They should desert. Following your reasoning any Nazi's who committed war crimes in WW2 should be excused if they were 'just following orders'. I don't recall the Nuremburg Judges feeling the same way.

And before you accuse JK of being a neo-nazi take a look in the mirror and think about what you've been writing; that Americans should be killed because 'they' disagree with your political (environmental) views. Pot and kettle?

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Undercover Elephant:
Islam encourages violence. Christianity expressly forbids it, even when it is being used against you.

The Amish excepted, Christianity accepts the use of force for self defense.

Christianity accepts the use of force for self defense.


What was that bit about turning the other cheek?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
They were far closer to being true Muslims than George Bush is to being a true Christian. Islam encourages violence.

I've come to the conclusion that you are deliberately trolling. That is the only way I can explain your endless stream of complete falsehoods. This is the latest.

"Islam encourages violence." - UCE

Try these links. It seems like Muslims don't agree with you.

Does the Qur'an promote Violence? (http://www.islamicresourceonline.org/files/qv.html)

... As can clearly be seen from the above examples, the Qur’an does not "promote"
or glorify violence. Islam is a religion that preaches peaceful co-existence ...


Does Islam promote violence? (http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000301.php)

Does Islam promote violence? ... It is clear from even a cursory study of the
Qur'an that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. ...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Undercover Elephant:
What was that bit about turning the other cheek?

Depends on which is your favourite testament of the bible, old or new.

SC


Depends on which is your favourite testament of the bible, old or new.


Well if we are talking about Christianity then it must be the NT.

Drooper :


Islam encourages violence." - UCE

Try these links. It seems like Muslims don't agree with you.


Sorry Drooper, but Mohammed led over 20 military campaigns himself, and the Qu'ran is littered with instructions to kill Infidels. I don't care what some people trying to defend Islam say - ISLAM ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE. I know Tony and George keep saying its peaceful. They are LYING.

I am not going to back that up any further. I don't have to. Any person who actually has the faintest idea what they are talking about knows perfectly well that what I am saying is true.

It is in fact very sad that you, a skeptic, have been duped into promoting factually incorrect propaganda designed to misrepresent a violent religion as a peaceful one.

[Drooper]

You do have to back it up further. You will find that at least one of those links addresses Mohammed's military soirees.

Any person who actually has the faintest idea what they are talking about knows perfectly well that what I am saying is true

So here you are placing knowledge of the Koran above an Immam.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Undercover Elephant:
Well if we are talking about Christianity then it must be the NT.

Better tell the Revd. Ian Paisley that he's a heretic then.

[Drooper]

Also UCE, if you believe Christianity is completely pacifist:

look under the Old Testiment (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)', God promotes the eneocide of the Pagans.


And here is nice one from the mouth of Christ in the New Testiment:

And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."
`(Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1-2)`


The fact is that the Koran and the Bible were both a product of violent times and persecution. Neither "promote" violence, but its existence and inevitability is reflected in the writing of both.

The salient point is that despite this backdrop, both raise above all else the concept of peaceful coexistance between people. This represents the true basis of both Christianity and Islam. If there are people who promote violence in the name of either religion, then they are misrepresenting the very thing they claim to uphold.

http://www.letusreason.org/Islam10.htm


What does it mean when Muslims say they are for peace? For the most part means that there would be no struggle or resistance to Islam. That those who are not Muslim would submit. Islam means submission, a Muslim is one who submits to Allah, and there is not peace without Allah. George Braswell, Jr. (B.D., Yale; Ph.D., U of NC) lived in Iran for seven years, defines the word “peace” from a Muslim perspective, “The world…of Islam must conquer and rule over those of ignorance and disobedience…. The peace of the world cannot be secured until the peoples come under the rule and protection of Islam.” (What You Need To Know About Islam and Muslims, p. 87)

We hear they for peace, and they have quoted their own verse to prove it; but it is out of its full context. They have said to us "anyone who kills another man it is as if he has killed all mankind." Here is the whole quote which changes it’s meaning as far as I’m concerned. "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (Sura 5:27-32) These "other words" certainly change the meaning of the verse. The question that should be asked is why they cannot quote their own verse correctly to the public. To Muslim all those who do not worship Allah are corrupted. If they misquote their own verse to the public doesn’t this show they either do not know their own religious book or it is done on purpose. The question would be why?

Personally when I hear of a religion is promoting peace as in tolerance, I think of Buddhism before Islam.

Again in Sura 17:33 “Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).” While a cursory reading of this passage can support the view of not to kill, it still has in it a qualification of “except for just cause” and “slain wrongfully.” Again this can mean something quite different than the way we interpret it here in the west. There may be Muslims that would not interpret these verses in a negative way, but what about history. How did they traditionally use these verses? This will have to be left up to those who specialty is in the area of Islamic history, mine is not.

Jihad is a necessary element in Islam. Islam turned to aggression as those refused the message and the messenger. Mohammed as general planned 65 campaigns and lead 27 invasions, certainly these would be considered Jihad. Mohammad was sometimes diplomatic and would institute a peace. But we are not focusing on the character of Mohammad, but the history and the revelation. The sword was most often used to conquer those steeped in paganism, and at one time Islam had conquered all of Northern Africa and came close to overtaking Europe. The belief that people need to have the one God who is Allah spurred the followers to spread this religion. Islam spread its influence not by engaging in dialogue and persuading people by truth, but by the offer of submitting to Allah. Unfortunately this became a similarity in the “Christian crusades” as well.







Was Mohammed just a "two bit" 6th-7th century Terrorist? (http://www.bibleprobe.com/WWWBoard/messages/123.html)


Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage and death. In this day and age we would even consider Mohammed a pedophile. Even "Sahih Al-Bukhari" says Muhammad was married to a 6 year old Jewish girl, while he was 51, and he slept with his 11 wives in one night. Safiyah, the 6 year old Jewish girl whose family members were slaughtered by Mohammed, was made to undergo this legalized rape on the day her family was killed. In the first year of Mohammed's residence at Yathrib (now Medina) the "Prophet" who never prophesized, celebrated his marriage to Ayisha. Ayisha was then only a young girl (jariyah) of 9-years old per both Abu Dawud and Tabari.
When Mohammed first started screaming from the rooftops that he alone had the divine word of God, the people of Mecca ignored him. However, when he started insulting and defaming the religion of the peace loving Meccans, they couldn't take it anymore and tried persuading him to stop. Mohammed the coward was too scared of the growing hostility against him and instead of calling upon his Allah to strike down the Meccans, he crept out one night and fled for his life.

Ever since that incident, Mohammed was determined to take revenge on the Meccans. He escaped to Medinah, which had a sizeable Jewish population, and started plotting his revenge with a small gang of criminals. This was the beginning of Mohammed's trail of violence, hatred and bloodshed that would soon destroy the once flourishing culture of Arabia. The story has been documented in detail by his biographers, - surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados, assassinations of opponents, blackmail, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medinah, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion Islam which ironically was supposed to mean 'Peace'! He organized no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

The motives of the converts to Islam was never in any doubt. As David S. Margoliouth states in his book "Mohammed and the Rise of Islam":

'Of any moralizing or demoralizing effect that Muhammad's teaching had upon his followers we cannot say with precision. When he was at the head of the Robber community, it is probable that the demoralizing influence began to be felt; it was then that men who had never broken an oath learnt that they might evade their obligations, and that men to whom the blood of their clan had been as their own, began to shed it with impunity in the 'cause of god'. And that lying and treachery in the cause of Islam received divine approval. It was then too that Moslems became distinguished by the obscenity of their language. It was then too, that the coveting of goods and wives possessed by Non-Muslims was avowed without discouragement from the
Prophet....'

The details of all his criminal onslaughts in the form of battles and assassinations are chronicled in this article in a chronological manner. One should note that every time the 'Apostle of Peace' committed one of his criminal onslaughts, he always justified the crimes by quickly claiming a 'divine revelation' which conveniently removed the blame from his bloodied hands. These convenient Suras are detailed immediately below the description of the incident.

1) Massacre of unarmed merchants during sacred month

Date: Late January(Rejeb), 623 A.D.

Place: Nakhla

Victims: 4 Merchants from Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Tribe to which Mohammed himself belonged

Four UNARMED merchants were traveling to Mecca to sell their goods consisting of raisins, honey and animal skins. It was the holy month of Rejeb which was considered sacred for trade in Arabia. It was a point of honor that any form of warfare or violence was strictly forbidden in this month. Mohammed's gang attacked the helpless men from behind and stabbed two of them to death. They plundered all the goods as booty and Mohammed got one fifths of the share.

This shows the utter lack of morals or scruples on Mohammed's part. The Prophet of Islam did not possess a shred of pity or kindness, or the slightest sense of justice. He cold-bloodedly murdered two innocent people who had never done him any harm and did not even know him! All this was done in a month that the Prophet himself declared was a sacred month in which no warfare should take place. Mohammed was obviously motivated by nothing but hatred and greed.

Conveniently divine revelations came down from Allah that absolved him of all the guilt.

Koran 2:216

'Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not.'

Here Mohammed is completely removing all blame from himself, for having started the fighting. The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that Allah is completely justifying Mohammed's murder of the innocent Meccans. Over and above this Mohammed is conveniently implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because it was ordained by Allah! What sacrifices the 'Apostle of Peace' had to make!

Koran 2:217

'They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelieve in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing'

Here Allah is clearly saying that to kill or create warfare in the sacred month of Rejeb is a very grave offence, but to justify his own violation of Allah's rules, Mohammed comes up with the idea that since the people killed were unbelievers, it was perfectly okay! The reason given for the horrific murder of the innocent Meccans, is the fact that they did not believe in Mohammed's version of God. How much more tolerant and kind could the 'Great Prophet' be!

2) Slaughter of Meccans who came to defend their caravans

Date: March (Ramadan) 17, 623 A.D

Place: The well of Badr

Victims: 70 merchants from Quraysh Tribe of Mecca, The Quraysh army which came to defend them

The merchandise being carried by this caravan was worth more than 50,000 Gold Dinars. Mohammed ganged up all the criminals of Medina and set out to raid the caravan with 300 men. The Meccans got word of the raid and sent out an army to protect the caravan. Throughout the entire battle Mohammad cowered in a hut which his men made for him. There he cried and prayed with feverish anxiety. At one point he came out of the hut and threw pebbles in the enemy's direction, screaming 'Let evil look on your faces!' and 'By him who holds my soul in his hands, anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!' The Muslims killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. All seventy of the prisoners were ransomed, and any prisoner who did not fetch a ransom had his head chopped off.

Mohammed was gratified at the sight of his murdered victims. After the battle, he sent his followers to look for the corpse of Abu Jahal, one of the Meccans who had criticized him openly. When his corpse was found they cut off the head and threw it down at Mohammed's feet. The 'Apostle of peace' cried out in delirious joy, 'Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!' The Prophet then ordered a great pit to be dug for the bodies of the innocents to be dumped. The Muslims then proceeded to hack the corpses limbs into pieces. As the bloodied mass of bodies was being thrown into the pit, a feverishly excited Mohammed screamed, ' O People of the Pit, have you found that what Allah threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice All Muslims!'. One of the prisoners taken was the defiant Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, who had earlier taken Mohammed's challenge of telling better stories than him. Mohammed ordered Ali to strike off Nadr's head in his presence, so he could watch and exult in the pleasure of beheading the man who had insulted him. Another prisoner Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of the Prophet. Before being killed the prisoner cried out pitifully 'O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?' The 'Great Prophet of the Religion of Peace' coldly spat out 'Hellfire', as the blade came down and spattered his clothes with Uqba's blood.

This time Mohammed needed a revelation that would not only absolve him of all the guilt for murdering so many innocent people, but also give him the 'divine' right to get a huge share of the plundered booty. Quite a few revelations magically appeared after the battle of Badr.

Koran 8:65

'O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence'.

This Sura clearly exposes Islam to be a religion that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muslims to kill anyone who does not believe in the Muslim version of religion. Not only is the 'All forgiving Allah' exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death!

Koran 8:67-68

'It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.'

This verse is in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle. Allah the 'Merciful' is saying that they should all have been killed! In addition, Allah is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is 'lawful and good' because it was done in service to Allah. So murder, rape, plunder and destruction are all perfectly fine with Allah as long as they are done in the name of Islam! Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could get more money from the Ransom for them. In today's world this is called 'Terrorism' of the worst kind.

3) Assassination of poets who criticized Mohammed's murderous ways

Date: Late March-April, 623 A.D

Place: Medinah (aka: Medina)

Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, who had the courage to criticize the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang....

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medinah were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticize, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, 'Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!' That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said 'You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats.

A month later the distinguished and highly respected Abu Afak, who was over a hundred years old and renowned for his sense of fairness, was killed brutally in the same manner as he slept. Once again the "Prophet" had commented that morning 'Who will avenge me on this scoundrel!'

This shows us exactly how much the tolerant and peace loving Prophet respected life. Muslims claim that Mohammed was extremely gentle and loved children. Indeed the horrifying way he had Asma Bint Marwan's five infants slaughtered certainly attests to this 'loving' side of the "Prophet".

4) The Siege of the Banu Qaynuqa

Date: April, 623 A.D

Place: Medinah

Victims: The Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa

In order to get full control of Medinah, Mohammed needed to get rid of all his opponents. The strongest of these opponents was Abdallah Ibn Ubayy, a powerful chief who was allied with the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa. This tribe was also the weakest, because they were made up of craftsmen, in particular goldsmiths. By attacking them, Mohammed knew he could plunder a huge amount of wealth and weaken Ibn Ubayy. Mohammed needed an excuse to attack them so he made a girl married to one of his followers, pretend that she had been teased by the Jews. The Muslims blockaded the fort of the Banu Qaynuqa for fifteen days until the starving Jews surrendered. Immediately, the Prophet was ready to kill them all, but Ibn Ubayy seized hold of Mohammed and protested. Mohammed's face became black with rage as he shouted 'Let go of me', but Ibn Ubayy was adamant and shouted back 'No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my allies. 400 men without armor and 300 with, who have always supported me against enemies. And you want to slay them all in one morning! By God, If I were in your place I would fear a reversal of fortune'.

At this threat, the cowardly Mohammed turned pale, as he realized that all the people of Medinah were against him. He hit Ibn Ubayy on the face and ordered that the Jews be kicked out of their own homes. All their property was seized and looted, many of the prettiest women were taken as prisoners to become sex-slaves. Mohammed kept one-fifths of the enormous booty for himself. This is the way he repaid the kindness of the Jews of Medina, who had given him shelter and a refuge, when Mohammed had run away from Mecca in fear.

The revelations in the Eighth Sura of the Koran were clearly in reference to the Banu Qaynuqa and anyone who opposed the Muslims.

(Koran 8:55-57)

'Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.'

'Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may
remember.'

Here Mohammed's acts of planned terrorism against the Jewish Tribe is justified by Allah, because according to the 'Merciful' Allah, Non-Muslims are the worst of BEASTS! So it is perfectly all right to murder, rape, torture and pillage the non-believers! Not only that but Allah is advising Mohammed and the Muslims that when anyone protests against the injustices committed by Muslims, the Muslims should make sure and deal with them with such violence, that it will strike fear among anyone who may think of supporting dissent. This proves that the Koran is nothing but a political manual for controlling people with terror. Not even the fascist armies of Hitler engineered such devilish ideas.

The above are just a few of the incidents that demonstrate the intolerant and merciless nature of the inhuman acts committed by Mohammed and the Muslims.

It was Mohammed that started the fighting by attacking the Meccan caravans during a time that attacks were traditional forgone between enemies in that area.

Islam works in much the same way as communism, which is by subversive means. As Islam was introduced to the native Indonesians, the people found the religion was very adaptable to their animism and pagan beliefs. Islam did not really change the beliefs but absorbed it instead, since it did not bring something that was dramatically different than indigenous pagan beliefs. For example, the beliefs in jinns (spirits and ghosts) and all the superstitious practices such as charms, amulets, susuk, mantras (using arabic language - no one really knows whether it is a koranic verse or not), witch doctors or shamans (dukun), and many others which are still widely practiced by the Indonesian moslems.

On the other hand, Christianity would try to eradicate these practices, and because of this, the people were more receptive to Islam, except in some parts of Indonesia.

Then, after Islam gained stronger influence, the maulanas did use military forces to attack the Hindu and the Buddhist kingdoms in their objective to Islamize the regions, just like they did anywhere else in the world.

I simply am citing well know facts about the Koran, the Hadiths, the pre-Islamic history of Mecca, and what is claimed by the Muslims themselves to be known concerning the life and activities of the Prophet Mohammed.

When Muslims state that 'there is no God but Allah' and 'Mohammed is the final Prophet', they are insulting every other religion.

India, and many other countries around the world, were raped, pillaged, and plundered by Islam. And today it is the Islamic nations which threaten world peace.





This is a Christian site, but if you do a bit of research I think you will find the basic facts about Islamic history are correct.

Originally posted by Drooper
Also UCE, if you believe Christianity is completely pacifist:

look under the Old Testiment (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)', God promotes the eneocide of the Pagans.


And here is nice one from the mouth of Christ in the New Testiment:




The fact is that the Koran and the Bible were both a product of violent times and persecution. Neither "promote" violence, but its existence and inevitability is reflected in the writing of both.

The salient point is that despite this backdrop, both raise above all else the concept of peaceful coexistance between people. This represents the true basis of both Christianity and Islam. If there are people who promote violence in the name of either religion, then they are misrepresenting the very thing they claim to uphold.


I disagree. Christianity really is about love and forgiveness, even if many modern Christians don't behave this way. Christ didn't lead any military campaigns. The NT isn't littered with instructions to kill non-believers. The concept of 'Holy War' is alien to Chistianity - but absolutely central to Islam.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
This is a Christian site, but if you do a bit of research I think you will find the basic facts about Islamic history are correct.

Oh UCE, you sell these links short. From the latter one, you should have quoted this:

Of approx 1000 prophecies in the Bible - about 500 have already come true like this - literally - some take time - for God's own good reasons - but God's Word always comes true.....

credibility factor of this effort UCE ?...errrrrr. This is just the sort of place I would go for an objective and well research view of the Koran.


What about the first link (the "Let Us Reason" ministries) :

Just about anyone can claim to be God and many have, even in our modern times, but it is a whole other thing to prove it. Only one came from heaven raised from the dead, and ascended back to where He came from. This becomes the eliminating factor that makes it the Grand Canyon jump that no one can survive

That little excerpt came from the section in their web site headed "In Response to All Other Religions" - OUCH. These guys have serious issues with ANYONE who isn't a God fearing Christian.

:rolleyes:

Drooper,

If you wanna believe that Islam is a peaceful religion then that is up to you.

:)

Geoff.

[Segnosaur]

UCE:

Yesterday I posted the following 'question', when you talked about how 'others' on the system remind you of why 9/11 happened:

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Am I one of the 'others'? Really, I'd like to know.

Do you have a list of the 'others' that you think have attitudes that lead to 9/11? I'd like to see your list. I'm sure the 'others' would like to know how you characterize them.
You never responded to the question. Did you miss seeing it? Or did you think the question was not worth answering? Or perhaps you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Or perhaps you just don't want to answer the hard questions, like many anti-war people.

Really, I'm sure a lot of people would like to know what you really think of them and their opinions.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I came to this forum and I was very honest about asking you to remove that sig. But I have seen that the tactics of people here are very low and mean. Many of them do not deserve the respect that I thought they deserved. It is quite disappointing.

You're right... People are low and mean.... Some suggest violence against America is right, others love to stereotype Americans as 'war mongerers' who get all their world information from Hollywood.

Just aweful.

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Really, I'm sure a lot of people would like to know what you really think of them and their opinions.

And I am not stupid enough to take a piece of bait with a hook through it.

If people want to know what I think of them personally they can PM me.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
They were obviously motivated by something other than religious fanaticism, since living according to the Koran wasn't that important to them, apparently.

You are correct.

They were motivated by their jealousy and hatred for the rights and freedoms American enjoy, and our regard and attitude for those rights and freedoms.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

And I am not stupid enough to take a piece of bait with a hook through it.

If people want to know what I think of them personally they can PM me.
Well, you pointed to JK as an example. Why is he a a valid target in the open forum for being a "reason" for 9/11, and others aren't? Can you at least explain your reasoning?

Or is anyone who disagrees with you considered a "reason".

Come on, stand by your convictions!

Well, you pointed to JK as an example.


I did. And I will leave it to people to make up their own minds why I did that.


Why is he a a valid target in the open forum for being a "reason" for 9/11, and others aren't? Can you at least explain your reasoning?


He is just the most obvious case.


Or is anyone who disagrees with you considered a "reason".

Come on, stand by your convictions!


If you want to talk about philosophy and religion I will stand by my convictions. As for politics - I am sick of talking about it, and I have no intention of being goaded into providing a list of people I think exhibit the sort of attitude that prompts people to become anti-American. To do so would be profoundly counter-productive and serve only to increase the level of acrimony in already acrid forum.

You are like a schoolkid trying to tempt another schoolkid to run out in front of a bus. Segnosaur - you are free to be outraged by my politics, free to continue quoting a statement I withdrew in every post you make - but please do not mistake me for an idiot.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You are like a schoolkid trying to tempt another schoolkid to run out in front of a bus. Segnosaur - you are free to be outraged by my politics, free to continue quoting a statement I withdrew in every post you make - but please do not mistake me for an idiot.
Of course I don't mistake you for an idiot. Not that I don't think you're an idiot. I'm just not mistaken about it. :p

As for the 'statement you withdrew', yes you withdrew it, but it is up to the people most affected to accept or reject your apology. And the fact is, you've made many other comments (such as how america only understands violence) which to me indicate that your withdrawl and apology were not unconditional.

As for your 'schoolkid' anology... I just want straight answers to hard questions that you yourself brought up. People in the anti-war movement don't like to talk about the 'hard questions'.

As for your 'schoolkid' anology... I just want straight answers to hard questions that you yourself brought up. People in the anti-war movement don't like to talk about the 'hard questions'.


Cr*p. You are asking me to provide a list of people who views I consider to contribute to anti-American feeling. The effect of this would be to instantly create a pool of people who were personally offended by me specifically naming them. That isn't a 'hard question' about the anti-war movement. It really does remind of the sort of adolescent tactics used in the school playground by people who like to manipulate others into making life difficult for themselves. How old are you? 18? 19? 13?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Cr*p. You are asking me to provide a list of people who views I consider to contribute to anti-American feeling. The effect of this would be to instantly create a pool of people who were personally offended by me specifically naming them.

Why should you worry? Just add them to the pool of people who were offended by your original WTC comments.

So, you are happy to 'lie' to people? (Pretend that you support them, while secretly loathing them.)

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

That isn't a 'hard question' about the anti-war movement.

There are a lot of hard questions the anti-war movement doesn't seem to want to answer... How to enforce Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors, how to prevent the deaths of innocent Iraqis by Saddams own hand, etc. Instead they always parrot out phrases like "No blood for Oil" and shout about "American Unilateral Imperialism".

The question was basically... "What characteristics does a person have to have here on the forum (or in general) to make them resposible for 9/11".

You haven't even told me if you think I'm responsible.
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

It really does remind of the sort of adolescent tactics used in the school playground by people who like to manipulate others into making life difficult for themselves. How old are you? 18? 19? 13?
Old enough to know that crashing planes into the WTC is bad.

You brought up the issues ("Americans brought things on themselves"). Is it wrong to expect a person to expect to support their opinions, especially when they are as strongly held as yours?

(For the record, I'm in my 30s, have a good knowledge of science, politics, history and economics from both University and high school)

Why should you worry? Just add them to the pool of people who were offended by your original WTC comments.


Actually, apart from yourself my apology was accepted and people have moved on.


So, you are happy to 'lie' to people? (Pretend that you support them, while secretly loathing them.)


I don't even loathe Jedi Knight. He is just a human being with a very different subjective viewpoint to my own.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

It really does remind of the sort of adolescent tactics used in the school playground by people who like to manipulate others into making life difficult for themselves. How old are you? 18? 19? 13?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Old enough to know that crashing planes into the WTC is bad.


Well, unlike yourself I do not hold such clear cut views about what is good and what is bad and from whose perspective it is good and bad. It would be just as easy to say that all war is bad. Nothing is that simple, specially not in politics.

I am not going to provide you with a list. I did not come here to discuss personalities.